Re: [Aroid-l] Philodendron stenolobum

**a san juan k*@yahoo.com**

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