No subject

[Arisaema Enthusiast Group (AEG) Discussion List (and other=]

hardy  Aroids)" <ARISAEMA-L at NIC.SURFNET.NL> Aroids)" <ARISAEMA-L at NIC.SURFNET.NL>
Sender: "Arisaema Enthusiast Group (AEG) Discussion List (and other=
From: Adam Fikso <irisman at AMERITECH.NET>
Subject: Re: A. candidissimum
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="Windows-1252"; reply-type=3Doriginal
Content-Transf er-Encoding: 7bit

Rick?  More humble comment, please.  These are the kinds of observations
that taken together and pooled constitute an approximation to a randomly
selected group of events which  ( -- if they are sequestered as to
species,in this case, candidissimum), can be regarded as a legitimate
experimental group (or subgroup) compared to the rest of the entire group=of
observations by people growing candidissimum, here regarded as experiment=al
controls.

Since yours behaved differently--i.e. they survived and
prospered--assessing the differences between your group and the others
constitutes a legitimate  (even if not terribly sophisticated-- small-gro=up
experiment).  The same thing could be done for A. candidissimum grown
outdoors in the Northern Hemisphere.  Pooled observations even on a small
scale can be good and important  science.  Large scale experiments no dou=bt
can contribute (sometimes) more precise scientific measurements, but this=is
not always the case.

Darwin's observation on seeing the orchid Angraecum sesquipedale, and fr=om
the observation that it had a nectary nearly 12 inches long ,  (example o=f a
single case study) led him to infer that there had to a pollinator with a
proboscis that long.  Since no known insect existed with a tongue
(proboscis) that long, the inference HAD to be that the unknown insect wa=s
probably a moth, because moths among insect groups had long tongues,
i.e.,not beetles, not ants, not leaf hoppers, not lacewings, nor centiped=es
or other arcahnoideae.

OK--- How about a butterfly?  They have long tongues that coil up and
extend..Nope because  the orchid is white--it would show up in the dark,
like many flowers pollinated by moths. Butterflies go for brightly colore=d
flowers that show up in daylight.  (Little or nothing was known then abou=t
insects' response to  UV light cues in butterflies.)   Entomologists doub=ted
him.  Sixty years later the moth was discovered, and, yes, it does pollin=ate
A. sesquipedale.

What can we learn from this example?   I suppose it depends on who you a=re
and whether you can "think outside the box"--it also depends on what your
"box" is.

Re-- Pascal's observation about growing  in pots:  Do we know--have a cou=nt
or percentage of  how many people on this list (in this group) grow in po=ts
vs. how many grow in the open ground--or grow arisaemas in a greenhouse? =I
assume that there are no hydroponic growers.  Is anybody willing to
volunteer to act as compiler or repository for this data?

This would be an example of simple research that I had in mind which does
not require acres  of growing plants or  sophisticated laboratories.   Ho=w
many of us grow in pots, how many in open ground? If we know this then we
can assess what we're doing a little better.


A minimum of  6 (?)  categories would be  needed for a sample of growers=in
the U.S.--ordered as follows:   (A)  pots left outdoors and sunken; (B) p=ots
left outdoors and not sunken; (C) pots brought in for summer heat; (D)  p=ots
brought indoors for winter and kept dry; (E) pots brought in and watered
some (state the frequency); (F) Pots brought into unheated garage and not
watered.   (G) Other. (H) the same could be done for growers in the South=ern
Hemisphere.  Adding the country of the grower might lead to very small
sample sizes, because I haven't looked at the distribution of countries t=he
list draws from but, depending on what the results looked like, it could
probably be dealt with using  small sample non-parametric statistics .
Whatever the compilation looked like, it would be more information than w=e
share now.  If the pot-growers are few, it would result in a different
analysis than if there were many.

USDA Zone or equivalent can either be added after the data are in, (f=rom
the postal addresses) or added by the respondent making  work for the
compiler. Is there a volunteer who likes lists and has enough computer sp=ace
available for such a project?

My off-the- cuff presentation of an idea might not be what others want to
find out, and there might not be any volunteers.  But I can imagine that
other ideas for simple research could find fertile ground.  Regards, to a=ll.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Rick Manners" <rick.rhodo at XTRA.CO.NZ>
To: <ARISAEMA-L at NIC.SURFNET.NL>
Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 2:26 AM
Subject: A. candidissimum


>I am a new member to AEG but have been interested in the recent
> discussions so thought I would make some humble comment. Some of my A.
> candidissimum are in flower at the moment, some are finished and some a=re
> still awakening from dormancy.All have come from the same mother plant.=So
> it appears that dormancy can and does vary depending on growing
> conditions.