T.wagnerianus Classification

[SeanK]

Many years ago I knew a palm enthusiast who told me, "There are splitters and there are lumpers". I guess I'm more prone to lumping similar palms into the same species. I have always questioned the differentiation between W.robusta and W.filifera. Now, I com across this one:

https://www.plantdelights.com/products/trachycarpus-fortunei-wagnerianus

Folks often used seed shape to classify Trachicarpus species.

[Chester B]

This isn’t anything new. Yes it’s called T wagnerianus which isn’t exactly correct but it has been considered a fortunei for a long time. I think they found it in a temple, but has never been seen in the wild. 

[Dwarf Fan]

My research says no one has much solid history on it or how or why it came about. I have heard speculation that a Japanese Bonsai grower had some hand in the origin of the Trachy Waggie but this was never backed up by any actual proof so it sounded like old Palm lore or just a guess that has been perpetuated.

 I just know it did from Japan not China, that is really all that I have heard conclusively about its origins.

Chester what city was the Temple location? I have not heard the Temple mythos cate to share any backstory?

[Dwarf Fan]

Robusta and Filifera are absolutely different compare the fat trunked darker green frond Filiferas in the San Diego County desert region to the thin trunked Lime Green frond Robustas found in Baja California and they are clearly very different and have evolved separately.

[Chester B]

15 minutes ago, Dwarf Fan said:

My research says no one has much solid history on it or how or why it came about. I have heard speculation that a Japanese Bonsai grower had some hand in the origin of the Trachy Waggie but this was never backed up by any actual proof so it sounded like old Palm lore or just a guess that has been perpetuated.

 I just know it did from Japan not China, that is really all that I have heard conclusively about its origins.

Chester what city was the Temple location? I have not heard the Temple mythos cate to share any backstory?

Honestly I don’t remember. I just remember it being grown in a temple(s) and this is how it got out into the world. If you look it up it says a temple in Southern Japan. Whether or not this is 100% factual I can’t say. 

[peachy]

I was always under the impression that Waggies were a dwarf version of Fortunei but with denser foliage.  I've just spent 15 years trying to find one and now it could be I just wasted a lot of time.

Peachy

[Chester B]

10 hours ago, peachy said:

I was always under the impression that Waggies were a dwarf version of Fortunei but with denser foliage.  I've just spent 15 years trying to find one and now it could be I just wasted a lot of time.

Peachy

Yes, they are considered a cultivated form.  Still a nice palm and not a waste of time.

[Dwarf Fan]

22 hours ago, peachy said:

I was always under the impression that Waggies were a dwarf version of Fortunei but with denser foliage.  I've just spent 15 years trying to find one and now it could be I just wasted a lot of time.

Peachy

In my humble opinion Waggies are the best looking of all the Trachycarpus an absolutely beautiful Palm regardless of classification. Definitely a worthy addition to any garden, sorry it is not easier to obtain in your region but worth hunting for no matter how long it takes, please don’t be discouraged Peachy. 

[Harry’s Palms]

The Wagnerianus varieties I have seen have a tightly held , smaller frond than the standard windmill. They otherwise seem the same . Harry

[SeanK]

On 5/5/2024 at 12:23 AM, peachy said:

I was always under the impression that Waggies were a dwarf version of Fortunei but with denser foliage.  I've just spent 15 years trying to find one and now it could be I just wasted a lot of time.

Peachy

They're very nice when juvenile. However, they never seem to have more than 20 leaves in the crown. Regular fortuneis carry as many as 60.

[SeanK]

On 5/4/2024 at 11:18 PM, Dwarf Fan said:

Robusta and Filifera are absolutely different compare the fat trunked darker green frond Filiferas in the San Diego County desert region to the thin trunked Lime Green frond Robustas found in Baja California and they are clearly very different and have evolved separately.

I believe a poster here on PT provided research that debunked the two-species theory. It was about 6 months back.

[peachy]

On 5/6/2024 at 12:50 AM, Chester B said:

Yes, they are considered a cultivated form.  Still a nice palm and not a waste of time.

 

21 hours ago, Dwarf Fan said:

In my humble opinion Waggies are the best looking of all the Trachycarpus an absolutely beautiful Palm regardless of classification. Definitely a worthy addition to any garden, sorry it is not easier to obtain in your region but worth hunting for no matter how long it takes, please don’t be discouraged Peachy. 

I have a new garden with only a tiny bit of ground so every palm has to count.  I am going to keep it in a pot and if and when it starts to need too much I can trade it for something else. T fortunei are hard to find and expensive also. I fluked mine at a market, 50cms high in a 20 cm pot.

Peachy

[Dwarf Fan]

10 hours ago, SeanK said:

I believe a poster here on PT provided research that debunked the two-species theory. It was about 6 months back.

Do you happen to have a link?

[SeanK]

9 hours ago, Dwarf Fan said:

Do you happen to have a link?

Not in my pocket. And since I work 8 to 5, I'm not likely to look for it.

[Elim North]

On 5/6/2024 at 10:10 PM, Dwarf Fan said:

Do you happen to have a link?

Is this the link you're thinking about (I hope I interpreted the thread at this point correctly - I think it started on the topic of Trachycarpus but somewhere along the way we moved to Washingtonia):

https://www.palmtalk.org/forum/topic/82936-washingtonia-palms-information/?do=findComment&comment=1153110

I confess I'm relatively new to Palmtalk and so open to being corrected.   - but if I had to synthesize the various lines of evidence I think a strong case can be made that there is a single, but somewhat variable, species of Washingtonia:

Recent taxonomy - Plants of the World Online (cited at the link above) recognizes only a single species Washingtonia filifera.  In fact, I think Xenon does a good job of explaining the scenario at the link.

Reading lots of lots of posts about Washingtonia from many on PalmTalk - it's interesting to me as someone "looking in from the outside" at how frequently there is lack of clarity on which species one has, and how commonly palm growers speculate on what percentage a particular plant might be expressing typical filifera or robusta traits.  Clearly there are no reproductive compatibility issues.

Old taxonomy - the Flora of North America project (Vol 22) treats Washingtonia as having 2 species separated on the morphological traits of bark colour, trunk diameter and trunk height, and acknowledges that these two species are difficult to distinguish from herbarium specimens.  They rely heavily on a paper by Zona and Scogin (1988) who used a chemotaxonomic approach, with differences in flavonoid profiles as a way to distinguish the two species.  I've gone over the paper and it's my opinion that the evidence is weak to use this as a basis for separating the species.  It could just as easily be interpreted as natural variation in flavonoid profile. 

It seems to me that the evidence supports a single species, albeit with a good deal of natural variation.  It may very well be possible that at this time in history we are witnessing the very beginnings of divergence toward two separate populations, but as Xenon states, there is no hard and fast rule (at least early in the process, and where natural range may overlap) as to what point two separate species exist.  In fact, I would tend to interpret it as a very positive thing that there is a good deal of natural variation available in Washingtonia.

 

 

[SeanK]

8 hours ago, Elim North said:

Is this the link you're thinking about (I hope I interpreted the thread at this point correctly - I think it started on the topic of Trachycarpus but somewhere along the way we moved to Washingtonia):

https://www.palmtalk.org/forum/topic/82936-washingtonia-palms-information/?do=findComment&comment=1153110

I confess I'm relatively new to Palmtalk and so open to being corrected.   - but if I had to synthesize the various lines of evidence I think a strong case can be made that there is a single, but somewhat variable, species of Washingtonia:

Recent taxonomy - Plants of the World Online (cited at the link above) recognizes only a single species Washingtonia filifera.  In fact, I think Xenon does a good job of explaining the scenario at the link.

Reading lots of lots of posts about Washingtonia from many on PalmTalk - it's interesting to me as someone "looking in from the outside" at how frequently there is lack of clarity on which species one has, and how commonly palm growers speculate on what percentage a particular plant might be expressing typical filifera or robusta traits.  Clearly there are no reproductive compatibility issues.

Old taxonomy - the Flora of North America project (Vol 22) treats Washingtonia as having 2 species separated on the morphological traits of bark colour, trunk diameter and trunk height, and acknowledges that these two species are difficult to distinguish from herbarium specimens.  They rely heavily on a paper by Zona and Scogin (1988) who used a chemotaxonomic approach, with differences in flavonoid profiles as a way to distinguish the two species.  I've gone over the paper and it's my opinion that the evidence is weak to use this as a basis for separating the species.  It could just as easily be interpreted as natural variation in flavonoid profile. 

It seems to me that the evidence supports a single species, albeit with a good deal of natural variation.  It may very well be possible that at this time in history we are witnessing the very beginnings of divergence toward two separate populations, but as Xenon states, there is no hard and fast rule (at least early in the process, and where natural range may overlap) as to what point two separate species exist.  In fact, I would tend to interpret it as a very positive thing that there is a good deal of natural variation available in Washingtonia.

 

 

I know the topic is a sensitive one for many growers. I always look to dogs. A Yorkie looks nothing like a St. Bernard. 

Botanists need to get more involved in genetics so the speciation definitions are DNA based.