Talk:Arecaceae

Redundant?

" palms also inhabit nearly every type of habitat within their range" - isn't a species' 'range' defined by the habitats where it naturally lives - so obviously the palm, and every other species, inhabits every type of habitat within its range. If it doesnt live in a particular habitat, that habitat is not a part of its natural range.

I don't have expert information on this. But it strikes me that the "range" probably refers to the geographical extent. The "habitat" probably refers to the various particular sorts of conditions within that habitat. 140.147.236.194 (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

General Description

What are the characteristics of the palm tree?

Well the picture of a cross-section of a palm leaf base is not of a palm. To me it looks like a cross section of a leaf base of a Strelitzia or a Ravenala but is most definately NOT a palm.

What can be done to change this picture?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.235.253 (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Need more scientific information

This entry is strongly influenced by the Bible of which there is no breakdown of scientific value.

Agreed. I have added more information on the characteristics of palms and evolution. SCHZMO ✍ 14:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Scottish palm trees

Arent there palm trees on the scottish coast becuase of the warming effect of the gulf stream? you can see them in the film the wicker man I think —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.2.179.168 (talk • contribs) .

That is true. The planted palms in Scotland are probably Trachycarpus species, most likely Trachycarpus fortunei which is hardy in Scotland (zone 7). SCHZMO ✍ 23:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, mostly Trachycarpus fortunei, though a few other species are grown to a small extent. Western Scotland is zone 9. - MPF 23:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Removed Sago Palm reference

Sago Palms are Cycads, not real palms. See Cycads for citation. --Thresher 13:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There is also a true palm used for sago (Metroxylon sagu), that is what was discussed here - see further details at Sago - MPF 14:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Antarctica refernce inappropriately worded?

The page states that Palms are abundant throughout the tropical regions of every continent except Antarctica. I, for one, have never heard of a tropical region of Antarctica that was not abundant with palm trees. If you know of a tropical region of Antarctica that lacks palm trees, please do provide an example with citation... -- zaphraud

Fixed.Steve Dufour 16:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"Palmaceae"

The family name "Palmaceae" is illegitimate because both Arecaceae and Palmae are conserved over other names for the family. I have not been able to trace the earliest use of "Palmaceae" so have not been able to determine whether it is truly derived from the genus Palma Miller, was used in error for Palmae, or was the result of trying to force the name "Palmae" to conform to the -aceae convention of most other plant family names. For whatever reason, it is to be rejected in favor of Arecaceae (or Palmae). MrDarwin 03:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the "illegitimate" name should be removed from the introduction. It's really a distraction and not that important. Besides it has nothing to do with the trees themselves. The information could be given later on in the article if it is important.Steve Dufour 16:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It's in the introduction because "Palmaceae" is in common use, and redirects to "Arecaceae". Anyone looking for an article on "Palmaceae", and finding themselves on "Arecaceae", may be confused if "Palmaceae" is not listed as a synonym early in the article. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 19:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

o.k. that's a good reason. I still think a person reading the article to learn about the trees will be distracted by having to wonder why a scientific name is "illegitimate".Steve Dufour 05:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and substituted 'botanically (in)correct' for '(il)legitimate' to make it clearer for readers who are not familiar with the usage in taxonomy. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 15:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest a different wording because "botanically correct" and "botanically incorrect" don't really mean anything and just confuse the issue. If you're going to talk about botanical nomenclature, it's usually best to use the language of botanical nomenclature. What on earth does "botanically correct" mean? You could argue that the family name Palmaceae is botanically correct if it's based on the genus Palma. But it's the wrong name to use for a specific reason under the Code. MrDarwin 16:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If you feel you can improve the wording, please do so. My preference would be to take the whole business out and just list 'Palmaceae' as another synonym. The business about what is 'legitimate' or 'not legitimate' is confusing to readers who are not familiar with taxonomic terminology. 'Palmaceae' is in common use, so we should acknowledge it. We are writing for non-specialists (like me) here, so let's keep it simple and on topic. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 18:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Cultivation before Civilization

Hey that sounds kind of cool!  :-) While reading this article it seemed wrong to me that it seemed to say that the cultivation of the date palm took place after the start of civilization and history. Mostly it is the other way around. For instance the Incas first cultivated the potato, then their civilization arose, then they started to write history. I found an article that puts the first cultivation of the date palm 1000 years earlier than is said here. I am going to add the information to the cultivation section but will not change the introduction to the article now. Wishing everyone a palmy day.Steve Dufour 17:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Good call, go ahead! - MPF 12:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Palms in Europe

Is it correct that no palms are native to Europe, and that they were first introduced by Arab settlers in Al-Andalus? --GCarty 17:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Chamaerops humilis is a European native.--GazMan7 (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Ceroxylon height

The article states that "Ceroxylon quindiuense, Colombia's national tree, is the tallest monocot in the world, reaching heights of 70 meters." This is surely an exaggeration and the cited reference was written by a class of elementary school children! The best documentation I've found in various references is that this palm grows up to 50 m tall, possibly to 60 m but the taller heights seem to be strictly anecdotal. MrDarwin 20:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Done - MPF 21:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

theres no way there are 8000000 billion trillion genera... is that even a real number???

"There are roughly 8000000 billion trillion currently known genera"

I don't think this is correct... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.57.135.252 (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Bogus Statistics

The most northern palm is at 44 degrees in France? The whole article is so blatantly contradictory of itself, all stemming from two supposed limits of latitude. Seattle, Washington, USA is home to dozens of species of palms - all cultivated I would suppose, but nonetheless....Seattle sits at 47 degrees north! Someone already pointed out that there are palms on the Scottish coasts. Inaccurate snippets of information, no matter how small the snippet, can ruin the integrity of an entire article! If anyone else has a valid statistic that addresses the extreme reaches of the palm, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poppapo (talk • contribs) 10:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This is talking of the natural range of palms, not where they are cultivated but not naturally occuring. The bit about Chamaeops humilis in Switzerland is misleading in my opinion because I'm pretty sure it does not naturally occur there and this information is given in a paragraph about the natural range of palms. I believe the extreme northerly distribution of palms naturally is Chamaerops humilis on some islands off the Mediterranean coast of France. Booshank (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I just changed that in the article, citing the same FOA source that is used for the southern limit for a natural range of a palm. If someone can find a reliable source for a higher latitude range, they can add that to the article. -- Donald Albury 00:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Scottish Palms

There are indeed Palm trees in Scotland on the West coast at at least 57.3 degrees North in plockton and I think further North as well. Comments like saying France is the Northernmost place where palms grow kind of destroys the validity of the whole article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdw860 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Growth rates in California?

Central and southern California, especially the latter, are synonymous with palm trees. How fast are these growing, I mean what is their average growth rate? Are they mostly one variety? --98.232.182.66 (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Completing a tag for a merger discussion that was not processed. I have no idea on the validity of the merger until I red a bit more...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure - how do we deal with families that consist of a single genus? Guettarda (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Generally, put them at the genus name (Ilex and Welwitschia are two examples). Kingdon (talk) 04:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Family names are more stable and recognizable than order names, even after APGII, so if an order only has one family, I think it should be at the family.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support (under the family name). Having separate articles just encourages information to be split in arbitrary ways, with little benefit. Kingdon (talk) 04:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have performed this merge. Kingdon (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

History?

To say palms have been important "throughout much of history" must certainly be an understatement. History only evolved once people started writing, several thousand years ago. Is it conceivable that coconuts and dates, not to mention palm fronds, only received our attention after that? Surely they've been important to us human beings for a million years or more. Unfree (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Exotic

"Their exotic appearance" makes no sense to those who live surrounded by palms. Isn't it sufficient to say they're used in landscaping? Unfree (talk) 03:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

uni- or bi-what?

Aren't uni- and bi- prefixes? How can they stand alone? Unfree (talk) 03:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Including

"Some species form pure stands in areas with poor drainage or regular flooding, including..." Is the species mentioned found only in areas with poor drainage or regular flooding, but not both? I suppose that makes sense, but it's confusing. If I've got the meaning right, I'd replace "or" with "and". Unfree (talk) 03:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Groups

"Some indigenous groups living in palm-rich areas..." Groups of what? In what way are they indigenous? Are they native? Displaced? Exotic? Migrant? Invasive? Unfree (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Dead link

I tried to follow the link to the footnote on hearts of palm, and found it dead. Is it true that the palm hearts industry poses a threat to palms? Are the farmers trying to undermine their own livelihoods? Unfree (talk) 04:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the dead link (at least partially; I don't know if the full book is online). According to Heart of palm, it is often harvested from the wild (although not always, so perhaps wording such as "when harvested from the wild" or something would be called for). Kingdon (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No mention of Arecaceae

Surely Arecaceae, the title of the article, should be mentioned in the first sentence? As it stands, it's not even mentioned anywhere in the lead! mgiganteus1 (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I just poked through the page history. Arecaceae was replaced by "Palm" by an ip edit in Nov 2008 and never returned, and "Panamea" was added in Feb 2009 by a 2 edit count user who vandalized at the same time. I have readded Arecaceae as the lead word and removed "Panamea" --Kevmin (talk) 07:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Palm Roots

Palm Roots are they all long & cable like? At least the ones I am familiar with have the capacity to hold on to unstable terrain due to those magnificent long numerous cables —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.4.82.40 (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Palm stem cross section is not a palm

The picture of a cross section is NOT a palm but is a cross section of a stem of a Strelitzia nicolai, not a member of Arecaceae. I have deleted the picture accordingly. Sean 124.187.121.107 (talk)