# Diary of an amateur botanist: the quest for an answer!



## andersonii85 (Feb 8, 2004)

Plant in question: Cissus sp. "Colombia"

Photo of plant in question:









Prologue:
I happily acquired a few cuttings of said plant from Chuck in hopes that I could understand its growth habit and anatomy. Without the presence of flowers, finding an ID for this plant will be difficult. I should mention that before going forward with this diary (hoping for more of a dialogue) a disclaimer if you will, that I am by no means a professional botanist. I am not incredibly versed in plant taxonomy. However, I do have a BS in Biology (minor in plant science) and a love of plants, especially those of the terrarium/vivarium variety.

I have been in contact with a curator from a well known botanical garden and their take on all of this (based solely on photos) is that it's from the family Marcgraviaceae. For those of you who don't know, Cissus species are found in the family Vitaceae.


----------



## andersonii85 (Feb 8, 2004)

Armed with the Internet and some dusty books on the diversity of angiosperms, I started to make a comparison chart of traits for both potential families. 









I grabbed a few specimens for side by side comparison. Specimens include Marcgravia sp. "Suriname", Cissus amazonica, and the plant in question. I'll be looking at other specimens in the near future. These are just for some initial thought gathering.


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

I'll be following


----------



## Dartfrogfreak (Jun 22, 2005)

I never thought of it being in the Marcgraviaceae family!
I could see that!


Todd


----------



## boabab95 (Nov 5, 2009)

Dartfrogfreak said:


> I never thought of it being in the Marcgraviaceae family!
> I could see that!
> 
> 
> Todd


Now that i think about it, Marcgraviaceae does seem for likely! or possibly another aroid?


----------



## Dartfrogfreak (Jun 22, 2005)

I dont think aroid is likely. I also considered possibly an unidentified Ficus spp?


Todd


----------



## boabab95 (Nov 5, 2009)

Dartfrogfreak said:


> I dont think aroid is likely. I also considered possibly an unidentified Ficus spp?
> 
> 
> Todd


I dont think the leaves look right to be ficus [based on all the ficus species i've seen, vines included] I think cissus would be closer, but i dont think it's cissus either...


----------



## Mantellaprince20 (Aug 25, 2004)

With the veination of the leaves and the way leaves alternate along the stem, I am pretty sure it is not in the cissus family. I think it ended up being called a cissus due to the incredible similarity it shares with amazonicus. I am not familiar enough with marcgraviacea to compare it. It does however seem to have a much different texture and growth habit than any of my other marcgravia's. On my largest leaves, I am getting a curl at the base of the leaf and it is definitely far from being a shingler. Without flowers though as mentioned and a more mature growth form, it will be difficult to ID.

On the other hand, how large are the leaves getting for others? I have had leaves get up to about 3" or so on a few of my cuttings, while others are staying very small.

Ed Parker


----------



## Pumilo (Sep 4, 2010)

Ed, I have leaves about 3" leaves on some of my Manuran's Mystery Vine. I don't think it is a Cissus, either. It was pointed out to me that Cissus all have well developed aerial roots, while Manran's vine does not.


----------



## stemcellular (Jun 26, 2008)

I have it growing in a few tall tanks and it's shingling like a marcgravia. Great thread.


----------



## Manuran (Aug 28, 2007)

Just wanted to add, that from the beginning I never did say it was a Cissus. Since I didn't know what it was (and neither did the person I got it from) I was just trying to give a verbal description (to go along with the photo) that it just reminded me of a Cissus in it's appearance. It was clear that it has no tendrils and and was not a Cissus. More recently, I just tried calling it an unidentified vine, but the Cissus tag just stayed with the plant. 
Oh well, my mistake for making a casual comparison. 
While I wouldn't be the one to determine if it is a Marcgravia or not, I will say that I would be surprised to find out that is what it is. 
Good luck in the quest!


----------



## boabab95 (Nov 5, 2009)

Manuran said:


> Just wanted to add, that from the beginning I never did say it was a Cissus. Since I didn't know what it was (and neither did the person I got it from) I was just trying to give a verbal description (to go along with the photo) that it just reminded me of a Cissus in it's appearance. It was clear that it has no tendrils and and was not a Cissus. More recently, I just tried calling it an unidentified vine, but the Cissus tag just stayed with the plant.
> Oh well, my mistake for making a casual comparison.
> While I wouldn't be the one to determine if it is a Marcgravia or not, I will say that I would be surprised to find out that is what it is.
> Good luck in the quest!


Do you have any collection info? where did the guy you got it from get it?


----------



## Manuran (Aug 28, 2007)

boabab95 said:


> Do you have any collection info? where did the guy you got it from get it?


No I don't, if I did I would have included it with the plants. All he knew was that it was Colombian in origin. I have no idea where he got it from. I can say that I have seen pictures of plants that seem close to identical from Panama as well as Ecuador. Showing what seems to be a wide range. Unfortunately, always with no clue to identity.


----------



## Dartfrogfreak (Jun 22, 2005)

Chuck,
Steve Waldren posted a photo he took in Ecuador of a nearly identical species. It as well had no ID.

I do agree on the similarity of Cissus amazonica in leaf shape but Ive also noticed these vines to have an asymetrical leaf shape, which I never noticed on Cissus. However Ive got some older pieces from other people and they seem to share a similar stem to Cissus as well.Also Im no botonist, but are tendrils a defining factor in a Genus description?

I also would not be surprised to find out these are Marcgravia or at least in the same family.

Chuck were the 2 you posted and sent out the only 2 species you are working with?

Todd


----------



## stemcellular (Jun 26, 2008)

I suppose we can always have it sequenced...


----------



## andersonii85 (Feb 8, 2004)

Mantellaprince20 said:


> With the veination of the leaves and the way leaves alternate along the stem, I am pretty sure it is not in the cissus family. I think it ended up being called a cissus due to the incredible similarity it shares with amazonicus. I am not familiar enough with marcgraviacea to compare it. It does however seem to have a much different texture and growth habit than any of my other marcgravia's. On my largest leaves, I am getting a curl at the base of the leaf and it is definitely far from being a shingler. Without flowers though as mentioned and a more mature growth form, it will be difficult to ID.
> 
> On the other hand, how large are the leaves getting for others? I have had leaves get up to about 3" or so on a few of my cuttings, while others are staying very small.
> 
> Ed Parker


Actually, with Cissus the leaves can be alternate or opposite and even a few species whorled. As for the venation, both families can be pinnately veined, but Marcgravia are typically not palmately veined.


----------



## andersonii85 (Feb 8, 2004)

Manuran said:


> Just wanted to add, that from the beginning I never did say it was a Cissus. Since I didn't know what it was (and neither did the person I got it from) I was just trying to give a verbal description (to go along with the photo) that it just reminded me of a Cissus in it's appearance. It was clear that it has no tendrils and and was not a Cissus. More recently, I just tried calling it an unidentified vine, but the Cissus tag just stayed with the plant.
> Oh well, my mistake for making a casual comparison.
> While I wouldn't be the one to determine if it is a Marcgravia or not, I will say that I would be surprised to find out that is what it is.
> Good luck in the quest!


Chuck-

I had set the trap and hoped you would chime in...haha. You did your best to describe what you were selling. No harm in that.


----------



## andersonii85 (Feb 8, 2004)

I'm glad that a debate has ensued since my original postings. I'd like to get more folks on board as I'd like this to be a dialogue. 

At any rate, I was leaning towards Marcgravia until I came across the fact the leaves of the unknown vine appear to be dotted with what may be glands. If this is true, it would rule out Marcgravia. However, what appear to be glands to the naked eye may actually be domatia!!! If this is the case, then Marcgravia is still in the running. So, closer investigation needs to follow. 

I will be looking at these under some microscopes at work this week and see if I can take some images to post and a better idea as to what the glandular looking spots are.

One thing is for sure, this is not a Cissus. (Pay attention Todd!) All members of Cissus (and Viticeae) have tendrils or suckers. Plus the leaves have stipules. The unknown vine from what I can tell does not have stipules.


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

stemcellular said:


> I suppose we can always have it sequenced...


Random curiosity, but is that expensive?


----------



## stemcellular (Jun 26, 2008)

Not prohibitively.


----------



## JoshH (Feb 13, 2008)

I don't think it's Marcgravia or any other genus normally grown in terrariums. The entire leaf surface and stem is covered in fine hairs. There's about a million genera that are climbers like this for all or part of their life, many that shingle too.

My guess is the huge tropical family Solanaceae, most likely a Solanum sp. very similar to Solanum evolvulifolium. The slightly asymmetrical leaves with the fine epidermal hairs and the opposite leaf arrangement all are common traits to this genus. There are hundreds of species in Ecuador and Colombia. Of course a flower would help!


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

FYI there are at least two genera in the Vitaceae that have species without tendrils.


----------



## andersonii85 (Feb 8, 2004)

epiphytes etc. said:


> FYI there are at least two genera in the Vitaceae that have species without tendrils.


Yes, hence "suckers" or tendrils.


----------



## epiphytes etc. (Nov 22, 2010)

andersonii85 said:


> Yes, hence "suckers" or tendrils.


I'm not sure I quite get what you are saying here. My point was that not all Cissus relatives have tendrils ( Cyphostemma, Rhoicissus), so lack of tendrils does not automatically rule out Vitaceae (though I'm in no way claiming that's what it is). "Suckers" usually refers to adventitius shoots from the base of woody plants, and not to tendrils, though the tendrils of some plants do have sucker-like appendages (Hederaceae).


----------



## pdfCrazy (Feb 28, 2012)

I as well keep this species (Thanks to Pumilio  ). I am also curius to its taxonimy and origin. It took a long time to get going, but when it did, WOW, it can take over if you let it. So far I love it. None of my leaves are even close to 3" yet though. Either way, I think its a wonderfulk addition to our hobby, ID'd or not.


----------



## Dartfrogfreak (Jun 22, 2005)

Just a thought. What if its a completely unidentified genus..... Or even family new to science all together!

Just a thought.


Todd


----------



## Manuran (Aug 28, 2007)

JoshH said:


> My guess is the huge tropical family Solanaceae, most likely a Solanum sp. very similar to Solanum evolvulifolium. The slightly asymmetrical leaves with the fine epidermal hairs and the opposite leaf arrangement all are common traits to this genus. There are hundreds of species in Ecuador and Colombia. Of course a flower would help!


I think that is a very good guess. I'm guessing you are a big fan of the fieldmuseum site, like I am . I'll probably still leave it as an unknown until someone flowers it though. 
I've long thought that the leaf qualities were very similar to S. uleanum, but with the arrangement being so different it left enough doubt.


----------



## Manuran (Aug 28, 2007)

Taking Josh's lead, I looked a little more into it and looked at more specimens. It could be, like the species Josh mentioned, a Solanum from the section Herpystichum. I wrote to the author that recently published a revision of that section. So hopefully we will get an answer within a few days. 

Also interesting to note that this section has a lot of it's distribution centered in Colombia and Ecuador, with other localities in Panama and Costa Rica.

After reading a little more, there is a chance that it is actually S. evolvulifolium, as that species seems to be widespread and variable in it's appearance. Hopefully, I will get a response.


----------



## andersonii85 (Feb 8, 2004)

epiphytes etc. said:


> I'm not sure I quite get what you are saying here. My point was that not all Cissus relatives have tendrils ( Cyphostemma, Rhoicissus), so lack of tendrils does not automatically rule out Vitaceae (though I'm in no way claiming that's what it is). "Suckers" usually refers to adventitius shoots from the base of woody plants, and not to tendrils, though the tendrils of some plants do have sucker-like appendages (Hederaceae).


Precisely.


----------



## JoshH (Feb 13, 2008)

Chuck, I wrote him when I found the article too! haha...hopefully one of us will get a response...


----------



## Pumilo (Sep 4, 2010)

It can really take off if you let it. 6 months ago I put 2 small cuttings in my Escudo viv http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/members-frogs-vivariums/80564-escudo-viv-2-a.html I didn't touch if until last week (as far as trimming anything back). Last week I removed this portion from the viv. This piece was easily 2 foot by 3 foot. This was just the biggest single piece. There were also several 3 foot vines removed.

I think it was screaming for a little more light as it grew straight up to the top and then just meandered all over the top of the viv. It grew in so thick that it was blocking quite a lot of the light.

Even with it's fast growing habit, I wouldn't consider it problematic, though, as it does not throw off roots and tendrils all over the place. The overgrowth is very easily removed, or at least it has been in my experience.


----------



## Manuran (Aug 28, 2007)

Hi Doug,
Nice to see that it is doing so well for you. Since it seems more people will be growing this plant, I thought I would add to your experiences. Like you mentioned your plants were reaching up for light. This is usually when you see the fastest growth. I have a plant that is over 2 years old and shows very slow growth. It does get a lot of light, much more than a dartfrog tank would get. The humidity is also lower than a typical terrarium. It maintains just a solid green color, not quite what I would have expected. Recently it has been getting less light and a more typical stem is forming. This plant (along with a Fittonia) is in the first pic. My main plant is in a typical terrarium setting, under a bunch of t-5's. With this bright artificial light, I get the best growth. Not slow, not fast. I also get the best color and just the right habits. They don't reach up and form a nice carpet. The stems don't seem to get longer than 12" to 18" before they start to branch, which again leads to a nice growth pattern. I guess most will have to see how much light the can afford this plant and if the resulting growth and color is right for the tank. Thanks for bringing this up, as I have always meant to post this.















.


----------



## andersonii85 (Feb 8, 2004)

Manuran said:


> Taking Josh's lead, I looked a little more into it and looked at more specimens. It could be, like the species Josh mentioned, a Solanum from the section Herpystichum. I wrote to the author that recently published a revision of that section. So hopefully we will get an answer within a few days.
> 
> Also interesting to note that this section has a lot of it's distribution centered in Colombia and Ecuador, with other localities in Panama and Costa Rica.
> 
> After reading a little more, there is a chance that it is actually S. evolvulifolium, as that species seems to be widespread and variable in it's appearance. Hopefully, I will get a response.


Please let us know if you get a response! I also wrote to a bunch of Neotropical plant experts in hopes of getting a response. Many of whom are experts on vines and lianas. All in all, I feel like there's some serious momentum on finding its ID. The more pics I look at of Solanum species, the more I support the idea of this fitting in within that genus. Great work all!


----------



## Manuran (Aug 28, 2007)

andersonii85 said:


> All in all, I feel like there's some serious momentum on finding its ID. The more pics I look at of Solanum species, the more I support the idea of this fitting in within that genus. Great work all!


I think all of the credit goes to Josh.


----------



## Bunsincunsin (Feb 11, 2008)

Any updates?


----------



## papafrogger (Oct 21, 2012)

Unfortunately i have basically 0 insight to add to this thread . All i know is that is a beautiful plant and i would like to get my hands on some! I hope yall can get to the bottom of this.


----------



## andersonii85 (Feb 8, 2004)

Just to follow up- has anyone heard from the so called "experts"?

We can probably say with confidence that it belongs to Solanum. I keep hoping someone flowers one real soon.


----------



## JoshH (Feb 13, 2008)

Yeah, just got an email from the Solanum guy. He still needs a flower to determine if it is in the family. I know Chuck is providing him additional photos and details, but I think someone will have to flower it and get some nice closeup photos before anything definitive. It's a really obscure plant so the chances of even a botanist immediately recognizing it are pretty slim.

Didn't Richard from BJ get a flower bud on his? I can put some in my mini greenhouse and see if anything happens. Maybe bright T5s will do something...


----------



## andersonii85 (Feb 8, 2004)

JoshH said:


> Yeah, just got an email from the Solanum guy. He still needs a flower to determine if it is in the family. I know Chuck is providing him additional photos and details, but I think someone will have to flower it and get some nice closeup photos before anything definitive. It's a really obscure plant so the chances of even a botanist immediately recognizing it are pretty slim.
> 
> Didn't Richard from BJ get a flower bud on his? I can put some in my mini greenhouse and see if anything happens. Maybe bright T5s will do something...


Thanks for the update. I heard from Chuck as well. Nothing conclusive at this point. Richard said that the other bud blasted as well : (


----------



## Dartfrogfreak (Jun 22, 2005)

Has anyone got this to bloom yet?


Todd


----------



## Frogtofall (Feb 16, 2006)

I am fairly confident I could get this to bloom if I had a piece of it.


----------



## jckee1 (Mar 22, 2011)

Just curious, how are people doing with the second species? Mine originally did extremely well and then sort of died back. It is slowly recovering and really hates to be disturbed.


----------



## Sammie (Oct 12, 2009)

I would consider trading one of my kidneys for a piece of that vine

Let's hope it makes it to Europe sooner rather than later


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 17, 2006)

Sammie said:


> I would consider trading one of my kidneys for a piece of that vine
> 
> Let's hope it makes it to Europe sooner rather than later


Dude, a little perspective... it's--a--vine...

It ain't a Philly cheesesteak, or Beyonce, or a pair of Abronia


----------



## Groundhog (Dec 17, 2006)

Frogtofall said:


> I am fairly confident I could get this to bloom if I had a piece of it.


The greenhouse conditions would do it? Or would you consider hitting it with a bloom booster (i.e., tomato food)?


----------



## jckee1 (Mar 22, 2011)

Sammie said:


> I would consider trading one of my kidneys for a piece of that vine
> 
> Let's hope it makes it to Europe sooner rather than later


It's an interesting plant. I find that if it is happy it will almost become weedy, however if it dries even a little it dies very quickly. In contrast, the second smaller darker version seems to be much harder all around.


----------



## Frogtofall (Feb 16, 2006)

Groundhog said:


> The greenhouse conditions would do it? Or would you consider hitting it with a bloom booster (i.e., tomato food)?


Honestly, I have noticed these types things want to climb so that they can bloom and I would let it climb the inside of the greenhouse here or even put it on a tree out here where we have a few micro climates that would make it happy. I don't think a terrarium is gonna cut it.


----------



## Dartfrogfreak (Jun 22, 2005)

Antone, 

I was actually thinking the same thing. Much like many aroids, Ficus, and Marcgravias.
I will send you a piece as soon as the weather clears.

Todd


----------



## Wim van den Berg (Mar 5, 2012)

Sammie said:


> I would consider trading one of my kidneys for a piece of that vine
> 
> Let's hope it makes it to Europe sooner rather than later


1 kidney,.....2 eye,s and a halve ear.....Deal?
I have this climber too(or very similar) and i can send you some material if the temperatures are OK to send plants.Maybe ican post an picture tomorrow.


----------



## Wim van den Berg (Mar 5, 2012)

Dont know if this isthe same vine , but this came from Panama (location?) i have it for some years,and it grows easy
So this is what you will get Sammie.......take a good look , becausse of the trade.....your eye,s...you cant check anymore.


----------



## R1ch13 (Apr 16, 2008)

Wim van den Berg said:


> Dont know if this isthe same vine , but this came from Panama (location?) i have it for some years,and it grows easy
> So this is what you will get Sammie.......take a good look , becausse of the trade.....your eye,s...you cant check anymore.


Wim, we will have to talk! I would love some of this too!

Regards,
Richie


----------



## jonjoyce346 (Oct 15, 2014)

Awesome thread! Still no ID on the plant? I'd love to get my hands on some if anyone has any cuttings to spare...

Jon


----------

