No subject

[Arisaema Enthusiast Group (AEG) Discussion List (and other=]

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: Roy Herold <rrh at GENESIS.NRED.MA.US>
Subject: Re: Naming caution
In-Reply-To: <372A8328.D4008440 at prodigy.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Greg:

I admire your spirited defense of Chen Yi, but it has done nothing to
change my opinion. I stand by each and every statement I made. I hope tha=t
others in the group will continue to look at both sides of the story.

First and foremost, do not tell me what is the proper forum for me to
express my opinions about a company that is doing business through the
Internet. I will decide which of my opinions are necessary and which are
not. Free speech is alive and well, at least in this country. Chen Yi has
e-mail, has a good command of English, and is certainly not defenseless.
And this was not a 'personal attack', but my opinion about a rapidly
growing international business. I could make the statement 'Amazon.com
shipped me the wrong book.' How is this any different from 'Chen Yi Plant=s
shipped me the wrong plant.'?

Believe it or not, I made my original posting in support of the
identification activities that you and others are pursuing. The reason I
found the marketing of misidentified material to be a 'pity' was that it
makes the attempts at proper identification fruitless and of little value.
By the time we figure out the correct names, thousands upon thousands of
plants will have gotten into the hands of the public with the wrong names=,
and without the Chen Yi Plants number. They will continue to be passed
around under these wrong names as long as there is interest in them. Sure=,
a few will get corrected, but the vast majority won't.

I admit that personal opinions can be misleading and inflammatory. Let's
step away from opinions, and look at a few carefully researched facts:

Fact #1: Chen Yi Plants makes no public disclaimer on the web page that t=he
plants shipped may be misidentified, and makes no request that the Chen Y=i
Plants number remain as an ID for subsequent retail sales. This informati=on
is only disclosed if the specific question is asked.

Fact #2: Different plants have been shipped under the same Chen Yi Plants
number. For example, some specimens of A. candidissimum (A-03) were true =A.
candidissimum, while others were A. fargesii. In another genus, some
specimens of Asarum chinense (E-03) were Asarum caudigerum, while others
were Asarum caulescens.

Fact #3: The same plant has been shipped out under different Chen Yi Plan=ts
numbers. For example, some of the specimens of A. dilatatum (A-15) and A.
wilsonii (A-17) are identical. Some of the A. candidissimum (A-03) and A.
rhombiforme (A-09) were A. fargesii.

Fact #4: Chen Yi Plants has posted pictures of named arisaemas that bear =no
resemblance to the correct species. For example, the picture of A.
franchetianum (A-08) is of a plant allied to A. consanguineum/ciliatum.

Fact #5: Nurseries worldwide are buying stock from Chen Yi Plants, and
reselling immediately with no Chen Yi Plants number attached, and no
warning of possible misidentification.

Fact #6: I have never recommended against buying from Chen Yi Plants.

Fact #7: There is a disclaimer on the Arisaema Page that you shouldn't
believe everything you read there.

My own opinions, or unsubstantiated facts:

Opinion #1: Some plants shipped as arisaemas weren't even arisaemas-- I
believe they were found to be Typhoniums.

Opinion #2: You don't have to be an expert in Araceae to make basic
identifications of Arisaemas. I'm not asking that the latest and greatest
Li Heng treatise be used, but at a bare minimum take a look at the Flora =of
China (which is publicly available). Yes, it, too, has mistakes, but at
least it would be a start. How hard is it to count leaflets? A.
du-bois-reymondiae has 'more than 7 leaflets'. The plants shipped under
this name had five.  And at least separate the candidissimums from the
fargesiis.

Opinion #3: If I was a nurseryman, and wanted to buy plants for immediate
resale, I would buy the ones with species names instead of 'Sp. xx' or
'A-xx' nomenclature.

Opinion #4: I applaud Chen Yi's intention to post proper identifications
when they become available, but until that time, wouldn't it be better to
first remove the quesionable identifications? Again, I don't think "the
Chinese supplier (for whom the Arisaema are but one part of the trade) is
expected to get it right" (your words), but I don't expect it to be plain
wrong, either. It's very easy to say 'I don't know.' Furthermore, I don't
believe that Chen Yi has made any corrections to ID's since 1997 in spite
of publicly available lists of proper names.

Opinion #5: Are there any greedy capitalists in Australia?  Are there any
greedy capitalists in China? I'd say yes on both counts.

Opinion #6: Has anyone else noticed that a lot of the romance of arisaema=s
is gone now that it is so easy to import once rare material? Gone are the
days of sending packets of precious seeds to a few friends, and anxiously
waiting years for that first bloom. It's all instant gratification now.

Opinion #7: None of this is bad!! I do not dislike Chen Yi, I do not
dislike Greg Ruckert. I hope her business thrives, and I think it will ge=t
even better when experts finally get some proper names on the plants. The=se
are small, yet important details in the greater scheme of the business.

Please note that I have gone out of my way here to avoid any comments abo=ut
wild collecting, CITES, or the condition of plants received. If you wish =to
continue this discussion, I will be more than happy to supply observation=s
from nurserymen I have talked to regarding these issues. If not, let's ge=t
back to plants.

Feel free to forward this to Chen Yi, and invite her to respond.

--Roy
Arisaema lobatum from Ninety Nine Dragons is blooming. Who said romance i=s
dead?