plant that grows from a relative of the Yam family?

[blair]

Hi:
I was at somebody's house once and they had a big sprawling plant with heart
shaped leaves. They said that they grew it by putting a relative of the yam
family into the ground and planting it. Apparently you could also plant a
yam and grow a different plant as well.

Does anyone know what this plant is?

Thanks,
Blair

[Cereoid+10]

Dioscorea is a huge genus.

Could it be you are you speaking of a species of Ipomoea?

What did the flowers look like?


blair > wrote in message
...
> Hi:
> I was at somebody's house once and they had a big sprawling plant with
heart
> shaped leaves. They said that they grew it by putting a relative of the
yam
> family into the ground and planting it. Apparently you could also plant a
> yam and grow a different plant as well.
>
> Does anyone know what this plant is?
>
> Thanks,
> Blair
>

[Beverly Erlebacher]

In article >,
blair > wrote:
>I was at somebody's house once and they had a big sprawling plant with heart
>shaped leaves. They said that they grew it by putting a relative of the yam
>family into the ground and planting it. Apparently you could also plant a
>yam and grow a different plant as well.
>
>Does anyone know what this plant is?

In some areas, sweet potatoes are called yams, but they don't belong to
either the potato or the yam family - they are related to morning glories.

When I was a kid (in ancient times), you could just stick a sweet potato
(Ipomoea batatas) halfway into a glass of water and have a lush sprawling
plant as described in a few weeks. Nowadays, both sweet and real potatoes
are usually treated to prevent sprouting, but if you look carefully you may
find some that aren't, perhaps in a store that sells organically grown produce.

In the past few years I've been seeing ornamental cultivars of sweet potato
sold as hanging basket annuals, with lime-green, purple-black or variegated
leaves. If you live in an area where people grow sweet potatoes in their
gardens, you may be able to find 'sets' or young plants in the spring.

You can also get some really nice plants from other roots and tubers,
especially if you can find grocery stores catering to people from tropical
areas. One of my favorite is 'eddoes', which I'm pretty sure is a small
variety of taro (Colocasia esculenta). You can sometimes find ones that
are starting to sprout, and grow them in a pot half submerged in a bucket
of water. The leaves are very attractive, and after a summer on my patio
I actually had two or three times more eddoes than I planted. These things
must be fantastically productive in a suitable climate, considering how
well they did here in Toronto. There are ornamental varieties of taro and
related plants but just plain eddoes look great.

They are called eddoes in the West Indies, but you can also find them in
Chinese groceries. I don't know the name in Chinese, and when I ask, they
tell me 'Chinese potato'!

If you start to get into this sort of exotic produce gardening in pots, be
sure to try ginger, another nice looking plant that does well with surprisingly
little sunlight.

[I Don't Like Spam]

In article >,
blair > wrote:
>I was at somebody's house once and they had a big sprawling plant with heart
>shaped leaves. They said that they grew it by putting a relative of the yam
>family into the ground and planting it. Apparently you could also plant a
>yam and grow a different plant as well.
>
>Does anyone know what this plant is?
When I was in college, a friend planted a sweet potato in a pot and
let it grow. Later she told her room-mate that it was a "heart-shaped
wandering jew". This was believed until an energetic pet knocked the
pot over, breaking it, revealing the true nature of the plant. As
mentioned earlier, sweet potato is in Convolvulaceae, with morning
glories.

I wouldn't have brought this up, except sitting on my window sill here
at work is a member of the yam family Dioscoreaceae, _Dioscorea
macrostachya_, (dormant right now) the leaves of which are very
similar to the heart shaped leaves of sweet potato. This grows from a
large corm that is quite interesting in appearance. In nature this
corm is hidden underground, but when sold as a houseplant, the organ
is kept above ground for show (some of the larger, older ones resemble
a tortoise shell, at least if you have an active imagination).

So, before we jump to conclusions about exactly what the plant is,
there ARE some members of the yam family kept as houseplants that fit
your description (although, in general, they are a bit pricey, and not
very common except perhaps through specialty succulent dealers).

Sweet potatoes as sold in the US, often called yams (oh the wonders of
misleading common names). Ask your friend if they could allow you to
take a look at the underground stem by brusing away a little soil. If
it looks like a sweet potato, it probably is. Otherwise, my Dioscorea
has a THIN, SINGLE, TOUGH twining vine that comes from the TOP of a
CORM-like structure. If I recall correctly, a sweet potato would
likely have SEVERAL sprouts coming from a VARIOUS POINTS along a
HORIZONTAL TUBER, and those sprouts would tend to be more FLESHY or
SUCCULENT, at least close to the tuber.

Hope this helps.

[Cereoid+10]

Sorry Spammy Davis, Jr. but you have already jumped to wrong conclusions and
that does not help.

The rootstock of Dioscorea is a tuber not a corm. A corm is covered by a
tunic but a tuber is not.

Dioscorea is a huge genus and even includes a number of cold hardy species.

The "Sweet Potato" Ipomoea batatas is a "Morning Glory" with tuberous roots.


I Don't Like Spam > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> blair > wrote:
> >I was at somebody's house once and they had a big sprawling plant with
heart
> >shaped leaves. They said that they grew it by putting a relative of the
yam
> >family into the ground and planting it. Apparently you could also plant a
> >yam and grow a different plant as well.
> >
> >Does anyone know what this plant is?
> When I was in college, a friend planted a sweet potato in a pot and
> let it grow. Later she told her room-mate that it was a "heart-shaped
> wandering jew". This was believed until an energetic pet knocked the
> pot over, breaking it, revealing the true nature of the plant. As
> mentioned earlier, sweet potato is in Convolvulaceae, with morning
> glories.
>
> I wouldn't have brought this up, except sitting on my window sill here
> at work is a member of the yam family Dioscoreaceae, _Dioscorea
> macrostachya_, (dormant right now) the leaves of which are very
> similar to the heart shaped leaves of sweet potato. This grows from a
> large corm that is quite interesting in appearance. In nature this
> corm is hidden underground, but when sold as a houseplant, the organ
> is kept above ground for show (some of the larger, older ones resemble
> a tortoise shell, at least if you have an active imagination).
>
> So, before we jump to conclusions about exactly what the plant is,
> there ARE some members of the yam family kept as houseplants that fit
> your description (although, in general, they are a bit pricey, and not
> very common except perhaps through specialty succulent dealers).
>
> Sweet potatoes as sold in the US, often called yams (oh the wonders of
> misleading common names). Ask your friend if they could allow you to
> take a look at the underground stem by brusing away a little soil. If
> it looks like a sweet potato, it probably is. Otherwise, my Dioscorea
> has a THIN, SINGLE, TOUGH twining vine that comes from the TOP of a
> CORM-like structure. If I recall correctly, a sweet potato would
> likely have SEVERAL sprouts coming from a VARIOUS POINTS along a
> HORIZONTAL TUBER, and those sprouts would tend to be more FLESHY or
> SUCCULENT, at least close to the tuber.
>
> Hope this helps.

[Monique Reed]

D. bulbifera does make aerial tubers. They look a lot like potatoes,
which has earned the plant the common name "Air Potato." It's
commonly cultivated as a curiosity. In some cultivars the tubers are
edible. You can see an image at:
http://botany.cs.tamu.edu/FLORA/dcs420/fa08/fa08071.jpg

M. Reed

David Hershey wrote:
Hortus Third also says D. bulbifera produces
> aerial tubers,

[Cereoid+10]

The term rootsock does not mean the same as true roots. Roostock refers to
the central body of perennial plants and can be rhizomes, tubers, bulbs,
etc.

Webster's (which is not a botanical reference anyway) is wrong. The
rootstock of Dioscorea is a tuber. Often it is fleshy but it can be woody
and caudiciform. None have tunicated corms.

You should look for yourself rather than rely on sources based on second or
third hand information.


David Hershey > wrote in message
om...
> A rootstock cannot be a tuber because a tuber is a modified stem.
>
> A variety of terms are applied to storage structures of Dioscorea.
> Katherine Esau in her Anatomy of Seed Plants text, Hortus Third,
> Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (under yam) and all the college
> introductory botany texts I checked all say Dioscorea has a storage
> root or tuberous root. Hortus Third also says D. bulbifera produces
> aerial tubers, and some Dioscorea species have rhizomes. A few
> websites even claim some Dioscorea species do have corms.
>
> Distinctions between types of modified stems, such as stolons,
> rhizomes, tubers and corms, are not always clear cut.
>
> Reference
>
>
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=dioscorea+corm&btnG=Googl
e+Search
>
>
> David R. Hershey
>
>
>
> "Cereoid+10" > wrote in message
>...
> > Sorry Spammy Davis, Jr. but you have already jumped to wrong conclusions
and
> > that does not help.
> >
> > The rootstock of Dioscorea is a tuber not a corm. A corm is covered by a
> > tunic but a tuber is not.
> >
> > Dioscorea is a huge genus and even includes a number of cold hardy
species.
> >
> > The "Sweet Potato" Ipomoea batatas is a "Morning Glory" with tuberous
roots.
> >
> >
> > I Don't Like Spam > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > blair > wrote:
> > > >I was at somebody's house once and they had a big sprawling plant
with
> > heart
> > > >shaped leaves. They said that they grew it by putting a relative of
the
> > yam
> > > >family into the ground and planting it. Apparently you could also
plant a
> > > >yam and grow a different plant as well.
> > > >
> > > >Does anyone know what this plant is?
> > > When I was in college, a friend planted a sweet potato in a pot and
> > > let it grow. Later she told her room-mate that it was a "heart-shaped
> > > wandering jew". This was believed until an energetic pet knocked the
> > > pot over, breaking it, revealing the true nature of the plant. As
> > > mentioned earlier, sweet potato is in Convolvulaceae, with morning
> > > glories.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't have brought this up, except sitting on my window sill here
> > > at work is a member of the yam family Dioscoreaceae, _Dioscorea
> > > macrostachya_, (dormant right now) the leaves of which are very
> > > similar to the heart shaped leaves of sweet potato. This grows from a
> > > large corm that is quite interesting in appearance. In nature this
> > > corm is hidden underground, but when sold as a houseplant, the organ
> > > is kept above ground for show (some of the larger, older ones resemble
> > > a tortoise shell, at least if you have an active imagination).
> > >
> > > So, before we jump to conclusions about exactly what the plant is,
> > > there ARE some members of the yam family kept as houseplants that fit
> > > your description (although, in general, they are a bit pricey, and not
> > > very common except perhaps through specialty succulent dealers).
> > >
> > > Sweet potatoes as sold in the US, often called yams (oh the wonders of
> > > misleading common names). Ask your friend if they could allow you to
> > > take a look at the underground stem by brusing away a little soil. If
> > > it looks like a sweet potato, it probably is. Otherwise, my Dioscorea
> > > has a THIN, SINGLE, TOUGH twining vine that comes from the TOP of a
> > > CORM-like structure. If I recall correctly, a sweet potato would
> > > likely have SEVERAL sprouts coming from a VARIOUS POINTS along a
> > > HORIZONTAL TUBER, and those sprouts would tend to be more FLESHY or
> > > SUCCULENT, at least close to the tuber.
> > >
> > > Hope this helps.

[David Hershey]

Rootstock is one of several botanical terms that have multiple
definitions. You seem to be referring to the old gardening definition
of rootstock as a synonym for rhizome or underground stem. Using
rootstock as a term for a stem is obviously confusing and therefore
undesirable.

The more useful definition of rootstock is the root bearing part of a
grafted plant. However, even when applied to grafting, rootstock is
somewhat misleading. Less misleading terms are understock or stock. A
stock may consist solely of root tissue. However, a stock is usually
going to consist mostly of root tissue with a small amount of stem
tissue. The stock of a topgrafted fruit tree will contain considerable
stem tissue. A stock may include an underground stem but usually it
will not. About the only plant with tubers that is occasionally
grafted is potato. Tomato is grafted on potato as a novelty or for
research.

I mentioned several botanical sources, not just Websters Dictionary.
You mentioned no sources. Katherine Esau was a well respected plant
anatomist. The root chapter in her textbook, Anatomy of Seed Plants,
2nd ed. says Dioscorea has "storage roots." Maybe Esau, Hortus Third
and the half dozen college botany textbooks I consulted are wrong and
Dioscorea does have tubers and not storage roots as you contend. If
so, where is some published proof of that? I checked Simpson and
Ogorzally (1986) which says there is controversy whether Dioscorea
storage organs represent stem or root tissue.

Terms for modified stems are not uniformly defined and are often
confusing. There seems to be more diversity in underground stems than
can be accomodated by the handful of terms commonly used. Tuberous
root and tuber are particularly confusing terms. The term storage root
seems to be preferred over tuberous root in botany textbooks and is
certainly more accurate.

There are different definitions for tuber. Some authorities restrict
tuber to a swollen underground organ that develops from a rhizome or
stolon. By that definition, tuberous begonia and cyclamen do not
produce tubers although they are commonly called tubers. Cyclamen is
often referred to as a corm as well. Their storage organs develop
mainly from the hypocotyl and have a vertical orientation, not the
horizontal orientation of a "true" tuber. They are sometimes termed
tuberous stems instead (Hartmann and Kester 1983). However, that term
adds additional confusion. The aerial tubers of some Dioscorea species
are also not "true" tubers and are sometimes termed tubercles or
bulbils.

David R. Hershey


References

Hartmann, H.T. and Kester, D.E. 1983. Plant Propagation: Principles
and Practices. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Simpson, B.B. and Ogorzally, M.C. 1986. Economic Botany: Plants in Our
World. NY: McGraw-Hill.




"Cereoid+10" > wrote in message >...
> The term rootsock does not mean the same as true roots. Roostock refers to
> the central body of perennial plants and can be rhizomes, tubers, bulbs,
> etc.
>
> Webster's (which is not a botanical reference anyway) is wrong. The
> rootstock of Dioscorea is a tuber. Often it is fleshy but it can be woody
> and caudiciform. None have tunicated corms.
>
> You should look for yourself rather than rely on sources based on second or
> third hand information.
>
>
> David Hershey > wrote in message
> om...
> > A rootstock cannot be a tuber because a tuber is a modified stem.
> >
> > A variety of terms are applied to storage structures of Dioscorea.
> > Katherine Esau in her Anatomy of Seed Plants text, Hortus Third,
> > Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (under yam) and all the college
> > introductory botany texts I checked all say Dioscorea has a storage
> > root or tuberous root. Hortus Third also says D. bulbifera produces
> > aerial tubers, and some Dioscorea species have rhizomes. A few
> > websites even claim some Dioscorea species do have corms.
> >
> > Distinctions between types of modified stems, such as stolons,
> > rhizomes, tubers and corms, are not always clear cut.
> >
> > Reference
> >
> >
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=dioscorea+corm&btnG=Googl
> e+Search
> >
> >
> > David R. Hershey
> >
> >
> >
> > "Cereoid+10" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > Sorry Spammy Davis, Jr. but you have already jumped to wrong conclusions
> and
> > > that does not help.
> > >
> > > The rootstock of Dioscorea is a tuber not a corm. A corm is covered by a
> > > tunic but a tuber is not.
> > >
> > > Dioscorea is a huge genus and even includes a number of cold hardy
> species.
> > >
> > > The "Sweet Potato" Ipomoea batatas is a "Morning Glory" with tuberous
> roots.
> > >
> > >
> > > I Don't Like Spam > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > In article >,
> > > > blair > wrote:
> > > > >I was at somebody's house once and they had a big sprawling plant
> with
> heart
> > > > >shaped leaves. They said that they grew it by putting a relative of
> the
> yam
> > > > >family into the ground and planting it. Apparently you could also
> plant a
> > > > >yam and grow a different plant as well.
> > > > >
> > > > >Does anyone know what this plant is?
> > > > When I was in college, a friend planted a sweet potato in a pot and
> > > > let it grow. Later she told her room-mate that it was a "heart-shaped
> > > > wandering jew". This was believed until an energetic pet knocked the
> > > > pot over, breaking it, revealing the true nature of the plant. As
> > > > mentioned earlier, sweet potato is in Convolvulaceae, with morning
> > > > glories.
> > > >
> > > > I wouldn't have brought this up, except sitting on my window sill here
> > > > at work is a member of the yam family Dioscoreaceae, _Dioscorea
> > > > macrostachya_, (dormant right now) the leaves of which are very
> > > > similar to the heart shaped leaves of sweet potato. This grows from a
> > > > large corm that is quite interesting in appearance. In nature this
> > > > corm is hidden underground, but when sold as a houseplant, the organ
> > > > is kept above ground for show (some of the larger, older ones resemble
> > > > a tortoise shell, at least if you have an active imagination).
> > > >
> > > > So, before we jump to conclusions about exactly what the plant is,
> > > > there ARE some members of the yam family kept as houseplants that fit
> > > > your description (although, in general, they are a bit pricey, and not
> > > > very common except perhaps through specialty succulent dealers).
> > > >
> > > > Sweet potatoes as sold in the US, often called yams (oh the wonders of
> > > > misleading common names). Ask your friend if they could allow you to
> > > > take a look at the underground stem by brusing away a little soil. If
> > > > it looks like a sweet potato, it probably is. Otherwise, my Dioscorea
> > > > has a THIN, SINGLE, TOUGH twining vine that comes from the TOP of a
> > > > CORM-like structure. If I recall correctly, a sweet potato would
> > > > likely have SEVERAL sprouts coming from a VARIOUS POINTS along a
> > > > HORIZONTAL TUBER, and those sprouts would tend to be more FLESHY or
> > > > SUCCULENT, at least close to the tuber.
> > > >
> > > > Hope this helps.

[Cereoid+10]

Rootstock is the stock from which the roots, stems and leaves arise.
What is so confusing about that?
The old definition is the original correct definition.

You seem to be getting the definition backwards. Stock is the base word to
the term not root. You insist upon making thing far more complicated than
necessary. Maybe you should stick to chocolate bars and stop trying to
confuse everybody. Just because malaprops tend to become common usage by the
great unwashed and eventually get listed in dictionaries, that doesn't mean
they are correct usage of the terms. Common usage can be nothing but bull
shit. Tubers have even been mistaken for bulbs in common usage.

Yes, there is more than one type of tuber even though the terminology has
not been developed to define all of them thoroughly. Various types of tubers
can have the growing points on their surface, forming a ring or restricted
to the apex, depending on the species. A true corm is a tuber covered by a
tunic, as in the Crocus. The tuber of Cyclamen and tuberous Begonias lack
any tunic.

Saying epigeal tubers or tubers in leaf axils are not "true tubers" is
nonsense. There is no reason to believe that tubers can only be subterranean
organs.

As I have said before, you should look at the actual plants first hand
before waxing pedantic over references based on second and third hand
information. You might actually learn something!


David Hershey > wrote in message
om...
> Rootstock is one of several botanical terms that have multiple
> definitions. You seem to be referring to the old gardening definition
> of rootstock as a synonym for rhizome or underground stem. Using
> rootstock as a term for a stem is obviously confusing and therefore
> undesirable.
>
> The more useful definition of rootstock is the root bearing part of a
> grafted plant. However, even when applied to grafting, rootstock is
> somewhat misleading. Less misleading terms are understock or stock. A
> stock may consist solely of root tissue. However, a stock is usually
> going to consist mostly of root tissue with a small amount of stem
> tissue. The stock of a topgrafted fruit tree will contain considerable
> stem tissue. A stock may include an underground stem but usually it
> will not. About the only plant with tubers that is occasionally
> grafted is potato. Tomato is grafted on potato as a novelty or for
> research.
>
> I mentioned several botanical sources, not just Websters Dictionary.
> You mentioned no sources. Katherine Esau was a well respected plant
> anatomist. The root chapter in her textbook, Anatomy of Seed Plants,
> 2nd ed. says Dioscorea has "storage roots." Maybe Esau, Hortus Third
> and the half dozen college botany textbooks I consulted are wrong and
> Dioscorea does have tubers and not storage roots as you contend. If
> so, where is some published proof of that? I checked Simpson and
> Ogorzally (1986) which says there is controversy whether Dioscorea
> storage organs represent stem or root tissue.
>
> Terms for modified stems are not uniformly defined and are often
> confusing. There seems to be more diversity in underground stems than
> can be accomodated by the handful of terms commonly used. Tuberous
> root and tuber are particularly confusing terms. The term storage root
> seems to be preferred over tuberous root in botany textbooks and is
> certainly more accurate.
>
> There are different definitions for tuber. Some authorities restrict
> tuber to a swollen underground organ that develops from a rhizome or
> stolon. By that definition, tuberous begonia and cyclamen do not
> produce tubers although they are commonly called tubers. Cyclamen is
> often referred to as a corm as well. Their storage organs develop
> mainly from the hypocotyl and have a vertical orientation, not the
> horizontal orientation of a "true" tuber. They are sometimes termed
> tuberous stems instead (Hartmann and Kester 1983). However, that term
> adds additional confusion. The aerial tubers of some Dioscorea species
> are also not "true" tubers and are sometimes termed tubercles or
> bulbils.
>
> David R. Hershey
>
>
> References
>
> Hartmann, H.T. and Kester, D.E. 1983. Plant Propagation: Principles
> and Practices. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
>
> Simpson, B.B. and Ogorzally, M.C. 1986. Economic Botany: Plants in Our
> World. NY: McGraw-Hill.
>
>
>
>
> "Cereoid+10" > wrote in message
>...
> > The term rootsock does not mean the same as true roots. Roostock refers
to
> > the central body of perennial plants and can be rhizomes, tubers, bulbs,
> > etc.
> >
> > Webster's (which is not a botanical reference anyway) is wrong. The
> > rootstock of Dioscorea is a tuber. Often it is fleshy but it can be
woody
> > and caudiciform. None have tunicated corms.
> >
> > You should look for yourself rather than rely on sources based on second
or
> > third hand information.
> >
> >
> > David Hershey > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > A rootstock cannot be a tuber because a tuber is a modified stem.
> > >
> > > A variety of terms are applied to storage structures of Dioscorea.
> > > Katherine Esau in her Anatomy of Seed Plants text, Hortus Third,
> > > Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (under yam) and all the college
> > > introductory botany texts I checked all say Dioscorea has a storage
> > > root or tuberous root. Hortus Third also says D. bulbifera produces
> > > aerial tubers, and some Dioscorea species have rhizomes. A few
> > > websites even claim some Dioscorea species do have corms.
> > >
> > > Distinctions between types of modified stems, such as stolons,
> > > rhizomes, tubers and corms, are not always clear cut.
> > >
> > > Reference
> > >
> > >
> >
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=dioscorea+corm&btnG=Googl
> > e+Search
> > >
> > >
> > > David R. Hershey
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Cereoid+10" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > Sorry Spammy Davis, Jr. but you have already jumped to wrong
conclusions
> > and
> > > > that does not help.
> > > >
> > > > The rootstock of Dioscorea is a tuber not a corm. A corm is covered
by a
> > > > tunic but a tuber is not.
> > > >
> > > > Dioscorea is a huge genus and even includes a number of cold hardy
> > species.
> > > >
> > > > The "Sweet Potato" Ipomoea batatas is a "Morning Glory" with
tuberous
> > roots.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I Don't Like Spam > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > In article >,
> > > > > blair > wrote:
> > > > > >I was at somebody's house once and they had a big sprawling plant
> > with
> > heart
> > > > > >shaped leaves. They said that they grew it by putting a relative
of
> > the
> > yam
> > > > > >family into the ground and planting it. Apparently you could also
> > plant a
> > > > > >yam and grow a different plant as well.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Does anyone know what this plant is?
> > > > > When I was in college, a friend planted a sweet potato in a pot
and
> > > > > let it grow. Later she told her room-mate that it was a
"heart-shaped
> > > > > wandering jew". This was believed until an energetic pet knocked
the
> > > > > pot over, breaking it, revealing the true nature of the plant. As
> > > > > mentioned earlier, sweet potato is in Convolvulaceae, with morning
> > > > > glories.
> > > > >
> > > > > I wouldn't have brought this up, except sitting on my window sill
here
> > > > > at work is a member of the yam family Dioscoreaceae, _Dioscorea
> > > > > macrostachya_, (dormant right now) the leaves of which are very
> > > > > similar to the heart shaped leaves of sweet potato. This grows
from a
> > > > > large corm that is quite interesting in appearance. In nature this
> > > > > corm is hidden underground, but when sold as a houseplant, the
organ
> > > > > is kept above ground for show (some of the larger, older ones
resemble
> > > > > a tortoise shell, at least if you have an active imagination).
> > > > >
> > > > > So, before we jump to conclusions about exactly what the plant is,
> > > > > there ARE some members of the yam family kept as houseplants that
fit
> > > > > your description (although, in general, they are a bit pricey, and
not
> > > > > very common except perhaps through specialty succulent dealers).
> > > > >
> > > > > Sweet potatoes as sold in the US, often called yams (oh the
wonders of
> > > > > misleading common names). Ask your friend if they could allow you
to
> > > > > take a look at the underground stem by brusing away a little soil.
If
> > > > > it looks like a sweet potato, it probably is. Otherwise, my
Dioscorea
> > > > > has a THIN, SINGLE, TOUGH twining vine that comes from the TOP of
a
> > > > > CORM-like structure. If I recall correctly, a sweet potato would
> > > > > likely have SEVERAL sprouts coming from a VARIOUS POINTS along a
> > > > > HORIZONTAL TUBER, and those sprouts would tend to be more FLESHY
or
> > > > > SUCCULENT, at least close to the tuber.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hope this helps.

[David Hershey]

What book defines rootstock as "the stock from which the roots, stems
and leaves arise"? You seem to be making up your own definition and
creating a new plant organ, the stock, that is neither root, stem or
leaf.

Gray's Manual of Botany defines rootstock as "a rhizome."
Bailey's Manual of Cultivated Plants defines it as "same as rhizome."
Hortus Third defines it as "subterranean stem, rhizome."
Rost et al's 1979 Botany text defines it as "an elongated,
underground, horizontal stem."

Newer botany texts I consulted don't define rootstock or define it
only in the context of grafting.

You keep saying I "should look at the actual plants first hand." Have
you examined every known species of Dioscorea to determine of they
have tubers or storage roots?

What book defines corm as "A true corm is a tuber covered by a tunic,
as in the Crocus."?
Not all corms have a tunic:
http://virtual.clemson.edu/groups/hort/sctop/geophyte/type.htm#corms

"Tubers" of tuberous begonia and cyclamen do not fit the common
definition of tuber as a swollen
tip of a rhizome. They are enlarged hypocotyls:
http://virtual.clemson.edu/groups/hort/sctop/geophyte/type.htm#enlarged


David R. Hershey





"Cereoid+10" > wrote in message >...
> Rootstock is the stock from which the roots, stems and leaves arise.
> What is so confusing about that?
> The old definition is the original correct definition.
>
> You seem to be getting the definition backwards. Stock is the base word to
> the term not root. You insist upon making thing far more complicated than
> necessary. Maybe you should stick to chocolate bars and stop trying to
> confuse everybody. Just because malaprops tend to become common usage by the
> great unwashed and eventually get listed in dictionaries, that doesn't mean
> they are correct usage of the terms. Common usage can be nothing but bull
> shit. Tubers have even been mistaken for bulbs in common usage.
>
> Yes, there is more than one type of tuber even though the terminology has
> not been developed to define all of them thoroughly. Various types of tubers
> can have the growing points on their surface, forming a ring or restricted
> to the apex, depending on the species. A true corm is a tuber covered by a
> tunic, as in the Crocus. The tuber of Cyclamen and tuberous Begonias lack
> any tunic.
>
> Saying epigeal tubers or tubers in leaf axils are not "true tubers" is
> nonsense. There is no reason to believe that tubers can only be subterranean
> organs.
>
> As I have said before, you should look at the actual plants first hand
> before waxing pedantic over references based on second and third hand
> information. You might actually learn something!
>
>
> David Hershey > wrote in message
> om...
> > Rootstock is one of several botanical terms that have multiple
> > definitions. You seem to be referring to the old gardening definition
> > of rootstock as a synonym for rhizome or underground stem. Using
> > rootstock as a term for a stem is obviously confusing and therefore
> > undesirable.
> >
> > The more useful definition of rootstock is the root bearing part of a
> > grafted plant. However, even when applied to grafting, rootstock is
> > somewhat misleading. Less misleading terms are understock or stock. A
> > stock may consist solely of root tissue. However, a stock is usually
> > going to consist mostly of root tissue with a small amount of stem
> > tissue. The stock of a topgrafted fruit tree will contain considerable
> > stem tissue. A stock may include an underground stem but usually it
> > will not. About the only plant with tubers that is occasionally
> > grafted is potato. Tomato is grafted on potato as a novelty or for
> > research.
> >
> > I mentioned several botanical sources, not just Websters Dictionary.
> > You mentioned no sources. Katherine Esau was a well respected plant
> > anatomist. The root chapter in her textbook, Anatomy of Seed Plants,
> > 2nd ed. says Dioscorea has "storage roots." Maybe Esau, Hortus Third
> > and the half dozen college botany textbooks I consulted are wrong and
> > Dioscorea does have tubers and not storage roots as you contend. If
> > so, where is some published proof of that? I checked Simpson and
> > Ogorzally (1986) which says there is controversy whether Dioscorea
> > storage organs represent stem or root tissue.
> >
> > Terms for modified stems are not uniformly defined and are often
> > confusing. There seems to be more diversity in underground stems than
> > can be accomodated by the handful of terms commonly used. Tuberous
> > root and tuber are particularly confusing terms. The term storage root
> > seems to be preferred over tuberous root in botany textbooks and is
> > certainly more accurate.
> >
> > There are different definitions for tuber. Some authorities restrict
> > tuber to a swollen underground organ that develops from a rhizome or
> > stolon. By that definition, tuberous begonia and cyclamen do not
> > produce tubers although they are commonly called tubers. Cyclamen is
> > often referred to as a corm as well. Their storage organs develop
> > mainly from the hypocotyl and have a vertical orientation, not the
> > horizontal orientation of a "true" tuber. They are sometimes termed
> > tuberous stems instead (Hartmann and Kester 1983). However, that term
> > adds additional confusion. The aerial tubers of some Dioscorea species
> > are also not "true" tubers and are sometimes termed tubercles or
> > bulbils.
> >
> > David R. Hershey
> >
> >
> > References
> >
> > Hartmann, H.T. and Kester, D.E. 1983. Plant Propagation: Principles
> > and Practices. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
> >
> > Simpson, B.B. and Ogorzally, M.C. 1986. Economic Botany: Plants in Our
> > World. NY: McGraw-Hill.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Cereoid+10" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > The term rootsock does not mean the same as true roots. Roostock refers
> to
> > > the central body of perennial plants and can be rhizomes, tubers, bulbs,
> > > etc.
> > >
> > > Webster's (which is not a botanical reference anyway) is wrong. The
> > > rootstock of Dioscorea is a tuber. Often it is fleshy but it can be
> woody
> > > and caudiciform. None have tunicated corms.
> > >
> > > You should look for yourself rather than rely on sources based on second
> or
> > > third hand information.
> > >
> > >
> > > David Hershey > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > A rootstock cannot be a tuber because a tuber is a modified stem.
> > > >
> > > > A variety of terms are applied to storage structures of Dioscorea.
> > > > Katherine Esau in her Anatomy of Seed Plants text, Hortus Third,
> > > > Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (under yam) and all the college
> > > > introductory botany texts I checked all say Dioscorea has a storage
> > > > root or tuberous root. Hortus Third also says D. bulbifera produces
> > > > aerial tubers, and some Dioscorea species have rhizomes. A few
> > > > websites even claim some Dioscorea species do have corms.
> > > >
> > > > Distinctions between types of modified stems, such as stolons,
> > > > rhizomes, tubers and corms, are not always clear cut.
> > > >
> > > > Reference
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=dioscorea+corm&btnG=Googl
> > > e+Search
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > David R. Hershey
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Cereoid+10" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > Sorry Spammy Davis, Jr. but you have already jumped to wrong
> conclusions
> and
> > > > > that does not help.
> > > > >
> > > > > The rootstock of Dioscorea is a tuber not a corm. A corm is covered
> by a
> > > > > tunic but a tuber is not.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dioscorea is a huge genus and even includes a number of cold hardy
> species.
> > > > >
> > > > > The "Sweet Potato" Ipomoea batatas is a "Morning Glory" with
> tuberous
> roots.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I Don't Like Spam > wrote in message
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > blair > wrote:
> > > > > > >I was at somebody's house once and they had a big sprawling plant
> > > with
> > > heart
> > > > > > >shaped leaves. They said that they grew it by putting a relative
> of
> > > the
> > > yam
> > > > > > >family into the ground and planting it. Apparently you could also
> plant a
> > > > > > >yam and grow a different plant as well.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Does anyone know what this plant is?
> > > > > > When I was in college, a friend planted a sweet potato in a pot
> and
> > > > > > let it grow. Later she told her room-mate that it was a
> "heart-shaped
> > > > > > wandering jew". This was believed until an energetic pet knocked
> the
> > > > > > pot over, breaking it, revealing the true nature of the plant. As
> > > > > > mentioned earlier, sweet potato is in Convolvulaceae, with morning
> > > > > > glories.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I wouldn't have brought this up, except sitting on my window sill
> here
> > > > > > at work is a member of the yam family Dioscoreaceae, _Dioscorea
> > > > > > macrostachya_, (dormant right now) the leaves of which are very
> > > > > > similar to the heart shaped leaves of sweet potato. This grows
> from a
> > > > > > large corm that is quite interesting in appearance. In nature this
> > > > > > corm is hidden underground, but when sold as a houseplant, the
> organ
> > > > > > is kept above ground for show (some of the larger, older ones
> resemble
> > > > > > a tortoise shell, at least if you have an active imagination).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, before we jump to conclusions about exactly what the plant is,
> > > > > > there ARE some members of the yam family kept as houseplants that
> fit
> > > > > > your description (although, in general, they are a bit pricey, and
> not
> > > > > > very common except perhaps through specialty succulent dealers).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sweet potatoes as sold in the US, often called yams (oh the
> wonders of
> > > > > > misleading common names). Ask your friend if they could allow you
> to
> > > > > > take a look at the underground stem by brusing away a little soil.
> If
> > > > > > it looks like a sweet potato, it probably is. Otherwise, my
> Dioscorea
> > > > > > has a THIN, SINGLE, TOUGH twining vine that comes from the TOP of
> a
> > > > > > CORM-like structure. If I recall correctly, a sweet potato would
> > > > > > likely have SEVERAL sprouts coming from a VARIOUS POINTS along a
> > > > > > HORIZONTAL TUBER, and those sprouts would tend to be more FLESHY
> or
> > > > > > SUCCULENT, at least close to the tuber.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hope this helps.

[Cereoid+10]

Where have you been, bookworm? Have you been too busy stunting trees to wax
pedantic over nothing? You read too much yet have learned nothing. If you
look hard enough, you can find conflicting definitions of almost anything.
You might as well go back to stunting trees. You have beaten your yam to
death and nobody cares anymore.


David Hershey > wrote in message
om...
> What book defines rootstock as "the stock from which the roots, stems
> and leaves arise"? You seem to be making up your own definition and
> creating a new plant organ, the stock, that is neither root, stem or
> leaf.
>
> Gray's Manual of Botany defines rootstock as "a rhizome."
> Bailey's Manual of Cultivated Plants defines it as "same as rhizome."
> Hortus Third defines it as "subterranean stem, rhizome."
> Rost et al's 1979 Botany text defines it as "an elongated,
> underground, horizontal stem."
>
> Newer botany texts I consulted don't define rootstock or define it
> only in the context of grafting.
>
> You keep saying I "should look at the actual plants first hand." Have
> you examined every known species of Dioscorea to determine of they
> have tubers or storage roots?
>
> What book defines corm as "A true corm is a tuber covered by a tunic,
> as in the Crocus."?
> Not all corms have a tunic:
> http://virtual.clemson.edu/groups/hort/sctop/geophyte/type.htm#corms
>
> "Tubers" of tuberous begonia and cyclamen do not fit the common
> definition of tuber as a swollen
> tip of a rhizome. They are enlarged hypocotyls:
> http://virtual.clemson.edu/groups/hort/sctop/geophyte/type.htm#enlarged
>
>
> David R. Hershey
>
>
>
>
>
> "Cereoid+10" > wrote in message
>...
> > Rootstock is the stock from which the roots, stems and leaves arise.
> > What is so confusing about that?
> > The old definition is the original correct definition.
> >
> > You seem to be getting the definition backwards. Stock is the base word
to
> > the term not root. You insist upon making thing far more complicated
than
> > necessary. Maybe you should stick to chocolate bars and stop trying to
> > confuse everybody. Just because malaprops tend to become common usage by
the
> > great unwashed and eventually get listed in dictionaries, that doesn't
mean
> > they are correct usage of the terms. Common usage can be nothing but
bull
> > shit. Tubers have even been mistaken for bulbs in common usage.
> >
> > Yes, there is more than one type of tuber even though the terminology
has
> > not been developed to define all of them thoroughly. Various types of
tubers
> > can have the growing points on their surface, forming a ring or
restricted
> > to the apex, depending on the species. A true corm is a tuber covered by
a
> > tunic, as in the Crocus. The tuber of Cyclamen and tuberous Begonias
lack
> > any tunic.
> >
> > Saying epigeal tubers or tubers in leaf axils are not "true tubers" is
> > nonsense. There is no reason to believe that tubers can only be
subterranean
> > organs.
> >
> > As I have said before, you should look at the actual plants first hand
> > before waxing pedantic over references based on second and third hand
> > information. You might actually learn something!
> >
> >
> > David Hershey > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Rootstock is one of several botanical terms that have multiple
> > > definitions. You seem to be referring to the old gardening definition
> > > of rootstock as a synonym for rhizome or underground stem. Using
> > > rootstock as a term for a stem is obviously confusing and therefore
> > > undesirable.
> > >
> > > The more useful definition of rootstock is the root bearing part of a
> > > grafted plant. However, even when applied to grafting, rootstock is
> > > somewhat misleading. Less misleading terms are understock or stock. A
> > > stock may consist solely of root tissue. However, a stock is usually
> > > going to consist mostly of root tissue with a small amount of stem
> > > tissue. The stock of a topgrafted fruit tree will contain considerable
> > > stem tissue. A stock may include an underground stem but usually it
> > > will not. About the only plant with tubers that is occasionally
> > > grafted is potato. Tomato is grafted on potato as a novelty or for
> > > research.
> > >
> > > I mentioned several botanical sources, not just Websters Dictionary.
> > > You mentioned no sources. Katherine Esau was a well respected plant
> > > anatomist. The root chapter in her textbook, Anatomy of Seed Plants,
> > > 2nd ed. says Dioscorea has "storage roots." Maybe Esau, Hortus Third
> > > and the half dozen college botany textbooks I consulted are wrong and
> > > Dioscorea does have tubers and not storage roots as you contend. If
> > > so, where is some published proof of that? I checked Simpson and
> > > Ogorzally (1986) which says there is controversy whether Dioscorea
> > > storage organs represent stem or root tissue.
> > >
> > > Terms for modified stems are not uniformly defined and are often
> > > confusing. There seems to be more diversity in underground stems than
> > > can be accomodated by the handful of terms commonly used. Tuberous
> > > root and tuber are particularly confusing terms. The term storage root
> > > seems to be preferred over tuberous root in botany textbooks and is
> > > certainly more accurate.
> > >
> > > There are different definitions for tuber. Some authorities restrict
> > > tuber to a swollen underground organ that develops from a rhizome or
> > > stolon. By that definition, tuberous begonia and cyclamen do not
> > > produce tubers although they are commonly called tubers. Cyclamen is
> > > often referred to as a corm as well. Their storage organs develop
> > > mainly from the hypocotyl and have a vertical orientation, not the
> > > horizontal orientation of a "true" tuber. They are sometimes termed
> > > tuberous stems instead (Hartmann and Kester 1983). However, that term
> > > adds additional confusion. The aerial tubers of some Dioscorea species
> > > are also not "true" tubers and are sometimes termed tubercles or
> > > bulbils.
> > >
> > > David R. Hershey
> > >
> > >
> > > References
> > >
> > > Hartmann, H.T. and Kester, D.E. 1983. Plant Propagation: Principles
> > > and Practices. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
> > >
> > > Simpson, B.B. and Ogorzally, M.C. 1986. Economic Botany: Plants in Our
> > > World. NY: McGraw-Hill.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Cereoid+10" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > The term rootsock does not mean the same as true roots. Roostock
refers
> > to
> > > > the central body of perennial plants and can be rhizomes, tubers,
bulbs,
> > > > etc.
> > > >
> > > > Webster's (which is not a botanical reference anyway) is wrong. The
> > > > rootstock of Dioscorea is a tuber. Often it is fleshy but it can be
> > woody
> > > > and caudiciform. None have tunicated corms.
> > > >
> > > > You should look for yourself rather than rely on sources based on
second
> > or
> > > > third hand information.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > David Hershey > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > > > A rootstock cannot be a tuber because a tuber is a modified stem.
> > > > >
> > > > > A variety of terms are applied to storage structures of Dioscorea.
> > > > > Katherine Esau in her Anatomy of Seed Plants text, Hortus Third,
> > > > > Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (under yam) and all the
college
> > > > > introductory botany texts I checked all say Dioscorea has a
storage
> > > > > root or tuberous root. Hortus Third also says D. bulbifera
produces
> > > > > aerial tubers, and some Dioscorea species have rhizomes. A few
> > > > > websites even claim some Dioscorea species do have corms.
> > > > >
> > > > > Distinctions between types of modified stems, such as stolons,
> > > > > rhizomes, tubers and corms, are not always clear cut.
> > > > >
> > > > > Reference
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> >
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=dioscorea+corm&btnG=Googl
> > > > e+Search
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > David R. Hershey
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Cereoid+10" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > > > Sorry Spammy Davis, Jr. but you have already jumped to wrong
> > conclusions
> > and
> > > > > > that does not help.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The rootstock of Dioscorea is a tuber not a corm. A corm is
covered
> > by a
> > > > > > tunic but a tuber is not.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dioscorea is a huge genus and even includes a number of cold
hardy
> > species.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The "Sweet Potato" Ipomoea batatas is a "Morning Glory" with
> > tuberous
> > roots.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I Don't Like Spam > wrote in message
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > > blair > wrote:
> > > > > > > >I was at somebody's house once and they had a big sprawling
plant
> > > > with
> > > > heart
> > > > > > > >shaped leaves. They said that they grew it by putting a
relative
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > yam
> > > > > > > >family into the ground and planting it. Apparently you could
also
> > plant a
> > > > > > > >yam and grow a different plant as well.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Does anyone know what this plant is?
> > > > > > > When I was in college, a friend planted a sweet potato in a
pot
> > and
> > > > > > > let it grow. Later she told her room-mate that it was a
> > "heart-shaped
> > > > > > > wandering jew". This was believed until an energetic pet
knocked
> > the
> > > > > > > pot over, breaking it, revealing the true nature of the plant.
As
> > > > > > > mentioned earlier, sweet potato is in Convolvulaceae, with
morning
> > > > > > > glories.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I wouldn't have brought this up, except sitting on my window
sill
> > here
> > > > > > > at work is a member of the yam family Dioscoreaceae,
_Dioscorea
> > > > > > > macrostachya_, (dormant right now) the leaves of which are
very
> > > > > > > similar to the heart shaped leaves of sweet potato. This grows
> > from a
> > > > > > > large corm that is quite interesting in appearance. In nature
this
> > > > > > > corm is hidden underground, but when sold as a houseplant, the
> > organ
> > > > > > > is kept above ground for show (some of the larger, older ones
> > resemble
> > > > > > > a tortoise shell, at least if you have an active imagination).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So, before we jump to conclusions about exactly what the plant
is,
> > > > > > > there ARE some members of the yam family kept as houseplants
that
> > fit
> > > > > > > your description (although, in general, they are a bit pricey,
and
> > not
> > > > > > > very common except perhaps through specialty succulent
dealers).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sweet potatoes as sold in the US, often called yams (oh the
> > wonders of
> > > > > > > misleading common names). Ask your friend if they could allow
you
> > to
> > > > > > > take a look at the underground stem by brusing away a little
soil.
> > If
> > > > > > > it looks like a sweet potato, it probably is. Otherwise, my
> > Dioscorea
> > > > > > > has a THIN, SINGLE, TOUGH twining vine that comes from the TOP
of
> > a
> > > > > > > CORM-like structure. If I recall correctly, a sweet potato
would
> > > > > > > likely have SEVERAL sprouts coming from a VARIOUS POINTS along
a
> > > > > > > HORIZONTAL TUBER, and those sprouts would tend to be more
FLESHY
> > or
> > > > > > > SUCCULENT, at least close to the tuber.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hope this helps.

[David Hershey]

Instead of making up your own definitions for common botanical terms,
such as rootstock, you should check a book and see how botanists
actually define them.

It doesn't seem like you have any first-hand experience with Dioscorea
yourself since you won't attest to it even when I ask.

The easiest way to answer questions on uncommon plants, such as
Dioscorea, is to look up the answer in books. It's not realistic to
expect to go to a botanic garden and have them dig up their specimens
so they can be examined for tubers or storage roots.

I'm sure somewhere in the botanical literature there are anatomical
studies on storage roots or tubers of Dioscorea.

David R. Hershey


"Cereoid+10" > wrote in message >...
> Where have you been, bookworm? Have you been too busy stunting trees to wax
> pedantic over nothing? You read too much yet have learned nothing. If you
> look hard enough, you can find conflicting definitions of almost anything.
> You might as well go back to stunting trees. You have beaten your yam to
> death and nobody cares anymore.
>
>
> David Hershey > wrote in message
> om...
> > What book defines rootstock as "the stock from which the roots, stems
> > and leaves arise"? You seem to be making up your own definition and
> > creating a new plant organ, the stock, that is neither root, stem or
> > leaf.
> >
> > Gray's Manual of Botany defines rootstock as "a rhizome."
> > Bailey's Manual of Cultivated Plants defines it as "same as rhizome."
> > Hortus Third defines it as "subterranean stem, rhizome."
> > Rost et al's 1979 Botany text defines it as "an elongated,
> > underground, horizontal stem."
> >
> > Newer botany texts I consulted don't define rootstock or define it
> > only in the context of grafting.
> >
> > You keep saying I "should look at the actual plants first hand." Have
> > you examined every known species of Dioscorea to determine of they
> > have tubers or storage roots?
> >
> > What book defines corm as "A true corm is a tuber covered by a tunic,
> > as in the Crocus."?
> > Not all corms have a tunic:
> > http://virtual.clemson.edu/groups/hort/sctop/geophyte/type.htm#corms
> >
> > "Tubers" of tuberous begonia and cyclamen do not fit the common
> > definition of tuber as a swollen
> > tip of a rhizome. They are enlarged hypocotyls:
> > http://virtual.clemson.edu/groups/hort/sctop/geophyte/type.htm#enlarged
> >
> >
> > David R. Hershey
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Cereoid+10" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > Rootstock is the stock from which the roots, stems and leaves arise.
> > > What is so confusing about that?
> > > The old definition is the original correct definition.
> > >
> > > You seem to be getting the definition backwards. Stock is the base word
> to
> > > the term not root. You insist upon making thing far more complicated
> than
> > > necessary. Maybe you should stick to chocolate bars and stop trying to
> > > confuse everybody. Just because malaprops tend to become common usage by
> the
> > > great unwashed and eventually get listed in dictionaries, that doesn't
> mean
> > > they are correct usage of the terms. Common usage can be nothing but
> bull
> > > shit. Tubers have even been mistaken for bulbs in common usage.
> > >
> > > Yes, there is more than one type of tuber even though the terminology
> has
> > > not been developed to define all of them thoroughly. Various types of
> tubers
> > > can have the growing points on their surface, forming a ring or
> restricted
> > > to the apex, depending on the species. A true corm is a tuber covered by
> a
> > > tunic, as in the Crocus. The tuber of Cyclamen and tuberous Begonias
> lack
> > > any tunic.
> > >
> > > Saying epigeal tubers or tubers in leaf axils are not "true tubers" is
> > > nonsense. There is no reason to believe that tubers can only be
> subterranean
> > > organs.
> > >
> > > As I have said before, you should look at the actual plants first hand
> > > before waxing pedantic over references based on second and third hand
> > > information. You might actually learn something!
> > >
> > >
> > > David Hershey > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > Rootstock is one of several botanical terms that have multiple
> > > > definitions. You seem to be referring to the old gardening definition
> > > > of rootstock as a synonym for rhizome or underground stem. Using
> > > > rootstock as a term for a stem is obviously confusing and therefore
> > > > undesirable.
> > > >
> > > > The more useful definition of rootstock is the root bearing part of a
> > > > grafted plant. However, even when applied to grafting, rootstock is
> > > > somewhat misleading. Less misleading terms are understock or stock. A
> > > > stock may consist solely of root tissue. However, a stock is usually
> > > > going to consist mostly of root tissue with a small amount of stem
> > > > tissue. The stock of a topgrafted fruit tree will contain considerable
> > > > stem tissue. A stock may include an underground stem but usually it
> > > > will not. About the only plant with tubers that is occasionally
> > > > grafted is potato. Tomato is grafted on potato as a novelty or for
> > > > research.
> > > >
> > > > I mentioned several botanical sources, not just Websters Dictionary.
> > > > You mentioned no sources. Katherine Esau was a well respected plant
> > > > anatomist. The root chapter in her textbook, Anatomy of Seed Plants,
> > > > 2nd ed. says Dioscorea has "storage roots." Maybe Esau, Hortus Third
> > > > and the half dozen college botany textbooks I consulted are wrong and
> > > > Dioscorea does have tubers and not storage roots as you contend. If
> > > > so, where is some published proof of that? I checked Simpson and
> > > > Ogorzally (1986) which says there is controversy whether Dioscorea
> > > > storage organs represent stem or root tissue.
> > > >
> > > > Terms for modified stems are not uniformly defined and are often
> > > > confusing. There seems to be more diversity in underground stems than
> > > > can be accomodated by the handful of terms commonly used. Tuberous
> > > > root and tuber are particularly confusing terms. The term storage root
> > > > seems to be preferred over tuberous root in botany textbooks and is
> > > > certainly more accurate.
> > > >
> > > > There are different definitions for tuber. Some authorities restrict
> > > > tuber to a swollen underground organ that develops from a rhizome or
> > > > stolon. By that definition, tuberous begonia and cyclamen do not
> > > > produce tubers although they are commonly called tubers. Cyclamen is
> > > > often referred to as a corm as well. Their storage organs develop
> > > > mainly from the hypocotyl and have a vertical orientation, not the
> > > > horizontal orientation of a "true" tuber. They are sometimes termed
> > > > tuberous stems instead (Hartmann and Kester 1983). However, that term
> > > > adds additional confusion. The aerial tubers of some Dioscorea species
> > > > are also not "true" tubers and are sometimes termed tubercles or
> > > > bulbils.
> > > >
> > > > David R. Hershey
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > References
> > > >
> > > > Hartmann, H.T. and Kester, D.E. 1983. Plant Propagation: Principles
> > > > and Practices. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
> > > >
> > > > Simpson, B.B. and Ogorzally, M.C. 1986. Economic Botany: Plants in Our
> > > > World. NY: McGraw-Hill.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Cereoid+10" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > The term rootsock does not mean the same as true roots. Roostock
> refers
> to
> > > > > the central body of perennial plants and can be rhizomes, tubers,
> bulbs,
> > > > > etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > Webster's (which is not a botanical reference anyway) is wrong. The
> > > > > rootstock of Dioscorea is a tuber. Often it is fleshy but it can be
> woody
> > > > > and caudiciform. None have tunicated corms.
> > > > >
> > > > > You should look for yourself rather than rely on sources based on
> second
> or
> > > > > third hand information.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > David Hershey > wrote in message
> > > > > om...
> > > > > > A rootstock cannot be a tuber because a tuber is a modified stem.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A variety of terms are applied to storage structures of Dioscorea.
> > > > > > Katherine Esau in her Anatomy of Seed Plants text, Hortus Third,
> > > > > > Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (under yam) and all the
> college
> > > > > > introductory botany texts I checked all say Dioscorea has a
> storage
> > > > > > root or tuberous root. Hortus Third also says D. bulbifera
> produces
> > > > > > aerial tubers, and some Dioscorea species have rhizomes. A few
> > > > > > websites even claim some Dioscorea species do have corms.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Distinctions between types of modified stems, such as stolons,
> > > > > > rhizomes, tubers and corms, are not always clear cut.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Reference
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=dioscorea+corm&btnG=Googl
> > > > > e+Search
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > David R. Hershey
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Cereoid+10" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > > > > > Sorry Spammy Davis, Jr. but you have already jumped to wrong
> > > conclusions
> > > and
> > > > > > > that does not help.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The rootstock of Dioscorea is a tuber not a corm. A corm is
> covered
> by a
> > > > > > > tunic but a tuber is not.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dioscorea is a huge genus and even includes a number of cold
> hardy
> species.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The "Sweet Potato" Ipomoea batatas is a "Morning Glory" with
> > > tuberous
> > > roots.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I Don't Like Spam > wrote in message
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > > > blair > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >I was at somebody's house once and they had a big sprawling
> plant
> > > > > with
> > > > > heart
> > > > > > > > >shaped leaves. They said that they grew it by putting a
> relative
> of
> > > > > the
> > > > > yam
> > > > > > > > >family into the ground and planting it. Apparently you could
> also
> plant a
> > > > > > > > >yam and grow a different plant as well.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Does anyone know what this plant is?
> > > > > > > > When I was in college, a friend planted a sweet potato in a
> pot
> and
> > > > > > > > let it grow. Later she told her room-mate that it was a
> "heart-shaped
> > > > > > > > wandering jew". This was believed until an energetic pet
> knocked
> the
> > > > > > > > pot over, breaking it, revealing the true nature of the plant.
> As
> > > > > > > > mentioned earlier, sweet potato is in Convolvulaceae, with
> morning
> > > > > > > > glories.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I wouldn't have brought this up, except sitting on my window
> sill
> here
> > > > > > > > at work is a member of the yam family Dioscoreaceae,
> _Dioscorea
> > > > > > > > macrostachya_, (dormant right now) the leaves of which are
> very
> > > > > > > > similar to the heart shaped leaves of sweet potato. This grows
> from a
> > > > > > > > large corm that is quite interesting in appearance. In nature
> this
> > > > > > > > corm is hidden underground, but when sold as a houseplant, the
> organ
> > > > > > > > is kept above ground for show (some of the larger, older ones
> resemble
> > > > > > > > a tortoise shell, at least if you have an active imagination).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So, before we jump to conclusions about exactly what the plant
> is,
> > > > > > > > there ARE some members of the yam family kept as houseplants
> that
> fit
> > > > > > > > your description (although, in general, they are a bit pricey,
> and
> not
> > > > > > > > very common except perhaps through specialty succulent
> dealers).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sweet potatoes as sold in the US, often called yams (oh the
> wonders of
> > > > > > > > misleading common names). Ask your friend if they could allow
> you
> to
> > > > > > > > take a look at the underground stem by brusing away a little
> soil.
> If
> > > > > > > > it looks like a sweet potato, it probably is. Otherwise, my
> Dioscorea
> > > > > > > > has a THIN, SINGLE, TOUGH twining vine that comes from the TOP
> of
> a
> > > > > > > > CORM-like structure. If I recall correctly, a sweet potato
> would
> > > > > > > > likely have SEVERAL sprouts coming from a VARIOUS POINTS along
> a
> > > > > > > > HORIZONTAL TUBER, and those sprouts would tend to be more
> FLESHY
> or
> > > > > > > > SUCCULENT, at least close to the tuber.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hope this helps.

[Cereoid+10]

Dictionaries aren't written by botanists, buckwheat.

If you are so sure that somewhere in the botanical literature there are
anatomical studies on storage roots or tubers of Dioscorea, find them before
rambling off bad definitions as if they were gospel. If you were as
interested in the plants as you pretend to be, you would have made the
effort to see them first hand and learn more about them instead of
continuing to be stupid. Dioscorea are not uncommon plants. They are used
pharmaceutically as a source of steroidal drugs. Despite all your reading,
you still haven't learned a thing. Stop wasting everybody's time, fool.



David Hershey > wrote in message
om...
> Instead of making up your own definitions for common botanical terms,
> such as rootstock, you should check a book and see how botanists
> actually define them.
>
> It doesn't seem like you have any first-hand experience with Dioscorea
> yourself since you won't attest to it even when I ask.
>
> The easiest way to answer questions on uncommon plants, such as
> Dioscorea, is to look up the answer in books. It's not realistic to
> expect to go to a botanic garden and have them dig up their specimens
> so they can be examined for tubers or storage roots.
>
> I'm sure somewhere in the botanical literature there are anatomical
> studies on storage roots or tubers of Dioscorea.
>
> David R. Hershey
>
>
> "Cereoid+10" > wrote in message
>...
> > Where have you been, bookworm? Have you been too busy stunting trees to
wax
> > pedantic over nothing? You read too much yet have learned nothing. If
you
> > look hard enough, you can find conflicting definitions of almost
anything.
> > You might as well go back to stunting trees. You have beaten your yam to
> > death and nobody cares anymore.
> >
> >
> > David Hershey > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > What book defines rootstock as "the stock from which the roots, stems
> > > and leaves arise"? You seem to be making up your own definition and
> > > creating a new plant organ, the stock, that is neither root, stem or
> > > leaf.
> > >
> > > Gray's Manual of Botany defines rootstock as "a rhizome."
> > > Bailey's Manual of Cultivated Plants defines it as "same as rhizome."
> > > Hortus Third defines it as "subterranean stem, rhizome."
> > > Rost et al's 1979 Botany text defines it as "an elongated,
> > > underground, horizontal stem."
> > >
> > > Newer botany texts I consulted don't define rootstock or define it
> > > only in the context of grafting.
> > >
> > > You keep saying I "should look at the actual plants first hand." Have
> > > you examined every known species of Dioscorea to determine of they
> > > have tubers or storage roots?
> > >
> > > What book defines corm as "A true corm is a tuber covered by a tunic,
> > > as in the Crocus."?
> > > Not all corms have a tunic:
> > > http://virtual.clemson.edu/groups/hort/sctop/geophyte/type.htm#corms
> > >
> > > "Tubers" of tuberous begonia and cyclamen do not fit the common
> > > definition of tuber as a swollen
> > > tip of a rhizome. They are enlarged hypocotyls:
> > >
http://virtual.clemson.edu/groups/hort/sctop/geophyte/type.htm#enlarged
> > >
> > >
> > > David R. Hershey
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Cereoid+10" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > Rootstock is the stock from which the roots, stems and leaves arise.
> > > > What is so confusing about that?
> > > > The old definition is the original correct definition.
> > > >
> > > > You seem to be getting the definition backwards. Stock is the base
word
> > to
> > > > the term not root. You insist upon making thing far more complicated
> > than
> > > > necessary. Maybe you should stick to chocolate bars and stop trying
to
> > > > confuse everybody. Just because malaprops tend to become common
usage by
> > the
> > > > great unwashed and eventually get listed in dictionaries, that
doesn't
> > mean
> > > > they are correct usage of the terms. Common usage can be nothing but
> > bull
> > > > shit. Tubers have even been mistaken for bulbs in common usage.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, there is more than one type of tuber even though the
terminology
> > has
> > > > not been developed to define all of them thoroughly. Various types
of
> > tubers
> > > > can have the growing points on their surface, forming a ring or
> > restricted
> > > > to the apex, depending on the species. A true corm is a tuber
covered by
> > a
> > > > tunic, as in the Crocus. The tuber of Cyclamen and tuberous Begonias
> > lack
> > > > any tunic.
> > > >
> > > > Saying epigeal tubers or tubers in leaf axils are not "true tubers"
is
> > > > nonsense. There is no reason to believe that tubers can only be
> > subterranean
> > > > organs.
> > > >
> > > > As I have said before, you should look at the actual plants first
hand
> > > > before waxing pedantic over references based on second and third
hand
> > > > information. You might actually learn something!
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > David Hershey > wrote in message
> > > > om...
> > > > > Rootstock is one of several botanical terms that have multiple
> > > > > definitions. You seem to be referring to the old gardening
definition
> > > > > of rootstock as a synonym for rhizome or underground stem. Using
> > > > > rootstock as a term for a stem is obviously confusing and
therefore
> > > > > undesirable.
> > > > >
> > > > > The more useful definition of rootstock is the root bearing part
of a
> > > > > grafted plant. However, even when applied to grafting, rootstock
is
> > > > > somewhat misleading. Less misleading terms are understock or
stock. A
> > > > > stock may consist solely of root tissue. However, a stock is
usually
> > > > > going to consist mostly of root tissue with a small amount of stem
> > > > > tissue. The stock of a topgrafted fruit tree will contain
considerable
> > > > > stem tissue. A stock may include an underground stem but usually
it
> > > > > will not. About the only plant with tubers that is occasionally
> > > > > grafted is potato. Tomato is grafted on potato as a novelty or for
> > > > > research.
> > > > >
> > > > > I mentioned several botanical sources, not just Websters
Dictionary.
> > > > > You mentioned no sources. Katherine Esau was a well respected
plant
> > > > > anatomist. The root chapter in her textbook, Anatomy of Seed
Plants,
> > > > > 2nd ed. says Dioscorea has "storage roots." Maybe Esau, Hortus
Third
> > > > > and the half dozen college botany textbooks I consulted are wrong
and
> > > > > Dioscorea does have tubers and not storage roots as you contend.
If
> > > > > so, where is some published proof of that? I checked Simpson and
> > > > > Ogorzally (1986) which says there is controversy whether Dioscorea
> > > > > storage organs represent stem or root tissue.
> > > > >
> > > > > Terms for modified stems are not uniformly defined and are often
> > > > > confusing. There seems to be more diversity in underground stems
than
> > > > > can be accomodated by the handful of terms commonly used. Tuberous
> > > > > root and tuber are particularly confusing terms. The term storage
root
> > > > > seems to be preferred over tuberous root in botany textbooks and
is
> > > > > certainly more accurate.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are different definitions for tuber. Some authorities
restrict
> > > > > tuber to a swollen underground organ that develops from a rhizome
or
> > > > > stolon. By that definition, tuberous begonia and cyclamen do not
> > > > > produce tubers although they are commonly called tubers. Cyclamen
is
> > > > > often referred to as a corm as well. Their storage organs develop
> > > > > mainly from the hypocotyl and have a vertical orientation, not the
> > > > > horizontal orientation of a "true" tuber. They are sometimes
termed
> > > > > tuberous stems instead (Hartmann and Kester 1983). However, that
term
> > > > > adds additional confusion. The aerial tubers of some Dioscorea
species
> > > > > are also not "true" tubers and are sometimes termed tubercles or
> > > > > bulbils.
> > > > >
> > > > > David R. Hershey
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > References
> > > > >
> > > > > Hartmann, H.T. and Kester, D.E. 1983. Plant Propagation:
Principles
> > > > > and Practices. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
> > > > >
> > > > > Simpson, B.B. and Ogorzally, M.C. 1986. Economic Botany: Plants in
Our
> > > > > World. NY: McGraw-Hill.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > "Cereoid+10" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > > > The term rootsock does not mean the same as true roots. Roostock
> > refers
> > to
> > > > > > the central body of perennial plants and can be rhizomes,
tubers,
> > bulbs,
> > > > > > etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Webster's (which is not a botanical reference anyway) is wrong.
The
> > > > > > rootstock of Dioscorea is a tuber. Often it is fleshy but it can
be
> > woody
> > > > > > and caudiciform. None have tunicated corms.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You should look for yourself rather than rely on sources based
on
> > second
> > or
> > > > > > third hand information.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > David Hershey > wrote in message
> > > > > > om...
> > > > > > > A rootstock cannot be a tuber because a tuber is a modified
stem.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > A variety of terms are applied to storage structures of
Dioscorea.
> > > > > > > Katherine Esau in her Anatomy of Seed Plants text, Hortus
Third,
> > > > > > > Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (under yam) and all the
> > college
> > > > > > > introductory botany texts I checked all say Dioscorea has a
> > storage
> > > > > > > root or tuberous root. Hortus Third also says D. bulbifera
> > produces
> > > > > > > aerial tubers, and some Dioscorea species have rhizomes. A few
> > > > > > > websites even claim some Dioscorea species do have corms.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Distinctions between types of modified stems, such as stolons,
> > > > > > > rhizomes, tubers and corms, are not always clear cut.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Reference
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=dioscorea+corm&btnG=Googl
> > > > > > e+Search
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > David R. Hershey
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Cereoid+10" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > > > > > > Sorry Spammy Davis, Jr. but you have already jumped to wrong
> > > > conclusions
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > that does not help.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The rootstock of Dioscorea is a tuber not a corm. A corm is
> > covered
> > by a
> > > > > > > > tunic but a tuber is not.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dioscorea is a huge genus and even includes a number of cold
> > hardy
> > species.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The "Sweet Potato" Ipomoea batatas is a "Morning Glory" with
> > > > tuberous
> > > > roots.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I Don't Like Spam > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > > > > blair > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >I was at somebody's house once and they had a big
sprawling
> > plant
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > heart
> > > > > > > > > >shaped leaves. They said that they grew it by putting a
> > relative
> > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > yam
> > > > > > > > > >family into the ground and planting it. Apparently you
could
> > also
> > plant a
> > > > > > > > > >yam and grow a different plant as well.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >Does anyone know what this plant is?
> > > > > > > > > When I was in college, a friend planted a sweet potato in
a
> > pot
> > and
> > > > > > > > > let it grow. Later she told her room-mate that it was a
> > "heart-shaped
> > > > > > > > > wandering jew". This was believed until an energetic pet
> > knocked
> > the
> > > > > > > > > pot over, breaking it, revealing the true nature of the
plant.
> > As
> > > > > > > > > mentioned earlier, sweet potato is in Convolvulaceae, with
> > morning
> > > > > > > > > glories.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I wouldn't have brought this up, except sitting on my
window
> > sill
> > here
> > > > > > > > > at work is a member of the yam family Dioscoreaceae,
> > _Dioscorea
> > > > > > > > > macrostachya_, (dormant right now) the leaves of which are
> > very
> > > > > > > > > similar to the heart shaped leaves of sweet potato. This
grows
> > from a
> > > > > > > > > large corm that is quite interesting in appearance. In
nature
> > this
> > > > > > > > > corm is hidden underground, but when sold as a houseplant,
the
> > organ
> > > > > > > > > is kept above ground for show (some of the larger, older
ones
> > resemble
> > > > > > > > > a tortoise shell, at least if you have an active
imagination).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So, before we jump to conclusions about exactly what the
plant
> > is,
> > > > > > > > > there ARE some members of the yam family kept as
houseplants
> > that
> > fit
> > > > > > > > > your description (although, in general, they are a bit
pricey,
> > and
> > not
> > > > > > > > > very common except perhaps through specialty succulent
> > dealers).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Sweet potatoes as sold in the US, often called yams (oh
the
> > wonders of
> > > > > > > > > misleading common names). Ask your friend if they could
allow
> > you
> > to
> > > > > > > > > take a look at the underground stem by brusing away a
little
> > soil.
> > If
> > > > > > > > > it looks like a sweet potato, it probably is. Otherwise,
my
> > Dioscorea
> > > > > > > > > has a THIN, SINGLE, TOUGH twining vine that comes from the
TOP
> > of
> > a
> > > > > > > > > CORM-like structure. If I recall correctly, a sweet potato
> > would
> > > > > > > > > likely have SEVERAL sprouts coming from a VARIOUS POINTS
along
> > a
> > > > > > > > > HORIZONTAL TUBER, and those sprouts would tend to be more
> > FLESHY
> > or
> > > > > > > > > SUCCULENT, at least close to the tuber.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hope this helps.

[Vcoerulea]

Who's the fool? You're grasping at straws, old man. Take your own advice. Do
your research instead of just quoting off the top of your head. It's a shame
you waste your intellect wallowing in "archacademia" and acting as the font
of information when you could be learning new stuff, sifting, incorporating,
constructing, and dispensing useful, possibly innovative, information for
all to use. Stop being so abrasive. My grandfather was like that and he died
a lonely old man. No one wants to talk to a know-it-all, especially one who
puts you down and makes you not feel like asking anymore questions because
he'll make a fool of you. If you're that insecure, see a psychiatrist. If
not, try helping someone to learn instead of ridiculing them. When they see
the light and thank you, the feeling is so fantastic. You've made another
human being's life better. Build rather than tearing down. Be a teacher, not
a demolition expert. Can you handle the challenge?

"Cereoid+10" > wrote in message
. com...
> Dictionaries aren't written by botanists, buckwheat.
>
> If you are so sure that somewhere in the botanical literature there are
> anatomical studies on storage roots or tubers of Dioscorea, find them
before
> rambling off bad definitions as if they were gospel. If you were as
> interested in the plants as you pretend to be, you would have made the
> effort to see them first hand and learn more about them instead of
> continuing to be stupid. Dioscorea are not uncommon plants. They are used
> pharmaceutically as a source of steroidal drugs. Despite all your reading,
> you still haven't learned a thing. Stop wasting everybody's time, fool.
>
>
>
> David Hershey > wrote in message
> om...
> > Instead of making up your own definitions for common botanical terms,
> > such as rootstock, you should check a book and see how botanists
> > actually define them.
> >
> > It doesn't seem like you have any first-hand experience with Dioscorea
> > yourself since you won't attest to it even when I ask.
> >
> > The easiest way to answer questions on uncommon plants, such as
> > Dioscorea, is to look up the answer in books. It's not realistic to
> > expect to go to a botanic garden and have them dig up their specimens
> > so they can be examined for tubers or storage roots.
> >
> > I'm sure somewhere in the botanical literature there are anatomical
> > studies on storage roots or tubers of Dioscorea.
> >
> > David R. Hershey
> >
> >
> > "Cereoid+10" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > Where have you been, bookworm? Have you been too busy stunting trees
to
> wax
> > > pedantic over nothing? You read too much yet have learned nothing. If
> you
> > > look hard enough, you can find conflicting definitions of almost
> anything.
> > > You might as well go back to stunting trees. You have beaten your yam
to
> > > death and nobody cares anymore.
> > >
> > >
> > > David Hershey > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > What book defines rootstock as "the stock from which the roots,
stems
> > > > and leaves arise"? You seem to be making up your own definition and
> > > > creating a new plant organ, the stock, that is neither root, stem or
> > > > leaf.
> > > >
> > > > Gray's Manual of Botany defines rootstock as "a rhizome."
> > > > Bailey's Manual of Cultivated Plants defines it as "same as
rhizome."
> > > > Hortus Third defines it as "subterranean stem, rhizome."
> > > > Rost et al's 1979 Botany text defines it as "an elongated,
> > > > underground, horizontal stem."
> > > >
> > > > Newer botany texts I consulted don't define rootstock or define it
> > > > only in the context of grafting.
> > > >
> > > > You keep saying I "should look at the actual plants first hand."
Have
> > > > you examined every known species of Dioscorea to determine of they
> > > > have tubers or storage roots?
> > > >
> > > > What book defines corm as "A true corm is a tuber covered by a
tunic,
> > > > as in the Crocus."?
> > > > Not all corms have a tunic:
> > > > http://virtual.clemson.edu/groups/hort/sctop/geophyte/type.htm#corms
> > > >
> > > > "Tubers" of tuberous begonia and cyclamen do not fit the common
> > > > definition of tuber as a swollen
> > > > tip of a rhizome. They are enlarged hypocotyls:
> > > >
> http://virtual.clemson.edu/groups/hort/sctop/geophyte/type.htm#enlarged
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > David R. Hershey
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Cereoid+10" > wrote in message
> > > >...
> > > > > Rootstock is the stock from which the roots, stems and leaves
arise.
> > > > > What is so confusing about that?
> > > > > The old definition is the original correct definition.
> > > > >
> > > > > You seem to be getting the definition backwards. Stock is the base
> word
> > > to
> > > > > the term not root. You insist upon making thing far more
complicated
> > > than
> > > > > necessary. Maybe you should stick to chocolate bars and stop
trying
> to
> > > > > confuse everybody. Just because malaprops tend to become common
> usage by
> > > the
> > > > > great unwashed and eventually get listed in dictionaries, that
> doesn't
> > > mean
> > > > > they are correct usage of the terms. Common usage can be nothing
but
> > > bull
> > > > > shit. Tubers have even been mistaken for bulbs in common usage.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, there is more than one type of tuber even though the
> terminology
> > > has
> > > > > not been developed to define all of them thoroughly. Various types
> of
> > > tubers
> > > > > can have the growing points on their surface, forming a ring or
> > > restricted
> > > > > to the apex, depending on the species. A true corm is a tuber
> covered by
> > > a
> > > > > tunic, as in the Crocus. The tuber of Cyclamen and tuberous
Begonias
> > > lack
> > > > > any tunic.
> > > > >
> > > > > Saying epigeal tubers or tubers in leaf axils are not "true
tubers"
> is
> > > > > nonsense. There is no reason to believe that tubers can only be
> > > subterranean
> > > > > organs.
> > > > >
> > > > > As I have said before, you should look at the actual plants first
> hand
> > > > > before waxing pedantic over references based on second and third
> hand
> > > > > information. You might actually learn something!
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > David Hershey > wrote in message
> > > > > om...
> > > > > > Rootstock is one of several botanical terms that have multiple
> > > > > > definitions. You seem to be referring to the old gardening
> definition
> > > > > > of rootstock as a synonym for rhizome or underground stem. Using
> > > > > > rootstock as a term for a stem is obviously confusing and
> therefore
> > > > > > undesirable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The more useful definition of rootstock is the root bearing part
> of a
> > > > > > grafted plant. However, even when applied to grafting, rootstock
> is
> > > > > > somewhat misleading. Less misleading terms are understock or
> stock. A
> > > > > > stock may consist solely of root tissue. However, a stock is
> usually
> > > > > > going to consist mostly of root tissue with a small amount of
stem
> > > > > > tissue. The stock of a topgrafted fruit tree will contain
> considerable
> > > > > > stem tissue. A stock may include an underground stem but usually
> it
> > > > > > will not. About the only plant with tubers that is occasionally
> > > > > > grafted is potato. Tomato is grafted on potato as a novelty or
for
> > > > > > research.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I mentioned several botanical sources, not just Websters
> Dictionary.
> > > > > > You mentioned no sources. Katherine Esau was a well respected
> plant
> > > > > > anatomist. The root chapter in her textbook, Anatomy of Seed
> Plants,
> > > > > > 2nd ed. says Dioscorea has "storage roots." Maybe Esau, Hortus
> Third
> > > > > > and the half dozen college botany textbooks I consulted are
wrong
> and
> > > > > > Dioscorea does have tubers and not storage roots as you contend.
> If
> > > > > > so, where is some published proof of that? I checked Simpson and
> > > > > > Ogorzally (1986) which says there is controversy whether
Dioscorea
> > > > > > storage organs represent stem or root tissue.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Terms for modified stems are not uniformly defined and are often
> > > > > > confusing. There seems to be more diversity in underground stems
> than
> > > > > > can be accomodated by the handful of terms commonly used.
Tuberous
> > > > > > root and tuber are particularly confusing terms. The term
storage
> root
> > > > > > seems to be preferred over tuberous root in botany textbooks and
> is
> > > > > > certainly more accurate.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are different definitions for tuber. Some authorities
> restrict
> > > > > > tuber to a swollen underground organ that develops from a
rhizome
> or
> > > > > > stolon. By that definition, tuberous begonia and cyclamen do not
> > > > > > produce tubers although they are commonly called tubers.
Cyclamen
> is
> > > > > > often referred to as a corm as well. Their storage organs
develop
> > > > > > mainly from the hypocotyl and have a vertical orientation, not
the
> > > > > > horizontal orientation of a "true" tuber. They are sometimes
> termed
> > > > > > tuberous stems instead (Hartmann and Kester 1983). However, that
> term
> > > > > > adds additional confusion. The aerial tubers of some Dioscorea
> species
> > > > > > are also not "true" tubers and are sometimes termed tubercles or
> > > > > > bulbils.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > David R. Hershey
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > References
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hartmann, H.T. and Kester, D.E. 1983. Plant Propagation:
> Principles
> > > > > > and Practices. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Simpson, B.B. and Ogorzally, M.C. 1986. Economic Botany: Plants
in
> Our
> > > > > > World. NY: McGraw-Hill.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Cereoid+10" > wrote in message
> > > >...
> > > > > > > The term rootsock does not mean the same as true roots.
Roostock
> > > refers
> > > to
> > > > > > > the central body of perennial plants and can be rhizomes,
> tubers,
> > > bulbs,
> > > > > > > etc.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Webster's (which is not a botanical reference anyway) is
wrong.
> The
> > > > > > > rootstock of Dioscorea is a tuber. Often it is fleshy but it
can
> be
> > > woody
> > > > > > > and caudiciform. None have tunicated corms.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You should look for yourself rather than rely on sources based
> on
> > > second
> > > or
> > > > > > > third hand information.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > David Hershey > wrote in message
> > > > > > > om...
> > > > > > > > A rootstock cannot be a tuber because a tuber is a modified
> stem.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A variety of terms are applied to storage structures of
> Dioscorea.
> > > > > > > > Katherine Esau in her Anatomy of Seed Plants text, Hortus
> Third,
> > > > > > > > Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary (under yam) and all the
> > > college
> > > > > > > > introductory botany texts I checked all say Dioscorea has a
> > > storage
> > > > > > > > root or tuberous root. Hortus Third also says D. bulbifera
> > > produces
> > > > > > > > aerial tubers, and some Dioscorea species have rhizomes. A
few
> > > > > > > > websites even claim some Dioscorea species do have corms.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Distinctions between types of modified stems, such as
stolons,
> > > > > > > > rhizomes, tubers and corms, are not always clear cut.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Reference
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
>
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=dioscorea+corm&btnG=Googl
> > > > > > > e+Search
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > David R. Hershey
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Cereoid+10" > wrote in message
> > > >...
> > > > > > > > > Sorry Spammy Davis, Jr. but you have already jumped to
wrong
> > > > > conclusions
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > that does not help.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The rootstock of Dioscorea is a tuber not a corm. A corm
is
> > > covered
> > > by a
> > > > > > > > > tunic but a tuber is not.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dioscorea is a huge genus and even includes a number of
cold
> > > hardy
> > > species.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The "Sweet Potato" Ipomoea batatas is a "Morning Glory"
with
> > > > > tuberous
> > > > > roots.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I Don't Like Spam > wrote in message
> > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > In article >,
> > > > > > > > > > blair > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >I was at somebody's house once and they had a big
> sprawling
> > > plant
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > heart
> > > > > > > > > > >shaped leaves. They said that they grew it by putting a
> > > relative
> > > of
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > yam
> > > > > > > > > > >family into the ground and planting it. Apparently you
> could
> > > also
> > > plant a
> > > > > > > > > > >yam and grow a different plant as well.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >Does anyone know what this plant is?
> > > > > > > > > > When I was in college, a friend planted a sweet potato
in
> a
> > > pot
> > > and
> > > > > > > > > > let it grow. Later she told her room-mate that it was a
> > > "heart-shaped
> > > > > > > > > > wandering jew". This was believed until an energetic pet
> > > knocked
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > > pot over, breaking it, revealing the true nature of the
> plant.
> > > As
> > > > > > > > > > mentioned earlier, sweet potato is in Convolvulaceae,
with
> > > morning
> > > > > > > > > > glories.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I wouldn't have brought this up, except sitting on my
> window
> > > sill
> > > here
> > > > > > > > > > at work is a member of the yam family Dioscoreaceae,
> > > _Dioscorea
> > > > > > > > > > macrostachya_, (dormant right now) the leaves of which
are
> > > very
> > > > > > > > > > similar to the heart shaped leaves of sweet potato. This
> grows
> > > from a
> > > > > > > > > > large corm that is quite interesting in appearance. In
> nature
> > > this
> > > > > > > > > > corm is hidden underground, but when sold as a
houseplant,
> the
> > > organ
> > > > > > > > > > is kept above ground for show (some of the larger, older
> ones
> > > resemble
> > > > > > > > > > a tortoise shell, at least if you have an active
> imagination).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So, before we jump to conclusions about exactly what the
> plant
> > > is,
> > > > > > > > > > there ARE some members of the yam family kept as
> houseplants
> > > that
> > > fit
> > > > > > > > > > your description (although, in general, they are a bit
> pricey,
> > > and
> > > not
> > > > > > > > > > very common except perhaps through specialty succulent
> > > dealers).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Sweet potatoes as sold in the US, often called yams (oh
> the
> > > wonders of
> > > > > > > > > > misleading common names). Ask your friend if they could
> allow
> > > you
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > > take a look at the underground stem by brusing away a
> little
> > > soil.
> > > If
> > > > > > > > > > it looks like a sweet potato, it probably is. Otherwise,
> my
> > > Dioscorea
> > > > > > > > > > has a THIN, SINGLE, TOUGH twining vine that comes from
the
> TOP
> > > of
> > > a
> > > > > > > > > > CORM-like structure. If I recall correctly, a sweet
potato
> > > would
> > > > > > > > > > likely have SEVERAL sprouts coming from a VARIOUS POINTS
> along
> > > a
> > > > > > > > > > HORIZONTAL TUBER, and those sprouts would tend to be
more
> > > FLESHY
> > > or
> > > > > > > > > > SUCCULENT, at least close to the tuber.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Hope this helps.
>
>