- 9,565
- 28/09/07
- 121
- 223
Discussion thread for Dypsis sp. 'slick willy'. If you would like to add a comment, click the Post Reply button.
Dypsis sp. 'slick willy'
- Thread starter Dypsisdean
- Start date
- 9,565
- 28/09/07
- 121
- 223
I am quoting myself from a lengthy discussion about this palm, and the two forms of Dypsis onilahensis, from PalmTalk over a year ago. In it I tried to present my position that the palm known as Slick Willy is a very different palm than the "stiff form" of Dypsis onilahensis. Having grown and seen many of both, I still strongly believe this to be the case.
I also speculated at the time that there is quite a bit of difference in what originally turned out to be the 'stiff form' and the 'weeping form.'
While I still believe the former to be the case, the latter is still speculation. In fact I believe I may have a stiffer form from the same batch of seeds as very weepy form. So this may just be variation in the same species.
Anyway, here's the quote:
"I must be a glutton for punishment, because I am going to try to make some sense out of what got to be an interesting, but confusing thread. There was a lot of good info tossed around in jdapalm's "Dypsis Palms" thread, and I would hate to see it sit there without an attempt to draw some conclusions. The following scenario makes sense to me, but I admit, it relies on a lot of conjecture.
I think we had a consensus there's a palm in the trade that, as Clayton put it, undergoes "internal division" as opposed to suckering, has a heel, is very slow to put on trunk, and resembles what we know as D. onilahensis when older. A number of you have also agreed that this palm has carried the names of D. brevinodis, D. 'bef,' "Mtn Type B", and "Slick Willy." Most importantly, it was also sometimes labeled as D. onilahensis. For the sake of this discussion I will refer to it as Palm #1.
There is also a palm in the trade known as the weeping form of D. onilahensis. It is a somewhat dainty palm with drooping leaflets, slender stems, no heel, and in many plants, very white crownshafts with color extending down the stem, and grows much faster than Palm #1. It divides by means of suckering. This is the palm pictured in POM that JD said in a recent post is from "the Isalo area where the palm grows in a rather arid environment and has a very particular weepy look to it." Let's call it Palm #2.
There is a 3rd palm that needs to be thrown into the mix. This is the first palm brought into cultivation as D. onilahensis by Mardy Darian 15-20 years ago. This is what I first became introduced to as D. onilahensis and have an older specimen. This is the same plant that Louis Hooper, Pauline, and a few others also have, along with Mardy, as mature plants. It has much stiffer leaflets, is not near as white as Palm #2, grows even faster than Palm #2, has no heel, and has trunks that can become much beefier than Palm #2. One of my trunks on this plant is every bit as fat as a mediun sized King. It also divides by suckering. This will be Palm #3.
Now, JD has acknowledged, and I can only imagine, the difficulty of differentiating between individuals in an already highly variable species over a wide range of environments, and others that could be a different species. As JD stated so well, "Variation was very complex and differences that now seem quite compelling in growing palms, were not apparent in scraps stuck on sheets of paper in the herbarium." His tendency at the time was to group what may have been Palm #1,2, & 3 together as D. onilahensis, with the caveat that this needed much more study. Now with the benefit of many cultivated plants, and a decade of additional info he states, "I am almost convinced that what we called D. onilahensis contains more than one species."
This is where I need to get a little creative with my scenario to make it work
Lets theorize Palm #1 is what the Flore de Madgascar and collectors pre-POM considered a different species from D. onilahensis named D. brevinodis. Mardy Darian, not lacking in palm knowledge, also considered Palm #1 a different species, and while not recognizing the Flore de Madgascar ID, conferred his own name (Slick Willy).
So, Palm #1 was called D. brevinodis or D. onilahensis depending on whether or not the collector had read POM. The seeds and plants from Mardy circulated as "Slick Willys," and some collectors, for whatever reason, came up with D. 'bef.' --- And 'Mtn Type B' --- was named when Chrysalidocarpus was still a genus. But we have all agreed these are the same palm.
Palm #2 was always easily identified as D. onilahensis, with which we are now familiar, because of all the pics in POM.
And Palm #3 is now a mystery to me. I don't believe I have seen this stiff leafed form of what is supposedly D. onilahensis offered in the last 10 years. And this is where I think a major part of the confusion may lie. Those that bought Palm #1 as D. onilahensis noticed the leaves were not carrying the characteristic drooping leaflets associated with D. onilahensis. So the simplist explanation was that it was just the stiff leafed form of D. onilahensis (Palm #3) previously sold by Mardy Darian. And that is how Palm #1 came to be identified as a D. onilahensis.
Now to further upset the apple cart, I wouldn't be surprised if Palm #3 is in itself a different species. But that's for another thread. However, IMO, it is almost as distinct from Palm #2 (the true D. onilahensis) as D. baronii is from Palm #2. To again quote JD, "I am almost convinced that what we called D. onilahensis contains more than one species."
And to make matters more interesting, I keep coming across even more of what appear to be, in JD's words, the "clustering moderate dypsis species of the mountains and the plateau."
I also speculated at the time that there is quite a bit of difference in what originally turned out to be the 'stiff form' and the 'weeping form.'
While I still believe the former to be the case, the latter is still speculation. In fact I believe I may have a stiffer form from the same batch of seeds as very weepy form. So this may just be variation in the same species.
Anyway, here's the quote:
"I must be a glutton for punishment, because I am going to try to make some sense out of what got to be an interesting, but confusing thread. There was a lot of good info tossed around in jdapalm's "Dypsis Palms" thread, and I would hate to see it sit there without an attempt to draw some conclusions. The following scenario makes sense to me, but I admit, it relies on a lot of conjecture.
I think we had a consensus there's a palm in the trade that, as Clayton put it, undergoes "internal division" as opposed to suckering, has a heel, is very slow to put on trunk, and resembles what we know as D. onilahensis when older. A number of you have also agreed that this palm has carried the names of D. brevinodis, D. 'bef,' "Mtn Type B", and "Slick Willy." Most importantly, it was also sometimes labeled as D. onilahensis. For the sake of this discussion I will refer to it as Palm #1.
There is also a palm in the trade known as the weeping form of D. onilahensis. It is a somewhat dainty palm with drooping leaflets, slender stems, no heel, and in many plants, very white crownshafts with color extending down the stem, and grows much faster than Palm #1. It divides by means of suckering. This is the palm pictured in POM that JD said in a recent post is from "the Isalo area where the palm grows in a rather arid environment and has a very particular weepy look to it." Let's call it Palm #2.
There is a 3rd palm that needs to be thrown into the mix. This is the first palm brought into cultivation as D. onilahensis by Mardy Darian 15-20 years ago. This is what I first became introduced to as D. onilahensis and have an older specimen. This is the same plant that Louis Hooper, Pauline, and a few others also have, along with Mardy, as mature plants. It has much stiffer leaflets, is not near as white as Palm #2, grows even faster than Palm #2, has no heel, and has trunks that can become much beefier than Palm #2. One of my trunks on this plant is every bit as fat as a mediun sized King. It also divides by suckering. This will be Palm #3.
Now, JD has acknowledged, and I can only imagine, the difficulty of differentiating between individuals in an already highly variable species over a wide range of environments, and others that could be a different species. As JD stated so well, "Variation was very complex and differences that now seem quite compelling in growing palms, were not apparent in scraps stuck on sheets of paper in the herbarium." His tendency at the time was to group what may have been Palm #1,2, & 3 together as D. onilahensis, with the caveat that this needed much more study. Now with the benefit of many cultivated plants, and a decade of additional info he states, "I am almost convinced that what we called D. onilahensis contains more than one species."
This is where I need to get a little creative with my scenario to make it work
Lets theorize Palm #1 is what the Flore de Madgascar and collectors pre-POM considered a different species from D. onilahensis named D. brevinodis. Mardy Darian, not lacking in palm knowledge, also considered Palm #1 a different species, and while not recognizing the Flore de Madgascar ID, conferred his own name (Slick Willy).
So, Palm #1 was called D. brevinodis or D. onilahensis depending on whether or not the collector had read POM. The seeds and plants from Mardy circulated as "Slick Willys," and some collectors, for whatever reason, came up with D. 'bef.' --- And 'Mtn Type B' --- was named when Chrysalidocarpus was still a genus. But we have all agreed these are the same palm.
Palm #2 was always easily identified as D. onilahensis, with which we are now familiar, because of all the pics in POM.
And Palm #3 is now a mystery to me. I don't believe I have seen this stiff leafed form of what is supposedly D. onilahensis offered in the last 10 years. And this is where I think a major part of the confusion may lie. Those that bought Palm #1 as D. onilahensis noticed the leaves were not carrying the characteristic drooping leaflets associated with D. onilahensis. So the simplist explanation was that it was just the stiff leafed form of D. onilahensis (Palm #3) previously sold by Mardy Darian. And that is how Palm #1 came to be identified as a D. onilahensis.
Now to further upset the apple cart, I wouldn't be surprised if Palm #3 is in itself a different species. But that's for another thread. However, IMO, it is almost as distinct from Palm #2 (the true D. onilahensis) as D. baronii is from Palm #2. To again quote JD, "I am almost convinced that what we called D. onilahensis contains more than one species."
And to make matters more interesting, I keep coming across even more of what appear to be, in JD's words, the "clustering moderate dypsis species of the mountains and the plateau."
Dean,
I had something happen to my largest 3 trunked Slick Willy (palm #1) that I thought was interesting. The smallest trunk had its only leaf cut just prior to my acquisition. So, therefore it did grow even slower over the past year, but finally opened a leaf, the next spear ended up getting caught in one of the old leaf bases, but I caught before it was too bad, BUT when I looked at it about 2 weeks later, it appears to be pushing out a NEW, SECOND spear. (very low, subterranean, but "inside" a previous leaf base) I thought the "#1" palm basically "kept" what it started with, but at least, did not sucker "above ground". Thoughts?
Bill
I had something happen to my largest 3 trunked Slick Willy (palm #1) that I thought was interesting. The smallest trunk had its only leaf cut just prior to my acquisition. So, therefore it did grow even slower over the past year, but finally opened a leaf, the next spear ended up getting caught in one of the old leaf bases, but I caught before it was too bad, BUT when I looked at it about 2 weeks later, it appears to be pushing out a NEW, SECOND spear. (very low, subterranean, but "inside" a previous leaf base) I thought the "#1" palm basically "kept" what it started with, but at least, did not sucker "above ground". Thoughts?
Bill
- 9,565
- 28/09/07
- 121
- 223
How about a pic???
Not sure exactly what you mean. And as with every thing Dypsis, there are exceptions. Like a suckering Triangle, or the rare splitting solitary palm.
I must add that I believe out of the 20 or so Slick Willies I have seen, one large one at Bo's looked like it threw one sucker. So nothing is absolute.
Not sure exactly what you mean. And as with every thing Dypsis, there are exceptions. Like a suckering Triangle, or the rare splitting solitary palm.
I must add that I believe out of the 20 or so Slick Willies I have seen, one large one at Bo's looked like it threw one sucker. So nothing is absolute.
ianedwards
Member
- 3
- 21/10/08
- 0
- 21
ianedwards
Member
- 3
- 21/10/08
- 0
- 21
Re the photo, which I think is of a Slick Willy, I bought as a seedling in 1989, as Dypsis ?, planted out in 1993. In 1997 it produced a strange leaf with an extra row of leaflets along the inner half of the rachis, which then split into two along the outer half. Ralf Valez told of his Slick Willy doing the same thing in an item in the South Cal Palm Journal.
Soon after that the plant did its underground split, and twice more since then, so now four separate spikes come up from ground level, all roughly the same size.
It must surely be a different species from any form of onilahensis.
Soon after that the plant did its underground split, and twice more since then, so now four separate spikes come up from ground level, all roughly the same size.
It must surely be a different species from any form of onilahensis.
- 9,565
- 28/09/07
- 121
- 223
Ian,
This is what I have been harping on for over a year now. I am glad you are recognizing the exact same attributes I have observed, and are apparently agreeing with my view. The other very big difference is that the Slick Willy/Bef has a heel, whereas D. onilahensis does not. I think those two major differences should be enough to consider it a different species.
Another thing is that I have had both growing side by side for 15 years in California. The Slick Willy has just begun to form trunk, and the stiff form D. onilahensis has close to eight feet of robust trunks. In fact, a weeping D. onilahensis planted only 6 years ago, passed up the Slick Willy after 3 years in the ground, and is now much bigger despite being much younger.
This is what I have been harping on for over a year now. I am glad you are recognizing the exact same attributes I have observed, and are apparently agreeing with my view. The other very big difference is that the Slick Willy/Bef has a heel, whereas D. onilahensis does not. I think those two major differences should be enough to consider it a different species.
Another thing is that I have had both growing side by side for 15 years in California. The Slick Willy has just begun to form trunk, and the stiff form D. onilahensis has close to eight feet of robust trunks. In fact, a weeping D. onilahensis planted only 6 years ago, passed up the Slick Willy after 3 years in the ground, and is now much bigger despite being much younger.
ianedwards
Member
- 3
- 21/10/08
- 0
- 21
Dean, you give me hope! My S.W. 19 years from a seedling and still only one metre high does seem slow, but 15 years to trunk in Hawaii!
- 9,565
- 28/09/07
- 121
- 223
Ian,
You missed a slight technicality.
Notice I mentioned the S.W. I was referring to is in So. California. I have small ones in Hawaii, and they are a lot faster, but still not near as fast as D. onilahensis. They are a beautiful palm when trunking, and like many of these Dypsis, once they start to form trunk they will pick up speed. So you should be happier from here on out.
You missed a slight technicality.
Notice I mentioned the S.W. I was referring to is in So. California. I have small ones in Hawaii, and they are a lot faster, but still not near as fast as D. onilahensis. They are a beautiful palm when trunking, and like many of these Dypsis, once they start to form trunk they will pick up speed. So you should be happier from here on out.
- 9,565
- 28/09/07
- 121
- 223
Thanks Brod,
Nice pics. It's very easy to see how witnessing these two palms (D. oni and S.W.) as mature plants in the wild would have you thinking they are the same thing.
Yet when growing from seed, they are so different until they get to that point.
Nice pics. It's very easy to see how witnessing these two palms (D. oni and S.W.) as mature plants in the wild would have you thinking they are the same thing.
Yet when growing from seed, they are so different until they get to that point.