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.

  Philodendron domesticum
From: "Steve Lucas Exotic Rainforest" <steve at exoticrainforest.com> on 2007.03.03 at 20:45:26(15381)
Some of you have read my questions
regarding why many sources now claim the Brazilian plant named Philodendron
hastatum has been changed to Philodendron domesticum. Some
of you have received my questions asking why Philodendron hastatum has
been assumed to have a name change. That claim can be found on many
websites including popular garden websites, county extension agent sites, in
Deni Bown's book, and on a USDA website. I was even personally
threatened via certified mail by the attorney for a large garden website
with a lawsuit for my having said on my own website this assertion was
incorrect! They apparently felt I was somehow attempting to damage their
credibility. It appears this entire story is a conflict between
horticulture and botany. And it appears at least a few official and
semi-official sources have accepted the story. Someone says it, another
repeats it, and soon science fiction becomes science "fact".

As you are about to read, at one time the plant Bunting
described formally as Philodendron domesticum was known in horticulture
as philodendron hastatum (non-scientifically) as a common name. That
plant, which is now published, is of no known origin. No one knows
for certain where it originated. One source suggests it may have come from
the Guiana Shield, yet Joep Moonen, who knows the plants of the
Guiana Shield very well, has no knowledge of the plant. Still,
it was published as a species in 1966. As far as I can learn it may be
nothing more than a hybrid, but that is just my opinion.

This is the email I received today from Dr. Croat. As
far as I am concerned this ends the controversy! Philodendron
hastatum IS NOT now Philodendron domesticum! I
have also now been advised from a separate source that GRIN is making a note
about this error, but not having access to GRIN I have no way to confirm if that
will be done.

Thanks to all of those who helped me with my quest for an
I have documented all of this on my own website in hopes
some of this confusion will be put to rest.

Steve Lucas

From: Jonathan Ertelt <jonathan.ertelt at vanderbilt.edu> on 2007.03.05 at 20:41:16(15391)
Title: Re: [Aroid-l] Philodendron


The question of Philodendron hastatum vs. P. domesticum may have
been solved at this point, in favor of P. hastatum being P. hastatum
and not P. domesticum. Unfortunately, there is still in my opinion a
bit of a mystery regarding this species name, and it is a mystery
perpetuated on your site and in the several correspondences you have
received from Dr. Tom Croat. I say this without any slight meant
towards either of you, of course. The mystery is also perpetuated on
the IPNI website. The strange thing is that either one plant has
received the same name after being found in two different places at
two different times by two different authors ( a situation which is
generally sought to be rectified by those in authority on scientific
nomenclature) or else there are still potentially two different
species running around under the same name. I am not trying to be
confusing here - it is simply a confusing state of affairs.
_Philodendron hastatum_ K.Koch & Sello. was published in 1854, and
was focused on a species found in Brazil. The same name was used again
some fifty years later. _Philodendron hastatum_ Engl. was
published in 1905, referring to a species found in Ecuador., (Western
South America, Southern America) and apparently is a synonym with a
_Philodendron subhastatum_ Engl. & Krause published in 1913. The
P. subhastatum name I'm not concerned with - it is apparently
recognized as being synonymous with _P. hastatum_ Engl. But what of
the species, two or just one published twice, once in 1854 by K.Koch &
Sello. and again in 1905 by Engl.? If these two namings refer to the
same species, then the Engl. publication is, as best I can tell,
superceded by the earlier naming by K.Koch & Sello. However, both
names are listed on your web site, and in various correspondence to
you either one name or the other has been used as well by Tom Croat.
All of this leaves me still wondering what the story truly is on this
species, and whether or not the name having been used and apparently
accepted twice, is referring to one or to two different species. Not
meaning to throw a monkey wrench into this Steve, but I know that
you're trying to get at the accuracy of these names, and this one has
still got me wondering. Maybe some of my queries contained herein will
prompt responses from others who understand this better than I.


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