Peter O' Byrne wrote: > Nick, I don't want to seem pedantic, but any shoot that is predestined > to generate an adventitious shoot (a keikei) rather than flowers > cannot be called an inflorescence, no matter how inflorescence-like it > may appear.
Thanks for the clarification. So, if an inflorescence is a shoot that bears flowers, what do we call a shoot that bears only a keiki? Does "adventitious shoot" refer just to the keiki, or does it encompass the keiki and the shoot that bears it? Since the keiki- shoots and inflorescence emerged at the same time of the year and from equivalent spots on the plants, I think its likely that they have the same developmental origin. It's interesting that you saw a similar phenomenon in Taeniophyllum, since Dendrophylax is also a leafless (and almost stemless) orchid. In the Taeniophyllum, was the shoot bearing the keiki longer and growing at a different angle than an inflorescence? That's what really struck me as odd about the Dendrophylax and suggested something that it might be different than a plant that occasionally produces a keiki off an otherwise unexceptional inflorescence. Jay Norris mentioned that his Phalaenopsis pulchra flowers only off keikis. I wonder if there is some sort of hormonal gradient between keikis and mother plant. Nick _______________________________________________ the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD) [email protected] http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
