Brahea and pritchardia why different genera?

[bgl]

One more thought - this makes me think of a presentation by Don Hodel to Hawaii Island Palm Society quite a few years ago. After the presentation someone asked about all the name changes that are happening, and Don's answer: "this is someone's OPINION, and you can either accept it or not".

(My thought:) It's like asking different people what their definition of "family" is. Some people will include nieces and nephews and second cousins etc. etc. while to others "family" is only the ones closest to you. Same with different genera. Some are closer related to others, and some botanists will want to lump them together. But not all botanists.

Like Don said - many times it comes down to someone's opinion.

[Stevetoad]

i think the only dypsis without a crownshaft are the vonitra dypsis like crinita, utilis ect. (hairy dypsis)

[tank]

I believe Copernicia is the closest genus, genetically, to Pritchardia, with Washingtonia as the next closest. If I remember correctly, Phoenix was more closely related to Pritchardia than Brahea, based on their genetics. I know there is an article on this, Axel should track it down and let me know if I'm right. It was available on the intrawebs. I also think that Genera Palmerum has the phylogenetic relationships, although I don't have it with me to check.

[sarasota alex]

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.

If you get a hold of Genera Palmarum 2nd Edition, there is a Key to Genera of Trachycarpeae on pages 246 and 247. That would answer your questions about Brahea.

Dypsis is a different story however. No study ever concluded that what we call Dypsis is a single genus. What took place is (paraphrasing GP2 here) Dransfield and Beentje found that the delimitation of many Madagascar genera (Dypsis, Chrysalidocarpus, Vonitra, Neodypsis, Neophloga, Phloga, etc.) made no sense. Yet they didn't have enough information (no one does till this day) to correctly separate the genera, so they decided to put all of these palms into a single genus - Dypsis, until further studies can resolve the situation. Thus, a single genus Dypsis with over 150 species is a temporary placeholder, until more a study good enough to resolve it is done. So I wouldn't get too used to it.

[sarasota alex]

One more thought - this makes me think of a presentation by Don Hodel to Hawaii Island Palm Society quite a few years ago. After the presentation someone asked about all the name changes that are happening, and Don's answer: "this is someone's OPINION, and you can either accept it or not".

(My thought:) It's like asking different people what their definition of "family" is. Some people will include nieces and nephews and second cousins etc. etc. while to others "family" is only the ones closest to you. Same with different genera. Some are closer related to others, and some botanists will want to lump them together. But not all botanists.

Like Don said - many times it comes down to someone's opinion.

That is very true Bo.

I personally don't always agree with the accepted taxonomy. But when I disagree, I don't just disagree because something doesn't feel or look right, I do so because I weighed all the evidence and decided that a clade or a taxon should be treated differently. For example, I don't agree with including Polyandrococos caudescens into Allagoptera. But not because "oh look it looks nothing like an Allagoptera". I disagree because there have been studies that went both ways and in my opinion those keeping them separate are more reliable. The taxonomists who lumped them together went with another study.

[sarasota alex]

Just found out that the University of Geneva is planning to kick off a 3-5 year "Systematics, biogeography, & diversification of the New World Coryphoideae" project this month. With this hopefully later in the decade we are going to have a much better sense of the relationships behind many of the palms listed in this topic. And may even see some taxonomic surprises.

http://www.ville-ge.ch/cjb/enseignement/pdf_enseignement/assistant_doc_en.pdf

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

Just found out that the University of Geneva is planning to kick off a 3-5 year "Systematics, biogeography, & diversification of the New World Coryphoideae" project this month. With this hopefully later in the decade we are going to have a much better sense of the relationships behind many of the palms listed in this topic. And may even see some taxonomic surprises.

http://www.ville-ge.ch/cjb/enseignement/pdf_enseignement/assistant_doc_en.pdf

That would be a dream job to have if I had just graduated and still had no family. Can't wait to see some of the results. But "New World" means Americas, right? So I would assume this project would provide no coverage of Madagascar and Newcal.

[sarasota alex]

Just found out that the University of Geneva is planning to kick off a 3-5 year "Systematics, biogeography, & diversification of the New World Coryphoideae" project this month. With this hopefully later in the decade we are going to have a much better sense of the relationships behind many of the palms listed in this topic. And may even see some taxonomic surprises.

http://www.ville-ge.ch/cjb/enseignement/pdf_enseignement/assistant_doc_en.pdf

That would be a dream job to have if I had just graduated and still had no family. Can't wait to see some of the results. But "New World" means Americas, right? So I would assume this project would provide no coverage of Madagascar and Newcal.

Probably not, but there are very few Cophoid species there. Saribus jeanneneyi is the only one in New Cal. On Madagascar it's also quite simple. The following Coryphoid genera are only represented with one species - Phoenix (reclinata), Tahina, Hyphaene (coriacea), Bismarckia and Satranala. Borassus is the only genus in the subfamily that has more than one species occur on Madagascar (B. aethiopum, B. madagascariensis), but Borassus has just been revised (Bayton 2007) so it's "up-to-date".

[Mandrew968]

I believe Copernicia is the closest genus, genetically, to Pritchardia, with Washingtonia as the next closest. If I remember correctly, Phoenix was more closely related to Pritchardia than Brahea, based on their genetics. I know there is an article on this, Axel should track it down and let me know if I'm right. It was available on the intrawebs. I also think that Genera Palmerum has the phylogenetic relationships, although I don't have it with me to check.

No, I don't think that's all correct, Tank. Copernicia and Livistona are very closely related. Pritchardia and Washingtonia are closely related. I believe Brahea is closely related to Serenoa and Acoelorrhaphe. Rhapidophyllum is closely related to Rhapis(which we all knew).

[tank]

I believe Copernicia is the closest genus, genetically, to Pritchardia, with Washingtonia as the next closest. If I remember correctly, Phoenix was more closely related to Pritchardia than Brahea, based on their genetics. I know there is an article on this, Axel should track it down and let me know if I'm right. It was available on the intrawebs. I also think that Genera Palmerum has the phylogenetic relationships, although I don't have it with me to check.

No, I don't think that's all correct, Tank. Copernicia and Livistona are very closely related. Pritchardia and Washingtonia are closely related. I believe Brahea is closely related to Serenoa and Acoelorrhaphe. Rhapidophyllum is closely related to Rhapis(which we all knew).

Why?

[tank]

Therre maybe more up to date studies or maybe I'm just reading these completely wrong. Both may be true .

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/12/23

http://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/content/58/2/240.full.pdf+html

Edited November 27, 2013 by tank

[tank]

As for Brahea, they may be closer to Pritchardia than Phoenix, but I think that was more unclear than the relationship between Pritchardia, Copernicia and potentially Washingtonia.

[Phoenikakias]

I believe Copernicia is the closest genus, genetically, to Pritchardia, with Washingtonia as the next closest. If I remember correctly, Phoenix was more closely related to Pritchardia than Brahea, based on their genetics. I know there is an article on this, Axel should track it down and let me know if I'm right. It was available on the intrawebs. I also think that Genera Palmerum has the phylogenetic relationships, although I don't have it with me to check.

No, I don't think that's all correct, Tank. Copernicia and Livistona are very closely related. Pritchardia and Washingtonia are closely related. I believe Brahea is closely related to Serenoa and Acoelorrhaphe. Rhapidophyllum is closely related to Rhapis(which we all knew).

With respect to the preferences of Paysandisia archon the needle palm is also close to the european fan palm unfortunately.

[Mandrew968]

I believe Copernicia is the closest genus, genetically, to Pritchardia, with Washingtonia as the next closest. If I remember correctly, Phoenix was more closely related to Pritchardia than Brahea, based on their genetics. I know there is an article on this, Axel should track it down and let me know if I'm right. It was available on the intrawebs. I also think that Genera Palmerum has the phylogenetic relationships, although I don't have it with me to check.

No, I don't think that's all correct, Tank. Copernicia and Livistona are very closely related. Pritchardia and Washingtonia are closely related. I believe Brahea is closely related to Serenoa and Acoelorrhaphe. Rhapidophyllum is closely related to Rhapis(which we all knew).

Why?

I don't know why I do know it's in my head and it's in there for good reason, or so the reasoning portion inside there, thinks so...

As for Copernicia and Livistona, look at how similar alba/prunifera is to the dwarf fan palm, Livistona muelleri. I was researching Brahea just before I got a nitida, this year and remember reading about its closest relatives.

Sabal, Phoenix, Nypa and Pseudophoenix seem to be all by themselves IMO.

[Mauna Kea Cloudforest]

I think Tank's reference pretty much answers my original questions, thanks for sharing.

The graph below pulled from the second reference: http://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/content/58/2/240.full.pdf+html

Here's a close up of brahea-pritchardia and company: it shows brahea, serenoa and the everglade palm to be really closely related, in terms of genetics they could be in the same genera. But it also shows more distance between brahea and pritchardia. I am surprised to see washingtonia, copernicia and pritchardia to be closely related, but in terms of their adaptation, it actually makes sense, they're both genera that thrive in tropical conditions. Again, they're so close they could be in the same genera.

Note that livistona, brahea and copernicia are much more distant.

This does suggest some pretty cool hybrids: copernicia with washingtonia could produce some interesting hybrids that could better tolerate mediterranean conditions. One could presumably consider a silver washingtonia via w. robusta x c. hospita. Another cool thing to try would be to cross an everglades palm with brahea armata for a silver-blue everglades palm.

[DoomsDave]

All jokes aside, this is a really profound question and the Dypsis situation shows it clearly.

In Dypsis you have an incredibly diverse group of palms which, I think are quite obviously much more different (at least among the subgroups) than Pritchardia and Brahea are between them.

[Phoenikakias]

Bump (again)! It has recently attracted my attention, after having read this thread, the fact that fresh tomentum on petioles of my Pritchardia hillebrandii forms virtual spines, which disintegrate of course with wind and age. Could this be an evidence that the genetical ancestor of Pritchardia was equiped with thorns on petioles?

[Alberto]

Very interesting thread. Thanks!