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

 

In the Philippines, three commonly encountered Alocasia species are frequently mixed with one another that identification of plants posted in social media has resulted in a muddied concept of what constitutes what, with most plants getting labeled as 'Alocasia heterophylla' even though practically no one can elucidate why he thinks it is that species. More on that later. Still, admit I should that I, too, was confused not too long ago until I got fed up with my own ignorance and decided to undo it once and for all. I now show thee the path to thy enlightenment. The main aim of this article is to allow you to reliably identify which is which. I am going to keep this ultra-simplified, so I am not going to talk about floral morphologies. People usually don't catch them in flower anyway and very few have the inclination to save dissected inflorescence samples in an alcohol solution for later reference. The other aim, well, we'll get to that later.

Alocasia heterophylla

The catch bin, I'm-the-only-one-you-see species. If it looks like a heterophylla, then it's heterophylla. Fine. That idea worked prior to 1999, until A. boyceana and A. ramosii were described simultaneously in one paper- Alistair Hay's The Genus Alocasia in the Philippines (Garden's Bulletin, Singapore 51: 1-41). If you still think everything that remotely resembles a heterophylla is that species, then you're so 1998 and backward (that includes a not-too-distant version of myself). So how can you tell if it's the real thing? Alocasia heterophylla has the fewest lateral veins of the three species covered here, ranging from three to four (sometimes five, but this isn't the norm). Counting the lateral veins (in red) does not include those at the posterior lobes but at the beginning of the petiole attachment. Also, the secondary veins of this species arch widely. See below, in white.

Figure 1

A distinguishing feature of A. heterophylla leaves is the very noticeable submarginal veins, which clears the leaf margins by about 3 mm. In so many cases, I only have to look for the easily observable submarginals to know that I am looking at an A. heterophylla.

Figure 2

Alocasia heterophylla usually has peltate, or shield-like- leaves. That is, to say, the petiole attachment is not situated on the leaf margin but near or on the center of the leaf. See below:

Figure 3: Alocasia heterophylla

BUT... if you go back to the photo shown in Figure 1, you can see a non-peltate leaf attachment. Both peltate and non-peltate heterophyllas can occur within the same population. Now, both A. boyceana and A. ramosii have non-peltate leaves, or sub-peltate at the most, but if you see a plant with non-peltate leaves but have few primary veins and conspicuous submarginal veining, then confuse yourself no more- it's A. heterophylla. 

As an additional note, I don't think the plant hovering in cultivation in the Philippines as A. heterophylla 'Corazon' is that species. It has been a long time since I had one in cultivation, but if I would hazard a guess, it's either a variant of A. boyceana or an undescribed species, assuming it is of wild origin, or maybe even a hybrid. Anyway, if you feel like gifting me a 'Corazon' then just drop me a message 😁

Alocasia ramosii

Think of an A. heterophylla with the same widely curving secondary veins but with more primary veins (four to seven) and inconspicuous submarginal veins- that's A. ramosii. The submarginal veining is (usually) present, but is so close to the leaf margins to render these not instantly recognizable. As far as I know and have observed from plants in the wild, the species have consistently non-peltate leaves. Luzon plants are usually remarkably nondescript, with secondary veining that is apparent only upon close examination. Elsewhere, ramosiis can have the same prominent veining as typical heterophyllas. Photo below shows an A. ramosii from the southern Philippines:

Figure 4: Alocasia ramosii

Of the three, A. ramosii is the most infrequently encountered species in cultivation.

Alocasia boyceana

The one most often confused with A. heterophylla, but predictably by those who do not know what they are talking about. Like A. ramosii, the leaves are decidedly non-peltate and there are up to seven primary veins, but can be as few as five. Sub-marginal veining is very close to the leaf edges as in A. ramosii. Compared to the previous two, the secondary veining of this species is obscure, though plants of A. ramosii approaching the appearance of A. boyceana is not unknown from Luzon. In such cases, petiole coloration is resorted to: the petioles of A. ramosii are green, rarely black-brown, while those in A. boyceana are most commonly pale with thin, brownish dashes and bands, but may also be plain green and even blackish. Okay, I know what you are thinking. In instances where there is overlap in both leaf appearance and petiole coloration, the most reliable way to tell the two species apart is from their floral morphology, though as I said before, I do not wish to go and discuss that. Maybe in another post. At any rate, here is where the importance of seeing the entire populations become oh so obvious: in any given population, A. boyceana can have plants bearing all three petiole variations. 'Black'-petioled A. ramosii is rare, and of the single small population I have so far seen, the petiole coloration was stable. No green ones, and in this respect it diverges from A. boyceana in having only a single petiole color per population. Of course, in single-plant photos, particularly the not-so-clear ones, it's difficult to tell which is which especially when the petioles are not visible. Still, remember that A. ramosii does not have marked petioles. And, do not draw conclusions from a single plant or plant photo particularly if there is room for doubt.

Figure 5: Alocasia boyceana

Figure 6: Still Alocasia boyceana, guyth.

At this juncture, I would like to emphasize how useless the leaf outline is in trying to pin down these plants. All three are very variable in leaf shape, especially A. heterophylla, hence the name ('heteros'- different, and 'fyllon'- leaf). All three can have sinuate (wavy)-leaved examples. Furthermore, coloration would be of limited importance too. Whereas A. heterophylla is usually grey or blue-grey and A. boyceana is mid- to dark green, A. ramosii can be from mid- to dark green to bluish and blue-grey. "Shit, holy", says Yoda. Alocasias can be fickle-minded too, it seems. If you want to be able to correctly differentiate the three, then you need to nerd up and familiarize yourself with jargon and morphologies. Entendida?

'kay, I hope it's all clear. Time for Part Deux.

So you have a plant you do not know the name of. Here's what you should have done: you should have asked your seller because it's the sellers' responsibility to supply the names to their clients. Not us, unless you would like to pay us, TOO. If that didn't work- probably because the seller only got whisked into that kind of 'job' because there wasn't much choice back then- then it's Plan B. Prepare a cup of coffee or a bottle of whiskey or absinthe or cattle piss for all I care and go to Google's Images and type the genus name  where your plant belongs. If your plant is the common type, you'll surely stumble upon a photo of the same plant. Or, you can go to Pinterest. It's that easy. And fun, because you'll pick up more new and interesting stuff as you browse along. If you're unsure about the genus name, then just keep trying. Seek and ye shall find, padawan. Asking for plant identification on Facebook should always be your LAST resort. Don't be a privileged, spoonfed bastard with the touchiness of a two-year-old when someone points out in social media that you're a privileged, spoonfed bastard for wanting to get the quickest answers without doing your share of the homework. The most seasoned plantspeople are usually very accommodating and helpful to neophytes- but they can sniff the atrociously lazy ones. You know the type: the vast, squirming masses who do not know what 'back-reading' and 'researching' means so would rather post the same plant and very basic plant queries, again and again, day after day, week after week, and months after months until people get so fed up answering the same dumb questions and the FB group eventually atrophies because people who have the knowledge have since kicked themselves out voluntarily out of sheer frustration and boredom. So pay your dues. If you still can't find the name of your plant, then, by all means, fly to one of those FB groups and scream for help, but not without doing your fair share of work. And please post the clearest photos you can give, the ones that show the most important bits. Pretty soon, someone will comment down the identification of your plant, which brings me to the meat of Part 2- yes, everything written before the word "Pretty" was just an intro. You owe it to yourself to get the most accurate information you can get. Agree? Then why not go the extra mile and ask the person who provided the identification his reasons for thinking your plant is that plant? Don't just say "Thanks!", you fool. What if I played a prank on you and I give you a made-up name just for kicks (and believe me, I have done this before)? A quandary arises when another person posts a comment with a different identification. Socrates encouraged us, mere mortals, to engage in dialogues so we attain the truth. So ask. And ask again after you got an answer. Don't stop until everything is clear to you. If they cannot properly explain the reasoning behind their giving of a name, then it's probably hogwash. This world is swarming with self-fashioned Einsteins who don't even know what N-P-K means, so let's weed 'em out. Engage in intellectual discussions and get your brain out of the 'Slightly Used, Good as New' category. Do not just accept what is said to you. Once you raise your standards, you'll begin to see fewer and fewer wannabes. Which should result in more accurate plant identifications made only by qualified souls. And that wouldn't be so bad, would it?