hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
 Navigation
Articles
Gallery of Plants
Blog
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Patents
Mailing Lists
    FAQ
    Netiquette
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
Links
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

Unauthorized use of a plant doesn't invalidate it's patent

RSS story archive

Re: Philodendron williamsii. It isn't what mostcollectors think!

  • Subject: Re: Philodendron williamsii. It isn't what mostcollectors think!
  • From: <ju-bo@msn.com>
  • Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 14:23:59 +0000





________________________________
> From: Steve@ExoticRainforest.com
> To: aroid-l@gizmoworks.com
> Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:30:55 -0500
> Subject: [Aroid-l] Philodendron williamsii. It isn't what mostcollectors think!
>

Dear Fellow Aroid-lovers,

It is just sad that the mislabeling of plants so dear to us continues, and that these plants, in spite of correct information being easily available, are still being sold using the incorrect identifications, and so perpetuating these silly errors.  Hopefully the sellers will learn, or the buyers will be intellegent enough to search for and find the correct information on their new plants true identities, and change the labels.
To all out there, Graff`s books were and still are wonderful pictoral records of rare plants, but the indentifications are WAY outdated, and almost all are now, after all these years, completely inaccurate from a scientific point of view.
For recent, updated information, please refer to Leland Miyano`s list of recently published literature (below) on these species in question, (at least to P. stenolobum) and to Steve Lucas' excellent work on both P. stenolobum AND P. williamsii, his pages on these and many other Aroids incorporate most if not all the most recent information and updates on the names, and what these two species actually look like, and where they occur in nature, also great historical information.
In trying to understand the reluctance of some to accept the correct and updated names, we must not discount the fact that there is still an active ''Flat Earth Society" out there, and people are still debating that all space flight, man on the moon, etc. are all false, and created by the Goverment to fool us.   Also, there are some who believe that the dog did not evolve from the wolf, that God in His wisdom created the dog, giving it His name spelled backwards.
"There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see".
Some collectors will continue to put what names they are accostomed to and ''like'' on their plants, we may not be able to change some, but MUST keep trying!   That Steve`s pages, which offer correct information to collectors are available on line is, I am certain, gratifying to science.

Good Growing,

Julius


>>> I thought I'd offer a follow up to all of you Philodendron collectors on the response I'm getting to the explanation I made about Philodendron williamsii being very different from the plant often sold with that name (which is Philodendron stenolobum).  I've received two very interesting responses this week.
>
> The first came from a collector in regard to a similar post I made on the UBC Botanical Garden plant forum.  That collector was insistent that I was wrong as well as Leland who I quoted and also Dr. Eduardo Gonçalves since they found the name Philodendron williamsii under a photo of Philodendron stenolobum in Graf's Exotica.  In their opinion Graf was the ultimate expert.  I'm sorry to report, but most botanical experts discount many listings in Graf's books as inaccurate.
>
> I sent that person this response from Dr.Gonçalves, which he sent to Julius Boos in response to a question from Julius, "All horticultural "P. williamsii" is now P. stenolobum. The real P. williamsii is a completely different species, occurring in coastal Bahia state and is rather rare. I don´t have it in cultivation and I have never seen a living specimen in any collection I have visited.   It looks like a P. speciosum (or like a huge P. corcovadense), but is somewhat smaller in overall dimensions. I have collected it twice in southern Bahia and I have seen a few more collections in Herbarium. Philodendron stenolobum is only known from Espirito Santo state and is much more common, being found by me in many different localities. I don´t know when or where the confusion began, but P. stenolobum is called P. williamsii in lots of old publications (including Graf´s Exotica). Simon in his revision of Philodendron Meconostigma included P. stenolobum specimens in P. williamsii, probably because he hadn´t enough good material of P. stenolobum to be sure it was a different thing."   I got no response.
>
> I also ran across a listing on eBay this week for a specimen of Philodendron stumblebum but the seller was calling it Philodendron williamsii.  That seller sent a very nice response but assured me they were sure their name was right since several Philodendron experts in Miami has told them the correct name was Philodendron williamsii.  This only points out how many people use the wrong name on this plant.  I sent that individual Dr. Gonçalves quote as well.
>
> It is unlikely I'll ever make much of a dent in this common error in names, but I'm trying and hope all of you will change your tags if you have the wrong name on a specimen.  It isn't bad to be wrong if you have a wrong name on a tag.  Its a simple thing to change the tag and try to learn the correct information.  And that is all I ever wanted to do by bringing up this subject.
>
> Steve Lucas
> www.ExoticRainforest.com
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Aroid-l,
>
> Aloha.  I thought I should give the two references
> which would clarify this question of Philodendron
> stenolobum and Philodendron williamsii.   They are
> both species of the subgenus, Meconostigma, and are
> written up in the following publications.
>
> Dr. Simon Mayo of KEW, wrote the revision of the
> subgenus, Meconostigma in 1991.  He did not split
> Philodendron  stenolobum from Philodendron
> williamsii...but he did note the differences and
> thought that two taxa may be involved between the
> Espirito Santo state plants and the Bahia state
> populations.  He did not have the  fertile material of
> Philodendron stenolobum to compare.
>
> Mayo, S.J. 1991.  A Revision of Philodendron subgenus
> Meconostigma (Araceae). KEW Bull. 46 (4):601-681.
>
> Dr. Eduardo G. Gonsalves, described Philodendron
> stenolobum as new in 2002.
>
> Gonsalves,E.G. & E.R. Salviani , 2002. New Species and
> Changing Concepts of Philodendron subgenus
> Meconostigma (Araceae). Aroidiana, Vol 25. pp. 2-15.
>
> If there are disputes, these treatments should clarify
> them.
>
> Aloha,
>
> Leland
> --- brian lee <lbmkjm@yahoo.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________
Aroid-L mailing list
Aroid-L@www.gizmoworks.com
http://www.gizmoworks.com/mailman/listinfo/aroid-l



Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index



 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement