Jump to content
Nigel

Butia x Cocos nucifera

Recommended Posts

foxtail

raw

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pal Meir

Hybridization is experimental botany. If the terminus »genus« should be meaningful (i.e. verifiable & provable) a possible hybrid would mean that those two plants belong to only one and the same genus (as e.g. horse and donkey belong to one genus equus). A non-cocosoid (non-cocoeae) example would be the hybrids between Veitchia, Adonidia, Normanbya, and Wodyetia, what would mean that all these »genera« are in fact only one, namely Veitchia.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gilles06
14 hours ago, ErikSJI said:

So the story is this. Mark Lynn and his mentor who wishes to remain unknown came across and article from Dr Goodman on hybridizing the butia x coconut. After several letters and lunches with Dr. Goodman they determined this cross could be done and was. 6 survived and given away. One remains at Mule Palm nursery. one was given to Mike Evans.

Is the picture you post  before is one of those survivals?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mandrew968
16 minutes ago, Pal Meir said:

Hybridization is experimental botany. If the terminus »genus« should be meaningful (i.e. verifiable & provable) a possible hybrid would mean that those two plants belong to only one and the same genus (as e.g. horse and donkey belong to one genus equus). A non-cocosoid (non-cocoeae) example would be the hybrids between Veitchia, Adonidia, Normanbya, and Wodyetia, what would mean that all these »genera« are in fact only one, namely Veitchia.

According to the rules that taxonomists play, yes, but can we go ahead and do the name changes ourselves? That sounds like a bigger mess than having inter-generic crosses...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pal Meir
16 minutes ago, Mandrew968 said:

According to the rules that taxonomists play, yes, but can we go ahead and do the name changes ourselves? That sounds like a bigger mess than having inter-generic crosses...

Okay, this would be an example of an inter-generic hybrid in zoology between the genera Loxodonta and Giraffa (©Mordillo):

5819d0292f4f7_MordilloElephantGiraffe.th

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pal Meir

Oops, I mean of course between Giraffa (mother) & Loxodonta (father) … :floor:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
awkonradi
1 hour ago, gilles06 said:

Is the picture you post  before is one of those survivals?

I assume that is the one at Erik's mule palm nursery.  Erik, would you like to confirm?  And, would you possibly like to post more pictures?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phoenikakias
On 30/10/2016, 3:03:32, nick said:

The closer the relationship the more successful you are with a crossing. The genus alone is no guarantee to be successful. To get a nice crossing is another question.

 

 

On 30/10/2016, 3:25:41, Pal Meir said:

The question is the definition of »genus« in botany: Is it only arbitrary or verifiable? At present it seems to be quite arbitrary.

 

Has anyone ever crossed sucessfully a theophrasti with another Phoenix sp?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pal Meir
22 minutes ago, Phoenikakias said:

Has anyone ever crossed sucessfully a theophrasti with another Phoenix sp?

If crossing between two palms is possible it would mean that they have to belong to one genus; that does not implicate if crossing is not (yet) possible they don’t belong to the same genus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NorthFlpalmguy
On ‎11‎/‎1‎/‎2016‎ ‎6‎:‎49‎:‎29‎, Pal Meir said:

If (!) this phylogenetic tree is correct all species from (old) Lytocaryum down to Syagrus petraea should be possible, but I guess S romanzoffianum (ex Arecastrum) would again be the easiest. (But why?)

Do you think it could have been one of the first species in the genus and it is an evolutionally survival trait to be able to hybridize so easily?  I guess that's conversation for a different thread though.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XYZ
4 hours ago, Pal Meir said:

Hybridization is experimental botany. If the terminus »genus« should be meaningful (i.e. verifiable & provable) a possible hybrid would mean that those two plants belong to only one and the same genus (as e.g. horse and donkey belong to one genus equus). A non-cocosoid (non-cocoeae) example would be the hybrids between Veitchia, Adonidia, Normanbya, and Wodyetia, what would mean that all these »genera« are in fact only one, namely Veitchia.

Pal, are you suggesting that artificial (i.e. man-made) plant hybrids across currently recognized generic boundaries implies that all such material should be lumped in a single genus? This is how I read this paragraph, but I can't believe that is what you actually mean. Perhaps it is merely a debate-provoking ploy?

As you are no doubt aware, hundreds of cultivated orchid genera from subfamilies Laeliinae (cattleyas, laelias, etc.), Oncidiinae (odontoglossums, miltonias, etc.) and Aeridinae (vandas, phalaenopsis, etc.) have been hybridized by commercial breeders and hobbyists over the past 150+ years. Many of these hybrids are extremely complex, involving four or more genera in a single ornamental hybrid. There are exhaustive, extremely detailed contemporary molecular phylogenies for all three subtribes I just mentioned published by researchers in peer-reviewed journals that have, in fact, increased the number of recognized genera in these groups, not reduced them (i.e. more "splitting", not "lumping"). Unsurprisingly, many older taxonomic classifications based on traditional floral or plant morphology have also been validated by this genetic sleuthing. What to say?

Likewise, captive breeders of vertebrates as disparate as colubrid snakes (e.g. Lampropeltis x Pantherophis), eagles (e.g. Spizaetus x Aquila) and wild felines (e.g. Felis x Leptailurus) have been able to produce a plethora of extremely unlikely and unusual cross-generic hybrids under artificial conditions, many involving genetically and (in nature) spatially distant taxa.

Hybridization (surprisingly common, IME) in nature does not negate the species concept. It is just another evolutionary route towards success in a changing landscape. Artificial hybridization can be a useful tool to explore relationships between species or an interesting way to "create" novel life forms that can be aesthetically pleasing or of economic value.

In closing, the fact that some closely-related palms readily cross and others don't may be either noteworthy or not.

J

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pal Meir
41 minutes ago, stone jaguar said:

Pal, are you suggesting that artificial (i.e. man-made) plant hybrids across currently recognized generic boundaries implies that all such material should be lumped in a single genus? This is how I read this paragraph, but I can't believe that is what you actually mean. Perhaps it is merely a debate-provoking ploy?

As you are no doubt aware, hundreds of cultivated orchid genera from subfamilies Laeliinae (cattleyas, laelias, etc.), Oncidiinae (odontoglossums, miltonias, etc.) and Aeridinae (vandas, phalaenopsis, etc.) have been hybridized by commercial breeders and hobbyists over the past 150+ years. Many of these hybrids are extremely complex, involving four or more genera in a single ornamental hybrid. There are exhaustive, extremely detailed contemporary molecular phylogenies for all three subtribes I just mentioned published by researchers in peer-reviewed journals that have, in fact, increased the number of recognized genera in these groups, not reduced them (i.e. more "splitting", not "lumping"). Unsurprisingly, many older taxonomic classifications based on traditional floral or plant morphology have also been validated by this genetic sleuthing. What to say?

Likewise, captive breeders of vertebrates as disparate as colubrid snakes (e.g. Lampropeltis x Pantherophis), eagles (e.g. Spizaetus x Aquila) and wild felines (e.g. Felis x Leptailurus) have been able to produce a plethora of extremely unlikely and unusual cross-generic hybrids under artificial conditions, many involving genetically and (in nature) spatially distant taxa.

Hybridization (surprisingly common, IME) in nature does not negate the species concept. It is just another evolutionary route towards success in a changing landscape. Artificial hybridization can be a useful tool to explore relationships between species or an interesting way to "create" novel life forms that can be aesthetically pleasing or of economic value.

In closing, the fact that some closely-related palms readily cross and others don't may be either noteworthy or not.

J

(1) I mean what I said above. :mellow:

(2) The increasing number of genera does not mean that this step was correct, maybe lumping were the more adequate conclusion; peer review means only »reviewed by the mainstream of scientists«. :indifferent:

(3) Not crossing between plants/animals of the same genus can have typological reasons like shape or size etc.

(4) But this (i.e. the lack of definition, verification, falsification, etc.) would be a theme of another thread, as mentioned above.

PS: I know how »science« works. :bemused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XYZ

Glad to see that you "know" how "science" works. I only wish I were so clever as to hold an opinion so doggedly. I can only offer a - hopefully - informed and fluid view based on observation, the results of my own experimentation, common sense and the conclusions of many specialists in botanical and zoological molecular phylogeny. While I recognize the very real limitations of molecular-based taxonomy, IMO, it has proven an incredibly useful tool for determining relationships among ostensibly-related organisms. Nothing I have observed over the course of almost four decades working and publishing on the natural history of the Neotropics suggests that simplicity is the rule.

Pal, I have great respect for your obviously inquiring mind as it relates to pot cultivation and cultivated palms. But have you ever actually hybridized any tropical palm/s and grown the progeny to flowering size? Have you ever published or co-authored a peer-reviewed paper involving genetics and/or taxonomy? Evidence of either would go a long way towards your opinion being anything other than a controversial viewpoint by a layman.

"When my information changes, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"*

*popular quote attributed to John Maynard Keynes by Nobel Economist Paul Samuelson

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pal Meir
38 minutes ago, stone jaguar said:

Glad to see that you "know" how "science" works. I only wish I were so clever as to hold an opinion so doggedly. I can only offer a - hopefully - informed and fluid view based on observation, the results of my own experimentation, common sense and the conclusions of many specialists in botanical and zoological molecular phylogeny. While I recognize the very real limitations of molecular-based taxonomy, IMO, it has proven an incredibly useful tool for determining relationships among ostensibly-related organisms. Nothing I have observed over the course of almost four decades working and publishing on the natural history of the Neotropics suggests that simplicity is the rule.

Pal, I have great respect for your obviously inquiring mind as it relates to pot cultivation and cultivated palms. But have you ever actually hybridized any tropical palm/s and grown the progeny to flowering size? Have you ever published or co-authored a peer-reviewed paper involving genetics and/or taxonomy? Evidence of either would go a long way towards your opinion being anything other than a controversial viewpoint by a layman.

"When my information changes, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"*

*popular quote attributed to John Maynard Keynes by Nobel Economist Paul Samuelson

Of course I know that simplicity is NOT the rule in nature; the contrary is mostly the fact. I know how peer review is working, e.g. in geo- and astro-sciences (in human sciences it is even worse). Simply speaking my methods are inductive: If observations contradict the theory, I have to revise my theory. Or what Confucius said: To know what you know, and to know what you don’t know, that is knowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sabal Steve

Now, I'm really confused!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
XYZ

Me, too, Steve.

My only controlled palm hybrids thus far are chamaedoreas and, unlike almost all past attempts by others that I am aware of, mine have all involved bifid-leaf spp. Like some here, I am inclined to believe that palms that are putatively "closely-related" (so-called sib spp.) will generally be easier to hybridize than those that are not. That having been said, my two most noteworthy successful crosses involved quite different spp. that are probably not closely-related at all. As an aside, I have found my fresh hybrid chamaedorea seed to have uniformly terrible germination rates (<5%). I am guessing that this is not the case in the older pinnate-leaf chamaedorea hybrids nor many of the coccoid hybrids being discussed. Because ornamental palm hybridization is - relatively  speaking - in its infancy when compared to other commonly cultivated plants, I think it's perhaps unwise to draw any major inferences about the results so far. Given the pollination challenges that some palms pose for amateur growers (dioecy, apparent self-sterility, etc.) it may be quite some time before we know very much on the subject.

All the rest is just the eternal "lumpers' vs "splitters" debate. No worries B)

J

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ErikSJI
23 hours ago, Sabal Steve said:

Do you find it funny that people come to the forum to ask questions, Andrew?  Obviously, there is a lot of active discussion surrounding hybridization.  I think that most of us come to the forum to learn, while others just come to be the center of attention.  But, I'm all ears, if you have something constructive to add...

He has always been a negative Nancy. The photos above is a butia x cocos 11 years old.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ErikSJI
12 hours ago, gilles06 said:

Is the picture you post  before is one of those survivals?

Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ErikSJI
10 hours ago, awkonradi said:

I assume that is the one at Erik's mule palm nursery.  Erik, would you like to confirm?  And, would you possibly like to post more pictures?

I will get more photos. I did not do the cross. My partner Mark Lynn did in 2005. That palm is 11 years old. I did not come on board until 2006. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sabal Steve
 
15 minutes ago, ErikSJI said:

He has always been a negative Nancy. The photos above is a butia x cocos 11 years old.

Do you know if there are plans to continue crossing that palm?  Do you think that could bring out more Coconut traits in future palms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ErikSJI
5 minutes ago, Sabal Steve said:
 

Do you know if there are plans to continue crossing that palm?  Do you think that could bring out more Coconut traits in future palms?

Steve. I officially quit my day job 8 months ago and Mark and I are pollinating all year round now. We will be commercially producing many hybrids along wit the Mule palm. To answer your question yes we will do the coconut cross again. Will it look more like a coconut. it does not appear so. we will give it a go with crossing the coconut with the queen as well.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ErikSJI

Just got done pollinating syagrus s. with syagrus r. today. we will be doing this for three months.

20161102_120449.jpg

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
foxtail
1 hour ago, ErikSJI said:

He has always been a negative Nancy. The photos above is a butia x cocos 11 years old.

Yeah, and others enjoy degrade and playing with others.

 

Screenshot_20161102-202241.thumb.png.339

PS: GOTCHA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mandrew968
17 hours ago, ErikSJI said:

Steve. I officially quit my day job 8 months ago and Mark and I are pollinating all year round now. We will be commercially producing many hybrids along wit the Mule palm. To answer your question yes we will do the coconut cross again. Will it look more like a coconut. it does not appear so. we will give it a go with crossing the coconut with the queen as well.

Sorry, but to clarify, you never made a coconut cross to begin with. Or if you have, you certainly have never shown a picture of one...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phoenikakias
On 2/11/2016, 3:32:07, Pal Meir said:

If crossing between two palms is possible it would mean that they have to belong to one genus; that does not implicate if crossing is not (yet) possible they don’t belong to the same genus.

What prohibts the successful cross between two spp in the same genus?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ErikSJI
On 11/2/2016, 10:43:13, stone jaguar said:

Pal, are you suggesting that artificial (i.e. man-made) plant hybrids across currently recognized generic boundaries implies that all such material should be lumped in a single genus? This is how I read this paragraph, but I can't believe that is what you actually mean. Perhaps it is merely a debate-provoking ploy?

As you are no doubt aware, hundreds of cultivated orchid genera from subfamilies Laeliinae (cattleyas, laelias, etc.), Oncidiinae (odontoglossums, miltonias, etc.) and Aeridinae (vandas, phalaenopsis, etc.) have been hybridized by commercial breeders and hobbyists over the past 150+ years. Many of these hybrids are extremely complex, involving four or more genera in a single ornamental hybrid. There are exhaustive, extremely detailed contemporary molecular phylogenies for all three subtribes I just mentioned published by researchers in peer-reviewed journals that have, in fact, increased the number of recognized genera in these groups, not reduced them (i.e. more "splitting", not "lumping"). Unsurprisingly, many older taxonomic classifications based on traditional floral or plant morphology have also been validated by this genetic sleuthing. What to say?

Likewise, captive breeders of vertebrates as disparate as colubrid snakes (e.g. Lampropeltis x Pantherophis), eagles (e.g. Spizaetus x Aquila) and wild felines (e.g. Felis x Leptailurus) have been able to produce a plethora of extremely unlikely and unusual cross-generic hybrids under artificial conditions, many involving genetically and (in nature) spatially distant taxa.

Hybridization (surprisingly common, IME) in nature does not negate the species concept. It is just another evolutionary route towards success in a changing landscape. Artificial hybridization can be a useful tool to explore relationships between species or an interesting way to "create" novel life forms that can be aesthetically pleasing or of economic value.

In closing, the fact that some closely-related palms readily cross and others don't may be either noteworthy or not.

J

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ErikSJI

Natural selection. Everything is a hybrid

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ErikSJI
On 11/2/2016, 7:09:52, gilles06 said:

Is the picture you post  before is one of those survivals?

Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ErikSJI
On 11/2/2016, 8:53:44, foxtail said:

Yeah, and others enjoy degrade and playing with others.

 

Screenshot_20161102-202241.thumb.png.339

PS: GOTCHA

 

On 11/2/2016, 8:53:44, foxtail said:

Yeah, and others enjoy degrade and playing with others.

 

Screenshot_20161102-202241.thumb.png.339

PS: GOTCHA

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ErikSJI
On ‎11‎/‎2‎/‎2016‎ ‎7‎:‎20‎:‎57‎, Mandrew968 said:

According to the rules that taxonomists play, yes, but can we go ahead and do the name changes ourselves? That sounds like a bigger mess than having inter-generic crosses...

Who likes to play by the rules?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ErikSJI
On ‎11‎/‎2‎/‎2016‎ ‎10‎:‎43‎:‎13‎, stone jaguar said:

Pal, are you suggesting that artificial (i.e. man-made) plant hybrids across currently recognized generic boundaries implies that all such material should be lumped in a single genus? This is how I read this paragraph, but I can't believe that is what you actually mean. Perhaps it is merely a debate-provoking ploy?

As you are no doubt aware, hundreds of cultivated orchid genera from subfamilies Laeliinae (cattleyas, laelias, etc.), Oncidiinae (odontoglossums, miltonias, etc.) and Aeridinae (vandas, phalaenopsis, etc.) have been hybridized by commercial breeders and hobbyists over the past 150+ years. Many of these hybrids are extremely complex, involving four or more genera in a single ornamental hybrid. There are exhaustive, extremely detailed contemporary molecular phylogenies for all three subtribes I just mentioned published by researchers in peer-reviewed journals that have, in fact, increased the number of recognized genera in these groups, not reduced them (i.e. more "splitting", not "lumping"). Unsurprisingly, many older taxonomic classifications based on traditional floral or plant morphology have also been validated by this genetic sleuthing. What to say?

Likewise, captive breeders of vertebrates as disparate as colubrid snakes (e.g. Lampropeltis x Pantherophis), eagles (e.g. Spizaetus x Aquila) and wild felines (e.g. Felis x Leptailurus) have been able to produce a plethora of extremely unlikely and unusual cross-generic hybrids under artificial conditions, many involving genetically and (in nature) spatially distant taxa.

Hybridization (surprisingly common, IME) in nature does not negate the species concept. It is just another evolutionary route towards success in a changing landscape. Artificial hybridization can be a useful tool to explore relationships between species or an interesting way to "create" novel life forms that can be aesthetically pleasing or of economic value.

In closing, the fact that some closely-related palms readily cross and others don't may be either noteworthy or not.

J

Bazinga

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ErikSJI
On ‎11‎/‎2‎/‎2016‎ ‎8‎:‎53‎:‎44‎, foxtail said:

Yeah, and others enjoy degrade and playing with others.

 

Screenshot_20161102-202241.thumb.png.339

PS: GOTCHA

Foxtail we are mainly wholesale we deal by the 1000s usually. We are up to 20,000 hybrids a year and we are only a 2 man team. If we had the time to send them to you we would. You need to go to ebay if you are looking for smaller numbers. I am not playing you.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ErikSJI
8 hours ago, Mandrew968 said:

Sorry, but to clarify, you never made a coconut cross to begin with. Or if you have, you certainly have never shown a picture of one...

Pictures have been posted. Do what you will with them. We all ready know you do not like any hybrids. Fact is no one knows what one looks like. Fact is it can happen. Fact is I never did the cross my partner did. All those pictures above are mine. I am done with you. You have always been negative as well as other people on this forum. Especially you. We will continue our work on other hybrids as well and you can keep being negative.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mandrew968

I don't dislike hybrids; with Dypsis, I think I prefer the hybrids. Copernicia can also make for some choice hybrids--no, I wouldn't say I am against them. That just seems odd writing such.

I am just trying to politely tell you that the palms you have posted are not Cocos crosses. Now, because I don't know whether you know this or not, I have to be blunt. As for being 'done with you', we never had any transactions besides the multi-party public posts such as what we are engaged in now. Do you wish to be done with that? That's rhetorical...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
foxtail
On 11/2/2016, 7:38:01, ErikSJI said:

 

Erik,

Why you didn't told me that the first time I contacted you instead of promise a date?

Regarding eBay, I did, but I exchanged for a Dypsis, I live in the tropic, you know.

HMMMM, BTW my best wishes for your Hard work and yours

Billions+ mules.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gyuseppe
18 hours ago, ErikSJI said:

 negative as well as other people on this forum

Erik I do not think people are negative towards you, is they want to see something real, not just words

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mohsen

spent most of my Saturday reading all post in this threads an other similar ones,

I cant say I have wasted my time ( at least not all of it) but finally couldn't get the solid answer to " do we really have any Coconut Hybrid which could grow in other Zones rather than Tropic only?" the only guess I have for the answer is " that some has claimed it has been done but "while it might possible" there is no valid proof yet or the result is nothing close to Coconut so it defeats the purpose..."

Please someone let me know if my conclusion is not correct and should be something else ...:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zeeth
5 hours ago, Mohsen said:

spent most of my Saturday reading all post in this threads an other similar ones,

I cant say I have wasted my time ( at least not all of it) but finally couldn't get the solid answer to " do we really have any Coconut Hybrid which could grow in other Zones rather than Tropic only?" the only guess I have for the answer is " that some has claimed it has been done but "while it might possible" there is no valid proof yet or the result is nothing close to Coconut so it defeats the purpose..."

Please someone let me know if my conclusion is not correct and should be something else ...:blink:

PT user Mauser showed one in a thread a while back that looked very convincing, but then he promptly disappeared. I sometimes wonder what ever became of it. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...