What exactly is an 'Alocasia pseudosanderiana'? Spoiler alert: I don't f***ing know


 Whilst taking a stroll around the church grounds of San Jose in Nueva Ecija one early September morning, I came across this Alocasia whose identity is still steeped in a shitload of question marks. Consider:

1. No one really knows where it originally came from. 

Well, probably from the Philippines. However, Dr. Lanie Medecilo did not include this plant in her studies on Philippine alocasias a few years ago. But in the same vein, it can be found growing semi-wild in some areas in the Philippines, while it has so far not been reported doing the same in neighboring regions.

2. No one knows what its exact identity is.

The name 'Alocasia pseudosanderiana' is a nomen nudum. In other words, it was established without following the rules of describing new plant species. As such, the name should not be used at all. But we do need something to refer this plant with, and 'Alocasia pseudosanderiana' is available despite its dubious merits.

But here is where it gets interesting. I once discussed this plant to Filipino aroid collector George Yao (Does Amorphophallus yaoi ring a bell to 'ya?) and he claimed that no one has ever seen it in fruit. Heck, I don't even remember seeing it in flower, let alone fruit. Apparently, this plant blooms so infrequently that observations seem (almost?) lacking. But why? Flowering and fruiting are very important components of every flowering plant because it ensures the continued survival of the species through dispersion. A. pseudosanderiana has been found on roadsides and waste places near human habitation, but never inside forested areas, as far as is known. This raises the likelihood then that these plants are cultigens and that it relies on anthropogenic activities to disperse. I once saw a small population of these plants within a quarry site where gravel and rocks are mined for construction use and landfills. Go figure: pieces of rhizomes and bulbils get loaded into dump trucks to be deposited somewhere else. Why expend energy flowering and fruiting when clueless humans are doing the dispersing for you? That might answer the 'why?' bit concerning its flowering and fruiting, but it raises a hairy question: if it is a cultigen, then what and where is the wild form? Two widely cultivated grasses, rice and corn, are cultigens. If and when humans decide to obliterate one another due to world order-changing reasons like territorial disputes, ideology, football, and whether pineapples should finally be recognized as canon in the world of pizzas, then rice and corn will vanish too within a few years because they have relied on their continued existence and dispersal by grain-famished humans. But not their wild counterparts. And we do know what and where the original forms of rice and corn were. However, we do not know if there is a truly wild form of A. pseudosanderiana. No, it cannot be A. sanderiana. A. sanderiana has fewer primary veins, is incapable of producing lots of leaves, and does not clump like A. pseudosanderiana does. In fact, except for the superficially similar sinuate leaf margins, I can't see any trait that would point to an A. sanderiana ancestry to the plant in question. Or maybe it's a natural/man-made hybrid of some distant hybridizing event. But then, what were the parents and why are there no records of such miscegenation if some bored horticulturists were involved? It would seem that for every possible answer, a new question inevitably crops up. 

I must admit that I cannot answer these sticky questions alone. So if you can advance at least a few ideas, then don't keep it to yourself. Write it down and comment, dammit!

Comments

  1. (Part 1)
    Before I give my opinion, I’m just gonna relay some (summarized) info from David Burnett’s Aroideana article itself named “The Cultivated Alocasia” (Aroideana Vol. 7 No. 3 & 4). I think this is also the first and only published literature that mentions and gives information about ‘A. pseudosanderiana’. According to the book/article, it has its horticultural synonyms in the USA as ‘The False Sanderiana’ and A. ‘ariozavica’, while in Australia it is referred to as A. ‘Philippinensis’.
    =To add some context, this was published on year 1984. The name A. pseudosanderiana probably has already existed more than 38 years ago, and there is virtually no other trace of its other synonyms online.=
    It was suggested to him (Burnett) that A. pseudosanderiana is a natural hybrid between A. heterophylla and A. sanderiana, also since there is a viewpoint among Philippine aroid collectors that A. heterophylla is a highly variable and widespread “weedy” species, and that it has supposedly naturally hybridized with many other species. This is of course not proven true and merely speculation; even Burnett himself disagrees with this theory. He listed three reasons:
    1. A hybrid that involves A. sanderiana should exhibit some evidence of leaf texture from that other species; A. pseudosanderiana does not
    2. Past Alocasia hybridization does not suggest that when one crosses two small-growing species, one will create a very large-growing hybrid.
    3. This plant (A. pseudosanderiana) grows widely across the Philippine Islands, as does the species A. heterophylla; Yet the rare (some say endangered) species A. sanderiana is endemic to a small area of the island of Mindanao. So it seems unlikely for a natural hybrid in an isolated zone to spread widely across the Philippines.
    Burnett believes that A. ‘Pseudosanderiana’ is an undescribed species which at least in Australia has an unfortunate history. Originally imported as A. sanderiana and sold as such, purchasers were quick to become disenchanted when they became aware that the plant was not A. sanderiana. It lost the favor of the collectors, knowing that the plant multiplies rapidly and became very common.
    (And then there’s more info about its care and aesthetic qualities which I will not mention for relevance)
    Burnett has not observed an inflorescence and suspects that we have yet to see a truly adult plant in collections. For this reason, he cannot specify a mature leaf size, but leaves that are 24” long by 12-15” wide are common.
    =And now for my personal opinion=
    I’ve had my own fair share of experiences with this plant during the pandemic, early year 2021. We’ve just moved in to this new house where there just so happens to be a cluster of A. pseudosanderiana around the house. I can definitely confirm that they are weedy and can spread so easily, no matter how many times you weed them out they’ll just keep rising with new plants from leftover bulbils underground. They thrive in wet and shaded areas, can survive the most clayish compact soil, and can even be drought tolerant at times. A single bulbil left unchecked even under the heat of the scorching sun can mature into a massive plant similar to the leaf size that Burnett mentioned. I’ve seen bigger plants in some resorts but even they don’t have any presence of inflorescences. My months worth of random searches on facebook also lead to nothing.
    Someone named Bonsai Kalimantan Selatan posted a video of a specimen in flower, in one of the Alocasia FB groups I joined in, but with no other context… Since the group is in private, here’s the vid which I downloaded and reuploaded for the sake of showing.
    https://youtube.com/shorts/FZF4rWsiLug
    So we know that the plant definitely flowers, but rarely or maybe the plants in cultivation just haven’t reached the right size because of certain environmental limitations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (Part 2)
      Going back to the topic if this plant really is a hybrid between Alocasia sanderiana and another unknown plant, I think it is possible.
      https://sites.google.com/view/philippinealocasias/species-groups/entire-genus/longiloba?authuser=0
      In this page, I’ve compiled all the currently known Longiloba forms known in cultivation including A. sanderiana (which as we know, also belongs to the Longiloba group). A. sanderiana is the only one that exhibited the feature of having leaf margins. A. pseudosanderiana’s ancestry definitely leads to the longiloba group, and it seems like A. sanderiana is the closest (No other species groups consistently show the traits of having a large, thin, dark lamina, with showy silvery veins, and purple underside but Longiloba, except A. boyceana if counted). Aside from the superficial features, other traits of A. pseudosanderiana stop matching with A. sanderiana:
      1. Petiole to leaf attachment- A. sanderiana and most of the other species in the longiloba group (including the other A. longiloba forms or variations) have peltate leaf attachments. A. pseudosanderiana is non-peltate, just like A. boyceana and the “denudata” form of A. longiloba.
      2. Petiole appearance- A. pseudosanderiana has those noticeable streaks or stripes on its petioles which A. sanderiana doesn’t have. As I’ve observed from actual A. sanderiana specimens, they have little to no marks on their petioles; similar to A. clypeolata and A. macrorrhizos which are plain unless you really put your eye into it (they have occasional really thin stripes that are almost negligible). The petiole stripes of A. pseudosanderiana are more visible in younger specimens, which is why people often mistake them as A. zebrina.
      3. Primary vein count- The vein count is somehow subjective, especially since certain leaves can have more or less veins than expected (this is also true to other Alocasia species). I can’t also provide an approximate “leaf size to vein count” ratio, since some smaller leaves of A. pseudosanderiana can have the same vein count as a larger leaf. Sometimes even smaller leaves have more primary veins than the larger ones. Basically, if you place a specimen of A. pseudosanderiana next to or beside an A. sanderiana of the same leaf size, the A. pseudosanderiana will almost always have more veins than A. sanderiana.
      4. Leaf size- Even just a quick search online will lead you to the conclusion that specimens of A. pseudosanderiana will have massive leaves compared to A. sanderiana.

      Delete
    2. (Part 3)
      5. Size at sexual/reproductive maturity- A. sanderiana is known to already flower at sizes (maybe) approximately below or above the height of your knees, but not exceeding your hips. It is a usually small plant, but can be large if extremely old in the wild. Although, it will never be as robust as A. pseudosanderiana. With that video as a reference, I think A. pseudosanderiana would need to grow much larger before it can produce some inflorescence.
      6. Petiole width and petiolar sheath- A. sanderiana has a petiole that is consistently slender and almost the same width all throughout from leaf attachment to base (like an extremely long straw). The leaf sheath is pretty short and closed on the next petiole. A. pseudosanderiana on the other hand has (almost) similar features in juvenile specimens, but once they grow bigger leaves, the base of the petiole will always be thicker and it gradually tapers to a thinner end as it reaches the top/leaf attachment. The leaf sheath is noticeably long, the inside being exposed and sometimes opens up more, making it look “flappy”.
      7. Leaf count it can sustain- Wild specimens of A. sanderiana can usually only sustain 1-3 leaves (tissue cultured specimens or specimens that have been cultivated for a really long time can sustain more, but of course we won’t be taking that into account). A. pseudosanderiana can sustain as many as 7-10 and above, which is quite a lot.
      8. Leaf shape- A. sanderiana is known for its narrow leaves with deep marginal sinuations. A. pseudosanderiana is similar but wider and has shallower sinuations.

      Delete
    3. (Part 4)
      The trait of having a purple underside, dark lamina, and silvery veins could definitely have come from A. sanderiana. So let’s try to limit what could be the “other possible parent” of A. pseudosanderiana “if” it were a hybrid, knowing these differences:
      -What Alocasia species has a non-peltate leaf attachment, has noticeable (faint but not negligible) stripes on its petiole, higher primary vein count, bigger leaf size, bigger overall size at sexual maturity, unequal petiole width (thick at base, thinner at leaf attachment), long “flappy” petiolar leaf sheaths, can sustain as many as 7-10 leaves, and wider in terms of leaf shape?
      Other traits of A. pseudosanderiana that A. sanderiana does not have, is its surprisingly robust and fast growing habit, extreme sun tolerance, prolific production of bulbils (vegetative reproduction). Overall, a really resilient plant in contrast to A. sanderiana. I am inclined to think that the other parent is A. macrorrhizos, but I’m sure many would disagree and I could be wrong; this is of course just my opinion.
      In terms of A. pseudosanderiana being possibly a cultigen, I think it could also be plausible. As I have mentioned earlier of Burnett’s article (published on 1984), A. pseudosanderiana has always been widely distributed across the Philippines. In my personal experience, the bulbils of A. pseudosanderiana can easily spread and colonize different types of soil (even if it is just chunks of broken cement). If A. pseudosanderiana did have its natural/wild origins, it would have to be located (possibly) somewhere in Mindanao where both A. sanderiana and the other parent coexist together. The hybrid (knowing a lot of hybrids are resilient) could have already entered the premises of the humans through years and years of vegetative reproduction. Maybe in a farm where root crops (or other crops that require uprooting) are grown, but at the same time still a little forested. The bulbils got carried around through harvesting, and traded to multiple places, until it has reached to most of the Philippines.
      I think one thing for sure is that A. pseudosanderiana (if it really is a hybrid or cultigen) came from a single parent that was so resilient and reproduced prolifically (vegetatively through bulbils). The plant no matter where it is sourced from, will always look the same and it lacks diversity in appearance. So what we all have in cultivation are just clones, hence it is a cultigen like you have mentioned, spread through anthropogenic means.
      I wonder if its synonym A. ‘ariozavica’ offers a clue, but I can’t find any reliable source of information online about its etymology as the name seems to be non-existent (except for the index of names that Aroideana has).

      Delete
    4. Sorry in Part 2 I meant "A. sanderiana is the only one that exhibited the feature of having "sinuate" leaf margins"

      Delete
    5. I think that when considering A. pseudosanderiana as a hybrid, then one should always take first into consideration the horticultural hybrid 'Amazonica'. The eventual size of that plant still remains within the realms of what other plants in the longiloba group can attain. Assuming for the meantime that A. pseudosanderiana is a hybrid involving A. sanderiana, then the next logical question is: 'what's the other parent?' Alocasia macrorrhizos is unlikely, as one can expect its progeny to develop a trunk in time, plus multiple inflorescences ringing the plant. We don't see those, even in a watered down version, in A. pseudosanderiana. It is unfortunate that in the video you supplied (thanks for that!), the plant only showed what seemed like an infructescence- assuming it's got developing seeds inside. Could these plants be triploid? The apparent absence of observations on its seeds may point to sterility, much like in Aglaonema 'Nonito Dolera' which was originally sourced from the wild. If this is the case, then it is very possible that all A. pseudosanderiana in existence are all just from a single clone. But this still raises the question of 'where is the wild form?'

      Delete
    6. How I wish I was an expert in the technicalities of plant and taxonomy (especially genetics) 😅 although I try my best to learn with what resources I can find in the net... Triploidy seems like a believable theory too. I just find it weird how the only defining feature of pseudosanderiana that makes it similar to A. sanderiana is just the leaf blade, and I guess it's easier to arrive to that conclusion since our eyes tend to only focus on what's big and attractive (the leaves). The rest of the morphology (like what I have mentioned previously) just don't match with A. sanderiana at all.

      Just quickly googled some info related to triploidy, polyploid, and even encountered a term new to me which is allopolyploidy:

      "Triploid plants have larger organs, greater biomass, and strong stress resistance by preserving relatively larger
      amounts of photosynthetic energy. The undesirable spread of non-native invasive crop and horticultural plants
      into natural areas can also be reduced or eliminated by the use of triploids, because they tend to be sterile
      and seedless."
      https://www.agriculturejournals.cz/publicFiles/151_2015-CJGPB.pdf
      "Polyploids are known to originate within individuals, or
      following hybridization between closely related populations (autopolyploidy), or from interspecific hybridization events (allopolyploidy)."
      https://www.agriculturejournals.cz/publicFiles/151_2015-CJGPB.pdf
      "An allopolyploid is an individual having two or more complete sets of chromosomes derived from different species."
      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3430260/#:~:text=An%20allopolyploid%20is%20an%20individual,chromosomes%20derived%20from%20different%20species.
      "Allopolyploidy occurs when an organism has more than two sets of chromosomes from different species."
      https://study.com/learn/lesson/allopolyploidy-autopolyploidy-speciation-examples.html

      So a quick and impulsive theory from me... perhaps pseudosanderiana is a polyploid, and it definitely (just based on leaf morpho) has traces of A. sanderiana DNA in it. But I don't think of it as a polyploid derived from just A. sanderiana alone since the rest of pseudosandariana's morphology is just to different from A. sanderiana (light green striped petioles, tapering in width from bottom to top, long and wide open petiole sheath (as opposed to the short, closed, almost negligible sheath of A. sanderiana)). Besides the robust and many-veined leaf blade, I don't know if using the petiole morphology as a basis is fair, but it's the one thing that's bothering me.
      As I've noticed from photos online, polyploidy from the same/genetically similar parents still retain the same features aside from the more robust and sometimes deformed features. It's like the idea is still there, just different in proportions(size) and count(vein, petal, leaf count); but not the color or patterning. This would make sense since the extra chromosomes are just the same with the copies.
      Now if that polyploid was one that is derived from two different parents, then its definitive/morphological feature would probably be based on the major and minor number of chromosomes it inherited. In pseudosanderiana's case, let's say if it was a triploid, that 2 of those chromosomes have the code for A. sanderiana mostly, while the extra one chromosome is the one that codes the feature of the other parent. (Idunno I'm not a geneticist, I just want to assume) Then that probably would be the reason why pseudosanderiana looks mostly like A. sanderiana, but still managed to inherit some traits that don't belong to A. sanderiana (petiolar stripes and color, long sheath, etc.).

      In the meantime, I just really wish our pseudosanderiana at home would flower already 😩 I'm really curious about its floral morphology, and if it could say more about its identity.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Plants and places: a list of places in the Philippines that were named after plants

Phalaenopsis: a photographic compendium of Philippine species

Distinguishing Alocasia boyceana, A. heterophylla, and A. ramosii, and some words about asking for plant identification