A network that helps people worldwide obtain rapid advice and information on crop protection, including the identification and management of plant pests.
PestNet is a network that helps people worldwide obtain rapid advice and information on crop protection, including the identification and management of plant pests. It started in 1999. Anyone with an interest in plant protection is welcome to join. PestNet is free and is moderated, ensuring that messages are confined to plant protection.
Pests > Pests Entities > Fungi > Pseudocercospora panacis, ID of host, SPC, Fiji
September 2005. A request from the Secretariat of the Pacific Community for the identification of Polyscias species bearing infections from Pseudocercospora panacis. Apparently, there are two cultivars or varieties of P. guilfoylei var. lanciniata and P. guilfoylei var. guilfoylei.
Thee was a lot of discussion among the members:
There is a good key with descriptions and line drawings in the new A Tropical Garden Flora by Staples et al. See also images at links:
Photo (left) P. scutellaria ‘Tricochleata’. This variety has yellowish-green leaflets that are roughly divided into three, toothed lobes. This variety. is common (American Samoa), as are the Pseudocercospora leaf spots. The leaves of P. scutellaria are noticeably larger, entire,and lightly scalloped, but not toothed.
Photo (right) This is closest to P. guilfoylei, it has, “. . . toothed and typically white leaf margins”. Maybe the key word is “typically”. The leaf description is: odd-pinnately compound or the leaflets further irregularly divided, alternate, leaflets 5 to 9, blades elliptic to oblong, 4-18 cm long, margins often white and toothed to deeply lobed. The leaves in his photo are a darker green than in your photo, but this could be a difference in light exposure.
Cook Islands stated Polyscias scutellaria and P. guilfoylei are confusing and confused. In addition to AC Smith’s Flora Vitiensis Nova, a good place to start is: Lowry PP (1989) A revision of Araliaceae from Vanuata. Bull. Mus. natn. Hist. nat. Paris, 4th series 11 (section B, No.2): 117-155. The interpreation was: