followed the lead of Schott and Engler and we find Colo- 
casia antiquorum used more or less indiscriminately for 
the taro and its several varieties. There has been, how¬ 
ever, an increasing tendency, particularly in America, 
to recognize at least Colocasia esculenta as a distinct spe¬ 
cies. It is not the purpose of this paper to discuss the rel¬ 
ative merits of these viewpoints, but rather to point out 
certain nomenclatorial changes which must be adopted 
by those botanists who continue to consider the taro and 
its varieties as belonging to a single composite species. 
The adoption of the International Rules of Botanical 
Nomenclature brought into force a rule which makes it 
inadmissible to reduce an older specific name to varietal 
rank under a species of a later date of publication. Con¬ 
sequently Schott’s reduction of Colocasia esculenta (1753) 
to varietal rank under Colocasia antiquorum (1832) is il¬ 
legal under the Rules and cannot be maintained. The 
conditions must be reversed with C. esculenta becoming 
the name for the polymorphic species, which includes a 
variety antiquorum. In recent years several systematic 
botanists have made this change and Colocasia esculenta 
is becoming more and more frequent in literature as the 
name for the taro aggregate. 
This reversal of names necessitates several new com¬ 
binations in so far as the varieties are concerned, only a 
few of which have apparently been made. It seems ad¬ 
visable to publish these new combinations under the 
polymorphic species Colocasia esculenta , even though 
most American botanists hold a different opinion in regard 
to the taxonomic status of several of these variants. 
Colocasia esculenta (Linn.) Schott in Schott & 
Endlicher Meletem. Bot. 1 (1832) 18—Urban Symb. 
Antill. 4 (1903) 135—Merrill FI. Manila (1912) 134; 
Interpret. Herb. Amb. (1917) 131; Enum. Philipp. Flow. 
[115] 
