I just received a very quick response from botanist Pete Boyce in Malaysia. It now appears Colocasia antiquorum will be described as a valid species in an upcoming paper that has yet to be published. Brian is ahead of me on this one and often-time many other subjects.
I have the name of the paper and will soon have a PDF copy but at this point won't be able to share it until it is officially published. Pete tells me there are several important differences between Colocasia antiquorum and Colocasia esculenta.
If you grow this plant feel free to use the name Colocasia antiquorum minus the referral to it being a variation.
Steve
This message was edited May 8, 2010 12:29 AM
Another calocasia ID needed
Interesting Steve!
So will that mean that Asian Taro and Pacific Island Taro are established as two separate species? Colocasia esculenta & Colocasia antiquorum?
So from the sound of it, Colocasia antiquorum is (going to be) more appropriate for this than Colocasia esculenta var. antiquorum
Yes Keonikale, that would be right!
How things can change overnight. It has some quick sense though!
Colocasia esculenta never produces runners.
Colocasia antiquorum does produce runners.
It will be interesting to see what the experts put together that separates the species!
Dave, the only thing I know for certain right now is this sentence from Pete's message tonight, "Defining characters (of Colocasia antiquorum) include a glossy leaf and the spathe limb opening wide, there is a slew of synonymy too, but I don't have it to hand". Pete is currently away from his home with his wife and his laptop is on his desk. He answered from his wife's computer but promised I would have the new description shortly. After I read that, with Pete's permission, I will try to bring you up to speed. Since you now have his email address you might want to tell him of your personal interest.
By the way, there is one form of Colocasia esculenta I am aware of that produces runners. That one may be a part of the synonyms Pete mentioned but when I grow it in water it often produces runners a meter long. Unless Pete has changed his mind, he identified that specimen as Colocasia esculenta and the spathe limb does not open wide as he mentioned in his note.
You are very right how botanical science can change. We are literally dealing with a living, breathing science. So little is actually known about aroids some well educated research scientist is always learning something new, especially since DNA has made it relatively easy to find genetic characteristics that are clearly different but not easily observed.
Stay tuned, we will all learn together.
Steve
This message was edited May 8, 2010 3:06 PM
I want to pop in here with my $0.02 US in order to provide some balance. First of all, I am a plant scientist by training so I know the importance of proper nomenclature, especially so in being an active breeder of aroid species. That being said, I have to oppose any idea that somehow, botanists or taxonomists have the last word on anything, especially when they are not on this forum to post their rationale for their positions. What these folks proclaim as proven conclusively and scientifically today, a few years from now another scientist may just as vehemently proclaim as error and that a revision of the genus is called for. This happens often enough that, IMHO, an anal position on plant naming is what is truly uncalled for. It is good to remember that NO botanist/taxonomist is receiving their botanical nomenclature from On High!!
We really do need a practical and usable way to know what plants we are actually growing, but I feel that neither of the two extremes work very well. The extreme of vendors and gardeners just coming up with their own varied names for the same plant obviously doesn't work, but the wholesale lumping of tens or even hundreds of morphotypes into one species under the banner of botanical taxonomy doesn't help either. Perhaps a movement towards "DNA barcoding" will help sort things out scientifically, but that won't help us as gardeners much now until a workable common naming system is devised in parallel with the strict scientific naming system. It doesn't help gardeners to be told that something looking like a Colocasia is actually a Xanthosoma, unless some rationale can be offered that makes sense in a gardening context. I'm afraid that many gardeners will just throw up their hands (and labels) and just keep calling everything an "elephant ear".
Is that what we really want?
LariAnn
Aroidia Research
While describing a plant as say Black Magic Elephant Ears may mean something to a gardener in the United States, it may not be so comprehensible in China, India, Ethiopia, Norway, or elsewhere.
Binomial Nomenclature is the best Universal method that has been devised to describe the natural world.
Science is a systematic study through observation and experiment to develop an organized body of truthful knowledge. There is no rule that we must immediately provide an ultimate unchanging answer to every question. The idea is to find the truth to the best of our knowledge, and correct it when better information comes along.
It is not fair to criticize botanists for continually working to correct their science. That is the nature of the method!
It is great for gardeners to enjoy common names, but they are not of much use in describing species.
Rather than complain about botanists striving to get the information right, maybe approach the Universities and other Botanical Institutions with your own better method.
Criticism is not for botanists who are continually correcting their science; it is for people who insist on being anal about something that is subject to change due to the continual work of botanists to correct their science.
Your description of what science is represents an idealized concept that I have found is rare in practice; reality is that scientists are people who have to acquire reliable income to support themselves and their families. University tenure requires a consistent stream of publications coming from each professor, no matter how good (or bad) a scientist or teacher they are. Therefore, getting that publication out is primary, not whether the science is ultimately good or bad - it is just human nature. Very noble (and financially self-sufficient) scientists may drop out of the system to pursue pure science, but in all the labs I have worked in or have been associated with, I've run into VERY few of these rare entities. The majority are regular folks who have bills to pay and can't afford to lose tenure or their jobs due to lack of sufficient published papers. The announcement of a new species is, perhaps, the easiest type of paper to publish, and correcting it in the future just enables the publication of another paper to meet the requirements.
I imagine that dedicated scientists would prefer to spend their time doing good research instead of pumping out papers just to meet the requirements of academia, but if they want to keep their jobs, they have to comply.
Before making declarations, try working in the sciences and getting a good grasp on how academia works. We should complain whenever anyone makes unreasonable declarations about something with which they have no personal experience. I believe scientists are "big boys" and can speak for themselves if required; they don't need a spokesperson.
Also, it is noteworthy to remember who the bulk of the forum audience is - is it gardeners, or scientists?
To recap, my criticism is directed at those who would be anal or get bent out of shape over a plant name, given how changes have been and will continue to be made. An example of a truly scientific statement would be: "at this time, that Colocasia illustrated is considered to be Colocasia esculenta . . ."
I can't help but feel like I'm being anal myself wanting to ID the plants I grow, but I'm also OK with the idea that this is a chancing science, and that plants often change names. I saw it happen with some of my favorite palms (Adonidia to
Veitchia), and again with some philodendrons. To me a lot of this doesn't make a lot of sense - because I'm not a botanist or a ecologist. I try very hard to stay on top of this, but I'll admit it can be daunting - and when I do use the formal names, most people roll their eyes at me.
I assume the criticism isn't towards people who want to ID the plants they own (like m) as much as it is towards people who want a fixed name on something without the chance of it being able to change (for the betterment of science) down the road? I also assume the idea is to correct the misuse of "common" names. The very fact some people will refer to a Monstera AND a Colocasia as an Elephant Ear is what bothers me the most personally.
Of course those who want to ID the plants they own are totally reasonable in their desire. The issue is whether there is a way to ID plants for the everyday gardener that doesn't involve having a degree in botany to make sense out of. Scientists need the formal naming system started by Linnaeus but gardeners need something as accurate in it's own way, yet simpler and more self-evident. Since we lack that, we have rampant confusion reigning in the "common name" department. I don't claim to have an answer or "the" answer to this dilemma, but because the formal naming system is not always "user friendly", the need for something that is user friendly is there. I imagine the solution will require a sort of registration such as is in place for species and cultivar names, but geared more towards cross-referencing the scientific names with a new consistent common naming for use by non-scientists. Using an example of one of my own plants, if, as the originator of Alocasia x portora, I also registered the common name as Alocasia "Thunder Waves", then there would be the scientific designation cross-referenced with a registered common name. Just a start to get folks thinking . . .
I find your recommendation to be excellent LariAnn. I would like to suggest you work with Brian to introduce such an idea to the IAS board. I can assure you I will back your idea if it were to come to attention of either the officers or the board. In fact, if you will send a proposal to both Brian and myself I will gladly submit it myself to the board.
Just in the past week the officers have been having personal discussions on how we can make the IAS of more value to growers with little to no interest in science. That is the approach I have been taking as secretary since last September and our membership is growing nicely. I encouraged LariAnn to write an article for our newsletter and she did a great job on Elephant Ears in a recent issue. It is also my understanding she submitted an article that will appear in the next issue of our journal Aroideana and I am certain that one will be received as well. I believe all of you are likely to find presentations on the horticulture of aroids at our annual September meeting in Miami.
Of course, then someone will need to volunteer to make it happen since all the work on the IAS site is done on a volunteer basis.
On a related note, I was just informed in private mail some of my comments in this thread were unprofessional and self serving. I do not use the names of known scientists to enhance my own credentials since I have none. I am a grower, nothing else. I collect aroids and study them personally, nothing else. I use the names of these experts to let growers know the positions of aroid scientists that study these species for a living.
If my comments were offensive I immediately apologize. In fact, if the regulars on Dave's Garden feel my comments are of no value I will withdraw my participation immediately. I only came to the forum by personal request of several regulars but if the information I try to supply is of no value and the majority would rather this forum not have my participation I will immediately withdraw.
Again, my sincere apologies to anyone offended Scientists disagree all the time so I can't see any reason the same should not happen in a forum. We all learn from each other and sometimes individual positions will not always come out on top. But then again, they sometimes do.
Steve Lucas
This message was edited May 10, 2010 2:19 PM
My apologies if I have appeared negative in any way.
TB, let's see your "Bunn Long" (Bun-Long-Wu from the Chinese) for comparison.
I have not read or taken any post here on this thread as being negative and definitely nothing that I have read has been in an unprofessional manner much less self serving to any that has added here. For heavens sake's ...can't we all just get along and learn together where Aroids are concerned?
Admiring Aroids and learning from each other should be what it's all about on this forum and if anyone takes a post as an "attack" toward's them directly then I suggest you should view the post as being more constructive! I for one have learned a great deal from Steve, Dave, LariAnn and other's that are highly more educated and knowledgable concerning Aroids as a whole and I honestly hope to learn a whole lot more.
Rachel
LariAnn, I have approached the board of the IAS on your idea and the response is favorable.
On the subject of Colocasia antiquorum please read aroid botanist Pete Boyce response to my request to him on this thread. Plant's don't always look alike and there is always room for a difference of professional and horticultural opinion.
http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/t/1093526/
Both natural variation and professional opinion often differ and I will be the last to claim my opinion to anything in the field of Araceae should be taken and gospel!
Steve
Steve,
Thanks - I've been quite busy and when I can I'll put together a proposal for the naming scheme i envisage. The final version (which I hope will include input from other knowledgeable and interested botanical parties) could be a model for the ICRAs for other plants and plant families. It may be too much to expect, but somehow I'd love to see an end to the common name confusion and a happy collaboration between the scientific and horticultural communities.
I certainly understand about variation in plants, but also know that from personal experience, one can see by the way in which a plant grows throughout its entire life cycle, as well as genetic compatibilities, where they relate to each other and where what appear to me to be sharp specific or generic lines show up. It is time consuming to grow out plants to learn this, but short of a complete mapping and cross-referencing of all genes in all plants of the group being studied, it is the way I know of to get a "gestalt" grasp on who is what and who is related to who in my plant collection. I wish I could travel to far off lands and look for new plants, but that would be only a start. Growing the plant through an entire life cycle and comparing notes with those collected about other allegedly related plants yields the real definitive data. Science can be tedious and very time consuming, but the end result is, to me, worth the effort.
Example: I know of at least two plants in my collection that are named species and that are also sterile. This, IMHO, should not happen, and would not happen had the scientists who originally described these plants actually grown them out and seen this for themselves. A sterile plant cannot (IMHO) be a true species, for how can it sexually reproduce?
LariAnn
Aroidia Research
I can promise you LariAnn many of us will thank you for helping to make this available.
Once you have a proposal just let us know and I will gladly present it. It is very much time that growers have a reliable source to turn to to help sort out the confusion that is so obvious as a result of forums like this one.
Steve