No subject

[guy gusman]

Wilbert,
SORRY! SORRY!...
It is a mistake. Of course liubaense is stoloniferous and not rhizomatous.
One oftens answers too quickly to these e-mails.
Guy

>Guys & Guy,
>
>In order not to muddle terminology I advise to use "rhizomatous" when the
>underground part of a plant IS a rhizome itself, and "stoloniferous" when
>the underground part(s) sends out stolons (rhizome-like offsets). As such,
>CT369 is NOT rhizomatous but stoloniferous (the stolons developing from a
>perfect depressed-globose tuber.
>
>Cheers,
>Wilbert
>
>
>> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>> Van: guy gusman [mailto:ggusman at ULB.AC.BE]
>> Verzonden: dinsdag 18 januari 2000 10:39
>> Aan: ARISAEMA-L at NIC.SURFNET.NL
>> Onderwerp:
>>
>>
>> About offsets with Chen Yi's arisaemas:
>>
>> Oleg,
>>
>> A-08 is rhizomatous and is identical, as you noticed, with CT
>> 369. This
>> plant has recently be described, by Eric Gouda and I, as A.
>> ciliatum var.
>> liubaense in Blumea 44: 37-39 (1999).
>>
>> A-09 (= A. franchetianum): I have the same experience with
>> offsets: I never
>> separate them from the mother-tuber. I prefer to wait till they detach
>> themselves. Often roots appear on the tuberlets before they become
>> independent.
>>
>> A-06 (= A. elephas) and A-07 are not stoloniferous: they have very
>> prominent tuberlets at the side of the mother-tuber.
>> Nevertheless they are
>> directly attached to the mother-plant and are not borne at
>> the extremity of
>> a stolon.
>>
>> A last remark: A-07 is A. lobatum, quite different from A.
>> pangii, which is
>> close to A. nepenthoides.
>>
>> Guy
>>