More on Chen Yi plants

[Wilbert Hetterscheid]

Jim,

To add my aria to the soap-opera:

Kaichen's once #1 flowered in my place and is either A. saxatile or A.
odoratum. The problem is that in the revised key of Li Heng, choices lead to
saxatile BUT that one shouldn't have the good odour my plant has. In that
case, Ar. odoratum would be the correct name. So what I have is a saxatile
that has the scent of odoratum.............. Do these two species really
separate? Or is this another chapter of "how to keep taxonomists off the
streets........"

Cheers,
Wilbert

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Jim McClements, Dover, DE z6 <JimMcClem at AOL.COM>
Aan: ARISAEMA-L at NIC.SURFNET.NL <ARISAEMA-L at NIC.SURFNET.NL>
Datum: dinsdag 1 juni 1999 20:57
Onderwerp: Re: More on Chen Yi plants


>In a message dated 6/1/99 12:07:20 PM, tony at PLANTDEL.COM writes:
>
><<  A. sp. 1 was stunning, and was I'd as the true A. bathycoleum. >>
>
>Tony
>
>Thanks for the info. However, I just reviewed the postings that I had saved
>from last year, and one of yours says that Sp #1 is "certainly" A.
saxatile.
>Guy also identified the picture from Chen Yi as the same. Bobbie L-D
thought
>it was A. odoratum. Who ID'd it now as A. bathycoleum?
>
>There was agreement that what had been sent out as "Arisaema saxatile"  was
>actually a Typhonium,probably horsefieldii (sp?).
>
>To further confuse this, I just looked at Greg's pictures on his website
>http://www.ezi-learn.com.au/areae/friends/kaichen/kaichenpics.html
>
>According to Chen Yi's first list last fall, her catalog #04 was "Sp #1".
>However, as I recall, (don't still have the later listings), catalog #04
>later became "A. candidissimum variety" and a lot of the arisaema catalog
>numbers below it got bumped down a notch. Sooooo, using Chen Yi's numbers
to
>insure that we're all talking about the same thing may be fraught with
>difficulty and not the "cure-all" that was suggested.  In fact, because of
>the change in numbers, I ordered by name, not number.
>
>Greg's photo of Chen Yi's #04 is clearly the white candidissimum ("A.
>candidissimum variety") which some of us are apparently watching flower
now.
>
>Greg, if you have the names that were sent out with the plants in your
>photos, and not just the numbers, it would be helpful to me, and perhaps to
>others, if they were inserted onto the page with the numbers. I don't know
>what "sp #1" was called in the later list, perhaps #05? And, am I right
about
>04?
>
>I will also add that since yesterday's posting enough of "A. candidissimum
>red" is showing to mark it as what is now being called
>"fargesiifranchetianum", not candidissimum. I can hardly wait to see what
"A.
>candidissimum white" looks like!
>
>This is better than a soap opera. Stay tuned!
>
>Jim
>