tively. Schott also included in his new genus C.acris 
based on Calladium acre which Robert Brown had de¬ 
scribed in 1810. 
Kunth in his Enumeratio PI. (1841) cites these three 
species under Colocasia and adds a fourth, C.nymphaei- 
folia based on Caladium nymphaeaefolium Ventenat, de¬ 
scribed in 1800. 
In 1854, Schott published Colocasia Fontanesii, which 
had originally been described by Desfontaines in 1829 
as Arum colocasioides. Also in 1754, C. Koch and Sello 
described a sixth species, Colocasia euchlora. 
In 1856, Schott published his Synopsis Aroidearum 
which reflected a change in the author’s concept of the 
taro problem. Apparently he had come to feel that only 
a single polymorphic species was involved for he cites 
but one species, Colocasia antiquorum, and reduces the 
others to varietal rank. The same situation applies in 
Schott’s Prodromus (i860). 
In 1879, Engler’s monograph of the aroids (in De 
Candolle Monographia Phanerogamia) appeared. In this 
work the author likewise considers the taro as a single 
polymorphic species, Colocasia antiquorum. However, in 
addition to Schott’s five varieties, Engler recognized a 
variety typica and a variety illustris (based on Alocasia 
illustris Bull) which had been published in 1873. 
In 1920, Engler and Krause monographed the group 
for the Pflanzenreich and continued to maintain Colocasia 
antiquorum for the taro aggregate. In addition to the 
seven varieties of Engler’s earlier work (typica , euchlora, 
Fontanesii , illustris , esculenta , nymphaeifolia and acrisj 
the authors included the variety aquatilis which Hasskarl 
had described in 1848, and published a new variety glob - 
ulifera , based on the dasheen of the West Indies and of 
the southern United States. 
In general, botanical literature from 1860 to 1900 
[114] 
