Dypsis procera?

[richnorm]

It's started to clump...

[LJG]

Looks like it has stilt roots and a lot of color. Not sure Procera does. I am still learning and have a ways to go, but this does not look like what I have read to be Procera.

Not to hijack the thread but I have a plant sold from Ron Lawyer as D. "Split Leaf". I would love to get this identified. Ron does not think it is procera, but I find nothing close anywhere else. To me this looks like what I have seen in photos and in books to be Procera. Any one want to take a guess on these two plants on this thread?

Mostly bifid or partially split even on the more mature trunk.

Close up

It is suckering

[Utopia Palms]

Hi guys

You have two different palms here, the last one has not been described as of yet and can grow in water the leaves will split once it gets larger and gets a little more sun light, the local name for this one is D. ambosa but this name is used on many Madagascan palms so it needs a more appropriate name. Once it is planted in ground it grows very fast and has bamboo stems and gets over 4m tall. Hope this helps

Ps I have not seen the first Dypsis sorry I can not help on this one.

Clayton.

[LJG]

Thanks Clayton!

So by the sounds of it, it will take some sun and needs a lot of water. So the last question would be any idea on min temp requirement? Think it can can sub-tropical?

[calyptrocalyx&licuala freck]

Hi  All,

the first does look like D.procera, thats my thoughts.

Hi Len,

A   Bit

of   information   regarding   D.ambosa.

 Yes  this  grows very  well  in the sub  tropics,

 This  palm  is  also   one  Dypsis  that   can

Be  Reophic,  and  grows  well  in  or  close   to   running  water  but  grows  well  in  the  dry as  well

Not  to  be  grown  in   a  pond,   This  Palm

Really   hates  Brackish   water,    it    must  be  fresh

running  water. Sorry  to  say   some   have  lost  their  palms  due  to

the   water  having   no  movement.

          Hope this  helps.

       Regards  Mikey  

[richnorm]

Yes, it has stilt roots and is colourful.  Here's another picture.  Could it be D. scottiana?

[LJG]

Thanks for the knowledge Mike. I look forward to getting it into the ground this spring.

richnorm, that is a great palm you have what ever it is. Hopefully someone can identify it for you. Looks like Mike thinks it is procera. I would go with what he says.

[Matt in SD]

Rich,

I don't think that looks much like the scottiana photo in POM.  But I don't know what it is.

Len, I bought the same palm from Ron a few years ago and he was calling it Dypsis 'big geo'.  It grows very quickly.  I'm curious why Clayton and Mike don't think this is Dypsis fanjana?  Based on photos and the description I felt reasonably certain that this palm is Dypsis fanjana.  Probably Clayton and Mike know something I don't...

Matt

[Utopia Palms]

Hi Matt in SD

I must first  say I have not seen this first sp or had much to do with it so its hard for me to comment on, but would lean to wards what mike has suggested please note D.fanjana does not have a petiole so I think that one is out, but the last photo of the tuffs of tomentum on the crown and stem, and the way the leaves are held lean me more towards D.procera but having said that these small dypsis are a lot harder to key out then most of the large dypsis. I have quite a few small dypsis that are very close to each other, but are clearly different species these ones are going to be very hard to key out, even when they are flowering as the flowers are so small on some of these.

Clayton

[LJG]

(Matt in SD @ Feb. 13 2007,21:43)

QUOTE

Len, I bought the same palm from Ron a few years ago and he was calling it Dypsis 'big geo'.  It grows very quickly.  I'm curious why Clayton and Mike don't think this is Dypsis fanjana?  Based on photos and the description I felt reasonably certain that this palm is Dypsis fanjana.  Probably Clayton and Mike know something I don't...

I certainly have a lot to learn, but like you I hate not knowing what I have. From what I read Dypsis fanjana is very rare and prefers a tropical climate for this Dypsis. I would have assumed Ron would not be abe to grow it outside if this was Dypsis fanjana. But of course I know nothing on Dypsis fanjana past what I have read.

Also, I found another thread where Clayton posted a pick of D sp. Ambosa. The photo really looks like what we have.

http://palmtalk.org/cgi-bin....ry38017

[bgl]

I posted this photo some time ago. Bought all these palms as Dypsis sanctaemariae, and posted them as such, but John Dransfield commented that he thought they might in fact be Dypsis fanjana.

[Utopia Palms]

Hi All

Sorry Matt, were you talking about D.sp ambosa as being D.fanjana, thank you for pointing that out Bo, also I did not know that John thought that it might be D.Fanjana, I have looked at this quite a few times but have over looked it each time as I have found this sp to be common in a few different localities even growing in water in one of them and none of the forms that I have, I would say have under 10 or more stems also there stem diameter is more like 3 to 3.5cm and the internode length can be often over 10cm long also some of my plants are 5 to 6m high and do not look like slowing down.

Now knowing John thinks it could be D.fanjana I will have to look more closely at the Inflorescence as it could be a form of this species for sure just a larger one.

And Bo the name D sanctaemariae I am told is another locality were this sp comes from it seems to be very similar if not the same as D.sp ambosa only sanctaemarie has more red in the crown shaft I have only ever received small plants of these under that name and as they looked identical to D.sp ambosa and they clearly were not D.santaemariae, I have been calling those D sp ambosa as well, until I could find out or  could work out what they were.

Thank you both for pointing that out once again or I would have missed this.

It’s funny how the jigsaw comes together sometimes.

Clayton.

[Jeff Searle]

If I can jump right in, I would like to clear the D. sanctaemariae species up,so not to confuse it with other pictures of similar looking species. Dypsis sanctaemariae has no petiole. The leaves are held straight up in a shuttlecock manner. It's a small palm of 10' or less. The leaves are bifid or sometimes irreguarly divided. For those that bought the new Field Guide to the POM book, you can see a good photo on page 100.

 Like so many of us, we all bought seed over the years, but now only realizing that these plants are not really the true species. This is an extreamly rare palm in habitat, so when seed are offered by the hundreds or thousands, I would really question it being true to species. I have yet to see what looks like the true Dypsis sanctaemariae in someone's collection so far.

Jeff

I appologise for getting away from the original picture and topic.

[Matt in SD]

No problem Clayton,

I realized that you had misinterpreted my post but was too tired to post about it last night.

And sorry to Rich that this thread is a bit hijacked, but I looked at POM and your palms seems consistent with Dypsis procera to me.  

I also looked the Dypsis fanjana description and it says "petioles absent or to 8cm" (or maybe 12 can't remmber for sure, but it definitely can have petioles.  Clayton if you've seen flowers/inflorescence/seed and it doesn't match fanjana then I guess that answers it, but from the morphology of the plant I don't see anything that is inconsistent with the description of Dypsis fanjana.  Here are some photos of mine.  Like I said this is a very good grower in my climate, this photo is 9 months old and the palm had no trunk 1 year previous when I planted it.  it has more than 12"/30cm of clear trunk (stem?) now.  Still no suckers though.

[Matt in SD]

Here's a closeup of the crown