James Waddick
Fri, 06 Apr 2007 11:16:21 PDT
>In his 1993 monograph, Peter Boyce treats A. concinnatum as a
>separate species, as does the RHS
>Also, Peter Boyce has recently revised his opinion on A. italicum,
>concluding that subsp. italicum and subsp. neglectum cannot be
>separated. I'm sending Mary Sue a pdf of his article in The Plantsman
>magazine (March 2006) in which he explains this. Unfortunatately, I
>cannot make it available to all as this is copyright material and I
>only have permission for limited private circulation.
'Marmoratum' is now treated as a cultivar.

>  >Accepted Name:  Arum concinnatum Schott, Icon. Aroid.: t. 39 (1857).

Dear Mary Sue;
	I totally agree with Graham Rice. Peter Boyce is the top of 
the 'food chain' here. He gives convincing arguments for separation 
of A. concinnatum from A. italicum although both are in the same 
subgenus ( along with the sp. A. maculatum and A. byzantinum subg 
Arum and all incidentally hardy here).

	Calling 'Marmoratum' a cultivar in the traditional sense 
seems pushing it unless you consider it a seed strain, but there are 
so many color forms of italicum and they hybridize and vary wildly.

		Best	Jim W.
Dr. James W. Waddick
8871 NW Brostrom Rd.
Kansas City Missouri 64152-2711
Ph.    816-746-1949
Zone 5 Record low -23F
	Summer 100F +

More information about the pbs mailing list