Re: [Aroid-l] Alocasia of Thailand

From: Peter Boyce <phymatarum at googlemail.com> on 2009.09.06 at 03:18:32(19944) Tony: While we certainly like neat packages, those of us working in mega-rich places are under no illusions that the species often haven't read the same rule books! Certainly 'species' such as A. macrorrizos and A. cucullata bend the boundaries a lot. What is of course interesting is that A. macrorrhizos (notwithstanding its doubtful 'pure' species status) is definitely related (and here we are talking molecularly) to some unquestionably 'good' species, such as A. portei and A. flabellifer, which poses even more difficulties. It is also problematic to lalk about utilization of cultivars, especially those that are selections of what may themselves be cultivars, albeit so long-standing that they have effectively stabilized and function as species, even to the extent that they have lost the ability to hybridize with other elements of what was once a single gene pool. Forgive me if I appear to be avoiding answering your suggestion. But the fact is that I am not sure HOW to answer. The bottom line is that, at present, we can only be sure that A. macrorrhizos and A. cucculata are NEVER found away from human disturbance in 'habitat' and furthermore, away from the attention of horticulturists are remarkable morphologically stable. As a final thought on this, it is also important to remember that species framework, and the interspecific crossing is often in nature not just a matter of 'incompatibility'. Distribution, flowering time even down to the level of time of day, and how these barriers function to manage pollinators, or select for a particular pollinator guild, are as much, if not more, a barrier than simple unrelatedness. If ever an example was needed of the role of pollinator guild niche selection, the orchids of the Stanhopineae contain numerous examples. Cheers Pete +More -----Original Message----- From: aroid-l-bounces@gizmoworks.com [mailto:aroid-l-bounces@gizmoworks.com] On Behalf Of Tony Avent Sent: 05 September 2009 21:29 To: Discussion of aroids Subject: Re: [Aroid-l] Alocasia of Thailand Pete: I thought it was botanists/taxonomists who like nice neat nomenclatural packages. These cultons sound instead like a botanical grab bag into which all of the unsorted material is dumped. If they are indeed selections of A. odora, then they certainly need cultivar names with A. odora as a species. If, as Lari Ann suggests, they are cultivars which cannot be assigned to a particular species, but are old hybrid groups or species whose origins have been obscured, they still need a cultivar name. Newly selected clones from them would then also need cultivar names. This actually would make these fit much better into neat nomenclatural packages. We would then know which new cultivar came from which old cultivar of say, A. macrorrhizos. I tend to like the analysis from plant breeders and can attest that outside of DNA, this is one of the best ways to tell what is related to what. That being said, has anyone done DNA analysis on this group? Peter Boyce wrote: > Tony: > > The x would indicate that they are stabilized hybrid species (nothospecies) > as, for example, the situation with Cryptocoryne x purpurea (a nothospecies > resulting from the stabilization of the naturally occurring hybrid C. > cordata x C. griffithii) this is not the case. Alistair and are both pretty > much convinced that A. cucullata and A. macrorrhizos are stabilied cultigens > (cultons) of A. odora. In cultivation thus they COULD be cited a A. > 'Macrorrhizos' and A. 'Cucullata', but that would then lead to problems with > cultons of these. Best to leave the situation as is. > > Cheers > > Pete > > -----Original Message----- > From: aroid-l-bounces@gizmoworks.com [mailto:aroid-l-bounces@gizmoworks.com] > On Behalf Of Tony Avent > Sent: 05 September 2009 00:45 > To: Discussion of aroids > Subject: Re: [Aroid-l] Alocasia of Thailand > > Pete: > > I was just reading over your fascinating paper on Alocasia in Thailand > about both Alocasia cucullata and A. macrorrhizos not being valid > species. If this is the case and they are old cultigens, why would > they not be properly written a Alocasia x macrorrhizos and Alocasia x > cucullata with an appropriate cultivar name for the clone in commerce? > > Peter Boyce wrote: > >> Dear All, >> >> >> >> For anyone interested there is attached to this a recent paper on the >> /Alocasia/ in Thailand, including the description of a large-growing >> species from the Thai/Cambodian border. >> >> >> >> Peter >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Aroid-L mailing list >> Aroid-L@www.gizmoworks.com >> http://www.gizmoworks.com/mailman/listinfo/aroid-l >> > > -- Tony Avent Plant Delights Nursery @ Juniper Level Botanic Garden 9241 Sauls Road Raleigh, North Carolina 27603 USA Minimum Winter Temps 0-5 F Maximum Summer Temps 95-105F USDA Hardiness Zone 7b email tony@plantdelights.com website http://www.plantdelights.com phone 919 772-4794 fax 919 772-4752 "I consider every plant hardy until I have killed it myself...at least three times" - Avent _______________________________________________ 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

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