Sender: aroid-l@mobot.org
Precedence: bulk
To: aroid-owner@mobot.org
Subject: [Fwd: Help with identification]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Hi all.....I am posting this to the list again as when it came on
previously it was one of those messages with the missing text. Hope this
is rectified.Thanks
Neil Crafter
Message-ID: <38B1D0D8.6DAF2366@senet.com.au>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 10:27:12 +1030
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.08 [en] (Win98; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: aroid-l@mobot.org
Subject: Re: Help with identification
References:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dear Ed
Sorry I have not responded to your query earlier. I can perhaps shed a little
light on the nomenclature issue regarding P.cannifolium and P.martianum. I
suggest you find yourself a copy of an article written by H.E. Moore Jr
entitled
"What is Philodendron cannifolium?", published in the periodical Baileya vol
19,no3 1974.
In it, Moore indicates that there were a number of early publications of plants
with this binomial, beginning with one in 1831 which apparently was
invalid. In
1889 Engler proposed the name P.martianum for P.cannifolium, which was
reduced to
synonomy under P.martianum. This is a quite complicated account of valid and
invalid names and the above is but a brief synopsis. Moore finishes with a
description and a photograph of the plant invalidly known as P.cannifolium, ie
P.martianum which is clearly the relatively common plant with erect, lanceolate
leaf blades held on swollen,spongy and deeply channelled petioles.
Trust this sets clear the validity issue between P.cannifolium and P.martianum.
As far as Exotica goes, there certainly appears to be some variation between
plants within this group of erect leaved, swollen petiole Philodendrons.
Whether
these are distinct species will require some work by powers greater than this
writer. Perhaps Tom Croat, if he is reading this may care to comment. Any
thoughts, Tom?
I only have a copy of Tropica, which does not contain all the plants listed in
Exotica. However, Graf shows three plants of similar character namely
P.cannifolium, P.martianum and P.warmingii. The photo of P.warmingii looks
to all
intents the same plant as I am growing here as P.martianum. The plant he has
labelled as P.cannifolium does not have greatly inflated petioles but perhaps
this is a regional/climatic variation within specie. The photo of P.martianum
does seem somewhat different from the other two photos, but whether this is
intra or inter-species variation remains to be seen.
Trust this helps Ed .... if you email me your fax number I can fax you the
article from Baileya if you like.
Also just received the latest IAS newsletter. As a Philophile.....thanks Tom!!!
Great work.
Regards Neil
Neil Crafter
Adelaide Australia
EGoldfluss@aol.com wrote:
> I am hoping someone out there can help me with an identification and location
> question.
>
> For the past 20 years I have been growing a Philodendron I identified as P.
> cannifolium. It looks exactly like the picture of that plant shown in
> Exotica.
>
> For the same period of time I have been looking for a plant shown in Exotica
> as P. martianum. The MREC lists these two plant names as synonymous. I
> distinctly recall having seen a specimen labeled as P. martianum in either
> the collections of the New York or Brooklyn Bot. when I lived in NY in the
> 70's and it looked like Graf's picture.
>
> My P. cannifolium never looked like that even in a juvenile stage. I have
> checked the data bases of several collections and found P. martianum listed
> but my queries have not been answered.
>
> What is the plant shown in Exotica as P. martianum and where can I get a
> piece?
> I'm also looking for P. lynette and P. wendlandii.
> Thanks
> Ed
| 
IAS on Facebook
IAS on Instagram
