Popular Palm Postcard- Accurate Representations?

[Matthew92]

I've seen this Postcard in various stores and shops throughout the Southeast US. Attractive drawings, but I don't think the illustrations give the most accurate representations for each species. Would like to see everyone's thoughts on what should be different.

 

[kinzyjr]

Very nice postcard overall.  Where did you see them?

I noticed that the trunks were pretty straight on some species that tend to lean (coconut esp.) and that some of the date palms (Medjool palm and Canary Island) were way overtrimmed.  It would have been great to have the botanical names for them as well.

[aztropic]

Very good postcard! A lot of information in such a small space.They also have a similar card for cacti here in the desert southwest.

 

aztropic

Mesa,Arizona

[Jubaea_James760]

There's a few things off but honestly it would be neat picking.  Very nice post card though!

[aztropic]

I especially like their depiction of the Mexican fan palm.Looks taller than even the ancient ones growing in California.

 

aztropic

Mesa,Arizona

[PalmTreeDude]

The Saw Palmetto looks to much like a clump of Mediterranean Fan Palms in my opinion. 

[Matthew92]

Yes- it is nice overall and I do like it- although I can't resist critiquing the representation. @kinzyjr I think I've seen it at various bookstores (Barnes and Noble? Books a Million?) and tourist shops.

Just to name a few discrepancies...

Yes @aztropicThe representation of the Mexican Fan Palm is a VERY extreme example and there are very few like this in FL especially.

With the Saw Palmetto, I don't know what the thinking was there having a multi-trunked/branched tree that looks to be about 10+ feet tall!? Even the few vertical trunking saw palmetto I've seen don't look anything like that. Correct representation should be the normal non-trunking form.

Sabal palmetto looks more like a Brahea. Needle palm is quite odd with that trunk and overpruned crown. California fan palm (Washingtonia filifera) trunk is way too thin and the canopy looks more like a Trachycarpus. Also don't understand why they picked a W. filifera to be on the postcard since a pure specimen is quite rare in FL.

Mediterranean fan palm represented is quite atypical without multiple trunks and the Phoenix roebelenni looks way too large. Even though they had to shrink some of the palms on there to fit, it is confusing how they magnified some like the Phoeniex roebelenni and Mediterranean fan palm and shrunk others like royal and medjool date palm- which could be confusing to non-palm people.

Edited August 28, 2018 by Opal92

[NC_Palms]

I have that postcard. After thinking about it, I have no idea where I put it. 

[NC_Palms]

4 hours ago, Opal92 said:

Also don't understand why they picked a W. filifera to be on the postcard since a pure specimen is quite rare in FL.

 

In the South I have noticed that the biggest pure (maybe) specimens of washingtonia filifera exist outside of Florida, in the Carolinas and Georgia.

[Tracy]

So the biggest glaring error is including a non-palm species.  What is a Cycad doing on this list?  Queen Sago Palm????  Why not include some actual native cycads, Zamia pumila or Z integrifolia if one is diving into cycads on a palm listing?  Perpetuating nonsense.  Sorry, this is just a pet peeve of mine when people refer to cycads as palms.

[bubba]

I have noticed some thick Washingtonia filifera in north Florida and they are a very impressive palm. I have no idea why I have never seen one in south Florida. I agree with NC Palms that filifera seems to be much more prevalent in Carolina’s (saw very impressive specimen in Charleston). I know they are more cold tolerant than robusta but that should not limit their use in south Florida. Great palm that should be used. Trunk is like a Royal and it’s lack of use is hard to understand.

[BS Man about Palms]

My personal thought is nature is taking out tall Washingtonias in South Florida and the like via lightning. A very rare occurrence in the southwest actually.  And I concur with Tracy on the "Sago" palm as such.. 

[JubaeaMan138]

Agree on the sago but it does say palms and Cycads. And cycas revoluta is sooooo common out here it is almost native haha . I think just about every other house in my city has one not sure about all the other states 

[Manalto]

I don't mind so much that sagos are so common here on the Gulf Coast of Alabama, it's the way they're maintained (not) and positioned that makes them poke you in the eye. And that hurts!

I like the postcard but if I were to take issue with it my complaint would be the title. "Palms and cycads of the American Southeast" suggests to me that all the species included on the card are natives. Just a preposition change "Palms and Cycads for the American Southeast" or "Palms and Cycads for the Southeast U.S." would clear that up, wouldn't it?

Edited August 29, 2018 by Manalto

[Tracy]

2 hours ago, JubaeaMan138 said:

it does say palms and Cycads

You are right it does include "Cycads", but which I missed because it was smaller print.  I still will take offense that they use the plural with only one Cycad, and still only including a "Queen Sago".  I believe that "Queen Sago" actually refers to Cycas Rumphii complex Cycas circinalis and sometimes Cycas thouarsii.  I have heard the more common Cycas reloluta referred to as "King Sago Palm" or more often just "Sago Palm", but never "Queen Sago".  Again, it would be appropriate as mentioned before to include some natives if you are listing any Cycads.

[JubaeaMan138]

Very true . The other common at least almost as common as cycas revoluta is Zamia furfuracea  

[Manalto]

...and Z. pumila - a Florida native.

Edited August 29, 2018 by Manalto