>>Why is it that palms grow so slowly, especially from seed, compared to most other kinds of plants?

My take is that it is because palms are rather archaic.  You see how primitive palms such as the Nypa palm resemble their seed fern ancestors. Also consider the inflorescence of even relatively more advanced palms--still very primitive.

At the time palms branched off from their seed fern ancestors, about a 100 million years ago, the dominant plant families were poorly branched.  They grew up, not out.

Compared to tree ferns and cycads, palms DO grow up very fast.  But without the ability to branch (except the oddball boum palms), they have no way to maintain an "optimal" height. If palms grew any faster, they would outgrow their optimal height too fast.

They could quickly reach close to their optimal height, then slow down to bloom, but, well, most of them don't.  Neither do Cycads or tree ferns.  It's a little late in the game for them to catch up; palms are now mostly either relicts, or survive in unusual habitats.  It's a little difficult for them to compete head-on with more advanced angiosperms.

>>Why are most palm trees concentrated toward the tropical regions of the world?

Palms have reached extremely high latitudes in the past.  Palm fossils are found on the Spitzbergen Islands, and in the Cascades here in Washington.  Even within recorded history Chamaerops humilis reached latitudes comparable to Seattle's (since receeded, exccept in cultivation).

Two things did them in: they probably never developed sap as resistant to freezing as, say, the conifers.  Their second shortcoming was perhaps the more fatal: with very few exceptions they have extremely poor seed distribution mechanisms, they failed to "outrun" the ice ages, or regain much lost territory.  You've probably seen naturalized Trachycarpus, but you've probably never seen one far from the parents.  As far as I can tell, most palms just drop their seeds right below themselves.  The seeds of Rhapidophyllum hystrix, which is certainly on its way to imminent extinction, often get caught in the leaves or spines!  There are a few exceptions, such as the coconut palm, which floats on water currents, and the oil palm, which is spread by animals (and perhaps for this reason far and away the dominant tree in its habitat), but those few exceptions happen to be extremely tropical.

Both these shortcomings are related to their archaic nature.  Orchids, OTOH, which are extremely recent and highly evolved, quickly spread to the Arctic and habitable islands of the antarctic circle; their dust-like seeds ride the wind.  They've had difficulty carving out niches where earlier species are already entrenched, but they have taken over many of the more unusual ones (forest floor, extremely acidic bogs....) in every habitable part of the world.  There are even a few aggressors, like Zeuxine and Epipactis, that are taking over mainstream habitats.

>>Why can't taxonomists do a better job straightening out palm genera

At the risk of incurring the wrath of the taxonomists....it's mostly because taxonomists work almost exclusively for universities and government bureaucracies.  They get paid whether their descriptions are accurate or not.  And in their defense, they are working almost exclusively from dried herbarium specimens, often poorly documented by their predecessors.  I am sure that if their sponsors would spring for feild trips, many of them would jump at the chance, and surely do a better job.

>>Why does the USDA have to indiscriminately put regulations on all important plant material regardless of how well it will (or won't) survive its treatment?

It's a government bureaucracy.  It gets paid no matter whether you are pleased with its performance or not.  As long as the "brain surgery with a pickaxe" approach works over the long run (new plants ARE introduced one way or another), they have no incentive to accomodate you.

For my trachycarpus, which grows in a totally exposed site, I bury the cable in the soil about six inches from the base of the plant in a zigzag pattern to increase the amount of cable per square foot. Then I cover it with soil. I put a well-made fiberglass cover over this. I do not use any leaves to fill the cover, because my theory (and it's mine) is that the warmer air will rise better this way. I only use the cable when the temperature goes below 20F, or when I go on vacation to Florida to see more palms! This year, I used it less than ten times, other than while on vacation.

I do the same for my Butia, which grows near my Trachycarpus. I have found that if I give the plants more air circulation, I lose less leaves than in an air-tight cover. I believe this prevents cooking of the plant on a warm sunny day, and that it prevents wide swings in temperature, which is not a great thing either.  The Butia is still sort of small, but hasn't lost a leaf at all this year.

Some people think that cables are a cheat, but if you want a plant in an exposed growing area in zone 7, I believe it makes a big difference.

For the purists, I grow my Cycas revoulta WITHOUT a cable, but with lots of protection along a south wall. Three winters so far!

Bruce z7a LI NY

I used to use the kind of heating cables northern hardware stores sell to keep pipes from freezing.  I used them on a Butia in Ohio--tied up the fronds and wrapped the cable around it.  An option I liked better was the germination heating cables seed companies sold.  Both cables came with thermostats--some were prest at 70F, others you could set anywhere. They were both very effective--just don't let the cable touch itself--or you might be calling the fire department.  I have also used floodlights.  But I say scrap the above and use Christmas tree lights.  They're safer and look kinda neat.

Tamar Myers