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.

  Zamioculcas zamiifolia
From: Don Burns <burns at mobot.org> on 1997.05.04 at 18:19:37(709)
Kevin,

What you see it what you get, but regardless of what the labels may have
said, the correct name is Zamioculcas zamiifolia. There is only one
species and to my knowledge it is endemic solely to
portions of Africa. And it is a unique beast as aroids generally go.
Dewey Fisk has one that is flowering at the moment. It has multiple
small infloresences.

Don

+More
From: plantnut at shadow.net (Dewey Fisk) on 1997.05.04 at 19:21:29(710)
>Kevin,
>
>What you see it what you get, but regardless of what the labels may have
>said, the correct name is Zamioculcas zamiifolia. There is only one
>species and to my knowledge it is endemic solely to
>portions of Africa. And it is a unique beast as aroids generally go.
>Dewey Fisk has one that is flowering at the moment. It has multiple
>small infloresences.
>
>Don

O.K..... There may only be one species , BUT.... I then must have two
varietal forms... I have one that is the 'standard' but again... I have
one that has very small leaflets... same appearance but definitely smaller
over all... The leaflets are a bit different... a little more narrow and
longer vs. the regular foliage and is a bit lighter incolor.... So, is it
a different species... haven't seen this one flower yet.. Matter of fact,
I have had it for years and never had a flower that I know about.

Another thing... This one is almost as bad as Gonatopus... One leaf falls
on the ground... you have another plant! As far as I know, Gonatopus and
Zamicuclcas are the only two Aroids that propagate by just the leaf. Any
others?
Dewey

+More
From: Hermine Stover <hermine at endangeredspecies.com> on 1997.05.04 at 19:24:46(711)
At 08:19 PM 5/4/97 -0500, Don Burns wrote:
>Kevin,
>
>What you see it what you get, but regardless of what the labels may have
>said, the correct name is Zamioculcas zamiifolia. There is only one
>species and to my knowledge it is endemic solely to
>portions of Africa. And it is a unique beast as aroids generally go.
>Dewey Fisk has one that is flowering at the moment. It has multiple
>small infloresences.
>
>Don
>
>
>Don Burns Plantation, FL USA Zone 10b
>
>
You can make trillions of them by removing the individual leaves, which
form bulblike things at the point of removal and grow into plants. I had
heard...(but not reliably so )of one other species maybe, maybe it was
offered by Abbey Gardens in Carpenteria, except they have moved to the 310
area now.

hermine

+More
From: eduardo gomes goncalves <eggon at guarany.cpd.unb.br> on 1997.05.05 at 18:55:18(717)
Dear All,

As I already told in the past (2 weeks ago?), Zamioculcas zamiifolia seems
to be "endemic" to the forests of the coastal Eastern Africa (Tanzania,
Zanzibar, etc.) and (by know) it is the only species in the genus. It
belongs to the tribe Zamioculcaseae (along with Gonatopus - 2 spp, endemic
from the same region) and the ability to re-generate new plants from
portions of the leaf seems to be restricted to this tribe in the Araceae.
Probably, such high-prolific behavior are important to plants growing in a
narrow strip of forest between the Ocean and the arid portions of the
continent!

+More
From: markdim at azstarnet.com (Mark A. Dimmitt) on 1997.05.06 at 22:30:39(724)
Dear aroiders,

Here's another variation to look for. The first plant I had was extremely
brittle. It was difficult to move without breaking off leaflets. When my
two kittens discovered this trait, they destroyed a large plant in a week.

The clone I have now was collected by Huntington Botanical Garden in Kenyan
grassland. It's very durable and difficult to break. And this is not a
matter of hydration status and drought-deciduation. I once withheld water
from this plant for three months in summer, in order to shrink it so I could
remove it from a good pot. It never lost any leaflets from this abuse.
(Nor did it shrink enough to unpot it.)

For this reason I now call Zz the perfect house plant for black thumb
gardeners (or people who travel a lot and don't hire plant-sitters).

Mark

+More
From: "Steve Lucas/Exotic Rainforest.com" <Steve at ExoticRainforest.com> on 2010.11.23 at 11:42:01(21660)
I addressed this to Anna Haigh at the Kew but I welcome input from
anyone familiar with this plant. I continue to receive mail from
folks telling me the page is wrong no matter how I describe the
central stalk that supports the leaflets which are on short
petiolules.

Anna, can you pass this along to someone that can give me an
accurate answer?

I have revised my page on Zamioculcas zamiifolia several
times over whether or not the plant's central stalk is a petiole or
a or a rachis and the leaflets are petiolulate. I found this on
cate this morning and it appears it has both but I can't discern
which is which.

http://www.exoticrainforest.com/Zamioculcas%20zamiifolia%20pc.html

Zamioculcas zamiifolia (Lodd.) Engl. sec CATE Araceae, 2009

Tuber subcylindric, ± 3-4 cm. in
diameter or
more, tough, woody. LEAVES: Petiole green with darker
transverse
blotches, 15-35 cm. long, 1-2 cm. in diameter near base; blade
20-40 cm. long;
leaflets 4-8 per side, subopposite, distant, oblong-ovate to
-elliptic to
-obovate, sometimes oblanceolate, fleshy, dark glossy green,
5-15 cm. long,
1.5-5 cm. broad, shortly acuminate, sessile or shortly
petiolulate, articulated
to rhachis, cuneate to rounded basally; rhachis terete, marked
like petiole.

Will you take a look at the page or ask someone that is
knowledgeable about the plant to tell me exactly where the rachis
and petiole differ?

All the rest of the material was taken from Pete, Simon and Josef's
text The Genera of Araceaa and despite the fact growers argue with
me all the time I will take their word over that of any grower that
believes this plant should b grown dry. It does grow in dry
conditions part of the year, but it is not a desert species!

Thanks a bunch!

Steve Lucas

HTML

+More

From: "Marek Argent" <abri1973 at wp.pl> on 2010.11.26 at 14:19:44(21661)
Dear Steve,

I can only guess that they call rhachis the part of the leaf with leaflets, as they describe that the petiole is 15-35 cm long. My plant's total leaf length is up to 120 cm. So possibly the petiole is the thick part without leaflets and the rhachis is the rest of the leaf.

Look here: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/rachis

"Botany the main axis or stem of an inflorescence or compound leaf"

In your page I would rather change "Philodendron" to "Amorphophallus" - a majority of the amateur growers of Amorphophallus call the petiole "stem".

Although growers that are family with plants such as a Philodendron would likely call the petiole the "stem", in the case of this species the true stem is an underground rhizome(...)

Best,

Marek

HTML

+More

From: hermine <hermine at endangeredspecies.com> on 2010.11.26 at 15:35:55(21662)
Although growers that are family with plants such as a
Philodendron would likely call the petiole the "stem",
in the case of this species the true stem is an underground
rhizome(...)
what about
the climbers who put out roots on a thick trunky stem...and then a
leaf-stem with a highly divided actual leaf.

hermine

HTML

+More

From: Susan B <honeybunny442 at yahoo.com> on 2010.11.26 at 16:41:45(21663)
Also change family, I believe you meant familiar??

Susan B

HTML

+More

From: "Steve Lucas/Exotic Rainforest.com" <Steve at ExoticRainforest.com> on 2010.11.29 at 07:32:55(21665)
You are exactly correct. Dylan Hannon explained all that and more
to me and I'll be editing the page again today. They don't truly
have a stem or tuber but instead a tuberous root system Very
interesting!

Steve

HTML

+More

From: "Steve Lucas/Exotic Rainforest.com" <Steve at ExoticRainforest.com> on 2010.11.29 at 12:59:32(21667)
The info on the page about Zamioculcas zamiiofolia is
specific to that plant. I explain the differences in stems and
petioles as well as the differences in tubers, corms and bulbs here:

http://www.exoticrainforest.com/What%20is%20a%20stem.%20%20What%20is%20a%20petiole.html

Dylan Hannon just explained the difference in the petiole and the
rachis and I will be working on the page as soon as time permits to
update the info. The petiole grows from tuberous roots which is not
a true tuber. At the point where the leaflets begin to join the
stalk the petiole becomes a rachis and is a somewhat unususual form
of a compound leaf. I am corresponding with Dylan now to make sure
I get all the info correct.

Steve

HTML

+More

From: "Steve Lucas/Exotic Rainforest.com" <Steve at ExoticRainforest.com> on 2010.11.29 at 18:45:07(21668)
Thanks Susan, that and quite a few other changes have now been
made to the page as a result of information that was kindly
provided by Dylan Hannon at the Huntington.Â

The petiole grows from a unique structure beneath
the soil known as tuberous rhizome roots. Tuberous roots
are true root tissue that is swollen possessing tuberous
portions that radiate from a central point known as a crown.Â
The crown serves as the growth point for the petiole and is
effectively the stem. The petiole changes to become the rachis
(RAY-kis) at the point where the leaflets begin to grow creating a
single compound leaf so Marek, you had it correct.

Thanks to all that offered help but a special thanks to Dylan for
his time today! If anyone spots an editing error anywhere on the
site feel free to point it out.

http://www.exoticrainforest.com/Zamioculcas%20zamiifolia%20pc.html

I have a kind lady that tries to find all my errors and we are
having the entire page checked now for typos now but we can always
use the help from growers on this forum! I can tell you for
certain, there is a ton of bad information on the internet about
this plant species!

Thanks!

Steve

HTML

+More

From: hermine <hermine at endangeredspecies.com> on 2010.11.30 at 02:38:03(21672)
The petiole
grows from a unique structure beneath the soil known as tuberous rhizome
roots. Tuberous roots are true root tissue that is swollen
possessing tuberous portions that radiate from a central point known as a
crown. The crown serves as the growth point for the
petiole and is effectively the stem. The petiole changes to become
the rachis (RAY-kis) at the point where the leaflets begin to grow
creating a single compound leaf so Marek, you had it
correct.

this comes close to the Clivia, except for the strap leaf, which is of
course a giant of a difference. those fat juicy roots are often called
"A bulb" which they are not, and then some sort of chaotic
thing happens and you get strap leaves. Well, as I said it is not an
Aroid but the similarity in root business struck my interest.

hermine

HTML

+More

From: Hannon <othonna at gmail.com> on 2010.12.02 at 23:27:45(21675)
Steve,

I will go over the longer text you sent shortly. In the meantime, it may help to conceive of the petiole as originating from the stem. The stem can be a twig on an oak tree or it can be a rhizome, etc. In Zamioculcas, as far as I can tell, the rhizome is tuberous (or tuberously thickened) and is similar to the rootstock of Gonatopus.. In both cases the rhizome is irregularly tuberous or swollen and ultimately the plant forms a compact clump with multiple growing points. However, the roots are not tuberous-- the "tuberousness" is in the rhizome. Plants with more orthodox tuberous roots include Dahlia, Chlorophytum and others.

Applying these concepts and terms is relatively straightforward in some cases but every form "in between" also occurs and it becomes very problematic to employ a precise terminology for rootstocks. I read a paper years ago describing the "tuber" of a Dioscorea and they described it as having features of both root and stem at the anatomical level!

Dylan

HTML

+More

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