Background and Aims:

The species of Araceae are known for their diversity of life forms; however, the terminology regarding this group generates conceptual confusion within the scientific community. Our objective was to demonstrate the current conceptual confusion based on the literature, herbarium vouchers vs. observations and field data.

Methods:

A thorough review of relevant sources of information on aroid life forms was carried out, including floras and taxonomic treatments, as well as herbarium vouchers. Additionally, a census of six aroid species was conducted at the Tropical Biological Station “Los Tuxtlas”, Veracruz, Mexico. For each individual we searched for the connections of its adventitious roots and stems with the soil, in addition we took measurements of its total length and leaves to create three ontogenic classes.

Key results:

We present descriptions of life forms of 30 species of climbing Araceae from Veracruz published in nine publications, showing pronounced inconsistency in the use of terminology. The analysis of the data documented in the herbarium specimens revealed for 17 species, that these were assigned to at least three of eight different habit categories, mainly as epiphyte, hemiepiphyte and climber. Of the six species surveyed in the field, most of the individuals have a connection with the soil.

Conclusions:

Life form assignments based on field observations without quantitative data on the contact of plants with the soil are problematic. Rather, it is necessary to analyze and clarify the ontogeny of climbing aroids, which can help to properly structure our concepts and avoid ambiguities in terminology. Likewise, it should also be avoided that Araceae species are lumped indiscriminately in epiphyte studies, which leads to an overestimation of the reported richness.