anyone have any info on Dypsis Ankaizinensis ?

I purchased a plant labeled as such a couple months back. It has a stiking black spotted, deep maroon petiole & it really caught my eye in the nursery. But it does not seem to be an offically recognized name. (At least yet). I was told that the current thought is that is yet another form of D. manajarensis. There are certainly some similarities. As there are with D. "mahajanga" when placed side by side. Who knows. I did find a bit of info about them on the RPS website, as well as the Palmpedia one, I believe. I'd also love to know anyone else's thoughts on this one.

Bret

Dypsis ankaizinensis is indeed a recognized name (just check the Kew on-line list of accepted names), while "mahajanga" is not, and is not even a 'no longer valid' name. "Mahajanga" is simply a name that someone made up. Palms that were sold under the D. ankaizinensis name about a dozen years ago (they were then tiny plants) have turned out to be Dypsis madagascariensis (and I believe that's what a 'mahajanga' really is as well). It would surprise me if there are any true D. ankaizinensis in cultivation, but stranger things have happened. POM (published in 1995) states that it "has not been seen for over 70 years", so unless someone discovered it again recently that means it's been about 85 years now since it was last seen. Not too promising!

Dypsis ankaizinensis is indeed a recognized name (just check the Kew on-line list of accepted names), while "mahajanga" is not, and is not even a 'no longer valid' name. "Mahajanga" is simply a name that someone made up. Palms that were sold under the D. ankaizinensis name about a dozen years ago (they were then tiny plants) have turned out to be Dypsis madagascariensis (and I believe that's what a 'mahajanga' really is as well). It would surprise me if there are any true D. ankaizinensis in cultivation, but stranger things have happened. POM (published in 1995) states that it "has not been seen for over 70 years", so unless someone discovered it again recently that means it's been about 85 years now since it was last seen. Not too promising!

BOL-

take a look at this web page and tell me what you think:

http://d30000260.purehost.com/dypsis_ankaizinensis.html

Way back in ancient times, I bought a whole flock of plants labeled as D. ankaizensis from J.D. Anderson's nursery in gallon pots for about $5 each. I went crazy and got like 50 or 100 of them.

They were heel-forming, multitrunking plants, with pretty pale purple petioles with spots, and a rose pink new spear.

In the pots, they were reasonably vigorous, though not very fast to put on size.

When I moved to Shangri La Habra in October of 2002, I planted a few in the ground, and they rotted and died after about six months. They appear to hate clay soil. If I can get new ones, I'm going to try them in lighter, looser mix on my Hill of the Decaryi.

While they generally resembled D. madagascarensis, they're not the same. Maddies have a single trunk, and grow quite fast if conditions are to their liking; Ankies have more than one growing point, and they're a lot slower. Both appear to prefer soil on the dry side.

Dave,

From all the information I have gathered on D. madagascariensis, they are variable: there are clumping versions and solitary versions. I believe there have been discussions here about a madagascariensis complex.

Thanks for the clarification Bo. I made an erroneous assumption after not seeing it on the PACSOA website..

Bret

Dave,

From all the information I have gathered on D. madagascariensis, they are variable: there are clumping versions and solitary versions. I believe there have been discussions here about a madagascariensis complex.

The only thing I'm sure about is the Complex part . . . .

trioderob,

I'm sure that the palm in that link is from the very same seed batch that mine came from. And they have been identified as Dypsis madagascariensis, which indeed is very variable - there are singles, doubles and multiples. Some refer to the single trunked as "lucubensis" and the multi-trunked as "mahajanga". Makes no difference what they're called - they are all D. madagascariensis!

Bo-Göran

trioderob,

I'm sure that the palm in that link is from the very same seed batch that mine came from. And they have been identified as Dypsis madagascariensis, which indeed is very variable - there are singles, doubles and multiples. Some refer to the single trunked as "lucubensis" and the multi-trunked as "mahajanga". Makes no difference what they're called - they are all D. madagascariensis!

Bo-Göran

thanks for the information Bo

I don't care if the names are not accepted, I still feel they do a good job of helping define the many variations of Dypsis madagascariensis. Some ones says "diego", I know what the variation looks like. Someone says "lucubensis", I know what that looks like too.

Just FYI, "mahajanga" can be sinlge. I have three that are single.

All of us, including me, use names that are unofficial. I have no problem with that. But this is an IPS site, and the IPS has two purposes; scientific and educational. I believe it's important for people to know whether a particular name is a valid name or not, then whether they decide to use it is entirely their choice. An added complication, as we all know, is that many of the Dypsis seeds came in under valid names, that years later turned out to be an incorrect name for that particular palm. Dypsis ankaizinensis is a perfect example. A quick check of POM reveals that D. ankaizinensis is a solitary palm. Yet, as far as I know, all the individuals that are the results of the seeds that came in more than a dozen year ago are multiples.

Interesting topic that has consumed a bit of my time during the past year. I have 4 multitrunk D. madagascariensis and 4 of the D. madagascariensis that originated from seed obtained as D. ankaiziensis. From the description of D. ankaizinensis in POM (pg 182-184), as Bo says, these clearly are not D. ankaiziensis. However, they are an interesting variation of D. madagascariensis. As you can see from the pictures below, this variant (at least the ones from which ours come) has a trunk that looks like a D. madagascariensis, the crown shaft has a triangular configuration suggestively similar to D. decaryi, the leaf recurves at the end and the leaflets have a very interesting curl. Inflorescence is tiny red and the infructescence is bean-like.

There are a couple of gardens in Kona that have this variant, probably all from the same source as ours.

gmp

Finaly, some pics!

If you want to name this plant for both scientific and layman purposes, you could consider calling it Dypsis c.f. ankaizanensis. The c.f. stands for "common form", meaning that which is known to be growing in cultivation under this name. This could be used a lot for Dypsis species grown under mislabeled names, knowing it was once sold or is cultivated under the name but is known not to be the true species.

I have one of these, purchased from Kapoho during its dying days in a conetainer. With each passing yr it looks more & more like mahajanga, which to mine eyes is a more plumose version of madagascariensis. Leaving the nomenclature aside these are surprisingly cold tolerant, mine blew thru 27f low last winter with nary a scorch. Below are a few pics of it, incl. closeup of emerging spear and woody stem that formed this yr.

Last pic is a slightly younger mahajanga for comp. purposes.

p.s. - what was the story behind D.madagascariensis being invalid, or maybe not that but not "accepted" on Kew? Is that being rectified?