Peperomia parvicaulis
species of plant
Peperomia parvicaulis is a species of epiphyte in the genus Peperomia that is native to Sumatra. It grows on wet tropical biomes. Its conservation status is Threatened.
Description
The type specimen were collected near Mount Dempo, Sumatra, at an elevation of 3,700 ft (1,100 m), as a minute epiphyte on trees.
Peperomia parvicaulis is a tree-dwelling plant with a stem densely and shortly hirsute, rooting at the base, with the spike about 3 cm long, up to 1 mm thick. The leaves are opposite with moderate glabrous petioles; the upper petioles 3 mm long, lower up to 12 mm; the blade is obovate from a cuneate base, puberulous above, ciliolate on the margin, glabrous and black-punctulate beneath, 3-nerved; the uppermost leaves are unequal, 9–10 mm long and 4–5 mm wide; subsequent leaves up to 14 mm long and 12 mm wide; lower leaves up to 30 mm long and 20 mm wide. The peduncles are terminal, glabrous, up to 16 mm long, much exceeding the petioles. The spikes are glabrous, longer than the upper leaves, densely flowered, 25 mm long and 0.5 mm thick when bearing fruit. The bract has an orbicular pelt, pedicellate at the center, 0.5 mm in diameter, sprinkled with red glands like the stamens and ovary. The stamens nearly equal the filament.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Peperomia parvicaulis” as species of plant. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the science & nature register because the source frames it as species of plant. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
Stable identifiers, scientific names and standards terminology offer the best bridge between this overview and specialist evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated May 21, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q18034109. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.
Current terminology should not be projected backward without checking the classification used when the underlying evidence was created. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Check terminology, classification and the date of the cited evidence. Scientific names and technical consensus can change while older records retain historical value.
- Current terminology
- Classification context
- Finding cited technical literature
Primary datasets, specimen catalogues, standards bodies and the most recent peer-reviewed literature.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Peperomia parvicaulis”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Peperomia parvicaulis primary sources, Peperomia parvicaulis archive and Peperomia research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Peperomia parvicaulis”?
- Has classification or technical consensus changed since the cited source?
- Is the terminology current, historical or disputed?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Peperomia parvicaulis” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.