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: irisman <irisman at AMERITECH.NET>
Subject: Re: Chen Yi Arisaema
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transf er-Encoding: 7bit

Ray and others--Has anyone shared this   information about ID with Chen Y=i?
Also, the speculation that her tubers may be less viable with us in the
US --due, perhaps to having been scrubbed too well too remove all vestige=s
of soil?

Adam Fikso, Glenview, IL


----- Original Message -----
From: "George R. Stilwell, Jr." <GRSJr at WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
To: <ARISAEMA-L at NIC.SURFNET.NL>
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2002 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: Chen Yi Arisaema


> Keith,
>
> In general, no, her IDs are mostly wrong. There's a rather complete lis=t
> of those that have been ID'd in the recent archives and Eric Gouda has
some
> earlier IDs on his page.  I've appended some of the info. You have to k=now
the
> year it was ordered because she reused numbers for different plants
> in the early years.
>
> Ray
>
> At 09:42 PM 3/23/2002 +0100, you wrote:
> >Hello All,
> >   I am wondering if anybody knows the identity of the Arisaema specie=s
from
> >Chen Yi. I got a few and was wondering if her identifications were
correct.
> >Thank you........
> >
> >Keith
> .......
> A-01: = A. bathycoleum so the correct name
> A-02: = A. franchetianum var., Arisaema brevipes should have a radiat=isect
> leaf like ciliatum and consanguineum.
> A-03 & A-04: = correctly named
> A-05: = A. wumengense or saxatile (if wumengense turns out to be a sy=nonym
> of saxatile then the name saxatile has priority but more research is
needed
> to be sure)
> A-06: = A. elephas var.
> A-07: = A. lobatum var.
> A-09: = A. franchetianum var., Arisaema rhombiforme is related to A.
> asperatum and a member of section Trisecta
> A-10: = very attractive but unidentified as yet
> A-11: = correctly named
> A-12: = A. engleri "purple form", A. sikokianum only grows in Japan o=n the
> island of Shikoku and has a much different flower, it's  a mistake made=in
> Chinese taxonomic literature for A. engleri.
> A-14: = A. franchetianum var. (see the AEG-archives for Wilberts mail=on
the
> fargesii/franchetianum confusion)
> A-19: = A. wattii,  A. biauriculatum is the old name for A. watti so =it
> should be A. wattii. A. biauriculatum was renamed in the Kew Bulletin  =Vol
=2E
> 64(1) by Murata to A. wattii
> A-21: = A. heterophyllum var., the flower on her picture is probably =not
yet
> fully open, A. tortuosum is very distinct and different from
> this plant.
> A-24: = A. engleri "green flowered form"
> A-28 & A-29: = A. engleri var. , what is known in China as A. sikokia=num
> var. serratum and var. henryanum are actually A. engleri with serrated
> leaves (var. serratum) and A. engleri with leaves with 7 leaflets inste=ad
of
> the usual 5 (var. henryanum). The amount of serration is variable and
mature
> specimen produce leaves with 7 leaflets so both variaties are
questionable.
> A-43: Arisaema multisectum is the old name for A. heterophyllum, the
plants
> I got from her as A. multisectum (A-43) were indeed Arisaema heterophyl=lum
> which should be the correct name for A-43.
> A-48: = A. lobatum var.: Arisaema inkiangense is a species with a rhi=zome
> (an elongated rootstock like A. rhizomatum) and the plants she sent us
were
> clearly A. lobatum with a rounded tuber.
> A-50: = A. lobatum var. with broad stripes on the petioles and pedunc=le, a
> very big form (tuber this year 9 cm across)
> A-51: = A. auriculatum (syn. A. omeiense)
> A-55: = correctly named although it's a very robust form of flavum
> A-59: = A. lobatum var., it is close to the form of lobatum she sells=as
> A-07
> A-60: = I received a green-flowered lobatum under this number but Jim
> McClements received a yunnanense-related plant under the same number la=st
> year.......
> A-62 & A-82: Both are color forms of Arisaema rhizomatum. Her "A.
> rhizomatum", A-22, has always died here so we don't know what A-22 is b=ut
> for these 2 we suggest A. rhizomatum "cream colored form" for A-62 and =A.
> rhizomatum "red colored form" for A-82. It should however be noted that
the
> 2 plants we know have flowered (1 A-62 in Wilbert's collection and 1 A-=82
in
> the collection of Jim McClements) both had a green flower (but with
spots!).
> It's a stunning species but autumn-flowering and a subject for the cold
> greenhouse.
> A-64: correctly named
> A-67: This item has got nothing to do with multisectum/heterophyllum an=d
is
> a member of section Trisecta. Possibly A. asperatum or similar with a
> asperate petiole and a flower with a white/purple stripe tube and a bro=ad
> green-flushed spathe blade so not multisectum (heterophyllum) nor
> yellow-flowered.....
> A-83: = unknown species, we have not been able to identify this one a=nd it
> might be a new species. It needs to be grown indoors because it is
> semi-tropical.
> A-86: It could be A. jingdongense but we received a different plant fro=m
her
> than the one on her picture so it is not possible to identify it unless=we
> receive the correct item. The plants I recieved were a green form of A.
> consanguineum and not a small yellow-flowering plant as on her picture.
> A-94: = A. elephas var.; Arisaema handelii should have a rugose (~ ro=ugh,
> like sandpaper) spadix but A. handelii and A. elephas are closely relat=ed
> and handelii might even be a variety of elephas (similar to speciosum a=nd
> it's variety mirabile).
> A-95: Incorrect. Arisaema speciosum is a completely different species f=rom
> Nepal and Bhutan and the A-95 I received looks like a variety of the sa=me
> species as her A-88/A-89/A-90 which is a small form of elephas with pur=ple
> spotted leaves.
> A-96: correctly named, it's a small species (some 20 cm) with a small
green
> flower, a white spot in the throat and a silvery zone along the central
> nerves of the 2 trifoliolate leaves, interesting but not stunning......
> A-97: This plant has a big galeatum-type tuber which produces bulblets.
> Although it is close to concinnum flower-wise, it is NOT the same as
> concinnum (hence the name AFF. concinnum), which has a rounded tuber an=d
> produces stolons. None of our plants had the deep-yellow flower from he=r
> pictures although one of Wilbert's came close, the rest were more or le=ss
> yellowish-green.
> A-106 = Typhonium horsefieldii
> A-108 & A-109: = A. ciliatum var., I received the same species for bo=th
> numbers and all 4 were a form of A. ciliatum and different from the pla=nts
> on the pictures.
> A-110: = A. franchetianum var.
> A-112: = The name A. coenobialis is a non-existent name. The species =on
her
> picture is autumn-flowering with a rhizome and is probably A. setosum o=r
> similar and certainly not suitable for the open garden.
>
> NOTE: The plants she lists under "erubescens" are most probably forms o=f
> consanguineum or similar (ciliatum). This mistake is sometimes made by
> Chinese taxonomists but true erubescens is a species restricted to Nepa=l
and
> was only recently reintroduced into cultivation.