Life forms in aroids – natural variability vs. terminological confusion Gerhard Zotz1,2,

 

Alma P. Bautista-Bello, Juliane Kohlstruck, Tizian Weichgrebe

 

ABSTRACT

Aroids are well-known for their diversity of life forms. Unfortunately, the use of pertinent terminology on vouchers, in floras and in journal publications is highly inconsistent. We document the current situation and show that it is currently difficult to impossible to decide whether the reported variation in life forms of a given taxon reflects true biological variation or rather reflects substantial terminological confusion. We provide arguments for the second explanation, and provide field data that also suggest that life form labels on vouchers and in floras are probably erroneous in numerous cases. Since structurally dependent life forms are defined by their growth program (e.g., hemiepiphyte vs. nomadic vine), their unambiguous identification is only possible with multiple observations of the same plants during ontogeny. However, we present a method that allows this distinction with considerable certainty with a single census. This offers a feasible path towards higher repeatability and reliability in life form assignment.

 

KEYWORDS

climber, hemiepiphyte, life form, nomadic vine, terminology