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
Gallery of Plants
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Mailing Lists
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
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: Philo ID

  • Subject: Re: Philo ID
  • From: brian lee <lbmkjm@yahoo.com>
  • Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 11:08:59 -0800 (PST)

Dear Russ,

Aloha.  Yes, Julius is correct, we are more than happy
to assist.  

Julius also highlights an urgent need...the keeping of
good records on our plants...especially the wild
collected accessions.  I am certain that taxonomists
will continue to revise and change names on
plants...what does not change is the population and
locality data...if this is recorded.  

I can use the example of our native Pritchardia palms.
 After many years of study, there are still
controversial taxonomic questions remaining.  The best
way to determine species at the moment is to know
which island....and even better, which population the
palm originated from.  Keys work somewhat...but
cultivated palms do some confusing things....and the
keys may or may not work.  Genetic work to date has
looked at small sections of the genome and those sites
are not correlated to morphological details.  New
genetic research will expand on the genome markers,
but I have the feeling there may be more lumping than
splitting of species... Now those out there that want
to make distinctions in morphology will have to
specify the population involved....if this has never
been recorded...we will never know...especially if the
population disappears in the wild...which is a trend
these days.  I am reminded of the real estate
mantra...location, location, location.  The other
thing is the expense of DNA analysis, so just looking
at a plant and identifying it the old fashioned way
remains the best method.  There is a push for
barcoding of species, but this process is better
served in animals versus plants at the moment.  How
expensive this will be...I can only guess.

What I am very encouraged about is the current
interest in Philodendron and the subgenus
Meconostigma, in particular.  I have been looking at
the earlier descriptions to get clarity into these 
questions, but I must say that the ones I have read so
far are lacking in certain details I would consider
diagnogstic...or are vague in locality details or were
described from cultivated plants...with vague location
data, like,"Brazil".  Luckily Meconostigma has only a
few taxa, and we do have a handle on the biogeography
of the group, so this makes the process much easier.



--- ju-bo@msn.com wrote:

> ________________________________
> > Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:06:27 -0500
> > From: chammer@cfl.rr.com
> > To: aroid-l@gizmoworks.com
> > Subject: Re: [Aroid-l] Philo ID
> Dear Russ,
> I`m certain that I speak for Leland when I say we
> are glad to try to help.
> What we have to keep in mind when dealing with some
> of these plants which come to us from ''back in the
> old days'', is that we have no records of exactly
> where they originated, and what if any crosses might
> have been done back then by the old
> growers/producers, perhaps in attempts to create a
> plant with as much cold resistance as possible. 
> In the case of your photos, the squamules do look a
> lot like those of a ''pure'' P. bipinnatifidium, but
> the leaf blade in one of your photos does not
> demonstrate the number or depth of the divisions,
> nor the bipinnate nature of these divisions one
> would expect on a leaf of an adult,  ''pure'' P.
> bipinnatifidium.   This might only be an artifact of
> the age and size of the leaf in the photo.  I
> suggest that you keep an eye on the plant in
> question and report if, as it matures and perhaps
> gets larger, the divisions do indeed deepen and
> ''split'', as we do know that juvinile plants of
> several species of Meconostigmas with split or
> divided  leaves start off with leaf blades which are
> entirely cordate/sagittate, and only as they mature
> and increase in size do the distinctive divisions
> slowly develop.
> I will keep my eyes open for what the squamules on
> obvious hybrids like P. evansii and P. eichlerii
> look like, and report back ''to base'', there is a
> plant at the Mounts Bot. Garden near to my home
> which I want to check into, and two groups up at
> Frenchman`s landing in Jupiter also.  
> I will keep us informed!
> The Best,
> Julius
> > Thanks very much to Julius and Leland for your
> expert replies regarding and ID of the philodendron.
>  The detailed explanations of possible ID are much
> appreciated.
> > Russ
> > central Fla
> _______________________________________________
> Aroid-L mailing list
> Aroid-L@www.gizmoworks.com
> http://www.gizmoworks.com/mailman/listinfo/aroid-l

Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
Aroid-L mailing list

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

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