Chamaedorea graminifolia

[NorCalWill]

Hello everyone, I am trying to find info on this palm and noticed that it isn't listed at all on Palmpedia. So, I'm thinking that maybe it went through a name change?

Working in the Chamaedorea area of the Oakland Palmetum, I happened to find an i.d. plaque buried under a pile of leaves, but I can't tell which palm it belongs to since many of the palms in this section look alike. Supposedly there is microspadix, radicalis, 'Irving Cantor' and graminifolia growing in this area. Any info on how to tell this palm apart from the others would be greatly appreciated.

[tim_brissy_13]

C. graminifolia is still accepted. Palmpedia doesn’t list all species, and I’ve noticed many Chamaedorea species aren’t on there. C. graminifolia is a thin solitary species although I’ve never seen one in person, hope that can narrow it down for you. 

[Pal Meir]

Cf. Donald R. Hodel 1992, Chamaedorea Palms, p. 74 ff and Plate 21. — Here an older photo from Dahlgren 1959:

[NorCalWill]

1 hour ago, tim_brissy_13 said:

C. graminifolia is still accepted. Palmpedia doesn’t list all species, and I’ve noticed many Chamaedorea species aren’t on there. C. graminifolia is a thin solitary species although I’ve never seen one in person, hope that can narrow it down for you. 

at this point, anything helps...thanks.

[Fusca]

7 hours ago, NorCalWill said:

Hello everyone, I am trying to find info on this palm and noticed that it isn't listed at all on Palmpedia. So, I'm thinking that maybe it went through a name change?

Working in the Chamaedorea area of the Oakland Palmetum, I happened to find an i.d. plaque buried under a pile of leaves, but I can't tell which palm it belongs to since many of the palms in this section look alike. Supposedly there is microspadix, radicalis, 'Irving Cantor' and graminifolia growing in this area. Any info on how to tell this palm apart from the others would be greatly appreciated.

I'm not familiar with 'Irving Cantor' but of the others only microspadix is a clumper and the others are solitary.  Hope that helps some.

 

[Steve Mac]

Perhaps no help for your ID purposes Will, but they look like this when seedlings.

They are not fast from seed, I think these are about 18 months old.

[ExperimentalGrower]

16 hours ago, NorCalWill said:

Hello everyone, I am trying to find info on this palm and noticed that it isn't listed at all on Palmpedia. So, I'm thinking that maybe it went through a name change?

Working in the Chamaedorea area of the Oakland Palmetum, I happened to find an i.d. plaque buried under a pile of leaves, but I can't tell which palm it belongs to since many of the palms in this section look alike. Supposedly there is microspadix, radicalis, 'Irving Cantor' and graminifolia growing in this area. Any info on how to tell this palm apart from the others would be greatly appreciated.

Nice find man! Not at all familiar with it. Did Jason happen to mention it when he was down? There’s always the chance it used to grow there but doesn’t any longer.

[ExperimentalGrower]

9 hours ago, Pal Meir said:

Cf. Donald R. Hodel 1992, Chamaedorea Palms, p. 74 ff and Plate 21. — Here an older photo from Dahlgren 1959:

Is it an acaulescent palm?

[Pal Meir]

3 hours ago, ExperimentalGrower said:

Is it an acaulescent palm?

No; stems »erect to leaning, to 4 m tall, forming open clusters and colonies, 2-3 cm diameter« (Hodel)

[NorCalWill]

6 hours ago, ExperimentalGrower said:

Nice find man! Not at all familiar with it. Did Jason happen to mention it when he was down? There’s always the chance it used to grow there but doesn’t any longer.

No, this palm wasn't mentioned, but there are several palms in that Chamaedorea area that weren't I.D.'d that day. Yes it's possible that it is no longer there. Just trying to get a grasp on what we have.

[Jonathan]

Do we know any more about this species?

I just received some seeds and it would be good to know whether they will grow into a solitary stem as per Hodel in 'Chamaedorea Palms  After 20 Years' 2013: 

Chamaedorea graminifolia differs from C. schippii in its solitary rather than multistemmed habit...All illustrations captioned as C. graminifolia in CP are actually C. schippii. 

or, a widely spaced cespitose species, from Palm Web:

Habit: cespitose, erect to leaning, to 4 m tall, forming open clusters and colonies 1-5 m across by spreading rhizomes. ..The clump-forming habit of C. graminifolia is rather distinctive. Stems are well separated by rhizomes and often emerge from the ground a meter distant from the main stem. 

Hodel mentions The resurrection of C. schippii...and it is an accepted species by Kew, so do we assume that solitary =graminifolia and clustering=schippii? Does this match anyone's real world experience?? 

Cheers. 

[tim_brissy_13]

2 hours ago, Jonathan said:

Do we know any more about this species?

I just received some seeds and it would be good to know whether they will grow into a solitary stem as per Hodel in 'Chamaedorea Palms  After 20 Years' 2013: 

Chamaedorea graminifolia differs from C. schippii in its solitary rather than multistemmed habit...All illustrations captioned as C. graminifolia in CP are actually C. schippii. 

or, a widely spaced cespitose species, from Palm Web:

Habit: cespitose, erect to leaning, to 4 m tall, forming open clusters and colonies 1-5 m across by spreading rhizomes. ..The clump-forming habit of C. graminifolia is rather distinctive. Stems are well separated by rhizomes and often emerge from the ground a meter distant from the main stem. 

Hodel mentions The resurrection of C. schippii...and it is an accepted species by Kew, so do we assume that solitary =graminifolia and clustering=schippii? Does this match anyone's real world experience?? 

Cheers. 

I believe solitary = graminifolia and clustering = shippii is correct Jonathan. As to real world experience I have a handful of C graminifolia seedlings but still way too early to tell whether they’ll remain solitary. I’m assuming they came from the same original seed source as yours and from my understanding the parents are solitary and C graminifolia in Aus are true to the correct description. That being said, I’m sure there are some others who browse this forum slightly closer to the source and/or more expert in the area. 

[Jonathan]

6 hours ago, tim_brissy_13 said:

I believe solitary = graminifolia and clustering = shippii is correct Jonathan. As to real world experience I have a handful of C graminifolia seedlings but still way too early to tell whether they’ll remain solitary. I’m assuming they came from the same original seed source as yours and from my understanding the parents are solitary and C graminifolia in Aus are true to the correct description. That being said, I’m sure there are some others who browse this forum slightly closer to the source and/or more expert in the area. 

Yep, I reckon its the same source Tim!

OK, so I'll assume solitary, sounds logical. Now I think I want shippii...it never ends.

[happypalms]

I think the graminifolia in Australia are mostly from Colin Wilson I germinated some last summer easily another five years I should have some nice ones.

[Jonathan]

3 hours ago, happypalms said:

I think the graminifolia in Australia are mostly from Colin Wilson I germinated some last summer easily another five years I should have some nice ones.

Yep, Colin!

[Berndyer]

This is a photograph I took in the Sydney Botanic Gardens showing Chamadorea graminifolia. It appeared as a sparsely clumping palm with trunks separated by 20-30cm or they were individual plants planted randomly. Very hard to determine whether it was clumping or solitary .