Re: [Aroid-l] Colocasia name

From: Peter Boyce <phymatarum at googlemail.com> on 2011.08.30 at 09:52:52(22189) Hi David, 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. Mea culpa we fouled up in FoC. The DESCRIPTION in FoC is correct but the name is wrong. It should be called C. fontanesii. Very best Peter HTML +More On 25 August 2011 15:49, david bröderbauer 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 Neither. Both are simply Colocasia esculenta, as per our previous correspondence. Best Pete 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 Hello, Which name is the proper one? Colocasia esculenta var. antiquorum (Schott) C.E. Hubb. & Rehder or Colocasia antiquorum Schott On the web (IAS, Tropicos, IPNI, CATE) I can find both combinations and I really don't know which one should be used. 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-- --==============E57463963190300981==

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