Was just going through my old notes and came upon this. I have used it in my newsletter a couple of times and got no complaints about it. Anyway I thought I would put it up here to see if I got any comments.

What is in a name ?

Part 1

Did you ever go shopping for a tree armed with only the common name? What a chore.

Look for a Chinese elm and at one nursery you are presented with a Drake Elm. At another you are presented with a Siberian Elm. Might even see a winged elm or a Grey bark elm thrown in there at other places. They all have Ulmus parvifolia on the tag. ( Sometimes Zelkovia serrata for imported trees. ) so they should be Chinese Elms

You look closely at the trees and notice that there are slight differences in them . How can this be. You have crossed referenced the common name with the scientific name. You even brought your favorite bonsai book so you could show the nursery a picture of exactly what you want. So why is their tree different from what you need.

You give up , go home and swear that you will come better armed next time. You spend hours studying how a specific ( scientific name) is constructed . You learn the name is put together in a very careful way

Genus + specific epithet = species. This is followed by the name of the individual or authority who first correctly named the tree

This is cool . With this information how can you go wrong.

Back you go to your bonsai books. You even have Colin Lewis’s new book “The Art of Bonsai Design” ( I like picking on him - a nice guy and a friend of mine. ) On page 88 you see this beautiful Shinpaku juniper cascade. Wow , does it ever inspire you. You got to have one.

Turning to the beginning of the article you see the name Junipererus chinensis sargentii . Not to be fooled you double check this with Harry Tomlinson’s “ The Complete Book Of Bonsai. But there it is just called Junirerus sargentii .or Sergeants juniper

This is confusing. So off you go to the big books. You know the ones written by all those guys with DR. in front of their names.

You find Juniperus Cool. Under that you find chinensis. Double Cool... Under chinensis the sargentii part is there. Oh boy now we have it

In Dirr’s “Manual of Woody Landscape Plants” we see that some books treat sargentii as a species all by itself. So chinensis may or may not appear in the name. Ok we can handle that. Take the whole name with you. Juniperus chinensis Sargentii

(We now even know that the tree was named by a fellow called CS Sergeants and was found on the coast of the Northern Islands of Japan in 1892) We now have that bugger nailed.

Off we run to the local nursery to get one. Yep they have it. One look tells you it is not the one in the book. Close but the foliage is a bit different . The branches are suppose to be flexible but this one isn’t . Most of the labels at the nursery have the juniperus sargentii name. So what happened. Even the labels that have the chinensis part are different from what you want.

What you probably have in your hand is a Sergents juniper. And yes it is a juniperus sargentii but it is not really the Shimpaku that you are looking for. How can that be There is a large wholesale nursery close to me that I go to from time to time. It takes me all day when I go there. When I say it is large I do mean large (over 300 acres of plants mostly in 1 or 3 gallon pots. )

While wandering through there I came upon several hundred Sergeants junipers The wrong ones naturally. But they all did say Juniperus sargentii on the labels.

I went to the office and asked about this. Got a funny look and some chuckles from them. I pulled out the old bonsai book and showed them a picture of a Shimpaku. I was then escorted back to the field and shown literally hundreds of the Shimpaku junipers I was looking for. I looked down at the label and guess what it said?

Juniperus chinensis sargentii Shimpaku.

The chinensis part is an optional thing according to the nursery.

I now know that there are several hundred varieties of the cultivars called sargentii. Among them is one (Several actually) that have shimpaku in their name. All the varieties are slightly different some , to my eyes at least , are radically different. And you thought that the common names are confusing. The specific name does take some of the confusion out but it does take up a lot of space on the old writing pad.

So to answer the question . Is a Shimpaku a juniperus sargentii. Yes and then not really. You need to spit out the rest of the name to get what you want. So now I have a few hundred of those real Shimpaku’s . They need to grow a bit and have some work done in the styling department. Wire to be put on, branches to be developed. Never know one of them might one day be almost as good as that one in Colin’s book. One never knows.

Part 2

Just about the time you weren't afraid to go back to the nursery !!!!! The Shimpaku odyssey continues.

In my private e mails I got the following this morning

************************************************** **

thanks for the story. how true :>)

But here is another chapter in it. Sometime in the late '80s-early '90s, some taxonomists got together and decided that Juniperus chinensis is not an accurate species description since there are so many obviously different cultivars in it.

In their vast wisdom, they decided that a more accurate description would be "Juniperus x media" in place of the old "Juniperus chinensis". The academic reasoning is that since it is a conglomeration of who knows what, call it a hybrid with a nondescript name!

So now, the old nursery veterans are still calling it "chinensis"; the new college trained ones are calling it "x media"

Junipers are getting to be like chamacyparis. Ever hear of:

Chamacyparis pisifera filifera aurea 'nana'
vs
Chamacyparis obtusa nana gracilis
vs
Cham. obtusa nana
vs
Cham obtusa gracilis

It is a good thing the plants still grow no matter what humans name them :>)

have fun,

**************************************************

Now I am really confused. Not only has the Shimpaku changed names (maybe it got divorced and went back to its maiden name) but the old Nana gracilis we all have known for years now has 4 names. All put out by those guys with the Dr. or Phd. behind their names. The ones that are supposed to know what they are talking about. Gee and I thought science was supposed to answer questions. Make things make sense.

Well I guess it is time for smarter heads to get into the act. It is obvious that the big boys don't know what is going on so I will attempt to classify the Shimpaku myself..

Bear with me . I have to be precise so we are all on the same page. The proper name is:

---And I must say it is my prerogative since I am the first one to properly classify this tree---

My tree ( the same one that is on page 88 of Colin's book "The Art of Bonsai") (well maybe not as pretty but with all the same pieces /parts) and exactly what Harry Tomlinson shows in his book with a different name. Sometimes a chinensis or sargentii or (heaven forbid) X-media. Depending on when and where you went to college. Juniper. How's that?

It was originally found on an Island off Japan (maybe it was New Jersey) by a fellow named Sergeant ( now promoted to a higher rank). He asked the locals what the name was and they all screamed Shimpaku. He thought that was cool. But he stepped in a pile of Shimpaku that was next to the Junipers in his excitement.

There I have settled it! That is the real name for the Shimpaku.

Science is good but see what happens when you go too far in classifying anything. The screwballs come out of the woodwork. I now have a headache and desperately need a drink.

;o(

I think this is true. I live in Guadalajara, Mexico asking a plant tree or what ever using a scientific name is something imosible.

I had been studing the taxonomy of plants at this page: http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/ its very usefull because you can get the official taxonomy classification, only change the box behind search to taxonomy and write the name of what are you looking. The point is that plant clasification is in constant chage and also scientific names are relative just like azaleas were reclasified from Azaleadendron to Rhododendron.

The best weapon is to study the factors that vary from each species.

?$#%? ??#$@#$%^&^^??

Or something. Your story is wonderful... and oh so true. Many a time I have found myself this past year going to regular garden centers looking for a type of tree. I guess the lack of hair on my head is from all the scratching! Never do find it....

Your explanation of the name and lack of agreement is right on!
This is why I try to find out what I got but do not go cazy with the lack of certainty.

I think I will display my trees with one of a few tags only.

1- Live tree
2- Hopefully live tree
3- It may not be alive but I still like it
4- OK its dead... get over it

These labels will be accurate, or at least so for the day they are attached!

J

One thing that our school system does not prepare us for is the terrific "messiness" of the real world. In studying Botany, for example, you get the idea that a species is a species and if you examine a plant carefully then look it up in the right reference book, you will discover what species it belongs to. Ah, were it so simple!

Here in NW Arkansas we are right on the edge of the range of several species that interbreed and mix freely, apparently not understanding that species aren't supposed to do that. It is a nightmare trying to determine what species many of the trees belong to. It is not just in the local nursery that you run into serious issues as to what kind of a tree you are really looking at; the same thing happens out in the woods.

Fred