C. costaricana vs. C. seifrizii

[SubTropicRay]

The broad leaf version of C. seifrizii (formerly C. erumpens) looks just like C. costaricana to me.  Can anyone provide input of the differences and maybe some photos.  

Thanks in advance,

Ray

[SubTropicRay]

Everyone's as stumped as me?

[Eric in Orlando]

C. costaricana gets much taller, soemtimes up to 20ft. I have heard it is hardier, possibly into the low 20s F.

I have one small one in the ground, only about 2ft tall and some seedlings that recently germinated. So far the one in the ground doesn't seem overly susceptible to nematodes. I can't grow C. seifrizii/erumpens in our sandy soil, they never last more than a year.

[mnorell]

I have heard contradictory reports on relative hardiness of these two species. Does anybody have substantive info in side-by-side trials on which is actually hardier to cold? Eric, do you know whether specimens of either survived the '80s freezes in Orlando or  areas of the Gulf South?

[SubTropicRay]

In central Florida, C. seifrizii is as close to indestructable as a tropical palm gets.  It may freeze to the ground but resprouts from the roots.  

Eric,  I have a 15 foot plus specimen I believe to be C. seifrizii.  Besides overall height, there have to be some subtle differences to distinguish the two species.  The descriptions in Hodel's book still leave me with questions.

Help!!

[Eric in Orlando]

From info gathered while looking it up it appears that C. costaricana also can tolerate some sun as it matures. I'm couldn't tell you exactly how to tell them apart but there are some links below that have some good photos of C. costaricana.

Back in the bad '89 freeze I had C. seifrizii, C. erumpens, and C. elegans totally killed  while C. microspadix wasn't bothered. The C. erumpens and C. seifrizii never came back from the roots.

http://www.pacsoa.org.au/palms/Chamaedorea/costaricana.html

http://www.rarepalmseeds.com/shop/ChaCos.shtml

http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/showimage/154992/

[SubTropicRay]

Thanks Eric.

Per Hodel, C. costaricana staminate droops while C. seifrizii is erect.  I guess this is as distinguishing a characteristic as we're going to get.

[Eric in Orlando]

From the photos and the seedlings I have the leaflets seem bigger, too. I think it is a blown up version of C. seifrizii.

[PalmGuyWC]

I suggest you guys pull up PACSOA on the web site and you can see photographs of the Chams. mentioned. Cham, seifrizii has a heavy texture and thiner leaf blades than does C. costaricana. They really don't look very much alike. They are both described under PACSOA as being the most cold hardy of the Chams.....which is not so. Neither will take it much below freezing, or that's the way they behaved for me.

Cham. costaricana seems to prefer cooler temps., and they do well in a coastal S. Calif. climate, but never look so good in the heat of Fla. Cham. seifrizii thrives in the S. Fla. climate and they like it warm.

Chams. seifrizii and erumpens may be considered the same species, but they look so different they could be put into seperate species. Erumpens tends to have much wider leaf blades and not uniform in size. The terminal leaf blades of C. erumpens tend to be wider than the other blades on the frond. The nicest clones of C. seifrizii have very narrow leaf blades and they have a green/blue color. I saw nice forms of C. seifrizii growing near Merida Mexico growing in full sun. Erumpens requires more shade, but they all look nicer grown under light shade.

C. seifrizii and erumpens are favored indoor palms and are used extensively in office building lobbys, etc. C. costaricana requires a more moist atmosphere, and I found them to be very suceptable to red spider when grown inside.

Dick

[Jeff in St Pete]

Ray or Eric,

Does this look like C costaricana?  Or is this something completely different?  I posted this pic a while back after I hiked through Manuel Antonio National Park but I don't think I ever did get a positive id.  There are many clumps of these growing in the park.  This particular group was growing at the edge of the forest near the beach and they were definitely in full sun for part of the day.  

[mnorell]

Thanks, all, for the cold-tolerance experiences with these. It's been stated (notably by RLR) that seifrizii could survive or at least resprout after severe freezes, in particular the '89 freeze in south Texas. But I have also read the opposite, that seifrizii is tender, and that costaricana is quite surprisingly hardy. Very confusing!

It seems odd to me that, with the diversity and number of species in the genus, Chams have just two representatives that take extreme cold with no ill effects, and all the rest are basically tender to relatively light (25F+) freezes. One would think that there would at least be one or two other clustering species that could, with mulching, resprout from the low teens or perhaps a little colder in a freak winter. I have heard some say that elegans can survive extreme cold by resprouting but perhaps that's not everyone's experience. In any event I do think both seifrizii and costaricana are attractive and very serviceable in the landscape, and offer a nice glossy alternative to the wider and very matte-surfaced leaflets of microspadix.

[Eric in Orlando]

I know someone who had C. kuesteriana survive the '89 freeze here in Orlando. It seems to have potential hardiness.

[chris78]

I grow a few Chamaedorea in the shade for many years. C. costaricana does not like heat as Dick said, and I can not grow it. C. seifrizii like the heat and grows well. I have quite a few clumps, my plants all recover from hard freezes including last winters 18F low.

My C. radicalis (trunk form) took the 18F with only some leaf burn, I have found this to be the most cold hardy of the ones I tried. C. IRVING CANTER being the most tender for me and loss my one clump this past winter.

My C glaucifolia was badly damaged, but is recovering...

Does anyone know anything about C. pochutlensis???

[Geoff]

Here's a photo of C costaricana in Southern California.. this clump is nearly 20' tall... never ever seen a C seifrizii over even 12'

http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/showimage/154992/

Here's a Chamaedorea seifrizii... note the skinnier culms, much more closely spaced, too.. and only 10' at the most.. but both tolerate some sun here

http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/showimage/36041/

[SubTropicRay]

Hello Geoff,

That pictured C. seifrizii looks like the true narrow leaf form.  The wider leaf form, formerly C. erumpens, is harder to distinguish from C. costaricana.  The true difference appears to be C. seifrizi has an upright/erect inflorescence while C. costaricana sags/droops.

Ray

[Phil]

Ray,

I've grown both species for years.  There are big differences between the two and also cultural differences.  Typically, costaricana have thicker and taller trunks.  The leaf length is longer.  Leaflet length and width seems to be fairly consistent.  Seifrizii have tinner, shorter trunks, shorter leaves, and somewhat variable leaflet width.  My costaricanas overall height is about 12 to 14 feet.  The seifrizii are about 2 to 4 feet shorter.  In terms of beauty, the costaricana wins hands down.  In terms of susceptibility to disease, the seifrizii wins easily.  They are very susceptible to fungus out here.  When you start talking about "different leaf forms", I cannot comment as I know the "typical" plants that Geoff posted.  The real comparison is between costaricana and hooperiana.  I really like the hoop's and am so pleased that the species was named after one of the So Cal palm stars, Luis Hooper.

Phil