IAS Aroid Quasi Forum

About Aroid-L
 This is a continuously updated archive of the Aroid-L mailing list in a forum format - not an actual Forum. If you want to post, you will still need to register for the Aroid-L mailing list and send your postings by e-mail for moderation in the normal way.

  Which back issues??
From: Jack Honeycutt jhoneycutt at uswest.net> on 2000.06.11 at 18:07:03(4731)
At 11:14 AM 6/11/2000 -0500, Pete wrote:

>Your white variegated 'Rhaphidophora' is Monstera dubia.

I am so confused.

I need some basic literature to get up to speed. I just joined The Aroid
Society and have requested some back issues of Aroideana. In addition, I
have ordered:

+More
From: plantnut at macconnect.com (plantnut) on 2000.06.11 at 19:41:20(4732)
Jack,
Not much has been written about Aracee.... for a couple of reasons...
(1.) Araceae has really just become popular within the last ten or fifteen
years... and (2.) Grants are not easy to get and money is what greases
the wheels of publishers. Another reason could be that there would be a
limited audience for a major work... Several Scientists have bridged all
of these obsticles. but they are high....

I have one copy of "A Revision of Monstera" by Dr. Michael Madison...
Reprinted from "Contributions from The Gray Herbarium of Harvard
University, No. 207" from 1977. You might want to write Harvard and see
if they have copies available....

This is the only specific book that I am aware of.... nothing on
Rhaphidophora.... Sad!!!!
Dewey

+More
From: "Peter Boyce" Boyce at pothos.demon.co.uk> on 2000.06.12 at 12:49:04(4735)
Hi Jack

Sorry to cause you confusion when I hoped to help!

There is a bit of a mess in cultivation surrounding the genera related to
Rhaphidophora. While most folks recognize Monstera deliciosa, the other
genera (Rhaphidophora, Rhodospatha, Epipremnum, Scindapsus, Amydrium,
Anadendrum, Alloschemone) are frequently cultivated under the wrong names.
The plant you grow with white variegated leaves isn't a member of the genus
Rhaphidophora (restricted to the old world tropics and defined by having
fruits with many small starchy seeds) but is a member of the genus Monstera
(restricted to the tropical Americas and defined by having fruits with few,
largeish, starch-less seeds.

There are couple of books you should try to get. One is The Genera of
Araceae by Mayo, Bogner & Boyce published in 1997. It's available through
the Society and while not cheap is a complete guide to the genera with many
illustrations (but won't help you to name species). Another book you should
try to get is Deni Bown's Aroids - Plants of the Arum family, which is due
to be published in a much expanded second edition in September this year.

Naming plants to species is often quite a time consuming job and is hampered
by most of the literature for the task being published for the scientific
market in the form of revisions of genera. However, most of the folks
writing the species-level revisons of Araceae are subscribers to aroid-l
(Tom Croat, Wilbert Hetterscheid, myself) and often a request on the site
will illicit replies from these folks.

Hope this helps some

Pete

+More
From: SelbyHort at aol.com on 2000.06.12 at 12:50:38(4736)
Jack,

Probably you will want to add to your growing library the "Genera of the
Araceae." (aka "the Bible")

We just had a discussion on this newslist about the differences between
Rhaphidophora and Monstera about two weeks ago in relation to the dwarf
Monstera issue. You might check back in the aroid-l archives and locate Peter
Boyce's discussion of these differences. I am including here his comments
made on June 1:

"Rhaphidophora and Monstera are, indeed, separated on fruit
characteristics. Rhaphidophora has it's seeds (usually many,
occasionally as few as four) arranged in two ranks running up the
walls of the fruit and the mature seeds have endosperm; Monstera
has few seeds (four, occasionally less), arranged in pairs in the
middle of the fruit and the mature seeds lack endosperm."

Other than that the above mentioned fruit differences, they are very closely
related genera and vegetatively are not very different. Don't worry about
your confusion! Very few of us would be able to easily distinguish the two
genera without knowing anything about where the plant originated.

Donna Atwood
Selby Gardens

+More
From: StellrJ at aol.com on 2000.06.12 at 18:14:51(4744)
In a message dated Sun, 11 Jun 2000 10:41:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
plantnut@macconnect.com (plantnut) writes:

<< Jack,

+More
From: Jack Honeycutt jhoneycutt at uswest.net> on 2000.06.12 at 18:16:25(4745)
At 09:42 PM 6/11/2000 -0500, Dewey wrote:

>I have one copy of "A Revision of Monstera" by Dr. Michael Madison...
>Reprinted from "Contributions from The Gray Herbarium of Harvard
>University, No. 207" from 1977. You might want to write Harvard and see
>if they have copies available....

I'll keep an eye out. Thanks for the info!

jack

From: Jack Honeycutt jhoneycutt at uswest.net> on 2000.06.12 at 19:42:39(4747)
At 02:52 PM 6/12/2000 -0500, you wrote:

>You might check back in the aroid-l archives and locate Peter
>Boyce's discussion of these differences.

Ah, OK, I'll give that a try. Thanks

>Other than that the above mentioned fruit differences, they are very closely
>related genera and vegetatively are not very different.

OK

> Don't worry about
>your confusion! Very few of us would be able to easily distinguish the two
>genera without knowing anything about where the plant originated.

I am starting to get that idea!

jack

From: Jack Honeycutt jhoneycutt at uswest.net> on 2000.06.12 at 19:46:47(4749)
At 02:50 PM 6/12/2000 -0500, you wrote:

>Hi Jack
>
>Sorry to cause you confusion when I hoped to help!

The fog in my little pea brain is starting to lift! It is a struggle
to get up to speed with a group of plants that I am not familiar
with. Thanks for all your good information *and* putting up with my
many remedial questions.

>Rhaphidophora (restricted to the old world tropics and defined by having
>fruits with many small starchy seeds)

>Monstera
>(restricted to the tropical Americas and defined by having fruits with few,
>largeish, starch-less seeds.

Ah. OK Got it.

>There are couple of books you should try to get. One is The Genera of
>Araceae by Mayo, Bogner & Boyce published in 1997.

Probably my next purchase (well, after next pay day)....

>Another book you should
>try to get is Deni Bown's Aroids - Plants of the Arum family, which is due
>to be published in a much expanded second edition in September this year.

Found that and have it on order.

>Naming plants to species is often quite a time consuming job and is hampered
>by most of the literature for the task being published for the scientific
>market in the form of revisions of genera. However, most of the folks
>writing the species-level revisons of Araceae are subscribers to aroid-l
>(Tom Croat, Wilbert Hetterscheid, myself) and often a request on the site
>will illicit replies from these folks.

Thanks again for the info.

jack

+More
From: "Peter Boyce" p.boyce at rbgkew.org.uk> on 2000.06.13 at 19:12:03(4759)
Jack, and others into monsteroids

While Madison's Monstera revision is still the only show in town it's
worth hunting out, BUT the genus needs a new revision since
Madison recognizes fewer species in total than are now known
occur in Panama and Cosa Rica alone!

Pete

+More
From: "Bonaventure W Magrys" magrysbo at shu.edu> on 2000.06.13 at 19:13:48(4762)
Jason Hernandez writes:
Hmmm...I wonder if it is possible to "wear two hats;" on the one hand, be a
sufficiently astute businessman (or woman!) to become wealthy, and on the
other, have the interest and expertise in aroids to do the studies. Then,
one would not have to worry about grants....

Hell yeah, I'd be there!!! - BWM

Note: this is a very old post, so no reply function is available.