Dr. Eduardo G. Goncalves
Universidade Catolica de Brasilia
Curso de Ciencias Biologicas
Sala M-206, QS 7, Lote 1, EPTC
CEP 72030-170, Taguatinga ? DF, BRAZIL.
Reply-To: Discussion of aroids
To: Discussion of aroids
Subject: Re: [Aroid-l] Philodendron stenolobum
Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 05:15:24 -0700 (PDT)
Well, here's an example of how people can exploit the
confusion regarding P. stenolobum:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category%463&item983469256&rd=1
That form is very attractive though.
--- Julius Boos wrote:
>
> >From : Neil Crafter
> Reply-To : Discussion of aroids
>
> Sent : Sunday, July 3, 2005 1:17 AM
> To : Discussion of aroids
> Subject : Re: [Aroid-l] Philodendron stenolobum
>
>
> Hello Neil!
>
> [To 'a San Juan '---Your photo which you so kindly
> sent of the stem/rhizome
> of P. stenolobum seems a PERFECT match for Dr.
> Goncalves` B+W photo of the
> stem of P. stenolobum on Pg. 9, Fig. 8, of his
> article describing this
> species in 'Aroideana Volume 25'.]
>
> Good to hear your voice, mate! I`m so deep into
> this discussion (which I
> really should back out of at this stage, and leave
> it to Dr. Goncalves and
> Dr. Croat!!!) but your point about the old, 1871
> Hooker illustration has
> 'tickled' my interest-bone, as the part that I love
> best about taxonomy is
> all the detective work on investigating the history
> of a plant! (remind me
> to tell you about my investigations 'back when' on
> Dracontium foecundum
> Hook. and D. asperum K. Koch, fun fun fun!! By the
> way!!!--- Dr. Zhu`s
> revision of the genus Dracontium has been published,
> it is in 'Annals of the
> Missouri Bot. Garden 2004, Vol. 91, Number 4'!!!)
> I`ll reply below each of
> your paragraphs (below) as is my want. HOPEFULLY
> Dr. Goncalves will ''jump
> into'' the discussion with both feet, as he was the
> person who did the
> actual research to decide that P. stenolobum was a
> new s pecies, different
> to P. williamsii, and what P. williamsii really
> was/is!!
> >>Julius
> Very clear and message received. I guess it's hard
> for us amateurs who do
> not have access to herbarium material, microscopes,
> gynoeciums and locules
> (let alone flowering material - my old P.
> 'williamsii' is at least 20 years
> old and has never flowered) to try and identify the
> plants in our
> collections. <<
>
> I am surprised that your plant has never bloomed,
> from what I know it blooms
> on a regular basis here in Florida, and hybrids have
> been created with it
> and P. bipinnatifidum!. It is unfortunate that
> most species MUST depend on
> examination of the sexual parts, color of dried
> herbarium specimens, etc.,
> but I don`t make the rules! I wait till someone
> tries to do the revision
> of Urospatha, I feel that it may yet involve the
> smells of the different
> species' blooms!
>
> >For myself, the tendency to rely on what I can
> observe of the plants is
> >perhaps overwhelming at times, especially when the
> division between
> >species may come down to microscopic structural
> differences in their
> >flowers. Having further examined my old
> 'williamsii' and new stenolobum, I
> >am struck by the similarities in petiole cross
> section and trunk
> >appearance, with the only apparent 'difference'
> being the leaf blade shape
> >and its stiffness.<<
>
> This makes my point exactly, were we in the wilds of
> Brazil, I would warrant
> that we would see populations, ALL being P.
> stenolobum, but differing one
> from the other in leaf shape, texture, etc.
> BUT---as collectors and human
> beings, we`d choose only the 'more beautiful' plants
> from a population which
> we`d collect, NOT the more drab, less 'shapely'
> specimens!! This happened
> to Lynn, Mary, my brother Hans and myself when we
> visited Joep Moonen in Fr.
> Guyana ( a trip I HIGHLY recomend to plant
> people!!), there was a species of
> climbing/rambling Philo. there that was exceedingly
> common EVERYWHERE, even
> around the capital city, quite an attractive plant,
> and we collected a few
> as just samples. BUT---then Joep so very kindly
> took us to visit his
> secret and 'private reserve' population of this
> SAME species, a VERY small,
> restricted population, all growing in a tiny valley,
> all growing against the
> trunks of stunted trees. MAN! WOW!!! HELL!!!!
> Extra- long, extra
> narrow leaves, shorter, horizontal and BRIGHT orange
> petioles and leaf
> veins, very compact growth habit!!! We were
> allowed, under Joep`s expert
> eyes and guidance, to collect only a VERY limited
> number of tip-cuttings,
> thus preserving the population, and these cuttings
> and their divisions are
> treasured by their owners, and when rarely available
> at auction, go for big
> $$ here in Miami!!! Man GENERALLY selects the most
> attractive individuals
> of several populations of either plants OR animals
> to suite his personal
> tastes!!
>
> >>This problem with P 'williamsii' would appear to
> go a long way back. I
> >>have a copy in my files of a beautiful coloured
> drawing and the first
> >>description of P. williamsii in one of the early
> botanical publications,
> >>the Botanical Magazine (5899) - the plant looks
> like stenolobum more than
> >>the longer bladed variation. The author had the
> initials of JBH (Hooker?)
> >>and he described the plant as being sent to Kew
> by Mr Williams of Bahia,
> >>giving it the name of Philodendron williamsii.
> The paper has a date of
> >>May 1871. A question for Eduardo. Is this the
> true P.williamsii you refer
> >>to which is only known from some herbarium
> material? or was this plant
> >>misnamed from the start.<<
>
> NOW you have tickled my DEEP interest! We MUST
> wait for Eduardo`s reply
> and determine IF this old illustration AND
> DESCRIPTION entered into his
> research and decisions on P. stenolobum and P.
> williamsii!! I hope Dr.
> Goncalves manages to reply soon! Any chance of
> scanning this illus. to the
> list??? Look out for the copyright BS.
>
> >>cheers Neil<<
>
> Cheers, Best Wishes, and Good Growing!
>
> Julius
> WPB, Florida
>
> >>Neil Crafter
> Philodendron enthusiast
> Adelaide, Australia<<
>
> On 03/07/2005, at 6:48 AM, Julius Boos wrote:
>
>
>
> Sent : Saturday, July 2, 2005 7:40 PM
> To : Discussion of aroids
> Subject : Re: [Aroid-l] Philodendron stenolobum
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> I still do not think you guys understand what is
> being said--- ALL these
> photos that are being discussed, plants with the
> longer narrower ruffled
> leaf blades, the long FLAT leaf blades, the slightly
> shorter leaf blades
> with or without ruffles, slightly longer lobes,
> slightly shorter lobes, ALL
> are variations from different collections
> throughout the range of P.
> stenolobum, a range FAR distant from where TRUE P.
> williamsii occurs. NONE
> of the plants being seen or discussed are a
> different species OR P.
> williamsii. Leaf shape or leaf lobe shape/length
> play a VERY minor role
> in the determination of species. ALL the plants
> pictured and being
> discussed should or will have barrel-shaped
> gynociums (not flask-shaped as
> in P. williamsii), ALL will have only 7-8 locules
> (not 11-12 as is found in
> P. williamsii) and all will fall within the
> anterior
=== message truncated ===
____________________________________________________
Sell on Yahoo! Auctions ? no fees. Bid on great items.
http://auctions.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
Aroid-l mailing list
Aroid-l@gizmoworks.com
http://www.gizmoworks.com/mailman/listinfo/aroid-l
_________________________________________________________________
MSN Messenger: instale gr?tis e converse com seus amigos.
http://messenger.msn.com.br
_______________________________________________
Aroid-l mailing list
Aroid-l@gizmoworks.com
http://www.gizmoworks.com/mailman/listinfo/aroid-l
|
IAS on Facebook
IAS on Instagram
