Many many thanks Pankaj. Regards. Dinesh
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 2:03 AM, Dr Pankaj Kumar <[email protected]>wrote: > Yes sir, actually both names are pointing towards the same plant but I > believe there is some mistake on both links. > > Arisaema murrayi (J.Graham) Hook. -- Bot. Mag. 74: t.4388. 1848. > Arisaema murrayi Hook. & Blatt. -- J. Proc. Asiat. Soc. Bengal 26: > 365, descr. emend. 1931. > > In the second name most probably Blatter has added some more points > to the description hence it is mentioned, but with reference to > botanical nomenclature, first one should be accepted second is just an > additional information. > By the way this is endemic to South India. > Pankaj > > > > > On Jun 27, 8:17 pm, Dinesh Valke <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear friends, > > > > While wanting to compile common names for *Arisaema murrayi ... *the > basic > > exercise of settling on the botanical name came to these two instances: > > > > 1) ... *Arisaema murrayi *Hooker Hook. ex Blatter ... > http://www.aroid.org/genera/arisaema/herold/Pages/arlist.php... > > International Aroid Society > > 2) ... *Arisaema murrayi *(J.Graham) Hook. ... syn.: *Arum murrayi* > J.Graham > > ... http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl/record/kew-15524...The Plants List > > > > Naive query: are these both one and the same ? > > > > Regards. > > Dinesh >
