Chamaedorea species

[SeanK]

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

[Fusca]

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."

[NWpalms@206]

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 

[Darold Petty]

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

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

[DAVEinMB]

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.  

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 November 8, 2022 by DAVEinMB

[Harry’s Palms]

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.

[SeanK]

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.

[Dimovi]

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.  

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?

[Darold Petty]

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)

[Dimovi]

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?

[Fusca]

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.

Edited November 10, 2022 by Fusca

[Darold Petty]

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.  

[Darold Petty]

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

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 !      

[Silas_Sancona]

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.



Eulophia petersii,  Growing outside, in Tucson..



Aloe X Hurcules



...


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.

Eulophia petersii


...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 November 11, 2022 by Silas_Sancona
edit