This is a public-interest archive. Personal data is pseudonymized and retained under GDPR Article 89.

Re: [SANS] stunting Sansevierias

>
>Once again you are reading into my postings things I did not say. I was
>making a comparison/contrast but you missed that point. If one reposts a
>previous posting, it is best to repost it in its entirety as I have always
>done and not just rearranging bits and pieces of it out of context. That
>was not my definition. This is what is called in logic a "Straw Man
>Argument".


this can lead to the Burning Man, a performance art festival in the desert
which goes on for days and yields much insanity!


>I never said Sansevieria trifasciata 'Hahnii' was a stunted form. I said it
>was the result of a probable genetic mutation that makes the plant form
>only cataphylls not mature leaves. The technical term for this phenomenon
>is neoteny. It is NOT the result of growing conditions.


Neoteny is found in certain toy dog breeds, many of whom have  as "birth
defects" this like permanently open fontanels in the head, and various
heart problems which replicate the performance of a fetal heart.

but i don't know of anything comparable in plants. the dog breeds of which
I speak would vanish in one or two generations without veterinary intervention.


>However, in the classic case of neoteny in the salamander, the Axolotl, it
>was shown that the perpetual juvenile is the result of the animal lacking
>the gene that makes it produce a certain growth hormone and when that
>hormone is provided artificially, the animal will grow up into the adult
>tiger salamander.


I love an albino axolotl!   especially their gills, like a feather boa!


>Could something similar to this occur in Sansevieria? It probably already
>has in the case of Sans. 'Hahnii'. How would you go about proving or
>disproving that?

But why assume that a small Sansevieria is immature?  why cant it just be a
small species in a genus which ranges from small to large?


>You are saying that Sansevieria canicaulata 'Dwarf' is spontaneous form
>that reverts back to the typical form with more generous growing
>conditions? Either that means it is dwarfed by growing under severe
>conditions or you are just contradicting your previous statements.


I understood Juan saying that it is not a dwarf, but merely "dwarfed" and
grows into a normal sized plant. somebody else said that also. maybe Kirk
pamper. and if they didnt say it, I will.


>It is very easy to simply say one is wrong but the actual proof is in
>providing actual examples.


well it is locating "actual PROOF" which is the hard part.


>Its time to move on to some other topic unless someone can provide some new
>information one way or the other. Hermine tried to provide a fresh
>perspective and it seems we need still another point of view.


I will work on a fresh point of view as soon as i finish watering the
greenhouse and feeding the dogs.

i think topics recycle endlessly, especially on list mail.  about every 7
months and 3 weeks and 2 days, a hairy old topic is dragged out and flogged
mercilessly until the list is comatose.

normal list procedure.

hermine
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index