No subject
Arisaema Enthusiast Group (AEG) Discussion List (and other=
Arisaema Enthusiast Group (AEG) Discussion List (and other=
Fri Jun 16 04:23:25 CEST 2006
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: Christopher Gussman <OlgaChrisEmily at MSN.COM>
Subject: Re: Arisaema triphyllum stewardsonii
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=3D"----=3D_NextPart_001_0000_01C690CA.51DD77E0"
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C690CA.51DD77E0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Guy-
Thank you! The variability in the "common" triphyllum is tremendous! A fa==
ct that has been observed by most and much discussed on this list previou==
sly. Looking at my own stewardsonii plants again tonight (currently sti==
ll in bloom), the leaf undersurfaces are smooth (I think I incorrectly s==
aid glaucous earlier). Perhaps also "shiny", but not enough that the lea==
f undersurface would seem distinctive to me if the plants were not in flo==
wer. Last week I was in upstate NY where I saw some stewardonii. Most o==
f the triphyllum triphyllum were finished flowering, but there were a few==
late stragglers. Interestingly, most of the late triphyllum seemed to h==
ave exceptionally dark spathes. I also have a dark-spathed clone which e==
merges and blooms the same time as my stewardonii. I have yet to get see==
d on either.
The spathe ribs seem to be the most obviously distinguishing character==
istic. I have never seen a triphyllum with partial or incomplete ribs, n==
or a very dark-spathed stewardsonii. A fun and interesting group of plan==
ts, and still a lot to be learned.
----- Original Message -----
From: Gusman Guy
Sent: Thursday, June 15, 2006 3:52 AM
To: ARISAEMA-L at NIC.SURFNET.NL
Subject: Arisaema triphyllum stewardsonii
Hello,
The problem of Arisaema triphyllum stewardsonii is quite delicate and, as==
seen from the recent discussions, is not that simple!
Donald C. Huttleston who published papers on subsp. triphyllum, stewardso==
nii, pusillum and quinatum has exhaustively studied the complex of A. tri==
phyllum.
- 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==
bout 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==
peaks of the usual shiny aspect of the leaves undersides: "The leaves of ==
subsp. stewardsonii and pusillum dorsally are usually nitid and only rare==
ly more 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=222=0000=
13 ) 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==
chusetts). All of them have leaves whose aspect agrees with the above des==
criptions.
However, there are areas where different subspecies can be found growing ==
together and hybridization cannot be excluded. That's maybe the origin of==
some apparent discrepancies between original descriptions and plants gro==
wn in our collections.
Guy Gusman
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C690CA.51DD77E0
Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<HTML><BODY STYLE="font:10pt verdana; border:none;"><DIV>Guy-</DIV> <=DI=
V>Thank you! The variability in the "common" triphyllum is tremendous!&nb==
sp;A fact that has been observed by most and much discussed on this list ==
previously. Looking at my own stewardsonii plants again tonig==
ht (currently still in bloom), the leaf undersurfaces are smooth (I==
think I incorrectly said glaucous earlier). Perhaps also "shiny", ==
but not enough that the leaf undersurface would seem distinctive to me if==
the plants were not in flower. Last week I was in upstate NY where==
I saw some stewardonii. Most of the triphyllum triphyllum were fin==
ished flowering, but there were a few late stragglers. Interestingl==
y, most of the late triphyllum seemed to have exceptionally dark spathes.==
I also have a dark-spathed clone which emerges and blooms the same==
time as my stewardonii. I have yet to get seed on either. </==
DIV> <DIV> The spathe ribs seem to be the most obviously dist==
inguishing characteristic. I have never seen a triphyllum with part==
ial or incomplete ribs, nor a very dark-spathed stewardsonii. A fun==
and interesting group of plants, and still a lot to be learned. </==
DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE st==
yle="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-=LE=
FT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"> <DIV style="FONT: 10pt Ari=al=
">----- Original Message -----</DIV> <DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4;=F=
ONT: 10pt Arial; COLOR: black"><B>From:</B> Gusman Guy</DIV> <DIV style===
"FONT: 10pt Arial"><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, June 15, 2006 3:52 AM</DIV> <DI==
V style="FONT: 10pt Arial"><B>To:</B> ARISAEMA-L at NIC.SURFNET.NL</DIV>=<=
DIV style="FONT: 10pt Arial"><B>Subject:</B> Arisaema triphyllum stew=ar=
dsonii</DIV> <DIV> </DIV>Hello,<BR>The problem of Arisaema triphyllu==
m stewardsonii is quite delicate and, as seen from the recent discussions==
, is not that simple! <BR><BR>Donald C. Huttleston who published papers o==
n subsp. triphyllum, stewardsonii, pusillum and quinatum has exhaustively==
studied the complex of A. triphyllum.<BR>- He selected the lectotype of ==
stewardsonii in 1952 (N.L. Britton s.n., NY Herbarium n=B0 133835). <BR=>-=
In the Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club (vol. 108(4): page 480, 198==
1), he writes, about stewardsonii and pusillum:<BR>"leaves green, glossy"==
<BR>- In Aroideana (vol. 7(1): page15, 1984), he provides a key and writ=
es, about stewardsonii and pusillum:<BR>" the leaves are never glaucous b==
eneath" (glaucous: covered with waxy bloom, a grayish powdery coating)<BR==
><BR>In his PHD Thesis (at the University of NC), Miklos Treiber (1980) a==
lso speaks of the usual shiny aspect of the leaves undersides: "The leave==
s of subsp. stewardsonii and pusillum dorsally are usually nitid and only==
rarely more or less glaucous."<BR><BR>It is also enlightening to look at==
the Flora of North America, on the web ( http://www.efloras.org/floratax==
on.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=222000013 ) where it is mentioned=, ag=
ain about stewardsonii and pusillum:<BR>"Leaves polished or lustrous bene==
ath, not glaucous."<BR><BR>A few years ago, I got plants of stewardsonii ==
from Roy Herold (from Massachusetts). All of them have leaves whose aspec==
t agrees with the above descriptions.<BR><BR>However, there are areas whe==
re different subspecies can be found growing together and hybridization c==
annot be excluded. That's maybe the origin of some apparent discrepancies==
between original descriptions and plants grown in our collections.<BR><B==
R>Guy Gusman<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_001_0000_01C690CA.51DD77E0--
More information about the Arisaema-L
mailing list