This is a public-interest archive. Personal data is pseudonymized and retained under GDPR Article 89.

Re: [SANS] San. javanica

At 01:31 AM 12/12/98 -0500, Norma Lewis wrote:
>To All, now I'm confused, please explain, about San. Being classified as
>Dracaena,
>according to Brown, what is the new classification at this time? I thought
>this books was printed in 1915. I know their must have been changes since
>then.
>John, Juan, Hermine, who ever is listening, are all the other San. considered
>Dracaena, at this time? I have a Sans. Javanica also a San. aubrytiana, so
>these are phony Sans.?  I also have a Sans. liberica, Sans chinensis. Steve,
>are these also phony names, regardless of the spelling? You have really
>confused me. Steve, are you a new authority? How so? Please explain, thank
>you, Norma Lewis
>Crasulady@aol.com
 I think chinensis is a bogus name. but what does it matter where
Sansevierias wind up. I remember the Furcraea wars over this very issue.

remain calm.

help is on the way, unfortunately.

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