From: a san juan kalim1998 at yahoo.com> on 2005.07.02 at 19:40:32(13098)|
Very nicely put!
As you say, some cultivated samples may tend to be
those that are "extreme" samples from the wild, and
thus are not truly representative of the "average"
look of the species (that is, the wild population may
form a continuum of plant forms).
The pic of one of the leaves of that small plant
called "P. williamsii" shows short lobes but with
edges that are ruffled (and some of newer leaves just
coming out are starting to get even more 'wavy'):
I looked at pics of P. stenolobum from that paper and
they look similar in lobe shape to the short form - so
maybe it's the "long lobe" form that needs a new name
But, honestly, i do like the ones with longer, thinner|
lobes though ;-)
--- Julius Boos wrote:
> >From : a san juan
> Reply-To : Discussion of aroids
> Sent : Friday, July 1, 2005 9:21 PM
> To : Discussion of aroids
> Subject : Re: [Aroid-l] Philodendron stenolobum
> Dear Friends,
> Eduardo has informed us of exactly what the case is
> w/ these two very
> different and 'good' species (see his letter of
> 30th, 8.18 pm, addressed to
> 'Tom" (Dr. Croat), but allow me one more explanation
> on what might have and
> may still be causing some confusion.
> [By the way, the leaf ratios asked for on these two
> species are---"Anterior
> division (ratio length/width)
> P. williamsii--1 - 1.5.
> P. stenolobum 2.1 - 3.3.
> (these are copied from Dr. Gonclaves' paper)
> Other critical differences that separate these two
> species documented by Dr.
> Goncalves in his paper are--The gynoceum (immature
> fruit) in P. stenolobum
> is flask-shaped, while that of P. williamsii is
> barrel shaped. The ovary
> of P. stenolobum has 11-12 locules (chambers) while
> that of P. williamsii
> has only 7-8.]
> Before Dr. Goncalves published his paper, when
> word got out that the plant
> that we all had been refering to as P. williamsii
> was going to be described
> as a new/good species, several collectors/growers
> then assumed that only the
> plants with the ruffled leaf edges were this new
> species ( P. stenolobum),
> and the plants with the not-so-long anterior lobes
> and flat leaf blades must
> still be P. williamsii--- we were wrong! The TRUE
> P. williamsii is a
> completely different species, seemingly not in
> cultivation, rare in
> herbarium collections, and very different looking to
> either one of the vars.
> of the now-new P. stenolobum, and grows FAR away
> from all the different
> populations of the new P. stenolobum. (see
> Eduardo`s recent letter on
> So--the plants that have a very long leaf, both the
> ruffled and the
> unruffled, ALL are TRUE P. stenolobum. Man ALWAYS
> gravitates to collecting
> from wild populations what he views as the most
> attractive or even odd
> members of a broard variety of either plants or
> animals, it happens all the
> time with collectors, but true scientists collect
> 'down the middle', a
> representitive sample that illustrates the extremes
> of a species. This
> obviously pertains to the plants under discussion,
> all seen are P.
> WPB, Florida
> >>Could you give numbers for the ratios? I'm
> and glad this conversation came up.<<
> --- Russ wrote:
> >The leaves on my 'stenolobum' are nowhere near as
> >ruffled as the one in last year's Aroid show, or
> >2 pictures I found
> >of P. 'williamsii' in my Exotica. But they seem to
> >be the same in narrow lobe width and proportions.
> So, these are obviously
> >both stenolobum with a
> >variation in the leaf edge. BUT, these are not the
> >two opposing plants I have in mind as questionable.
> The 'old williamsii'
> >that I'm referencing has much
> >shorter, and wider lobes, and leaves are not as
> >thick or stiff. They truly do not look like the
> >same species. Russ>
> >Aroid-l mailing list
> Yahoo! Sports
> Rekindle the Rivalries. Sign up for Fantasy Football
> Aroid-l mailing list
> Aroid-l mailing list
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
Aroid-l mailing list