New Chambeyronia species!

[ellidro]

Has anyone received their IPS Palm Journal Volume 63?  It states Chambeyronia houliou was an undescribed species, not a variation of macrocarpa and will now be called Chambeyronia houailouensis. Additionally it appears Kentiopsis and Actinokentia will be lumped into the Chambeyronia genus. Changes as follows:

Actinokentia divaricata > Chambeyronia divarcata

Actinokentia huerlimannii > Chambeyronia huerlimannii

Kentiopsis piersoniorum > Chambeyronia piersoniorum

Kentiopsis oliviformis > Chambeyronia oliviformis

Kentiopsis pyroformis > Chambeyronia pyroformis

Kentiopsis magnifica > Chambeyronia magnifica

Chambeyronia lepidota remains unchanged

Thoughts? Going to be very hard for me to get used to this!

 

[DoomsDave]

Yeah me too

Old, set in my ways

Red shoes or nothing 

[Dave-Vero]

The molecular data are really clear and the paper provides all the scholarly documentation.  It speaks well of what can sometimes be done by studying cultivated specimens.  Note the determination that the name Chambeyronia was published months earlier than Kentiopsis, so has priority in the nomenclatural system.  

I get to inform my neighbor (who I persuaded to accept a gift palm) that their thriving specimen is now Chambeyronia oliviformis.  

[Billeb]

I think we all heard grumblings this may happen. Chambeyronia Pyroformis just doesn’t roll off the tongue. Guess I’m gonna have to get use to it. My Chambeyronia Arsenal just got larger. 
 

-dale

[Silas_Sancona]

21 minutes ago, Dave-Vero said:

The molecular data are really clear and the paper provides all the scholarly documentation.  It speaks well of what can sometimes be done by studying cultivated specimens.  Note the determination that the name Chambeyronia was published months earlier than Kentiopsis, so has priority in the nomenclatural system.  

 

~ makes notes ~ Yep, that's Taxonomy for ya.. Can't dismiss what carefully analyzing DNA turns up.   Imo, compared to similar re-examination of plants within various genera / families,  this seems to be a pretty smooth transition.   Guarantee, changes made ( and those still being assessed / proposed ) just among Cacti  and/ or  Agave are even more complex / head -scratchers at times.  " Lively " discussions there can be almost as bad as when Acacia were broken up and shuffled around into various other Genera. 

As someone recently expressed while having a similar discussion, " Get used to it. This will continue w/ a lot more things we assumed were already worked out as on going, detailed DNA analysis of -everything- continues ".

[The Gerg]

When I first became a palm enthusiast I remember hearing (reading about) people having difficulty with these type of genus changes. Now that I have been an enthusiast for many years now this is one that’s going to be difficult for me.

[Gonzer]

[sonoranfans]

the all too frequent changing of palm species names smears the practical identification process for the hobbyist.  The unfortunate fact of the internet is that those older names tend to stick around for a long time.  At one point, I recall they wanted to lump all the Caribbean sabals as sabal palmetto.  I hope genetics someday replaces or at least stabilizes taxonomic identification of palm species.    

[DoomsDave]

I remember, a long long time ago, when they consolidated all of the Dypsis into one genus, when, before there'd been Dypsis, Neodypsis, Vonitra, and a whole flock more. At least Dypsis fits on a license plate . . .

I think, too, that the gene review will also show what species really are separate and what are closely related variants of the same thing. For example, I've often wondered about D. oniliahensis Droopy and not droopy.

[Tracy]

19 hours ago, ellidro said:

Thoughts? Going to be very hard for me to get used to this!

The little name tags my son's bought for me are going to need updating.  Given that all these are now under the Chambeyronia genus based on genetic information, does that mean that they can hybridize?  Could my Chambeyronia kentiopsis and nearby houailouensis potentially someday yield strange hybrid seedlings?  None of mine are producing flowers yet, although I suspect one of the K.... no C kentiopsis is getting close to the right size.

[richnorm]

Did they consider splitting the two Chambeyronia lepidota forms?

[Tracy]

21 hours ago, ellidro said:

Chambeyronia lepidota remains unchanged

 

7 minutes ago, richnorm said:

Did they consider splitting the two Chambeyronia lepidota forms?

 

[colin Peters]

Wow,  K. magnifica and oliviformis, have totally  different  seed than the Chambeyronia macrocarpa. 

[Kim]

So now I have 3 Chambeyronia piersoniorum. I can get used to that.  I like knowing the historical as well as the "new" names. I used to kind of smirk at people who used names like "Chrysolidocarpus lutescens." No more.... 

[richnorm]

2 hours ago, Tracy said:

 

 

Yeah, but did they consider it..

 

[Jeff Searle]

Splitters vs Lumpers.....

[Looking Glass]

4 hours ago, Tracy said:

The little name tags my son's bought for me are going to need updating.  Given that all these are now under the Chambeyronia genus based on genetic information, does that mean that they can hybridize?  Could my Chambeyronia kentiopsis and nearby houailouensis potentially someday yield strange hybrid seedlings?  None of mine are producing flowers yet, although I suspect one of the K.... no C kentiopsis is getting close to the right size.

I was thinking the same thing….  You could be the first distributor of the “Flaming Olive Lady” or the “Molotov Greek Salad” or something like that!  We’ll make billions, I tell ya!   

[realarch]

Fascinating! I will now be looking at my C. divaricata a bit differently on trips through the garden. 

Tim

[The Gerg]

7 hours ago, Tracy said:

The little name tags my son's bought for me are going to need updating.  Given that all these are now under the Chambeyronia genus based on genetic information, does that mean that they can hybridize?  Could my Chambeyronia kentiopsis and nearby houailouensis potentially someday yield strange hybrid seedlings?  None of mine are producing flowers yet, although I suspect one of the K.... no C kentiopsis is getting close to the right size.

Put me down for one Tracy. 

[LJG]

On 9/30/2021 at 6:29 PM, Jeff Searle said:

Splitters vs Lumpers.....

Goes beyond that. Now with DNA, it's what ever a test shows, not what the eye or experience tells. I think we are jumping the gun on DNA. It should be one tool, not the end-all. Also, separate thing, but I do not believe the botanical world should ever allow naming without it being peer reviewed. We are seeing decades of research being thrown out the door based off early DNA results. Many make no sense what so ever. 

[sonoranfans]

If these are only partial genome reads there could be "lumping" of genetics.  I work with geneticists who use DNA reads for (I cant say), the read depth can cause "lumping" if inadequate, plus the risk of not measuring all critical parts of the genome for clean ID.  The different size seeds, morphology etc are all encoded in the genes.  Failure to read the right gene segments or not use enough read depth in an ID could cause lot of "lumping" of modestly similar genetics.   You cannot discount the morphology differences, they are genetic, no doubt. If they are being read someone had decided they are not significant, a tough job.  The question is are they reading all the relevant segments.  Apes and humans differ by ~2% of DNA sequence, palms will have similar redundancies, perhaps even higher.  It might be the science here still needs to get worked out.  All great science is bourne of failure experiences.  I will call kentiopis "kentiopsis" for a while longer I think.

[DoomsDave]

Hmm.

Bear in mind that many classifications of palms were by botanists in "ivory towers" working off dried dead specimens, some of which might have been collected even a century or two earlier. That would seem flawed in and of itself. Parts can crumble and be lost, or have been omitted entirely from the original collection.

I'd be a lot more inclined to view relationships based on genomic material in a positive light, though the usual scientific rigor should be applied, in particular analyses by different persons with the same results. Or a way of accounting for differing ones.

In any case, sending Dr. Dransfield and Jeff Marcus down to Madagascar was a good idea. Each has vital, if different knowledge to bring to the subject. Jeff knows what the babies and the seeds look like in life.

[DoomsDave]

1 hour ago, LJG said:

Goes beyond that. Now with DNA, it's what ever a test shows, not what the eye or experience tells. I think we are jumping the gun on DNA. It should be one tool, not the end-all. Also, I do not believe the botanical world should ever allow naming without it being pier reviewed. We are seeing decades of research being thrown out the door based off DNA results. Many make no sense what so ever. 

Which genetic analyses/results make no sense?

[Cindy Adair]

I guess live and learn...

[Tracy]

3 hours ago, LJG said:

I do not believe the botanical world should ever allow naming without it being pier reviewed.

 

3 hours ago, sonoranfans said:

If these are only partial genome reads there could be "lumping" of genetics.  I work with geneticists who use DNA reads for (I cant say), the read depth can cause "lumping" if inadequate, plus the risk of not measuring all critical parts of the genome for clean ID.  The different size seeds, morphology etc are all encoded in the genes.  Failure to read the right gene segments or not use enough read depth in an ID could cause lot of "lumping" of modestly similar genetics.   You cannot discount the morphology differences, they are genetic, no doubt. If they are being read someone had decided they are not significant, a tough job.  The question is are they reading all the relevant segments.  Apes and humans differ by ~2% of DNA sequence, palms will have similar redundancies, perhaps even higher.  It might be the science here still needs to get worked out.  All great science is bourne of failure experiences.  I will call kentiopis "kentiopsis" for a while longer I think.

Both of you raise the important questions regarding whether the work has been vetted by peers and how thorough it is.  I guess we will have to see how the work stands up over time and as peers in the field review the work or try to either expand upon it and repeat the work, the essence of the scientific process.  Maybe I'll wait a few years to place an order for the replacement cards that go into the name holders.

[KrisKupsch]

On 10/1/2021 at 7:49 AM, Tracy said:

The little name tags my son's bought for me are going to need updating.  Given that all these are now under the Chambeyronia genus based on genetic information, does that mean that they can hybridize?  Could my Chambeyronia kentiopsis and nearby houailouensis potentially someday yield strange hybrid seedlings?  None of mine are producing flowers yet, although I suspect one of the K.... no C kentiopsis is getting close to the right size.

Probably not, they occur together in the wild and I don’t think hybrids are known 

[Steve Mac]

I'm just renaming too.

What are we calling the flamethrower how? Is it still a var.?

Or macrocarpa or just hookeri ?

[sonoranfans]

DNA sequence "matches" you hear about in crime ID typically involve a tiny fraction of the human genome due to the huge costs of reading and analyzing the whole genome.  When you are identifying an individual, all sequence data over the whole genome matches exactly, so selection of a small fraction of genome sequence for a match is much easier, and you get those ten million to 1 odds.   Assessing familial closeness within a family and relative to other families is a much tougher task, and no you don't get odds as there are no direct matches.  If the scientist has to limit cost of sequencing by using a small fraction of the DNA, it may not be good enough to avoid "lumping" in the familial clustering analysis.  I have performed this analysis with fractional DNA sequencing information knowing the answer, fractional DNA coverage success depends on where you choose to measure on the genome and how big a fraction you use($).  Then there is the number of reads or the read depth that is important to reduce noise.  If you don't take enough reads or select the less than ideal segments you get noisy data and that can lead to lumping.  Starting with a known answer allows you to see these issues clearly, as you have "truth" and then look at what DNA sequence says.     And just because an article is peer reviewed doesn't mean it won't be found incorrect later, science evolves.  Peer review is just a needed safeguard, its not a guarantee of truth.  WIthout peer review, we would have the internet where so much is incorrectly assumed to be true.  I am patient with this process, all new science requires patience, not expectations of absolutes.  In 10 years they will know so much more than now, this is a start.

[Steve Mac]

 

Sorry, I misplaced my IPS Palm Journal Volume 63,  @ellidro

What are they calling the Chambeyronia macrocarpa hookeri now?

Is it still a var.  or has the macrocarpa part been dispensed with?

 

[Chris Chance]

Well that's definitely going to take getting used to. I had one Chambeyronia and now I have 3 haha.

[Pando]

Why don't we just consolidate all the palm trees under the name Palm tree. It would simplify everything a great deal.

[KrisKupsch]

On 9/30/2021 at 2:20 PM, Billeb said:

I think we all heard grumblings this may happen. Chambeyronia Pyroformis just doesn’t roll off the tongue. Guess I’m gonna have to get use to it. My Chambeyronia Arsenal just got larger. 
 

-dale

It’s spelt pyriformis 

[KrisKupsch]

On 10/29/2021 at 2:22 PM, Steve Mac said:

I'm just renaming too.

What are we calling the flamethrower how? Is it still a var.?

Or macrocarpa or just hookeri ?

Not one answer to that. Chambeyronia macrocarpa var. macrocarpa and C.macrocarpa var. hookeri make red leaves 

[BS Man about Palms]

I think I will just look at it all like some many of the Dypsis out there in that, if you are a big fan, you know ALL the names AND how many DIFFERENT palms were sold under the SAME name....and VICE VERSA.
I'll likely call my stuff by the old name with a sidebar of their new name... like I do with a third of my Dypsis!! hahah

 

[Billeb]

8 hours ago, KrisKupsch said:

It’s spelt pyriformis 

I’m aware. Stupid auto correct. Good catch. 

 

-dale

[KrisKupsch]

On 11/7/2021 at 9:50 PM, KrisKupsch said:

Not one answer to that. Chambeyronia macrocarpa var. macrocarpa and C.macrocarpa var. hookeri make red leaves 

and I think Chambeyronia macrocarpa var. roxanniae and watermelon C.m.var.flavopicta also makes red leaf. Going by the recent paper by Hodel and Pintaud (2021)

Edited November 9, 2021 by KrisKupsch