From: "Eduardo Goncalves" edggon at hotmail.com> on 2001.12.14 at 15:32:32(7916)
Dear Aroiders,
Just a quick note from a busy man. It seems that at least three species
reduced to synonimy under P. bipinnatifidum by Simon are good species: P.
bipinnatifidum itself (from Southeastern South America, including Argentina,
Paraguay, Uruguay, Southern Brazil and Brazilian shore up to Rio de
Janeiro); P. mello-barretoanum (central Brazil, mainly middle to uplands of
Goias and Mato Grosso, maybe Bolivia too) and P. lundii (Goi?s, Minas Gerais
and Bahia, usually above 800m). As far as I could observe, they are
different not only geographically, but also morphologically, but most
differences are in the stems and petioles (and also inflorescences), not in
their leaves. However, when Simon made his revision of the group, there
weren't appropriate collections of all taxa, so most of the plants he could
see were true P. bipinnatifidum (including the elusive "P. selloum", that
seems to be the same thing anyway). Since then, I could collect a lot of
material and look for patterns. I have a paper almost done, probably to be
published in the next Aroideana, if I can complete a couple of things.
Very best wishes,
Eduardo.
| +More |
P.S.1. Most P. bipinnatifidum plants from the shore have reddish to maroon
spathe ("bipinnatifidum" form), whereas most plants from the country have a
plain green spathe ("selloum" form). However, I could find both "forms" in
both areas and some areas (like around Sao Paulo city) has both forms in
almost equal frequency.
P.S.2. Philodendron mello-barretoanum has very robust intravaginal
squamules, turning real thorns.
>From: Neil Crafter
>Reply-To: aroid-l@mobot.org
>To: Multiple recipients of list AROID-L
>Subject: Re: Philodendron selloum
>Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 23:57:06 -0600 (CST)
>
>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 dsecription 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
> > gradener 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 sen a plant with a purple-brown spathehe
> > 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.
> > >>
>
Eduardo G. Goncalves
Laboratorio de Fitoquimica
Depto. de Botanica - IB
Universidade de Sao Paulo
Caixa Postal 11461 - CEP 05422-970
Sao Paulo - SP - BRAZIL
e-mail: edggon@hotmail.com
edggon@ib.usp.br
Phone: 55 11 3818-7532
FAX : 55 11 3818-7547
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
|
IAS on Facebook
IAS on Instagram
