From: "Julius Boos" ju-bo at email.msn.com> on 2001.12.14 at 15:29:26(7913)
Dear Neil,
Here is the entire list (abbrevated here by me for space ) given by Simon
of Philo. 'sps'. (and I give all the names) he THEN considered as synonmyns
of P. bipinnatifidium --
P. bipinnatifidium Schott ex Endlicher
[Arum pinnatifidium Vellozo (1831)]
[Sphincterostigma bipinnatifidium Schott 1832]
P. selloum C. Koch 1853
P. lundii Warming 1867
P. bipinnatifidium Schott ex Endl. var. lundii (Warming) Engl. 1878
P. selloum K. C. Koch var. lundii (Warming) Engl. 1879-80
?P. pygmaeum Chodat & Vischer 1920
P. mello-barretoanum G. M. Barroso 1957
As is indicated in the paper, this is a COMPLEX of a very variable taxon, so
the leaf shape varies a LOT, even here in Florida amongst some of the old,
grown-from-seed OR seleted from cuttings specimens. The plants now being
sold in bulk from tissue culture are all more or less alike (as one would
expect).
The illus. of the gynoceum of this 'species' in Simon`s work shows two
specimens, he clearly states that they are the extremes of thes 'forms', and
MAN are they are VERY different one from the other!
I believe eventually lots more work will be done on this species complex.
Cheers,
Julius
| +More |
>>Julius
I think Simon also reduced P.mello-barretoanum to synonomy under
P.bipinnatifidum. Having only seen photos of this plant I must admit to
being a
little shocked with this as the leaf form seems substantially different.
Have
you seen this plant in the flesh?
here in Australia all these plants are lumped in as P.selloum but I think
they
are not all tissue cultured plants as you can still find some with variety
in
leaf forms. I have a nice one growing here that is more pinnatifidum than
"bi"pinnatifidum, as the leaves are cut once but only the merest hint of
twice.
Still clearly a Meconostigma plant nevertheless.
I have just selfed my large bipinnatifiduma nd have quite a few seedlings
growing now and I'll be interested to see what variety the seedlings show in
leaf form.
Also I have never seen a red spathed form out here, or anywhere for that
matter.
Green rules!
So much work to be done by someone and so little time!
cheers
Neil
Neil Crafter
Adelaide Australia<<
Julius Boos wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
> To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L
> Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 10:46 AM
> Subject: Re: Philodendron selloum
>
> Dear Petra, Donna and Friends,
>
> In the interest of clarity, I will just give a LITTLE more information
taken
> from Simon Mayo`s EXCELLENT paper, "A revision of Philodendron subgenus
> Meconostigma (Araceae)', published in the Kew Bullitin Vol. 46 ( 4 ), and
> then give my OPINION (and as we all know, opinions are like noses,
EVERYONE
> has one :--)> ).
> Dr. Mayo takes great pains to point out that this is a very confused
taxon,
> occuring in a WIDE area of distribution, and may consist of several
species,
> some as yet undescribed. The two main ones in question are P.
> bipinnatifidium Schott 1832, and P. selloum C. Koch1853 or 1854, (some
> confusion here).
> Dr. Mayo writes as follows---'P. bipinnatifidium, as circumscribed here is
a
> very variable taxon in morphology and color of leaf and inflorescence.
The
> main unifying character is the bipinnatifid leaf blade'---he goes on to
> state--'Like other authors who have studied this species complex in the
> recent past'---'I have taken a broad view of the species. This seems to
be
> the only practical way of dealing with taxanomic difficulties for which
> current knowledge does not provide satisfactory soloutions'. He goes on
to
> explain that the original description was by Schott ---(plant probably
> collected from near Rio de Janero) and that Schott`s manuscript
description
> of 1884 show that his plant had a spathe tube colored purple-brown
> externally, a gynoceum with a well developed central style dome and the
> female zone adnate to the spathe for about half it`s length.
> P. selloum was described by C. Koch (to cut a long story short, it was
from
> cultivated material in Berlin sent to Koch by his friend H. Sello, head
> gardener at Sans Souci, the Imperial Prussian estate at Potsdam, and Koch
> did not see fertile material). Dr. Mayo notes that the confusion between
> these two names may have it`s origin in the professional rivalry between
> Schott and Koch. Schott left illustrations in his Icones Aroideae of his
> P. bipinatifidium and P. selloum, and his illus. of P. selloum showed a
> spathe colored green externally, a pistil with a deep style funnel and NO
> central dome , and the female zone of the spadix adnate to the spathe for
> OVER half its length. Engler (1878: 170), who studied Schott`s
> illustrations, distinguished P. selloum by its green spathe tube longer
than
> the spathe blade, and the entirely adnate female zone. This work by
Engler
> is probably the 'why' of the two names, and when Mayo wrote this paper I
am
> quoting from is when people began considering that the two species were
> synonomyous.
> Now for MY opinion ( which is like a nose, etc. etc. etc.). Based on
what
> I have just detailed, I concur with Dr. Mayo that MUCH more study needs to
> be done with this complex before I can say with certainity whether there
are
> two or even more species involved in this group of broadly distributed
> plants, BUT based on the features of spathe color (exterior and interior),
> size of the respective inflorescences, and especially the seemingly major
> differences in the structure of the female flowers and the length that the
> female portion of the spadix that is adnate to the spathe, that there
> probably are at LEAST two species involved here, so as it stands now P.
> bipinnatifidum and P. selloum can be distinguished one from the other, and
> in my opinion may eventually be 'ruled' to be two 'good' and different
> species.
> The plants that I have studied here in Florida all have an all-green
spathe
> exterior, I have not as yet seen a plant with a purple-brown spathe
> exterior (I THINK someone told me there were plants w/ red-brown spathes
in
> collections??).
> Another 'species' that has been placed into synonomy with P.
bipinnatifidium
> by in Dr Mayo`s in paper is
> P. pygmaeum Chodat & Vischer 1880 from Paraguay, I THINK I`ve seen a plant
> of this VERY distinctive small Philodendron, (any of you who were in Miami
> last Sept. may have seen me on Sat. morning wandering around with a leaf
of
> this plant in my hand). There is a paper in which there must be a
> discussion on this plant, it is by Dr. Croat and D. Mount. I`d like to
> read the section about it, if anyone has a copy please contact me, it
> is--'Croat, T. B. & Mount, D. (1988) The monocotyledons- A Comparative
> Study. 378 pp., Acadamia Press, London.'
> This is a MOST interesting discussion, and Donna`s information given below
> gives me ammunition to go ask my old buddy Jim about! He will remember
the
> names and ways these plants used to be sold in the 'good old days'.
> ENOUGH!
>
> Good growing,
>
> Julius Boos
> WPB,
> Florida
> ju-bo@msn.com
>
> To add to Neil's comments below and Julius' earlier about older
collections
> of this species in Florida, some older FL hort books and trade
publications
> listed both P. selloum and P. bipinnatifidum as distinct species. About
> 20-30
> years ago in the FL nursery trade sometimes the names were used almost in
a
> varietal or even cultivar sense. During those years in the hort trade, the
> P.
> bipinnatifidum "form" was considered superior and more sought after. I
seem
> to recall from my retail nursery days in the early-mid 1980s that any
plant
> labeled with the name P. bipinnatifidum sold for a higher price than those
> labeled as P. selloum. Probably some unscrupulous nursery owners
capitalized
> on this and labeled all their seedling plants with this name to garner a
few
> more dollars, other growers actually produced cuttings taken from some
> select
> forms and gave them the P. bipinnatifidum name to distinguish them. The
> latter were far less common in cultivation and quite rightly fetched the
> highest price. Occasionally some newspaper or magazine article would
> elaborate on these plants and discuss the various points of difference
> between the two "forms" in cultivation. Afterwards customers would come in
> asking for P. bipinnatifidum and would turn up their noses at any plant
> labeled with the P. selloum name as a "common" seedling of unknown
> parentage,
> and less desirable, thus we always tried to keep a small supply of plants,
> acquired from trusted wholesale sources as cutting-grown P.
bipinnatifidum,
> for our more "discriminating" buyers! In the back nursery area we kept
some
> stock plants of a few superior P. bipinnatifidum forms to propagate for
> special customers, because we could not always find a wholesale source for
> the "true" P. bipinnatifidum grown only from cuttings. Later, this P.
> bipinnatifidum name became lost in the trade and all you could find were
the
> uniform plants labeled as P. selloum. I guess it simply became
uneconomical
> for wholesale growers to produce cuttings of those special forms, so one
> could no longer find all the variations of this species in nurseries.
>
> Donna Atwood<<
>
> << some confusion has existed in the past over P. selloum and P.
> bipinnatifidum....Engler considered them separate species. the two names
> have in the past been used to differentiate two different populations
> (Gottsberger and Amaral 1984) and In 1991 Mayo joined the two into one
> single species ....P. bippinatifidum is the true name....P. selloum has
> been
> reduced into synonomy.
> >>
|
IAS on Facebook
IAS on Instagram
