Arisaema erubescens at last ??

[Paul Christian]

Hello all,

We have had threads on Arisaema erubescens before, I know.  I think that
the suggestion that it is the same as A. consanguineum has finally been put
to bed, and like all/many/most of us I have accepted Guy's tentative
suggestion that it is in fact the same species as A. concinnum.  No doubt
the question of which name has priority will keep several people occupied
for several years.

I was writing a letter to a fellow Aruisaema enthusiast here and just
making a photocopy of Guy's well -reasoned and conclusive paper (SHPA
newsletter 16) when a paragraph caught my eye as I turned the page.

Guy in fact offers TWO possible answers, although he favours oneof them.
(In case this reads badly given the speed that I am dashing it off at, this
is in no way anything nasty at Guy)
If erubescens is not in fact = concinnum, then the alternative that he
suggests is that erubescens does in fact exist, is a true and distinct
entity, but is absent from our collections.  He makes the point that
erubescens is stoloniferous. 

Before I start waffling I need to sit down and read Guys paper with care,
BUT (I have been getting there) if you remember I posed some questions
earlier in the year about Tamang's so-called echinatum.  Guy responded that
it was NOTechinatum, but like me he was puzzled by what it might be, as it
was clearly not any of the known Indian species. [ Shame on all the rest of
you who didn't respond :-) ]

(are you getting the idea?)

I asked Tamang for more information and it turns out that it comes not from
where echinatum should come from but from Nepal and at altitude.  Now the
crunch, I dug the stock up half an hour ago and they are very very
strongly, beyond a shadow of any doubt, whatsoever, in any way
STOLONIFEROUS, huge great fat stolons the largest 17cm long and just short
of 1cm in diameter.

well we have an unknown stoloniferous species that disagreees with none,
and answers at least some, of the features of erubescens (which is
stoloniferous).  A.erubescens and mystery sp are both Nepalese, and as I
look at Guy's list of features of erubescens I can still see nothing to
contradict (yet) the rapidly gelling idea that Tamang's "echinatum" could,
perhaps, maybe, after all,  answer to Schott's original erubescens.

IF and only if, it would be a wonderful thing that at last we could
validate the species after all but in a way I hope not because if you ask
anyone for erubescens, then you will get either consanguineum or
concinnum.......

The original pictures are still on my web site at 

"http://rareplants.co.uk/arisaema/echinatu.htm"

now back to Guy's paper 

----------------------------------------
Paul Christian  Rare Plants
Internet Site   "http://rareplants.co.uk/"
e-mail                paul at rareplants.co.uk
bulbs at chesternet.co.uk
Telephone       (+44) 01978 366399
Fax                    (+44) 01978 266466
Snail Mail         Dr. P.J.Christian,
PO Box 468,WREXHAM,
LL13 9XR, United Kingdom
53=B001'N=A0 3=B004'W
----------------------------------------