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

[Glen]

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

Thank you for posting this information. It answers many of the questions that I have had for some time.

[Roy]

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 height of 24 feet by 1.60 diameter culm doesn't seem to match the one we are call B. tex. Kanapha or B. mutabilis. And the first branch at roughly 15 feet on a 24 foot tall culm doesn't leave much branching on the top end. The 2 pictures at the bottom of this post show B. mutablilis and B. tex. Kanapaha. I've seen the B. tex. Kanapha, but not recently, so I can't verify where the branches really start. But on the picture of B. mutabilis, that is a picture I took in my back yard. The clums in that picture are between 40 to 45 feet with culm diameters between 2 and 2.25 inches. The first branches start in the 15 to 18 foot range. I can attest to that fact because I dug them out and measured them.

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, I think you meant to say Robert Saporito, not Robert Tornello (Ruskin, Florida). I would say that Robert Saporito probably got B. mutabilis from Sherry Snodgress from Vero Beach, Florida. I got my B. mutabilis from Sherry.

I wouldn't hold my breath on a DNA analysis. We've talked about doing something like that for years on various bamboos, but nothing has ever materalized. I even started a collection fund for bamboo DNA analysis, but I had to eventually return the money because I could get no one from ABS interested in the idea.

Bambusa mutabilis
<img src="http://www.bambooweb.info/images/bamboo ... _Combo.jpg" alt="Bambusa mutabilis ">

Bambusa textilis 'Kanapaha'
<img src="http://www.bambooweb.info/images/bamboo ... apaha3.jpg" alt="Bambusa textilis 'Kanapaha'">

[Roy]

....snip.... 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

Mike,

I'm like you. I've got hundreds, if not thousands, of B.m. A. Karr seedlings and all seem to have reverted back to the green form which is Bambusa multiplex. When I talked with Dr. Chris Stapleton, my understanding from him was that the new plants would be called Bambusa multiplex.

Now, if one of the seedlings produced a plant with some unique charateristic, such as black dots on the culms, then perhaps the owner of the new plant could give it the name of Bambusa multiplex 'Nigra Dot".

[hotchkiss]

Roy,
These are pictures of B. textilis Kanapaha growing in Puerto Rico and Byron, Georgia. Even though they don't look exactly alike and don't look anything like the plant at Kanapaha they are all the same plant. Cultural conditions and climate make a big difference in this case. I think McClures description is probably faulty because the 24' height does not fit with the 12-15' without branches.

The article by Robert Saporito mentions that Robert Tornello orignally collected the plant and had it identified by the Smithsonian. I am assuming that Robert Saporito or Kim or someone must have gotten the plant from Robert Tornello. I did not know how to snip the text so I just pasted it below.
The Kanapaha textilis story was published in the Aug/03 FCC/ABS Newsletter:
http://www.tropicalbamboo.org/images/Au ... letter.pdf

Kim Higbie knows the full B.mutabilis story. From what I remember, around
1990 Robert Tornello sent a branch from a then unidentified tropical bamboo
to (Tom Wood?) of The Smithsonian for identification.

I still think "B. mutabilis" and B. textilis Kanapaha could be the same plant but it would help to know where the original "B. mutabilis" plant is located and where it originated.

[Roy]

...image....

Roy,
These are pictures of B. textilis Kanapaha growing in Puerto Rico and Byron, Georgia. Even though they don't look exactly alike and don't look anything like the plant at Kanapaha they are all the same plant. Cultural conditions and climate make a big difference in this case. I think McClures description is probably faulty because the 24' height does not fit with the 12-15' without branches.

The article by Robert Saporito mentions that Robert Tornello orignally collected the plant and had it identified by the Smithsonian. I am assuming that Robert Saporito or Kim or someone must have gotten the plant from Robert Tornello. I did not know how to snip the text so I just pasted it below.
The Kanapaha textilis story was published in the Aug/03 FCC/ABS Newsletter:
http://www.tropicalbamboo.org/images/Au ... letter.pdf

Kim Higbie knows the full B.mutabilis story. From what I remember, around
1990 Robert Tornello sent a branch from a then unidentified tropical bamboo
to (Tom Wood?) of The Smithsonian for identification.

I still think "B. mutabilis" and B. textilis Kanapaha could be the same plant but it would help to know where the original "B. mutabilis" plant is located and where it originated.

Mike,

I can't find anywhere that Tornello is mentioned in the Aug. 2003 newsletter.

Tom Wood used to work out of the University of Florida, but I don't know where he is now. He came to my house, many years ago, to take some bamboo pictures to use in a book that he was writing. He did take a look at my Bambusa sp. 'Clone X' and he couldn't ID it, but said he didn't think it was the regular "Buddha Belly" type.

I'm not sure where the original B. mutabilis came from or any real good information about its origin. Sherry Snodgress is the one I got mine from.

I think I'll see if I can get Kim Higbie to give me some input on this discussion.

[mantis]

I am so confused...

So now I don't just have to worry that my B. textilis isn't a B. tuldoides, but I also have to figure out what cv. it is since it isn't an actual B. textilis???

[Roy]

I am so confused...

So now I don't just have to worry that my B. textilis isn't a B. tuldoides, but I also have to figure out what cv. it is since it isn't an actual B. textilis???

Mike,

Welcome to the world of confusing bamboo identification.

I used to take it "personal" when I couldn't actually explain what the real ID was when talking with a person interested in bamboo. I used to think that the person was thinking "what kind of idiotic organization are you in that they can' even ID their own plants?" Now, I just treat it as being one of the Far Eastern mysteries surrounding the mystic of bamboo.

BTW: most of the "other" plant people tend to think we are a "little different"

[mantis]

Welcome to the world of confusing bamboo identification.

I used to take it "personal" when I couldn't actually explain what the real ID was when talking with a person interested in bamboo. I used to think that the person was thinking "what kind of idiotic organization are you in that they can' even ID their own plants?" Now, I just treat it as being one of the Far Eastern mysteries surrounding the mystic of bamboo.

BTW: most of the "other" plant people tend to think we are a "little different"

It's good to be different. Plus, the mystery is part of the fun

[boonut]

I too used to think that there was a group of vendors just interested in selling bamboo with no regard for what they were selling. I used to think that if you asked for a "black bamboo that would grow in deep south Texas", you could get just about anything from certain vendors.

I was very frustrated when asked about large bamboo as a newbie and was sold Moso and Henon for very large prices for deep south Texas. They don't grow down here.

My first 60 or so bamboo were probably 80% misidentified. Some of this came from mislabeling... some of this came from lack of knowledge about clumpers.

I think if you are going to sell bamboo you have to stay on top of the "latest" knowledge related to bamboo... for example when did it arrive in the U.S.; where did mine come from; was it raised from seed; what do the experts agree on; etc..

That is one of the reasons I don't sell bamboo. I just feel there isn't enough knowledge for me to be very accurate in terms of ID. I wouldn't want newbies to get advice that leads them to steer away from bamboo. I prefer to say I have quite a few varieties and "there they are growing on my farm"... if you like one, here it is in pots right beside the mother. I give away bamboo like that now. In the future, when I get enough knowledge and bamboo that is over 5 years old, I may sell it with the same idea.

I have always looked up to folks like Richard Waldron, Kinder Chambers, and others that were more interested in sharing and helping folks interested in finding out more about bamboo get their starts. If you were truly interested in bamboo and wanted to help find the answers, they would give you the shirts off their backs (bamboo shirts that is).

The only thing I can do now is follow in their footsteps and try to help others get started. I no longer think there are ruthless bamboo vendors out there... some folks are better at keeping track of what they have and better business people than others... it just boils down to that. I post links to all the vendors I support on my website. That doesn't mean you will get 100% appropriate ID... it just means they try hard to "do the right thing".

[Roy]

...snip...

That is one of the reasons I don't sell bamboo. I just feel there isn't enough knowledge for me to be very accurate in terms of ID. I wouldn't want newbies to get advice that leads them to steer away from bamboo. I prefer to say I have quite a few varieties and "there they are growing on my farm"... if you like one, here it is in pots right beside the mother. I give away bamboo like that now.
..snip...

Boonut,

Remember what I always say: "To most people, free stuff has very little value in it. The more free stuff you gave away, the less free stuff you can give away." Been there, done that. I tried to give away bamboo for years. Couldn't do it. When I started charging for it, then I found out there was market for a commodity that has some value in it. And then bamboo started flowing out the the old homestead.

There's more, but I see that some people's eyes are beginning to glaze over.

[mantis]

There's more, but I see that some people's eyes are beginning to glaze over.

Nonsense... All this talk about free bamboos makes me wonder which direction to head first, south or east?

[boonut]

I think I finally see what you are saying Roy. Now that you have said that about 5 times. You too gave away boo in the beginning. I didn't know that.

I have tried to give it away locally, and for the most part no takers other than Lako. I decided to let them take the cuttings after showing them how to grow their own.

Maybe you are right... time to sell, sell, sell. Most locals only remember running bamboo and want no part of it.

There will come a time when people will drive down the road to my farm and be wowed by the tall giants... that time is coming. Maybe I can charge to take tours.

I keep looking at retirement and thinking how can I learn from all the "non-profit medical centers" and do a non-profit botanical garden and own everything in town.

[Roy]

...snip...
I keep looking at retirement and thinking how can I learn from all the "non-profit medical centers" and do a non-profit botanical garden and own everything in town.

Hey, you might be on to something. One of my bamboo adopters runs a business called "Healing Garden and Bamboo". Although I've never been to his business, I think he sells natural products used as healing agents, bamboo, and I think he uses some of the bamboo for landscaping in his garden.

[Roy]

I was viewing a DVD (many thanks to Bob Clune, Houston, Texas, USA) of Susan Ruskin of Quindembo giving her presentation of landscaping with bamboo at the ABS Conference in Hawaii 2006

Susan did show a picture of Bambusa textilis 'Fasca', which they had formerly been calling Bambusa mutabilis. She indicated there was a general agreement that the plant, which they had been calling B. mutabilis, was really Bambusa textilis 'Fasca'. [The general agreement must have been among those in Hawaii since I have not heard that name, or a similiar name, used in many years on the mainland-Roy]

In her slide presentation, she showed a bamboo which she listed by the name of Bambusa texilis (Weaver's bamboo). She said that this was the same bamboo that had been growing in Southern California for many years. Susan said that B. textilis was one of their first bamboos and that it was still one of her favorites. [Upon first listening to the DVD, I thought she said she had gotten her B. textilis from California, but upon reviewing the DVD again, she did not indicate where she got her first start of B. textilis--Roy]

Susan said that in Florida, B. texitilis is referred to as Wong Chuk or Kana..?? and then someone off camera said "Kanapaha" [I think it was Robert Saporito--Roy]. My impression is that Susan was making no distinction between Bambusa textilis and Bambusa textilis 'Kanapaha'.

She said that if you were planting B. texitlis 'Fasca' next to B. texitlis [she refers to her bamboo as B. textilis and not B. textilis 'Kanapaha--which one does she have? I don't know. See size remarks below--Roy] you might see a difference in the two, but if not, the one would be hard pressed to see a difference. [She did not explain what she saw as the difference or that she saw a difference--Roy]

Susan said that at her nursery, her B. textilis gets to be around 35 feet. About 5 miles away, where there is more rainfall, about 52 inches per year, it might get to 55 feet. [there was no mention of diameter size of culms--Roy]

As most of the time happens, new information leads to a better understanding of information on hand, but it also leads to other questions.

1..Is Quindembo's B. textilis the same as B. textilis 'Kanapaha'?
2..Is B. mutabilis really B. tex. 'Fasca'?
3..Is B. mutabilis' name in the ABS Source List going to change to B. t. 'Fasca?
4..My original question: What's the difference between B. mutabilis (a.k.a. in Hawaii as B. tex. 'Fasca') and B. textilis 'Kanapaha'?

Hooray for Bob Clune, Houston, Texas, USA

[Mike McG]

2..Is B. mutabilis really B. tex. 'Fasca'?
3..Is B. mutabilis' name in the ABS Source List going to change to B. t. 'Fasca?

Roy,
With respect to your questions above:

Question #2 probably should be posed as: Is the bamboo that has recently been called B. mutabilis in the US really a variation of B. textilis and not the B. mutabilis as described by McClure? I think you first need to ask if it is really a B. textilis rather than B. mutabilis and then whether it is 'Fasca'. From what I have read here the answer to this question with respect to it being a textilis is probably yes.

Question #3 probably should be posed as:
Is B. textilis 'Fasca' going to be added to the Source List and is the description of B. mutabilis going to be revised to match McClure's or B. mutabilis deleted from the List? Does anyone know if an original B. t. 'Fasca' exists in a botanical garden or in the trade, and is it different or the same as what was recently being called B. mutabilis? It would appear that some think it is the same and they may well be correct. Who originally named 'Fasca' and what were the characteristics that made it different than the generic form of B. textilis? One description I see on the internet indicates it is 12m x 5cm. -12?C and the same as B. Textilis but with brown hair on culm sheets. Another indicates it is 10m x 4cm max., almost identical to B textilis, with smooth green culms that have a slight roughness below the node. A third indicates that 'Fasca' is a dark variety of B. textilis, named for the dark color of the new culms that have little or none of the white powder found on B. textilis and 'Gracilis' when young, but age to the same color; becoming more golden with direct sunlight. It forms a slightly more open clump than 'Gracilis', that narrows at the base and has larger diameter (30-40mm) shoots and dark bristles on the culm sheathes. At 8 -10 meters it's not quite as big as the species type, B. textilis, yet a bit taller than 'Gracilis'. It would seem these are different than the description of B.t. 'Kanapaha' as far as size. Also, Roy, I believe you indicated that there were differences that you observed between B. textilis and what was B. mutabilis or 'Kanapaha' but I do not recalled you provided details. (Maybe I missed them and I will go back and re-read your posts.) Are these the same differences as originally identified for 'Fasca'? Lastly, from what Mike Hotchkiss indicated, it appears that the true B. mutabilis was imported into Puerto Rico and then maybe lost. I think B. mutabilis should stay in List with a note saying it may no longer exist in the US along with McClure's description.

Just my two cents and happy Thanksgiving to everyone celebrating this holiday.
Mike near Brenham TX

PS I would also like to thank Bob for his efforts in documenting the last two ABS meetings.