|
Tom Croat, P. A. Schulze Curator of Botany
Missouri Botanical Garden
Box 299, St. Louis, Missouri 63116
(314) 577-5163
Thomas.Croat@mobot.org
Please send images to our FTP Server.
ftp://garfile:garden2003@cissus.mobot.org/incoming/croat
ftp://garfile:garden2003@cissus.mobot.org/outgoing/croat
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007
12:47 PM
To: Discussion
of aroids; Steve Lucas Exotic Rainforest
Subject: Re: [Aroid-l]
Philodendron hastatum
Steve, et al.;
I first posed this question about Philodendron hastatum back at the
beginning of the month, but don't believe anyone ever spoke to it. We either
have Philodendron hastatum being named several times, by different authors, or
we have several plants which were initially named P. hastatum (presumably, at
least one has been changed since then). Is there any light to be shed on this
difficulty? The reason I pursue this at this point is not out of any obnoxious
streak, but rather because I'm working on permenant labels for our collection
which include the author's name. With this species, I'm not sure which author's
name is the correct one. The possibilities include: Engl.; Schott; and K. Koch
& Sello.
Any suggestions on which direction to go in would be most appreciated.
Thanks.
Jonathan
previous post:
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.
Jonathan
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 answer!
I have documented all of this on my own
website in hopes some of this confusion will be put to rest.
Steve Lucas
http://www.exoticrainforest.com/Philodendron%20hastatum%20pc.html
Dear Steve:
I have never seen the type of P. domesticum and doubt if I would know any more
if I had seen it. (comment ommitted) Just looking at the
illustration I could imagine that it could be a dozen different species.
The reason why it is confused with P. hastatum K. Koch is that the plant
he described had commonly been called P. hastatum. Naturally it had
nothing to do with P. hastatum. It was just another cultivated plant of
unknown origin. He accomplished nothing be describing it and instead just
created another plant likely never to be understood. The paper by
Sakuragui listed below just deals with the real P. hastatum and has nothing to
do with the plant that Bunting described. I have made a photocopy
of Bunting’s paper and will mail it to you but I can’t imagine how
this will help you much.
Tom
_______________________________________________
Aroid-l mailing list
Aroid-l@gizmoworks.com
http://www.gizmoworks.com/mailman/listinfo/aroid-l
_______________________________________________
Aroid-l mailing list
Aroid-l@gizmoworks.com
http://www.gizmoworks.com/mailman/listinfo/aroid-l
| 
IAS on Facebook
IAS on Instagram
