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
New Trillium species discovered

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

RSS story archive

Re: flowering 'juvenilies'

  • To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L <aroid-l@mobot.org>
  • Subject: Re: flowering 'juvenilies'
  • From: "Eduardo Goncalves" <edggon@hotmail.com>
  • Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 20:59:48 -0500 (CDT)

Dear Jody,

   Thanks for your comments. In my post, I just forgot to include a good
definition of both terms. You did it with precision! I hope someone have
other possible examples with other groups in this marvelous family.

                       Best wishes,


>From: Jody Haynes <webmaster@plantapalm.com>
>Reply-To: aroid-l@mobot.org
>To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L <aroid-l@mobot.org>
>Subject: Re: flowering 'juvenilies'
>Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 19:49:38 -0500 (CDT)
>Yours was an interesting post. I, too, have some knowledge (and an astute
>interest) of paedomorphosis and neoteny--but only in animals. I was not
>aware of
>the process in plants.
>I feel that these terms should be clarified. Although they both refer to
>"possession in the adult stage of features typical of the juvenile stage of
>organism's ancestor", neoteny specifically refers to sexual maturation of
>'juvenile' stage: "heterochronic evolution whereby development of some or
>somatic features is retarded relative to sexual maturation, resulting in
>sexually mature individuals with juvenile features" (Futuyma, D. J. 1986.
>Evolutionary Biology. Sinauer Associates, Inc. Sunderland, MA.).
>Thus, paedomorphosis refers to the simple possession of juvenile traits in
>adult organism, but does not specify a process; conversely, neoteny is the
>process by which somatic maturation is retarded relative to sexual
>Does this make sense? Anyone else care to comment on this interesting
>Jody Haynes
>Corresponding Secretary, Editor & Webmaster
>Palm & Cycad Societies of Florida (PACSOF)
>   Virtual Palm & Cycad Encyclopedias
>   Website: <http://www.plantapalm.com>
>               &
>Seedbank Facilitator, Webmaster & List Owner
>Azafady Madagascar Seedbank
>   Website: <http://www.azafady.org>
>   E-mail List: <madagascarseed@egroups.com>
>Eduardo Goncalves wrote:
> > Dear Aroiders,
> >
> >     The production of sexual parts in juvenile individuals is a
> > morphogenetic "accident", but it is usually explored by the evolutionary
> > history of many groups. There are two morphogenetic processes associated
> > this aspect: Paedomorphosis and Neoteny. Both concern juvenile
> > with mature sexual parts or juvenile structures that are kept active in
> > adult individuals. These phenomenons occur in both plants and animals.
> > evolutionists say that humans are just neotenic apes, because our brain
> > continues to develop for a long time after birth! Anyhow, theses
> > are also know in plants and maybe they are a good natural method to
> > new species. Juvenile (or poorly diferenciated) organs are usually very
> > plastic and can adapt to different conditions. If this ability to be
> > morphologically plastic is important for the effective survival of a
> > species, it can be kept or even "improved" by natural selection.
> >      I have one possible example. One of the most morphologically
> > genus in the tribe Spathicarpeae is Spathicarpa. It is small, with
> > differenciated ground tissues and have usually the simplest leaf type in
> > tribe (I mean the same type we find in seedlings of almost all  genera
> > the tribe). One of my hypothesis (still in test) is that Spathicarpa is
> > neotenic genus in Spathicarpeae. The same for Urospathella wurdackii
> > G.S.Bunting (now currently recognized as Urospatha wurdackii
> > Hay). It is a Urospatha that flowers with the leaves of seedlings!!!!
> > this kind of leaf is useful in those savannas this species occurs. Or
> > it is just an accident that soon will be erased by natural selection!
> >      In the case of the supposed M. dubia that flowers with juvenile
> > flowers, we can make some free speculation about this. In the "normal"
> > environment of the species, maybe it is not a good idea flowering this
> > because pollinators may not be able to find the flowers. Meanwhile, if
> > plant spread to new areas, maybe with smaller trees and different
> > pollinators, it can prove to be successful (in evolutionary aspects), so
> > can diverge from the main species and become ANOTHER species. If
> > can be so creative than me (I don't think so), it is really possible to
> > occur in nature!
> >
> >                 I hope you enjoy those crazy ideas!!  :o)
> >
> >                                         Eduardo.
> >
> > >From: "Peter Boyce" <p.boyce@rbgkew.org.uk>
> > >Reply-To: aroid-l@mobot.org
> > >To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L <aroid-l@mobot.org>
> > >Subject: flowering 'juvenilies'
> > >Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 16:45:43 -0500 (CDT)
> > >
> > >Dear All
> > >
> > >The newly raised issue of juvenile monsteroids flowering is
> > >interesting because, while the production of flowers by a plant
> > >vegetatively in a juvenile phase does occur in the monsteroids,
> > >notably Monstera tuberculata, Rhaphidophora hayi, R. latevaginata,
> > >R. pachyphylla, R. parvifolia, R. okapensis and Scindapsus lucens,
> > >this 'M. dubia' thing is that the plants are flowering with very small
> > >leaves and BENEATH the leaves, whereas in all of those listed
> > >above while the juvenile growth morphology is retained into
> > >flowering in most instances the leaves of flowering individuals are
> > >considerably larger than those of youngsters and the
> > >inflorescences are carried clear of the leaves either at the tips of
> > >clinging shoots or on free shoots arising from the leaf axils. If the
> > >description of this 'dubia' plant is correct it would appear that
> > >inflorescences are arising directly from the leaf axils. Because
> > >aroids ALWAYS flower at the shoot apex it would mean that in this
> > >plant each inflorescence is carried at the tip of a very short shoot
> > >arising in the leaf axil (the same situation as in Pothos scandens) -
> > >a feature not yet recorded in the Monstereae.
> > >
> > >Pete
> > >
> > >----------------------------
> > >Peter Boyce
> > >Herbarium
> > >Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew
> > >Richmond, Surrey
> > >TW9 3AE
> > >Tel. (+44) (0)20 8 332 5207
> > >fax. (+44) (0)20 8 332 5278
> > >email: p.boyce@rbgkew.org.uk (work)
> > >        boyce@pothos.demon.co.uk (home)
> > >
> > >

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

 © 1995-2017 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index