Difference between revisions of "Phoenix pusilla"

NOTES ON TAXONOMIC HISTORY OF Phoenix IN SRI LANKA. The first references to Phoenix in Sri Lanka are given by Hermann (1687, 1698). Hermann (1687, 1717) described two Phoenix species from Sri Lanka which were referred to as Indi Hinindi and Indi Mahaindi. From the brief descriptions it is clear that Hermann distinguished these palms on size. The vernacular names cited as Maha Indi and Hin Indi support this. In Sinhala, 'Indi' means 'date', 'maha' and 'hin' mean 'large' and 'small' respectively. Linnaeus (1747) included the two taxa in separate genera when he cited Indi Mahaindi in Phoenix and Hinindi in Vaga L. In Species Plantarum, Linnaeus (1753) included Mahaindi in Phoenix and Hinindi in the genus Elate L. Elate also included Katou-indel of Rheede (1678 - 1703), which is attributable to Phoenix sylvestris of India. By including Hinindi and Katou-indel together under Elate, it would appear that Linnaeus was confused on two points. Firstly, he took the name Hinindi to refer to the larger of the two Sri Lankan palms, and secondly that the larger palm was synonymous with P. sylvestris. This confusion was repeated in later treatments of Phoenix in India and Sri Lanka (Martius 1823 - 1853; Thwaites 1864), but Hamilton (1827) correctly referred Hinindi to P. farinifera. The first post-Linnean species of the genus in Sri Lanka was described as P. pusilla by Gaertner in 1788. Gaertner described the species from a short palm, said to have been of Sri Lankan origin, cultivated in Leiden Botanic Garden. The brief description and illustrations of fruit and seed are not sufficient for certain identification, and it is not clear whether the species refers to Mahaindi or Hinindi. However, the citation of the species as a native of Sri Lanka and East India suggests that P. pusilla refers to the smaller palm, Hinindi. In 1795, in Plants of the Coromandel Coast, Roxburgh described P. farinifera as a short palm of sandy, coastal regions along the Coromandel coast of south eastern India but made no mention of Sri Lanka. In Flora Indica, Roxburgh (1832) acknowledged its existence in Sri Lanka, and cited R pusilla Gaertn. as a synonym. No mention was made of Mahaindi. Griffith (1845) followed Roxburgh (1832) in his treatment of the genus in India. Thwaites (1864) recorded only one species of Phoenix in Sri Lanka, referring it to P. sylvestris and noting it to be a native of hotter parts of the island. The specimen C.P. 3172 is cited. It is clear that Thwaites (1864) referred to the tall-stemmed palm of south western Sri Lanka but, following Linnaeus, called it Hinindi rather than Mahaindi. The confusion between the tall-stemmed Sri Lankan Phoenix and P. sylvestris of India was appreciated by Trimen (1885) who described the Sri Lankan species as P. zeylanica Trimen. Trimen (1885, 1898), Blatter (1926) and Mahabalk & Parthasarathy (1963) all considered the smaller Sri Lankan Phoenix to be identical with P. farinifera of India, for which the name P. pusilla took precedence. Only von Martius (1823 - 1853) and Beccari (1890) considered Gaertner's P. pusilla to refer to P. zeylanica rather than P. farinifera. Von Martius (1823 - 1853) cited two species of Phoenix in Sri Lanka as P. pusilla and P. farinifera. Hinindi is cited under P. pusilla, and no mention is made of Mahaindi. Beccari (1890) adopted this opinion after seeing Gaertner's illustration of seeds of P. pusilla which show the intrusion of the testa in the region of the raphe to be Y-shaped in transverse section. This illustration matched Beccari's own observations of seeds of P. zeylanica, and I have also found there is a tendency for the seeds of P. pusilla to show this character. However, the pattern of intrusion of the testa is generally too variable both within and between species and cannot be considered taxonomically reliable, as Beccari (Beccari & Hooker 1892 - 93) himself later acknowledged. Beccari & Hooker (1892 - 93) reversed this decision in Flora of British India, which cited P. pusilla as a synonym of P. zeylanica. De Zoysa (in press) considered Gaertner's description of P. pusilla to be inadequate for certain identification and recommended that the later names, P. zeylanica (Trimen 1885) and P. farinifera (Roxburgh 1832), be adopted. Nomenclatural confusion surrounding species of Phoenix in Sri Lanka and southern India is, in part, a reflection of the poor delimitation of the taxa involved. Inadequate attention has been paid both to the relationship between Sri Lankan Phoenix palms and their Indian counterparts, and to the relationship between ecological and morphological variation. Greater consideration of these factors, in the context of variation within the genus as a whole, has clarified delimitation of Phoenix species and associated nomenclatural problems in Sri Lanka and southern India. For the reasons outlined below, I consider P. zeylanica and R farinfera to be conspecific. Both names are predated by P. pusilla Gaertn. which therefore takes nomenclatural precedence. (S.C. Barrow. 1998)/Palmweb.

NOTES ON SPECIES DELIMITATION. De Zoysa (in press) acknowledged the difficulty of clearly delimiting two Phoenix taxa in Sri Lanka, suggesting ecological factors as the cause, but chose to maintain them as distinct species. My observations of populations of Phoenix in southern India and Sri Lanka lead me to conclude that P. farinifera and P. zeylanica cannot be considered distinct. The key character of stem height is particularly unreliable because individuals of P. zeylanica can remain stemless for many years and P. farinifera can sometimes be found with a well- developed stem. Leaflet orientation is also unreliable as a distinguishing character. Clear distinction can be made between leaflets arranged in one or more than one plane, but distinction is less clear between those arranged in three or four planes. The number of planes of orientation appears to depend in part on leaf size and position. Proximal leaflets of P. zeylanica are strongly quadrifarious in arrangement, but less so distally. Leaflets of smaller individuals of P. farinifera are arranged in more than one plane of orientation, but less strongly four-ranked. De Zoysa (in press) describes the leaflet apices of P. farinifera and P. zeylanica to be 'softish' and 'very sharp' respectively. In my experience, leaflets of both taxa are sharply pointed, the apices marked by an almost needle-like extension. To summarise, I consider the characters previously used to distinguish P. farinifera and P. zeylanica are insufficient for reliable species delimitation and therefore consider the taxa to be conspecific under the name P. pusilla Gaertn. Polymorphism within P. pusilla is likely to be due to ecological factors. (S.C. Barrow. 1998)/Palmweb.

"This is one of the few palms I am not too fond of- sort of large shrubby mess of nasty spiny leaves without a lot of great looks to it. This palm is from India and Sri Lanka and is one of the least cold tolerant to the species, though success in Southern California is common. Many species sold as this are not really this and I have several palms identified as this species that are obviously not this. Relatively rare in cultivation- has clustering and solitary forms." (Geoff Stein)

Native to the island of Sri Lanka and southernmost India, where it is found chiefly on sandy soils along the coast and in drier areas inland to 700 m (2300 ft.). It has a solitary or clustering, rough, slender trunk that rarely reaches more than 3 m (10 ft.) tall and a dense crown of rather coarse, spikey leaves. Like most Phoenix, it is very adaptable and will thrive under a wide variety of conditions, including coastal exposure, and in climates from tropical to temperate, where it will even withstand the occasional light frost. (RPS.com)