Disclaimer: The author of this post does not claim to be a botanical expert. The quotes used are given solely to provide information from qualified experts. Credits are commonly given to the owner of scientific information and that is the sole purpose here. No attempt is being made to associate the author of this post with these experts as a peer, only a researcher that has access to the source.
What is Philodendron domesticum and was the accepted scientific name Philodendron hastatum changed to “domesticum”?
I was asked well over one month ago to make a post on Dave’s Garden about the subject of the Spade Leaf Philodendron (Philodendron domesticum) but have been somewhat hesitant to do so. You'll understand why as you read. Supposedly there is a thread somewhere on the aroid forum that relates to this subject but I can’t find it since the search is not working. Hopefully either the person that asked I make this post or somone more familiar with the site can help find it.
There is information that can be found on the Dave’s Garden Plant files that is still somewhat inaccurate even though several of us have asked by email to have it corrected. Honestly, I stopped asking years ago.
I began asking more than four years ago but was told my information was incorrect even when I added the same quotes from aroid botanist Dr. Tom Croat of the Missouri Botanical Garden I am including in this post. As far as I can tell, the true species Philodendron hastatum from Brazil is not even listed and is only shown as a “synonym” of Philodendron domesticum. At least in science, that would be impossible.
Despite information that was at one time commonly posted on the internet, the scientific name Philodendron hastatum has not been changed to Philodendron domesticum. That information was found on many plant forums and at one time was even posted on the USDA website. USDA has since been modified their information after correspondence between aroid botanists as well as collectors that understood the science.
Someone simply misread part of a paper written by botanist George Bunting and didn’t get beyond the title. The two plants are not the same. Dr. Bunting (formerly of Cornell University) published the name Philodendron domesticum in his 1966 paper Philodendron domesticum, A New Name for P. hastatum Hort.
Had the reader finished reading Bunting's entire paper they would have found this quote by the good doctor himself, "The spade-leaf philodendron is a popular foliage plant with glossy bright green leaf blades to about 6 dm. long borne on equally long petioles. Its spathes are pale green outside but beautifully colored inside with cherry-red on the blade and wine-red on the tube. This taxon is commonly designated as Philodendron hastatum. Such usage, however, is untenable, for the name properly belongs to a very different species. Philodendron hastatum C. Koch & Sellow was first published in 1854"
George Bunting clearly states in his paper he was not attempting to change the name of the scientifically known species, Philodendron hastatum (1854) Bunting also stated the common usage of a published scientific name for a non-related hybrid is "untenable" since the name Philodendron hastatum "properly belongs to a very different species. Philodendron hastatum C. Koch & Sello" which was first published in 1854".
Horticultural plant collectors simply misunderstood what Dr. Bunting wrote in the title for his description!
Plant and garden discussion websites have in the past commonly stated the name Philodendron hastatum either has been changed or is now a synonym of Philodendron domesticum which is incorrect. That same information can be found on this sites Plant Files. Bunting was not changing the name of anything but was instead describing what he felt was a new plant that may not even be a species. Bunting clearly did not change the name of an accepted species nor did he declare his new “species” to be a synonym.
The term synonym is used only when a published name for a plant is later found to be only a new description for a known and accepted scientific name. According to personal email exchanges with aroid botanists Dr. Tom Croat as well as with Dr. Eduardo Gonçalves in Brazil science knows exactly where Philodendron hastatum originated in nature: Brazil. Apparently no scientist can tell you where Philodendron domesticum came from since it has never been observed in the wild.
When the plant now known as Philodendron domesticum came into existence in the 1960’s it was commonly sold by growers using the name “Philodendron hastatum”, but that use was a common name, not a scientific name for the plant. Since collectors rarely have training in botany they could not and did not understand the difference and drew some very bad conclusions.
Some aroid botanists appear to believe Philodendron domesticum is simply a man-made hybrid and not a natural species. In a personal email from Dr. Croat received March 3, 2007, Tom wrote, ""I have never seen the type of P. domesticum and doubt if I would know any more if I had seen it. Just looking at the illustration I could imagine that it could be a dozen different species. The reason why it is confused with P. hastatum K. Koch is that the plant he described had commonly been called P. hastatum. Naturally it had nothing to do with P. hastatum. It was just another cultivated plant of unknown origin. He accomplished nothing by describing it and instead just created another plant likely never to be understood."
Based on the rules of science Bunting could not have changed the name if he wanted to do so. One of the most basic rules of taxonomy is the earliest published scientific name correct to genus becomes the accepted name. Attempts to rename a species at a later date become invalid unless a major error can be demonstrated in the original publication. In the case of Philodendron hastatum there has never been an error demonstrated. Philodendron hastatum K. Koch & Sello was published in 1854 while Philodendron domesticum did not become a “species” until 1966. The name Philodendron hastatum could not be changed to a newer name published 112 years later.
There are also those that believe Dr. Bunting may have been playing a joke on science when he published what is believed to be a hybrid as a species. Certainly, the definition of a “species” can be debated since some natural hybrids are now known as species. But this one may have just been a joke. When a botanist chooses a species’ name they are free to “Latinize” a name should they choose. Think about the name “domesticum”. It could easily be drawn from the English word “domesticated”, as in home grown.
If anyone on this forum has the ability to add the correct information to the Plant Files, at the very least the name Philodendron hastatum K. Koch and Sello should be added since it does not appear to be currently listed. At the same time the term “synonym” should not be used for P. hastatum with Philodendron domesticum but perhaps an explanation added the name was once incorrectly known by that name in the 1960’s.
I regret this explanation is lengthy but I worked on it for more than an hour trying to tighten it up. If someone will tell me how to add photos of the two plants I'll gladly do so but my old brain can't figure it out.
Steve
This message was edited Apr 4, 2010 3:56 PM
This message was edited Apr 4, 2010 9:31 PM
This message was edited Jun 16, 2010 8:36 AM
Philodendron domesticum, the Spade Leaf Philo. What is it?
Well, I should just read further. The first is from the Marie Selby Gardens of Philodendron domesticum. I have been granted permission from Selby to use the photo.
This message was edited Apr 4, 2010 4:01 PM
This one is of the species plant known as Philodendron hastatum.
There is also a plant on Plant Files referred to as Philodendron hastatum (Engl). According to the Royal Botanic Garden Kew in London that name is a synonym of Philodendron subhastatum which is found in Colombia and Ecuador. Philodendron hastatum K Koch and Sellow show above is a completely different plant.
Two more comments and I will try to abandon this effort.
Some stlll believe the USDA/GRIN indicates these two plants are one and the same. After consulting with GRIN these are the current two pages although the old page appears to still be on their site.
Please read the "non" part about one plant not being the same as the other.
GRIN page on P. hastatum K Koch & Sellow
thanks for abandoning this effort
My edit is only to include this thread as a reference.
http://davesgarden.com/community/forums/t/1104387/
Ms. Roper, this type of combative response on a plant discussion forum serves zero purpose. It does not serve to stimulate discussion or to educate anyone. It appears to serve no purpose other than to assure no individual with an education in plants ever disagrees with you.
I am certain you believe that when you respond to my posts in this manner I become fearful of you. I do not. I am certain that when you display disdain for anyone that has taken the time to educate himself or herself in the field of plant science, you make us quiver with fear when you “bark”. We do not. There are others on this forum with great knowledge of aroids and a few of us love to carry on honest and open discussion. You are welcome to join.
I received no less than seven personal emails from folks on this forum apologizing to me for your recent outburst on another thread. Every one of them encouraged me to continue to post good info and I intend to do just that. One even told the story of a previous encounter when you attacked an individual and apparently that person promptly stood up to you finally causing you to express regret for what you had written. I expect nothing. Some of us, probably many of us, find your attitude toward those of us that want to share information as well as your choice of words disdainful.
You are an excellent grower. I congratulate you for the quality of the plants you grow. I have received e-mails from people that claim to know you that include photos of your collection. You grow some awesome plants.
At one time you began a very nice website explaining how you grow them. I read every single page on your site which has apparently since vanished from the Internet. You should have continued, however by doing more careful research the integrity of your site would have been greatly enhanced. Websites don’t grow on their own, they must be actively promoted.
You obviously have knowledge of your plants, but you have more than once posted plant photos with bad names and information on other forums. You are free to call any plant in your collection by any name you choose. You are free to grow any plant in your collection in any way you choose.
However when you begin to share inaccurate names and information with novices that are inclined to trust your judgment I must take exception and respond.
The Internet is filled with bad information on aroids. There is likely more bad information on how to grow aroid plants as well as plant identification than there is qualified information. Bad information persists due to people who continue to copy and publish bad photos and bad information.
My concern is not you or your choices of plant names, my concern is all the people that listen to you. You once posted photos on another forum of a plant you identified as Anthurium cubense. Your plant in that photo is not the species.
Any individual who has taken the time to train themselves in the science of that species knows how to count the primary veins, knows how to analyze the petioles (the stalks that support the leaves), knows how to look for the pubescence (hair) at the base of the stem (central axis of the plant), and knows how to look at the structure as well as the angle of the primary veins as they emerge from the mid-rib and depart to the edge of the blade (margin).
These are the reasons some of us enjoy reading the scientific description of a plant. By checking the science against the plant we can come to a better conclusion as to the correct name of the species we want to understand. When you insist you are correct and your information is clearly contrary to science you do nothing but attempt to assert your domination over the conversation.
This combative behavior on your part has gone on against me since late 2005. I fully understand your goal both here and on other forums. You want me to become angry and leave. Thus, your assertion I leave forums when my “feelings get hurt” would be validated. I will not. In fact, it is you that has tried and tried to force me off forums!
You want me to strike back at you so you can do your best to turn my response into a good reason why people should pay no attention to my posts. As I once stated on the UBC forum, I refuse to fall for the bait you are casting. You will never receive an angry response from me, but you will also never receive another apology when I attempt to be civil! I have tried consistently to be nice to you but you only respond with disdain.
This battle you attempting to rage began on GardenWeb where you use a different handle. Several times once I made posts attempting to answer a question you would respond with "I thought we got rid of you". You did not. I still to this day post on GardenWeb, primarily on the aroid forum. Interestingly, I haven't seen you there for a long time but I am certain I will soon see your return and the combative nature of your responses will once again increase. Be prepared, I will gladly copy and paste this post there as well!
You posted bad information regarding Anthurium regale and I contacted your stated source. He disagreed with you because I have also communicated with him for years. Further, while seeking good information to share with the public, I contacted Dr. Thomas B. Croat at the Missouri Botanical Garden. Dr. Croat immediately disagreed with you.
Oh, please forgive me; I just realize I am "throwing around" another name.
During the year 2008 there was a huge confusion on the Internet regarding a plant that many people were selling as “Anthurium jenmanii” for up to $1000 for a single plant. The plant truly being sold was Anthurium bonplandii subspecies guayanum.
On the UBC forum you called me to task saying there was no way I could identify a plant based on that reddish new leaf that was being produced by the plants for sale. The posts are still on UBC and can easily be found. I never said I could identify the species although I have now studied both plants in detail. I did not attempted to identify anything, I quoted a complete e-mail from Dr. Croat and HE SAID the plant being sold could not be Anthurium jenmanii. You try to argue with me, when in fact you were arguing with the world's best-known aroid botanist. Do you truly believe you are more highly qualified than the most highly educated and published aroid botanist in the field of aroids on the face of this planet
And by the way, since you implied on this forum I leave forums once I feel attacked. You should be aware I have made well over 1000 posts on UBC since the moderators began to either edit or completely delete your spiteful posts. Again, you likely didn’t know it but each one of them were botanists!
I would never say you are not welcome here, you certainly are and have every right to post whatever you believe. At the same time, those that know your information to be incorrect have a right and an obligation to others that may read it to explain to others that have less knowledge the information is wrong.
. I would never tell you that you are not entitled to your personal beliefs or opinions, but I will quickly say your attitude is not welcome if all you wish to do is be combative in an attempt to belittle others. Personally, I will not be fearful and I will not bow down to your "authority". Please feel free to post, but please bite your tongue if you believe threats are going to make any of us kneel before you in fear. We will not. Intimidation does not work in this setting.
Best wishes and please continue to post, however, please consider what you are saying and check your facts before you post them.
And by the way, as a result of what I am about to say, I've also seen your unkind posts regarding the IAS and botanical gardens that charge a fair admission in order to stay in business. Should you ever choose to join the IAS, it will be my pleasure to personally welcome you as a member with a similar letter to the one I send to every new member.
You would be most welcome to attend the International Aroid Society show in Miami this September. It would be my pleasure to introduce you personally to some of the top aroid botanists on the planet and I am certain some would consider corresponding with you if you wish to verify information. Tom will be there as will botanist Pete Boyce from Malaysia. There will be some great discussion groups and classes going on including more horticultural discussions than have ever been had at one of our shows in the past. I have personally invited both LariAnn and Scott Wade from this forum to give talks aimed at growers. Both have accepted. And since you have indicated elsewhere Fairchild charges too high an admission price I will personally arrange to get you into the garden for free along with a guest of your choice. All I need is a weeks notice in advance of the event. To top it off, I will do all possible to see that we do not meet if that is your choice.
Best wishes, and please continue to post.
Steve Lucas
www.ExoticRainforest.com
Board member and Corresponding secretary, the International Aroid Society
www.Aroid.org
This message was edited Jun 27, 2010 11:11 PM
wow you have an actual form letter now. How original
Please refrain from making negative comments!
This forum is for the discussion of Aroids.
Please keep in mind your agreement to User Conduct in the Terms of Use of your membership.
http://davesgarden.com/aboutus/tou/#User%20Conduct
This message was edited Jul 1, 2010 6:40 AM
I'm very curious....has anyone undertaken DNA studies of Aroids, especially any questionably named species?
If not, can't someone do a financial grant study to help pay for the costs?
Seems like IAS would be a great website to publish DNA results.
Good point!
The chromosome numbers of species in question can be used to show differences or similarities.
There are several institutions doing this now, especially students of Dr. Croat at the Missouri Botanical Garden as well as in universities in Brazil and England. The main problem is the high cost of the test and the lack of funding.
More and more field botany is becoming a thing of the past and today's students are largely studying molecular botany which will eventually give us more answers. Field botany teaches a student to recognize a plant by its physical characteristics which is largely why collector/growers have a problem understanding which species is which. If anyone is not familiar with how to count veins, check the distance between the internodes, look at the cataphylls, check the root structure and dry a specimen to check for the dried coloration of the blade and other parts as well as compare the tiny details of a plant, you often can't tell one plant from another that is similar. The difficulty with molecular botany is who is going to know any species from another without a portable DNA unit?
If you were to check a scientific site such as the Royal Botanic Garden Kew's CATE Araceae you can often find the chromosome counts in some of their descriptions and the IAS would be interested but as a society we are only funded by our membership and can't fund the expense. Still, the problem is that information is useless to most of us since we can't do a DNA count to compare out own plants to a known specimen
In the case of Philodendron domesticum the plant is a known hybrid. Dr. Bunting clearly states that in his published paper and I am currently trying to see if one of our older members may actually know what the parent species may have been. Philodendron hastatum is so distinct it is quite easy for anyone with the training to easily distinguish the two with vein counts, examination of the petiole, stem and the inflorescence. Even though many growers own a specimen of the true Philodendron hastatum it is now near being placed on the endangered species list since almost all of its habitat in Brazil has been destroyed. You will only find coffee beans there now, no rain forest. The same is true between Philodendron hastatum and Philodendron subhastatum including the fact they grow thousands of miles apart in nature.
There are species that look so much alike the only ways to tell them apart are by a detailed comparison of the inflorescence including counts of the sexual organs and/or DNA. If anyone has some suggestions how we can get more of this work done I know the scientists I am aware of would welcome the ideas.
Steve