Re: [Aroid-l] P. 'S. L, Dan and Ted--a reply!
- Subject: Re: [Aroid-l] P. 'S. L, Dan and Ted--a reply!
- From: <email@example.com>
- Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:28:55 -0500
Thanks for the wonderful reply. As I said, I have no clue about this genera
and just hoped to learn a little along the way. I agree that the photos and
info that have been posted on Steve's site are a wonderful archive for all
that love these plants and even for someone like myself that is simply
curious about a plant of such importance in the botanical world!! I
sincerely hope that my naive questions were not construed as an "attack" as
that would be regrettable.
I look forward to other posts on this thread so that I may continue to
Good growing all,
zone 6a and expecting an ice storm tonight....geesh!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Julius Boos" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2007 9:48 AM
Subject: Re: [Aroid-l] P. 'S. L, Dan and Ted--a reply!
From : <email@example.com>
Reply-To : Discussion of aroids <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent : Friday, February 23, 2007 9:48 PM
To : "Discussion of aroids" <email@example.com>
Subject : Re: [Aroid-l] Philodendron 'Santa Leopoldina'
Dear Dan (and Ted!),
In our narrow "focus" on this discussion, we have most certainly ommited a
most important point raised by Dan (below), that being the inspection of
the sexual parts of the blooms, and comparison to a 'true' specimen of P.
s.-sancti (available in the fantastic botanical illustrations of Dr.
What I write is from memory, so PLEASE confirm by checking on Eduardo
Goncalves' article with GREAT photos and illustrations of ALL aspects
A couple of comments will clear this up.---
1) Dr. George Bunting, who originally described the species, did not
have a bloom (fertile material), so Dr. Goncalves had to wait till he
could obtain fertile material, and only THEN did he complete his fantastic
work on clarifying and doing a new description, photos, drawings and all,
INCLUDING delailed illustrations of the microscopic sexual parts which are
imperative in a FINAL determination. He also gave invaluable information
on the width-to-length ratio of the leaf blade, very few or maybe no other
species of Philodendron as an adult produces a leaf with a blade that is
close to this ratio.
Ted, to address a point you made, this species has been recognized for
MANY years as being 'special, and plants from the original area have been
in collections for a LONG time (60 years??). Bear in mind that these
plants are suspected of living for HUNDREDS of years!
The material used by Dr. Goncalves in his description is certainly of this
The reports of the small number of these plants surviving in 'the wild'
are VERY accurate, as difficult as it is to even comprehend, ALMOST the
entire area of what USED to be jungle is now cow-pastures, a very small
remnant of patches small of jungle remain, and the land and these
priceless patches (and the remaining plants) are owned by a man (a friend
of Dr. Goncalves) who recognizes this unique plant.
Read Dr. Goncalves' description of the width-to-length ratio of the leaf,
look at the photos and drawings, and you will and can have NO doubt if you
have or do NOT have or are dealing with a legit. specimen of P. s. sancti.
2) This species seems to bloom only occasionally, so obtaining blooms for
comparison w/ Dr. Goncalves' illustrations is difficult!
There is a photo on Steve Lucas' web-page kindly supplied by Mic Pasqual
of Australia of a bloom produced by his plant which is purported to be
this species, unfortunately the lower part of the spathe was not cut away
so as to be able to see and examine the female parts, but the hope is that
Eduardo can at least give an opinion as to the plant`s determination based
on the spathe/bloom and the photos of the leaves.
3) I have never seen any blooms on any of the other Philodendrons sold as
P. "Santa Leopoldiana", but they are all FAST-growing, vineing species,
none have the width-to-length ratio of their respective leaf blades, so
can not be included as legit. P. s.-sancti.
As discussed (read Eduardo`s article) 'Santa Leopoldiana' does NOT seem to
be a legitimate name, so basically ANYONE can call ANY Philodendron P.
'Santa Leopoldiana" and do with it what they want, so "let the buyer
4) In closing, I urge all growers to obesrve their plants, and should a
bloom be produced, take GOOD photos of both leaves and blooms (after
carefully cutting away a portion of the lower spathe so as to be able to
see the female parts). If no fertilization is attained, please
preserve the entire bloom in 'rubbing alcohol', there are folks who would
like to dissect and examine these blooms.
Steve Lucas is doing a wonderful service and a fantastic job of compiling
information, correspondence and photos of these plants in an attempt to
sort this puzzle out. He is doing so amid some pretty 'rough' attacks,
etc. Please bear in mind that neither Steve or myself are trained
Taxonomists, the FINAL word will hopefully be forthcoming from the experts
like Dr. Croat and Dr. Goncalves in Brazil WHEN THEY HAVE THE TIME TO
EXAMINE ALL THE POSTED MATERIAL!! Keep up the good work Steve.
Well, I have been following this thread with some interest although I
have never grown a Philo. in my life. In spite of my monumental
ignorance of the genus I finally have gotten up the nerve to ask a
completely silly question. I have only heard people talking about the
leaf of these plants, the rate at which they grow, color of top and
bottom of leaf, etc, but surely a proper ID can not be made for this
plant, or this genus I would have thought, based on leaf form and color
can it?? The pictures being posted are incredibly beautiful and the
difference between juvenile and adult leaf forms is intrigueing, but
truly points out the difficulty of relying on these features for an ID.
I have not read of anyone describing the "naughty bits" as Wilbert refers
to them for his favorite genus. Does the Philo. world not rely upon the
reproductive bits in the influorescence for a proper ID?? If so, then
it would seem that proper IDs would be possible for anyone that has
flowered their plant. Are these almost impossible to flower thus adding
to the difficulty?? Also, I would assume that someone is doing the
proper DNA work-up on these plants so that a completely unequivocal ID
can be had by anyone that wants to submit and pay for genotyping, but
I apologize for the questions of an outsider in this rather exciting
conversation, but I hope that perhaps I can learn a little bit along the
way and perhaps someday I will even have a Philo. of my own....any old
Philo. Please be gentle in your responses :o)
zone 6a, where Spring is hopefully just around the corner :o)
----- Original Message -----
To: Discussion of aroids
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 2:33 PM
Subject: [Aroid-l] Philodendron 'Santa Leopoldina'
OK. So how reliable are the reports of the remaining P. spiritu-sancti
in the wild? What distinguishing marks should we be looking for? I have
been looking at the pictures in the postings and they vary quite a bit.
How do I know a real one when I see it? On what basis do the searchers in
Brazil make their determinations? Maybe the only plants left are examples
of one or another of the sham plants.
Aroid-l mailing list
Aroid-l mailing list
Other Mailing lists |
Author Index |
Date Index |
Subject Index |