Re: Fitch photo (fwd)

Wilbert, you wrote:
> This is a plant from the same clone you'll see in Aroideana Vol. 19 under 
> Am. parvulus! In fact, I got material of this via Bogner, who got it from 
> Fitch himself. Only this week have I learned from additional material 
> from Thailand, that it is NOT Am. parvulus and most probably an 
> undescribed species! I have always counted with this because there are a 
> few characters in Fitch's plant that do not fit the type of Am. parvulus. 
> Now that I have had a REAL parvulus flowering, I saw these differences 
> confirmed.

Some time back, re the plant I have as A. parvulus, from Phil, and we
think originally from you, you wrote:

>The original number should read H.AM.026 and was originally collected
>by Dick Shelton, who gave a piece to Josef Bogner, who gave a piece to
>me. Bogner's and Shelton's died but I managed to multiply the critter and
>replenished them both. In Aroideana vol. 19 it will be presented, along
>with another 80 of its congeners.
So, not to be too dense, am I correct in assuming that the plant I have,
which we think is H.AM.026, is the *true* A. parvulus, and is a different
species than the Fitch picture? Is the Fitch picture one of the "80 of its
congeners" you mention (or what is the relationship between the species
shown in the Fitch picture and A. parvulus)? Incidentally, I love this
plant not only for the beauty of the leaf but because it thrives on benign
neglect for me and propagates easily - if I worked at it, I'd have a dozen
more by now. 


-- Steve Marak

Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index