1999-A-24 [Chenyi A. du-bois-reymondiae]

[Malkmus, Bjoern]

Hello all,

I hope that I won't burn up the house again with my question on Chen
Yi's 1999-A-24...

This year there was only one female flower of the 1999-A-24 (= A.
engleri), not a single male one, not even from another species at that
time. However much to my surprise a fruitstalk developped and this
week I gathered viable looking seeds from it ....

Is that normal ??? I know that in other genera some species might
develop seeds even without pollinization, but might this occurr in
some Arisaema spp. as well ? What about the other 1999-A-24
(most of them were A. bockii as I remember), has anyone of you
made the same experience ?

There had been so much trouble on the identification of 1999-A-24,
that actually I shouldn't wonder anymore  ;-)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Concering the 2000 SeedEx, might the following proposal be another
workable idea on naming Chen Yi's plants ?

For example:
1999-A-24 (= A. engleri #1)
=> for those which turned out to be true A. engleri

1999-A-24 (= A. bockii #1)
=> the same as above if it was a real A. bockii

1999-A-24 (#1)
=> for those still not being identified or doubtful from Arisaemer XYZ 1

1999-A-24 (#2)
=> unidentified or doubtful from person XYZ 2

I realized that Chen Yi's present (new) list is not completely consistent
with regards to numbers and "proposed" plant names to her last
years list. Therefore the year (1999) should be added to the key
anyway.
Probably -to make things easier- would it be feasable to give all AEG-
lers a unique "members number" (from #1 to #n), which will be stated
in the collection list as well ?

I think this might make it a lot easier to identify seeds/plants and
Craig wouldn't have to write the complete name on each seed
package, which I think will save him some work, ain't it ?

Maybe this method could be applied to all distributed seeds, no
matter if they descend from Chen Yi's plants.

E.g.: let's say Ray is #1 [ :-) ] and he has some seeds of a single form
of A. triphyllum, then the key might be as follows:
1999-A. triphyllum #1

If he has two different forms, let's say a reddish and a pure green one,
the latter might be named as fo. 1 (or fo. "green") and the red one as
fo. 2 (or fo. "red"), so these would be:
1999-A. triphyllum fo. 1 #1
1999-A. triphyllum fo. 2 #1
or alternatively:
1999-A. triphyllum fo. "green" #1
1999-A. triphyllum fo. "red" #1

Supposed that in the following year he has only seeds to offer from
the red one, these would be named as:
2000-A. triphyllum fo. 2 #1

I propose to add the year as well, as there might occurr some
unwanted hybridization in one year and then the key without the year
(e.g. A. triphyllum fo. 2 #1) wouldn't say anything about the batch of
which seedlings derive from. And hence the real species and the
hybrids might get mixed by the time, which I don't think to be of any
help to us in keeping clear records.

Well, do you get what I'am trying to point out, or probably am I not
consistant enough myself ?

Any comment is greatly welcome !

Cheers,

Bj=F8rn Malkmus