Calling All Cycad Experts (ID Help)

[The Gerg]

I went to my local Green Thumb recently and I noticed they had some cycads mislabeled.

The first pic is a Cycas revolta x deb. hybrid labeled as an Encephalartos longifolius.

 

Then they had this (I believe) Encephalartos ituriensis labeled as the Cycas revolta x deb. hybrid.

 

Then they had this third one labeled as Encephalartos ituriensis. (I’m pretty sure it is not)
 

 

So the third cycad pictured is what I am hoping for help with. The remaining label would be the Encephalartos longifolius, but this is not like any longifolius I’ve ever seen. Perhaps they actually had one that was sold as something else before I got there. As you can see I bought it even though it’s unknown to me.

 

[The Gerg]

I also bought this one several years ago as an unknown. Any ideas?

 

[Merlyn]

8 hours ago, The Gerg said:

I also bought this one several years ago as an unknown. Any ideas?

I'll preface this by saying...I am not a cycad ID expert.    This one looks like Gratus to me, with the recurved fairly wide leaflet and three big spikes on the top side of the leaf near the attachment point.  It could also be Kisambo, depending on the mature size.  Kisambo is a beast like Laurentianus with 10' plus size fronds.  Gratus is more of a midsize beast, 6 foot or so fronds.

 

[Merlyn]

And in your first post, I'd agree with Rev x Deb hybrid for the first and then something in the Equatorialis/Ituriensis/Whitelockii area for the second plant.  The second one could be Equatorialis, which I think has more rounded leaflets than Ituriensis & Whitelockii.  It's sure worth a closer look, because Equatorialis is extremely rare in cultivation and would be worth snapping up if you could confirm it.

The third one is kind of ambiguous to me, just because it's flushing and the new leaves aren't hardened off yet.  The bottom of the frond has that odd "kink" that I see in the Manikensis complex.  There are a *lot* of cycads in that area that look similar, such as Bandula, Chimanimaniensis, Choala, Pterogonus, Turneri, and geographically nearby similar ones like Munchii.

I'd be interested in other people's IDs too, because mine are no better than a SWAG.  @Gallop might recognize them, or you could try posting to the Cycads FB group.

[The Gerg]

@Merlyn….Thank you for your thoughts. I looked at some Gratus pics online and interestingly enough the one I just bought almost looks similar to some of the pics I saw.  I suppose one day when they cone that will help with identification.

[Tracy]

17 hours ago, The Gerg said:

@Merlyn….Thank you for your thoughts. I looked at some Gratus pics online and interestingly enough the one I just bought almost looks similar to some of the pics I saw.  I suppose one day when they cone that will help with identification.

If you can share more closeups of the leaflets that will be helpful too.

[Tracy]

On 10/2/2024 at 9:28 PM, The Gerg said:

Then they had this third one labeled as Encephalartos ituriensis. (I’m pretty sure it is not)

Here is Encephalartos ituriensis with leaflet detail.  The full monty shot is actively flushing.  You can compare.

[The Gerg]

Thanks Tracy. I have an ituriensis as well. (Photo below). It’s hard to get a good picture of mine. Yours is very nice btw. I know the two cycads I am questioning aren't ituriensis. I will post some leaflet pics like you suggested.

 

 

[The Gerg]

Overall pic with some close up leaflet pics.

 

[The Gerg]

And the other one.

[Merlyn]

In the FB Cycads group I was told that the easiest way to tell apart Whitelockii/Ituriensis/Equatorialis is the reducing spines.  This is apparently more obvious than cone color, because young cycads might cone green the first time or two anyway.  From the species descriptions, Whitelockii transitions from leaflets of 5ish spines down to 3 and then abruptly stops:

Ituriensis reduces to simple spikes for a good distance, in the diagram about 15cm = 6":

And Equatorialis reduces to two finger spikes and then simple spikes:

With this I was able to easily tell on a couple of questionable cycads.  One clearly was an Ituriensis with leaflets that abruptly turned to simple spikes.  The other was a huge trunking Whitelockii with a lot of 3-finger stubs and coned green.  I haven't looked through the rest yet.

[Tracy]

14 hours ago, The Gerg said:

Overall pic with some close up leaflet pics.

 

This one looks like my Encephalartos kisambo but both are in my rental so I can't go out and compare immediately. 

 

 

[Merlyn]

15 hours ago, The Gerg said:

Overall pic with some close up leaflet pics.

 

I'm not sure on this one, though it can't be Kisambo or Gratus.  My gut feel says Altensteinii, or maybe something in the Natalensis group.  But I wouldn't bet on that being correct.  I looked up the median leaflet diagrams on Kisambo:

The other diagram shows the same 3 or 4 large teeth at the center, with otherwise smooth leaf margins:

 

[Merlyn]

For reference here's my biggest Gratus, from Brian Caver here at PT.  I posted these to the Cycads FB group and Sim Lav and Chip Jones both agreed it was Gratus.  The fronds are getting close to 6 feet tall.  It's close to trunking now, so they probably won't get much bigger.  The whole plant:

And the median leaf detail showing the typical 3-4 thorns near the base and mostly thornless lower edge:

And Kisambo is about twice as big, roughly 10 foot fronds right now.  It has some literally burned fronds because my bonfire pit is about 10 feet away...and I got things going just a wee bit too hot:

And median leaf detail shows the long swoopy leaves with the typical 3-4 top side thorns and sometimes 1-2 thorns on the underside:

[The Gerg]

21 hours ago, Merlyn said:

I'm not sure on this one, though it can't be Kisambo or Gratus.  My gut feel says Altensteinii, or maybe something in the Natalensis group.  But I wouldn't bet on that being correct.  I looked up the median leaflet diagrams on Kisambo:

The other diagram shows the same 3 or 4 large teeth at the center, with otherwise smooth leaf margins:

 

It resembles altensteinii although I believe (and hope) that’s not what it is as I already have a couple of those planted in the garden.

The pics of one of my altensteinii and natalensis below show what I believe as the leaflets spaced closer together than this other one of mine.

altensteinii 1st pic, natalensis 2nd pic.

[Merlyn]

@Tracy and @The Gerg I got some clarification from Tom Bihr on the Ituriensis/Whitelockii question.  Apparently the shape of the pinnacanths and smaller lower leaflets is really variable, but an easy way to tell the difference is the angle of the leaflets as they transition to pinnacanths:

• Whitelockii: Median leaflets face a bit more upwards than Ituriensis, lower leaflets start turning nearly horizontal as they transition to pinnacanths.  See the right hand frond on the below photo for reference.
• Ituriensis: Median leaflets face mostly towards the center of the plant, lower leaflets maintain approximately the same angle as they transition to pinnacanths.

[Merlyn]

@The Gerg it may not be Altensteinii. 

The second plant could be Pterogonus, Munchii, Choala, Chimanimaniensis, Bandula, Vumba, and maybe others.  The crease in the leaves could be distinctive in your second plant.  I think the crease puts it in the Manikensis region, assuming it's common to most of the leaves and not just random on a couple.

[Brian]

@Merlyn where do you find the desciption drawings? 

 

[Merlyn]

@Brian I downloaded a whole bunch of them a couple of years ago.  I think it was from cycad.org or cycadlist.org.  I can't remember which.  I *think* this was the page:

https://www.cycad.org/publications/descriptions.htm