I made a very big blunder yesterday when I indicated on this
forum the description I posted was the original of Rhaphidophora
tetrasperma. Lucinda pointed out this morning I had misread her
message and the work was done by Pete Boyce. Pete has helped me many
times to find correct information so my apologies to him as well! The
work was actually published in 'Gardens Bulletin Singapore', Title: Rhaphidophora Hassk.
(Araceae-Monsteroideae-Monstereae) in Peninsular Malaysia, and Singapore,
Vol 52,
1999. I
rarely publish the scientific description of a species but did so yesterday
since there appeared to be some concern (private mail) I had the correct genus
and species.
Pete, if you
are reading any of this, please accept my apology. And if you'd prefer I
not republish your work, just drop me a note. I'll take it down
right away.
And my thanks
again to Lucinda Lay for the assist. I've been blessed with the help of
the folks at the Royal Botanic Garden Kew, Missouri Botanical Garden including
Dr. Croat, Alistair Hay in Australia, several at Fairchild Tropical Botanic
Garden in Miami and many others including those at the Huntington and private
collectors in southern California along with David Scherberich in
France. My chief "advisors" are Julus Boos and Leland Miyano who
constantly help me find accurate information along with Russ Hammer who
edits just about every page. My goal has always been to provide accurate
scientific information about the species we grow but do so in a way any of us
can understand and use without a botanical dictionary. Believe me, I sit
here looking up "big words" all the time and at the same time attempt to help
people learn what they mean! But for me, it is a cheap education!
In the case of
this species, I was finding all sorts of information saying it was a
Philodendron, a Monstera and several other genera. I
just hate to see bad information adopted and used by collectors. I
always welcome input from any of you!
Steve
Lucas
