No subject

Tue Jun 16 20:31:23 CEST 1998

hardy  Aroids)" <ARISAEMA-L at NIC.SURFNET.NL> Aroids)" <ARISAEMA-L at NIC.SURFNET.NL>
Sender: "Arisaema Enthusiast Group (AEG) Discussion List (and other=
From: "George R Stilwell, Jr." <grsjr at JUNO.COM>
Subject: Re: Kaichen & Paul's messages

Bobbie,

Tony and I are nearly convinced the A. saxitile is actually the same
Typhonium that Wilbert received when he bought saxitile. I'll try to get
one of the Photographers to post a pix so Wilbert can have a look.

On Paul's E-mail, the latest browsers insist on sending E-mail in HTML
form which is ridiculous. HTML is great on a web site where you need the
links it provides and want to be fancy in your presentation.
I tried to tell Paul to turn off the HTML feature, but the message
bounced.

I've taken his last two messages into a wordprocessor that handles HTML
and stripped out the codes. I'll append them here so you can read them.

Sorry about the confusion. You must have automatic signature on because
the message was signed Robert. I wondered, but decided the signature
should dominate. You should be able to set the E-mail program up so there
are two users. Rose Ann & I each use the same program but she is user0000
and I am user0001. This way we don't get each others mail and we can set
the default features to suit individually.

One other way is to call 1-800-586-6889 and get a Juno account for
yourself. It's totally free, no charges for access, no charge for the
software, and it will load in about 2 minutes.  The interface in WIN3.11
is so intuitive that you really don't even need the help feature. If you
are using WIN95, it will give you free web access as well. I don't use
this because I don't like windows95.

Ray
<GRSJr at Juno.com>

From: Paul Christian 6/14/98

I am sorry if it has taken me a few days to get around to posting on
this. Yet another email installation and new set up!

I think that the questions has evolved into a double one Jim

A.ochraceum Schott. Is the first issue, I think Guy is your man on
this one. I have not seen the original reference paper for a very
long time, since I left Livepool (University- library) nor given the
matter much thought, as I think I know the answer to part
two.....

A.ochraceum (Hort ex India) syn Should be shot, (sorry!) is the
second.
I no longer offer it as whatever turns up as A.ochraceum is never
anything different from one of other Indian species. Most of the
time they are small tubers which produce a radiatisect leaf and
hardly ever flower.

I think that this is because they are really babies, or tubers
produced from the stolons of mature plants of what it really is.

This is A. concinnum. The reason the don't flower is that they
are small, as they get bigger they give their identity away. I
suspect that this is what Ray's is doing now. I don't know if they
start with three leaf divisions and then make five and then make more,
BUT, I have just been out and checked the stock of A. concinnum
here.

The stock is true and even and there is not a rogue in it (*rah
rah*) the largest plant comes to above my waist and has 14 leaflets, the
smallest is a tot only 6cm tall and that has five leaflets. I can
manage a leaf with any number between the two (except 7 in case anyone
comes and checks)

I would think thatit is not unreasonable to suggest they could
therefore get bigger as they get older. I had a "cross
check" and this also happens with ciliatum CT369 and whatever
"echinatum" turns out to be (another post on this), fewer
leaflets when small. The clustering of some of the leaflets and the
fact that they point in a different direction to the others is common to
all of the three species mentioned and I think is developmental, showing
the evolution of radiatisect leaves. I digress.

In short, I don't offer ochraceum because I don't think there is a
species answering to the name. The Indian nursery plant is, based
on experience, almost invariably (but not guaranteed to be) A.
concinnum.

The Chinese material is now flowering and has a mind-rending variety
of species, many mixed, some I just do not recognise, some real surprises
and will I fear mean that I will take up the next week in writing - set
your filters now

Paul Christian

<At 22:35 12/06/98 -0400, you wrote:
>Paul, Guy et al
>
>Over the past ten years I have accumulated several arisaemas
>called A.
>"ochraceum". The first came from WeDu Nursery in 1987,
>and I have also
>obtained them from Paul Christian and J. Amand. They have all
>been exactly the
>same, as far as I can tell. I have 3 plants at this point but
>none has ever
>flowered.

>However, even without flowering, they are very distinctive. They
>are smallish,
>have pure white stems and three leaflets. The latter are
>particularly notable
>in that they have prominent vein patterns, giving them an almost
>sculptured
>look, similar to the "Mrs. French" form of A.
>triphyllum.

>I know that the conventional wisdom has been to consider this
>synonymous with
>A. nepenthoides, but I see not the slightest resemblance
>(allowing for the
>fact that I have yet to see one in flower). The stem alone would
>rule out the
>synonomy for me.

>Paul, I see that you are no longer offering this, but you must
>in flower while you were stocking it. You may still have some in your
>collection? Has anyone else grown this plant to flowering? I
>think John Gwynne
>had it at one time, but I don't know if it flowered.

>Anyone have any opinion/experience to share?

>Jim McClements

From: Paul Christian  6/16/98

I hope this post gets through.

Somewhere along the line the name A.saxatile seems to have become
attached to Kaichen's species 7. Have I missed something ? I
thought that species 1 (one) was established as saxatile, some time
ago. I accept of course that it may be another sp, but Guy still
seems to stay with saxatile=species 1. From what we have coming up
here I can't see any reason to change.

We have a lot of species 7 here coming into flower, and it is NOT A.
saxatile, the leaves are totally and utterly wrong the spathes are
wrong. It may not hold for all of the batches of Kaichen's stuff
but 7 is NOT, repeat NOT saxatile. Can we stamp on this one before
it gets really confusing, or should I retreat tail berween legs ?

I have my doubts in fact that sp7 is even an Arisaema, I think it is
Wilbert's old friend, Tymphonium. I am not good enough to say
which, but it looks uncommonly like the picture that we have had as ?
T.horsefeldii ? (a name like that ?)

Species 5 is now in flower fully. The early ones were
something akin to handelii if memory serves me well, but the bulk are
A.ciliatum, or at least a very ciliate radiatisect species like ciliatum,
but unlike Kaichen's ciliatum. Much broader spathe tube and a short
ascending extension. Kaichen's ciliatum look exactly like Carla Teune's
CT 369 but show a greater range of variation in the abundance of ciliae
although all have the prolonged hanging extension to the spathe.

I owe an apology over my statement/correction to Tony et al., that
the candidissimum were candidissimum, the early flowers were, the latest
are lovely fargesiifranchetianum. I was prompted to stick a nostril to
them, and most are rose-fragrant, just like candid.

Species 6 is now coming into flower and looks to be unlike anything
else from Kaichen, well at least most of them do. I have a
small wager on yunnanense for this one.

Anyone have any comments on theirs versus mine ?

Paul Christian

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]