We have kind of reached the crux of the discussion that has been going on around here and in other places about Bunjin, Literati, and a host of traditional styles. First off as I suggested in Post #6 the third image is the better tree topped with a bit of jin from the reduced trunk. The argument now becomes what is this; a literati, a bunjin, or something else. The answer in my feeble opinion is that it is a bonsai. Who says that it has to fit into a pigeon hole described by some long gone artist or some self proclaimed expert (no offence intended to the dead or otherwise)? If this image makes the image of a bonsai and is believable then who cares what style it is? If being able to define it is the determining factor,--- then the definitions are wrong. Many bonsai produced today do not fit the classical images but they are none the less beautiful recognizable bonsai regardless if they are formal uprights or ham sandwiches.