[Aroid-l] Forms of ZZ plant -thanks + a tissue culture question

From: ju-bo at msn.com (Julius Boos) on 2007.10.27 at 16:09:34(16616) From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:33:25 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Dear Adam, Thanks for the kind words. Remember, I only suggested (in another posting) that the Zamioculcas now commonly available because of tissue culture may be modified and so be larger and more attractive 'selections' than the wild 'mother' plant might be. As far as I know little data is availabe on these figures/facts. Like you, I like to have at last one wild-collected plant which the tissue cultured plants can be compared to! There seem to be quite a few 'new' cultivars/selections which are said to have been individuals selected and propagated from batches produced from tissue culture. Several Alocasias, Philodendrons, Caladiums, etc. come to mind. Michael Mahan reports that he saw cuttings of Zamioculcus for sale at the IAS show for over $100.00, and others across the room, large potted specimens, for $30.00. I think that we can say that the cheaper ones were the tissue-cultured specimens, I only wish I knew more about the story behind the specimens which were being sold for expensive prices! The Best, Julius +More >>I've been busy and haven't had a chance to respond, but wanted to give a >>very belated thank you to all who posted on and off list to my inquiry >>several weeks back about whether or not the several forms Zamioculcas >>floating around were one or more species. And thanks especially to Julius >>for clariflying that they are all simply one species and bringing up the >>interesting fact that the "mainstream" form originated from a spontaneous >>variation/mutation/freak resulting from the tissue culturing process. Are >>there other tissue cultured aroids out there that are noticably different >>than their wild counterparts? My wife used to work for a biotech company doing tissue culture on Pelargoniums, and when experimenting with various hormones and stuff she was able to reliably create some very interesting things that would surely be of interest to the horticultural world, yet the artificial creation of new mutants was far from the focus of the company's business plan and were merely byproducts that were sacrificed. Seeing some of the Alocasias, etc that are available mainly due to tissue culture, I wonder how many are actually noticably different than the wild form? Have tissue cultured Amorph. titanum been around long enough to see if there is any difference from a seed-grown plant in respect to size, growth rate, flowering, etc? It appears that all the micropropagated Venus' fly traps available today seem to be dwarfed in comparison to wild flytraps. I am in no way trying to bash the tissue culturing of plants, as I know that some plants would probably not be around let alone available to collectors if it weren't for this method of propagation. However, going back to the topic of the different forms of Z. zamioculcas, I now value my "wild form" of this species much more, knowing that the "artifical form" will always dominate if not smother the wild type out of the horticultural trade. It's good to know what they actually look like in the wild, and to preserve this in cultivation. But then of course, many species well established in cultivation (not in tissue culture) are selections from wild plant populations with emphasised characteristics (showiness, shape, size, fragrance, edibility, hardiness, etc) and are also far removed from what might be considered the "typical" wild form likely to be seen over the majority of the plant's range. Can mutations/variations that pop up in tissue culture be considered comparable to mutations that randomly occur in the wild - Artifically induced freaks vs. freaks of nature. Adam Black Julius Boos wrote: >>From : ExoticRainforest >Reply-To : Discussion of aroids >Sent : Thursday, October 11, 2007 3:46 PM >To : "Discussion of aroids" >Subject : [Aroid-l] Two species of Zamioculcas? > >Dear Adam, Steve, and all Aroidophyles, > >'Tropicos" was quoted by Steve as a source which states that there are three >species of Zamioculcas. Tropicos, for some reason, continues to carry some >outdated and incorrect information on plants, and appears to be in dire need >of being updated. Volunteers??? >The genus East African Zamioculcas, as presently understood, consists of >just ONE widespread but variable species, Zamioculcas zamifolia (Loddiges) >Engler. >This may be confirmed by reading the two most recent works on the genus, Pg. >149 of "The Genera of Araceae" by S.J. Mayo, J. Bogner, and P.C. Boyce, and >a recent update in "Aroideana", Vol 28, 2005, pg. 3, by Josef Bogner. You >may note that in the article in Aroideana, figs. 4-6, pg. 7, Josef notes >that Z. "lancifolia" is a synonym of Z. zamioculcas. >My hope is that this note will clear up any remaining questions or doubt >that may be floating around 'out there' in aroid-land concerning this >now-common ''Interior Landscaping" plant. > >Good Growing!! > >Julius Boos, >WPB, FLORIDA > > > >>There are two forms of Zamioculcas floating around - the now >ubiquitous > form labeled as Z. zamiifolia or "ZZ plant" and another type that seemed > to pop up from time to time before the mass-produced form apparently > drowned it out in the market

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