Re: The correct name for Arisaema consanguineum

From: Roy Herold <rrh at genesis.nred.ma.us> on 1997.02.22 at 04:51:51(414) Pete et al: Whoops, looks like it may be time to update the Arisaema Page. But before I do, a couple of questions: 1. Has the observation by Hara that A. erubescens has an erect infructescence been determined to be erroneous? 2. I've just been reading the 1996 article by Jenn-Che Wang on 'The systematic study of Taiwanese Arisaema' which describes A. consanguineum in detail. In an accompanying photograph, I was surprised to see the base of the spadix of a female inflorescense covered with stout bristle-like appendages. Are these the same as what you refer to as 'stout sterile structures'. I don't recall seeing any in the consanguineums I grow, but I may have missed them. Has anyone else observed them? 2A. Wang also notes that A. consanguineum and A. formosanum are very similar in morphology as well as habit, and may hybridize with one another in the wild. Is there any talk of lumping formosanum with erubescens/consanguineum, or is the thickness of the spadix appendage enough to keep them separate? 3. Has A. kelung-insularis been lumped with A. consanguineum, and therefore with A. erubescens? +More 4. Can we expect any varieties or subspecies of A. erubescens to be recognized? Just to further confuse things, I note that an 1879 publication lists A. erubescens var. consanguineum-- looks like they were mixed up a long time ago. 5. In Yunnan last fall I saw an incredible range of variation in plants of what we though were consanguineum/erubescens. I'm sure it is possible that they all could be one species, but I wonder if this is really true. Is Heng Li confident that there is a single species, or does she think some splitting may take place? Whatever the case, it certainly is an adaptable plant, growing in every sort of environment, wet or dry, sun or shade, from 6000' (perhaps lower) to over 11,000'. 6. From Thailand and the Phillipines, too? Are these growing far up in the mountains, and can any be considered tropical? 7. Pardon my ignorance of Latin, but I just looked up 'erubescent' and found out it means red or reddish. Hey, the consanguineum I grow is all green! (not even close to dingy brown) Speaking of Latin, just what is the 'same blood' that consanguineum refers to? 8. What's the latest theory on CT369? 9. Any idea when or if this change in nomenclature will be published? Still confused, --Roy Herold

Note: this is a very old post, so no reply function is available.