Re: Colocasia name

Hi David,
 
Yes, it is a valid NAME but it is NOT a good species - the typification was fouled up by Schott, who typified (certainly in error) on a Linnaeus specimen is is without question C. esculenta.
 
Mea culpa we fouled up in FoC. The DESCRIPTION in FoC is correct but the name is wrong. It should be called C. fontanesii.
 
Very best
 
Peter

On 25 August 2011 15:49, david bröderbauer <d*@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hello Peter,

I'm confused. Isn't Colocasia antiquorum SCHOTT a valid species? At least in Li Heng's and your treatment in the Flora of China it is.

Best,
David

From: p*@googlemail.com
To: aroid-l@www.gizmoworks.com; a*@ncsu.edu
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 17:41:55 +0800
Subject: Re: [Aroid-l] Colocasia name

Hi Marek

 

Neither. Both are simply Colocasia esculenta, as per our previous correspondence.

 

Best

 

Pete

 

From: aroid-l-bounces@www.gizmoworks.com [mailto:aroid-l-bounces@www.gizmoworks.com] On Behalf Of Marek Argent
Sent: Monday, 22 August, 2011 7:02 AM
To: Discussion of aroids; Peter Boyce; Alan Galloway
Subject: [Aroid-l] Colocasia name

 

Hello,

 

Which name is the proper one?

Colocasia esculenta var. antiquorum (Schott) C.E. Hubb. & Rehder

or

Colocasia antiquorum Schott

 

On the web (IAS, Tropicos, IPNI, CATE) I can find both combinations

and I really don't know which one should be used.

 

Best,

Marek Argent


_______________________________________________ Aroid-L mailing list Aroid-L@www.gizmoworks.com http://www.gizmoworks.com/mailman/listinfo/aroid-l

_______________________________________________
Aroid-L mailing list
Aroid-L@www.gizmoworks.com
http://www.gizmoworks.com/mailman/listinfo/aroid-l


_______________________________________________
Aroid-L mailing list
Aroid-L@www.gizmoworks.com
http://www.gizmoworks.com/mailman/listinfo/aroid-l
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index