Peter Boyce on Arum italicum and A. concinnatum

Graham Rice
Mon, 16 Apr 2007 13:49:31 PDT
I emailed Peter Boyce on the issue of Arum synonymy we were 
discussing last week.

Here's what he says:

This issue of synonymy is linked to the true application of the name 
Arum italicum subvar. (not var.) marmoratum (Schott) Engl. Pflanzenr. 
IV.23F: 85 (1920) [basionym Arum marmoratum Schott, Prod. Syst. 
Aroid: 86 (1860)] and is nothing to do with with the heterotypic 
cultivar (culton) 'Marmoratum' Hort.

Schott's type of his name marmoratum (an excellent life-size painting 
with fully diagnostic characters) is unquestionably conspecific with 
A. concinnatum.

All clear?!

I think what it all boils down to is this: Schott first published the 
name Arum marmoratum in 1860. Later, in 1920, Engler reduced it in 
rank to Arum italicum subvar. marmoratum. However,  back in 1860 
Schott had illustrated it with a perfect painting of Arum 
concinnatum! So the original publication of the name Arum marmoratum 
was invalid.

The cultivar name 'Marmoratum' was used much later and, as has been 
remarked, might well be better as a group name.

I think that's it... rushing to pack to leave for two weeks in 
England. And, as it's snowing here in PA!, I want to pop out and see 
if the skunk cabbage is doing its thing and melting the snow.

Graham Rice

BTW The new edition of the RHS PlantFinder is now online, I've 
written it up here:…

More information about the pbs mailing list