Re: [aroid-l] A. spruceanum

From: "Wilbert Hetterscheid (prive)" hetter at worldonline.nl> on 2004.01.30 at 16:56:13(11047) Hi Rand, There IS of course always a slim chance that somebody in Leiden shipped you a real Amorph instead of the Dracontium and, oh wonder, a bulbil-forming species (like Am. bulbifer or Am. muelleri)................ Wilbert +More > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: aroid-l-owner@lists.ncsu.edu > [mailto:aroid-l-owner@lists.ncsu.edu]Namens Rand Nicholson > Verzonden: vrijdag 30 januari 2004 14:30 > Aan: aroid-l@lists.ncsu.edu > Onderwerp: Re: [aroid-l] A. spruceanum > > > Hello Wilbert: > > No real puzzle. > > Obviously, in a highly excitable state of phalloid enthusiasm > after receiving my shipment, I mislabeled Dracontium > spruceanum as Amorphophallus spruceanum. Wishful thinking or > duh? I suppose this is how some of those ugly taxonomic > rumors get started. However, D. spruceanum _does_ look almost > exactly like A. spruceanum (which, of course, does not exist) > to my layman's eye. And, a rather large not-a-bulbil is > developing on top of the leaf petiole. Do these eventually > ever _do_ anything, or are they just arthritic wannabees? > > That clears that up. > > Thanks, and drop over for a beer some time you are in the country. > > Rand > Eastern Maritime Canada z 5b (& -16 C.) > > > > >Hi Rand, > > > >This is a bit of a puzzling message: if A. stands for > Amorphophallus, then > >there's something wrong with the name because Amorphophallus > spruceanum > >doesn't exist. I did also send Dracontium spruceanum to some > of you but > >that's hardly an Amorph and Dracontiums do NOT make foliar > bulbils, although > >they DO develop swollen joints in the leaves to some degree. > > > >Cheerio, > >Wilbert

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