Re: Colocasia

Dear D.J.Leedy,

   Thanks for your information. I was waiting for more replies, but it seems 
that serious classification of Colocasia is an arid topic. I think I will 
have to face Engler's classification.

                          Best wishes,

                                 Eduardo.


>From: "D.J. Leedy" Reply-To: aroid-l@mobot.org To: Multiple recipients of 
>list AROID-L Subject: Re: Colocasia Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:50:03 -0600 
>(CST)
>
>The following is on page 18 of the book TARO - A Review of Colocasia 
>Esculenta and Its Potentials, Edited by Jaw-Kai Wang and published by the 
>University of Hawaii Press, copyright 1983.
>
>"There are probably thousands of cultivars of Colocasia in the world. More 
>than three hundred named varieties have been listed in Hawaii; some of 
>these are undoubtedly synonyms, but there can be little doubt that perhaps 
>a hundred and fifty to two hundred and fifty cultivars were known in 
>prehistoric days.
>
>Colocasia cultivars are differentiated on the basis of siz; leaf shape and 
>size; color of petiole, leaf and corm flesh; flower shape and size; and 
>their various uses. The most comprehensive attempt to clasify and describe 
>Colocasia cultivars was carried out by Whitney, Bowers, and Takahashi 
>(1939) in Hawaii........"
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- From: Eduardo Goncalves To: Multiple 
>recipients of list AROID-L Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 1:30 PM Subject: 
>Colocasia
>
>
> > Dear Aroiders, > > Anybody out there has some kind of solid knowledge 
>with Colocasia > esculenta varieties, cultivars, etc? Sometime ago Peter 
>told us that there > was three varieties: C. esculenta var. esculenta 
>(small, slustering tubers), > C. esculenta var. antiquorum (large, solitary 
>tuber) and C. esculenta var. > aquatilis (long stolons). Are those 
>varieties published anywhere? (i.e. with > authors, etc) What happened with 
>variety illustris? What about that form > with an yellow blot in the middle 
>of the leaves? The only complete treatment > I have (my Precambrian 'Das 
>Pflanzenreich') cites lots of varieties and I > wonder most of them became 
>synonims. Other interesting thing is that Engler > never use tuber 
>characters (except for the description of the variety > aquatilis) so this 
>is a new approach. Who did start to use tuber information > on the 
>classification? Engler's classification uses the proportional lenght > of 
>the sterile appendix. Is this still important or was it proven to be > 
>highly variable (like almost anything in aroids)? I am sorry if these > 
>questions were already answered before, but I couldn't find any satisfatory 
> > answer in the aroid-l archives. > > Very best wishes, > > Eduardo. > > > 
>_________________________________________________________________________ > 
>Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > 
> >
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index