Chuniophoenix Burret (1937: 583)

Henderson, Andrew, 2015, A revision of Chuniophoenix (Arecaceae), Phytotaxa 218 (2), pp. 163-170 : 163-164

Chuniophoenix Burret (1937: 583) .

Stems clustered, slender to moderate, erect, brown. Leaves palmate, induplicate; leaf sheaths open opposite the petiole, densely whitish-brown tomentose, the tomentum early deciduous, not split or split below the petiole to give a central cleft, winged or not winged along the proximal margins; petioles well-developed, channeled adaxially, tomentose as the sheaths; abaxial and adaxial hastulas absent; leaf blades split almost to the base into few to numerous segments, the central ones wider than the lateral ones, the central ones often split again, acuminate or briefly lobed at the apices; veins prominent ad- and abaxially. Inflorescences arching to pendulous, emerging from the top of the leaf sheaths, spicate or branched to 3 orders; prophylls short; peduncles well-developed, covered with overlapping, tubular, persistent peduncular bracts; rachis covered with similar bracts; rachillae covered with short, overlapping, tubular, persistent bracteoles; flowers solitary, or borne in short cincinni of 2, rarely 3, flowers per bracteole, borne on long pedicels, purple or yellowish; pedicels subtended by a tubular bracteole; calyces brown, membranous, tubular, 3- lobed at the apex, the lobes splitting and becoming reflexed; corollas pedicelliform below, 3-lobed above with fleshy, spreading lobes; stamens 6, the 3 antesepalous ones free, the 3 antepetalous ones with filaments adnate to corolla lobes; gynoecium elongate, tricarpellate. Fruits 1-seeded, globose, obovoid, or pear-shaped; stigmatic remains apical; seed surfaces smooth or grooved and brain-like; endosperm homogeneous or ruminate; eophylls entire, acuminate.

Note:— Chuniophoenix is described as “hermaphrodite or occasionally polygamo-dioecious” and flowers as “solitary or arranged in a condensed cincunnus of 1–7 flowers” ( Dransfield et al. 2008a). The flowers illustrated by Dransfield et al., those of C. hainanensis , are shown to be hermaphrodite. Zona (1998) reported that all plants cultivated at Fairchild Tropical Garden were hermaphrodite, and that C. hainanensis flower clusters comprised older, pistillate flowers and younger, staminate flowers.

However, all these observations are based on cultivated plants. In all specimens examined here, of wild origin, there are 1–2 (rarely 3) unisexual flowers per bracteole (4–5 were observed in a cultivated plant, the one illustrated by Dransfield et al., Wei Chao-fen 123194). Also, observations made here show that C. nana and C. suoitienensis appear to be dioecious, and the latter sexually dimorphic. Chuniophoenix hainanensis may also be dioecious, although there are too few specimens to confirm this.

It seems possible that these discrepancies arose from the much larger size of cultivated plants (hence more flowers per cincinnus), and the similarities between staminate and pistillate flowers, leading previous observers to confuse flower gender. It is possible that all species of Chuniophoenix are dioecious with few, unisexual flowers per bracteole. However, studies of wild plants are needed to confirm this.