Ensete lasiocarpum

Ensete lasiocarpum

Ensete lasiocarpum (A. R. Franchet, in Morot, Journ. de Bot. 3: 329 (1889) and J. G. Baker, Ann. Bot. 7: 208 (1893)) E. E. Cheesman, Kew Bulletin 2 (2): 102 (1947).

Accepted name Musella lasiocarpa (A. R. Franchet) C. Y. Wu ex H. W. Li, Acta Phytotax. Sinica 16 (3): 56 (1978).

Synonyms Musa lasiocarpa A. R. Franchet, in Morot, Journ. de Bot. 3: 329 (1889) and J. G. Baker, Ann. Bot. 7: 208 (1893).

Authorities The accepted name is from Li 1978.

Icon. Corm. Sinicorum accepts Ensete lasiocarpum (A. R. Franchet) E. E. Cheesman as the accepted name.
The synonym is from Simmonds 1960 who accepts Musa lasiocarpa A. R. Franchet as the accepted name.
The World Checklist of Monocotyledons gives Ensete lasiocarpum (Franch.) Cheesman, Kew Bull. 2: 102 (1947 publ. 1948) (synonym Musa lasiocarpa Franch., J. Bot. (Morot) 3: 329 (1889)) as a synonym of Musella lasiocarpa (Franch.) C.Y.Wu ex H.W.Li, Acta Phytotax. Sin. 16(3): 56 (1978) which is given as the accepted name.

Distribution China (Yunnan & Guizhou) up to 2,500 m, Vietnam, Laos and Myanmar (Burma).

Description See Musella lasiocarpa for a description.

References Cheesman 1947a: 102, Franchet 1889, GRIN, Icon. Corm. Sinicorum, ING database, Lancaster 1989, Li 1978: 56-57, Mobot FoC, Mobot Tropicos, Simmonds 1960: 207-208, WCM.

Comments "This extremely interesting species needs much further study. Baker referred it to Eumusa, presumably because it is described as having a rhizome, for it has scarcely any other character of Eumusa. Franchet wrote in his notes with the original description : "Sa végétation souterraine, autant qu'on peut juger par les spécimens envoyés à l'herbier du Muséum, consiste-en un gros rhizome de 0 m. 05 à 0 m. 07 de diamètre qui parait se déveloper horizontalement, sans qu'on puisse dire encore si la plante est monocarpienne et si elle reproduit, ou non, par rejet".
I have examined herbarium material at Kew which must be the original collection by Delavay. The flower appears to be borne on a fleshy cone unique among the Musaceae, but morphologically this is only the axis of the inflorescence unusually developed. Franchet proposed for this species a new section of Musa, to be called Musella, and it may on further study be found to represent a distinct genus ; but I should not be prepared to separate it, on the existing material alone, from Ensete, with which it has close affinity. Whatever it may be it is certainly not a Musa, sensu strictiore."

(from Cheesman 1947a).
Images:

There are several images of Musella lasiocarpa.

home next

last updated 24/11/2007

Accepted name	Musella lasiocarpa (A. R. Franchet) C. Y. Wu ex H. W. Li, Acta Phytotax. Sinica 16 (3): 56 (1978).
Synonyms	Musa lasiocarpa A. R. Franchet, in Morot, Journ. de Bot. 3: 329 (1889) and J. G. Baker, Ann. Bot. 7: 208 (1893).
Authorities	The accepted name is from Li 1978. Icon. Corm. Sinicorum accepts Ensete lasiocarpum (A. R. Franchet) E. E. Cheesman as the accepted name. The synonym is from Simmonds 1960 who accepts Musa lasiocarpa A. R. Franchet as the accepted name. The World Checklist of Monocotyledons gives Ensete lasiocarpum (Franch.) Cheesman, Kew Bull. 2: 102 (1947 publ. 1948) (synonym Musa lasiocarpa Franch., J. Bot. (Morot) 3: 329 (1889)) as a synonym of Musella lasiocarpa (Franch.) C.Y.Wu ex H.W.Li, Acta Phytotax. Sin. 16(3): 56 (1978) which is given as the accepted name.
Distribution	China (Yunnan & Guizhou) up to 2,500 m, Vietnam, Laos and Myanmar (Burma).
Description	See Musella lasiocarpa for a description.
References	Cheesman 1947a: 102, Franchet 1889, GRIN, Icon. Corm. Sinicorum, ING database, Lancaster 1989, Li 1978: 56-57, Mobot FoC, Mobot Tropicos, Simmonds 1960: 207-208, WCM.
Comments	"This extremely interesting species needs much further study. Baker referred it to Eumusa, presumably because it is described as having a rhizome, for it has scarcely any other character of Eumusa. Franchet wrote in his notes with the original description : "Sa végétation souterraine, autant qu'on peut juger par les spécimens envoyés à l'herbier du Muséum, consiste-en un gros rhizome de 0 m. 05 à 0 m. 07 de diamètre qui parait se déveloper horizontalement, sans qu'on puisse dire encore si la plante est monocarpienne et si elle reproduit, ou non, par rejet". I have examined herbarium material at Kew which must be the original collection by Delavay. The flower appears to be borne on a fleshy cone unique among the Musaceae, but morphologically this is only the axis of the inflorescence unusually developed. Franchet proposed for this species a new section of Musa, to be called Musella, and it may on further study be found to represent a distinct genus ; but I should not be prepared to separate it, on the existing material alone, from Ensete, with which it has close affinity. Whatever it may be it is certainly not a Musa, sensu strictiore." (from Cheesman 1947a). Images: There are several images of Musella lasiocarpa.