ZZ plant--ONE species
- Subject: ZZ plant--ONE species
- From: "Julius Boos" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:32:41 +0000
>From : ExoticRainforest <Steve@ExoticRainforest.com>
Reply-To : Discussion of aroids <email@example.com>
Sent : Thursday, October 11, 2007 3:46 PM
To : "Discussion of aroids" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject : [Aroid-l] Two species of Zamioculcas?
Dear Adam, Steve, and all Aroidophyles,
'Tropicos" was quoted by Steve as a source which states that there are three
species of Zamioculcas. Tropicos, for some reason, continues to carry some
outdated and incorrect information on plants, and appears to be in dire need
of being updated. Volunteers???
The genus East African Zamioculcas, as presently understood, consists of
just ONE widespread but variable species, Zamioculcas zamifolia (Loddiges)
This may be confirmed by reading the two most recent works on the genus, Pg.
149 of "The Genera of Araceae" by S.J. Mayo, J. Bogner, and P.C. Boyce, and
a recent update in "Aroideana", Vol 28, 2005, pg. 3, by Josef Bogner. You
may note that in the article in Aroideana, figs. 4-6, pg. 7, Josef notes
that Z. "lancifolia" is a synonym of Z. zamioculcas.
My hope is that this note will clear up any remaining questions or doubt
that may be floating around 'out there' in aroid-land concerning this
now-common ''Interior Landscaping" plant.
>>There are two forms of Zamioculcas floating around - the now
form labeled as Z. zamiifolia or "ZZ plant" and another type that seemed
to pop up from time to time before the mass-produced form apparently
drowned it out in the marketplace. I was wondering if anyone has looked
into whether the less common version is possibly a seperate species,
regional variant, or what?
I have both forms in my office, so I end up staring at them when on the
phone, day dreaming, etc and notice the many differences between them.
Both plants are about the same size, potted in the same mix, and receive
the same amount of light and water (they are kept right next to each
other). Here are the differences I have noticed in my plants:
The uncommon type has half the amount of leaflets than the common form,
and they are spaced much further apart (the common type has leaflets so
close together they appear to overlap). The leaflets on the uncommon
form are also twice as long and noticably oblanceolate (broadest point
towards the tip), while the common form is shorter and more elliptical
(broadest in the middle). The margin is also slightly wavy in the
uncommon form. The geniculum is also positioned lower on the uncommon
form, while the common form has a geniculum much closer to the lower set
of leaflets. The shape of petiole between the geniculum and the soil
line also is noticably different. In the common form the petiole
thickens below the geniculum to its widest point but then abruptly
tapers back down just above the soil line. In the uncommon form the
petiole broadens below the geniculum very gradually to a point just
above the soil line, at which point it then abruptly broadens even more
to its widest point at the soil line (almost like a pony-tail palm -
Beaucarnea/Nolinia sp). I have not had either of them flower yet so I
haven't compared their inflorescensces.
Any ideas? Can anybody else growing the two forms confirm my
observations with their plants?
Aroid-L mailing list
Aroid-L mailing list
Other Mailing lists |
Author Index |
Date Index |
Subject Index |