Re: Fitch photo (fwd)


Steve & others,

In relation to this Fitch-plant thing I made a stupid mistake and I posted my
correction to Dick too late to be corrected. The plant H.AM.026 and the one
on the Fitch photo are the same species, so NOT true Am. parvulus! My mistake
in the historical story of this plant is that Josef Bogner did NOT get it
from mr. Fitch but from Shelton and I got it from Bogner. So the H.AM.026
originated with Shelton and is now spread to some of you folks. The plant on
the Fitch photo IS that same species and I wouldn't be surprised if it
somehow originated too from the same clone as H.AM.026. They are SO similar.
Those of you who now understand all this need to see a doctor........

All in all, a conclusion is that what I treated in Aroideana vol. 19 as
Am. parvulus is not the real thing but this Shelton & Fitch species, which,
as I can see now, is an undescribed species. ANOTHER one............!!

Cheers,
Wilbert


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