Re: [Aroid-l] Philodendron stenolobum
- Subject: Re: [Aroid-l] Philodendron stenolobum
- From: a san juan firstname.lastname@example.org
- Date: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 19:21:11 -0700 (PDT)
"Leaf shape or leaf lobe shape/length play a VERY
role in the determination of species."
unless those characteristics somehow create
reproductive isolation of the differing forms ;-)
i've seen the leaves of those long-lobed P.
stenolobum, but have not seen any pics of the stem
area - are they similar to this?
--- Julius Boos <email@example.com> wrote:
> Sent : Saturday, July 2, 2005 7:40 PM
> To : Discussion of aroids <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Subject : Re: [Aroid-l] Philodendron stenolobum
> Dear ALl,
> I still do not think you guys understand what is
> being said--- ALL these
> photos that are being discussed, plants with the
> longer narrower ruffled
> leaf blades, the long FLAT leaf blades, the slightly
> shorter leaf blades
> with or without ruffles, slightly longer lobes,
> slightly shorter lobes, ALL
> are variations from different collections throughout
> the range of P.
> stenolobum, a range FAR distant from where TRUE P.
> williamsii occurs. NONE
> of the plants being seen or discussed are a
> different species OR P.
> williamsii. Leaf shape or leaf lobe shape/length
> play a VERY minor role in
> the determination of species. ALL the plants
> pictured and being discussed
> should or will have barrel-shaped gynociums (not
> flask-shaped as in P.
> williamsii), ALL will have only 7-8 locules (not
> 11-12 as is found in P.
> williamsii) and all will fall within the anterior
> leaf blade ratio of P.
> stenolobum, so ALL will be classified as P.
> stenolobum, NOT another species,
> and NOT P. williamsii. If it rings your bells, or
> makes them more
> expensive/easier to sell, knock yourself out and
> give them 'cultivar' or
> 'var.' names, but this only confuses the issue
> Read and understand Dr. Goncalves recent postings.
> Good Growing!
> >>Very nicely put!
> As you say, some cultivated samples may tend to be
> those that are "extreme" samples from the wild, and
> thus are not truly representative of the "average"
> look of the species (that is, the wild population
> form a continuum of plant forms).
> The pic of one of the leaves of that small plant
> called "P. williamsii" shows short lobes but with
> edges that are ruffled (and some of newer leaves
> coming out are starting to get even more 'wavy'):
> I looked at pics of P. stenolobum from that paper
> they look similar in lobe shape to the short form -
> maybe it's the "long lobe" form that needs a new
> - LOL....
> But, honestly, i do like the ones with longer,
> lobes though ;-)
> --- Julius Boos <email@example.com> wrote:
> > >From : a san juan <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >Reply-To : Discussion of aroids
> >Sent : Friday, July 1, 2005 9:21 PM
> >To : Discussion of aroids <email@example.com>
> >Subject : Re: [Aroid-l] Philodendron stenolobum
> >Dear Friends,
> >Eduardo has informed us of exactly what the case is
> >w/ these two very different and 'good' species (see
> his letter of
> >30th, 8.18 pm, addressed to 'Tom" (Dr. Croat), but
> allow me one more
> >on what might have and may still be causing some
> >[By the way, the leaf ratios asked for on these two
> >species are---"Anterior division (ratio
> > P. williamsii--1 - 1.5.
> >P. stenolobum 2.1 - 3.3.
> >(these are copied from Dr. Gonclaves' paper)
> >Other critical differences that separate these two
> >species documented by Dr. Goncalves in his paper
> are--The gynoceum
> >fruit) in P. stenolobum is flask-shaped, while that
> of P. williamsii is
> >barrel shaped. The ovary of P. stenolobum has
> 11-12 locules (chambers)
> >that of P. williamsii has only 7-8.]
> > Before Dr. Goncalves published his paper, when
> >word got out that the plant that we all had been
> refering to as P.
> >was going to be described as a new/good species,
> several collectors/growers
> >then assumed that only the plants with the ruffled
> leaf edges were this new
> >species ( P. stenolobum), and the plants with the
> not-so-long anterior
> >and flat leaf blades must still be P. williamsii---
> we were wrong! The
> >P. williamsii is a completely different species,
> seemingly not in
> >cultivation, rare in herbarium collections, and
> very different looking to
> >either one of the vars. of the now-new P.
> stenolobum, and grows FAR away
> >from all the different populations of the new P.
> stenolobum. (see
> >Eduardo`s recent letter on this).
> >So--the plants that have a very long leaf, both the
> >ruffled and the unruffled, ALL are TRUE P.
> stenolobum. Man ALWAYS
> >gravitates to collecting from wild populations what
> he views as the most
> >attractive or even odd members of a broard variety
> of either plants or
> >animals, it happens all the time with collectors,
> but true scientists
> >'down the middle', a representitive sample that
> illustrates the extremes
> >of a species. This obviously pertains to the
> plants under discussion,
> >all seen are P. stenolobum.
> >WPB, Florida
> > >>Could you give numbers for the ratios? I'm
> >and glad this conversation came up.<<
> >--- Russ <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >The leaves on my 'stenolobum' are nowhere near as
> > >ruffled as the one in last year's Aroid show, or
> > >2 pictures I found
> > >of P. 'williamsii' in my Exotica. But they seem
> > >be the same in narrow lobe width and proportions.
> >So, these are obviously >both stenolobum with a
> > >variation in the leaf edge. BUT, these are not
> > >two opposing plants I have in mind as
> >The 'old williamsii' >that I'm referencing has much
> > >shorter, and wider lobes, and leaves are not as
> > >thick or stiff. They truly do not look like the
> > >same species. Russ>
> > >Aroid-l mailing list
> > >Aroidemail@example.com
> > >
> >Yahoo! Sports
> >Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy
> >Aroid-l mailing list
=== message truncated ===
Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
Aroid-l mailing list
Other Mailing lists |
Author Index |
Date Index |
Subject Index |