Re: [aroid-l] A. spruceanum
- Subject: Re: [aroid-l] A. spruceanum
- From: Rand Nicholson firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 10:30:03 -0300
No real puzzle.
Obviously, in a highly excitable state of phalloid enthusiasm after receiving my shipment, I mislabeled Dracontium spruceanum as Amorphophallus spruceanum. Wishful thinking or duh? I suppose this is how some of those ugly taxonomic rumors get started. However, D. spruceanum _does_ look almost exactly like A. spruceanum (which, of course, does not exist) to my layman's eye. And, a rather large not-a-bulbil is developing on top of the leaf petiole. Do these eventually ever _do_ anything, or are they just arthritic wannabees?
That clears that up.
Thanks, and drop over for a beer some time you are in the country.
Eastern Maritime Canada z 5b (& -16 C.)
>This is a bit of a puzzling message: if A. stands for Amorphophallus, then
>there's something wrong with the name because Amorphophallus spruceanum
>doesn't exist. I did also send Dracontium spruceanum to some of you but
>that's hardly an Amorph and Dracontiums do NOT make foliar bulbils, although
>they DO develop swollen joints in the leaves to some degree.
Other Mailing lists |
Author Index |
Date Index |
Subject Index |