Jump to content
  • WELCOME GUEST

    It looks as if you are viewing PalmTalk as an unregistered Guest.

    Please consider registering so as to take better advantage of our vast knowledge base and friendly community.  By registering you will gain access to many features - among them are our powerful Search feature, the ability to Private Message other Users, and be able to post and/or answer questions from all over the world. It is completely free, no “catches,” and you will have complete control over how you wish to use this site.

    PalmTalk is sponsored by the International Palm Society. - an organization dedicated to learning everything about and enjoying palm trees (and their companion plants) while conserving endangered palm species and habitat worldwide. Please take the time to know us all better and register.

    guest Renda04.jpg

Chamaedorea species


SeanK

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, SeanK said:

I've seen both C.radicans and C.radicalis called the "hardy bamboo" palm. Are these two actually the same species?

I believe that they are.  I've not seen the name Chamaedorea radicans used before but perhaps it's an old name.  It's not listed in Palmpedia but does show up in an online search.  Chamaedorea radicalis is definitely the "Hardy Bamboo Palm."

  • Upvote 1

Jon Sunder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, SeanK said:

I've seen both C.radicans and C.radicalis called the "hardy bamboo" palm. Are these two actually the same species?

I have heard C.Radicalis be referred to as "Hardy Parlour Palm"  as well 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Radicans is not a valid name.  Also, since C. radicalis is usually trunkless I would rather assign the 'bamboo' name to C. microspadix.  :winkie:

Here is my ' go-to' site for valid name questions,

https://wcsp.science.kew.org/prepareChecklist.do;jsessionid=745ED51F431BFABEDC0E20C9419166A7.kppapp06-wcsp?checklist=selected_families%40%40312081120221630145

  • Like 4

San Francisco, California

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Darold Petty said:

Radicans is not a valid name.  Also, since C. radicalis is usually trunkless I would rather assign the 'bamboo' name to C. microspadix.  :winkie:

Here is my ' go-to' site for valid name questions,

https://wcsp.science.kew.org/prepareChecklist.do;jsessionid=745ED51F431BFABEDC0E20C9419166A7.kppapp06-wcsp?checklist=selected_families%40%40312081120221630145

These are a bit hard to source in general but I didn't know the arborescent form was the rarer of the two. Makes me appreciate the ones i have even more

Edited by DAVEinMB
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only C. Radicalis I have is the tree form . It grows to 7' and the seeds germinate freely here in SoCal. They have popped up all over my garden in the last 20 years since planting the 1st one. It is cold hardy(for here) and takes full sun. The Microspadix is more sensitive but also germinates freely in the garden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Harry’s Palms said:

The only C. Radicalis I have is the tree form . It grows to 7' and the seeds germinate freely here in SoCal. They have popped up all over my garden in the last 20 years since planting the 1st one. It is cold hardy(for here) and takes full sun. The Microspadix is more sensitive but also germinates freely in the garden.

You could be selling those radicalis back east. They're good to about 15°F when given shade and wind stops. Only place I see them for sale consistently is Jungle Music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/8/2022 at 10:33 AM, Darold Petty said:

Radicans is not a valid name.  Also, since C. radicalis is usually trunkless I would rather assign the 'bamboo' name to C. microspadix.  :winkie:

Here is my ' go-to' site for valid name questions,

https://wcsp.science.kew.org/prepareChecklist.do;jsessionid=745ED51F431BFABEDC0E20C9419166A7.kppapp06-wcsp?checklist=selected_families%40%40312081120221630145

Usually or often? My understanding was that trunking is dominant and not trunking is recessive, which would result in 75% trunking and 25% not trunking from two heterozygous parents. Is that not the case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my experience the non-trunk form is more common.  the trunked one can arise from non-trunking seed, and I have a group of trunking form that usually comes true from seed.

  I think the habit is more complicated than dominant/recessive Mendelian genetics.   :)

This is from Palmpedia,

Etymology: Specific epithet from the Latin - radicalis; meaning basal or arising from the root stock, in reference to the inflorescences or the apparently stemless habit.

"One of the more common Chamaedoreas, and one of the two most cold hardy (can survive temps down to 20F). This Chamaedorea also does well in full sun, an unusual trait for members of this genus. This palm also has two distinct varieties: a trunkless form in which the flowers shoot straight out of the ground on long stalks, and a tree form in which a bamboo-like stem is formed. This is a non-clumping species with dark, attractive, blue-green leaves with a tough, leathery texture. They are also one of the few monoecious-acting- Chamaedoreas, sometimes producing viable seed on a single plant." (Geoff Stein)

  • Like 2

San Francisco, California

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Darold Petty said:

In my experience the non-trunk form is more common.  the trunked one can arise from non-trunking seed, and I have a group of trunking form that usually comes true from seed.

  I think the habit is more complicated than dominant/recessive Mendelian genetics.   :)

This is from Palmpedia,

Etymology: Specific epithet from the Latin - radicalis; meaning basal or arising from the root stock, in reference to the inflorescences or the apparently stemless habit.

"One of the more common Chamaedoreas, and one of the two most cold hardy (can survive temps down to 20F). This Chamaedorea also does well in full sun, an unusual trait for members of this genus. This palm also has two distinct varieties: a trunkless form in which the flowers shoot straight out of the ground on long stalks, and a tree form in which a bamboo-like stem is formed. This is a non-clumping species with dark, attractive, blue-green leaves with a tough, leathery texture. They are also one of the few monoecious-acting- Chamaedoreas, sometimes producing viable seed on a single plant." (Geoff Stein)

Thanks, that's good to know.  I have a munch of 3 year old radicalis and i'm waiting to see which ones are trunking before I put them in the ground.

So trunking might be recessive and non trunking dominant. Your reliably trunking palms might be homozygous with the recessive trait and they are probably far enough from non-trunking specimens that could mix.

Do you know how to tell which ones will become trunking? I have some that are already flowering, does that mean they will never trunk or is that irrelevant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dimovi said:

Do you know how to tell which ones will become trunking? I have some that are already flowering, does that mean they will never trunk or is that irrelevant?

If I'm understanding Geoff's comments on Palmpedia, I believe my Chamaedorea radicalis pictured below is a trunking form since the inflorescence is coming off the "trunk" and not coming straight out of the ground.  Maybe @Darold Petty can confirm or correct me?  :) There's 2 dried up inflorescences on the left in addition to the newest one.

IMG_20221110_170134.jpg

Edited by Fusca

Jon Sunder

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This image might have the flowerstalk attached to the basal plate, can't really determine behind the dried up leafbase.  I have several forms in my garden and will attempt to get some photo images soon.  

  • Like 1

San Francisco, California

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty slow day around the homestead, so here are some images !    :D

This is a clump of several plants, all trunkless, but one, and all from the same seed batch.  (Pay no attention to the Chrysalidocarpus on the right.)  In the background is a stem of one that grew with trunk, nearly in the center from left to right.

  Sorry, I don't know how to intersperse the comments above each image.  (Someone please explain)

The second photo shows the basal plate attachment of the flowerstalk before my fingers and a second one emerging to the right.  

The third image is the flowerstalk attachment about 1 m above ground on the trunking variant in this group.

The fourth image is a different group, all trunking and with more than 3 m of trunk.

The fifth image is the flowerstalk attachment on the different group, about 2m above the ground

  The trunking form has more narrow leaflets in the blade, and holds less fronds on each stem than the non-trunking form.

  My seedlings from the second group do seem to come true as trunking form. 

  In short, this is a big mess, with a lot of  complications !     :mrlooney: 

IMG_0553.JPG

IMG_0554.JPG

IMG_0555.JPG

IMG_0556.JPG

IMG_0557.JPG

  • Like 4

San Francisco, California

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Darold Petty said:

 

 

  Sorry, I don't know how to intersperse the comments above each image.  (Someone please explain)

 

Once you get the hang of it, it is like riding a bike..  I'll use an Aloe, Palm, and Orchid as examples..

Essentially, type in whatever you're description is, and hit shift and enter (at the same time ..my laptop at least ) 2 or 3X to tab down between the 1st and next description ( if there is another to add to your post )..  In the empty space in the middle, insert your image..

Here's before doing it / no single image description:

Brahea ..something..
Eulophia, growing outside, in Tucson..
Aloe X Hurcules
...Then x picture(s) below the description(s) above...


How i get it done...


Brahea sp.

IMG_6380.thumb.JPG.0240bf345983fb6f13b01a809e850b3d.JPG

Eulophia petersii,  Growing outside, in Tucson..

IMG_6417.thumb.JPG.0b0760fc44e7e4c3319d15a70a8f60d2.JPG

Aloe X Hurcules

IMG_6415.thumb.JPG.add38bacaa1eed9ef7c06dc682c0a987.JPG

...



I Notice some people will place X description below  each image they insert.. That's fine of course, though i'm not a fan of that kind of layout myself honestly..


Another way i've laid out some posts, before adding images / descriptions, and play around with spacing between is by doing this:


>


>


>

> = where i'd type in a description. Space between is where pictures get inserted. It also helps because once you insert an image or two,  if i don't add the " >" before hand, when you go to put in the next description / additnl. images below, your description becomes a link??  ...well, yellow and underlined..  ( IE: notice the 3 underlined periods below the Hurcules image )

Adding the " > " is like a sort of place marker..

Btw, if you think the space between images is too narrow/ small,  like the example below: ...

Brahea sp.
IMG_6380.thumb.JPG.0240bf345983fb6f13b01a809e850b3d.JPG
Eulophia petersii
IMG_6417.thumb.JPG.0b0760fc44e7e4c3319d15a70a8f60d2.JPG

...Shift / enter a couple more times until you are comfortable with the spacing... That's how i get my " ideal " spacing between each description.. so things don't looked all jammed up / rushed..  Un-jammed / rushed just looks cleaner, ( and is much easier on the eyes, lol ) imo.


I hope this is making sense, haha..

 

Edited by Silas_Sancona
edit
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...