The Musaceae

An annotated list of the species of Ensete, Musa and Musella.

Summary

This section summarises the information presented in the main pages. 

The first section is a list of the extant species of the Musaceae.  

The second section is a list of published species names cross referenced with the accepted name for the taxon, if there is one.  Good species are in bold in blue.   Good subspecies are in blue.

This summary should be accessible by all.  The main pages require a Java-enabled browser to view and navigate them properly.

If you have any questions or comments please e-mail me at drc@globalnet.co.uk

David Constantine

Summary section 1

Species of the Musaceae

This list is not complete, there are still undescribed species.

The previous, five sections of Musa have recently been reduced to three.   Previously, the 2n = 20 chromosome species were separated into the sections Australimusa and Callimusa and the 2n = 22 chromosome species were separated into the sections Musa and Rhodochlamys.  Recently, studies by Carol Wong and colleagues in Singapore have revealed that genetic differences between each section in the same chromosome group are smaller than those within each section.  This means that the traditional separation of the sections can no longer be substantiated.  The studies of Wong et al do, however, maintain the separation between the 20 and 22 chromosome species.  The remarkable morphological differences that once supported the separation of the sections are no longer considered important in determining sectional status.  Once again in the taxonomic history of the genus, the stress given to morphological features has ultimately proved fruitless. 

This simplification of the sections within the genus Musa and particularly the stress on chromosome number considerably simplifies the placement of certain newly described species.  Not that everything is completely tidy.  There remain a few questions to be answered.  Just for the record, my last attempt to sort Musa species into the old sections is here.

Originally based on a Table 1.1 in Stover & Simmonds 1987 but modified substantially after Wong et al 2002.

Notes:

• Ensete wilsonii (Tutcher) Cheesman should probably be reduced under Ensete glaucum (Roxb.) Cheesman.

• Ensete Banta, Thailand.  First introduced into cultivation by John Banta there is an Ensete sp. in Thailand that is phenotypically similar to Ensete superbum.  Whether this is a new species or a disjunct population of E. superbum is not yet known.

• Musa angcorensis Gagnep. is poorly known and may not be a good species.  Simmonds 1960 very tentatively placed it in section Callimusa but, if it exists at all, it is more likely to be section Musa.

• Musa banksii F. Muell. seems to be confirmed as a species by Simmonds & Weatherup 1990 supporting the conclusion of Argent 1976 although Shepherd 1999 disagrees.

• Musa beccarii Simmonds still seems somewhat anomalous.  Shepherd 1999 gives the chromosome number as x (= 1n) = 9 and 10, the latter due to multivalent formation during meiosis.  Although in Wong et al's study it nestles comfortably within section Callimusa the chromosome number needs clarification.

• Musa coccinea Andrews has been confirmed by Liu et al 2002 and by Argent and Kiew 2002 as the correct name for the plant often called Musa uranoscopos Lour. in the literature.

• Musa exotica Valmayor is newly described from Vietnam where it is known as Chuoi Rung Hoa Do.  It has the correct chromosome number for section Callimusa.

• Musa flaviflora Simmonds (one of the "parents" of M. ornata according to Shepherd 1990) should perhaps be treated as a sub-species of Musa acuminata Colla according to Simmonds & Weatherup 1990.

• Musa hirta Becc. is a good species although somewhat enigmatic and its affinities with M. beccarii suggest it belongs with that species in section Callimusa.

• Musa insularimontana Hayata endemic to a single island off Taiwan is poorly known.   It is close to M. textilis and is perhaps vulnerable to reduction.

• Musa ornata Roxb. seems to be a "secondary species" according to Shepherd 1999, a relic of a hybrid swarm between M. flaviflora and M. velutina.

• Musa rosea is more or less unknown.  It may be M. ornata.

• Musa pigmaea Hotta (nomen nudum as yet) is a good species although enigmatic.   Its reported affinity with M. beccarii suggest it belongs with that species in section Callimusa.

• Musa siamea (comb. nov) is likely to be elevated from M. acuminata subsp. siamea if Wong et al's genetic results are confirmed.

• Musa splendida A. Chev. is poorly known and may not be a good species.  A plant known as Chuoi gai, a name given by Chevalier for M. splendida, seems identical with M. paracoccinea but differs from Chevalier's description of M. splendida.

• Musa thomsonii Noltie is a good species although very poorly known. 

• Musa velutina Wendl. & Drude may be the same as Musa dasycarpa Kurz in which case the latter would have priority.

• Musa sp. 'Burmese Blue' is placed here deliberately provocatively.  This plant has been describe as a form of M. acuminata and M. balbisiana but having grown the plant it seems to me that it is neither and is probably an undescribed species.

• Musa sp. "VN1-054" is placed here speculatively.  Known in Vietnam as Chuoi Rung Hoa Soan it has been confused with Musa itinerans although differing in its remarkable imbricate male bud.  That it is a hitherto unknown species is reported here for the first time.

• Musella splendida Valmayor and Danh is a supposed new species from Vietnam but very, very doubtfully distinct from M. lasiocarpa.
  
  Please use your browser's back button to return to the last page viewed or use the links below:

back to home page        on to Summary section 2

last revision 23 April 2003