This is a public-interest archive. Personal data is pseudonymized and retained under GDPR Article 89.

Re: Alocasia reversa

Hmmm, interesting.  Dewey, what's the answer?  It was your reversa that I
photographed and listed on the web page.  (And perhaps it's now time for a
public admission that I killed it over the winter.)

On the other hand, Kris, after looking at your photos, I bet they're the
same plant and that mine was just a lot younger and so had leaves that were
slightly different shaped.  Unfortunately, it died before I was able to
find out.
         Les


At 02:57 PM 8/22/98 -0500, you wrote:
>alistair_hay_at_po-sydney@rbgsyd.gov.au wrote:
>
>>      Dear Krzysztof,
>>
>>      `Really pretty Alocasia' looks like a non-peltate form of A. reversa
>>      (Sarawak)
>
>I have more photos of this plant at
>http://u1.netgate.net/~kk/Araceae/Alocasia/reversa.html, including a recent
>inflorescence closeup.
>
>Actually, there are both peltate and non-peltate laves on the same plant! 
>The two
>juvenile leaves are very much peltate, the later two are defnitely 
>non-peltate -
>the main posterior veins are exposed for at least 1/2 inch away from the 
>petiole.
>
>I looked also at Lester Kallus' photos of A.reversa at
>http://www.kallus.com/aroids/alocasia/areversa.htm, and I suspect one of our 
>plants
>is not what it is labeled as (or is this a highly variable species?).
>
>Alistair, would you have time to take another look at these pages? The
>inflorescence photos should show at about 2x magnification on typical 
>resolution
>monitors (the actual size is 2" from the bottom of the spathe to the tip
of the
>spadix), so they should be more helpful in confirming its identity...
>
>Thanx!
>
>KK
>======================================
>Krzysztof Kozminski
>http://u1.netgate.net/~kk/
>kk@netgate.net
>"Applying computer technology is simply finding the right wrench to
> pound in the correct screw."
>
>
>
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index