D. onilahensis continued

[Dypsisdean]

Ok, not really solved, that was just a teaser.

    I must be a glutton for punishment, because I am going to try to make some sense out of what got to be an interesting, but confusing thread. There was a lot of good info tossed around in jdapalm's "Dypsis Palms" thread, and I would hate to see it sit there without an attempt to draw some conclusions. The following scenario makes sense to me, but I admit, it relies on a lot of conjecture.

    I think we had a consensus there's a palm in the trade that, as Clayton put it, undergoes "internal division" as opposed to suckering, has a heel, is very slow to put on trunk, and resembles what we know as D. onilahensis when older. A number of you have also agreed that this palm has carried the names of D. brevinodis, D. 'bef,' "Mtn Type B", and "Slick Willy." Most importantly, it was also sometimes labeled as D. onilahensis. For the sake of this discussion I will refer to it as Palm #1.

    There is also a palm in the trade known as the weeping form of D. onilahensis. It is a somewhat dainty palm with drooping leaflets, slender stems, no heel, and in many plants, very white crownshafts with color extending down the stem, and grows much faster than Palm #1. It divides by means of suckering. This is the palm pictured in POM that JD said in a recent post is from "the Isalo area where the palm grows in a rather arid environment and has a very particular weepy look to it." Let's call it Palm #2.

    There is a 3rd palm that needs to be thrown into the mix. This is the first palm brought into cultivation as D. onilahensis by Mardy Darian 15-20 years ago. This is what I first became introduced to as D. onilahensis and have an older specimen. This is the same plant that Louis Hooper, Pauline, and a few others also have, along with Mardy, as mature plants. It has much stiffer leaflets, is not near as white as Palm #2, grows even faster than Palm #2, has no heel, and has trunks that can become much beefier than Palm #2. One of my trunks on this plant is every bit as fat as a mediun sized King. It also divides by suckering. This will be Palm #3.

    Now, JD has acknowledged, and I can only imagine, the difficulty of differentiating between individuals in an already highly variable species over a wide range of environments, and others that could be a different species. As JD stated so well, "Variation was very complex and differences that now seem quite compelling in growing palms, were not apparent in scraps stuck on sheets of paper in the herbarium." His tendency at the time was to group what may have been Palm #1,2, & 3 together as D. onilahensis, with the caveat that this needed much more study.  Now with the benefit of many cultivated plants, and a decade of additional info he states, "I am almost convinced that what we called D. onilahensis contains more than one species."

    This is where I need to get a little creative with my scenario to make it work

    Lets theorize Palm #1 is what the Flore de Madgascar and collectors pre-POM considered a different species from D. onilahensis named D. brevinodis. Mardy Darian, not lacking in palm knowledge, also considered Palm #1 a different species, and while not recognizing the Flore de Madgascar ID, conferred his own name (Slick Willy).

    So, Palm #1 was called D. brevinodis or D. onilahensis depending on whether or not the collector had read POM. The seeds and plants from Mardy circulated as "Slick Willys," and some collectors, for whatever reason, came up with D. 'bef.' --- And 'Mtn Type B' --- was named when Chrysalidocarpus was still a genus. But we have all agreed these are the same palm.

    Palm #2 was always easily identified as D. onilahensis, with which we are now familiar, because of all the pics in POM.

    And Palm #3 is now a mystery to me. I don't believe I have seen this stiff leafed form of what is supposedly D. onilahensis offered in the last 10 years. And this is where I think a major part of the confusion may lie. Those that bought Palm #1 as D. onilahensis noticed the leaves were not carrying the characteristic drooping leaflets associated with D. onilahensis. So the simplist explanation was that it was just the stiff leafed form of D. onilahensis (Palm #3) previously sold by Mardy Darian. And that is how Palm #1 came to be identified as a D. onilahensis.

    Now to further upset the apple cart, I wouldn't be surprised if Palm #3 is in itself a different species. But that's for another thread. However, IMO, it is almost as distinct from Palm #2 (the true D. onilahensis) as D. baronii is from Palm #2. To again quote JD, "I am almost convinced that what we called D. onilahensis contains more than one species."

    And to make matters more interesting, I keep coming across even more of what appear to be, in JD's words, the "clustering moderate dypsis species of the mountains and the plateau."

[Urban Rainforest]

At the risk of confusing things further and completely knocking over the apple cart here is Dypsis Onilahensis #4. This one I puchased last summer from Jeff Marcus and Upon recieving it I could'nt believe my eyes. The color was outstanding , purple, hot pink and lavender, OH and a HEEL!!! Ok I don't see how this could be an Onily and it's definately not a willy. It is also cold hardy and a strong grower so what is it? Merry Christmas, Steve

[Urban Rainforest]

And heres a close up. If you look close you can see the heel.

[BS Man about Palms]

Nice start Dean, we should keep this thread as reference and put a picture of each type. (At a friends computer or I would post my slick willy/brevinodes/#1)

BS

[sebastian]

And i thought it was really solved

It's a valued theory though.

[deezpalms]

Steve, you sure that it's not onilahensis? I've got 2 of the same palm from jeff as well and one has realy nice red coloration and the other is green. Other then that there are no physical difference's between the 2.

[Utopia Palms]

Hi Steve,

         I do not know why Jeff would have this name on this palm as it came in under wild ambositrae,

If you look at the post “looking for the real D.Ambositrae page 2 you will see this sp is the same plant D.baroni complex which you also agreed on this palm is the same thing! And yes you will knock that apple cart over by listing this again under a different name. Sorry but I just can not under stand how Jeff sent this sp out with this name on it, He must have been stressed out about his trip and made a small mistake!!

Clayton.

[Urban Rainforest]

(Utopia Palms @ Dec. 25 2006,23:45)

QUOTE

Hi Steve,

         I do not know why Jeff would have this name on this palm as it came in under wild ambositrae,

If you look at the post “looking for the real D.Ambositrae page 2 you will see this sp is the same plant D.baroni complex which you also agreed on this palm is the same thing! And yes you will knock that apple cart over by listing this again under a different name. Sorry but I just can not under stand how Jeff sent this sp out with this name on it, He must have been stressed out about his trip and made a small mistake!!

Clayton.

Thanks Clayton, I agree from the time I recieved these palms they looked nothing like any form of onilahensis I had ever grown and the heel really made me wonder but Jeff at Floribunda is usually right on with his species. Either way I am excited about this palm and so far it has been a good grower. Steve

[Utopia Palms]

Hi Dean,

     Looks like you have things under control now! Good work! also it would help John if you could get some of the forum members to list photos of the different stages in growth of each sp(forms). Although the difference in the way these sp clump should be enough to separate these two sp already! Thanks to the work that you, Bo, Jeff and some of the other forum members have contributed. Good work.

ps. Dean I sould have added I have not seen #2 that suckers,!!! You do have 3 diffrent sp there sorry I did not pick that up before.have you any other photos of this one when it was smaller.

Clayton.

[Utopia Palms]

Hi Steve,

         Yes this form is the fastest form of D.Baroni that I have ever seen; this sp should be a very good landscaping plant. Look out D.lutescens we might have a new replacement.

Clayton.

[LJG]

Here is a good shot of Mardy Darian's from an early thread - your "Palm #3":

[Dypsisdean]

Here's a shot of Palm #2

[Gtlevine]

I have both Onilehensis as described in POM and "Slick Willie", both of these are totally different palms. The other form of Onilehensis I saw at Lou Hooper's and it is an enigma. But when I was in Hawaii, I saw several similar species at both Bo and Jeff Marcus garden that were variations of Lou's. I think the floppy leaf Onilehensis stands on it's own as a described palm, but after that you can probably lump a half dozen or so others into one species, there sems to be that many that are very similar.

Gary

[MattyB]

Palm #2 the weeping

A small one looks like this.  Already showing the weepy leaves and just begining to show some pink/purple coloration on the crownshaft.

[MattyB]

Palm #3

This is a shot of Dean's monster.  Pic by Palmbob, Geoff.

[Dypsisdean]

The D. Onilahensis pictured above has grown considerably since that photo was taken 2 1/2 years ago. This is what I referred to as Palm #3 from Mardy Darian.

[BS Man about Palms]

And Just so they are on the same page, here is a young one of Palm #1 (Brevin./willy/bef) 15 gal size 8 months ago.

[neoflora]

Not so fast Dean. I got a palm from Mardy, D. Isaloensis. I was told by Mardy & Alfred that this is the form from Isalo area. Small palms look different than the weepy form that in cultivation . Only time will tell on this one. Also what D. kindreo? This is the local name for D. onily. The palm I have in my nursery are different for sure than  D. onilahensis. I collected in Madagascar another palm similar to D. onily. Mardy also collected some. He called it the grass dypsis. The seed is homogenous, exactly like D. onily. I can not find reference to it any where. Jeff, we did collect herbarium sample and sent them to Tana. Don't know what happen to them. Ron

[Dypsisdean]

Ron,

I don't think we are disagreeing on anything, are we?

I think we have agreed, along with Jerry and a few others that 'Slick Willy,' 'bef,' and D. 'brevinodis' are the same palm.

I have seen Mardy's 'Isaloensis.' I have a 'Grass Dypsis.' From you, in fact. Also from you I have a 'Tanabe,' that looked like the 'Black Stem,' that looks like D. psammophila (or what is being called D. psammophila). But it now looks different. I also have a couple of palms labeled as D. kindreo.

These are all --- IMO --- what JD calls the "clustering moderate dypsis species of the mountains and the plateau."

I didn't want to muddy the waters by mentioning all of these. But since you have, there are more. There's D. albofarenensis, there's D. oreophila, there's the palm R. Soledad is selling as D. 'scottiana' (but is not), and I have several others that are in this complex, yet appear distinct. And even some of the newer seedlings I'm seeing posted, look like they also qualify.

The main point I have been trying to present is that while all of these other palms are most likely a part of this complex grouping of palms (apparently allied with D.baronii), the palm we know as 'Willy,' or 'Bef' or D. brevenodis is not. And the name of D. onilahensis it has been given by some is incorrect.

[sebastian]

Is there any other dypsis apart from D. decipens and our mystery dypsis D.#1 that forms more trunks by branching underground ???

[Utopia Palms]

Hi all, looks like some are still a little mixed up this is why it would be good that we are all working on the same page! As Dean AND John have said all of these could be named the same thing or bits of them anyway!! So forget all the names please, as this is only mixing thing up even more!! Work of what we know!!

#1 internal division           (small palm)

#2 divisions by suckering (small palm weeping)

#3 divisions by suckering (Large clumping)

ANY MORE????????????????

Please try to fit your palm in to one of these groups; if it does not fit then it could be something different.

I hope this starts to sort things out.

[Dypsisdean]

Sebastian and Clayton,

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I hear from you both that you agree this Palm #1 is a different palm, and not a D.onilahensis. And so does Mardy Darian, so we are all in each other's good company. And it seems we so readily see and recognize it's distinct growing characteristic that others have a hard time seeing.

Sebastian,

    I was talking with Bo a few hours ago and raised the same question you just did. Great minds think alike.    Bo, thinks he may have a D, moreii that may be doing this split also. I don't know of any others. but it appears to me that this charateristic is probably stimulated by good growing conditions. While D. decipiens seems limited to one and two trunks in habitat, I have seen quite a few individuals in gardens with many more. So I would assume we may see more palms exhibit this trait with time.

    And also, I asked Bo if he knew of a technical term for this "splitting" below ground level, that Clayton is calling "internal division." I don't think bifurcation is a proper term, because several palms bifurcate, but do so above ground, such as Hyphaene. And we have all seen D. lutescens and D. baronii do this also. But not in the same fashion well underground.

[LJG]

(Dypsisdean @ Dec. 27 2006,00:26)

QUOTE

there's the palm R. Soledad is selling as D. 'scottiana' (but is not),

From what I understand, Jerry had someone come in and look at those palms and they are now D. psammophila at RSN.

[Dypsisdean]

<!--QuoteBeginLJG+Dec. 26 2006,20:43--><div>

(LJG @ Dec. 26 2006,20:43)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBeginDypsisdean+Dec. 27 2006,00:26--><div>

(Dypsisdean @ Dec. 27 2006,00:26)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->there's the palm R. Soledad is selling as D. 'scottiana' (but is not),

From what I understand, Jerry had someone come in and look at those palms and they are now D. psammophila at RSN.

Len,

  What you understand is correct. It is a little off topic, but a perfect illustration of how things can become so screwed up with Dypsis. Especially these moderate clustering varieties.

  RSN's D. psammophila did not start off life that way. It was originally sold as Neophloga affinis var. 'scottiana' from Kapoho Palms. After RSN grew them up, Neophloga was no longer a recognized name, and since it was obviously a Dypsis, and there was a recognized name in 'scottiana,' it was offered for sale as D. scottiana.

  Then someone (I believe I know who), saw them at RSN and noticed the dark trunks and said they were in fact D. psammophila. Now this was at a time when everyone knew that D. psammophila had black trunks. So, since some of these were very dark, it had to be D. psammo. Never mind that I have three different clustering Dypsis now that have at least as dark or darker trunks than this palm.

  So now we have this palm growing in many gardens that has undergone three name changes, and is now being indentified as D. psammophila. Now it may be. However, because one or more people identified it based on one characteristic, and I'm not sure if any of them have actually seen a verifiable D. psammophila in person, I prefer not to refer to it as such. Especially since it doesn't resemble what I have recently purchased as D psammo. In any case, despite what I think, for many people this palm will carry this name for years to come.

And we wonder why there is so much confusion. If you bought this palm from Kapoho you have it labeled in your garden as Neophloga affinis var. 'scottiana.'  The one I bought from Jungle Music has a label that says simply Neophloga affinis. If you bought it from RSN in Hawaii you have a Dypsis scottiana label, and if you bought it from RSN in California, you will be calling it D. psammophila.

[sebastian]

Dean

Yes I beleive D. #1 is a TOTALLY different palm id even go further to say that it isn't even close to D. onilahensis it shares little in physical or growing similaritys to any of the palms in Group 3.

regarding seed and flower i have no idea but these groups i beleive are not just grouped by this but by other noted features also.

Going out on a limb in the future when P.O.M is revisited I wouldn't be suprised if it was grouped alongside D. decipens in group 2 as it seems to me to share some similaritys(but only similaritys) and again the flowers and seed, who knows, why i think this one just for the hell of a punt and two because of the features both palms share below

-The unique underground  sparce clumping.

-Fairly stiff leaflets.

-heel saxiphone root whatever you want to call it.

-Slow growth

-A degree of hardyness to cold

Hey like I said it's just a punt.

The  way in which D, decipens clumps is described in P.O.M as "dichotomously branching underground" although dichotomous means equal forking so maybee this isn't a correct term to use?

[Utopia Palms]

Hi Sebastian, Dichotomously branching is the right botanical description I think ?? But with D.Decipens it does not seem to fit as I have never seen this sp fork equally one is always larger than the other? This is the first time I have to describe this way of clumping before. Hence the name I called it "internal division" maybe proliferous would be more of the right term I would think? Also with the leaf being fused together I should have call this “adnate”  

There are a quite a few that divide in this way  the old group vonitra for starters not all of them though, others like D.dransfieldii D.Baroni what’s being sold as D.moorei and what is being sold as D.perrieri these two are all so wrongly named as well but lets just work on the ones that started all this !

Once we have grouped these in some sort of order, then we can supply pressings pickle some flowers and let john work out the sp.

This has to make it a little easier than the mess its in now!

 Please note I have only pointed out the clear differences in these 3 sp, I am not trying to work all of them out!!

Clayton.

[MattyB]

#1 internal division           (small palm)

#2 divisions by suckering (small palm weeping)

#3 divisions by suckering (Large clumping)

ANY MORE????

Clayton, I follow ya, but isn't palm #1 actually a large clumping palm also?  It's just slow to get there.  We saw one in Ralph Velez's garden that was a real fatty and 12-15 feet tall.  Correct me if I'm wrong. ???

[Matt in SD]

I also have a palm that was sold as Dypsis moorei that is doing the internal division thing.  However, I'm pretty certain that this palm is not actually Dypsis moorei, and is more likely Dypsis dransfieldii.  Curious what Bo thinks about this because I know he has a palm that he thinks is D dransfieldii as well.

I have a Dypsis 'bef' and totally agree with you that this palm is completely different from D onilahensis.  I am curious though whether the "stiff leaf" onilahensis that some SoCallians have ever made it to Florida.  Maybe the reason Jeff is so resistant to the idea is that all the palms that he's known as the stiff leaf Onilahensis were actually "slick willy, bef, brevinodus".  

But I have to say that all this bickering about whether something is a distinct species or not is sort of silly (albeit fun and informative).  Whether you believe in evolution, or creation, or whatever else, there is no doubt that our insistence of placing all living things in their own little box is just an artificial exercise.  Sure there are some obvious relationships and obvious differences that fit very well into our "mold" of systematics.  But when you get down the species level, there are often cases where a continuum of traits may exist, genetic drift may be rapidly occurring, populations may have been recently fragmented etc...  I think all of these conditions apply in Madagascar.  In these cases, at the species level, our desire to put everything in it's own box is just not an accurate reflection of the reality of the situation.

JD says in Palms of Madagascar that Dypsis onilahensis is broad continuum of species with individuals at the extremes of this group looking very different.  But intermediate forms are/were present all the way that made it impossible to make a "box" that could succintly define these intermediates, so they were all lumped together as a species or species complex.  Consider what would happen if the populations of these intermediate forms (with mixed characters) of Dypsis onilahensis were wiped out.  Voila, you could then define the extreme populations as distinct species.  Diversity through destruction.  To me this is an obvious example of how systematics at the level of species, particularly for plants, is often an exercise of fitting a round peg into a square hole...nature doesn't behave according to the model of systematics at that level.

Matt

[sebastian]

Okay heres a link to a palm photo I beleive is mislabeled and I beleive it is D. #1

http://home-and-garden.webshots.com/album/94996984gBQAXr

It is taged Dypsis nauseosa at far bottom right and a solitare pic with other clumping D.#1 in the background on the next page,where there are also pics of D. #2 or D.#3 labeled D. onilahensis.

The growth rings are closser together than other pics I have seen of D.#1 but to me it looks like the same palm we are talking about?

Dean and others.

What do you think?....Same mystery palm we are talking about?

[sebastian]

Wait a minute just read on the bottom of the photo

"once known as dypsis bef"

Same palm we are talking about confirmed, and it does look Beefy!

[Dypsisdean]

Sebastian,

What a nice specimen of that palm. It does look like it is Palm #1.

especially being named 'Bef.' You can see how someone would think it was a D. oni, especially if it was in habitat not grown so perfectly, and intermingled in the same locality with D. onilahensis.

And what another interesting lesson in naming charades. I hope nobody chimes in here and wants to propose that it is really a D. nauseosa.

[sebastian]

yeah D. nauseosa???

Yes very nice photo's/palms it would be good to see them in person to get the scale to me they look quite chunky/solid.

Pitty theres a bit of grass round the bases of the trunks, but you can still see also the nature in which they clump.

[Dypsisdean]

<!--QuoteBeginMatt in SD+Dec. 27 2006,17:20--><div>

(Matt in SD @ Dec. 27 2006,17:20)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have a Dypsis 'bef' and totally agree with you that this palm is completely different from D onilahensis.  I am curious though whether the "stiff leaf" onilahensis that some SoCallians have ever made it to Florida.  Maybe the reason Jeff is so resistant to the idea is that all the palms that he's known as the stiff leaf Onilahensis were actually "slick willy, bef, brevinodus".  

But I have to say that all this bickering about whether something is a distinct species or not is sort of silly (albeit fun and informative).  

Matt,

Yes, that is what I believed has happened. Namely that the stiff leafed D. oni was quite possibly only available 15 years ago from a limited supply by way of M. Darian and never went much further than SoCal. Every D. oni I have seen or purchased in the last ten years has been a weeper. Some more than others, but none like the stiff leaf from Mardy.

And I hope this all didn't come across as "bickering." I don't know, nor do I think we will know for many years to come, how all of these "moderate clumping Dypsis from the plateau" will sort out. They are an incredible family of palms, and I have at least 15 that are visually different. But that was not what I wished to discuss here. I just wanted to try and get across (with apparent great difficulty) that IMO the 'Willy'/'Bef' palm is not one of this group. And to refer to it as D. onilahensis is incorrect.

[John Dransfield]

Phew! I cannot keep up with all  that's going on in these mystery Dypsis threads. However, I'm really grateful to Dean for condensing the problem into an hypothesis of three different taxa, 1,2,3.

Now my question for you all. Have any of these produced flowers and fruit? Once they do, I do hope someone willl make adequate specimens so we can try to get to the bottom of the names.

Incidentally I have just been corresponding with a friend in Australia over Dypsis andrianatonga -apparently widely distributed in Australia and clearly not that species but something quite different. Those seed collectors in Madagascar have caused a lot of headaches.

The "internal division" is probably dichotomous branching - quite frequent in Dypsis, not necessarily aerial (though it can be in Dypsis lutescens, and not always resulting in stems of equal size. We'd have to demolish a clump to work out exactly what is going on but I agree that this is not regular axillary suckering.

John

[Utopia Palms]

Hi John.  Sorry about this but the only palm I can think of that fits the term Dichotomous branching is Nypha Fruticans I am sure there are others. Forgive me if I am wrong.

Hi John I do not know who you were talking to about D. Andrianatonga but less than 100 plants were ever sold under this name in Australia, and most if not all were aware that this was not the true sp, other names were Neophloga sp large seed and now D.albofarinosa. As I now have this sp seeding where would you like the pressings and samples sent?? Also #1 in the D.onolahensis complex is now seeding as well...

John here is a photo of this Dypsis.albofarinosa, I must say i do not under stand why it was bought up in this topic.  

Clayton.

[Dypsisdean]

John,

As always, thanks for "being there."

I thought we might have scared you off with all this.  

And as to having to destroy a clump of one of these "splitting" palms in order to determine the actual method of division --- these "type" are so slow growing, I doubt if you will get any volunteers. So I nominate Bo. He has enough.  

Any seconds?

[bgl]

You NEVER have enough!

[John Dransfield]

A comment for Clayton

Dichotomous branching is present in quite a few palms - Nypa, Hyphaene, Dypsis, Korthalsia, Ravenea ( a newly discovered gem of a little species shortly to be described in PALMS) and, look at PALMS 50(2) where its occurrence in Manicaria is recorded for the first time - and there are others too.

John

[Jeff Searle]

John,

    Ravenea?? Oh, here we go,another new species to scramble after.

Jeff

[BigWaveDave]

I bought this palm from south coast palms.  It was one of Gary's red tagged palms and it was labeled Dypsis onilahensis.  We both thought it might be something else.  What do you guys think?

1

2

3

4

David