Re: Alocasia reversa

From: Lester Kallus <lkallus at earthlink.net> on 1998.08.23 at 06:22:49(2548) Hmmm, interesting. Dewey, what's the answer? It was your reversa that I photographed and listed on the web page. (And perhaps it's now time for a public admission that I killed it over the winter.) On the other hand, Kris, after looking at your photos, I bet they're the same plant and that mine was just a lot younger and so had leaves that were slightly different shaped. Unfortunately, it died before I was able to find out. Les +More At 02:57 PM 8/22/98 -0500, you wrote: >alistair_hay_at_po-sydney@rbgsyd.gov.au wrote: > >> Dear Krzysztof, >> >> `Really pretty Alocasia' looks like a non-peltate form of A. reversa >> (Sarawak) > >I have more photos of this plant at >http://u1.netgate.net/~kk/Araceae/Alocasia/reversa.html, including a recent >inflorescence closeup. > >Actually, there are both peltate and non-peltate laves on the same plant! >The two >juvenile leaves are very much peltate, the later two are defnitely >non-peltate - >the main posterior veins are exposed for at least 1/2 inch away from the >petiole. > >I looked also at Lester Kallus' photos of A.reversa at >http://www.kallus.com/aroids/alocasia/areversa.htm, and I suspect one of our >plants >is not what it is labeled as (or is this a highly variable species?). > >Alistair, would you have time to take another look at these pages? The >inflorescence photos should show at about 2x magnification on typical >resolution >monitors (the actual size is 2" from the bottom of the spathe to the tip of the >spadix), so they should be more helpful in confirming its identity... > >Thanx! > >KK >====================================== >Krzysztof Kozminski >http://u1.netgate.net/~kk/ >kk@netgate.net >"Applying computer technology is simply finding the right wrench to > pound in the correct screw." > > >

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