Re: [Aroid-l] Colocasia name

From: Peter Boyce <phymatarum at googlemail.com> on 2011.08.30 at 09:52:52 Hi David, =A0 Yes, it is a valid NAME but it is NOT a good species - the typification was fouled up by Schott, who typified (certainly in error) on a Linnaeus specimen is is without question C. esculenta. =A0 Mea culpa we fouled up in FoC. The DESCRIPTION in FoC is correct but the name is wrong. It should be called C. fontanesii. =A0 Very best =A0 Peter On 25 August 2011 15:49, david br=F6derbauer <david_dav44@hotmail.com> wrote: Hello Peter, I'm confused. Isn't Colocasia antiquorum SCHOTT a valid species? At least in Li Heng's and your treatment in the Flora of China it is. Best, David From: phymatarum@googlemail.com To: aroid-l@www.gizmoworks.com; alan_galloway@ncsu.edu Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:41:55 +0800 Subject: Re: [Aroid-l] Colocasia name Hi Marek =A0 Neither. Both are simply Colocasia esculenta, as per our previous correspondence. =A0 Best =A0 Pete =A0 From: aroid-l-bounces@www.gizmoworks.com [mailto:aroid-l-bounces@www.gizmoworks.com] On Behalf Of Marek Argent Sent: Monday, 22 August, 2011 7:02 AM To: Discussion of aroids; Peter Boyce; Alan Galloway Subject: [Aroid-l] Colocasia name =A0 Hello, =A0 Which name is the proper one? Colocasia esculenta var. antiquorum (Schott) C.E. Hubb. & Rehder or Colocasia antiquorum Schott =A0 On the web (IAS, Tropicos, IPNI, CATE) I can find both combinations and I really don't know which one should be used. =A0 Best, Marek Argent _______________________________________________ Aroid-L mailing list Aroid-L@www.gizmoworks.com http://www.gizmoworks.com/mailman/listinfo/aroid-l _______________________________________________ Aroid-L mailing list Aroid-L@www.gizmoworks.com http://www.gizmoworks.com/mailman/listinfo/aroid-l --20cf307d0424a6d24104abb5f9ad-- --===============4557463963190300981==

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