Graham Rice
Sat, 07 Apr 2007 04:35:59 PDT
The key in Peter Boyces book goes like this:

1.	Tuber rhizomatous		2
	Tuber discoid		5

2.	Spadix-appendix massivly to stoutly clavate-cylindric, 
subequal to more than half as long as spathe limb.	A. concinnatum
	Spadix-appendix more or less slender-clavate, quarter to half 
as long as spathe limb.	3

3.	Staminate flowers yellow before anthesis	A. italicum
	Staminate flowers purple before anthesis	4

4.	Spathe-limb pale green, more or less stained with brownish 
purple; leaves weakly hastate (NW Turkey)	A. byzantinum
	Spathe-limb usually greenish white; leaves sagittate-hastate 
(throughout Europe)	A. maculatum

5.	etc etc

He also says that A. concinnatum "has no close relatives" and 
describes the silver markings on its leaves as "cloudy".

Whatever the nomenclatural history of these plants I think it's clear 
that A. italicum and A. concinnatum are not related.

Did someone say they had an email address for Peter Boyce? Let's ask 
him about the origin this synonymy.

Also, there's an Aroid mailing list, here:…

Graham Rice
Milford, PA
20F - arum foliage rather limp after 60F just a few days ago.

>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
>pbs mailing list

More information about the pbs mailing list