I don't think any of the bamboos we have been talking about are B. mutabilis as described by McClure. If you look at the picture of B. mutabilis in Hong Kong Bamboos, the plant looks like what we refer to as a B. textilis, but the description of height and size does not match.Mike McG wrote:Roy,Roy wrote: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?
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.
In Hong Kong Bamboos, published 1985, it says that B. mutabilis "is cultivated in Tai Po Kau Nature Reserve". A picture is provided in the book. I do not believe that B. mutlilis has been imported into the mainland USA. I've been asking people for one that matches McClure's description for about 20 years
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?
Here is what I said about my B. textilis: "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."
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.)
B. mutabilis was listed on the Source List for many years as being 23 feet by 2 inches. That B. mutabilis never materialized in the mainland USA. I don't know who originally thought they had a B. mutabilis and who gave the description of 23 feet by 2 inches. 23 feet would be about right, but not the 2 inches.
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.
I'm definitely still looking for one that looks like the picture of the one in Hong Kong Bamboos. Looks like a smaller version of my B. textilis.
With so may different cultivars (?) of B textilis around, I've beginning to think I need to come up with a distinct cultivar (?) name to distinguish mine since I know the background of mine back to the mother plant. Otherwise I might get confused and forget which one I have.
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.