Sender:
- JBS-L - Josselyn Botanical Society discussion list of the
University of Maine < [log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 27 May 2003 10:02:57 -0400
Reply-To:
- JBS-L - Josselyn Botanical Society discussion list of the
University of Maine < [log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii
MIME-Version:
1.0
Organization:
Stanton Bird Club
Comments:
cc: belisle < [log in to unmask]>, jerigary < [log in to unmask]>,
bmorin < [log in to unmask]>,
kennyandmelinda < [log in to unmask]>,
wendyward < [log in to unmask]>,
WALKTHEWALK771 < [log in to unmask]>, JGRUZ < [log in to unmask]>,
PRUDENCE < [log in to unmask]>, GayPare < [log in to unmask]>,
spellet2 < [log in to unmask]>,
pogodogo < [log in to unmask]>, ALL4GARDINZ < [log in to unmask]>,
elleaub < [log in to unmask]>, spirintuit < [log in to unmask]>,
rwagner < [log in to unmask]>
|
Greetings,
A member of my wildflower class brought to my attention a discrepancy in
the literature I gave out about the sex life of the Jack-in-the-Pulpit.
In a write up from Marilyn Mollicone to JBS, 1992, she states that the
male Jacks have two leaves and the females one leaf as a rule.
In another article (Paulette Bierzychudek, Natural History Magazine,
1982) it is stated that the males have one leaf and the females two.
So, being the curious botanist, I went into my own garden (yes, ideal
growing conditions for all my Jacks for years) and found that they all
have two leaves and that there are 3 males, 9 females, and several
single leaves with no inflorescence.
Please shed some professional light on this quandary and reply to all of
us.
Many thanks,
Susan
|
|
|