Talk:Philodendron

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Name change[edit]

And which one is this, while we're at it?

(Dead link removed) This page apparently lists Arrowhead Philodendron, Nephthytis, and Syngonium podophyllum as the same thing. It says:

This species appears to have been cultivated as a houseplant since the end of the 19th century. It’s been confused botanically with an African genus, Nephthytis, which it resembles. Even though the American species were reclassified in 1879 to their own genus, the original name stuck as a common name.

So Syngonium podophyllum is the new name? And the old was something Nephthytis? — Omegatron 14:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a philodendron species that is called the heart leaf philodendron. Do you know anything about it? User:205.206.154.31 18:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC) (copied from the main article)[reply]

Edible?[edit]

At one place in the article it says all parts of the plant are poisonous. At another place it says the fruit is edible. I'd change it, but I don't know which statement is incorrect.

66.188.107.113 (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Tyler[reply]

Rating[edit]

I rated this a B-class, but it could definately be rated much higher if it had more pictures. For Philodendrons the variability of leaf and growth habit is so variable that an article like this really needs alot of pictures to illustrate the explanations. Chhe 21:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subgenus split[edit]

It is proposed that Philodendron subgenus Meconostigma be split off as a separate genus, Thaumatophyllum.[1] If this is accepted, the following changes species name changes will be needed, as well as changes to this article:

Thaumatophyllum is pretty well accepted by now. The genetic evidence is very strong for the change as well as important structural differences. Those species listed above ought to have notes attached referring to the change in genus. --JHill3 (talk) 05:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GoldRecluse: I agree that the evidence in the paper cited here is strong. The issue is the we are supposed not to use primary sources as per WP:PSTS, and I haven't yet found a secondary source, like a major plant taxonomy database, that has accepted the change. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GoldRecluse and Peter coxhead: POWO/WCSP and Tropicos now recognise Thaumatophyllum as a separate genus, but the APG website does not seem to have caught up yet. Loopy30 (talk) 09:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Loopy30: now that POWO/WCSP accept Thaumatophyllum, I would certainly make the moves. Note that Tropicos only lists taxon names; it does not accept one rather than another, so needs to be used with care, and certainly not as a reference for acceptance of a name. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter coxhead: Is that really correct about Tropicos? For instance, peruse anything there that has had a couple taxonomic changes, and notice how they use the "Accepted Name" tab for some taxa but not others? That is their way of saying "Tropicos makes the determination, based on these references, that this taxon is not accepted (if that "Accepted Name" tab is present). On any taxon which they do accept, that tab is absent, and you can see the other competing not-accepted names by clicking on the "Synonyms" tab. In this way they are making the exact same kind of yea-or-nay judgement call that WCSP does. Is there a difference? Also, with Dr. Croat (world's leading aroid expert) supporting it through MBG (world's largest collection of aroids), I would think this might be the very first place to search for info on aroid taxonomy. Definitely a excellent aroid resource compared to any other list or database. BTW, I also fully support the move to Thaumatophyllum, if someone is willing to do the work! :) Tom Hulse (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom Hulse: Tropicos reports what names others accept, but does not make judgements itself, as far as I know. So if you look at the entry for Reynoutria japonica you'll see that it has two "accepted names": Fallopia japonica and Polygonum cuspidatum, neither of which is the latest accepted name in recent reliable sources that do make judgements, like PoWO. Plantdrew may be able to say more. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: It does certainly take a judgement call for Tropicos to decide to use the accepted name tab, or not, and to decide which names to list as synonyms or not, based on their interpretation of sources. It's the same process used by the other databases to make judgment calls. They are merely presenting it in a slightly more humble, neutral, and scientific manner to let the sources speak for themselves instead of grandly proclaiming "I make a judgement" (even though they are making the same judgement). Nobody cares about Govaerts' personal judgement, they only care about the sources he brings, so it's actually more appropriate to frame the judgement this way where the sources seem to be speaking for themselves. You've cherry-picked an example outside of the area (aroids) that we're talking about, where Tropicos is not as up-to-date (all the databases have weaker areas), but there is nothing wrong there. Notice that all 3 of the taxa you mentioned have the accepted name tag at Tropicos, precluding them from having a final judgement as "Accepted". Where more than one accepted name is listed, this is the same as "unresolved" in other databases, but this is more neutral way of letting the facts speak for themselves, with the same result. Why not instead cherry pick an example from the area we are discussing, aroids, where Tropicos is stronger and POWO/WCSP are weaker? For instance Philodendron sodiroi is a less-common species that has been around for a long time. Years ago there was some uncertainty (unpublished) whether it was possibly a synonym for one of the other variegated Philodendrons. Molecular & chromosomal work in recent years has verified its position as a unique species, but WCSP hasn't caught up yet ("unresolved") and POWO doesn't have an entry for it at all. Tom Hulse (talk) 05:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom Hulse: the point I was making is that the policies of WCSP, PoWO and Tropicos are different; this does not make one better or worse, nor was I criticizing one or the other (as it happens, I'm not a supporter of some of the lumping decisions that PoWO takes). WCSP and PoWO make their own judgements; Tropicos reports (with a source) other people's judgements. Tropicos is not itself the source for "accepted" names; the source is the one that Tropicos lists for the name. Given its policies, there's no reason in principle why Tropicos could not in future list more than one "accepted" name for Philodendron sodiroi should there be a difference of opinion in sources Tropicos chooses to use.
I think you are wrong to say that where more than one accepted name is listed, this is the same as "unresolved" in other databases. Firstly, "unresolved" may mean uncertainty as to whether the name is legitimate or not. Secondly, in databases that make judgements, there will only ever be one accepted name (although alternatives may be listed, as WCSP and PoWO do as "not accepted by"), so in these databases "unresolved" means "a decision has not yet been made". In Tropicos, multiple accepted names does not mean that Tropicos will in future make a decision as to which is correct. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like we were at least developing consensus to go with name change, I was even working on a Thaumatophyllum article, but new developments may make that premature. The International Aroid Society, with the top experts in the world, have rejected Thaumatophyllum for now based on the lack of clarity from competing molecular studies both done in 2018. The society is such a heavyweight in the aroid world that I'm guessing the major plant databases will follow them soon and rescind their acceptance of the new genus, for now. So unfortunately I have to withdraw my support for the name change for now, until this gets more settled (could be a couple decades!). Tom Hulse (talk) 07:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Sakuragui, Cassia Mônica; Calazans, Luana Silva Braucks; Oliveira, Leticia Loss de; Morais, Érica Barroso de; Benko-Iseppon, Ana Maria; Vasconcelos, Santelmo; Schrago, Carlos Eduardo Guerra; Mayo, Simon Joseph (2018). "Recognition of the genus Thaumatophyllum Schott − formerly Philodendron subg. Meconostigma (Araceae) − based on molecular and morphological evidence". PhytoKeys. 98: 51–71. doi:10.3897/phytokeys.98.25044. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Distribution map[edit]

Reliable sources, such as Plants of the World Online here, say the genus occurs throughout most of South America, contrary to the recently added map. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monsters Deliciosa listed as example[edit]

Why is Monstera Deliciosa used as an example of Pinnation in the genus when it's not a member? I think the writer saw the common name and got confused 2600:1004:B187:EBFC:300D:39B8:3468:6791 (talk) 20:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Philodendron&oldid=1194905078"