Palm classification

[Kumar]

Where can I find an updated grouping of various palm genera into their tribes, sub-tribes, etc. ? I have so far relied on plantapalm.com which has a chart here. However I think some of it is at odds with what I have learned on this forum. I am also very interested to have a tree diagram showing relative divergence of the various palm genera. Wikipedia has this on a few pages - such as their page on Thrinax but that shows only part of the family tree.

[Peter Pacific]

Hmmm, Kumar, I guess you'll be writing a book soon. Peter

[sarasota alex]

Kumar, the definite source is Genera Palmarum 2nd Edition. The definitive list of species is here http://apps.kew.org/wcsp/

Complete palm classification based on GP 2 is also available here http://trebrown.com/palms_arecaceae_order.php though it doesn't always match the Kew Checklist

[pindo]

Hi Kumar

When you have the complete & updated list .... the classification change again. Never ends ....

[edric]

This is definitive, Ed http://palmweb.org/?q=node/2

[pindo]

This is definitive, Ed http://palmweb.org/?q=node/2

Hello Edric

In the checklist of species RBG Kew are updated and do not match Palmweb

I.E.

Genus Butia: Kew said 18 species (new classification), Palweb says 13 (old classification) Genus Acrocomia Kew says 8 species, Palmweb says 4 species

And more ....

friendly

Jose

[edbrown_III]

Most taxonomists are clumpers most horticulturist and nursery men are splitters

Most plants in a genera will hybridize with other species and produce fertile offspring so the species opinion is more of a man made concept.

Best regards

Ed

[sarasota alex]

Most taxonomists are clumpers most horticulturist and nursery men are splitters

I agree with the statement, but I don't think that it's right to equate the two. When botanists say that T. fortunei and T. wagnerianus is the same species, it's based on research. When a horticulturist says - No they are really different species. What science is that person basing it on?

A lot of this is a matter of opinion, of course, but when I have to pick a system to trust, I go with the most scientific one I can find, which to me is the Kew publications (GP and the Checklist).

I frequently visit the Kew Checklist and when I looked at the palmweb.org, it looks like it was based on the Checklist but is about a year behind. They just need to update it. So I wouldn't call it definitive. The Kew Checklist still is. A few months ago, for instance, the Checklist got updated with the new discoveries of Lorenzi and Noblick. Jose's example illustrates that palmweb.org didn't update their list yet.

[Kailua_Krish]

Most taxonomists are clumpers most horticulturist and nursery men are splitters

I agree with the statement, but I don't think that it's right to equate the two. When botanists say that T. fortunei and T. wagnerianus is the same species, it's based on research. When a horticulturist says - No they are really different species. What science is that person basing it on?

A lot of this is a matter of opinion, of course, but when I have to pick a system to trust, I go with the most scientific one I can find, which to me is the Kew publications (GP and the Checklist).

I frequently visit the Kew Checklist and when I looked at the palmweb.org, it looks like it was based on the Checklist but is about a year behind. They just need to update it. So I wouldn't call it definitive. The Kew Checklist still is. A few months ago, for instance, the Checklist got updated with the new discoveries of Lorenzi and Noblick. Jose's example illustrates that palmweb.org didn't update their list yet.

The problem is that scientist often have very different definitions of what makes a species. Even using DNA has proven to be difficult as some things (like bacteria) that are classified as a "species" can have over 50% genetic variability. The big thing that comes in here is that the concept of 'species' is very subjective in most non-animal (and even in some animal) cases and sometimes visual differences can be just as important as anything else that is relied on so I wouldnt be so quick to discount what the horticulturist says.

Of course this is just my opinion and you are welcome to disagree with it.

-Krishna

[Kumar]

I was going through the classification at http://trebrown.com/palms_arecaceae_order.php and see differences from what I had believed in all this time:

For example,

- caryoteae (caryotas, arengas, wallichia) are groupe under the coryphoids ?

- hyophorbe and chamadorea are placed within the same tribe ?

I also notice that the new discovery Tahina spectrabilis is grouped along with non-monocarpic species such as Kerriodoxa and nannorhops under Chuniophoeniceae which is a sister taxon to Corypheae (containing only corypha). Does this mean the terminal inflorescence and monocarpic behaviour (so close to tht of corypha) evolved independently? - This seem hard to believe

I wish they had a tree chart though - showing recent and distant divergences. That makes it easier to appreciate this overwhelming classification.

[pindo]

I was going through the classification at http://trebrown.com/palms_arecaceae_order.php and see differences from what I had believed in all this time:

I wish they had a tree chart though - showing recent and distant divergences. That makes it easier to appreciate this overwhelming classification.

yes, is true , very hard to understand and start again

[sarasota alex]

I was going through the classification at http://trebrown.com/...aceae_order.php and see differences from what I had believed in all this time:

For example,

- caryoteae (caryotas, arengas, wallichia) are groupe under the coryphoids ?

- hyophorbe and chamadorea are placed within the same tribe ?

I also notice that the new discovery Tahina spectrabilis is grouped along with non-monocarpic species such as Kerriodoxa and nannorhops under Chuniophoeniceae which is a sister taxon to Corypheae (containing only corypha). Does this mean the terminal inflorescence and monocarpic behaviour (so close to tht of corypha) evolved independently? - This seem hard to believe

I wish they had a tree chart though - showing recent and distant divergences. That makes it easier to appreciate this overwhelming classification.

Kumar, it does feel counterintuitive at times, but the classification follows the accepted one from GP2. If you can get your hands on the book it provides a lot of explanation around the changes made to the previously accepted structure (published in GP 1st Edition).

All your examples are true. All Caryotoids evolved from palms with palmate leaves. Chuniophoenix does appear to be Tahina's closest living relative. Alex