I have a few straight W. robusta in the garden, and a few more W. x filibusta. I only have one that was labeled W. filifera. I have often suspected it was not pure if for no other reason that it has not died yet. It is far slower growing than the other Ws. As you can see those petioles are pretty darn green with just the ever so slightest brown freckles in a a tiny streak on some of them. Since I have never seen a pure filifera up close, I have no clue.

So, how much fili and how much busta, you tell me?

That's 100% not a filifera, filifera is unarmed. Looks like a regular robusta to me. Looks like zero filifera in it.

That's 100% not a filifera, filifera is unarmed. Looks like a regular robusta to me. Looks like zero filifera in it.

Axel, Every filifera I've ever seen has had armed petioles except some very young ones. I double checked two of my neighbor's old filifera and they are armed.

That's 100% not a filifera, filifera is unarmed. Looks like a regular robusta to me. Looks like zero filifera in it.

Axel, Every filifera I've ever seen has had armed petioles except some very young ones. I double checked two of my neighbor's old filifera and they are armed.

Jim, then you've never seen real filifera. I don't know why this topic comes up again and again, but apparently this seems to be a concept that is difficult to grasp because there are so many washingtonia hybrids around. Filifera has virtually unarmed petioles. See references below for un-mistakable scientific proof from published descriptions. I spend a lot of time in Riverside where a lot of true filifera grow, and they don't have any armament on the petioles. I've seen this again and again. The petioles look almost like those of a sabal, and the leaf color is actually slightly glaucous green, not pure green. I've been to the Riverside Mission Inn and looked directly at the petioles of the filifera on a 20 feet tall specimen there 5 feet away by standing on one of the upper terraces of the hotel, and it's unmistakable, filifera are practically completely unarmed.

Whatever you have looked at with thorns including your neighbor's palm is a filibusta.

If you don't believe me, then take a look at http://www.floridata.com/ref/W/wash_fil.cfm. There is also a more detailed discussion of this and the evolutionary aspects in: Spineless Petioles in Washingtonia filifera (Arecaceae)

by James W. Cornett, Madroñon (California Botanical Society) Vol. 33, No. 1 (JANUARY 1986), pp. 76-78

Published by: California Botanical Society (http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/41424566?uid=3739560&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103980516191).

The ones ive grown from seed, have thorns. The seed was from RPS.

The trees I see around here have thorns and look pure filifera, From the size of the trunk. And many of them are over 100 years old and most likely pure.

Im going to guess that there is different forms, From different colonies of trees.

It says " The petioles (leaf stems) of mature palms are armed along the margins with curved thorns; those of young palms are largely unarmed." That's from the floridata link you posted. And its what I read from other searches. What they mean by young plants is most likely very young, Like the first 2-3 years. Then they get thorns.

I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but IPS is notorious for seed that isn't what it claims to be. I've got quite a few RPS grown palms that turn out to be something different than what was advertised.

True filifera are rare and pure seed is extremely difficult to obtain. You have to go to the filifera habitat to get pure filifera. That's because all of the filifera in cultivation are surrounded by robusta.

So, to set the record straight, here are pure old filifera growing in Riverside. The crown is clearly visible close up from the upper decks of the Mission Inn. These are over 100 years old, it's the third deck so more like 50 feet, not 20 feet. These are textbook pure beautiful filifera palms, the purest you will find anywhere. You be the judge of how many thorns are on those petioles. I felt compelled to take these photos last Spring because I was simply stunned by those petioles. I had never gotten to look at a filifera crown up close.

i've seen W.filifera in habitat a bunch of times. they have thorns but they are very small and green. looks like a sabal petiole with tiny teeth.

i've seen W.filifera in habitat a bunch of times. they have thorns but they are very small and green. looks like a sabal petiole with tiny teeth.

Exactly! The ones at the Mission Inn reminded me of a sabal petioles.

I have a few straight W. robusta in the garden, and a few more W. x filibusta. I only have one that was labeled W. filifera. I have often suspected it was not pure if for no other reason that it has not died yet. It is far slower growing than the other Ws. As you can see those petioles are pretty darn green with just the ever so slightest brown freckles in a a tiny streak on some of them. Since I have never seen a pure filifera up close, I have no clue.

So, how much fili and how much busta, you tell me?

Are you sure that you have Filibusta?

Real filibusta hybrids are very rare. Many of these Filibustas are actually different forms of pure Robusta. Before the revision of taxonomy, there were few different Washingtonia species. Most of these species are moved, merged with Robusta, after revision.

In the wild there is many different forms of Robusta. Some look like ''Filibusta''.

Cikas, what you say isn't verifiable in any source I know of. There used to be only one single Washingtonia identified and it was lumped first into pritchardia and then into brahea. Robusta was thought to be a variation of filifera, it was called washingtonia filifera var sonorae, and then became washingtonia filifera var robusta.

Washingtonia filibusta is perhaps one of the most common palms grown in California. Many palms that look like filifera are actually filifera x robusta, i.e. seed was collected from a filifera with the intention of growing the hardier fat trunked version but the filifera was within 3 miles of a robusta and thus is usually a cross. The central Valley is full of such palms, there the filifera was in higher demand because it's hardier. many of the trees there aren't old, but look old because filibusta is much faster than true filifera and will also grow taller.

For some history of the taxonomy, see Flora of North America, page 106.

Cikas, what you say isn't verifiable in any source I know of. There used to be only one single Washingtonia identified and it was lumped first into pritchardia and then into brahea. Robusta was thought to be a variation of filifera, it was called washingtonia filifera var sonorae, and then became washingtonia filifera var robusta.

Washingtonia filibusta is perhaps one of the most common palms grown in California. Many palms that look like filifera are actually filifera x robusta, i.e. seed was collected from a filifera with the intention of growing the hardier fat trunked version but the filifera was within 3 miles of a robusta and thus is usually a cross. The central Valley is full of such palms, there the filifera was in higher demand because it's hardier. many of the trees there aren't old, but look old because filibusta is much faster than true filifera and will also grow taller.

For some history of the taxonomy, see Flora of North America, page 106.

Nope.

There were few species according to S.Watson. For him Washingtonia sonorae was separate specie. And Washingtonia sonorae was separate specie in taxonomy before Bailey changed that, and merged Washingtonia sonorae with Robusta.

richtrav has explained that better in this topic.

http://www.palmtalk.org/forum/index.php?/topic/42412-its-official-filibusta-is-named-and-a-type-specimen-selected/

Wild Robustas from Sonora, are actually different form of Robusta, they are what people perceive as filibusta.

They're robusta, before Bailey visited the site (Nacapule Canyon) they were known as W. sonorae - and he didn't hesitate to throw them in with robusta. Remember there were 4 or 5 species of Washingtonia before Bailey got ahold of them. He noticed small unreliable traits that were variable in the genus, but found that the filifera group and robusta group had certain tendencies and virtually always a distinct hastula, with the bright green, glossy, tall thin robustas having short hastulas and the northern dull green, fat, massive filifera possessing much longer hastulas. Unfortunately Hodel left this out in his key. Most hybrids (assuming that's what they are) tend to favor robusta's shorter hastula. The genetics is long from settled, I'd be surprised if there aren't intermediate genetic forms in the wild even if they do favor one parent more than the other.

The Sonoran form is towards the northern end of robusta and I believe farther south than any filifera, so it should be no surprise to see something there which is intermediate/favoring robusta. Bailey mentioned he did not see trees which he considered hybrids; it's not a stretch to think he was so convinced by his hastula test that he dismissed other signs of intergrading. The benefit of the doubt has to go to him, I believe he looked at more Washingtonia in the wild than anyone and he surely saw some robusta that had filifera-like traits and vice versa so he wanted something consistent. Cultivated plants in the early 20th century probably came from either the Palm Springs area (filifera) or southern Baja (robusta), which seem to represent the two most extreme forms within the genus. F1 hybrids were probably rare in cultivation back then or one parent dominated enough that the plant in question fit inside of the parameters of what Bailey had seen in the wild.

Incidentally this is not the first published article recognizing an intermediate form of Washingtonia; one was published way back in the 1970s in an obscure Japanese journal, though I don't believe they gave their described form an official name (it's been probably 20-24 years since I've seen the article, memory is a little fuzzy).

Edited July 14, 201411 yr by Cikas

So, the title is how much fili and how must busta. I stated this thread stating the palm was labeled 'filifera' and then clearly stated it was not because of not one, but two reasons. Either way that was not the point. Assuming it was a hybrid, this was to be a fun guessing game of how much of each. It had to be fun, because short of a DNA test there would be no way to know for sure. And by the way 0% fili, 100% busta would have been a perfectly fine answer if you so chose, because it really doesn't matter in the end.

Relax. Enjoy. Just take a guess where no one is keeping score.

Seems to me the only point of contention is the possible existence of a third species, "washingtonia sonorae" which people confuse for filibusta. So far I've only heard that from Richard. Could be, but then could also be that in the Sonora, there are intermediate hybrids between pure filifera and pure robusta (once known as "gacilis"). It's an interesting question either way that can only be answered accurately with genetics.

Getting back to Keith's question, without seeing the rest of the palm, can't tell, but the thorns make me vote 100% robusta.

82.436% robusta, 17.564% filifera

82.436% robusta, 17.564% filifera

My kind of answer.

And my the batch of seeds from my last Cali trip are up. Half came from under what was clearly a robusta, and the other half from under what looked far more filifera like. They were planted side by side, so I assume all the be some mix of filibusta. Tough little buggers, too. They went through weeks of torrential rains in really crappy compacted compot soil, and when I separated out these 8 today, I accidentally left them in full sun all day. They didn't miss a beat, even the one that lost half of the roots.

If a totally healthy presumed filibusta takes about 7 years more than Brahea armata of same age to bloom for the first time, is it really a filibusta or rather a filifera?

Edited June 7, 201511 yr by Phoenikakias

82.436% robusta, 17.564% filifera

My kind of answer.

And my the batch of seeds from my last Cali trip are up. Half came from under what was clearly a robusta, and the other half from under what looked far more filifera like. They were planted side by side, so I assume all the be some mix of filibusta. Tough little buggers, too. They went through weeks of torrential rains in really crappy compacted compot soil, and when I separated out these 8 today, I accidentally left them in full sun all day. They didn't miss a beat, even the one that lost half of the roots.

All seedlings grown from seeds collected from a seemingly true filifera rotted freely because of to high humidity.

Very interesting information Jurica, most helpful

My W. robusta's are from Sonora collected seeds and are extra thick for robusta. The leafs are very big as well, upwards of 3m long in one of mine. And they have intensely red/brown colored leaf and petiole bases

I collected some seed from some obviously pure W. filifera at the Fairmont Princess Scottsdale that have clearly turned out to be filibusta. But no worries, good looking palms. I like the massive trunks of the filifera, but I suspect they would rot.

On 7/14/2014, 3:12:56, _Keith said:

So, the title is how much fili and how must busta. I stated this thread stating the palm was labeled 'filifera' and then clearly stated it was not because of not one, but two reasons. Either way that was not the point. Assuming it was a hybrid, this was to be a fun guessing game of how much of each. It had to be fun, because short of a DNA test there would be no way to know for sure. And by the way 0% fili, 100% busta would have been a perfectly fine answer if you so chose, because it really doesn't matter in the end.

 

Relax. Enjoy. Just take a guess where no one is keeping score.

Pass that paper bag that holds the bottle . . . .

Feel the wheels

rumbling 'neath the floor.

On 7/14/2014, 3:12:56, _Keith said:

So, the title is how much fili and how must busta. I stated this thread stating the palm was labeled 'filifera' and then clearly stated it was not because of not one, but two reasons. Either way that was not the point. Assuming it was a hybrid, this was to be a fun guessing game of how much of each. It had to be fun, because short of a DNA test there would be no way to know for sure. And by the way 0% fili, 100% busta would have been a perfectly fine answer if you so chose, because it really doesn't matter in the end.

 

Relax. Enjoy. Just take a guess where no one is keeping score.

Pass that paper bag that holds the bottle . . . .

Feel the wheels

rumbling 'neath the floor.