Dypsis lanceolata question

[Darold Petty]

I purchased two plants of this species, a  5 gallon and a 7 gallon size, from a San Diego county vendor.  One has a fuzzy petiole and the other a smooth petiole.  The vendor acknowledged that his seed source may have been contaminated by hybridization with D. lutescens.

So, which one is the true species?   Thanks, and please post images of your true D. lanceolata.

Technical difficulties with image upload of the two petioles, I get error message   -200, even thought I downsized the images, perhaps later, thanks.   (can anyone explain this error message ?

I use a Canon point & shoot pocket camera,  I  downloaded the two images from the camera into a separate, second file, but I still get the  "-200" error message.  

[Tracy]

1 hour ago, Darold Petty said:

I purchased two plants of this species, a  5 gallon and a 7 gallon size, from a San Diego county vendor.  One has a fuzzy petiole and the other a smooth petiole.  The vendor acknowledged that his seed source may have been contaminated by hybridization with D. lutescens.

So, which one is the true species?   Thanks, and please post images of your true D. lanceolata.

Technical difficulties with image upload of the two petioles, I get error message   -200, even thought I downsized the images, perhaps later, thanks.   (can anyone explain this error message ?

I use a Canon point & shoot pocket camera,  I  downloaded the two images from the camera into a separate, second file, but I still get the  "-200" error message.  

I have a couple of Dypsis lanceolata.  The first and last pictures are of the plant I think of as the standard, with the dark green ringed trunk and classic leaf form.  The middle photos are of a variant that I know some others in my area are growing.  The variant form has a white chalky powder over the green on the trunk, narrower width trunks, a lighter shade of brown tomentum on the crownshaft near the emerging spear and opens with a colorful new leaf as opposed to the standard green the other form has.

On the other issue, sometimes I get that message if I neglect to downsize photos sufficiently.  I shoot with Canon DSLR bodies (5DS, 1DX MkIII) with full frame sensors in RAW format so already am converting to JPEGS for use here.  Even when I do that the photos still don't load clearly, but I'm able to upload them.  It is almost as though it is just uploading a thumbnail as opposed to the full file.  So maybe try downsizing your files to get them to upload. 

[-2 brian]

Here are few pics of my Lanceolata; you can see the brown fuzz is more prominent right near the growing point and is not really existent on the older leaf bases. Also not as prominent o the two younger pups. I also had some confusssion when I bought mine years ago; the one I planted in the back that was supposed to be a lanceolata turned out it wasn’t a madascariensis mahajonga and the one in the pitcures he wasn’t sure which if it wasn’t Pembana or lanceolata. Glad one turned out to be a lanceolata I really love this Dypsis has been a great grower & always look sexy good here in coastal Southern California.

[-2 brian]

1 minute ago, -2 brian said:

a madascariensis mahajonga

It wasn’t a lanceolata but a dypsis madagascariensis mahajonga

 

[Darold Petty]

Ok, I was able to re-size much smaller, although the originals were only 4.1 and 3.7 mb

Fuzzy or smooth petiole, which is the true D. lanceolata ?  Thanks

[-2 brian]

3 minutes ago, Darold Petty said:

Ok, I was able to re-size much smaller, although the originals were only 4.1 and 3.7 mb

Fuzzy or smooth petiole, which is the true D. lanceolata ?  Thanks

I don’t probably need to see more of the plant especially leaf structure before I could garner a guess

[Darold Petty]

-2Brian;

   Would this not be a clear distinction?  Might a true D. lanceolata have either condition on the petiole?

  I can post an image of the larger plants (maybe  )

but I am getting too frustrated with the computer stuff this morning,    time for me to step away from the desk for a while.

[quaman58]

Darold,

When I first started collecting close to 20 years ago, they seemed all to be the version without any fuzz. I like that look a bit better. But about 10 years later, this fuzzy version showed which was jokingly referred to as "lanceonada". Yeah, we're a creative bunch, ha ha. What is certain however is that that fuzzy one just grows better for me. I've had a couple different versions of the hairless variety that always look wonderful when I take them home, only to do not much until they finally croak. One that I nursed along for a number of years had a beautiful salmon colored new leaf on the rare occasions it produced one. I have another on the hillside that will neither grow or die. So I'm stuck with lanceonada. Hey, there's worse problems..

Bret

[Tracy]

3 hours ago, quaman58 said:

But about 10 years later, this fuzzy version showed which was jokingly referred to as "lanceonada". Yeah, we're a creative bunch, ha ha. What is certain however is that that fuzzy one just grows better for me. I've had a couple different versions of the hairless variety that always look wonderful when I take them home, only to do not much until they finally croak. One that I nursed along for a number of years had a beautiful salmon colored new leaf on the rare occasions it produced one. I have another on the hillside that will neither grow or die. So I'm stuck with lanceonada. Hey, there's worse problems..

I have what was going around back then as Dypsis "lanceonada", which appears to be something different than Dypsis lanceolata.  A couple of people who have looked at it thought it might be Dypsis mayotte. All these are older photos.  I brought it over from in a pot, and planted it here in Leucadia in 2014, but it rotted out, probably because I planted it in late Autumn and it had transition shock from one garden to the next.  I didn't dig up the roots and planted around it, but about a year later a new trunk emerged from the ground.  It's tight to get photos now and its extremely stretched in the shade of the plants I planted when I thought it was dead.  See if this looks like your "nada". 

Back to Daryl's original post and inquiry, I doubt yours has this much fuzz ("nadas" below) but give us a photo or two with a little more to see.  My "nada" came from Phil & Jesse at Jungle Music circa 2010 or 2011.  The two lanceolata's posted above came from different sources, one from George Sparkman, and I don't recall who the other came from, but it was here in San Diego.

[tim_brissy_13]

Mine has the brown fuzz, but seems to develop as the fronds get older, the newest petioles are coming out more clean. 

 

Darold, out of interest, have you been able to grow D lanceolata in your climate? I’m giving it a go at 38S but we get a bit more summer heat than you. 

[Darold Petty]

3 hours ago, tim_brissy_13 said:

Darold, out of interest, have you been able to grow D lanceolata in your climate? I’m giving it a go at 38S but we get a bit more summer heat than you. 

I first grew Dypsis baronii, then D. ambositrae, and only recently have trialed D. lanceolata.  I have held this species for about 10 months, and it is essentially the same size as when purchased, It has opened one frond, but I credit that to 'momentum' from its previous conditions in San Diego area.

  It seems more marginal, and perhaps my microclimate is too cool.  

[-2 brian]

20 hours ago, -2 brian said:

sexy good

“Really good” guess I need to spell check closer before I post 

[TomJ]

I have two plants that I have growing.

This first one started as a FB 1 gallon.  It has been in the ground a long time.

Almost died one Winter about 10 years ago.

It has sped up a bit last couple years under a lot more canopy now.

Any markings on spears were made December 22. (I mark Solstice and Equinox)

[TomJ]

This is my second plant in ground from a robust 5 gallon about 4 years.

This one grows MUCH faster and started out under a lot of canopy.

I’m pretty sure they’re both true to form and not "lanceonada".

[Darold Petty]

TomJ, thanks for posting,  From your second photo I would assume that the petiole on the right side of the image is smooth, correct ?

[TomJ]

21 minutes ago, Darold Petty said:

TomJ, thanks for posting,  From your second photo I would assume that the petiole on the right side of the image is smooth, correct ?

I just walked outside to double check.

The slow FB one is smooth.

The fast one (second photos) has fuzz.

The fuzzy one is the "lanceonada"?

[Tracy]

3 hours ago, TomJ said:

This first one started as a FB 1 gallon.  It has been in the ground a long time.

 

Almost died one Winter about 10 years ago.

 

It has sped up a bit last couple years under a lot more canopy now.

 

Any markings on spears were made December 22. (I mark Solstice and Equinox)

 

 

 

3 hours ago, TomJ said:

Tom, I find it interesting to note that the first seems to be narrower in gauge and has more of the white chalk on the trunk than your second faster plant.  Those are the differences between my pair as well, with the "lanceonada" being very different as well.  Even the fact that your second one that has essentially none of the chalky white on the ringed trunk is the much faster specimen matches my experience.

[Matt in OC]

I have two. The first was a 4" from Floribunda. 

The second was from Dwight. Both have been very good growers.

 

[Darold Petty]

Looks like the FB form has a smooth petiole.  I purchased this form from Rancho Soledad, also.   Now I have more questions than when I started !

Thanks to all who contributed to this thread, 

I will continue to grow both forms, rather than discard the 'imposter'.  It is another, separate question if my microclimate has sufficient warmth for this species.  

[Tracy]

18 hours ago, Darold Petty said:

Looks like the FB form has a smooth petiole.  I purchased this form from Rancho Soledad, also.   Now I have more questions than when I started !

Thanks to all who contributed to this thread, 

I will continue to grow both forms, rather than discard the 'imposter'.  It is another, separate question if my microclimate has sufficient warmth for this species.  

If I were to come to a conclusion about anything, it would be that smooth versus fuzzy petiole probably isn't a decisive characteristic with this species.  There appears to be a spectrum of fuzziness.  Two of mine have not flowered and set seed yet, so it will be interesting to compare flowers and seeds among the three when the last two finally get around to it.

[joe_OC]

I've concluded that, like most Dypsis, there is a "complex" with lanceolata species.  

[Tracy]

16 minutes ago, joe_OC said:

I've concluded that, like most Dypsis, there is a "complex" with lanceolata species.  

So Freudian of you Joe:  "A complex is a core pattern of emotions, memories, perceptions, and wishes in the personal unconscious organized around a common theme, such as power or status."

[joe_OC]

48 minutes ago, Tracy said:

So Freudian of you Joe:  "A complex is a core pattern of emotions, memories, perceptions, and wishes in the personal unconscious organized around a common theme, such as power or status."

HUH?  

[Ben Alaegbu]

Have learnt so much here. Is there any connection with this dypsis lanceolata palm with cure for prostrate?

[Billeb]

On 1/8/2021 at 11:21 AM, Darold Petty said:

I purchased two plants of this species, a  5 gallon and a 7 gallon size, from a San Diego county vendor.  One has a fuzzy petiole and the other a smooth petiole.  The vendor acknowledged that his seed source may have been contaminated by hybridization with D. lutescens.

So, which one is the true species?   Thanks, and please post images of your true D. lanceolata.

Technical difficulties with image upload of the two petioles, I get error message   -200, even thought I downsized the images, perhaps later, thanks.   (can anyone explain this error message ?

I use a Canon point & shoot pocket camera,  I  downloaded the two images from the camera into a separate, second file, but I still get the  "-200" error message.  

@Darold Petty I too purchased a 3G from a vendor in SoCal that told me it was a Lanceolata x Lutescens Hybrid. I’ve posted about this tree before and nobody can confirm. It has a ton of speckling and a lot of fuzz as you can see. It also has the coveted Hybrid vigor of growth rate which is awesome. I’m super excited to see what this turns into.  
 

-dale

[JubaeaMan138]

On 1/3/2022 at 8:52 PM, Billeb said:

@Darold Petty I too purchased a 3G from a vendor in SoCal that told me it was a Lanceolata x Lutescens Hybrid. I’ve posted about this tree before and nobody can confirm. It has a ton of speckling and a lot of fuzz as you can see. It also has the coveted Hybrid vigor of growth rate which is awesome. I’m super excited to see what this turns into.  
 

-dale

Did these come from Kevin weaver ? 

[Darold Petty]

Mine came from Joe Dombrowski.  I have since concluded that my garden is too cool for this species, and I have given away my plants to a warmer-summer garden.  

Meanwhile, my Dypsis ambositrae is expanding the newest frond right now, in mid-winter,  after a week of cold rain.

[JubaeaMan138]

Mine looked identical at a small size . Fast and always looks good . I got it from Kevin weaver about 4 years ago as a small 5 gallon 

[Fusca]

55 minutes ago, Darold Petty said:

Mine came from Joe Dombrowski.  I have since concluded that my garden is too cool 

Darold, I haven't seen your garden yet but I imagine that it is indeed cool!  

[Tracy]

5 hours ago, Darold Petty said:

I have since concluded that my garden is too cool for this species, and I have given away my plants.

Meanwhile, my Dypsis ambositrae is expanding the newest frond right now, in mid-winter,  after a week of cold rain.

I concur...your garden is way too cool for it, the Dypsis ambositrae is a way cooler choice.  Glad that it's growing well for you Darold.  You will have to share a photo of your D ambo in a different string and show how this species is performing in San Francisco's climate.

[Billeb]

12 hours ago, JubaeaMan138 said:

Did these come from Kevin weaver ? 

As like @Darold Petty, mine came from Joe as well. It’s been in the ground for 6 months, is noticeably fatter and has been throwing new spears regularly. 
 

-dale

[Billeb]

9 hours ago, JubaeaMan138 said:

Mine looked identical at a small size . Fast and always looks good . I got it from Kevin weaver about 4 years ago as a small 5 gallon 

That growth rate is awesome and encouraging. I do see the speckling on the tree but I don’t see fuzz. It appears my var. has thicker leaves as well more akin to the Lanceolata. Completely ignorant with Hybrids, is it possible mine has more characteristics of a Lanceolata and yours Lutescens and each tree a hybrid of both types? Your leaves look way more like Lutescens. Either way, awesome tree and well done. Thanks. 
 

-dale

[ruskinPalms]

I’m resurrecting this thread. Just curious about this palm in general, seems like one of the prettier from the Chrysalidocarpus genus. By the way, I suck at Latin, are we looking at C. lanceolatus? Anyway, this is a beautiful palm and my yard seems to support the various clumping Chrysalidocarpus species pretty well. Do these have a chance in a Florida type warm 9B/cold 10A climate? Can they take lots of sun?

[JubaeaMan138]

On 1/5/2022 at 10:30 PM, Billeb said:

That growth rate is awesome and encouraging. I do see the speckling on the tree but I don’t see fuzz. It appears my var. has thicker leaves as well more akin to the Lanceolata. Completely ignorant with Hybrids, is it possible mine has more characteristics of a Lanceolata and yours Lutescens and each tree a hybrid of both types? Your leaves look way more like Lutescens. Either way, awesome tree and well done. Thanks. 
 

-dale

Little update on this guy . Currently flowering I’m beginning to think this is a madagascariensis . Gorgeous palm either way you can see the growth it’s put on in a year and half or so . 

[JubaeaMan138]

Love the white and bluegreen coloring on it 

[JubaeaMan138]

Brown fuzz up at the base of the fronds 

[Billeb]

@JubaeaMan138, yeah I think mine is in the Madagascariensis complex also. Yours is growing great and looks awesome. When I was at @Hilo Jason’s a few months ago, he had what he said was Sp. Mayotte and it looked very similar to mine so that got me thinking too. Mine has grown a lot in the last year 1/2+ also. Fattened up and pushed out a baby. I see some leaf burn during the prolonged colder months. The world may never know but I’m ok with that, it’s a good grower for me. 
Photobombing Tuckeri has put on some growth also. 👍

-dale 

[Patrick]

I just checked mine that I have growing in Leilani Estates. I got it from Floribunda. The petioles aren't fuzzy or smooth- kind of rough and abrasive. Here's a picture of it:

Edited September 22, 2023 by Patrick

[D. Morrowii]

13 hours ago, ruskinPalms said:

I’m resurrecting this thread. Just curious about this palm in general, seems like one of the prettier from the Chrysalidocarpus genus. By the way, I suck at Latin, are we looking at C. lanceolatus? Anyway, this is a beautiful palm and my yard seems to support the various clumping Chrysalidocarpus species pretty well. Do these have a chance in a Florida type warm 9B/cold 10A climate? Can they take lots of sun?

I’m seeing 32F as the min temp on Palmpedia but I havent looked at the cold hardiness spreadsheet to see what it says for this one in awhile. I have one with 5-6 trunks and its been in the ground for about 19 months. Its in full blazing sun now but I started it out with shade cloth on the top and west side for a couple of months. I also tried to let it acclimate in the pot for awhile before I made it stationary. Right now it gets some minimal shade from a sparse P. elegans  but otherwise 10-12 hours a day its exposed.  Late this summer I started to see some yellowing from sun damage on some leaflets but it was so hot and dry I’m not too worried about it. I think they will do best in Fla with only part day full sun. 

[tim_brissy_13]

Gets some frond damage at -1.5C/29F. I’d assume it could survive a bit lower in a warmer climate where it can recover quicker. Here’s mine (on the right). It’s in a nice protected spot but still tougher than you’d think.