St Swithin question

[Piper]

Hi Tindo,

Monopodial means "single foot" and it describes the development of new growths more accurately than new leaves.

A Paph appears monopodial on an individual growth, but the next growth comes up beside the older growth. Monopodials don't have "next growths" unless the tip of the active growth is damaged. Then they might put out an emergency backup growth. Left to their own devices, they'll grow happily forever out of the top of their single growth.

If, when you think of sympodial, you envision a Catt, you see that the growths are linear, from oldest to newest, sometimes branching. Paphs are sympodial, but follow more of a concentric circle pattern. The oldest is typically in the center, and the newer growths can appear anywhere around it.

Some Paphs are stoloniferous - noteably some Parvi species and hybrids - which means they'll sometimes send out a rhizome-like stolon and a new growth can pop up some distance from big mama.

I have a question for the pros and I've learned the hard way how many hang out here! ...I have a book that lists Neofinetia as a monopodial genus, yet I would have sworn for all the reasons stated above that it was sympodial. Is the book wrong, or my understanding?

Julie

[Tindomul]

Thanks Piper. That did clear it up a bit!! I'm not so dissapointed anymore as I am now thinking of them along the lines of Catts. In anycase, your question is a good one even though I have never considered, and now eagerly await an answer.
Knowing whether the plants are monopodial or sympodial help me to form relationships between them. Like, are Phals, Vandas, and Neo's closely related? Or not?

[Tindomul]

Originally Posted by cb977

Do you see what I see?

A star, a star dancing in the night With a tail as big as a kite
With a tail as big as a kite!

do you hear what I hear?

A song, a song, high above the tree
With a voice as big as the sea
With a voice as big as the sea!

[Piper]

A favorite childhood carol! Nice, Tindo!

As for relationships, it's all intermingled. Not just within orchids, but wider plant taxonomic groupings. Different properties are governed by different chromosomes. Some occur with like species, subsections, or genera, and some pop out of no where within totally different sections and genera.

Still, the learning is a wonderful experience!

Julie

[Tindomul]

The more you know, the less you know! Sigh........

[justatypn]

Hey Susanne, nice job, yes I see what you see, another baby...your paph looks happy happy happy and showing you in a great way...nice job...

[littlefrog]

Originally Posted by Piper

I have a question for the pros and I've learned the hard way how many hang out here! ...I have a book that lists Neofinetia as a monopodial genus, yet I would have sworn for all the reasons stated above that it was sympodial. Is the book wrong, or my understanding?

Julie

Well... I agree that neos appear sympodial. As do ascocentrums like miniatum and ampullaceum. But, we all know ascocentrums are monopodial, too! And some, like Asctm. christensonianum, are definitely that way. I think of them as monopodial orchids that keiki a lot from the base.

Anyway... So, interesting observation. I had never really thought about it before. There must be something in the definition that is escaping me too, or it is a false distinction. Personally, I think it is an example of trying to shove a diverse set of things into only two boxes. We know that vandaceous things (which includes phalaenopsis) are by far monopodial, so they all are, even when they aren't. History, artifact of taxonomy, I don't know.

Rob (only semi-pro)