Colocasia

From: Jduft at aol.com on 1997.02.09 at 16:51:01(313) Greetings, Does anyone have the latest taxonomic information on the genus Colocasia. Which names in the industry are true species? Also would like descriptions of each for ID purposes. Joe Duft +More Jduft@aol.com

From: plantnut at shadow.net (Dewey Fisk) on 1997.02.10 at 01:34:58(315) >Greetings, > >Does anyone have the latest taxonomic information on the genus Colocasia. > Which names in the industry are true species? Also would like descriptions >of each for ID purposes. Joe, +More I just entered Colocasia in Alta Vista.... >http://altavista.digital.com/< And I got 374 'hits'... I noted that there were several different topics.. You might want to go thru some of them... Possibly, the info you seek is there... Dewey Dewey E. Fisk, Plant Nut THE PHILODENDRON PHREAQUE Davie, Florida 33328 FAX: (954) 680-0305 e-mail: plantnut@shadow.net

From: Tom Croat <croat at mobot.org> on 1997.02.10 at 19:52:05(322) Joe: There is nothing recent. The person most likely to know the current taxonomy is Allistair Hay at the Sydney Botanical Garden who is working on them for the Flora Malesiana project. Tom Croat, MOBOT +More > > Greetings, > > Does anyone have the latest taxonomic information on the genus Colocasia. > Which names in the industry are true species? Also would like descriptions > of each for ID purposes. > > Joe Duft > Jduft@aol.com > >

From: MJ Hatfield <oneota at ames.net> on 1997.10.27 at 20:21:59(1515) I dug my Colocasias (bought simply as Elephant Ears) only to find that two out of four had tuber/rhizome(?)rot. There was nothing on above ground growth to indicate any trouble. The rot was much like what ate one of my Amorphophalluses last year. What might this be? And is the only future preventative to plant them in sterile soil in pots rather than in the ground? I am particularly curious because I have had Sclerotium rolsii (Southern blight) show up in my yard and it has hundreds of host species. (ISU Plant Pathology says that it is rare this far north) A.rolfsii seems to attack a plant right at the crown at soil level so I doubt that this tuber rot is a result ot it. Please, tell me anything. Thanks. MJ Hatfield

From: "Eduardo Goncalves" edggon at hotmail.com> on 2001.02.12 at 19:30:29(5932) Dear Aroiders, Anybody out there has some kind of solid knowledge with Colocasia esculenta varieties, cultivars, etc? Sometime ago Peter told us that there was three varieties: C. esculenta var. esculenta (small, slustering tubers), C. esculenta var. antiquorum (large, solitary tuber) and C. esculenta var. aquatilis (long stolons). Are those varieties published anywhere? (i.e. with authors, etc) What happened with variety illustris? What about that form with an yellow blot in the middle of the leaves? The only complete treatment I have (my Precambrian 'Das Pflanzenreich') cites lots of varieties and I wonder most of them became synonims. Other interesting thing is that Engler never use tuber characters (except for the description of the variety aquatilis) so this is a new approach. Who did start to use tuber information on the classification? Engler's classification uses the proportional lenght of the sterile appendix. Is this still important or was it proven to be highly variable (like almost anything in aroids)? I am sorry if these questions were already answered before, but I couldn't find any satisfatory answer in the aroid-l archives. Very best wishes, Eduardo. +More _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

From: "D.J. Leedy" djleedy at netex.quik.com> on 2001.02.13 at 00:50:05(5936) The following is on page 18 of the book TARO - A Review of Colocasia Esculenta and Its Potentials, Edited by Jaw-Kai Wang and published by the University of Hawaii Press, copyright 1983. "There are probably thousands of cultivars of Colocasia in the world. More than three hundred named varieties have been listed in Hawaii; some of these are undoubtedly synonyms, but there can be little doubt that perhaps a hundred and fifty to two hundred and fifty cultivars were known in prehistoric days. Colocasia cultivars are differentiated on the basis of siz; leaf shape and size; color of petiole, leaf and corm flesh; flower shape and size; and their various uses. The most comprehensive attempt to clasify and describe Colocasia cultivars was carried out by Whitney, Bowers, and Takahashi (1939) in Hawaii........" +More ----- Original Message ----- To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 1:30 PM Subject: Colocasia > Dear Aroiders, > > Anybody out there has some kind of solid knowledge with Colocasia > esculenta varieties, cultivars, etc? Sometime ago Peter told us that there > was three varieties: C. esculenta var. esculenta (small, slustering tubers), > C. esculenta var. antiquorum (large, solitary tuber) and C. esculenta var. > aquatilis (long stolons). Are those varieties published anywhere? (i.e. with > authors, etc) What happened with variety illustris? What about that form > with an yellow blot in the middle of the leaves? The only complete treatment > I have (my Precambrian 'Das Pflanzenreich') cites lots of varieties and I > wonder most of them became synonims. Other interesting thing is that Engler > never use tuber characters (except for the description of the variety > aquatilis) so this is a new approach. Who did start to use tuber information > on the classification? Engler's classification uses the proportional lenght > of the sterile appendix. Is this still important or was it proven to be > highly variable (like almost anything in aroids)? I am sorry if these > questions were already answered before, but I couldn't find any satisfatory > answer in the aroid-l archives. > > Very best wishes, > > Eduardo. > > > _________________________________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > >

From: "Eduardo Goncalves" edggon at hotmail.com> on 2001.02.15 at 18:21:21(5945) Dear D.J.Leedy, Thanks for your information. I was waiting for more replies, but it seems that serious classification of Colocasia is an arid topic. I think I will have to face Engler's classification. Best wishes, Eduardo. +More >From: "D.J. Leedy" Reply-To: aroid-l@mobot.org To: Multiple recipients of >list AROID-L Subject: Re: Colocasia Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:50:03 -0600 >(CST) > >The following is on page 18 of the book TARO - A Review of Colocasia >Esculenta and Its Potentials, Edited by Jaw-Kai Wang and published by the >University of Hawaii Press, copyright 1983. > >"There are probably thousands of cultivars of Colocasia in the world. More >than three hundred named varieties have been listed in Hawaii; some of >these are undoubtedly synonyms, but there can be little doubt that perhaps >a hundred and fifty to two hundred and fifty cultivars were known in >prehistoric days. > >Colocasia cultivars are differentiated on the basis of siz; leaf shape and >size; color of petiole, leaf and corm flesh; flower shape and size; and >their various uses. The most comprehensive attempt to clasify and describe >Colocasia cultivars was carried out by Whitney, Bowers, and Takahashi >(1939) in Hawaii........" > > >----- Original Message ----- From: Eduardo Goncalves To: Multiple >recipients of list AROID-L Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 1:30 PM Subject: >Colocasia > > > > Dear Aroiders, > > Anybody out there has some kind of solid knowledge >with Colocasia > esculenta varieties, cultivars, etc? Sometime ago Peter >told us that there > was three varieties: C. esculenta var. esculenta >(small, slustering tubers), > C. esculenta var. antiquorum (large, solitary >tuber) and C. esculenta var. > aquatilis (long stolons). Are those >varieties published anywhere? (i.e. with > authors, etc) What happened with >variety illustris? What about that form > with an yellow blot in the middle >of the leaves? The only complete treatment > I have (my Precambrian 'Das >Pflanzenreich') cites lots of varieties and I > wonder most of them became >synonims. Other interesting thing is that Engler > never use tuber >characters (except for the description of the variety > aquatilis) so this >is a new approach. Who did start to use tuber information > on the >classification? Engler's classification uses the proportional lenght > of >the sterile appendix. Is this still important or was it proven to be > >highly variable (like almost anything in aroids)? I am sorry if these > >questions were already answered before, but I couldn't find any satisfatory > > answer in the aroid-l archives. > > Very best wishes, > > Eduardo. > > > >_________________________________________________________________________ > >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > > > _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

From: "Julius Boos" ju-bo at email.msn.com> on 2001.02.16 at 14:17:48(5950) Dear Eduardo, I do not have 'hard' information at hand, so I did not respond, but think that when you 'get into' the literature you will find that a lot if not most of the names used for the different forms/cultivars of this species are mostly 'informal'/unpublished names, and may number in the hundreds, especially the cultivars from the Pacific region, like Fiji and Hawaii. Good luck! Julius +More >>Dear D.J.Leedy, Thanks for your information. I was waiting for more replies, but it seems that serious classification of Colocasia is an arid topic. I think I will have to face Engler's classification. Best wishes, Eduardo. >From: "D.J. Leedy" Reply-To: aroid-l@mobot.org To: Multiple recipients of >list AROID-L Subject: Re: Colocasia Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:50:03 -0600 >(CST) > >The following is on page 18 of the book TARO - A Review of Colocasia >Esculenta and Its Potentials, Edited by Jaw-Kai Wang and published by the >University of Hawaii Press, copyright 1983. > >"There are probably thousands of cultivars of Colocasia in the world. More >than three hundred named varieties have been listed in Hawaii; some of >these are undoubtedly synonyms, but there can be little doubt that perhaps >a hundred and fifty to two hundred and fifty cultivars were known in >prehistoric days. > >Colocasia cultivars are differentiated on the basis of siz; leaf shape and >size; color of petiole, leaf and corm flesh; flower shape and size; and >their various uses. The most comprehensive attempt to clasify and describe >Colocasia cultivars was carried out by Whitney, Bowers, and Takahashi >(1939) in Hawaii........" > > >----- Original Message ----- From: Eduardo Goncalves To: Multiple >recipients of list AROID-L Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 1:30 PM Subject: >Colocasia > > > > Dear Aroiders, > > Anybody out there has some kind of solid knowledge >with Colocasia > esculenta varieties, cultivars, etc? Sometime ago Peter >told us that there > was three varieties: C. esculenta var. esculenta >(small, slustering tubers), > C. esculenta var. antiquorum (large, solitary >tuber) and C. esculenta var. > aquatilis (long stolons). Are those >varieties published anywhere? (i.e. with > authors, etc) What happened with >variety illustris? What about that form > with an yellow blot in the middle >of the leaves? The only complete treatment > I have (my Precambrian 'Das >Pflanzenreich') cites lots of varieties and I > wonder most of them became >synonims. Other interesting thing is that Engler > never use tuber >characters (except for the description of the variety > aquatilis) so this >is a new approach. Who did start to use tuber information > on the >classification? Engler's classification uses the proportional lenght > of >the sterile appendix. Is this still important or was it proven to be > >highly variable (like almost anything in aroids)? I am sorry if these > >questions were already answered before, but I couldn't find any satisfatory > > answer in the aroid-l archives. > > Very best wishes, > > Eduardo. > > > >_________________________________________________________________________ > >Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. > > > > _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

From: StellrJ at aol.com on 2001.02.16 at 16:05:37(5951) In a message dated 2/16/01 9:18:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, ju-bo@email.msn.com writes: << but think +More that when you 'get into' the literature you will find that a lot if not most of the names used for the different forms/cultivars of this species are mostly 'informal'/unpublished names, and may number in the hundreds, >> Well, I can say this. Eduardo's original question was about subspecies (esculenta/antiquorum/aquatilis), and their classification based on tuber form. Now we have gotten into cultivars, a completely different issue from subspecies. No doubt, each subspecies has a number of cultivars; it would be interesting to see if any one subspecies has significantly more cultivars than the others. Jason Hernandez Naturalist-at-Large

From: "Julius Boos" ju-bo at email.msn.com> on 2001.02.17 at 03:03:22(5952) In a message dated 2/16/01 9:18:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, ju-bo@email.msn.com writes: The 'subspecies' (??)Colocasia e. esculenta, Colocasia e. 'antiquorum' and +More C.e. aquatilis (?) are pretty 'loose', and are considered to be just VARIETIES or cultivars of one species, much like the 'new' one that was discussed in Aroideana Vol. 11, No. 1 of March 1988, it was from Nigeria, Africa, and as this article points out (correctly I believe!) the names C. esculenta var. antiquorum, the 'eddoe' type, and C.e. var. esculenta, the 'dasheen'- type of corm, are in the literature as VARIETIES based on the form of the tubers of the SAME species, they are NOT sub-species. Varieties (written as "var." in the article) are just another word for cultivar, so we must conclude from this and other literature that we are dealing with only ONE species, Colocasia esculenta, and we know that in this species there are hundreds of 'vars', cultivars, or whatever else we choose to call them. There are MANY (hundreds!) cultivars of the 'dasheen'-type variety, three (that I know of) of the 'eddoes' type, and many of the non-tuber forming type, which is used for its young leaves. Sincerely, Julius Boos (who LOVES to eat ALL of the sub-species/cultivars/varieties of this WONDERFUL plant!!!) W.P.B., Florida. Well, I can say this. Eduardo's original question was about subspecies (esculenta/antiquorum/aquatilis), and their classification based on tuber form. Now we have gotten into cultivars, a completely different issue from subspecies. No doubt, each subspecies has a number of cultivars; it would be interesting to see if any one subspecies has significantly more cultivars than the others. Jason Hernandez Naturalist-at-Large

Note: this is a very old post, so no reply function is available.