Roger Whitlock wrote: "Is this discussion progressing toward a state of total enlightenment on the part of all those concerned with tiny aroids, or are we spinning our wheels over nomenclatural nits?" I have no idea, Roger, but some of us enjoy the sound of those spinning wheels (aethereal sphaeres?), just as some enjoy the sound of the big crash which sometimes follows. When you said tiny aroids, it reminded me that little Ambrosinia bassii has come back this year in better, bigger condition than last year. Maybe it will bloom this year. There are at least four, maybe five, of us in my circle here in the greater Washington D.C. area who buy from Jane McGary; and one of us flowered Ambrosinia last year. Mine has yet to bloom. Here's another nit for your collection: some people use the word "type" as a noun, and use "typical" as its adjectival form. As you implied in your post, what most of us regard as the "typical" form in the layman's sense of the word is often not the same as the "typical form" in the botanist's sense. Nor is either necessarily the oldest, least evolved, basic form of the species. Jim McKenney jimmckenney@jimmckenney.com Montgomery County, Maryland, USA, USDA zone 7, where Crocus biflorus melantherus is blooming today. My Virtual Maryland Garden http://www.jimmckenney.com/ Webmaster Potomac Valley Chapter, NARGS Editor PVC Bulletin http://www.pvcnargs.org/Bulletins/ Webmaster Potomac Lily Society http://www.potomaclilysociety.org/