[Aroid-l] Re: Colocasia mess
- Subject: [Aroid-l] Re: Colocasia mess
- From: "mossytrail" email@example.com
- Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2006 22:24:26 -0800
> Dear All,
> I'm fed up with most of the botanists. I'm trying to sell
> my plants under correct names, but... There are 2-4 names
> for plants. Now please decide wich one is correct!
This is because in the early days of Linnaean nomenclature,
many species were known only from preserved or cultivated
specimens. There was no way of knowing which of these
specimens could have interbred, nor of how much variation
the offspring would show, so each different variant had a
separate name. In some cases, different specimens of a
single species were put in three or four different genera --
just try sorting out the synonymy of, for example, the
California fan palm, Washintonia filifera.
> Colocasia antiquorum 'Illustris' cf. ? syn. Colocasia
> esculenta 'Illustris'
Colocasia esculenta is the species. It has three
subspecies, C. e. esculenta, C. e. antiquorum, and C. e.
aquatilis. Anything with one of those last two as its
species name, is properly C. esculenta.
> Colocasia esculenta (?var. ?subsp.) fallax cf. ? syn.
> Colocasia fallax ? Colocasia fallax 'Silves Splash' ?
> Colocasia esculenta 'Silves Splash' ? Colocasia fallax
Not sure whether C. fallax is a good species or not, but
since it, too, is here mixed up with C. esculenta, it is
I cannot speak of your other questions.
Aroid-l mailing list
Other Mailing lists |
Author Index |
Date Index |
Subject Index |