Re: Info on Epipremnum spp.
- Subject: Re: Info on Epipremnum spp.
- From: Denis <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 00:50:31 -0500 (CDT)
I wholeheartedly agree with the need for exact taxanomic nomenclature in
the case of Epipremnum mooreense'Aureum'(or is it E. aureum 'Aureum').
My problem is that as a Wholesale producer of tropical foliage plants I
can not always fit the whole correct name into the slot provided in my
computerized inventory software and in the the foliage business Aureum
isn't the whole name. 99% of the people in my business know Epipremnum
aureum by the goofy common name of "Golden Pothos" and there are three
recognized cultivars, 'Golden" with golden yellow variation on a green
leaf, 'Marble Queen' with white variegation on dark green leaf and
'Jade' with just a dark green leaf. Now there is a new cultivated form,
an improved form of the golden called 'Hawaiian' which has thicker
substance to the leaf and better color. Does it really matter whether I
refer to it as Epipremnum aureum or Epipremnum mooreense 'Aureum' or
just Marble Queen, Jade or Golden Pothos except when I am talking to a
Taxonomist such as yourself, Peter or Simon who get all upset when I
call it a "Pothos". As it is I have to post it on my price list as
"Pothos" because my customers couldn't find it on my price list in
alphabetical order as Epipremnum aureum. They would look in the
greenhouse and ask why they could not find a price for it on the
listing. So a practical solution for you, Wilbert the taxonomist, is
different from practical solution for me the horticulturist.
Denis at Silver Krome Gardens
Wilbert Hetterscheid wrote:
> And now some hardcore cultonomy to try and solve this problem:
> In order to maintain the well-known cultivarname Epipremnum 'Aureum'
> (whether this belongs to E. pinnatum or not is actually not essential in the
> nomenclature of cultivars!!!), we could urge Peter to conserve the name E.
> mooreense against E. aureum, so that the cultivar name 'Aureum' may keep on
> keeping its well-known status. Howse zat for a practical solution?
> Another "solution" would be to have the species E. aurem AND a cultivar
> 'Aureum' of that same species..... Somehow that doesn't sound ideal.
> Wilbert (sticking his nose in climbing aroids for the first
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Peter Boyce <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L <email@example.com>
> Sent: woensdag 20 juni 2001 21:51
> Subject: Re: Info on Epipremnum spp.
> Then it is still only a rumor as far as you know? I mean, if aureum is a
> cultivar of E. pinnatum, then it's the same plant basically?
> Not quite that straightforward (is it ever!). For a long time the status of
> E. aureum was problematic. It was eventually laid to rest by being made a
> cv. of the widespread and highly polymorphic E. pinnatum. This is the stance
> (with the caveats that you have now read) I took when I published my account
> of Epipremnum in West and Central Malesia a few years back. However, since
> then I have been working on Epipremnum in East Malesia and the Pacific.
> There is a plant, E. mooreense, describe from the Pacific that was long
> considered to be a distinct species. During a visit to Paris Herbarium late
> in 1998 I came across the type specimen on E. mooreense (collected from a
> remote island mountain, not in a cultivated place) and lo and behold, it is
> identical with the thing we call cv. Aureum. In my opinion E. mooreense is
> the same species as E. aureum and is DIFFERENT from E. pinnatum on the
> characters I outline in my paper. The earliest name for the species is E.