Mary Sue Ittner
Fri, 06 Apr 2007 18:18:05 PDT
Thanks to all of you who have contributed to this thread to help me figure 
this out. I greatly appreciated reading the Peter Boyce article from The 
Plantsman and looking at all the leaf variations. In this article he 
includes subsp. neglectum with subsp. italicum under subsp. italicum . What 
I guess is still a little puzzling is where Arum concinnatum fits since it 
sounds like the cultivar Arum italicum 'Marmoratum' or Arum italium subsp. 
italicum 'Marmoratum' is not the same thing as Arum concinnatum (syn. Arum 
italicum var. marmoratum).

Since Giorgio's pictures:…
are wild forms, they wouldn't be named cultivars so I've written it on the 
wiki following John Grimshaw's suggestion that this is a group referred to 
in Italy as 'marmoratum'. I've not capitalized it, but do I need to use 
quotes to convey the correct meaning?

The article from Peter Boyce only mentions the two subspecies he suggests 
uniting. What about the subspecies pictured by Arnold, albispathum ? It is 
still listed by Kew. How is it different? Can anyone tell me anything about 
it that can be added to the wiki?

Would all the other pictures on the wiki be considered Arum italicum subsp. 
italicum or can I just leave them as Arum italicum? I've read 
explanations  a couple of times about the difference between species and 
subspecies and at the time I think I understand, but then later when I 
think about it I can't remember. So I must still be  confused about whether 
when there are subspecies they are considered different from the species 
which can still stand alone or whether when there are subspecies all of the 
plants are supposed to be divided into the subspecies if you can figure it out.

Thanks again to everyone.

Mary Sue

More information about the pbs mailing list