> > > Aside from size and notable pseudostem, why can't Musa be considered > rhizomatous? > > Dylan > Some are. Musa taxonomists consider some to have corms, other species to have rhizomes. If you were to dig up a rhizomatous species (for example M laterita ) you find something something similar to a Canna rhizome (on steroids). Ie plants attached to a network of rhizomes that are growing horizontally continuously. In M laterita the rhizome can grow a meter before throwing up a new sprout. These rhizomes will usually survive a dormancy or two at least and can sprout new growth along the the rhizome (not just at the end of the growing point..if that makes sense). On the other hand species with corms will spout new plants but there is no connecting stem/rhizome per se. The two corms will eventually separate. The difference is noticeable above ground as well as the rhizomatous plants are clearly runners that can quickly colonize a large area. Those with corms have a more clumping habit. Don't know if it holds true for all Musa, but it seems that rhizome vs corm fits with naturally deciduous vs evergreen. There might be exceptions? 90% of what I grow has rhizomes so it really doesn't matter to me :) but taxonomists do make a distinction within Musa. I agree that the definitions leave room for debate, or better yet that trying to fit so many different types of plants that evolved their growing structures over millions of years into three or so categories is somewhat limiting. I vote we call everything bulbs! ;) Tim Chapman