Dieffenbachia imperialis Linden & André
Photographs not checked
iNaturalist was skipped (not asked) when this page was built. Not asked, or not answered, is not "none": nothing here claims there is none. Why the site says it this way.About the genus · Dieffenbachia
Dieffenbachia, commonly known as dumb cane or leopard lily, is a genus of tropical flowering plants in the family Araceae. It is native to the New World Tropics from Mexico and the West Indies south to Argentina. Some species are widely cultivated as ornamental plants, especially as houseplants, and have become naturalized on a few tropical islands.
Quoted from Wikipedia, "Dieffenbachia", CC BY-SA 4.0.
Cultivation
Grouped as a tropical foliage plant, listed under the genus Dieffenbachia in the archetype table, and Kew describes it as “subshrub”, “wet tropical”.
How this section is made
Each card states this species' habitat figures with their sources, and what two fixed rules read from them; nothing here says what the plant does, wants or tolerates. The rules · the terms.
Group. Listed under the genus Dieffenbachia in the archetype table, and Kew describes it as “subshrub”, “wet tropical”. A group is taken only where Kew's description of the species agrees with the table's listing. The table gives no figure and no prose; the cold floor is the habitat's alone.
Climate across the habitat
Natural habitat
Photographs
Related
Other Dieffenbachia 9 in the reference
Dieffenbachia longispatha Araceae Photo: CC0, author not stated Dieffenbachia macrophylla Araceae
Dieffenbachia nitidipetiolata Araceae Photo: CC BY-SA, Lena Struwe
Dieffenbachia oerstedii Araceae Photo: CC BY, Anders Hastings
Dieffenbachia parlatorei Araceae Photo: CC BY, Zac Peterson
Dieffenbachia seguine Dumb cane Photo: CC BY, Adriana García Ramírez Names & registers
The record
Every figure here is derived from public data by a stated rule and names its source; nothing about this species is written for its page by a person or by AI, apart from the marked, credited quotations. How →
Where this page came from built 2026-10-22
gbif.species answeredasked 2026-10-22gbif.synonyms answeredasked 2026-10-22gbif.vernacular answeredasked 2026-10-22names fetched 2026-10-22wcvp.distribution answeredas of 2026-06-04gbif.occurrences answeredas of 2026-10-21GBIF occurrence download https://doi.org/10.15468/dl.hbdw64, of 2026-10-21; 2 records within 1 km of a botanic garden, herbarium or zoo left out (2 at a botanic garden or arboretum; Wikidata's list)climate nothing to reportasked 2026-10-22no georeferenced record inside the rangewikidata answeredasked 2026-10-22wikipedia nothing to reportasked 2026-10-22inat.photos.wild nothing to reportasked 2026-10-22from iNaturalist's open data of 2026-09-27: research-grade observations with an open-licence photograph, the 24 whose photographs iNaturalist received last (the open data holds no votes); filled 2026-10-22inat.photos.cultivated not askedgbif.media nothing to reportasked 2026-10-22commons nothing to reportasked 2026-10-22openalex not askednot yet asked for this reference; a later fill takes the papers from OpenAlex's snapshotEvery source is recorded as having answered, reported nothing, refused, failed, not been asked, or answered twice where one answer is taken (“not taken: two items answered”), and, for a source asked when this page was built, when: the figures are as the source held them that day; a source read from a file (Kew's World Checklist, a GBIF download) says "as of" the file's day instead; a row carried from an earlier build of the page names that build instead. Only “nothing to report” is ever shown as an absence. Records came from 2 datasets via GBIF.org; each carries its own licence.