Just wanted to share this pic I found of a huge hemi-epiphytic Philodendron (P. bipinnatifidum?) climbing up a tree in a secondary forest in Sao Paolo, Brazil. As Steve pointed out in one of his articles in Exotic Rainforest, large Meco Philodendrons do climb trees! :-) http://www.blueboard.com/pahatan/gambar/p_bipinnatifidum_img36.htm It seems to have enormous roots dangling down back to the soil, since the stem seems to have no connection to the ground at all.
What an incredible Meconostigma! I've seen the species well up into the trees in Miami but never with a stem this thick! I've been repeatedly amazed to find so many posts on private websites as well as some plant forums claiming this Philodendron subgenus will not climb! And I agree, all the blade characteristics indicate the species is Philodendron bipinnatifidum (commonly grown as Philodendron selloum). The photo clearly shows the intravaginal squamules which is something I've found difficult to photograph on some of my own specimens.
Yep, they'll climb if necessary. That's what I love about the Mecos, they can stand on their own like a tree, but when push come to shove they'll start climbing up the nearest large vertical structure to catch more light. I'll note though it's possible this specimen may have started as a seedling up in the tree branches as well.
Which is exactly why collectors often prefer to call Meconostigma "tree Philodendron" They looks and grow like trees which is why science labels them "arborescent" (tree like). I've seen them stand 20 feet with no support but in most cases they will fall to the ground but still grow laterally until they can find something to climb. Want an exciting career that will take you on vacation in exotic locations? Be a field botanist! Photos like this are extremely valuable since they allow those of us who cannot easily go to the rain forest to observe how plant actually grow. Just another good reason to promote field botany over molecular botany. You can certainly learn a lot of good information with DNA but actually seeing and observing a plant and its natural variation is of greater value. I've often wondered how a molecular botanist would do field work unless he had a DNA lab it tow. We need both groups, but field botany will never loose its value to science. I encourage students all the time to consider a life of tracking through a tropical rain forest in order to find and study new plant and animal species
Personally, I think both are equally valuable, although I can understand your concern about the loss of field biologists over molecular biologists because most funding agencies may have a bias for funding molecular work. Honestly, I'd rather do fieldwork than sit in a lab all day, and I'm sure a lot of people feel the same way.
I am not opposed to molecular botany, I just see the need for the training of more field botanists. I've had a few molecular botany students in my atrium and they could identify very few species since all they knew was the DNA pattern of the plant. Since aroids are so variable the molecular people will eventually help us figure out which species are only synonyms but the big question is will they be able to find their specimen in the field if they haven't been trained to recognize the variable characteristics. Ideally new students should be trained in both fields at the same time.
