From: "Wilbert Hetterscheid" hetter at worldonline.nl> on 2001.06.21 at 16:03:22(6792)
And now some hardcore cultonomy to try and solve this problem:
In order to maintain the well-known cultivarname Epipremnum 'Aureum'
(whether this belongs to E. pinnatum or not is actually not essential in the
nomenclature of cultivars!!!), we could urge Peter to conserve the name E.
mooreense against E. aureum, so that the cultivar name 'Aureum' may keep on
keeping its well-known status. Howse zat for a practical solution?
Another "solution" would be to have the species E. aurem AND a cultivar
'Aureum' of that same species..... Somehow that doesn't sound ideal.
Wilbert (sticking his nose in climbing aroids for the first
time........auch!!!!)
| +More |
----- Original Message -----
To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L
Sent: woensdag 20 juni 2001 21:51
Subject: Re: Info on Epipremnum spp.
Laura
Then it is still only a rumor as far as you know? I mean, if aureum is a
cultivar of E. pinnatum, then it's the same plant basically?
Not quite that straightforward (is it ever!). For a long time the status of
E. aureum was problematic. It was eventually laid to rest by being made a
cv. of the widespread and highly polymorphic E. pinnatum. This is the stance
(with the caveats that you have now read) I took when I published my account
of Epipremnum in West and Central Malesia a few years back. However, since
then I have been working on Epipremnum in East Malesia and the Pacific.
There is a plant, E. mooreense, describe from the Pacific that was long
considered to be a distinct species. During a visit to Paris Herbarium late
in 1998 I came across the type specimen on E. mooreense (collected from a
remote island mountain, not in a cultivated place) and lo and behold, it is
identical with the thing we call cv. Aureum. In my opinion E. mooreense is
the same species as E. aureum and is DIFFERENT from E. pinnatum on the
characters I outline in my paper. The earliest name for the species is E.
aureum.
Pete
|
IAS on Facebook
IAS on Instagram
