nafex@lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: North American Fruit Explorers mailing list at ibiblio
List archive
Re: [NAFEX] Pawpaws are not dioecious/ yes they are and here's why
- From: "Ron Powell, PhD" <Botrytis@fuse.net>
- To: "North American Fruit Explorers" <nafex@lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [NAFEX] Pawpaws are not dioecious/ yes they are and here's why
- Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2011 10:53:19 -0400
NAFEX List,
The NAPGA and the OPGA now refer to Asimina triloba as the North American pawpaw to distinguish it from the papaya, commonly known as the "pawpaw."
Ron
----- Original Message ----- From: "Michele Stanton" <6ducks@gmail.com>
To: "'North American Fruit Explorers'" <nafex@lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 7:37 AM
Subject: Re: [NAFEX] Pawpaws are not dioecious/ yes they are and here's why
The pawpaw dioecious thing--- here is where common names make such messes.
The papaya, Papaya carica to be specific, is known in many places as a
pawpaw. This plant is dioecious. If you google pawpaw many of the sites you
pull up will be talking about this plant, which is actually an herbaceous
perennial.
Asimina triloba, referred to in the Midwest as a pawpaw, has flowers that
are perfect--although it does require cross pollination.
Michele in SW Ohio
-----Original Message-----
From: nafex-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org
[mailto:nafex-bounces@lists.ibiblio.org] On Behalf Of mIEKAL aND
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 11:22 PM
To: North American Fruit Explorers
Subject: Re: [NAFEX] Pawpaws are not dioecious.
This is what I get for trusting what I read on the internet, countless
sites list pawpaw as dioecious. C'est la vie.
All of my pawpaws are from the same seedling stock that I got from
John Gordon called PA Golden. So you are suggesting that since I get
fruit that my seedlings are not all from the same parent?
~mIEKAL
On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:13 PM, <Jwlehman@aol.com> wrote:
In a message dated 8/16/2011 10:41:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time,in
qazingulaza@gmail.com writes:
I'm by no means a pawpaw expert, but my understanding is that
they are dioescious, meaning the male &female flowers are on separate
trees.
Hello ~mIEKAL,
Pawpaws are not dioecious Each flower has male and female parts. However
each flower the anthers release pollen after the receptive period of theare
stigma is completed. Also generally the egg and pollen on the same tree
not compatible. Two genetically different trees are needed for successfulabout the list here:
pollination.
Jerry
__________________
nafex mailing list
nafex@lists.ibiblio.org
Subscribe, unsubscribe, change your user configuration or find out more
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/nafex__________________
NAFEX web site: http://www.nafex.org/
nafex mailing list
nafex@lists.ibiblio.org
Subscribe, unsubscribe, change your user configuration or find out more
about the list here:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/nafex
NAFEX web site: http://www.nafex.org/
__________________
nafex mailing list
nafex@lists.ibiblio.org
Subscribe, unsubscribe, change your user configuration or find out more about the list here:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/nafex
NAFEX web site: http://www.nafex.org/
-
[NAFEX] Pawpaws are not dioecious.,
Jwlehman, 08/16/2011
-
Message not available
-
Re: [NAFEX] Pawpaws are not dioecious/ yes they are and here's why,
Michele Stanton, 08/17/2011
- Re: [NAFEX] Pawpaws are not dioecious/ yes they are and here's why, Ron Powell, PhD, 08/17/2011
-
Re: [NAFEX] Pawpaws are not dioecious/ yes they are and here's why,
Michele Stanton, 08/17/2011
-
Message not available
- Re: [NAFEX] Pawpaws are not dioecious., Hector Black, 08/17/2011
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
- Re: [NAFEX] Pawpaws are not dioecious., Jwlehman, 08/16/2011
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.