IAS Aroid Quasi Forum

About Aroid-L
 This is a continuously updated archive of the Aroid-L mailing list in a forum format - not an actual Forum. If you want to post, you will still need to register for the Aroid-L mailing list and send your postings by e-mail for moderation in the normal way.

  Re: [Aroid-l] Philodendron domesticum
From: Jonathan Ertelt <jonathan.ertelt at vanderbilt.edu> on 2007.03.05 at 20:41:16(15391)
Title: Re: [Aroid-l] Philodendron


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superceded by the earlier naming by K.Koch & Sello.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.


Note: this is a very old post, so no reply function is available.