Hi all,

I've been lurking here for a while enjoying the posts but now I've got a question I thought I should probably get involved.

I need some help identifying this Phoenix, I'm looking at buying 3 of these but I just wanted to confirm it is a P. rupicola and not a hybrid. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Also if anyone in Australia has any leads on 3m+ trunked P. rupicola please let me know. This is currently the largest I've been able to find.

The spines on this are up to a max of 50mm (2").

Nice looking Phoenix. As you know they freely hybridize. Doesn't look like sylvestris or canary the two most commonly encountered....from process of elimination, I would say you got rupicola's there. But not so confident that I might be wrong...not so familiar with rupicola. Welcome to PT

Trunk is too fat, looks like a hybrid to me.

Sure looks like one to me. A nice field-grown specimen. But the reality is it is almost impossible to say for sure it is 100% Rupicola with how easy they hybridize and how common the other Phoenix are.

Those trunks look mighty fat for rupicola. P. rupicola typically have very slender trunks and softer leaflets than other large Phoenix species.

Trunk is too many fat, most likely hypothesis is rupicola x canariensis

Rupicola can get fat when well grown. Has anyone seen the one at Baboa Park?

agree with hybrid.

All field grown P. rupicola that I've seen here in Australia are almost this fat, you can see it is planted next to some more which are slightly skinnier - its the reason I asked the question, the trunk just seems way too fat. Perhaps all P. rupicola grown here are actually a hybrid, they all appear to have the same fat trunk no matter where I get pictures from.

That said, for my climate its a very pretty palm hybrid or not, just wish it had another 2-3ft of trunk.

Here is another from a different supplier, also with fat trunk - I've got 5 different farms to send me photos now, all look the same:

Edited September 18, 201411 yr by sleazius

I am in agreement about the trunk, also the crown of leaves to me has a definite canariensis feel (but with the rupicola glossy single-plane appearance). Here's a link to a Gibbons & Spanner photo of P. rupicola in habitat...which would seem to confirm there is a big difference.

I am in agreement about the trunk, also the crown of leaves to me has a definite canariensis feel (but with the rupicola glossy single-plane appearance). Here's a link to a Gibbons & Spanner photo of P. rupicola in habitat...which would seem to confirm there is a big difference.

OK, first my disclaimer as all who have met me are aware of. I am the worst palm identifier on the planet. But the one thing I want to note is that a palm in habitat vs a field grown, in well prepared soil, and constantly watered and fertilized palm may result in significant differences in appearance.

do the leaf bases fall off eventually? could the trunk slim up a bit after that happens giving it the more typical slender look?

I am in agreement about the trunk, also the crown of leaves to me has a definite canariensis feel (but with the rupicola glossy single-plane appearance). Here's a link to a Gibbons & Spanner photo of P. rupicola in habitat...which would seem to confirm there is a big difference.

OK, first my disclaimer as all who have met me are aware of. I am the worst palm identifier on the planet. But the one thing I want to note is that a palm in habitat vs a field grown, in well prepared soil, and constantly watered and fertilized palm may result in significant differences in appearance.

True, but the trunk wouldn't suddenly be 2-3x the thickness. I have 5 rupicola in my garden, they're all used in the landscape with the expectation the trunk would be narrow. None of mine are trunking since I started from seed, but I've got a landscaping issue if mine turn out looking like canary date palms. I've placed them in my landscape assuming I will end up with a slightly bigger than king palm size phoenix.

I am in agreement about the trunk, also the crown of leaves to me has a definite canariensis feel (but with the rupicola glossy single-plane appearance). Here's a link to a Gibbons & Spanner photo of P. rupicola in habitat...which would seem to confirm there is a big difference.

OK, first my disclaimer as all who have met me are aware of. I am the worst palm identifier on the planet. But the one thing I want to note is that a palm in habitat vs a field grown, in well prepared soil, and constantly watered and fertilized palm may result in significant differences in appearance.

True, but the trunk wouldn't suddenly be 2-3x the thickness. I have 5 rupicola in my garden, they're all used in the landscape with the expectation the trunk would be narrow. None of mine are trunking since I started from seed, but I've got a landscaping issue if mine turn out looking like canary date palms. I've placed them in my landscape assuming I will end up with a slightly bigger than king palm size phoenix.

Axel, they are overall bigger palms than a King. I have seen quite a few (which I assume are pure rupicola) and they are not skinny palms unless poorly grown.

"Sleazius", maybe ask where the seed came from. If it came from some local tree, hybrid is great possibility. If it was purchased from India by RarePalmSeeds or similar, I would say it is pure.

People can Google Rupicola to see it can get good sized trunks.

Len, the rupicola at Balboa Park are all over the net, that doesn't really help, because that could very well be a hybrid. I've always thought rupicola to have thinner trunks, maybe not as dainty as a king palm but certainly not as robust as a canary date palm.

I have not seen them in habitat, but the photos from habitat suggest that the bigger trunked versions are actually hybrids. However, the waters are muddied further given that there is supposed to be a lot of rupicola x roebelenii hybrids out there.

I would not be interested in growing rupicola if they looked like the ones shown above, that looks like a canary date palm with a slightly finer leaf.

Trunk is too many fat, most likely hypothesis is rupicola x canariensis

I also thimk this are hybrids of P. rupicola x canariensis

Axel, the photo above shows a trunk much smaller than CIDP. It looks about the size (or skinnier) of a Sylvestris. This thing looks field grown from the start so it would be much larger than pot grown or anything found in the wild.

The one at Balboa very well could be a hybrid. But when you start down a slippery slope of labeling everything you see as a hybrid because it looks different in the wild or how it is grown in your yard, than why even worry about nomenclature at all? Now I wouldn't put a wager on the original plant above being pure, it was just my gut observation. But I also do not see any tell-tale signs one can identify that say with certainly it is a hybrid over pure Rupicola either. So if I were buying it, I would plant it in my yard labeled as was sold. But thats just me.

Looks like a hybrid to me.

The rupies I've seen have light green, almost golden green leaves. I suppose they can get fat if watered and fed a lot, but they seem to be a much skinnier palm than CIDP.

Sleazius' plants appear to be too dark green, though they definitely have rupie characteristics, too, like the flatter floppier leaves viz a viz CIDP.

Hybrids don't all look the same. Almost 30 years ago, in the Garden Shop of Doom, we got in about 30 of what we thought were Rupies. We pushed them to people who liked CIDP, but thought they got too big.

One of our customers bought 5 and they all looked a bit different, though they were all about the same size, smaller than a CIDP by about two-fifths or half. The guy was happy with them, but wondered why they looked so different from each other and the official rupie description. One was almost golden green with near-plumose leaves, while another was darker with "flatter" leaves. Most developed a lean over time, while CIDP is ramrod straight.

They were much more tender to the cold than pure CIDPs; they browned badly after a 25 degree freeze, while CIDP yards away didn't seem to be touched.

Rupicola can get fat when well grown. Has anyone seen the one at Baboa Park?

How about a picture?

Axel, the photo above shows a trunk much smaller than CIDP. It looks about the size (or skinnier) of a Sylvestris. This thing looks field grown from the start so it would be much larger than pot grown or anything found in the wild.

The one at Balboa very well could be a hybrid. But when you start down a slippery slope of labeling everything you see as a hybrid because it looks different in the wild or how it is grown in your yard, than why even worry about nomenclature at all? Now I wouldn't put a wager on the original plant above being pure, it was just my gut observation. But I also do not see any tell-tale signs one can identify that say with certainly it is a hybrid over pure Rupicola either. So if I were buying it, I would plant it in my yard labeled as was sold. But thats just me.

Len, you may be right about the ID, but all I am saying is that I value the look of the thin trunk and the dainty, light and wispy crown on a rupicola. Getting one that has a fat trunk like the ones above would not be my first landscape choice when it comes to rupicola even if it really was a pure rupicola. I planted mine with the idea in mind that the trunks would be the size of a reclinata or slightly larger but without any suckering.

As for the exact ID, I am not attached to my opinion, I don't care if it's a rupicola or not, all I care is that I prefer the thinner trunked, more tropical looking version of rupicola. I would simply add that looking at the rest of the comments in the thread. For most of us who are intimate with rupicola because we grow them, the palms in question shown above look like a hybrid rather than a pure rupicola. I can only offer my opinion on the matter, there's really no point arguing about it because unless someone does any sort of genetic testing, we're not going to know what it really is.

The specimens from the Huntington are cultivated specimens and show the same form as the ones in habitat: this is the form that I prefer and it's the form I have chosen.

PalmPedia has a lot of photos, and there the Balboa Park rupicola also sticks out as being rather large trunked compared to the other ones. http://www.palmpedia.net/wiki/Phoenix_rupicola.%C2'>

Bottom line: my answer for Leigh would be: if this is a palm you like the looks of, then buy it and grow it. But be aware of the fact that there are forms of rupicola (hybrid or not) that have thinner trunks and IMHO look better.

Here is the rupicola from Balboa Park (Courtesy Geoff Stein), it's nice but too big and massive for me to use in my landscape. I have mine growing on steep parts of my property where they should look like Cliff Date palms in habitat.

Rupicola can get fat when well grown. Has anyone seen the one at Baboa Park?

How about a picture?

Axel posted one. Google is your friend here too.

Rupicola can get fat when well grown. Has anyone seen the one at Baboa Park?

How about a picture?

Axel posted one. Google is your friend here too.

Yeah, I'm not as computer letterate as I need to be

Axel, I have stood next to that Huntington plant. It is not skinny (well I guess that is relative to what we each think). There is nothing "dainty" about it. It is a good sized plant. The only reason I tell you this is because I don't want you growing these things thinking they turn into a slightly larger Roebelenii . They are much closer in size to Sylvestris when grown well.

I use to have a bunch of Phoenix when I first started out because you could buy them big. I had 5 large CIDPs (three dead now from FW), I had a larger trunking Reclinita (chopped down because it is a big, thorny mess), I had a Dactylifera x Reclinita (given to Matt in Temecula), I had a really nice Sylvestris (given to Matt in Temecula) and I had what was sold as a Rupicola with 3 feet of trunk (replaced with greenhouse). All those palms need some room.

------

Dave, aren't you the webmaster of the PSSC?

Axel, I have stood next to that Huntington plant. It is not skinny (well I guess that is relative to what we each think). There is nothing "dainty" about it. It is a good sized plant.

Dave, aren't you the webmaster of the PSSC?

Which one? They have several specimens. Maybe it's a phenomenon similar to parajubaea where it looks fat when short but the ratio improves over time.

Here are some of mine. As you can see, I tend to plant palms on top of each other, but you can see the shape of my rupicola. This one is going to have to fight it out with the bizzie. The second one (crappy focus thanks to the vastly inferior Galaxy S3 crappy phone) is fighting it out with my tree ferns. The third one is so deep in the jungle that I probably won't be able to enjoy it until it emerges above the canopy of the mess it's growing in, and it's not photographable.

Those are nice Axel. But they are just babies. They will get much larger. I had to chuckle seeing one planted right next to a Bizzie The good news is you can move a Rupicola.

Those are nice Axel. But they are just babies. They will get much larger. I had to chuck seeing one planted right next to a Bizzie The good news is you can move a Rupicola.

Yes, don't ask me what I was thinking. What's worse is that there is an ice cream bean (Inga) that decided to germinate right in between the two, and I didn't pull it on time.

Edit: I remember now, the inga is a naturalized USDA 10b indicator, so I let them grow to see how mild the spot is.

So I've now seen 8 different field grown photos, they all look very similar to the ones I've already posted. The original photo I posted is definitely the fattest though.

To muddy the waters further there is an example in Sydney at 20ft height or so that looks half way between what I've posted, and the wild form and has been formally identified, definitely thinner trunk, but nowhere near as thin as the wild form (probably double that, like the one posted in Balboa Park - unfortunately I don't have a photo).

The reason I originally asked the question about them being a hybrid is the location that they're to be planted in I don't really want a 50ft+ behmoth in 20 years time, especially when I've got 3 of them going in. P. canariensis is the predominate landscape palm in Sydney, but even if I could live with the behemoth size, Fusarium Wilt has recently started spreading like wildfire so I'm looking for alternatives, the problem I've got is that noone seems to have bothered to cultivate much of anything else over the last 30 years, and I need advanced palms.

I really want the right palm for this, cause once they're in, they aren't coming out (unless they die). Never mind the cost, 2 of them will be sitting in planters in the middle of a pool, so its not like I can just swap something in and out at leisure!

If you're in Sydney, there's a heck of a lot of palms that grow there, why choose rupicola? Put some chambeyronia in the middle of your pool.

I'm in far western Sydney, totally different climate (65km inland). I'm in a rainshadow (500mm (20 inches) less rainfall annually), and average 10C hotter in summer, and 10C cooler in winter, frosts to -1.5C. The site is also almost constantly windy and experiences wind gusts past 50km / hr weekly, and sits in full sun which 2 years ago reached 45C (113F+) or over 6 days in a row with relative humidity in the afternoons under 30% the whole time - almost everything in the garden with a leaf defoliated after this event. It is also a very formal garden over all, tropical looking palms are out. There is also a scale issue, I need palms with a minimum 3m of trunk because of view issues and scale, but ideally 5m would be better. Everything combined cuts my choices considerably.

There is also the fact that although there is little love for Phoenix around these parts, I prefer them over everything else that could survive the position, which in my micro-climate is actually a pretty short list.

Beautiful looking palm...

Thanks for the visuals.

Love,

kris.

I think they are probably full blooded Phoenix Rupicolas. When they are young, the key to IDing them is not the width of the trunk but the leaves.

Rupicola leaves have a very bright, light green color, which is easily distinguishable from any other phoenix palms, the leaves also align on a single plain instead of at angles, which no other phoenix palm species does. Even the Canary palm leaves are aligned at slight angles when you get close up to one.

The young Rupicolas have a trunk diameter of about 13 inches.

I will try to upload a pic of mine later today.

Another way to ID is that even the newest fronds that come out of the top tend to arch, whereas other pheonix species, the new leaves tend to reach straight up (even Canaries)

Here is a picture of mine:

And here are a few pics I took at nurseries when I was shopping around:

I would say go for it. I think those are pure rupicolas, but even if they are hybrids they are still beautiful and definitely not as big as a canary or dactiferya.

Hope my pics were helpful, can you pots pics of the older ones you saw growing wild in Sydney? I would love to see those.

Another way to ID is that even the newest fronds that come out of the top tend to arch, whereas other pheonix species, the new leaves tend to reach straight up (even Canaries)

Here is a picture of mine:

I would say go for it. I think those are pure rupicolas, but even if they are hybrids they are still beautiful and definitely not as big as a canary or dactiferya.

Hope my pics were helpful, can you pots pics of the older ones you saw growing wild in Sydney? I would love to see those.

Thanks for this, seems there is quite a bit of variation - thanks for the photos too, yours looks fantastic!

Here is one that is growing in a park in the centre of Sydney that looks more like the wild form, not my photo:

Wow, I am starting to worry. I put in three Rupicolas, and plan on putting in two more soon. I was not anticipating them looking so chunky. Anybody else have any pictures of that are mature? I was hoping to have a smaller, thinner, softer version of CIDP, sorta in line with my vision of "pet palms". How much thinner will those trees look if the leaf bases are trimmed off? What's wrong with this picture, here I am on vacation in Moena, Italy and reading and learning on PalmTalk. Are we crazy or what? No palms to post about in the Dolomites.

All of the field grown ones down here (that I've seen) look like the ones I posted and GMann posted. You can see that really fat one that I posted originally spurred a lot of debate as to whether it was a hybrid or not. I'm still debating it. If it wasn't 1200km (730miles) away from me I'd go take a look at it

You can see with GMann's personal rupicola that it is starting to taper out, so once those leaf bases fall away it is probably going to end up being a slender palm, albeit with a fat base. You can see in my original image the rupicola planted behind the big one look like they are tapering off, its just that one in the front which is SUPER fat. The grower also said that most of the others have a lean, which this big specimen does not.

If you look for images online, the ones that are really looked after end up pretty fat, for reference look at the one in post #20, Balboa Park.

Regardless the prototypical P. rupicola is a slender graceful looking palm, not fat and chunky so you should be fine. See my previous post, that specimen is at least 60-70 years old, but could be older.

My phoenix rupicola have much thinner trunks, I remain of the hypothesis that it is a rupicola x canariensis hybrid

I just had delivery of Phoenix rupicola seeds (probably from an Indian source?) I ordered (via a fellow PalmTalker) from RPS. I'm trying to maximize the chances that these will be unhybridized, unlike some seeds from USA sources. Time will tell...

5 minutes ago, Hillizard said:

I just had delivery of Phoenix rupicola seeds (probably from an Indian source?) I ordered (via a fellow PalmTalker) from RPS. I'm trying to maximize the chances that these will be unhybridized, unlike some seeds from USA sources. Time will tell...

If I knew you bought them, I would have sent them to you for free.

They are beautiful. I only have two *Rupicola* from RPS. They are purebred. I hope to see them grow up healthy.