I'm confused. Isn't
SCHOTT a valid species? At least in Li Heng's and your treatment in the Flora of China it is.
From: phymatarum@googlemail.com
To: aroid-l@www.gizmoworks.com=3B alan_galloway@ncsu.edu
Date: Tue=2C 23 Aug 2011 17:41:55 +0800
Subject: Re: [Aroid-l] Colocasia name
Hi Marek
 =3B
Neither. Both are simply Colocasia esculenta=2C as per our previous correspondence.
 =3B
Best
 =3B
Pete
 =3B
From: aroid-l-bounces@www.gizmoworks.com [mailto:aroid-l-bounces@www.gizmoworks.com] On Behalf Of Marek Argent
Sent: Monday=2C 22 August=2C 2011 7:02 AM
To: Discussion of aroids=3B Peter Boyce=3B Alan Galloway
Subject: [Aroid-l] Colocasia name
 =3B
Which name is the proper one?
Colocasia esculenta var. antiquorum (Schott) C.E. Hubb. &=3B Rehder
Colocasia antiquorum Schott
On the web (IAS=2C Tropicos=2C IPNI=2C CATE) I can find both combinations
and I really don't know which one should be used.
_______________________________________________
Aroid-L mailing list
Aroid-L@www.gizmoworks.com
http://www.gizmoworks.com/mailman/listinfo/aroid-l