Yes, D. purpurea is a valid name and a real plant. It is somewhat smaller than ISI 2011-25, and has more hair, particularly on the petioles.
T
> Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 13:41:02 -0400
> From: wusong@evilemail.com
> To: pbs@lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [pbs] New Drimiopsis
>
> That's the one.
>
> I wasn't sure if *D. purpurea* was even a valid name. I've only seen it ("*D.
> purpurea*")on some Japanese plant blogs, and the ones I saw were definitely
> the same plant as the one I rec'd, and the locality given was the same.
>
> Thanks and best regards,
>
> Dave
>
> On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Tim Harvey <zigur@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Do you mean the plant currently offered by ISI??
> >
> > http://huntington.org/BotanicalDiv/ISI2011/…
> >
> > It is not 'aka' D. purpurea, which is a different plant.
> >
> > T
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > pbs mailing list
> > pbs@lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php
> > http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/
> >
> _______________________________________________
> pbs mailing list
> pbs@lists.ibiblio.org
> http://pacificbulbsociety.org/list.php
> http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/