I have what was labelled as Polygonum bistorta 'Superbum' in my garden.
The RHS does not have it listed but does have Persicaria bistorta
'Superba'. Are they the same thing? What is the correct current
taxonmy of this plant? I assume that somewhere along the line the name
has changed but need to know which is the right name. As the 03/04
Plantfinder has it has P. bistorta 'Superna' that that is the right
name. If so then what happened to Polygonum?

Many thanks

P.

papa19/2/04 5:25

I have what was labelled as Polygonum bistorta 'Superbum' in my garden.
The RHS does not have it listed but does have Persicaria bistorta
'Superba'. Are they the same thing? What is the correct current
taxonmy of this plant? I assume that somewhere along the line the name
has changed but need to know which is the right name. As the 03/04
Plantfinder has it has P. bistorta 'Superna' that that is the right
name. If so then what happened to Polygonum?

The copy of the RHS encyclopedia I'm looking at now says:
"Polygonumm bistorta 'Superbum'. The picture is of a 'vigorous,
clump-forming perennial that from arly to late summer produces spikes of
soft pink flowers above oval leaves.' It grows to about 2.5' and spreads to
about 2'. This copy was published in 1989.
The 1999 version says "Persicaria bistorta syn. Polygonum bistorta 'Superba'
and to me, the two pics look identical. HTH

--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

papa19/2/04 5:25

I have what was labelled as Polygonum bistorta 'Superbum' in my garden.
The RHS does not have it listed but does have Persicaria bistorta
'Superba'. Are they the same thing? What is the correct current
taxonmy of this plant? I assume that somewhere along the line the name
has changed but need to know which is the right name. As the 03/04
Plantfinder has it has P. bistorta 'Superna' that that is the right
name. If so then what happened to Polygonum?

The copy of the RHS encyclopedia I'm looking at now says:
"Polygonumm bistorta 'Superbum'. The picture is of a 'vigorous,
clump-forming perennial that from arly to late summer produces spikes of
soft pink flowers above oval leaves.' It grows to about 2.5' and spreads to
about 2'. This copy was published in 1989.
The 1999 version says "Persicaria bistorta syn. Polygonum bistorta 'Superba'
and to me, the two pics look identical. HTH

--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

papa19/2/04 5:25

I have what was labelled as Polygonum bistorta 'Superbum' in my garden.
The RHS does not have it listed but does have Persicaria bistorta
'Superba'. Are they the same thing? What is the correct current
taxonmy of this plant? I assume that somewhere along the line the name
has changed but need to know which is the right name. As the 03/04
Plantfinder has it has P. bistorta 'Superna' that that is the right
name. If so then what happened to Polygonum?

The copy of the RHS encyclopedia I'm looking at now says:
"Polygonumm bistorta 'Superbum'. The picture is of a 'vigorous,
clump-forming perennial that from arly to late summer produces spikes of
soft pink flowers above oval leaves.' It grows to about 2.5' and spreads to
about 2'. This copy was published in 1989.
The 1999 version says "Persicaria bistorta syn. Polygonum bistorta 'Superba'
and to me, the two pics look identical. HTH

--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

In article , papa papanix@removen
ospam.btopenworld.com writes
I have what was labelled as Polygonum bistorta 'Superbum' in my garden.
The RHS does not have it listed but does have Persicaria bistorta
'Superba'. Are they the same thing? What is the correct current
taxonmy of this plant? I assume that somewhere along the line the name
has changed but need to know which is the right name. As the 03/04
Plantfinder has it has P. bistorta 'Superna' that that is the right
name. If so then what happened to Polygonum?


Polygonum has been chopped into pieces (as per Cornus and
Chyrsanthemum). The less drastic version - which appears to be what
PlantFinder is using - has Polygonum, Persicaria and Fallopia (the
latter includes Japanese Knotweed). The more drastic version adds
Aconogonum, Koenigia and Bistorta, and perhaps other genera; in this
versions Polygonum bistorta aka Persicaria bistorta becomes Bistorta
officinalis.

The best reference I could find online was from "Contributions to the
Flora of Hawaii". It reads "The genus Polygonum has presented taxonomic
problems since its establishment by Linnaeus in 1753. In the ensuing
years, several authors have attempted to divide the genus into more
natural units, the most recent being Louis-Philippe Ronse Decraene who
chose to investigate the floral morphology of the genus as a research
topic for his Master of Science degree in plant taxonomy. His data
supports the division of Polygonum into two tribes containing ten
genera, a classification that is gaining wide acceptance."

The family boundaries in that area have also been revised - see the
April 2002 issue of Fremontia for an overview (URL:http://www.cnps.org/
publications/Fremontia_Vol30-No2.pdf)
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

In article , papa papanix@removen
ospam.btopenworld.com writes
I have what was labelled as Polygonum bistorta 'Superbum' in my garden.
The RHS does not have it listed but does have Persicaria bistorta
'Superba'. Are they the same thing? What is the correct current
taxonmy of this plant? I assume that somewhere along the line the name
has changed but need to know which is the right name. As the 03/04
Plantfinder has it has P. bistorta 'Superna' that that is the right
name. If so then what happened to Polygonum?


Polygonum has been chopped into pieces (as per Cornus and
Chyrsanthemum). The less drastic version - which appears to be what
PlantFinder is using - has Polygonum, Persicaria and Fallopia (the
latter includes Japanese Knotweed). The more drastic version adds
Aconogonum, Koenigia and Bistorta, and perhaps other genera; in this
versions Polygonum bistorta aka Persicaria bistorta becomes Bistorta
officinalis.

The best reference I could find online was from "Contributions to the
Flora of Hawaii". It reads "The genus Polygonum has presented taxonomic
problems since its establishment by Linnaeus in 1753. In the ensuing
years, several authors have attempted to divide the genus into more
natural units, the most recent being Louis-Philippe Ronse Decraene who
chose to investigate the floral morphology of the genus as a research
topic for his Master of Science degree in plant taxonomy. His data
supports the division of Polygonum into two tribes containing ten
genera, a classification that is gaining wide acceptance."

The family boundaries in that area have also been revised - see the
April 2002 issue of Fremontia for an overview (URL:http://www.cnps.org/
publications/Fremontia_Vol30-No2.pdf)
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

In article , papa papanix@removen
ospam.btopenworld.com writes
I have what was labelled as Polygonum bistorta 'Superbum' in my garden.
The RHS does not have it listed but does have Persicaria bistorta
'Superba'. Are they the same thing? What is the correct current
taxonmy of this plant? I assume that somewhere along the line the name
has changed but need to know which is the right name. As the 03/04
Plantfinder has it has P. bistorta 'Superna' that that is the right
name. If so then what happened to Polygonum?


Polygonum has been chopped into pieces (as per Cornus and
Chyrsanthemum). The less drastic version - which appears to be what
PlantFinder is using - has Polygonum, Persicaria and Fallopia (the
latter includes Japanese Knotweed). The more drastic version adds
Aconogonum, Koenigia and Bistorta, and perhaps other genera; in this
versions Polygonum bistorta aka Persicaria bistorta becomes Bistorta
officinalis.

The best reference I could find online was from "Contributions to the
Flora of Hawaii". It reads "The genus Polygonum has presented taxonomic
problems since its establishment by Linnaeus in 1753. In the ensuing
years, several authors have attempted to divide the genus into more
natural units, the most recent being Louis-Philippe Ronse Decraene who
chose to investigate the floral morphology of the genus as a research
topic for his Master of Science degree in plant taxonomy. His data
supports the division of Polygonum into two tribes containing ten
genera, a classification that is gaining wide acceptance."

The family boundaries in that area have also been revised - see the
April 2002 issue of Fremontia for an overview (URL:http://www.cnps.org/
publications/Fremontia_Vol30-No2.pdf)
--
Stewart Robert Hinsley

The message
from Sacha contains these words:

The copy of the RHS encyclopedia I'm looking at now says:
"Polygonumm bistorta 'Superbum'. The picture is of a 'vigorous,
clump-forming perennial that from arly to late summer produces spikes of
soft pink flowers above oval leaves.' It grows to about 2.5' and spreads to
about 2'. This copy was published in 1989.
The 1999 version says "Persicaria bistorta syn. Polygonum bistorta 'Superba'
and to me, the two pics look identical. HTH

What makes you think that the name 'Superbum' might have been chosen
without writing it down first?

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

Jaques d'Alltrades19/2/04 10:07

The message
from Sacha contains these words:

The copy of the RHS encyclopedia I'm looking at now says:
"Polygonumm bistorta 'Superbum'. The picture is of a 'vigorous,
clump-forming perennial that from arly to late summer produces spikes of
soft pink flowers above oval leaves.' It grows to about 2.5' and spreads to
about 2'. This copy was published in 1989.
The 1999 version says "Persicaria bistorta syn. Polygonum bistorta 'Superba'
and to me, the two pics look identical. HTH

What makes you think that the name 'Superbum' might have been chosen
without writing it down first?

Good one, isn't it? ;-) I'm assuming the original namer pronounced it
'superb um' and as you say, didn't write it down!
--
Sacha
www.hillhousenursery.co.uk
South Devon
(remove the weeds to email me)

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 18:49:55 +0000, Sacha wrote:

The copy of the RHS encyclopedia I'm looking at now says:
"Polygonumm bistorta 'Superbum'. The picture is of a 'vigorous,
clump-forming perennial that from arly to late summer produces spikes of
soft pink flowers above oval leaves.' It grows to about 2.5' and spreads to
about 2'. This copy was published in 1989.
The 1999 version says "Persicaria bistorta syn. Polygonum bistorta 'Superba'
and to me, the two pics look identical. HTH

I wonder if the code governing the nomenclature of *cultivated*
plants demands that old Latin-form cultivar names be in
grammatical agreement with the botanical name?

It may be that altering "Superbum" to "Superba" is a
falsification.


--
Rodger Whitlock
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
[change "atlantic" to "pacific" and
"invalid" to "net" to reply by email]

The message
from Sacha contains these words:

What makes you think that the name 'Superbum' might have been chosen
without writing it down first?

Good one, isn't it? ;-) I'm assuming the original namer pronounced it
'superb um' and as you say, didn't write it down!

Puts me in mind of when we went to Pomfadoc en famille in 1956. In those
days it was spelt Pomfadog, so you can guess, it was renamed in out
vocabulary from Pom-FAdog to Pomfa-dog, which name later slid off the
Welsh mountains on to our bull terrier....

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

The message
from lid (Rodger Whitlock) contains these words:

I wonder if the code governing the nomenclature of *cultivated*
plants demands that old Latin-form cultivar names be in
grammatical agreement with the botanical name?

Does indeed.

It may be that altering "Superbum" to "Superba" is a
falsification.

Well, it might confuse it somewhat. And find itself with diminished
attraction in the Mardi Gras Parade.....

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

The message
from Sacha contains these words:

What makes you think that the name 'Superbum' might have been chosen
without writing it down first?

Good one, isn't it? ;-) I'm assuming the original namer pronounced it
'superb um' and as you say, didn't write it down!

Puts me in mind of when we went to Pomfadoc en famille in 1956. In those
days it was spelt Pomfadog, so you can guess, it was renamed in out
vocabulary from Pom-FAdog to Pomfa-dog, which name later slid off the
Welsh mountains on to our bull terrier....

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

The message
from lid (Rodger Whitlock) contains these words:

I wonder if the code governing the nomenclature of *cultivated*
plants demands that old Latin-form cultivar names be in
grammatical agreement with the botanical name?

Does indeed.

It may be that altering "Superbum" to "Superba" is a
falsification.

Well, it might confuse it somewhat. And find itself with diminished
attraction in the Mardi Gras Parade.....

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/

The message
from Sacha contains these words:

What makes you think that the name 'Superbum' might have been chosen
without writing it down first?

Good one, isn't it? ;-) I'm assuming the original namer pronounced it
'superb um' and as you say, didn't write it down!

Puts me in mind of when we went to Pomfadoc en famille in 1956. In those
days it was spelt Pomfadog, so you can guess, it was renamed in out
vocabulary from Pom-FAdog to Pomfa-dog, which name later slid off the
Welsh mountains on to our bull terrier....

--
Rusty
Open the creaking gate to make a horrid.squeak, then lower the foobar.
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/hi-fi/