[Aroid-l] Fwd: FW: Re: Message from Bernhard about Typhonium

From: "D. Christopher Rogers" <branchiopod at gmail.com> on 2013.05.29 at 13:35:44(22789) Hi Christopher. thanks for your explanations and your points illustrated by your "ballon"picture of the meristem/growing point describes nicely what my picture of the growing of a Typhonium tuber was or still is. I notioced the remains of the old not totally consum tuber at the very bottom of the tuber or below the new grown tuber at the end of the growing season as well. However, I cannot follow your suggestion on the marks our very observant member olvi found. HTML +More The very simple reason is that exactly one mark is found on one tuber that is big enough to have had a flower at the begining of the growing season. I attachhed a picture of some of my Sauramatum (syn. Typhonium) venosum 'Indian Giant'. The marks Olvi found are "marked" with an arrow. The very odd thing is that always only one of these marks is found on a tuber and interestingly always on at more or less the same position. I guess this speaks strongly against your suggestion of a coincidential occuring rot of an offset. In other words, why should it always be one rooting offset (and not more) and alway in a position obove the "level" where the new offsets grew (I broke off the new offsets; those are the lighter marks). But what would then be an reasonalbe explaination for these marks? BTW, the small tubers infront of the big ones in the picture have not had a flower (bud) at the beginning of the growing season and such samll tubers never show these marks. So I still wonder, if the marks can be associated with the peduncle from the beginning of the growing season. Still looking forward for any comment........ maybe from Lord P(ure Wisdom) or any other botanist????? Cheers, Bernhard. -----Original Message----- > Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 20:46:20 +0200 > Subject: Re: [Aroid-l] Message from Bernhard about Typhonium > From: "D. Christopher Rogers" > To: Discussion of aroids > Hiyer, Bernhard! I think that you mean the mark that would appear to be a depression in the side of the tuber. If that is the case, I think that is where and offset was released, and some rot occurred at the union and then healed. I have had plants of this species and some Amorphophallus that would occasionally not completely consume the old tuber. However, the remains of the old tuber were always directly below the new tuber. The central primary growing point of the plant is that central point, surrounded by the primary roots, where the leaf and inflorescence grow up and the tuber shrinks and and regrows from the bottom. This is the apical meristem, and the leaf and inflorescence will always grow from that same spot, year after year. Remember that as the inflorescence and leaf grow, the tuber shrinks towards the meristem, like a deflating balloon. It regrows in the same way, expanding outward like a balloon from that same point. It is not like Anchomaenes or Gonatopus, where leaves can grow anywhere over the upper surface of the tuber and the tuber is not completely consumed. I really hope that this helps! Happy days, Christopher On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Zach DuFran wrote: Aroiders, in our German amorphohallus-forum we have a question to explain a often seen mark on big T. venosum tubers. For details see the pictures and contributions in posts # 96, 93, 97 and 98. The forum language is German but at the bottom of the page there is translation fuction implemented. In German: http://www.amorphophallus-forum.de/typhonium-venosum-im-originalzustand-typhonium-sauromatum/andere-araceaen-nach-gattungen-f27/t316-f9/index5.html maybe the link with the translated page works also: http://www.amorphophallus-forum.de/index.php?page=TranslatedThread&threadID=316&pageNo=5&languageCode=en The questionis, if the mark on picture 2 in post 93 can be related to the peduncle. (I just notice that some of the pictures are not displayed automatically in the English translation; you might have to click the links; sorry. for instance: http://www.amorphophallus-forum.de/index.php?page=Attachment&attachmentID=1251 ) There is controversion, because it is assumed that the old tuber is consumed / replaced totally (post # 96) and in this case the mark cannot be associated with the lst year's peduncle. On the other hand there might be an indication that the offsets go back to buds that might be present on the tuber at the beginning of the new growing cycle and that those parts of the tuber are still present at the end of the growing cycle below the mark on the tuber (in other words: the old tuber is not consumed / replaced totally) - see post # 97 and picture 1 and 6 in post # 93. I hope these questions is somehow understandable....... ;-) Looking forward to any comment ! Cheers, Bernhard. _______________________________________________ Aroid-L mailing list Aroid-L@www.gizmoworks.com http://www.gizmoworks.com/mailman/listinfo/aroid-l -- D. Christopher Rogers ((,///////////=======

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