These plants don't require insects for pollination to occur, and it is more likely that wind currents are responsible for much of this activity in the wild...wind and water. Human intervention can occur with a brush. These are seed bearing plants, just like other angiosperms. Their 'flowers' are just a little bit different from the norm.

Chemical messengers give plants a 'sense' of whether parts like leaves and branches are net users or net producers of energy than we have, so while it's fine to remove a few damaged leaves from healthy plants, some consideration should be given to how much photosynthesizing machinery we remove from plants that are struggling. If a plant is clinging desperately to 12 leaves and 6 of them aren't pretty, it's probably better to live with the unsightly foliage than to remove somewhere around half of the plant's ability to make food. When a leaf becomes a net user of energy, the plant sheds it, and often but not always grows a new leaf from latent buds in the leaf axil (crotch), which is why it's important to cut through the petiole (leaf stem) at some point or through the leaf itself, as close to the stem as possible to avoid damaging a latent bud when removing leaves. Avoid pulling or tearing them off. The plant will soon shed what's remaining of the leaf. In bonsai, we often cut leaves in half on vigorous branches or toward the top of apically dominant plants to force energy allocation to weaker plant parts. You may have noted a few conversations that included tips on energy management that included removing leaves or cutting back strong areas of plants to force back-budding or more growth in areas that are weaker energy sinks, which is all part of the same theme. I notice that when I'm cutting leaves by a fraction, if I go too far and cut too much of the leaf off, the plant will shed the leaf and grow another. Leaves shed due to a lack of auxin flow from the leaf. Auxin is produced primarily in apical meristems, but in leaves, too. A continual polar flow (shoots to roots) of auxin across the abscission zone at the base of leaves or petioles is required to keep an abscission layer from forming. Once the leaf is damaged to the degree it is not producing enough auxin to prevent the abscission layer from forming, the layer forms and the leaf is shed. At the same time, the reduction in auxin flow allows another growth regulator to become dominant. The growth regulator, cytokinin, is produced in roots and moves from roots to shoots, opposite the polar flow of auxin. Cytokinin stimulates lateral breaks; that is, it stimulates latent buds into activity. So, as the leaf is being shed due to a lack of auxin, the surge in cytokinin is stimulating a new bud to take the old leaf's place. In some plants, apical dominance is so strong and the flow of auxin so great that this doesn't occur at all. Al

It's not too complicated to divide them and it doesn't require much. I would take out them out of the pot as whole, place on a plastic tray, then basically remove the plantlets slowly and carefully. Pot them 5 plantlets in 1 pot of new potting soil mix. In my opinion(looks good that way);or, it's really up to you if you want one plantlet in one pot. Water after planting. Then when you think it's not too crowded anymore, just pot the original mother plants back to place.

Leucoplast was a term I co-opted myself for variegation. You probably aren't going to find many books that call them that, but it is correct with respect to the Latin: "colorless/white plastid." I did find a review paper that used the same terminology: http://www.springerlink.com/content/01148l09u2553067/ I don't know if you will have access to these journals (through JSTOR etc), but some scientists have studied variegation. Looking into the literature, it looks like nucleus-controlled non-chimeric variegation is more common than I previously thought and some common internet resources (e.g. Wikipedia) would have suggested. Still, it is clear that non-viral variegations are extremely common and possibly much more common than viral variegations. Some examples of genetic variegation. Nuclear control (non-chimeral): *Saintpaulia ionantha http://www.jstor.org/pss/2444194 ****There are also chimeral variegations in African violets *Dieffenbachia "Camille" http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/77/4/285.short *Arabadopsis thaliana http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/84/2/138.abstract Chimeral: *Ficus rubiginosa 'Variegata' http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/content/94/1/51.full *Tobacco http://www.jstor.org/pss/2440210 *Barley and Rice http://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/13/6/544.pdf ****Figure three is a very good visual explanation of the concept. Clearly non-viral variegation is common to many groups. One will notice that an aroid is reported (Dieffenbachia) with nonviral genetic variegation. My recollection is that Dieffenbachia variegation is natural, as in D. seguina and D. regina, and cultivars simply exaggerate the variegation. I wasn't able to access the fulltext of that article, so I can't say quite as much. This paper reports Epipremnum aureum, another variegated aroid, as natural variegation (a surprise to me): http://www.springerlink.com/content/d005p75vg1171860/fulltext.pdf. It looks like this is controlled by nuclear genes and is non-chimeral. Another example of natural aroid variegation is in Schismatoglottis calyptrata (http://www.springerlink.com/content/wmeda9kpt7d2bnga/). Another paper shows/mentions natural variegation in Homalomena and Caladium (http://www.springerlink.com/content/5608833712u8537r/). I think it is clear that natural variegations are relatively stable and under genetic control, rather than being virally transmitted. They frequently function to deter herbivores by mimicking damaged leaves. It seems clear (IMHO) that at least in many cases, aroid variegation is not due to artificial infection by viruses. No doubt it has been reported for several plants, such as Zamioculcas, but I don't think that one can conclude that all aroid variegations (even artificial) are necessarily viral in origin.