I have three of these anthuriums. I believe they are all the same plant (I think that they are A. schlechtendalii). They are all quite large, I've had them for several years and bought all of them as little unlabeled plants (except for tags that said "Birdnest Anthurium, LOL) Can I get a positive ID? Number 1
Greetings: No. 1 could be a no-name primary hybrid or one of the southern CentrAm species; the peduncle looks more than a tad long for Anthurium schlectendalii but this could be the result of very soft greenhouse culture. Has it ever set fruit? If so, what color were they? No. 2 looks to be a good A. llewelynii...occasionally some of these plants produce very lightly barred peduncles, giving them a "tiger-striped" appearance. No. 3 has nothing useful visible to ID it. As I've mentioned to others here...these plants are very promiscuous and interbreed fairly freely within the subgenus. In order to be absolutely certain of what you have, it has to have originated from a reliable source (artificially-propagated or wild-collected) and have a name tag that actually fits the description. Cheerio, SJ
According to Dr. Eduardo Gonçalves in Brazil, if it is Anthurium schlechtendalii the peduncle should be longer than the spadix. The berries will be red. The peduncle can measure 10cm to 54cm (4 to 21.25 inches) in length according to Dr. Croat. Also, according to Dr. Croat this species is extremely variable and often difficult to verify without a spathe and spadix since it takes on many leaf forms. Without the inflorescence it is very difficult to be certain. This is a verified photo of the spathe and spadix confirmed by Dr. Croat, however the spathe may either be erect or pendant (hang down). Dr. Croat told me this is one of the more difficult species to verify since even the petiole may take on different shapes.
Would like to see a closeup of the top of the peduncle and spathe-spadix combo if you can do it, but, basically, "yes". As Steve appears to want to point out, Anthurium schlectendalii (which is our most common NATIVE species, BTW) is very, very variable even among small populations. There is a spot on the Caribbean coast here where they are far and away the dominant epiphytic/lithophytic/terrestrial plant and you really could pick out 10 individuals at random from a 10 km transect and think they were all different spp. If you're bored out of your skull someday, you can check Tropicos and see the plethora of invalid names that were given to it by solid botanists (even one here; A. tikalense) due to its tricky, shape-shifting nature ;^) Have good one, J
As intimated above identifying species of plants based on fine anatomical details as though they were horticultural clones can be tricky. Some wild species have fairly big ranges of morphological characteristics. Partly it depends on how a particular species was defined in the first place, if the original author named a species based on comparatively minor (and perhaps therefore questionable) traits but nobody has subsequently demonstrated (in a way accepted by botany) that the plants so differentiated are not actually distinct enough to be called legitimate species then using the existing name is still the thing to do.
Errr.........., I think I understand all that Ron! Species variability is certainly confusing and often drives me in circles. My specimen looks little like the majority illustrated in the books and nothing like Bihai's other than the spathe and spadix. But Dr. Croat identified it after I took him a full leaf blade nearly 5 feet long, a bunch of photos, and a complete spathe and spadix. But as Jay accurately points out, this species is considered to show as many variations in nature as any known to science. And to me, remains very, very confusing. But based on Bihai's inflorescence photo that one certainly does appear to be Anthurium schlechtendalii.
The plants are doing their thing and don't care what we call them. Some lines will still be in the process of differentiating. Naming them is just a way of sorting them out for our own peace of mind and convenience. DNA work has helped get the total picture by giving a look at more than the gross morphology, the outside package, which can be quite misleading in some instances.
I think I will just make up my own names for them. That's more fun anyway. Ron's right, plants don't give a hoot what we call them. We are the ones who give a hoot. Sometimes too much of a hoot. Excuse me I am babbling. My half marathon race of earlier today is, finally, taking its toll and I must go to bed. Its only 9:22. Must be due to my being in my dotage, LOL
