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: [Aroid-l] Philodendron stenolobum

  • Subject: Re: [Aroid-l] Philodendron stenolobum
  • From: a san juan kalim1998@yahoo.com
  • Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 05:15:24 -0700 (PDT)

Well, here's an example of how people can exploit the
confusion regarding P. stenolobum:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=25463&item=3983469256&rd=1

That form is very attractive though.

--- Julius Boos <ju-bo@msn.com> wrote:

> 
> >From : 	Neil Crafter <golfstra@senet.com.au>
> Reply-To : 	Discussion of aroids
> <aroid-l@gizmoworks.com>
> Sent : 	Sunday, July 3, 2005 1:17 AM
> To : 	Discussion of aroids <aroid-l@gizmoworks.com>
> Subject : 	Re: [Aroid-l] Philodendron stenolobum
> 
> 
> Hello Neil!
> 
> [To 'a San Juan '---Your photo which you so kindly
> sent of the stem/rhizome 
> of P. stenolobum seems a PERFECT match for Dr.
> Goncalves` B+W photo of the 
> stem of P. stenolobum on Pg. 9, Fig. 8, of his
> article describing this 
> species in 'Aroideana Volume 25'.]
> 
> Good to hear your voice, mate!   I`m so deep into
> this discussion (which I 
> really should back out of at this stage, and leave
> it to Dr. Goncalves and 
> Dr. Croat!!!) but your point about the old, 1871
> Hooker illustration has 
> 'tickled' my interest-bone, as the part that I love
> best about taxonomy is 
> all the detective work on investigating the history
> of a plant! (remind me 
> to tell you about my investigations 'back when' on
> Dracontium foecundum 
> Hook. and D. asperum K. Koch, fun fun fun!!   By the
> way!!!--- Dr. Zhu`s 
> revision of the genus Dracontium has been published,
> it is in 'Annals of the 
> Missouri Bot. Garden 2004, Vol. 91, Number 4'!!!)  
> I`ll reply below each of 
> your paragraphs (below) as is my want.   HOPEFULLY
> Dr. Goncalves will ''jump 
> into'' the discussion with both feet, as he was the
> person who did the 
> actual research to decide that P. stenolobum was a
> new s pecies, different 
> to P. williamsii, and what P. williamsii really
> was/is!!
> >>Julius
> Very clear and message received. I guess it's hard
> for us amateurs who  do 
> not have access to herbarium material, microscopes,
> gynoeciums and  locules 
> (let alone flowering material - my old P.
> 'williamsii' is at  least 20 years 
> old and has never flowered) to try and identify the 
> plants in our 
> collections. <<
> 
> I am surprised that your plant has never bloomed,
> from what I know it blooms 
> on a regular basis here in Florida, and hybrids have
> been created with it 
> and P. bipinnatifidum!.   It is unfortunate that
> most species MUST depend on 
> examination of the sexual parts, color of dried
> herbarium specimens, etc., 
> but I don`t make the rules!    I wait till someone
> tries to do the revision 
> of Urospatha, I feel that it may yet involve the
> smells of the different 
> species' blooms!
> 
> >For myself, the tendency to rely on what I  can
> observe of the plants is 
> >perhaps overwhelming at times, especially  when the
> division between 
> >species may come down to microscopic  structural
> differences in their 
> >flowers. Having further examined my  old
> 'williamsii' and new stenolobum, I 
> >am struck by the similarities in  petiole cross
> section and trunk 
> >appearance, with the only apparent  'difference'
> being the leaf blade shape 
> >and its stiffness.<<
> 
> This makes my point exactly, were we in the wilds of
> Brazil, I would warrant 
> that we would see populations, ALL being P.
> stenolobum, but differing one 
> from the other in leaf shape, texture, etc.  
> BUT---as collectors and human 
> beings, we`d choose only the 'more beautiful' plants
> from a population which 
> we`d collect, NOT the more drab, less 'shapely'
> specimens!!    This happened 
> to Lynn, Mary, my brother Hans and myself when we
> visited Joep Moonen in Fr. 
> Guyana ( a trip I HIGHLY recomend to plant
> people!!), there was a species of 
> climbing/rambling Philo. there that was exceedingly
> common EVERYWHERE, even 
> around the capital city, quite an attractive plant,
> and we collected a few 
> as just samples.   BUT---then Joep so very kindly
> took us to visit his 
> secret and  'private reserve' population of this
> SAME species, a VERY small, 
> restricted population, all growing in a tiny valley,
> all growing against the 
> trunks of stunted trees.   MAN!  WOW!!!   HELL!!!! 
> Extra- long, extra 
> narrow leaves, shorter, horizontal and BRIGHT orange
> petioles and leaf 
> veins, very compact growth habit!!!   We were
> allowed, under Joep`s expert 
> eyes and guidance, to collect only a VERY limited
> number of tip-cuttings, 
> thus preserving the population, and these cuttings
> and their divisions are 
> treasured by their owners, and when rarely available
> at auction, go for big 
> $$ here in Miami!!!   Man GENERALLY selects the most
> attractive individuals 
> of several populations of either plants OR animals
> to suite his personal 
> tastes!!
> 
> >>This problem with P 'williamsii' would appear to
> go a long way back. I  
> >>have a copy in my files of a beautiful coloured
> drawing and the first  
> >>description of P. williamsii in one of the early
> botanical  publications, 
> >>the Botanical Magazine (5899) - the plant looks
> like  stenolobum more than 
> >>the longer bladed variation. The author had the 
> initials of JBH (Hooker?) 
> >>and he described the plant as being sent to  Kew
> by Mr Williams of Bahia, 
> >>giving it the name of Philodendron  williamsii.
> The paper has a date of 
> >>May 1871. A question for Eduardo.  Is this the
> true P.williamsii you refer 
> >>to which is only known from  some herbarium
> material? or was this plant 
> >>misnamed from the start.<<
> 
> NOW you have tickled my DEEP interest!   We MUST
> wait for Eduardo`s reply 
> and determine IF this old illustration AND
> DESCRIPTION entered into his 
> research and decisions on P. stenolobum and P.
> williamsii!!   I hope Dr. 
> Goncalves manages to reply soon!   Any chance of
> scanning this illus. to the 
> list???   Look out for the copyright BS.
> 
> >>cheers Neil<<
> 
> Cheers, Best Wishes, and Good Growing!
> 
> Julius
> WPB, Florida
> 
> >>Neil Crafter
> Philodendron enthusiast
> Adelaide, Australia<<
> 
> On 03/07/2005, at 6:48 AM, Julius Boos wrote:
> 
> 
> <aroid-l@gizmoworks.com>
> Sent : Saturday, July 2, 2005 7:40 PM
> To : Discussion of aroids <aroid-l@gizmoworks.com>
> 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 
=== message truncated ===



		
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions  no fees. Bid on great items.  
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
Aroid-l mailing list
Aroid-l@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