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: "George R. Stilwell, Jr." <GRSJr at WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Subject: Re: Chen Yi Arisaema
In-Reply-To: <000501c1d371$21e670c0$e3ab6d40 at ameritech.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Yes.

At 02:18 PM 3/24/2002 -0600, you wrote:
>Ray and others--Has anyone shared this   information about ID with Chen =Yi?
>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 vestig=es
>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 li=st
>> 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 =know
>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 speci=es
>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 radia=tisect
>> leaf like ciliatum and consanguineum.
>> A-03 & A-04: = correctly named
>> A-05: = A. wumengense or saxatile (if wumengense turns out to be a s=ynonym
>> 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 =on the
>> island of Shikoku and has a much different flower, it's  a mistake mad=e in
>> Chinese taxonomic literature for A. engleri.
>> A-14: = A. franchetianum var. (see the AEG-archives for Wilberts mai=l 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
>.
>> 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. sikoki=anum
>> var. serratum and var. henryanum are actually A. engleri with serrated
>> leaves (var. serratum) and A. engleri with leaves with 7 leaflets inst=ead
>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 heterophy=llum
>> which should be the correct name for A-43.
>> A-48: = A. lobatum var.: Arisaema inkiangense is a species with a rh=izome
>> (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 pedun=cle, 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 sell=s as
>> A-07
>> A-60: = I received a green-flowered lobatum under this number but Ji=m
>> McClements received a yunnanense-related plant under the same number l=ast
>> 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 =but
>> 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 tha=t
>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 col=d
>> greenhouse.
>> A-64: correctly named
>> A-67: This item has got nothing to do with multisectum/heterophyllum a=nd
>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 br=oad
>> green-flushed spathe blade so not multisectum (heterophyllum) nor
>> yellow-flowered.....
>> A-83: = unknown species, we have not been able to identify this one =and 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 fr=om
>her
>> than the one on her picture so it is not possible to identify it unles=s 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 (~ r=ough,
>> like sandpaper) spadix but A. handelii and A. elephas are closely rela=ted
>> and handelii might even be a variety of elephas (similar to speciosum =and
>> it's variety mirabile).
>> A-95: Incorrect. Arisaema speciosum is a completely different species =from
>> Nepal and Bhutan and the A-95 I received looks like a variety of the s=ame
>> species as her A-88/A-89/A-90 which is a small form of elephas with pu=rple
>> 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 centra=l
>> 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 a=nd
>> produces stolons. None of our plants had the deep-yellow flower from h=er
>> pictures although one of Wilbert's came close, the rest were more or l=ess
>> yellowish-green.
>> A-106 = Typhonium horsefieldii
>> A-108 & A-109: = A. ciliatum var., I received the same species for b=oth
>> numbers and all 4 were a form of A. ciliatum and different from the pl=ants
>> 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 =or
>> similar and certainly not suitable for the open garden.
>>
>> NOTE: The plants she lists under "erubescens" are most probably forms =of
>> consanguineum or similar (ciliatum). This mistake is sometimes made by
>> Chinese taxonomists but true erubescens is a species restricted to Nep=al
>and
>> was only recently reintroduced into cultivation.
>