What is this palm? At least, I assume it is a palm.

It's in a Sydney garden.

http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~richwrig/Palm.jpg

You assume wrong, Itchy Palms.

Cannot see the bottle-shaped caudex in the photo but its probably an old
plant of Beaucarnea recurvata in bloom.


"Richard Wright" wrote in message
...
What is this palm? At least, I assume it is a palm.

It's in a Sydney garden.

http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~richwrig/Palm.jpg

In article ,
[Richard Wright] wrote...

What is this palm? At least, I assume it is a palm.

It's in a Sydney garden.

http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~richwrig/Palm.jpg

It looks like it's probably Nolina [Beaucarnea] recurvata.

It's not a true palm, and is native to Mexico.

It's usually branched with age, and has a fat-based
trunk even when small.

Small plants are commonly grown as house plants.

Compa

http://www.dipbot.unict.it/orto/0085-1.html
http://www.flora-toskana.de/images/B...ta_gross_g.jpg
http://www.arbolesornamentales.com/Agavaceae.htm

See also:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...oit.duke.e du

cheers

Are you really sure, Melvin?

Its Beaucarnea recurvata not Nolina.

Beaucarnea are pachycaul. Nolina are not, even when they are shrubby. Also
there are significant differences in the fruit.

"mel turner" wrote in message
...
In article ,
[Richard Wright] wrote...

What is this palm? At least, I assume it is a palm.

It's in a Sydney garden.

http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~richwrig/Palm.jpg

It looks like it's probably Nolina [Beaucarnea] recurvata.

It's not a true palm, and is native to Mexico.

It's usually branched with age, and has a fat-based
trunk even when small.

Small plants are commonly grown as house plants.

Compa

http://www.dipbot.unict.it/orto/0085-1.html
http://www.flora-toskana.de/images/B...ta_gross_g.jpg
http://www.arbolesornamentales.com/Agavaceae.htm

See also:


http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...oit.duke.e du

cheers

Cereus-validus schreef
Are you really sure?

+ + +
If Mel isn't sure he should be: he has plenty of company
PvR

In article ,
[Cereus-validus] wrote...
"mel turner" wrote in message
...
In article ,
[Richard Wright] wrote...

What is this palm? At least, I assume it is a palm.

It's in a Sydney garden.

http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~richwrig/Palm.jpg

It looks like it's probably Nolina [Beaucarnea] recurvata.

It's not a true palm, and is native to Mexico.

It's usually branched with age, and has a fat-based
trunk even when small.

Small plants are commonly grown as house plants.

Compa
http://www.dipbot.unict.it/orto/0085-1.html
http://www.flora-toskana.de/images/B...ta_gross_g.jpg
http://www.arbolesornamentales.com/Agavaceae.htm

See also:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...oit.duke.e du

Are you really sure, Melvin?

Yes, I'm really, really sure I've correctly identified
the species and answered the gentleman's question.

Its Beaucarnea recurvata not Nolina.

[Shrug] Various others seem to disgree. Beaucarnea is apparently
often considered to be a synonym of Nolina.

Both generic names are currently being used for this particular
species, so some reference should be made to both. I suppose you
think I should have written "Beaucarnea [Nolina] recurvata" above,
instead of "Nolina [Beaucarnea] recurvata"?

Or maybe "Beaucarnea recurvata, which is included in the genus
Nolina by some people, who are clearly WRONG, and who are
undoubtedly evil or insane or both".

Fine, whatever. [How finely do you like your hairs split?]

Beaucarnea are pachycaul. Nolina are not, even when they are shrubby. Also
there are significant differences in the fruit.

Such as? Again, others seem to disagree that there are any very
significant differences. Why shouldn't someone consider these
differences as possibly being subgenus or species-group
characteristics within "Nolina"?

TITLE: Nomenclatural changes affecting cultivated plants. I
AUTHOR, EDITOR, INVENTOR: Staples,-George-W [Reprint-author];
Herbst,-Derral-R [Author]
SOURCE: Baileya-. 1996; 23(4): 169-183
ABSTRACT: An annotated checklist of name changes affecting the genera
Acalypha, Agave, Albizia, Araucaria, Beaucarnea, Callistemon, Caloncoba,
Cascabela, Cassia, Cissus, Clerodendrum, Congea, Dimocarpus, Dracaena,
Duranta, Elatostema, Euphoria, Leea, Lophostemon, Melaleuca, Nephelium,
Nolina, Nymphaea, Pellionia, Pilea, Pleomele, Samanea, Senna, Thevetia,
and Tristania is provided. These names are gathered from the botanical
literature and are publicized here to bring them to the attention of
the horticultural and gardening communities, so that they may be
considered during the preparation of popular and horticultural books,
treatments, and articles.

[begin quote from the above article]

Nolina recurvata (Lemaire) Hemsley
Beaucarnea recurvata Lemaire, Ill. Hort. 8 misc. p. 61 I pl. 1861.
Nolina recurvata (Lemaire) Hemsley, Biol. centr.-amer., Bot. 3: 372.
1883.

Mabberley (1987, 1989) followed Hemsley (1883) and Bentham and Hooker
(1876) in recognizing Beaucarnea as a synonym of Nolina. It has long
been recognized that the technical differences between the two taxa are
inconsequential, although Trelease (1911) maintained them at generic
rank. The common house plant sold under the trade names ponytail palm,
bottle palm, or elephant foot tree thus has a name change.

[end quote]

Briefer quotes:

Both

Willis, J.C. 1966. A dictionary of the flowering plants and ferns.
Ed. 7 (edited by H.K. Airy Shaw). Cambridge Univ. Press.

and

Mabberley, D. 1987. The Plant-Book: A Portable Dictionary of the
Vascular Plants. Cambridge U. Press.

simply say:

"Beaucarnea Lemaire = Nolina"

On the other hand other researchers obviously do still continue
to recognize Beaucarnea as a separate genus, and continue to name
new species in it.

Initially, I didn't find any detailed phylogenies of the whole Nolinaceae,
to help show the specific relationships among the named groups
Nolina, Beaucarnea, Calibanus, and Dasylirion.

However, this one helps:

TITLE: Phylogeny of Agavaceae based on ITS rDNA sequence variation
AUTHOR, EDITOR, INVENTOR: Bogler,-David-J [Reprint-author]; Simpson,
-Beryl-B [Author]
SOURCE: American-Journal-of-Botany. 1996; 83(9): 1225-1235
ABSTRACT: Several systems of classification have been proposed for the
family Agavaceae. A distinctive bimodal karyotype and similarities of
fruits and seeds strongly support close relationships among Yucca,
Hesperaloe, Beschorneria, Furcraea, Agave, Manfreda, Polianthes,
Prochnyanthes, and perhaps Hosta. However, Dasylirion, Beaucarnea,
Nolina, Calibanus, Dracaena, and Sansevieria differ in so many
cytological and morphological features that many have concluded they
should be excluded from Agavaceae and separated into two families,
Nolinaceae and Dracaenaceae. Chloroplast DNA restriction site data
support these separations and indicate that Nolinaceae and Dracaenaceae
are very close to Convallariaceae (Maianthemum, Convallaria, Aspidistra,
Liriope, etc.). In this paper we report the results of an ITS rDNA
sequencing study of 40 taxa in Agavaceae sensu lato and related groups
in the order Asparagales. Sequence alignments were optimized using the
Consistency Index, Retention Index, and Rescaled Consistency Index to
find the alignment that exhibited the least amount of homoplasy. The
results of our study are congruent with the conclusions drawn from
cytological, immunological, cpDNA, and rbcL studies, which support a
narrow interpretation of Agavaceae and a close relationship among
Convallariaceae, Dracaenaceae, and Nolinaceae. In addition, the ITS
sequence data provide evidence for some interesting relationships
within these families.

As it happens, their ITS results support Beaucarnea and Calibanus as
the sister group to Dasylirion, with Nolina being sister to the rest
of the Nolinaceae. Such results would of course support maintaining
Beaucarnea as separate from Nolina.

FWIW, these also turned up and may be of interest [not seen by me]:

TITLE: Systematics of Dasylirion: Taxonomy and molecular phylogeny
AUTHOR, EDITOR, INVENTOR: Bogler,-David-J [Author]
SOURCE: Boletin-de-la-Sociedad-Botanica-de-Mexico. 1995; 0(56): 69-76
ABSTRACT: The results of a systematic study in which Dasylirion was
fully monographed are reported. Sixteen species, including four new
ones, were recognized. Data from chloroplast DNA restriction site
analysis suggest that the species of Dasylirion in southern Mexico
are basal in the genus, that Nolina parviflora is particularly close
to both Dasylirion and Beaucarnea, and that Calibanus is closest to
Beaucarnea. The phylogeny of Dasylirion and the Agavaceae sensu lato
was studied by comparison of cpDNA restriction sites and ITS rDNA
sequences. The results strongly indicate that Dasylirion, Nolina,
Beaucarnea, and Calibanus are a monophyletic group that is closer to
Maianthemum, Polygonatum, Liriope, Dracaena and Sansevieria than to
Yucca and Agave. Hosta and Camassia are at the base of the branch
leading to Yucca and Agave. The molecular data indicate that Yucca
whipplei is more closely related to Hesperaloe than to other species
of Yucca, and that Agave dasylirioides and A. striata in the mchlt
Group Striatae mchgt are basal to the rest of Agave. The resemblance
of Aloe and Xanthorrhoea to the Agavaceae appears to be due to
convergent evolution.

TITLE: Hutchinson (Agavales) vs. Huber and Dahlgren (Asparagales):
Molecular analyses of the phylogeny and evolution of the Agavaceae
family sensu Hutchinson in the monocotyledons
AUTHOR, EDITOR, INVENTOR: Eguiarte,-Luis-E [Author]
SOURCE: Boletin-de-la-Sociedad-Botanica-de-Mexico. 1995; 0(56): 45-56
LANGUAGE: Spanish
ABSTRACT: To explore different ideas in relation to the phylogeny of
the monocotyledones, in particular about the Agavaceae sensu Hutchinson
(1934, 1959) and their relationships with related groups of the
Asparagales, the DNA sequence of the chloroplast gene rbcL for 134
species (118 monocotyledons, 16 dicotyledon paleoherbs as an outgroup)
was analyzed. Parsimony, distance (neighbor-joining and UPGMA) and
maximum likelihood analyses were performed. The phylogenies show that
Acorus calamus is the living plant more closely related to the
ancestral monocotyledons. The different analyses identify three main
evolutionary linages in the Agavaceae sensu Hutchinson: 1) One
including the Agavaceae sensu stricto, (Agave, Manfreda, Beschorneria,
Hesperaloe and Yucca) with Hosta (Funkiaceae) and Chlorophytum
(Anthericaceae). 2) Other group that includes the Nolinaceae (Nolina,
Beaucarnea and Dasylirion), Sansevieria (Dracaenaceae) and Danae
(Ruscaceae). 3) A third group formed by the Asphodelaceae (Aloe,
Haworthia and Kniphofia) and Dianella (Phormiaceae). These lineages
include the majority of the Asparagales, as were defined by Huber
(1969) and Dahlgren et al. (1985). A molecular clock was also estimated
to obtain the divergence times among the groups related to the
Agavaceae. A rate of 0.34 times 10-9 nucleotide substitutions per site
per year was obtained. Using this calibration, a date for the origin of
the true Agavaceae (separation between Agavaceae-Hosta) was estimated
to be about 14 million years, for the separation of the
Agavaceae-Nolinaceae of about 47 million years and for the origin of
the Asparagales + Iridaceae + Cyanastraceae of about 84 million years.
Nevertheless, these estimates should be regarded as preliminary.

TITLE: The systematic status of the Agavaceae and Nolinaceae and
related asparagales in the monocotyledons: Analysis based on the rbcL
gene sequence
AUTHOR, EDITOR, INVENTOR: Eguiarte,-Luis-E [Reprint-author]; Duvall,-
Melvin-R [Author]; Learn,-Gerald-H,-Jr [Author]; Clegg,-Michael-T
SOURCE: Boletin-de-la-Sociedad-Botanica-de-Mexico. 1994; 0(54): 35-56
ABSTRACT: The nature and limits of the Agavaceae have been
controversial since its proposition in the last century. Here we
analyze the sequences of the chloroplast gene rbcL of 9 species from
the Agavaceae sensu Hutchinson (1934,1959) along with 44 additional
sequences, including 36 sequences from the Lilianae, and as outgroups
8 sequences of the Alismatanae and Arecanae. We present parsimony,
neighbor-joining and maximum likelihood analysis We identified three
main evolutionary lines related to the Agavaceae as defined by
Hutchinson. These lines encompass most of the Asparagales order as
defined by Dahlgren el al. (1985): (i) Asparagus (Asparagaceae),
Dianella (Phormiaceae), Hemerocallis (Hemerocallidaceae) and the
Asphodelacea (Aloe, Haworthia and Kniphofia); (ii) Agavaceae sensu
stricto, including Agave, Monfreda, Beschorneria, Hesperaloe and Yucca,
the Asiatic genus Hosta (Funkiaceae) and the pantropical herb
Chlorophytum (Anthericaceae); (iii) Sansevieria (Dracaenaceae), Danae
(Ruscaceae) and the Nolinaceae (Nolina, Beaucarnea and Dasylirion).
According to our analysis other groups of species related to the
Agavaceae sensu Hutchinson a Bowiea (Hyacinthaceae), Ledebouria (=
Scilla, Hyacinthaceae), Clivia (Amaryllidaceae), Lomandra
(Dasypogonaceae), Xanthorrhoea (Xanthorrhoeaceae), Cyanastrum
(Cyanastraceae) and the Indaceae (Iris, Orthosanthus and Anomatheca).
We conclude that the Agavaceae, as proposed by Hutchinson (1934, 1959)
is not a monophyletic group, although most of its species form the core
of a larger clade that approximately corresponds (with the addition of
the Iridaceae) to the Asparagales as proposed by Dahlgren et al. (1985).

&
http://biodiversity.uno.edu/delta/an...w/nolinace.htm
http://www.ars-grin.gov/~sbmljw/cgi-...othlist.pl?387
http://www.ars-grin.gov/~sbmljw/cgi-bin/gnothlist.pl?26
http://www.nonapalms.com/read_flower.asp?flowerid=278
http://hortiplex.gardenweb.com/plants/p1/gw2003107.html

cheers

Most horticultural references fail to distinguish Beaucarnea from Nolina.
Originally the problem over the choice of genus name traces back to
nomenclatural confusion over the priority of the names by John Baker rather
than any valid taxonomic reasons.

I have copies of all the articles you cite and have seen many of the species
in the genera first hand. I have also written short reviews with all the
latest info on both Beaucarnea and Calibanus. I also have maintained a file
on Nolina with emphasis on the shrubby species.

Trelease in his revision of the genera knew the plants first hand and found
good reasons for recognizing them as distinct genera. Morphology and recent
DNA studies confirm that the two genera are indeed different.

All the species of Beaucarnea are easily distinguished from Nolina even when
not in flower or fruit by having a swollen pachycaul stem.

Regarding the Nolinaceae, it turns out that its closest affinity is with the
Ruscaceae, Convallariaceae, Ophiopogonaceae, Dracaenaceae & Eriospermaceae
and not at all with the Agavaceae (sensu stricto). Hutchinson got a bit
carried away when he lumped various succulent and rosulate xerophytic genera
into the Agavaceae and he ignored many significant differences in the
flowers, fruit, seed and pollen. There is little doubt that the monotypic
Hostaceae (Funkiaceae is an invalid name) is the sister group to the
Agavaceae (sensu stricto).

I never have found Mabberly to be a very good reference. I prefer to go to
the first hand references than to believe any second hand opinions.

Citing the species as Beaucarnea [Nolina] recurvata" would be incorrect.
Nolina is the older genus name of the two but Beaucarnea was never reduced
to subgeneric status.


"mel turner" wrote in message
...
In article ,
[Cereus-validus] wrote...
"mel turner" wrote in message
...
In article ,
[Richard Wright] wrote...

What is this palm? At least, I assume it is a palm.

It's in a Sydney garden.

http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~richwrig/Palm.jpg

It looks like it's probably Nolina [Beaucarnea] recurvata.

It's not a true palm, and is native to Mexico.

It's usually branched with age, and has a fat-based
trunk even when small.

Small plants are commonly grown as house plants.

Compa
http://www.dipbot.unict.it/orto/0085-1.html
http://www.flora-toskana.de/images/B...ta_gross_g.jpg
http://www.arbolesornamentales.com/Agavaceae.htm

See also:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...oyle.oit.duke.
edu

Are you really sure, Melvin?

Yes, I'm really, really sure I've correctly identified
the species and answered the gentleman's question.

Its Beaucarnea recurvata not Nolina.

[Shrug] Various others seem to disgree. Beaucarnea is apparently
often considered to be a synonym of Nolina.

Both generic names are currently being used for this particular
species, so some reference should be made to both. I suppose you
think I should have written "Beaucarnea [Nolina] recurvata" above,
instead of "Nolina [Beaucarnea] recurvata"?

Or maybe "Beaucarnea recurvata, which is included in the genus
Nolina by some people, who are clearly WRONG, and who are
undoubtedly evil or insane or both".

Fine, whatever. [How finely do you like your hairs split?]

Beaucarnea are pachycaul. Nolina are not, even when they are shrubby.
Also
there are significant differences in the fruit.

Such as? Again, others seem to disagree that there are any very
significant differences. Why shouldn't someone consider these
differences as possibly being subgenus or species-group
characteristics within "Nolina"?

TITLE: Nomenclatural changes affecting cultivated plants. I
AUTHOR, EDITOR, INVENTOR: Staples,-George-W [Reprint-author];
Herbst,-Derral-R [Author]
SOURCE: Baileya-. 1996; 23(4): 169-183
ABSTRACT: An annotated checklist of name changes affecting the genera
Acalypha, Agave, Albizia, Araucaria, Beaucarnea, Callistemon, Caloncoba,
Cascabela, Cassia, Cissus, Clerodendrum, Congea, Dimocarpus, Dracaena,
Duranta, Elatostema, Euphoria, Leea, Lophostemon, Melaleuca, Nephelium,
Nolina, Nymphaea, Pellionia, Pilea, Pleomele, Samanea, Senna, Thevetia,
and Tristania is provided. These names are gathered from the botanical
literature and are publicized here to bring them to the attention of
the horticultural and gardening communities, so that they may be
considered during the preparation of popular and horticultural books,
treatments, and articles.

[begin quote from the above article]

Nolina recurvata (Lemaire) Hemsley
Beaucarnea recurvata Lemaire, Ill. Hort. 8 misc. p. 61 I pl. 1861.
Nolina recurvata (Lemaire) Hemsley, Biol. centr.-amer., Bot. 3: 372.
1883.

Mabberley (1987, 1989) followed Hemsley (1883) and Bentham and Hooker
(1876) in recognizing Beaucarnea as a synonym of Nolina. It has long
been recognized that the technical differences between the two taxa are
inconsequential, although Trelease (1911) maintained them at generic
rank. The common house plant sold under the trade names ponytail palm,
bottle palm, or elephant foot tree thus has a name change.

[end quote]

Briefer quotes:

Both

Willis, J.C. 1966. A dictionary of the flowering plants and ferns.
Ed. 7 (edited by H.K. Airy Shaw). Cambridge Univ. Press.

and

Mabberley, D. 1987. The Plant-Book: A Portable Dictionary of the
Vascular Plants. Cambridge U. Press.

simply say:

"Beaucarnea Lemaire = Nolina"

On the other hand other researchers obviously do still continue
to recognize Beaucarnea as a separate genus, and continue to name
new species in it.

Initially, I didn't find any detailed phylogenies of the whole Nolinaceae,
to help show the specific relationships among the named groups
Nolina, Beaucarnea, Calibanus, and Dasylirion.

However, this one helps:

TITLE: Phylogeny of Agavaceae based on ITS rDNA sequence variation
AUTHOR, EDITOR, INVENTOR: Bogler,-David-J [Reprint-author]; Simpson,
-Beryl-B [Author]
SOURCE: American-Journal-of-Botany. 1996; 83(9): 1225-1235
ABSTRACT: Several systems of classification have been proposed for the
family Agavaceae. A distinctive bimodal karyotype and similarities of
fruits and seeds strongly support close relationships among Yucca,
Hesperaloe, Beschorneria, Furcraea, Agave, Manfreda, Polianthes,
Prochnyanthes, and perhaps Hosta. However, Dasylirion, Beaucarnea,
Nolina, Calibanus, Dracaena, and Sansevieria differ in so many
cytological and morphological features that many have concluded they
should be excluded from Agavaceae and separated into two families,
Nolinaceae and Dracaenaceae. Chloroplast DNA restriction site data
support these separations and indicate that Nolinaceae and Dracaenaceae
are very close to Convallariaceae (Maianthemum, Convallaria, Aspidistra,
Liriope, etc.). In this paper we report the results of an ITS rDNA
sequencing study of 40 taxa in Agavaceae sensu lato and related groups
in the order Asparagales. Sequence alignments were optimized using the
Consistency Index, Retention Index, and Rescaled Consistency Index to
find the alignment that exhibited the least amount of homoplasy. The
results of our study are congruent with the conclusions drawn from
cytological, immunological, cpDNA, and rbcL studies, which support a
narrow interpretation of Agavaceae and a close relationship among
Convallariaceae, Dracaenaceae, and Nolinaceae. In addition, the ITS
sequence data provide evidence for some interesting relationships
within these families.

As it happens, their ITS results support Beaucarnea and Calibanus as
the sister group to Dasylirion, with Nolina being sister to the rest
of the Nolinaceae. Such results would of course support maintaining
Beaucarnea as separate from Nolina.

FWIW, these also turned up and may be of interest [not seen by me]:

TITLE: Systematics of Dasylirion: Taxonomy and molecular phylogeny
AUTHOR, EDITOR, INVENTOR: Bogler,-David-J [Author]
SOURCE: Boletin-de-la-Sociedad-Botanica-de-Mexico. 1995; 0(56): 69-76
ABSTRACT: The results of a systematic study in which Dasylirion was
fully monographed are reported. Sixteen species, including four new
ones, were recognized. Data from chloroplast DNA restriction site
analysis suggest that the species of Dasylirion in southern Mexico
are basal in the genus, that Nolina parviflora is particularly close
to both Dasylirion and Beaucarnea, and that Calibanus is closest to
Beaucarnea. The phylogeny of Dasylirion and the Agavaceae sensu lato
was studied by comparison of cpDNA restriction sites and ITS rDNA
sequences. The results strongly indicate that Dasylirion, Nolina,
Beaucarnea, and Calibanus are a monophyletic group that is closer to
Maianthemum, Polygonatum, Liriope, Dracaena and Sansevieria than to
Yucca and Agave. Hosta and Camassia are at the base of the branch
leading to Yucca and Agave. The molecular data indicate that Yucca
whipplei is more closely related to Hesperaloe than to other species
of Yucca, and that Agave dasylirioides and A. striata in the mchlt
Group Striatae mchgt are basal to the rest of Agave. The resemblance
of Aloe and Xanthorrhoea to the Agavaceae appears to be due to
convergent evolution.

TITLE: Hutchinson (Agavales) vs. Huber and Dahlgren (Asparagales):
Molecular analyses of the phylogeny and evolution of the Agavaceae
family sensu Hutchinson in the monocotyledons
AUTHOR, EDITOR, INVENTOR: Eguiarte,-Luis-E [Author]
SOURCE: Boletin-de-la-Sociedad-Botanica-de-Mexico. 1995; 0(56): 45-56
LANGUAGE: Spanish
ABSTRACT: To explore different ideas in relation to the phylogeny of
the monocotyledones, in particular about the Agavaceae sensu Hutchinson
(1934, 1959) and their relationships with related groups of the
Asparagales, the DNA sequence of the chloroplast gene rbcL for 134
species (118 monocotyledons, 16 dicotyledon paleoherbs as an outgroup)
was analyzed. Parsimony, distance (neighbor-joining and UPGMA) and
maximum likelihood analyses were performed. The phylogenies show that
Acorus calamus is the living plant more closely related to the
ancestral monocotyledons. The different analyses identify three main
evolutionary linages in the Agavaceae sensu Hutchinson: 1) One
including the Agavaceae sensu stricto, (Agave, Manfreda, Beschorneria,
Hesperaloe and Yucca) with Hosta (Funkiaceae) and Chlorophytum
(Anthericaceae). 2) Other group that includes the Nolinaceae (Nolina,
Beaucarnea and Dasylirion), Sansevieria (Dracaenaceae) and Danae
(Ruscaceae). 3) A third group formed by the Asphodelaceae (Aloe,
Haworthia and Kniphofia) and Dianella (Phormiaceae). These lineages
include the majority of the Asparagales, as were defined by Huber
(1969) and Dahlgren et al. (1985). A molecular clock was also estimated
to obtain the divergence times among the groups related to the
Agavaceae. A rate of 0.34 times 10-9 nucleotide substitutions per site
per year was obtained. Using this calibration, a date for the origin of
the true Agavaceae (separation between Agavaceae-Hosta) was estimated
to be about 14 million years, for the separation of the
Agavaceae-Nolinaceae of about 47 million years and for the origin of
the Asparagales + Iridaceae + Cyanastraceae of about 84 million years.
Nevertheless, these estimates should be regarded as preliminary.

TITLE: The systematic status of the Agavaceae and Nolinaceae and
related asparagales in the monocotyledons: Analysis based on the rbcL
gene sequence
AUTHOR, EDITOR, INVENTOR: Eguiarte,-Luis-E [Reprint-author]; Duvall,-
Melvin-R [Author]; Learn,-Gerald-H,-Jr [Author]; Clegg,-Michael-T
SOURCE: Boletin-de-la-Sociedad-Botanica-de-Mexico. 1994; 0(54): 35-56
ABSTRACT: The nature and limits of the Agavaceae have been
controversial since its proposition in the last century. Here we
analyze the sequences of the chloroplast gene rbcL of 9 species from
the Agavaceae sensu Hutchinson (1934,1959) along with 44 additional
sequences, including 36 sequences from the Lilianae, and as outgroups
8 sequences of the Alismatanae and Arecanae. We present parsimony,
neighbor-joining and maximum likelihood analysis We identified three
main evolutionary lines related to the Agavaceae as defined by
Hutchinson. These lines encompass most of the Asparagales order as
defined by Dahlgren el al. (1985): (i) Asparagus (Asparagaceae),
Dianella (Phormiaceae), Hemerocallis (Hemerocallidaceae) and the
Asphodelacea (Aloe, Haworthia and Kniphofia); (ii) Agavaceae sensu
stricto, including Agave, Monfreda, Beschorneria, Hesperaloe and Yucca,
the Asiatic genus Hosta (Funkiaceae) and the pantropical herb
Chlorophytum (Anthericaceae); (iii) Sansevieria (Dracaenaceae), Danae
(Ruscaceae) and the Nolinaceae (Nolina, Beaucarnea and Dasylirion).
According to our analysis other groups of species related to the
Agavaceae sensu Hutchinson a Bowiea (Hyacinthaceae), Ledebouria (=
Scilla, Hyacinthaceae), Clivia (Amaryllidaceae), Lomandra
(Dasypogonaceae), Xanthorrhoea (Xanthorrhoeaceae), Cyanastrum
(Cyanastraceae) and the Indaceae (Iris, Orthosanthus and Anomatheca).
We conclude that the Agavaceae, as proposed by Hutchinson (1934, 1959)
is not a monophyletic group, although most of its species form the core
of a larger clade that approximately corresponds (with the addition of
the Iridaceae) to the Asparagales as proposed by Dahlgren et al. (1985).

&
http://biodiversity.uno.edu/delta/an...w/nolinace.htm
http://www.ars-grin.gov/~sbmljw/cgi-...othlist.pl?387
http://www.ars-grin.gov/~sbmljw/cgi-bin/gnothlist.pl?26
http://www.nonapalms.com/read_flower.asp?flowerid=278
http://hortiplex.gardenweb.com/plants/p1/gw2003107.html

cheers

Cereus-validus schreef
Most horticultural references fail to distinguish Beaucarnea from Nolina.

+ + +
So, you have just thrown your "case" out of the window!
+ + +

[snip of irrelevant material]
There is little doubt that the monotypic Hostaceae (Funkiaceae is an invalid
name) is the sister group to the Agavaceae (sensu stricto).

+ + +
There is no such thing as an "invalid name".
At present Funkiaceae is a valid, albeit illegitimate name.
+ + +

I never have found Mabberly to be a very good reference.

+ + +
Maybe you would if you could spell.
+ + +

I prefer to go to the first hand references than to believe any second
hand opinions.

+ + +
That indubitably is better, if one can obtain and handle first hand
references, as no doubt the OP could not.
+ + +

Citing the species as Beaucarnea [Nolina] recurvata" would be incorrect.

+ + +
I don't think so.
It is hardly the recommended form of citation, but it serves its purpose.
+ + +

Nolina is the older genus name of the two but Beaucarnea was never reduced
to subgeneric status.

+ + +
So? What would be the point that you are trying to make?

There is certainly no lack of viewpoints on the taxonomy of monocots, but
these are interesting only to a select few.
PvR