Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
plant that grows from a relative of the Yam family?
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
plant that grows from a relative of the Yam family?
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
plant that grows from a relative of the Yam family?
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
plant that grows from a relative of the Yam family?
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
plant that grows from a relative of the Yam family?
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
plant that grows from a relative of the Yam family?
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, |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
plant that grows from a relative of the Yam family?
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&i...orm&btnG=Googl e+Search David R. Hershey "Cereoid+10" wrote in message om... 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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
plant that grows from a relative of the Yam family?
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&i...orm&btnG=Googl e+Search David R. Hershey "Cereoid+10" wrote in message om... 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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
plant that grows from a relative of the Yam family?
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&i...orm&btnG=Googl e+Search David R. Hershey "Cereoid+10" wrote in message om... 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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
plant that grows from a relative of the Yam family?
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/ho...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/ho...e.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&i...orm&btnG=Googl e+Search David R. Hershey "Cereoid+10" wrote in message om... 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. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
plant that grows from a relative of the Yam family?
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/ho...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/ho...e.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&i...orm&btnG=Googl e+Search David R. Hershey "Cereoid+10" wrote in message om... 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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
plant that grows from a relative of the Yam family?
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 m... 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/ho...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/ho...e.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&i...orm&btnG=Googl e+Search David R. Hershey "Cereoid+10" wrote in message om... 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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
plant that grows from a relative of the Yam family?
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 m... 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/ho...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/ho...e.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&i...orm&btnG=Googl e+Search David R. Hershey "Cereoid+10" wrote in message om... 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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
plant that grows from a relative of the Yam family?
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 m... 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/ho...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/ho...e.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&i...orm&btnG=Googl e+Search David R. Hershey "Cereoid+10" wrote in message om... 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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
relative yield | Plant Biology | |||
Dioscorea batatas (hardy Yam) | United Kingdom | |||
red clover grows whereever white clover grows | Plant Science | |||
New Zealand yam | United Kingdom | |||
plant that grows from a relative of the Yam family? | Plant Biology |