Huge Palm, Cycad & Tropical Plant Sale

[BS Man about Palms]

Phil-

I think the "you need three" is the same as the "Hedyscepe complex" I mentioned to you. Several of us, Shon, and I think MattyB among others have all noted that Hedys are a mystery which ones will be the vigorous ones, and therefore with 3, one of them is bound to be happy. I do think you'll be able to tell within a year or two of planting which group it will be in.

As for the cultural, I noted that Hedys once larger can be VERY adaptable. Best evidence is to look at Gary L's, they are as beautiful of ones as you would see anywhere. They are well inland at least 25 miles, he is up a bit, but it does get hot and dry where hes at. BUT, they are currently under a large oak and he is slowly trying to open it up to get them adapted.

I think the key is to note where they came from and where they are going and try to make the change as gentle as possible.

Give me a moment to find a pic and post of Garys Hedys.

Here, with Ken, Jeff and Gary. Lens somewhere nearby.

[Shon]

Gary's Hedy's defy logic. If someone told they lived where Gary lives a Hedyscepe would not be a palm I would choose for them. The Sydney palm looks Burretiokentia species to me

[Phil]

Shon,

Burretiokentia is a good thought. Let's take a look and prove or disprove it. Let's look at the main three possibilities for Burretiokentia.

1. Is it B. vieillardii? Well, there's none of the striping we see on B. vieillardii: (PACSOA picture of scrown shaft):

And, here's the blossom of B. viellardii below. It looks different than the subject "Hedyscepe" blossom pictured 2nd below:

Compare that to the cloeup of the subject "Hedyscepe":

See how the blossom of the subject plant has a single main stem whereas the viellierdii is branched? I'm not a toxonomist, but they look different to me. Because of these things, I'd say no to viellardii.

2. Burretiokentia hapala? I don't think so. Check out its blossom below of hapala:

It's fuzzy and friendly, so I'd say no to it as well.

Continued:

Phil

[Phil]

Continued:

3. What about Burretiokentia khogiensis: The subject plant's leaves are quite keeled and B. khogiensis is a flatter leaf:

PACSOA picture:

.

And here's a picture that Jesse and I took in habitat in New Caledonia:

Check out the flat leaf and the blossom. They're different. So, I'd say no to khogiensis as well.

Unfortunately I don't have photos to compare the other Burretiokentia species. But, I know what you mean by general appearance. I thought about that as well when I saw the unusual color of the crown shaft. Any other ideas?

Phil

[pogobob]

Shon,

Burretiokentia is a good thought. Let's take a look and prove or disprove it. Let's look at the main three possibilities for Burretiokentia.

1. Is it B. vieillardii? Well, there's none of the striping we see on B. vieillardii: (PACSOA picture of scrown shaft):

And, here's the blossom of B. viellardii below. It looks different than the subject "Hedyscepe" blossom pictured 2nd below:

Compare that to the cloeup of the subject "Hedyscepe":

See how the blossom of the subject plant has a single main stem whereas the viellierdii is branched? I'm not a toxonomist, but they look different to me. Because of these things, I'd say no to viellardii.

2. Burretiokentia hapala? I don't think so. Check out its blossom below of hapala:

It's fuzzy and friendly, so I'd say no to it as well.

Continued:

Phil

Hi phil, That is deffinitly a flowering Hedeycepe in the PACSOA pic, I should know as I have many. And that is not a flowering Hapala, it is Koghiensis, as it is a foto of my palm. I hope that helps...Bob

[Urban Rainforest]

Shon,

Burretiokentia is a good thought. Let's take a look and prove or disprove it. Let's look at the main three possibilities for Burretiokentia.

1. Is it B. vieillardii? Well, there's none of the striping we see on B. vieillardii: (PACSOA picture of scrown shaft):

And, here's the blossom of B. viellardii below. It looks different than the subject "Hedyscepe" blossom pictured 2nd below:

Compare that to the cloeup of the subject "Hedyscepe":

See how the blossom of the subject plant has a single main stem whereas the viellierdii is branched? I'm not a toxonomist, but they look different to me. Because of these things, I'd say no to viellardii.

2. Burretiokentia hapala? I don't think so. Check out its blossom below of hapala:

It's fuzzy and friendly, so I'd say no to it as well.

Continued:

Phil

Hi phil, That is deffinitly a flowering Hedeycepe in the PACSOA pic, I should know as I have many. And that is not a flowering Hapala, it is Koghiensis, as it is a foto of my palm. I hope that helps...Bob

Pogo, Your garden ROCKS . My favorite New Caledonia garden fo sho!!!

Stevo

[Phil]

Bob,

You are correct, I copied/pasted the wrong photo in my rush. Here's a hapala. It's very similar looking, a little more fuzzy.

Here's what PACSOA shows for hapala:

Re the crown shaft color of the Hedyscepe in Sydney, my suspicion is that an old leaf base was removed for the photo and we see that color. Like I said before, I've seen orange and near red color on shafts of Howea forsteriana when an old leaf base is removed.

Phil

[Phil]

Good morning,

As promised, we're going to move on to Lepidorrhachis mooreana. At the onset of this discussion, I would like to say that Lepidorrhachis is a bit of enigma to the palm world. The reasons for this are multiple. First, it is a monotypic genus that only appears on two mountains on Lord Howe Island. And, it's at the top of these mountains and not easily viewed. Secondly, it has proven to be a challenge for many to grow. And finally it is in such poor supply that there are few domestic specimens around of this species. This means there are few pictures on the internet of it as well.

Lepidorrhachis moreana occurs at the highest native elevation (approx. 2500 ft) of any of the species on L.H.I. It is seen on both Mt. Gower and Lidgbird where it enjoys good humidty, often cloudy conditions, and moist soil. These things are key to culture, as will be discussed later. It apparently does not freeze in its habitat. It is single trunk, has a crown shaft and is a somewhat dwarfed palm compared to the other species on the island. The crown shaft is characterized by having a split and separation on the opposite side to the leaf stem's attachment. Trunk diameter is about 6 inches. Trunk height is reportedly up to ten feet. Many times photographs show much smaller trunks so readers think that the trunks only get to about three or four feet, but they do get taller. The leaves are somewhat short (about five feet), minimally curved toward the ground below, V-shaped in cross-section and the leaflet color is a limey green. Many of the photographed specimens make the leaves look stiff although they are not particularly stiff to the touch, especially when young. The leaflets are about two inches wide.

Below is a picture from the website www.dipbot.unict.it. I am not positive, but I think this might be the often photographed specimen of Pauleen Sullivan's garden in Ventura, CA. If anyone recognizes this specimen for sure, post where it is growing. The website doesn't give an origin to the photo.

You will note that the plant above is quite small with short V-shaped (keeled) leaves and is in flower. Pictures from older texts showed it as this extremely dwarfted palm as well. But, it can get taller than this. Below is a PACSOA photo from Mt. Gower showing a much taller palm. Note that it appears to be growing in shade, which might stretch out its leaves:

Likewise the plant above is in flower. Seeds on this species are the smallest of any seeds from LHI. They are 1/4 inch and red in color. Below is a PACSOA photo of a flower with mostly green seeds. A few are turning red. You can see that one flower produces a lot of seeds. Trees are monoecious so if you have one successful plant, you can get seeds.

Below is PACSOA's only other photo of Lepidorrhachis, showing the flowers again with some red seeds. This shot gives you a good luck at the trunk.

Lepidorrhachis continued:

Phil

[Phil]

Lepidorrhachis continued:

In trying to get you good information and photos for this intriguing species, I came across the folloowing drawing from www.anbg.gov.au which reproduced Flora of Australia, Vol. 49. I think we might not totally agree with the drawings, but it gives an idea of shapes and comparison of sizes of the species of LHI. Interestingly, Rhopalostylis is included in this drawing of species. The code is below the drawings:

ARECACEAE. A–B, Howea belmoreana. A, habit; B, top of trunk with inflorescences. C–D, Howea forsteriana. C, habit; D, top of trunk with inflorescences. E, Lepidorrhachis mooreana, habit. F, Hedyscepe canterburyana, habit. G, Rhopalostylis baueri var. baueri, habit. Scale bars: A, C, E–G = 1 m; B, D = 50 cm. A–G all drawn from photographs. Drawn by C.Grey-Wilson.

Flora of Australia Volume 49 (1994) figure 91.

Known as the Little Mountain Palm, this species does grow at the top of the two mountains of Lord Howe Island. Botanist Bill Baker of Kew Botanical Gardens took the following photo that is seen on the Internet:

Another Bill Baker photograph of the ripe seeds is below:

Entitled "Palm Specialist Group", below is a link to the article by Bill Baker on the species:

Lepidorrhachis

But by far and away the best reference I could find for you is also By Bill Baker of Kew. This is a pdf file so I can't show you pictures, but you should hit this link for the best photos of the species and it's natural habitat. It is a superb reference. The photographs of the mossy forest habitat and Lepidorrhachis are breathtaking:

Lepidorrhachis-Bill Baker

Lepidorrhachis continued:

Phil

[Phil]

Lepidorrhachis continued:

At the onset, I said Lepidorrhachis was a sort of enigma to us all. Why did I say that. Well, it's extremely hard and unpredictable to grow. Remember that it comes from the top of the only two mountains on LHI. There it is quite moist, humid, gets good water, doesn't get too hot, and by report doesn't freeze. This is what you have to attempt to reproduce when you grow this species.

So, who has this kind of conditions? We know Pauleen Sullivan has grown one for years in Ventura, CA. For those of you who don't know Ventura, it's right on the coast near Santa Barbara and definitely gets a coastal influence. But the area often mentioned ideal for this species is the San Francisco Bay area of California. Darold Petty (on PalmTalk) often mentions the successful growth of Lepidorrhachis in the San Francisco area.

The photograph below previously posted on PalmTalk by ghar41 shows two small Lepidorrhachis at the Oakland Palmetum, just east of San Franciso. They must be getting some sun because they've thrown a shadow:

Now let's look at some containerized plants from the Nursery. Remember, Lepidorrhachis is seldom available.

We'll start with the one gallons that I presently am offering. For those who want prices, to this group these are $44 each:

Now let's look at one plant a bit closer:

These plants are about 4 years old and still have undivided leaflets.

Lepidorrhachis continued:

Phil

[Phil]

Lepidorrhachis continued:

The derivation of the name "Lepidorrhachis" means "scale" (often colored) on the "rachis". Let's take a closeup look at this:

Can you see the scale of the base of the leaf stem above?

Below is a closeup of the leaf:

Below is a closeup of a leaf from a older plant which has developed leaflets (opposed to the simple leaves above):

Below is a yet bigger photo not taken by me but reportedly a 15g Lepidorrhachis. I can't be sure, but perhaps this is from Bob Dejong:

Lepidorrhachis continued:

Phil

[Phil]

Lepidorrhachis continued:

So what can one say about culture? I think many of us can verify what this species doesn't like. They don't like hot, dry heat. They don't like hot, dry sun. They want lots of moisture with good drainage. They want good air humidity. They don't want to freeze. If you are going to grow them in sun, you must guarantee humidity in the air. Remember where they are coming from. Try to reproduce that.

Quaman58 (Bret) from this group has been growing some outdoors at his home in the San Diego area. The Lepidorrhachis is the plant in the foreground.

He sent me some recent photographs of his plants in 15g containers. I thought it would be helpful to share these with you. He might want to give some cultural tips here.

Here's a closer view of Bret's plant:

And a closeup of the base:

I know that I've shown you a lot of photographs of this species. But, I can guarantee you there is not easy place to see this many photographs anywhere. I think it's worth your persistence, time, and this Site's disc space.

Lepidorrhachis continued.

Phil

[Phil]

Lepidorrhachis continued:

When I talked to Bret about growing his Lepidorrhachis, he told me they were in containers with peculiar drainage holes. These holdes were three inches off the ground. I've seen such containers used by Florida growers to retain water in the bottom of the pot and prevent rooting out into the soil beneath the pot. Could this be a clue as to the culture? Remember, we know they like water.

Photo of the container Bret's using:

We know that it takes decades to get any reasonably sized trunk. We also know that the plants are very hard to come across. And, culture is challenging. If you want one in your garden, you better get started and grow it carefully. Below is Bill Sanford (BS ManAboutPalms) with his booty of the Little Muntain Palm.

I thank all of you for reading this rather long thread. I hope you enjoyed it. I trust we'll get some feedback on this fascinating species, especially on culture. Feel free to post a photo of your successfully grown plant.

Best regards,

Phil

[quaman58]

Phil,

You're explanations are so thorough, there's not a lot for me to add. Though they have the (deserved) reputation of being finnicky, when their needs are met, they are sturdy growers, putting out 3 fronds a year. I even abused mine a bit, planting it in too much sun a couple years back, where it started to yellow. I even posted a pic on this forum, where I was told to "move it or lose it"! So I dug it up, re-potted it, and put it back where it was, and it quickly recovered. It also grows quicker during the summer like most everything else, although we seldom get above 85f in this area. The high drainage holes were a complete accident on my part, but keep the soil moist, almost mucky. Finally, the picture of the two larger plants in pots on your last post; the one on the right is Hedycepe. I took the picture because they are amazingly similar in form at this age. I always have to take a close look to see what I'm looking at!

Bill, I'm assuming that armful you're carring is to pass out to your friends; I'd hate to think you're really that greedy.

Bret

[Phil]

Brett,

I should have qualified it, but one of that bundle was for Shon. Yes, Bill did leave lots for others.

Phil

[Phil]

Addendum on Lepidorrhachis:

For those of you who remember, I mentioned the "upright Howea" about a week ago when I talked about Howea. Every plant I know to exist domestically of this plant in the U.S. came from one batch of seeds that Rudy Lasaga (Spring Valley, CA) germinated in the late 1970's or early 1980's and grew to about one gallon size. He thought they were Lepidorrhachis mooreana and sold them as this. But, most knew they were not. Below you'll find a photograph from the Palm Society of Southern California website under the Meetings section. It is a picture of a "Lepidorrhachis mooreana" at Huntington Botanical Garden.

After the previous discussion with all the photos, I think you can likewise question this species name for this photo. It is certainly different than the previously credited photo below of Lepidorrhachis:

It's tough on all of us to know the accurate name of everything. And, botanical gardens fall into the same trouble. I am sure this plant was purchased as a "Lepidorrhachis" and the garden hasn't had time, resources or interest in veryifying it as of yet.

As time goes by, we all sooner or later get it right.

Phil

[MattyB]

Still reading and following along. Thanks.

[Phil]

MattyB,

Thanks for reading.

I thought I'd make a few more comments about culture. We tend to keep our greenhouses cool. We utilize a lot of fans and keep the sides and top open. The Lepidorrhachis I pictured in the 1g size above were grown outdoors in filtered light. But, even in our greenhouse, Lepidorrhachis hasn't been difficult to grow if we keep them watered. Of the several hundred or so we've grown, no more than one or two have died for us. But, remember we have humidity inside. If you are in a drier area, it will be more of a challenge. I heard of a grower who lost a batch of them when his greenhouse got real warm and dry during a Santa Ana condition. So, if you get one, really water them well. And, avoid excess heat.

Regarding planting them in the ground, this is a species that may benefit from "pot planting", ie. planting them directly into the ground but still inside the container. But, you have to hand water into the pot if you do this or the plant will be isolated from the normal ground water in the garden. Pot planting is a controversial subject and I don't intend to discuss that here, but it is a consideration with this species.

Phil

[Phil]

Group,

I talked to someone yesterday about distinguishing containerized Lepidorrhachis from Hedyscepe. There are a few things I'll mention that help.

Remember how the derivation of the name "Lepidorrhachis" refers to scale (fuzz) on the rhachis? (or stem if considered broadly) Let's take look at this in a containerized Lepidorrhachis:

I'm sure you see these colored scales. It looks brown at the base of each leaf stem and along the trunk. Now look at a 15g Hedyscepe. It's a clean bue-green with no brown scale or fuzz. It also has that characteristic "bulbous base":

So, if a plant is in the container look for this brown color and the appearance of the base of the plant..

With mature trees it's actually easier. In his article, William Baker mentioned he didn't see trunks of Lepidorrhachis over 2 meters. And, the brown scale is present as you've seen. Hedyscepe have taller trunks, longer leaves, bigger fruit and a totally different color to the trunk and crown shaft. Also, with Hedyscepe you have a complete (all the way around the trunk) crown shaft:

This crown shaft appearance is another good way to tell the two apart on larger trees. When you compare the Hedyscepe to Lepidorrhachis, the back side of the "crown shaft" of Lepidorrhachis shows that it is incomplete. On the side opposite to the attached stem, you note there is a deep gap in the crown shaft. It's attached inferiorly, but one can easily see the huge gap or notch that shows inner tissue above the point of attachment. This is seen with Lepidorrhachis and is characteristic. The picture below is from PACSOA and was used to show the blossom of Lepidorrhachis. Now, look at it in a new unit of time looking specifically at the back side of the crown shaft:

I hope this helps.

Phil

[BS Man about Palms]

This crown shaft appearance is another good way to tell the two apart on larger trees. When you compare the Hedyscepe to Lepidorrhachis, the back side of the "crown shaft" of Lepidorrhachis shows that it is incomplete. On the side opposite to the attached stem, you note there is a deep gap in the crown shaft. It's attached inferiorly, but one can easily see the huge gap or notch that shows inner tissue above the point of attachment. This is seen with Lepidorrhachis and is characteristic. The picture below is from PACSOA and was used to show the blossom of Lepidorrhachis. Now, look at it in a new unit of time looking specifically at the back side of the crown shaft:

I hope this helps.

Phil

Phil, with my "painting" on a previous pic, is that area the part which you are talking about? If not, I can see that as a distinguishing characteristic.

Bill

[Phil]

Bill and Group,

Good morning.

I figure the best scientific explanation of the brown color of Lepidorrhachis would come from Genera Palmarum by Uhl and Dransfield. I will paraphrase their description on a few points below:

"stem thick, short, prominently ringed"

"Sheath inflated at base" (bulging in the crownshaft area) ...."deeply split opposite the petiole , not forming a distinct crownshaft"

"densely brown scurfy toward the apex and petiole"

"petiole short....densely brown-scurfy"

"rhachis...densely tomentose"

"Scurf" is a word most of us don't use often. Here's a definition from the internet:

scurf (skûrf) n. 1. Scaly or shredded dry skin, such as dandruff. 2. A loose scaly crust coating a surface, especially of a plant. [Middle English, probably of Scandinavian

So, in answer to your question and the arrows, the characteristic is the brown "scurf" on the leaf stems and the apex of the plant. Now, if you are referring to the little appendage-like tag of tissue below your arrows, that is not my understanding of this "scurf", which helps identifies the species. It's more of the general brown scales seen abundantly in the pictures above and quite easy to spot.

I hope this helps.

Phil

[Phil]

Goup,

Darold Petty is a member of this group and emailed me last night. He lives close to ocean in San Francisco and mention has been made above of his success with Lepidorrhachis. Darold didn't have the computer capability to decrease the density of these pictures and asked that I post them for him. I'll show the pictures first, and then tell the "good and bad" of the story below. I want to thank Darold for sending me the photos and for his comments below (sent by email).

I was quite impressed with the length of the leaves on Darold's plant. It's longer than I'm use to seeing.

Below is a copy of the email he sent to me with the history of this plant:

> I obtained my plant in August, 1990 from a friend who had visited LHI as

> a

> tourist. The plant was then a two-leaf seedling.

> I grew it in pots until May, 1997, when it was about 65 cm tall in a pot

> 25

> cm diameter by 30 cm tall. At this time I planted it into the ground with

> some overhead protection from two adult Rhopalostylis palms.

> It produced the first mature spadix with viable flowers in 2004 after

> producing a few small, poorly formed attempts at a spadix.

> It produced five additional well-formed spadices by September, 2006. All

> flowers on all six spadices were pistillate. Occassionally, some flowers

> would swell up as if they had been pollinated; but they always failed to

> develop into fertile seeds.

> It died in November, 2006 from sheath nematodes, genus Hemicycliophora.

> This cause of death was identified by the State of California, ,Plant

> Health and Pest Prevention Services, Pest and Damage Record PDR #1407916.

>

> At the time of death, the trunk diameter was 11cm, and the height of the

> trunk below the leafbases was 37cm tall.

> The trunk had 12 leafbase scars, and 13 internodes.

> It held an average number of leaves in the crown of about 10 to 12 leaves.

> The overall profile size of the palm was about 1.8 m wide by about 3.0 m

> tall. This size was acheived in 16 years; 6.5 years in pot cultivation

> and

> 9.5 years in-ground growth.

>

> I will attempt to attach two photographs of the palm taken in late 2006.

In another email to Don Hodel (which he copied to me), Darold talks about organic additives to sandy soil and their importance. And, he speculates about the cause of the demise of his plant. Well Darold, it's time to put in another, maybe this time with a bit of mulch and organic "tea". Thanks.

Phil

[Phil]

One more thing:

Look at the photograph below:

This is a picture of the cluster of one gallon Lepidorrhachis I have (some gone) for sale. When Bill came by, he picked out a couple. And, he chose the one in the top of this picture, slightly to the right. Someone else called me and qustioned me about this plant. Note that the leaves are pinnate, yet it's not really as big as the other plants. All the other plants are still in the typical, solid-leaf stage. What's up with this plant? Is it something different? Perhaps this selection was the result of Bill's keen eye and his "Dypsis-inspired" experiences at looking for differences among plants. I, myself, grow a batch of plants and tend not to over-scrutinize the looks of one compared to the other. I feel it's sort of like your kids; they all look a bit different. And, I've got too many other things to do. But, Bill jumped on it. This pinnate little leafer came from the same batch as the others. Time will tell if it's anything different.

Any comments from others?

Phil

[quaman58]

Phil (& Bill),

I'm going on memory here (since it was 3-1/2 years ago), but when I purchased my one gal. plants from you, they each had one or two pinnate leaves in addition to the lower ranking bifid leaves. Yet they were the same size as the ones in your picture. Anyway, just my thought.

Bret

[MattyB]

Bill bought a Hedescepy by mistake? You can count on Bill to sniff out the rare stuff that's for sure.

[Phil]

Matt,

If Bill would shoot a closeup, all we have to do is look from the scurf. Remember, clean as a whistle with Hedyscepe. And, of course, the big seed.which would probably be attached. So, I doubt he got a Hedy.

Phil

[LJG]

Thanks Phil.

I am always impressed with Darold's detailed work. He has to be one of the few that sends dead palm material to the State for identification. This is not the first time I have heard him do this. What scares me is that the two times I have heard his results, both times were nematodes. Are nematodes an issue in SoCal? Maybe they are but no one takes the time to find out?

[Darold Petty]

to Len and all; I have lost only one Lepidorrhachis to nematodes. (This same info was previously posted on an older thread. ) My garden is just 1 mile (1.6 km) inland from the ocean. The 'soil' is nearly pure sand and is severely lacking humus or organic matter. I never used compost or manures for 23 years because I didn't want to raise the level of my tiny planting areas relative to the hardscaping of patio and walkways. Since the death of my palm I have learned that the pathogenic nematodes are always present within the myriad species of soil microfauna. They seldom cause damage to larger plants because they are controlled by other nematodes, and even fungi that act as predators to the bad nematodes. The bad nematodes are favored by "sandy soils, low in organic matter, with heavy irrigation, and an exclusive reliance on synthetic salt fertilizers". This is the precise description of my garden for many years. I now have 'the 'old-time religion' about the value of annual top dressings of compost and manures. I can see an big improvement in my palms just ten months after a heavy application of organics. These include compost, steer and chicken manures, feather meal (slow release N), greensand (slow K), kelp extract, humic acid, earthworm castings, and shrimp meal (specific for nematodes). I still believe that synthetic salt fertilizers have value, but as a supplement to the primary use of organics, or as a remedy for a specific deficiency. (Most of the organic proponents claim that synthetics are alway bad, because of the high osmotic potential of the salts and the consequent damage to soil microfauna.) Clay soils have better levels of organics and nutrition than my hydroponic sand dune, but I believe that all our gardens are better served by regular organic topdressings.

Yes, Phil, I have a replacement 5 gallon sized Lepidorrhachis and will replant in the same location!

[LJG]

Thanks Darold! All makes sense. I have always used mulch/bark. But this year I am doing a compost under mulch. While my soil is not sandy, it is DG with almost no nutrients as the lot was new.

[MattyB]

I like that approach too Len. Throw down the composted stuff first, then cover with mulch. Then all you have to do is continue to add mulch because the cycle is started. The compost gets absorbed, old mulch now turns into your compost, and you add a new batch of mulch on top. I'm glad to see you're learning from me finally.

[Matt in SD]

Bill,

The "thingy's" that your arrows are pointing to are called "ligules". Whether or not a palm petiole has "ligules" or "sloping shoulders" at the junction with the crownshaft is usually mentioned in a scientific description (don't you READ Palms of Madagascar or do you just drool on the pictures?? ). There is also often mention of whether the ligules are persistent or whether they are papery and disintegrate over time.

By the way, great thread Phil. I've been following, just not had any real reason to post. Although given my new houses proximity to Bret, I may have to drop by and snag one of those Lepidorrachis.

Matt

[BS Man about Palms]

Bill bought a Hedescepy by mistake? You can count on Bill to sniff out the rare stuff that's for sure.

"Whats all this I hear about National Racehorses?"..............oh.......Nevermind.

Seriously, I looked at it for a long time, it does have the scale/smurf or whatever you want to call it on it. It wasn't the biggest, but I've already learned I'm rarely disappointed when I buy the "different palm". Heres to hoping for unimpeded growth, I already know where I want to plant one and I hope to do so in the next month or so.

[BS Man about Palms]

I like that approach too Len. Throw down the composted stuff first, then cover with mulch. Then all you have to do is continue to add mulch because the cycle is started. The compost gets absorbed, old mulch now turns into your compost, and you add a new batch of mulch on top. I'm glad to see you're learning from me finally.

I really just mulch because I want a "poofy" feel when I walk in my yard like at Gary LeVines...

[Phil]

Good Morning. It's been a few days since we've looked at a new species. For those of you who went to the PSSC Banquet yesterday, we were all treated with a great presentation by a good friend of mine, Jeff Marcus, on the palms of Madagascar. His photographs were from habitat and certainly opened a lot of eyes. One of the things he briefly talked about was variation among species and differences seen when a particular species is grown domestically. When you take any given species from the wild and plant it in an optimal garden and give it lots of water and fertilizer, traits and especially colors may develope that you won't see in the wild. Take for instance an "orange crown shaft". As Jeff mentioned, when you remove the old leaf base from a lot of palms, that's when you're going to see color. And, in Madagascar, this is often orange. Or take trunk size: when you grow it domestically the trunk might be much fatter than in habitat. In our attempt to learn the species of a "new" area (in this case madagascar), we must consider these things. And, we must realize that there often is variation among species.

This is sort of an introduction to looking at the well known species Dypsis onilahensis. Below is a picture from a domestic garden of "Dypsis onilahensis". Let's pay particular attention to the leaves and leaflets. You will note that the older leaves on this plant are, at best, only slightly drooping.

Now let's look at another photo of a different plant in a domestic garden. I think this is from Dean Ouer's garden. Note on the stem which you can see, that the leaves are drooping more than in the last photo:

Below is a PACSOA photo from habitat of Dypsis onilahensis. Note two things: first, the very droopy leaves. Secondly the habitat. D. onilahensis grows in a very hot and dry environment; and in full sun.

This is rough, dry and hot country. In his talk, Jeff emphasized this multiple times. We saw photos of groupings where many plants appeared to be single trunks. To be clear, this species can be single trunk or suckering. But, either way, the leaflets were very droopy and hanging straight down in the photos of plants taken in hot, dry sun.

Here's another PACSOA photo showing this:

Dypsis onilahensis continued:

Phil

[Phil]

Dypsis onilahensis continued:

So, does this mean that the first photo was not onilahensis? Not so quick. Jeff Bruseau was with Jeff on his trip. He went through the bush a ways and took more pictures of "Dypsis onilahensis" in the same locality. Guess what? The leaves didn't droop. Is it that these latter plants weren't getting the same hot sun exposure of the previous plants?Would those droopy leaf specimens show less droop if they got more water?

Or, is the plant below something else? It's called "Dypsis onilahensis" in its domestic garden:

What about this specimen from habitat in Madagascar. It's not droopy like the others. Is it not Dypsis onilahensis?

I might note that the plant above appears to be an area where water appears more abundant.

Below is another habitat photo showing droopy leaves.

At the Pacsoa website, the author says that he's seen Dypsis that are white crown shafted and called "onilahensis" but don't have the "droopy" leaves. He states quite simple these are not true onilahensis. (he admits he doesn't know what they are). Yet Jeff just showed plants in the same habitat almost right next to the droopy ones that weren't droopy. So, what do we (or I) make of this? My answer: "Who knows?". This is yet another example of collectors and scientists in a relatively brief amount of time coming into a difficult to negotiate area with hundreds of new species of palms in a habitat that is rapidly disappearing, locating some palms here and some there, and then saying "here's your field guide". Even John D. would admit there's a lot to be learned about Madagascar. In regards to that "non-droopy" plant photographed by Jeff Brusseau, I suspect John might say it's a variation of onilahensis, but in now way can I speak for him. Does D. onilahensis have to have the droopy leaflets? "Who knows?".

In keepig with the them of showing plants that one might find in a nursery, here's a picture of Dypsis onilahensis in a 5g size, about 4 feet tall:

Dypsis onilahensis continued:

Phil

[Phil]

Dypsis onilahensis continued:

Below is a closer view of a 5g Dypsis onilahensis. You'll note that at this stage the predominant color is red, typical of this species. In the ground and later it becomes silver or white. Sorry that it's a bit out of focus, but you can see the color and the fact that it is suckering.

Below is a picture of the base of this plant:

The plant above should become a larger plant with the droopy leaflets.

How does one grow this species? Most I know grow it in filtered light and let it work its way into the sun. But, reconsider the native environment in this photo by JS:

This certainly isn't filtered light. More recently, lots of enthusiasts have been introducing this species into hot sun.

l

Like so many other Dypsis, this species prefers nicely draining soil and adquate water.

In summarizing, what would I say to a person who told me they had a Dypsis onilahensis in their garden and the leaves were not droopy? Or to a person who's specimen only had one trunk? Or to a person who's specimen had a bit different color to the crownshaft? I'd probably say "Wow! What a beautiful palm" and leave it at that.

Phil

[doubravsky]

Great thread as always Phil! Onilahensis is one of my favorites.. takes full sun even out here in Riverside, never blinked at the freeze of 2007... and looks beautful!

[quaman58]

Geat timing on this one Phil. I planted one about 4 years ago in part day sun. It was a bit slow--until this year. I has gone from being about 18" tall to about 4 foot overall. (It's a triple). So yesterday, as I'm doing some cleaning up around it, my wife actually stops in her tracks and remarks "wow, that's a pretty palm". It is one of the very few palms in my garden that looks perfect, despite the winter cold, the dry santa anas. It has got that perfect palm "elegance" about it.

Bret

Edited January 26, 2009 by quaman58

[Phil]

Good morning.

I thought today we'd jump to a cycad. We haven't talked about a cycad species for a long time. A while back we talked about the "basic blue" Encephalartos. This included E. horridus, trispinosus, lehmanii and princeps. If you remember, E. horridus was very rigid with pungent tips and the "flip" on one of the lobes. There is a green Encephalartos that is quite reminiscent of E. horridus. This species is Encephalartos arenarius. This is a highly spined leaflet species that doesn't get overyly large. Yes, it is typically larger than E. horridus, but trunk height typically doesn't get much above three to four feet.

Encephalartos arenarius in a garden:

This species has a main trunk and will produce suckers at its base. It is native to the Eastern Cape Province of the Republic of South Africa. In it's natural habitat it often grows in filtered light conditions, protected from intense sun by overhead trees. It does have similarities to the rare Encephalartos latifrons, but has a different leaflet appearance and more of a blue-green color compared to the frankly green leaflets of latifrons. The leaflets of E. latifrons are often overlapping (stacked) and crowded whereas the leaflets of E. arenarius leaf are more separated with gaps between them.

Closeup leaflets, E. arenarius:

Closeup leaflets, E. latifrons:

Another closeup of the leaflets of E. arenarius:

For those wishing to read about the differences between E. latifrons and E. arenarius, here's a link to a discussion. It's at the Cycad Society Webpage:

E. latifrons vs. E. arenarius

Encephalartos arenarius continued:

Phil

[Phil]

E. arenarius continued:

The leaves of Encephalartos arenarius are typically from three to five feet long. Most are recurved or "curled" at the end, some more than others. But, this curl is typically less than you'd see on most E. horridus and trispinosus:

The cones of E. arenarius are green to slightly brown. Below is a picture of a male cone of E. arenarius that has been removed from one of our plants to collect pollen:

And here's a closeup of that cone. You can see the tiny tan colored pollen spores that hold the pollen. They look like tiny little eggs between the catophyls of the cone. When they release the pollen, it is collected on the paper below and then protected for later usage. Pollen, when collected, is a bit more coarse than talcum powder. Don't breathe the pollen.

Here's a male cone attached to a mature plant:

E. arenarius continued:

Phil