Difference?: B. mutabilis vs B. textilis 'Kanapaha'

[Glen]

thanks to all participants for a most invigorating read!
who was responsible for the statement in the Florida abs site 2004 that bambusa mutabilis does not exist in the united states which renders many aspects of this controversy moot if verifiable?
john v

John,

I would have to say that it was Robert Saporito who put in that statement. I do agree with the statement, but as most people know, it's hard to prove a negative. I've looked under a lot of rocks and I haven't found one.

But my original question was whether or not what we are referring to as Bambusa mutabilis (in the good ole USA) is one and the same as Bambusa textilis 'Kanapaha'? Then if they are 2 separate bamboo varieties, then what is the key identifying characteristic that makes them different varieties?

It seems that it would be fair to say that there is general agreement that the B. mutabilis in the U.S. is actually a form of B. textilis, but that the jury is still out on whether B. textilis 'Kanapaha' is a distinct variety, or identical to B. mutabilis.

The main difference is size of the culms. With my B. textilis, which I've had now for 16 years, the largest diameter culms I've measured is 1 and 7/8 inches in diameter by around 40 feet. Most of the culms range in height from a little less than 40 feet to slightly over 40 feet. From seedling size, it reached full maturity around 1997. I've never measured any culms a full 2 inches. "Close, but no cigar."

If I remember correctly, the mature B. textilis at Mercer Gardens is two inches or more in diameter. I wish I lived closer so I could go measure it right now and see if my memory is exaggerating the actual size. If this plant is as large as I remember, I wonder if it could be the same as B. textilis 'Kanapaha' and/or B. mutabilis. I have been told that the Mercer Plant has been there since the early 1980's, but I have no idea about its origin.

[Roy]

..snip....

If I remember correctly, the mature B. textilis at Mercer Gardens is two inches or more in diameter. I wish I lived closer so I could go measure it right now and see if my memory is exaggerating the actual size. If this plant is as large as I remember, I wonder if it could be the same as B. textilis 'Kanapaha' and/or B. mutabilis. I have been told that the Mercer Plant has been there since the early 1980's, but I have no idea about its origin.

If you do happen to make it out to Mercer sometime, how about taking some pictures of Mercer's B. textilis. I checked Bambooweb.info gallery and there are no pictures of the Mercer textilis in the gallery.

[Bamboo Conne'isseur]

Will the real mutabilis please stand up?

[Roy]

Will the real mutabilis please stand up?

I don't think it's going to stand up in the USA. I don't believe anyone has imported it yet.

[Bamboo Conne'isseur]

I don't think it's going to stand up in the USA. I don't believe anyone has imported it yet.

From this discussion, and the way the true one is described I'd say you are right. I wonder if anyone has pics of the real thing. From its description it sounds like a real beaut.
On the plus side, I don't have either one, and if the kanapaha clone, and the one posing as mutabilis are practically the same, I can afford the mutabilis.
On the down side, when it does make it here, I am sure it will command a price somewhere in the range of 250.00$ U.S. dollars for a three gallon.

[bambooweb]

Reply from Robert.

Hi Bill,
I did receive a report from Dr. Clark about a year after I sent her the culm
leaves. There were no surprises and the species that we have been calling
B.mutabilis was confirmed to be another cultivar of textilis. Note the word
cultivar - not variety. These slightly different forms of textilis occured
as a result of a seed-producing flowering a couple of decades ago. If the
flowering was gregarious, and no parent plants survived, there would
technically be none called simply B.textilis. All of the recognized forms
would be B.textilis cv. Whatever. I don't know if any mother plants survived
but all of the forms I have at my nursery are cultivars. I suspect anyone
who is calling their bamboo Bambusa textilis, without a cultivar
designation, probably just has one cultivar and doesn't know the difference.
Anyway, in Hawaii this year, all of the growers were calling the former
B.mutabilis a new name - Bambusa textilis var. 'Fasca'. I don't know the
original source of this declaration but I have no argument other than
observing a few published taxonomic references to both 'Fusca' and 'Fasca'.
I wonder if those are two different cultivars or a typo one way or the
other.
At least the new designation is a textilis. The name should be, however,
Bambusa textilis cv. 'Fasca' to indicate its source as a cultivar.
Best regards,
Robert Saporito
Tropical Bamboo Nursery
www.tropicalbamboo.com

Bill

[Roy]

Reply from Robert.

Hi Bill,
..snip...
Anyway, in Hawaii this year, all of the growers were calling the former
B.mutabilis a new name - Bambusa textilis var. 'Fasca'. I don't know the
original source of this declaration but I have no argument other than
observing a few published taxonomic references to both 'Fusca' and 'Fasca'.
I wonder if those are two different cultivars or a typo one way or the
other.
At least the new designation is a textilis. The name should be, however,
Bambusa textilis cv. 'Fasca' to indicate its source as a cultivar.
Best regards,
Robert Saporito
Tropical Bamboo Nursery
www.tropicalbamboo.com

Bill

So we are back to Bambusa textilis cv. 'Fasca'. I remember that name being used some locally in Florida about 10 years ago and it must have been the current B. mutabilis.

The question still is "Is Bambusa mutabilis (perhaps AKA Bambusa textilis cv. 'Fasca') the same cultivar as Bambusa textilis 'Kanapaha'?

Bill, Thanks for getting the information.

Now, is Robert's information going to be enough to have a name change in the ABS Source List and thus change the local name (Florida and the rest of the USA) from B. mutabilis to Bambusa textilis cv. 'Fasca'? Definitely our B. mutabilis is not the B. mutabilis described in various bamboo books.

[Glen]

If you do happen to make it out to Mercer sometime, how about taking some pictures of Mercer's B. textilis.

I hope to make it back in the spring. In the meantime, I think the photographs provided by Caldwell Nursery in Rosenberg are photographs of the mature plant at Mercer: http://www.caldwellhort.com/html/bamboo ... tilis.html

Mercer has also recently planted several named B. textilis cultivars, but these are still very young.

[Glen]

Reply from Robert.

Hi Bill,
I did receive a report from Dr. Clark about a year after I sent her the culm leaves. There were no surprises and the species that we have been calling B.mutabilis was confirmed to be another cultivar of textilis. Note the word cultivar - not variety. These slightly different forms of textilis occured as a result of a seed-producing flowering a couple of decades ago. If the flowering was gregarious, and no parent plants survived, there would technically be none called simply B.textilis. All of the recognized forms would be B.textilis cv. Whatever. I don't know if any mother plants survived but all of the forms I have at my nursery are cultivars. I suspect anyone who is calling their bamboo Bambusa textilis, without a cultivar
designation, probably just has one cultivar and doesn't know the difference.
Anyway, in Hawaii this year, all of the growers were calling the former
B.mutabilis a new name - Bambusa textilis var. 'Fasca'. I don't know the
original source of this declaration but I have no argument other than
observing a few published taxonomic references to both 'Fusca' and 'Fasca'.
I wonder if those are two different cultivars or a typo one way or the
other.
At least the new designation is a textilis. The name should be, however,
Bambusa textilis cv. 'Fasca' to indicate its source as a cultivar.
Best regards,
Robert Saporito
Tropical Bamboo Nursery
www.tropicalbamboo.com

Bill

I have seen a couple sources that indicated that the original plants recovered after flowering. If the flowering occurred before B. textilis was widely distributed in the U.S., and the original plants died, then I guess it is possible that the nurseries all received unnamed seedlings, possibly without knowing what they were getting. If the plants flowered after they were distributed, and the parent plants died, then the nurseries should have noticed this. Bamboo flowering, especially on a wide scale, is fairly notable. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

The only B. textilis I have is from a 10 to 12 inch seedling I got out of Miami in 1990. It was from a 1987-88 flowering of B. textilis. The mama plant is pictured below. As you can see, the mama plant has not been properly maintained. My seedling looks identical to the mama plant. Same nice blue color on the new culms. I don't see any variations from the picture. I don't remember seeing the mama plant actually still flowering when I took the picture in 1990.

Roy, do you know if this 1987-88 flowering was part of the same mass flowering event mentioned above, or just a stress induced flowering? If it was part of a widespread flowering, and the plant had recovered by 1990, this would support the idea that the original B. textilis did not disappear.

[Glen]

Reply from Robert.

Hi Bill,
I did receive a report from Dr. Clark about a year after I sent her the culm
leaves. There were no surprises and the species that we have been calling
B.mutabilis was confirmed to be another cultivar of textilis. Note the word
cultivar - not variety. These slightly different forms of textilis occured
as a result of a seed-producing flowering a couple of decades ago. If the
flowering was gregarious, and no parent plants survived, there would
technically be none called simply B.textilis. All of the recognized forms
would be B.textilis cv. Whatever. I don't know if any mother plants survived
but all of the forms I have at my nursery are cultivars. I suspect anyone
who is calling their bamboo Bambusa textilis, without a cultivar
designation, probably just has one cultivar and doesn't know the difference.
Anyway, in Hawaii this year, all of the growers were calling the former
B.mutabilis a new name - Bambusa textilis var. 'Fasca'. I don't know the
original source of this declaration but I have no argument other than
observing a few published taxonomic references to both 'Fusca' and 'Fasca'.
I wonder if those are two different cultivars or a typo one way or the
other.
At least the new designation is a textilis. The name should be, however,
Bambusa textilis cv. 'Fasca' to indicate its source as a cultivar.
Best regards,
Robert Saporito
Tropical Bamboo Nursery
www.tropicalbamboo.com

Bill

This seems to be saying that what is currently known as B. mutabilis in the U.S. originated as a seedling in the United States 20 years ago. I thought the B. mutabilis in the U.S. had been imported under that name. It seems strange that a seedling of B. textilis that originated in the U.S., and looked very much like B. textilis, would get the name B. mutabilis assigned to it. However, if this scenario is true, and the source of the Kanapaha plant could be verified to predate the B. textilis flowering, then the U.S. B. mutabilis and B. textilis 'Kanapaha' could not be clones of the same seedling.

I am starting to think that I am attempting to put together a puzzle without having nearly enough pieces.

The question still is "Is Bambusa mutabilis (perhaps AKA Bambusa textilis cv. 'Fasca') the same cultivar as Bambusa textilis 'Kanapaha'?

I sure wish I knew. I think we are going to have to get one of those DNA companies to do a paternity test on your plants. Maybe they will do it if we do not tell them it is bamboo.

Since no one seems to be able to point to any difference between the two, I get the feeling that there is no difference.

[hotchkiss]

Is the origin of the plant at Kanapaha Gardens known? I wonder if it was imported separately from other forms of B. textilis in the U.S., or if there is a chance that it simply is a division of one of the other plants that was imported as B. textilis/B. mutabilis.

The plant at Kanapaha was obtained from the old USDA plant introduction station in Savannah (now the bamboo farm and coastal gardens) and is identified as PI 80872. It is the same as the B. textilis at the USDA lab in Byron. Floyd McClure collected the plant in China in 1925 and sent it to the U.S. in 1929. Here is the description from the original introduction: Originally from Heunglokeuk, Kwangtung (now Guangdong), March 1925. Wong Chuk. A sympodial type of bamboo cultivated for its thin-walled culms which are used in weaving, rope making, and somewhat in the manufacture of a cheap grade of paper for ceremonial purposes. The variety is widely distributed in the Province and is most extensively cultivated in the Kwongning district of western Kwangtung. The mature culms reach a height of 24 feet and a circumference of 5 inches. The nodes are not prominent and the culms are very upright in habit with drooping tips. The clump habit is compact, not rapidly spreading. The branches are all in fascicles, nearly all of a size, slender, and up to about 3 feet long. The lower nodes are always free of branches for 12 to 15 feet in mature specimens.

The plants for Byron and Kanapaha were dug in Savannah in the late 70's. However, many others dug plants from Savannah during this period just before they closed. Two places that dug plants were Mercer arboretum and Doremus nursery in Warren, TX. I have spoken with Ted Doremus and he said that his B. textilis came from Savannah. I beleive that the original B. textilis plant at Mercer is PI 80872. The B. textilis Kanapaha at Mercer is probably the same plant because it was provided by Richard Waldron from the clump at Byron. Many other east Texas B. textilis plants are probably the same clone because Ted has been selling this plant for over 25 years.

The USDA tropical bamboo collection in Puerto Rico has PI 80872 and another B. textilis, PI 80873. B. mutabilis (PI 128...) was imported into the U.S. but is not in Puerto Rico or Miami and apparently was lost. I think that PI 80872 has probably survived in more places than we realize and probably other old introductions have as well.

Roy, I think the answer to your question begins with determining where Robert Tornello got his plant. If the source can be traced to Savannah or Kanapaha then the answer is yes. If the source cannot be determined then we will have to wait on DNA analysis.

Mike

[Mike McG]

Reply from Robert.

Hi Bill,... If the flowering was gregarious, and no parent plants survived, there would technically be none called simply B.textilis. All of the recognized forms would be B.textilis cv. Whatever. I don't know if any mother plants survived but all of the forms I have at my nursery are cultivars. I suspect anyone who is calling their bamboo Bambusa textilis, without a cultivar designation, probably just has one cultivar and doesn't know the difference....

Bill

I'm an engineer not a botanist but I thought any plant that came true from seed kept the parent's binomial name, especially for example wild annuals. To be a cultivar, I thought the seedling had to be significantly different, outside the range of normal variation, and more importantly named as a cultivar? I am less sure of the difference between a cultivated variety and a variety unless it is purely if the variation occurs in the wild and is stable (reproduces true to form) or if it occurs in cultivation. Now what do I call my Bambusa multiplex 'Alphonse Karr' seedlings that appear to have reverted to the generic B. multiplex form, or any apparent reversion for that matter?

Mike near Brenham TX

[Roy]

If you do happen to make it out to Mercer sometime, how about taking some pictures of Mercer's B. textilis.

I hope to make it back in the spring. In the meantime, I think the photographs provided by Caldwell Nursery in Rosenberg are photographs of the mature plant at Mercer: http://www.caldwellhort.com/html/bamboo ... tilis.html

Mercer has also recently planted several named B. textilis cultivars, but these are still very young.

Nice looking picture of Steve Carter standing in front of the B. textilis. Oh, nice looking B. textilis also.

[Roy]

I have seen a couple sources that indicated that the original plants recovered after flowering. If the flowering occurred before B. textilis was widely distributed in the U.S., and the original plants died, then I guess it is possible that the nurseries all received unnamed seedlings, possibly without knowing what they were getting. If the plants flowered after they were distributed, and the parent plants died, then the nurseries should have noticed this. Bamboo flowering, especially on a wide scale, is fairly notable. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Most of what I see and hear in the USA is sporadic flowering. Of course, that could be because we don't have large scale plantings of a particular type and the flowering could go unnoticed or unreported. Remember also that it has been only in recent times (the last 20 or so years) that bamboo has changed from an undesirable exotic weed to a more desirable and sought after plant. And still a dangerous weed to some people.

I had a B. tuldoides that flowered in the 2001 and I went back to the original source of my B. tuldoides and it was flowering also. I went over to a friend of mine about 10 days ago. He had gotten a division of my B. tuldoides about 10 years ago and his nice clump of B. tuldoides had never flowered. The flowering of bamboo is still a shrouded mystery.

Roy, do you know if this 1987-88 flowering was part of the same mass flowering event mentioned above, or just a stress induced flowering? If it was part of a widespread flowering, and the plant had recovered by 1990, this would support the idea that the original B. textilis did not disappear.

I don't know a lot about the mother plant of my B. textilis other than the reports were (when I got it) that it was found at the base of the B. textilis that had flowered a few years earlier. I think the information came from Elizabeth Haverfield or Kim Higby. I think Betty Shor has the record of it in her database of bamboo flowering. A very valued database, I might add.

I took the picture of my B. textilis mother plant in 1990. I thought that the USDA/Chapman Field in Miami had closed about 10 years ago, but the weblink to the site seems to indicate that it is still open. Maybe some Miami members of this group might know the status.

[Roy]

This seems to be saying that what is currently known as B. mutabilis in the U.S. originated as a seedling in the United States 20 years ago. I thought the B. mutabilis in the U.S. had been imported under that name. It seems strange that a seedling of B. textilis that originated in the U.S., and looked very much like B. textilis, would get the name B. mutabilis assigned to it. However, if this scenario is true, and the source of the Kanapaha plant could be verified to predate the B. textilis flowering, then the U.S. B. mutabilis and B. textilis 'Kanapaha' could not be clones of the same seedling.

I am starting to think that I am attempting to put together a puzzle without having nearly enough pieces.

I think there is a lot missing pieces in puzzle and also a lot of riddles thrown in also. Very frustrating to me, but I'm kind of used to it. It has always been that way as long as I can remember.

Since no one seems to be able to point to any difference between the two, I get the feeling that there is no difference.

I'm not at the point I want to declare that there is no difference, but I'm still looking and I am also waiting for someone to tell me the difference so that I can verify it myself. Just saying "They're Different" doesn't give any validity to each being different.

Just had to do it one time to release some frustration.