Erubescens

[pbruggeman@tiscali.nl]

Dear Martin,

This misconception probably started with the interpretation of the original=Wallich painting of true erubescens by the Chinese taxonomists, most notab=ly by the aroid taxonomist Li Heng. She is responsible for the bulk of Chin=ese Arisaema literature for the past 20 years or so and the Chinese exporte=rs use this literature so they don't know better. Consanguineum is highly p=olymorphic (very variable and widespread) and Li Heng just thinks the Walli=ch plant is the same as Chinese consanguineum. Because erubescens is descri¾d in 1832 en consanguineum in 1859 Li Heng thinks the name erubescens has=preference for her Chinese specimens. The problem is that erubescens sensu=the Wallich painting is a strict endemic to Nepal. Plants that are exactly=like the plant on the Wallich painting still grow in the higher valleys ar=ound Kathmandu but do not occur outside Nepal. These plants have some chara=cteristics that are quite unique but most importantly, are stoloniferous, w=hereas our current understanding of consanguineum is that it is non-stoloniþrous. Stoloniferous behavior is completely ignored by the Chinese taxonom=ists and despite several attempts by others and myself to convince Li Heng,=she persists in her judgement and still uses the name erubescens in the up=coming new Flora of China for some forms of Chinese consanguineum. It is pr=obably safe to say, if it doesn't come from Nepal and produces sessile offs=ets (so NO stolons), it can't be true erubescens...... So start digging....=.

Hope this helps,

Pascal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.science.uu.nl/pipermail/arisaema-l/attachments/20051220/0d815450/attachment.html