Found a little tray of cocothrinax Alta hidden over the back of the greenhouse

[happypalms]

Found this tray of Alta I had forgotten about. A nice little find it will keep me busy for an hour potting them up. They grow very well in my climate. This lot will get planted in the ground somewhere in the new garden.

[SubTropicRay]

Nice!  Not sure alta is a recognized species anymore.  It was lumped in with C. barbadensis years ago.

[happypalms]

9 minutes ago, SubTropicRay said:

Nice!  Not sure alta is a recognized species anymore.  It was lumped in with C. barbadensis years ago.

You gotta love the scientific world changing names. It’s a bit like chrysalidocarpus to dypsis and back to chrysalidocarpus. If i purchased it as a dypsis it stays that way to me.

[Harry’s Palms]

Let’s not forget the Triangle Palm was Neodypsis then Dypsis , now Chrysalidocarpus! I call mine Joe and Tom. Just kidding! Nice find for some cool palms. Harry

[happypalms]

23 hours ago, Harry’s Palms said:

Let’s not forget the Triangle Palm was Neodypsis then Dypsis , now Chrysalidocarpus! I call mine Joe and Tom. Just kidding! Nice find for some cool palms. Harry

Oh I give up on the noneclature. It keeps them in a job I guess.

Richard 

[mnorell]

6 hours ago, happypalms said:

Oh I give up on the noneclature. It keeps them in a job I guess.

Richard 

You can probably hold on to Coccothrinax alta for now (if you know that's what you have, at least)...Kew's Plants of the World Online is currently showing that they are accepting it as a valid species, not synonymized with C. barbadensis. They give the distribution of C. alta as Puerto Rico to the Virgin Islands; C. barbadensis having a southern distribution, from the Lesser Antilles (i.e., its namesake Barbados) to northeastern Venezuela. 

The bigger problem, if you really want a positive i.d., becomes whether these very similar-looking species (which I think have been mixed up in the trade for a good long while now), as pertains to the plants you're actually growing, are one or the other. I found a useful key in an old issue of Principes, and if you are lucky enough to have some of the seed still around, you might be able to identify it from the grooving (straight vs. brain-like) on the seed-surface. Alternatively, perhaps you have access to the mother tree and can key the inflorescence details, which look to be potentially overlapping between the two species.

Now I'm wondering about the identity of the supposed C. barbadensis specimens that I have in my garden, purchased from both SoCal and Florida sources, since I have neither seed nor a mother-plant to consult. It is obviously frustrating if you want to know the exact classification, since it is usually many years in the offing (certainly with this genus!) until we can settle such issues...so I guess I will have to change my tags to "C. alta -OR- C. barbadensis"...

[SubTropicRay]

Don't shoot the messenger.  Kew's Plants of the World covers everything.  Because of that, I'm sure a few valid and published changes have slipped through the cracks.   Scott Zona published a paper in Palms (circa 2009) lumping Calyptronoma into Calyptrogyne.  Both genera are still listed as "valid" on Kew's site.  There is sometimes not a consensus.

 

 

[D. Morrowii]

1 hour ago, mnorell said:

You can probably hold on to Coccothrinax alta for now (if you know that's what you have, at least)...Kew's Plants of the World Online is currently showing that they are accepting it as a valid species, not synonymized with C. barbadensis. They give the distribution of C. alta as Puerto Rico to the Virgin Islands; C. barbadensis having a southern distribution, from the Lesser Antilles (i.e., its namesake Barbados) to northeastern Venezuela. 

The bigger problem, if you really want a positive i.d., becomes whether these very similar-looking species (which I think have been mixed up in the trade for a good long while now), as pertains to the plants you're actually growing, are one or the other. I found a useful key in an old issue of Principes, and if you are lucky enough to have some of the seed still around, you might be able to identify it from the grooving (straight vs. brain-like) on the seed-surface. Alternatively, perhaps you have access to the mother tree and can key the inflorescence details, which look to be potentially overlapping between the two species.

Now I'm wondering about the identity of the supposed C. barbadensis specimens that I have in my garden, purchased from both SoCal and Florida sources, since I have neither seed nor a mother-plant to consult. It is obviously frustrating if you want to know the exact classification, since it is usually many years in the offing (certainly with this genus!) until we can settle such issues...so I guess I will have to change my tags to "C. alta -OR- C. barbadensis"...

Thanks for the link!

[tim_brissy_13]

I’ve got one in the ground (bought as dussiana which is considered a synonym of barbadensis) in Melbourne but it’s never really moved in the few years it’s been here planted from a strap leaves seedling. I think Coccothrinax go ok here but probably need to start a bit bigger, otherwise they just stall when young. Interesting info regarding the accepted names in this topic. Until now I’d always heard alta had been lumped into barbadensis and from a but of reading it seems Kew may have missed it. But it can make it hard when Kew is the first point of call to check accepted names for many of us. 

[mnorell]

5 hours ago, SubTropicRay said:

Don't shoot the messenger.  Kew's Plants of the World covers everything.  Because of that, I'm sure a few valid and published changes have slipped through the cracks.   Scott Zona published a paper in Palms (circa 2009) lumping Calyptronoma into Calyptrogyne.  Both genera are still listed as "valid" on Kew's site.  There is sometimes not a consensus.

 

 

Yes, Kew is not perfect, and by Bill Baker's own admission it takes time to get things updated and propagated through all elements of the site as opinions change. I'm not at all in the camp of there being a "correct" name and you're very right I think to use the term "consensus" since it is all opinion, within bounds...but since Kew doesn't give synonymy they obviously have high confidence that they are quite distinct. But, that said, most of our constructs in the world are trying to "fit" grey into black & white...and the demarcations of the boundaries of species are speculative and controversial. If all that separates the two is the design of the grooves on the outside of the seed, or one less branch (sometimes) in an inflorescence, is it worth considering them as separate when the plants look appear to be identical? But it is meaningful to have a way differentiate for some people who treasure a plant, especially for personal reasons (e.g., a Bajan who wants the same palm they grew up with) or environmental tolerances, and so it becomes, as they say, purely academic when contrasted with our own "real-world" perspectives.

Just as an aside, I wouldn't take Palmpedia too seriously as an authoritative reference...as it is a non-peer-reviewed compendium that was hand-tooled with great intentions and a lot of hard work, but has plenty of errors, incorrect photos, and its own opinions/biases, etc....but not to say that I'm not glad it exists, or that I don't use it as a quick basic reference regularly. But I always try to corroborate elsewhere where possible, using primary sources. And re the above graphic, it would not be correct to say that Coccothrinax barbadensis has an "Old Name" of Coccothrinax alta. The two names are either valid as separate species, or synonyms for the same species, depending on viewpoint and as currently described. Coccothrinax barbadensis was first named (as Thrinax barbadensis) by Martius two centuries ago (in 1823) and fully described by Loddiges under that name in 1853; and Beccari transferred it to Coccothrinax barbadensis in 1907.  Coccothrinax alta was first described as Thrincoma alta (by Cook) much later, in 1901 and transferred to Coccothrinax alta, also in 1907, by Beccari. So obviously Beccari considered them to be botanically separate. It was in 1995 that Andrew Henderson proposed lumping them together, and several botanists followed suit in accepting the idea, but the tide apparently turned and now Kew just considers Henderson's idea to be a "proposed alternate taxonomy" but does not elevate the idea to one of synonymy. But both taxonomic proposals are perfectly valid to use, depending on your own opinion. But even if you agree with Henderson...since "barbadensis" would definitely be the "oldest" epithet, you might consider "alta" as an interloper at best.

Most of us know that there are lumpers and splitters out there who just plain disagree in a lot of areas regarding demarcation of species...even in the age of DNA, I'm sure. But horticulturally our group often sees things differently than the "microscope-eye" botanists who are looking at flowers and fruits rather than living with these plants as they develop. As an example, Andrew Henderson states that Attalea cohune and Attalea guacuyule are the same species...Scott Zona (and Kew agrees with him) keeps them as separate species. From my own perspective (horticulturally and aesthetically) they are clearly very different, and thus I feel very much worth splitting, even if their DNA shows them to be very closely related. But again it's just my own opinion. Lumping can also really give problems horticulturally since it may erase range-differences (e.g., for cold-hardiness). Acrocomia totai is a good example of a species that was lumped into Acrocomia aculeata and so the cold-hardy "totai" was mixed up seemingly irretrievably with the more tender (but apparently only slightly different) "aculeata." But Kew now follows Harri Lorenzi and Larry Noblick (et al.) in accepting A. totai as a separate species (since 2010). It all seems to be a dizzying carousel, or a game of musical chairs at times, doesn't it?

[happypalms]

15 hours ago, mnorell said:

You can probably hold on to Coccothrinax alta for now (if you know that's what you have, at least)...Kew's Plants of the World Online is currently showing that they are accepting it as a valid species, not synonymized with C. barbadensis. They give the distribution of C. alta as Puerto Rico to the Virgin Islands; C. barbadensis having a southern distribution, from the Lesser Antilles (i.e., its namesake Barbados) to northeastern Venezuela. 

The bigger problem, if you really want a positive i.d., becomes whether these very similar-looking species (which I think have been mixed up in the trade for a good long while now), as pertains to the plants you're actually growing, are one or the other. I found a useful key in an old issue of Principes, and if you are lucky enough to have some of the seed still around, you might be able to identify it from the grooving (straight vs. brain-like) on the seed-surface. Alternatively, perhaps you have access to the mother tree and can key the inflorescence details, which look to be potentially overlapping between the two species.

Now I'm wondering about the identity of the supposed C. barbadensis specimens that I have in my garden, purchased from both SoCal and Florida sources, since I have neither seed nor a mother-plant to consult. It is obviously frustrating if you want to know the exact classification, since it is usually many years in the offing (certainly with this genus!) until we can settle such issues...so I guess I will have to change my tags to "C. alta -OR- C. barbadensis"...

You have done your homework well A+. The only person who could answer the question of where it came from has passed onto the great garden in the sky. It’s a bit like Australia was flooded with the supposedly dypsis ambositrae some 25 years ago, those supposedly ambositrae flowered and turned out to dypsis plumosa. But the jury was out for a lot of years until they flowered. My Altas came from that same source as the plumosa. They are that slow growing I guess we will have to wait at least another 20 years or more. I love the debate it causes among palm growers and botanists noneclature. That’s what keeps us going for more new varieties. Thanks for posting your research iam going to stick with Alta for now. I have enough trouble remembering so many palm names as it is.

[happypalms]

14 hours ago, SubTropicRay said:

Don't shoot the messenger.  Kew's Plants of the World covers everything.  Because of that, I'm sure a few valid and published changes have slipped through the cracks.   Scott Zona published a paper in Palms (circa 2009) lumping Calyptronoma into Calyptrogyne.  Both genera are still listed as "valid" on Kew's site.  There is sometimes not a consensus.

 

 

Where is Bill baker when you need him thanks for posting.

[happypalms]

9 hours ago, mnorell said:

Yes, Kew is not perfect, and by Bill Baker's own admission it takes time to get things updated and propagated through all elements of the site as opinions change. I'm not at all in the camp of there being a "correct" name and you're very right I think to use the term "consensus" since it is all opinion, within bounds...but since Kew doesn't give synonymy they obviously have high confidence that they are quite distinct. But, that said, most of our constructs in the world are trying to "fit" grey into black & white...and the demarcations of the boundaries of species are speculative and controversial. If all that separates the two is the design of the grooves on the outside of the seed, or one less branch (sometimes) in an inflorescence, is it worth considering them as separate when the plants look appear to be identical? But it is meaningful to have a way differentiate for some people who treasure a plant, especially for personal reasons (e.g., a Bajan who wants the same palm they grew up with) or environmental tolerances, and so it becomes, as they say, purely academic when contrasted with our own "real-world" perspectives.

Just as an aside, I wouldn't take Palmpedia too seriously as an authoritative reference...as it is a non-peer-reviewed compendium that was hand-tooled with great intentions and a lot of hard work, but has plenty of errors, incorrect photos, and its own opinions/biases, etc....but not to say that I'm not glad it exists, or that I don't use it as a quick basic reference regularly. But I always try to corroborate elsewhere where possible, using primary sources. And re the above graphic, it would not be correct to say that Coccothrinax barbadensis has an "Old Name" of Coccothrinax alta. The two names are either valid as separate species, or synonyms for the same species, depending on viewpoint and as currently described. Coccothrinax barbadensis was first named (as Thrinax barbadensis) by Martius two centuries ago (in 1823) and fully described by Loddiges under that name in 1853; and Beccari transferred it to Coccothrinax barbadensis in 1907.  Coccothrinax alta was first described as Thrincoma alta (by Cook) much later, in 1901 and transferred to Coccothrinax alta, also in 1907, by Beccari. So obviously Beccari considered them to be botanically separate. It was in 1995 that Andrew Henderson proposed lumping them together, and several botanists followed suit in accepting the idea, but the tide apparently turned and now Kew just considers Henderson's idea to be a "proposed alternate taxonomy" but does not elevate the idea to one of synonymy. But both taxonomic proposals are perfectly valid to use, depending on your own opinion. But even if you agree with Henderson...since "barbadensis" would definitely be the "oldest" epithet, you might consider "alta" as an interloper at best.

Most of us know that there are lumpers and splitters out there who just plain disagree in a lot of areas regarding demarcation of species...even in the age of DNA, I'm sure. But horticulturally our group often sees things differently than the "microscope-eye" botanists who are looking at flowers and fruits rather than living with these plants as they develop. As an example, Andrew Henderson states that Attalea cohune and Attalea guacuyule are the same species...Scott Zona (and Kew agrees with him) keeps them as separate species. From my own perspective (horticulturally and aesthetically) they are clearly very different, and thus I feel very much worth splitting, even if their DNA shows them to be very closely related. But again it's just my own opinion. Lumping can also really give problems horticulturally since it may erase range-differences (e.g., for cold-hardiness). Acrocomia totai is a good example of a species that was lumped into Acrocomia aculeata and so the cold-hardy "totai" was mixed up seemingly irretrievably with the more tender (but apparently only slightly different) "aculeata." But Kew now follows Harri Lorenzi and Larry Noblick (et al.) in accepting A. totai as a separate species (since 2010). It all seems to be a dizzying carousel, or a game of musical chairs at times, doesn't it?

There are some very clever people out there in palm land you sir are one of them. Once again thanks for your thoughts and knowledge.

[happypalms]

9 hours ago, tim_brissy_13 said:

I’ve got one in the ground (bought as dussiana which is considered a synonym of barbadensis) in Melbourne but it’s never really moved in the few years it’s been here planted from a strap leaves seedling. I think Coccothrinax go ok here but probably need to start a bit bigger, otherwise they just stall when young. Interesting info regarding the accepted names in this topic. Until now I’d always heard alta had been lumped into barbadensis and from a but of reading it seems Kew may have missed it. But it can make it hard when Kew is the first point of call to check accepted names for many of us. 

It gives us something to think about and it creates a great talking point in the garden. I wasn’t game enough to mention dussiana.