Brahea and pritchardia why different genera?

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

Why are brahea and pritchardia different genera? Does anyone know the background of the classification? It would seem that the two are incredibly closely related. Just have a look at either brahea edulis or brahea nitida, and might as well have a pritchardia. The similarity is striking! If they didn't have a wide geographical separation, would they really have been classified as separate?

I bet if someone did a Phylogenetic Analysis, the results would be that the two in fact are at least as closely related as syagrus is to cocos, but I bet it's even closer.

Has anyone attempted at doing any crosses? I bet it would work and yield some pretty spectacular results. Brahea armata x pritchardia hildebrandii would certainly yield interesting results.

When I googled the two genera together, I did come up with some interesting results, such as for example this book from 1879: "Ueber Brahea oder Pritchardia filifera hort". More historical research reveals that both brahea and washingtonia were actually classified as pritchardia. Washingtonia filifera used to be called pritchardia filifera, or brahea filamentosa. See http://books.google.com/books?id=54pPAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA332&lpg=PA332&dq=pritchardia+brahea&source=bl&ots=hfarGun4i5&sig=beKDHdndjV_k1GG3zHL6lcv_fdc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=E6vXUZL6LYX5igKmu4CYAQ&ved=0CEQQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=pritchardia%20brahea&f=false.

Here is a great reference on filifera, how it started out as brahea filifera, then became pritchardia filifera, then finally became washingtonia filifera. See http://books.google.com/books?id=RqsdAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA248&lpg=PA248&dq=pritchardia+brahea&source=bl&ots=8REKvm44rx&sig=Ke3k6wfos0yT4LpffQFHMl2lPlY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4q3XUZeIK9HZigKEuIEI&ved=0CDEQ6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=pritchardia%20brahea&f=false

This reference goes into even more details: http://books.google.com/books?id=H8AQAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA25&lpg=PA25&dq=pritchardia+brahea&source=bl&ots=SVshZZDN87&sig=CcrM6OlQRR8dnquPfLqIgAlgo0c&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4q3XUZeIK9HZigKEuIEI&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=pritchardia%20brahea&f=false. This reference answers some of the details of what differs between pritchardia, brahea and washingtonia.

I would certainly be interested to undertake crossing brahea armata with a nice pritchardia to see what the result would be.

[Phoenikakias]

Axel, in my place Washis are still called Pritchardia by horticulturists! But to be honest as a palm grower seeing palms (almost) every day Pritcahrdia and Brahea look to my eyes pretty different. On the other hand Brahea grow here perfectly (not surprising considering the similiarity in climate with Northern Mexico), and so some Pritchardia let aside cold tolerance (it is only one aspect among many, such as soil, mean temps during summer, weather pattern with moist winter and dry summer etc), which is astonishing given their tropical origin. I am not a palm scientist but I can not also oversee striking similiarities in cultivation of different genera. Maybe practical experiences of growers should be a good reason for scientists to do some research.

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

If you look at brahea nitida and brahea edulis, the similarities are striking! Especially nitida which is unarmed. To me it looks like brahea and pritchardia definitely share common ancestry but took different evolutionary paths due to geographical separation. I haven't looked at the geology, did the Hawaiian islands just show up or did they separate like Madagascar?

To the untrained layman eye, brahea edulis, washingtonia and pritchardia look almost identical.

[quaman58]

I guess if you go back far enough, most palms would share common ancesters. But I assume that the floral differences are what separated the two genus. Still, with Hawaii being relatively "young" , I've been curious as well as to what Pritchardias closest relative is.

[Stevetoad]

i remember someone telling me that washies were once in the pritchardia family too. i do agree that b.edulis looks very pritchardia like too. im sure the flowers seperate tham though. just like trithrinax acanthocoma looks like a bigger trachy. or how sabal looks like a smaller corypha.

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

i remember someone telling me that washies were once in the pritchardia family too. i do agree that b.edulis looks very pritchardia like too. im sure the flowers seperate tham though. just like trithrinax acanthocoma looks like a bigger trachy. or how sabal looks like a smaller corypha.

I actually think trithrinax acanthocoma looks much closer to a copernicia, in fact, I often mistake them for one when they are still young and you can't see the fuzzy trunk. The fronds are much closer to those of a copernicia. If I were to bet, I'd say that copernicia and trithrinax also share closer ancestry.

I guess if you go back far enough, most palms would share common ancesters. But I assume that the floral differences are what separated the two genus. Still, with Hawaii being relatively "young" , I've been curious as well as to what Pritchardias closest relative is.

So I wonder that as well. How did pritchardia even show up on the islands? They didn't manifest out of thin air and seeds certainly didn't float there like coconuts did. Or did they? In fact, that's the prevalent theory. The seeds of the older pritchardia like p. pacifica actually float quite well and the belief is that the Hawaiian islands were "colonized" naturally by floating seeds that disperse very easily. I did try to read up on pritchardia in the great Lulu book, which actually states that "[pritchardia] is most closely related to such well known and popular genera as Acoelorraphe, Brahea, Copernicia, Serenoa and Washingtonia..." So clearly the similarities have already been noted by many botanists. Since 24 of the 27 species of pritchardia are from Hawaii, with the rest being in the South and Eastern Pacific, and a lot of the brahea are also growing along the Pacific Basin, I think the two are probably the most closely related.

Pritchardia is part of the Coryphoideae, and DNA analysis has been done and it apparently does show them to be very closely related to Washingtonia and brahea.

If you dig around further, you also get to find out that apparently, trachy and livistona are closely related. But the most surprising of them all is that caryota is lumped in with Coryphoideae as well.

According to GRIN, (http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/gnlist.pl?2122) brahea is subfam. Coryphoideae tribe Trachycarpeae subtribe Livistoninae, and pritchardia is subfam. Coryphoideae tribe Trachycarpeae subtribe Livistoninae as well.

I say, let the hybridization work begin!

BTW, if anyone is interested, here's the list of all the pritchardia: http://apps.kew.org/wcsp/qsearch.do?plantName=Pritchardia&page=quickSearch, and here's the list of all the brahea: http://apps.kew.org/wcsp/qsearch.do?plantName=Brahea&page=quickSearch.

[Zeeth]

Phoenix is also part of Coryphoideae

[pfancy]

If it was possible I think you would see evidence of a natural "braheatonia" as both grow all over the place around here. Both have similar flowering times here in Phx and would be great to see if it could be done. Blue washies would be the biggest thing since bizzies hit the scene.

[quaman58]

I always assumed that seed dispersal in Hawaii was from birds; just a guess though. For example, common wisdom is that coconuts float around for long periods of time before landing wherever. But they actually have a pretty short viability when exposed to seawater. Can't remember how long, but it's days, not weeks. I can't envision small seeds like Brahea or Washingtonia making that ocean going trip.

[Stevetoad]

I always assumed that seed dispersal in Hawaii was from birds; just a guess though. For example, common wisdom is that coconuts float around for long periods of time before landing wherever. But they actually have a pretty short viability when exposed to seawater. Can't remember how long, but it's days, not weeks. I can't envision small seeds like Brahea or Washingtonia making that ocean going trip.

Or staying in a birds gut for the 2000 mile trip from Baja to hawaii. That's a long way to go without dropping some "weight"

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

If it was possible I think you would see evidence of a natural "braheatonia" as both grow all over the place around here. Both have similar flowering times here in Phx and would be great to see if it could be done. Blue washies would be the biggest thing since bizzies hit the scene.

I see more similarity between brahea and pritchardia than I see with washingtonia. But now that you mention it, I wonder why people aren't trying to create blue washingtonias. Just because they're around all over doesn't make the hybrid more likely in just the same way that butia and queen are all over and you don't see mules popping up all over.

I always assumed that seed dispersal in Hawaii was from birds; just a guess though. For example, common wisdom is that coconuts float around for long periods of time before landing wherever. But they actually have a pretty short viability when exposed to seawater. Can't remember how long, but it's days, not weeks. I can't envision small seeds like Brahea or Washingtonia making that ocean going trip.

Good point, perhaps both coconuts and pritchardia disperse with the help of floating debris from hurricanes.

[Phoenikakias]

If you look at brahea nitida and brahea edulis, the similarities are striking! Especially nitida which is unarmed. To me it looks like brahea and pritchardia definitely share common ancestry but took different evolutionary paths due to geographical separation. I haven't looked at the geology, did the Hawaiian islands just show up or did they separate like Madagascar?

To the untrained layman eye, brahea edulis, washingtonia and pritchardia look almost identical.

i remember someone telling me that washies were once in the pritchardia family too. i do agree that b.edulis looks very pritchardia like too. im sure the flowers seperate tham though. just like trithrinax acanthocoma looks like a bigger trachy. or how sabal looks like a smaller corypha.

Guys, hard to believe that you can not discern a Brahea edulis from a Pritchardia with only a short glance

Test:

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

If you look at brahea nitida and brahea edulis, the similarities are striking! Especially nitida which is unarmed. To me it looks like brahea and pritchardia definitely share common ancestry but took different evolutionary paths due to geographical separation. I haven't looked at the geology, did the Hawaiian islands just show up or did they separate like Madagascar?

To the untrained layman eye, brahea edulis, washingtonia and pritchardia look almost identical.

>i remember someone telling me that washies were once in the pritchardia family too. i do agree that b.edulis looks very pritchardia like too. im sure the flowers seperate tham though. just like trithrinax acanthocoma looks like a bigger trachy. or how sabal looks like a smaller corypha.

Guys, hard to believe that you can not discern a Brahea edulis from a Pritchardia with only a short glance

Test: DSC01611.JPG

How did you get a washingtonia that looks almost costapalmate?

[Phoenikakias]

Axel, I want to believe that you're just pulling my leg and not talking seriously about a Washy, which is nowhere in the picture

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

Axel, I want to believe that you're just pulling my leg and not talking seriously about a Washy, which is nowhere in the picture

Of course, I was joking. I see very little similarity between any washie and pritchardia or even brahea. I see more similarity between pritchardia and brahea. The picture you posted does a very good job of illustrating my point. BTW, which pritchardia is that on the right?

[Phoenikakias]

OK . The Pritchardia is supposed to be lowreyana aka macrocarpa. Definitely cold hardier than hillebrandii.

[Eric in Orlando]

Some synonyms for Washingtonia filifera are Brahea filifera and Pritchardia filamentosa and Pritchardia filifera. Washingtonia robusta has Brahea robusta and Pritchardia robusta as a former names.

[Eric in Orlando]

Some others;

Washingtonia gaudichaudii = Pritchardia martii

Washingtonia hillebrandii = Pritchardia hillebrandii

Washingtonia lanigera = Pritchardia lanigera

Washingtonia martii = Pritchardia martii

Washingtonia pacifica = Pritchardia pacifica

Washingtonia penicularum = Pritchardia vuylstekeana

Washingtonia remota = Pritchardia remota

Washintonia thurstonii = Pritchardia thurstonii

Washingtonia vuylstekeana = Pritchardia vuylstekeana

[Eric in Orlando]

The best of all...........

Washingtonia gigantea = Sequoiadendron giganteum !!!

[DoomsDave]

Calling Dr. Dransfield!

Calling Dr. Dransfield!

We have a binomial emergency!

[sarasota alex]

Many botanists over a 100 years ago classified palms based on superficial characteristics such as the leaf anatomy, which later proved to be not as important, especially with molecular research capabilities in the picture. That is the reason for all the former mess with the genera.

Axel you touched on a very interesting genus - Brahea.

The taxonomy and generic relationships within the tribe Trachycarpeae palms, while it includes some of the most common in cultivation, is poorly understood, hence the recent changes with Saribus, Pritchardiopsis and Lanonia. But none more poorly understood than Brahea.

It's been a while since anyone took a serious look at that genus. Last attempt I heard of was Quero working on a Monograph of Brahea. I haven't seen it actually get published, but he did get a preliminary paper out in 2000. So in that paper he states that it's not conclusive whether Brahea should remain a single genus or get split up again into Erythea and Brahea.

Genera Palmarum 2 excluded Acoelorrhaphe, Serenoa, Brahea, Copothrinax, Copernicia, Pritchardia and Washingtonia from the subtribe Livistoninae and kept them unplaced within the tribe Trachycarpeae. This is where GRIN is wrong. It list the opposite of the that while listing Genera Palmarum 2 as the reference. Someone didn't do their homework there. It also lists GP2 as the source for including Hemithrinax within Thrinax. And it's a couple of years out of date. So not a very reliable site.

The most recent DNA study (Asmussen in 2006) actually points to a possible close relationship between Brahea and the subtribe Rhapidinae (Trachycarpus, Rhapis, Chamaerops, Rhapidophyllum, Maxburretia, Guihaia). The same study also suggests a sister relationship between Pritchardia and Washingtonia.

[sarasota alex]

just like trithrinax acanthocoma looks like a bigger trachy. or how sabal looks like a smaller corypha.

Steve that is a great example of how misleading the looks can be. Sabal and Trithrinax although in separate tribes are relatively close. But the looks don't show that. So Trithrinax is closer to Sabal than it is to Trachycarpus. And Sabal is closer to Trithrinax than it is to Corypha.

[Phoenikakias]

Many botanists over a 100 years ago classified palms based on superficial characteristics such as the leaf anatomy, which later proved to be not as important, especially with molecular research capabilities in the picture. That is the reason for all the former mess with the genera.

Axel you touched on a very interesting genus - Brahea.

The taxonomy and generic relationships within the tribe Trachycarpeae palms, while it includes some of the most common in cultivation, is poorly understood, hence the recent changes with Saribus, Pritchardiopsis and Lanonia. But none more poorly understood than Brahea.

It's been a while since anyone took a serious look at that genus. Last attempt I heard of was Quero working on a Monograph of Brahea. I haven't seen it actually get published, but he did get a preliminary paper out in 2000. So in that paper he states that it's not conclusive whether Brahea should remain a single genus or get split up again into Erythea and Brahea.

Genera Palmarum 2 excluded Acoelorrhaphe, Serenoa, Brahea, Copothrinax, Copernicia, Pritchardia and Washingtonia from the subtribe Livistoninae and kept them unplaced within the tribe Trachycarpeae. This is where GRIN is wrong. It list the opposite of the that while listing Genera Palmarum 2 as the reference. Someone didn't do their homework there. It also lists GP2 as the source for including Hemithrinax within Thrinax. And it's a couple of years out of date. So not a very reliable site.

The most recent DNA study (Asmussen in 2006) actually points to a possible close relationship between Brahea and the subtribe Rhapidinae (Trachycarpus, Rhapis, Chamaerops, Rhapidophyllum, Maxburretia, Guihaia). The same study also suggests a sister relationship between Pritchardia and Washingtonia.

I have cross-pollinated my pistillate Guihaia argyrata with pollen from Trachycarpus fortunei and Rhapis humilis. Also at same time some of my Brahea have been blooming. The Guihaia is seeming now to have set fruits. It remains to see whether seeds are fertile and eventual offspring which of those pollen donors resembles!

[Eric in Orlando]

Many botanists over a 100 years ago classified palms based on superficial characteristics such as the leaf anatomy, which later proved to be not as important, especially with molecular research capabilities in the picture. That is the reason for all the former mess with the genera.

Axel you touched on a very interesting genus - Brahea.

The taxonomy and generic relationships within the tribe Trachycarpeae palms, while it includes some of the most common in cultivation, is poorly understood, hence the recent changes with Saribus, Pritchardiopsis and Lanonia. But none more poorly understood than Brahea.

It's been a while since anyone took a serious look at that genus. Last attempt I heard of was Quero working on a Monograph of Brahea. I haven't seen it actually get published, but he did get a preliminary paper out in 2000. So in that paper he states that it's not conclusive whether Brahea should remain a single genus or get split up again into Erythea and Brahea.

Genera Palmarum 2 excluded Acoelorrhaphe, Serenoa, Brahea, Copothrinax, Copernicia, Pritchardia and Washingtonia from the subtribe Livistoninae and kept them unplaced within the tribe Trachycarpeae. This is where GRIN is wrong. It list the opposite of the that while listing Genera Palmarum 2 as the reference. Someone didn't do their homework there. It also lists GP2 as the source for including Hemithrinax within Thrinax. And it's a couple of years out of date. So not a very reliable site.

The most recent DNA study (Asmussen in 2006) actually points to a possible close relationship between Brahea and the subtribe Rhapidinae (Trachycarpus, Rhapis, Chamaerops, Rhapidophyllum, Maxburretia, Guihaia). The same study also suggests a sister relationship between Pritchardia and Washingtonia.

GRIN is good for trees and shrubs but I use Kew for palms, monocots and conifers. GRIn is often out of date for palms.

[DoomsDave]

Oh, yes.

Morphology is perhaps nothing more than a superficial view to naming. A good example is the convergent evolution of unrelated species in similar environments which give them similar shapes.

Time to get out the gas chromatographs, and start sequencing Dypsis.

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

Many botanists over a 100 years ago classified palms based on superficial characteristics such as the leaf anatomy, which later proved to be not as important, especially with molecular research capabilities in the picture. That is the reason for all the former mess with the genera.

Axel you touched on a very interesting genus - Brahea.

The taxonomy and generic relationships within the tribe Trachycarpeae palms, while it includes some of the most common in cultivation, is poorly understood, hence the recent changes with Saribus, Pritchardiopsis and Lanonia. But none more poorly understood than Brahea.

It's been a while since anyone took a serious look at that genus. Last attempt I heard of was Quero working on a Monograph of Brahea. I haven't seen it actually get published, but he did get a preliminary paper out in 2000. So in that paper he states that it's not conclusive whether Brahea should remain a single genus or get split up again into Erythea and Brahea.

Genera Palmarum 2 excluded Acoelorrhaphe, Serenoa, Brahea, Copothrinax, Copernicia, Pritchardia and Washingtonia from the subtribe Livistoninae and kept them unplaced within the tribe Trachycarpeae. This is where GRIN is wrong. It list the opposite of the that while listing Genera Palmarum 2 as the reference. Someone didn't do their homework there. It also lists GP2 as the source for including Hemithrinax within Thrinax. And it's a couple of years out of date. So not a very reliable site.

The most recent DNA study (Asmussen in 2006) actually points to a possible close relationship between Brahea and the subtribe Rhapidinae (Trachycarpus, Rhapis, Chamaerops, Rhapidophyllum, Maxburretia, Guihaia). The same study also suggests a sister relationship between Pritchardia and Washingtonia.

Thanks for posting that, this is really interesting. Do you have any links to references for the most recent DNA studies? That would be great to look at. The Washingtonia/Pritchardia connection puzzles me, especially if brahea is unrelated to pritchardia given the similarities in appearance.

[Kim]

I don't understand the question. I am definitely no palm ID whiz, but even I would never confuse a Brahea with a Pritchardia. Okay, yes, they are both fan palms, but the similarity ends there, to my eyes.

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

I don't understand the question. I am definitely no palm ID whiz, but even I would never confuse a Brahea with a Pritchardia. Okay, yes, they are both fan palms, but the similarity ends there, to my eyes.

Well, it's gonna be difficult to argue about looks since they are so subjective. But dumb questions like mine are good to ask, makes for very interesting discussion.

Since I grow both I see a lot of similarities, in fact, a lot of fellow palm folks I've spoken to all agree that brahea edulis and especially the completely un-armed brahea nitida are the best "pritchardia" substitutes to grow because they look so amazingly similar. I guess it depends on the pritchardia. For example, pritchardia viscosa and brahea nitida almost look like sister palms, both have stiff lipped leaf blades and both have leaves with silvery undersides.

And look at the way for example baker's loulu throws an inflorescence the same way a brahea does it or even w. filifera.

But Alex is right, similar appearance doesn't imply a relation. Braheas are incredibly hardy, much hardier than what they actually need to survive in habitat, suggesting the hardiness was inherited from whatever they descended from. Pritchardia wouldn't have magically lost that. On the other hand, if Washingtonia are indeed closely related, then how come they're so much hardier. Then again, Washingtonia seem to have just enough hardiness to survive in their own habitat.

[Phoenikakias]

To tell the truth, I also find a good growing Washingtonia robusta, with max a 2 meters trunk and growing in a wind protected place, to resemble more a Pritchardia. But this is entirely subjective.

[Kim]

I don't understand the question. I am definitely no palm ID whiz, but even I would never confuse a Brahea with a Pritchardia. Okay, yes, they are both fan palms, but the similarity ends there, to my eyes.

Well, it's gonna be difficult to argue about looks since they are so subjective. But dumb questions like mine are good to ask, makes for very interesting discussion.

Since I grow both I see a lot of similarities, in fact, a lot of fellow palm folks I've spoken to all agree that brahea edulis and especially the completely un-armed brahea nitida are the best "pritchardia" substitutes to grow because they look so amazingly similar. I guess it depends on the pritchardia. For example, pritchardia viscosa and brahea nitida almost look like sister palms, both have stiff lipped leaf blades and both have leaves with silvery undersides.

And look at the way for example baker's loulu throws an inflorescence the same way a brahea does it or even w. filifera.

But Alex is right, similar appearance doesn't imply a relation. Braheas are incredibly hardy, much hardier than what they actually need to survive in habitat, suggesting the hardiness was inherited from whatever they descended from. Pritchardia wouldn't have magically lost that. On the other hand, if Washingtonia are indeed closely related, then how come they're so much hardier. Then again, Washingtonia seem to have just enough hardiness to survive in their own habitat.

I don't mean to imply it is a dumb question; as Alex demonstrated and you confirm, similar appearance isn't always meaningful in terms of relation, i.e. they could look different and still be related. However, I disagree that "looks are so subjective". Botanists go to great pains to provide accurate, detailed descriptions of palms to distinguish one from another. For example, you note that both Brahea nitida and Pritchardia viscosa both have leaves with silvery undersides -- very true! And in a photo, maybe that gives them a similar look. But the most cursory examination of the undersides of the leaves in life (not a photo) would easily reveal the white fuzz on the Pritchardia, and no fuzz on the Brahea. Also the P. viscosa leaf is absent the relaxed leaf tips of the B. nitida (a synonym for Brahea calcarea, if you want to get picky). Those are not "subjective looks", but clear distinctions. Also the P. viscosa will have white petioles, while B. calcarea's are green. The Brahea will hold its stiff, dry, recurved retained leaf bases; you won't see that on a Pritchardia. If one is searching for a hardy alternative to the delicate P. viscosa -- yes, B. calcarea is a great choice. (Probably my favorite Brahea.) But casual observation of obvious physical characteristics, particularly in two mature specimens, will immediately distinguish the two to a vast degree.

Some of the most hot-shot palm ID people here have really keen powers of observation down to the most minute details of palm morphology, and I can only admire their skills.

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

I don't understand the question. I am definitely no palm ID whiz, but even I would never confuse a Brahea with a Pritchardia. Okay, yes, they are both fan palms, but the similarity ends there, to my eyes.

Well, it's gonna be difficult to argue about looks since they are so subjective. But dumb questions like mine are good to ask, makes for very interesting discussion.

Since I grow both I see a lot of similarities, in fact, a lot of fellow palm folks I've spoken to all agree that brahea edulis and especially the completely un-armed brahea nitida are the best "pritchardia" substitutes to grow because they look so amazingly similar. I guess it depends on the pritchardia. For example, pritchardia viscosa and brahea nitida almost look like sister palms, both have stiff lipped leaf blades and both have leaves with silvery undersides.

And look at the way for example baker's loulu throws an inflorescence the same way a brahea does it or even w. filifera.

But Alex is right, similar appearance doesn't imply a relation. Braheas are incredibly hardy, much hardier than what they actually need to survive in habitat, suggesting the hardiness was inherited from whatever they descended from. Pritchardia wouldn't have magically lost that. On the other hand, if Washingtonia are indeed closely related, then how come they're so much hardier. Then again, Washingtonia seem to have just enough hardiness to survive in their own habitat.

I don't mean to imply it is a dumb question; as Alex demonstrated and you confirm, similar appearance isn't always meaningful in terms of relation, i.e. they could look different and still be related. However, I disagree that "looks are so subjective". Botanists go to great pains to provide accurate, detailed descriptions of palms to distinguish one from another. For example, you note that both Brahea nitida and Pritchardia viscosa both have leaves with silvery undersides -- very true! And in a photo, maybe that gives them a similar look. But the most cursory examination of the undersides of the leaves in life (not a photo) would easily reveal the white fuzz on the Pritchardia, and no fuzz on the Brahea. Also the P. viscosa leaf is absent the relaxed leaf tips of the B. nitida (a synonym for Brahea calcarea, if you want to get picky). Those are not "subjective looks", but clear distinctions. Also the P. viscosa will have white petioles, while B. calcarea's are green. The Brahea will hold its stiff, dry, recurved retained leaf bases; you won't see that on a Pritchardia. If one is searching for a hardy alternative to the delicate P. viscosa -- yes, B. calcarea is a great choice. (Probably my favorite Brahea.) But casual observation of obvious physical characteristics, particularly in two mature specimens, will immediately distinguish the two to a vast degree.

Some of the most hot-shot palm ID people here have really keen powers of observation down to the most minute details of palm morphology, and I can only admire their skills.

Well yes, that was the basic premise to the original question, what really differs the two? When I look at the brahea, what morphology puts them all together in the same genus, because is so much variation in the genus, much more so than in prtichardia. I could easily interpret a pritchardia to be yet another vast variation in yet a different looking brahea.

In other words, if I look at the pritchardia genus, I agree that brahea doesn't fit in it, but when I look at brahea, I could easily lump the pritchardia right in it as just yet another great variation.

So I still don't have an answer. What characterizes a brahea versus a pritchardia?

BTW, the leaf retention exists in pritchardia as well: Bakers' lulou retains some older leaves much like a Washingtonia. Brahea edulis looses its leaf bases.

Fuzz doesn't distinguish them either, brahea armata has fuzz.

The relaxed leaf tips doesn't work as a differentiator either, brahea dulcis has stiff leaf tips, pritchardia remota has relaxed leaf tips.

So I am still looking for someone who can actually answer the question on exactly what characterizes a brahea and differentiates it from a pritchardia. It still seems somewhat arbitrary to me. It's not armament, it's not leaf tip morphology, it's not fuzz, it's not bare trunk versus retained leaf bases, it's not wax versus no wax, it's not even trunk size as there is a lot of variation in the brahea, and it's not costapalmate versus palmate either, as most brahea are costapalmate. All I see so far is geographical and adaptive factors. I haven't looked at the flowers and seeds, I am sure the answer lies there.

Ironically, I can actually tell the difference myself, but it's the same way I can tell the difference between a brahea armata and a brahea nitida. I guess what the question really comes down to is why is it that I can see the common links in say livistona, trachycarpus, sabals, but I can't see them in brahea? Brahea is by far the most complex genus with the most variation, the other way this discussion can go is what Alex suggested, which is that perhaps there's more than one genus in brahea.

[sarasota alex]

The details that catch my eye immediately (in addition to what Kim said about the leafbases) is the uniqueness in how leaflets are connated in most Pritchardias. The connated part forms sort of a perfect inner circle that is almost solid. Then they narrow but forming a narrow bell curve in every gap. When the leaflet tips in Brahea split in two they often point in different direction because the split is deep. In Pritchardia the split is usually, if even there at all, is barely noticeable. Pritchardia hastula is different. Also what I notice from far is the thickness of the petioles relative to leave size. Pritchardia leafs have a heavy look. Also because the leaflets are stronger on Pritchardia, the petiole points up at the base and curves nicely, whereas Braheas begin to curve at the base at a much sharper angle. Much more tomentum on most Pritchardias too.

[Stevetoad]

there's a lot more to it than "looks". it mostly comes down to the flowers. look at dypsis. dypsis utilis and dypsis paludosa look zero alike but they are both dypsis. dypsis minuta and dypsis robusta are another good example. some people think that dolphins and sharks look alike too so i wouldnt base to much on "looks" alone.

[sarasota alex]

there's a lot more to it than "looks". it mostly comes down to the flowers. look at dypsis. dypsis utilis and dypsis paludosa look zero alike but they are both dypsis. dypsis minuta and dypsis robusta are another good example. some people think that dolphins and sharks look alike too so i wouldnt base to much on "looks" alone.

Yep!

When you think about it: Raphia - a massive pinnate palm from both hemispheres, Mauritia - a massive palmate palm from South America, Mauritiella - a clustering palmate palm from South America, Lepidocaryum - a dwarf palmate palm from South America, and Oncocalamus, Eremospatha and Laccosperma - all climbing rattans from Africa - all together comprise a closely related tribe Lepidocaryeae.

[Kim]

there's a lot more to it than "looks". it mostly comes down to the flowers. look at dypsis. dypsis utilis and dypsis paludosa look zero alike but they are both dypsis. dypsis minuta and dypsis robusta are another good example. some people think that dolphins and sharks look alike too so i wouldnt base to much on "looks" alone.

Bingo! every palm in this photo is Dypsis, and the variation is amazing, from the saintelucei trio on the left, to the prestoniana, paludosa, onilahensis, canaliculata (sold as), etc. -- wow, all a single genus. Then other palms, so alike -- different genus.

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

I get it, you all make very good points. And I'll ask, what characteristics puts a palm in the dypsis genus instead of say ravena? My ravena glauca specimen remind me a lot of dypsis.

Alex, thanks for the details on the morphology. We're getting closer. But I have a feeling it will be hard to get a satisfactory answer to this question. What defines a brahea to be a brahea, especially in the light of closely related genera like prichardia and washingtonia. It's really a very technical question. The next really killer question is what defines a dypsis to be a dypsis? Time to delve into old issues of "Palms"?

I would fork out $160.00 for the book "The Structural Biology of Palms" but I'd rather spend that on more braheas! Was hoping to get an answer for free on PalmTalk.

[Stevetoad]

simple answer Flower structure.

[Kim]

Steve -- for sure. Also, as far as Dypsis vs. Ravenea, Dypsis has a crownshaft. Ravenea does not.

[bgl]

This is an evolving process and has been for the last 200 years or so. Looking at the history of palms, there have been genera that have been split up into several different genera and also many (more) genera that were combined into one. With new DNA technology (for instance) this process will certainly continue, and no way to know which genera (names) will have disappeared 10 or 20 years from now. But it WILL happen. As far as Dypsis goes - the final verdict (if there ever is one) is a LONG way from now, and I'm guessing that some of the current species in the Dypsis genus won't necessarily be called Dypsis at some point in the not too distant future.

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

simple answer Flower structure.

Yes, please, more details, what is it about the flower structure? I just have a hunch that if we dive deeper into the topic we're gonna run into the issue Alex was referring to above where Quero suggested that it was not conclusive whether Brahea should remain a single genus or get split up again into Erythea and Brahea. I am going to dig out that paper if I can find it.

Steve -- for sure. Also, as far as Dypsis vs. Ravenea, Dypsis has a crownshaft. Ravenea does not.

Do all dypsis have crownshafts? I can't come up with an example that doesn't. So that might be a very simple answer.