Korean Hornbeam Turczaninowii

[leatherback]

My Coreana is

possibly an orientalis?

 

[Underdog]

possibly an orientalis?

When I bought this at a bonsai show, the seller was adamant that this was the "real" Korean Hornbeam. Said most others sold are not and pointed out the Latin name on the can. I dunno... shrug. He made a thing of it.

 

[leatherback]

I have both. Will try to remember taking a picture of them next to eachother later. I abused my Korean one in winter (95% root reduction) and it is only now starting to push.. The orientalis put in half an inch of trunk last year alone, strong vertical growth. The coreana for me just makes long thin branches that start to droop as soon as they reach 3+ inches.

 

[leatherback]

the seller was adamant that this was the "real" Korean Hornbeam. Said most others sold are not and pointed out the Latin name on the can

I somehow feel that someone just wrote the latin name on the can.

 

[Underdog]

? well yes of course he did on all of them he was selling. Don't understand your point?

 

[leatherback]

? well yes of course he did on all of them he was selling. Don't understand your point?

it is written so it is true!?

 

[Leo in N E Illinois]

Without using a dichotomous key, and keying out the identity of the specimen there is no reason to doubt the name provided by @Underdog.

All trees from seed have some variation in traits. The lack of apical dominance (tendency to spread wide, rather than grow up) is not in the botanical descriptions of C. coreana. It is a tree in the descriptions, meaning apical dominance is the normal state. C. coreana lacking apical dominance would be the abnormal state.

The nursery industry is based on collecting the "odd variants" of species. Look at any dwarf conifer collection and you will see all manner of genetic dwarfs, prostrate forms, contorted forms, witches brooms, and so on. If seed was being gathered at a nursery from prostrate or shrubby forms of C. coreana, you can end up with a population in the hobby of wide spreading forms of coreana. If the seed source for Mark's plant was from wild type C. coreana, it is perfectly logical for his to be more upright than spreading.

Growth habit, for example whether prostrate or upright are not considered conservative traits in botanically defining a species. It is the flower and seed morphology that the traits for defining a species are based on. Questioning the identity of a species just because there are differences in naturally variable traits is misunderstanding the natural variation most species exhibit. There are tall upright forms (cultivars) of Juniperus chinensis, there are low prostrate forms (cultivars) of Juniperus chinensis, and there are intermediate forms of Juniperus chinensis, yet all are considered Juniperus chinensis. Variation in a population of traits, is the normal state. That is why flowers and seed are considered "conservative" in botany, because flowers and seed have the least amount of variation observed in trees and shrubs. So the species concept relies on flowers and seed morphology, considering more "plastic traits" like growth habits and leaf morphology as less reliable, less conservative, more variable.

Because no flowers or seeds are shown, and because you can not see abscission scars and the details of leaf bud scales, in Underdog's photo, there is nothing in the photo that could give you valid reason to question the identity of the tree. @leatherback - do you use botanical keys to question and verify every tree you own? Lighten up on the doubt, there is such a thing as natural variation in a wide number of traits, and botanical names are based primarily on flower and seed morphology. Other traits are considered less conservative. Assume most of us make good faith efforts to get names correct. If there are no flowers or seeds in the photo, pause before you question the name, as the most reliable trait is not in the photo.

 

[Shogun610]

I like everyone’s exhibited Korean Hornbeams. Hornbeams of all type seem to interest me. European ,Korean, Japanese and American all have their unique traits. Looking forward to how our Hornbeams progress. Can’t wait to flood the forum updating them next spring.

 

[leatherback]

Without using a dichotomous key, and keying out the identity of the specimen there is no reason to doubt the name provided by @Underdog.

All trees from seed have some variation in traits. The lack of apical dominance (tendency to spread wide, rather than grow up) is not in the botanical descriptions of C. coreana. It is a tree in the descriptions, meaning apical dominance is the normal state. C. coreana lacking apical dominance would be the abnormal state.

The nursery industry is based on collecting the "odd variants" of species. Look at any dwarf conifer collection and you will see all manner of genetic dwarfs, prostrate forms, contorted forms, witches brooms, and so on. If seed was being gathered at a nursery from prostrate or shrubby forms of C. coreana, you can end up with a population in the hobby of wide spreading forms of coreana. If the seed source for Mark's plant was from wild type C. coreana, it is perfectly logical for his to be more upright than spreading.

Growth habit, for example whether prostrate or upright are not considered conservative traits in botanically defining a species. It is the flower and seed morphology that the traits for defining a species are based on. Questioning the identity of a species just because there are differences in naturally variable traits is misunderstanding the natural variation most species exhibit. There are tall upright forms (cultivars) of Juniperus chinensis, there are low prostrate forms (cultivars) of Juniperus chinensis, and there are intermediate forms of Juniperus chinensis, yet all are considered Juniperus chinensis. Variation in a population of traits, is the normal state. That is why flowers and seed are considered "conservative" in botany, because flowers and seed have the least amount of variation observed in trees and shrubs. So the species concept relies on flowers and seed morphology, considering more "plastic traits" like growth habits and leaf morphology as less reliable, less conservative, more variable.

Because no flowers or seeds are shown, and because you can not see abscission scars and the details of leaf bud scales, in Underdog's photo, there is nothing in the photo that could give you valid reason to question the identity of the tree. @leatherback - do you use botanical keys to question and verify every tree you own? Lighten up on the doubt, there is such a thing as natural variation in a wide number of traits, and botanical names are based primarily on flower and seed morphology. Other traits are considered less conservative. Assume most of us make good faith efforts to get names correct. If there are no flowers or seeds in the photo, pause before you question the name, as the most reliable trait is not in the photo.

Hey, I was just trying to help. I looked at the tree and thought, C orientalis. Then read the discussion and thought I would drop a suggestion. No need to listen to me, nor to make it a big deal. shrugs