Dypsis ambositrae (aka dypsis plumosa or dypsis fakey) wich one is it

[happypalms]

I got sold this palm to me as dypsis ambositrae from Rich trapnell rosebud farm I do know it’s not an ambositrae I have read of names such as dypsis plumosa fakey or just dypsis fakey iam sure the palm community will sort it out for me either way it’s not ambositrae to my knowledge or is it ? but I do know it’s one tough palm but very difficult to photograph 

[tim_brissy_13]

Now known as Chrysalidocarpus plumosus. Formerly Dypsis plumosa. Not sure how it ever got confused with ambositrae which looks quite different. 

[BS Man about Palms]

4 hours ago, tim_brissy_13 said:

Now known as Chrysalidocarpus plumosus. Formerly Dypsis plumosa. Not sure how it ever got confused with ambositrae which looks quite different. 

Tim, I think for brief time some were selling small ones as ambositrae.... as they grew it was obvious they were not. Thus the fakey name added.. until plumosa name was coined.

[happypalms]

4 hours ago, BS Man about Palms said:

Tim, I think for brief time some were selling small ones as ambositrae.... as they grew it was obvious they were not. Thus the fakey name added.. until plumosa name was coined.

I don’t know why they change names in the first place of any plant species it’s confusing enough with the dreaded memory lose side affects of palm collecting (obsessive plant hoarding disorder OPHD)

[Tracy]

6 hours ago, BS Man about Palms said:

Tim, I think for brief time some were selling small ones as ambositrae.... as they grew it was obvious they were not. Thus the fakey name added.. until plumosa name was coined.

Bill I can confirm this.  I remember the first one I bought, the container was marked with "ambositrae" struck through and plumosa written below it.  That was around 2010.

 

2 hours ago, happypalms said:

I don’t know why they change names in the first place of any plant species

New information in the time of genetic analysis yields some surprising new results in relationships.  It was posted in this thread by one of the main authors Bill Baker from the Kew:

Major change to Dypsis - now divided into three genera

 

The paper they published is freely accessible here https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tax.12797 .

[Tyrone]

I think Rich was selling some of these as wild seed ambositrae. Obviously they are not ambositrae but the “wild seed” part is interesting because as far as I know Chrysalidocarpus plumosus has never been officially located in the wild and was described from cultivated plants. 

[LJG]

6 hours ago, Tyrone said:

I think Rich was selling some of these as wild seed ambositrae. Obviously they are not ambositrae but the “wild seed” part is interesting because as far as I know Chrysalidocarpus plumosus has never been officially located in the wild and was described from cultivated plants. 

Rich got them from Alfred - who was the originator. Who knows where Alfred’s collectors got them in habitat exactly. Sadly, his record keeping was poor.

[Tyrone]

18 hours ago, LJG said:

Rich got them from Alfred - who was the originator. Who knows where Alfred’s collectors got them in habitat exactly. Sadly, his record keeping was poor.

That’s interesting. I remember discussing this maybe 15 years ago on Palmtalk and there was some thought that they came from a northern part of Madagascar in the general vicinity on the mainland adjacent to Nosy Be. I think it may have become a restricted military area. That could be why no botanists have discovered it in the wild, yet. 

[happypalms]

8 hours ago, Tyrone said:

That’s interesting. I remember discussing this maybe 15 years ago on Palmtalk and there was some thought that they came from a northern part of Madagascar in the general vicinity on the mainland adjacent to Nosy Be. I think it may have become a restricted military area. That could be why no botanists have discovered it in the wild, yet. 

Now that they are flowering it puts a whole new light on the subject time reveals all in the end