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: Gusman Guy <ggusman at ULB.AC.BE>
Subject: Arisaema triphyllum stewardsonii
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transf er-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hello,
The problem of Arisaema triphyllum stewardsonii is quite delicate and, as=s=
een from the recent discussions, is not that simple! 

Donald C. Huttleston who published papers on subsp. triphyllum, stewardso=ni=
i, pusillum and quinatum has exhaustively studied the complex of A. triph=yl=
lum.
- He selected the lectotype of stewardsonii in 1952 (N.L. Britton s.n., N=Y =
Herbarium n=B0 133835). 
- In the Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club (vol. 108(4): page 480, 19=81=
), he writes, about stewardsonii and pusillum:
"leaves green, glossy".
- In Aroideana (vol. 7(1): page15, 1984), he provides a key and writes, a=bo=
ut stewardsonii and pusillum:
" the leaves are never glaucous beneath" (glaucous: covered with waxy blo=om=
, a grayish powdery coating)

In his PHD Thesis (at the University of NC), Miklos Treiber (1980) also s=pe=
aks of the usual shiny aspect of the leaves undersides: "The leaves of su=bs=
p. stewardsonii and pusillum dorsally are usually nitid and only rarely m=or=
e or less glaucous."

It is also enlightening to look at the Flora of North America, on the web=(=
http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=22200=0013 )=
where it is mentioned, again about stewardsonii and pusillum:
"Leaves polished or lustrous beneath, not glaucous."

A few years ago, I got plants of stewardsonii from Roy Herold (from Massa=ch=
usetts). All of them have leaves whose aspect agrees with the above descr=ip=
tions.

However, there are areas where different subspecies can be found growing =to=
gether and hybridization cannot be excluded. That's maybe the origin of s=om=
e apparent discrepancies between original descriptions and plants grown i=n =
our collections.

Guy Gusman