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:
http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/index.php/…
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
pbs@lists.ibiblio.org
http://www.pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php