Procumbens...(nana)..maintenance before & after

Adair M said:
Ok, I sent Boon some of the same junipers that I sent up North to Rochester. He says they are Procumbens Nana. Most of them were scale when I sent them.

But he says that they will revert to juvi in his climate, and when they get worked. And probably not return to scale because of the climate difference.

He says that if they are "just left alone" in the South, they can go scale.
Click to expand...
tmp_14864-tmp_30217-FB_IMG_1486754003701-133615042(2)1880961223.jpg

Yep!

We have already gone down this Road before...

This is a Procumbens Nana that is entirely Scale Foliage.
 
I started up a discussion of this issue on another forum and the general consensus is that (1) Michael is wrong, and (2) you'll never be able to convince someone like him that he is wrong (or, he'll never admit it). Actually, I haven't found one other person who agrees with what he is saying.

Just because someone has strong opinions and likes to assert them, doesn't make him right.
 
M. Frary said:
Sit a San Jose next a nana procumbens and the difference is clear.
San Jose are more coarse. Like the one in the original post.
Nana procumbens get scale foliage here.
Click to expand...
After reading through yet another thread full of pointless drama, I'm left wondering if maybe everyone is right.

I have a juniper that is afaik a JPN. Bought it from a bonsai nursery that I'm sure knows the difference. I've been working on it for 7 years, and never seen a single bit of scale foliage. I've seen others online complain that JPN develops scale foliage, and was always a bit confused by that. Now you've got me seriously wondering if maybe this is just a location-specific thing, and perhaps different people get different results in different locations with the same species.

Or perhaps the possibility of a mass mis-labeling is also plausible. Maybe everyone bought or saw a tree labeled juniper procumbens nana, and it either did or did not generate scale foliage. And based on that, many apparently formed an unassailable opinion.

But either way, I'm guessing everyone is probably right from their point of view, given the level of passion going into this discussion.

Those are at least two possible scenarios where both sides are correct. There are almost certainly others. It could even be a combination of things. Could even be the case that nobody fully knows for sure.

People really need to chill the hell out and stop being so attached to being right and proving the person with the counter-point wrong. Maybe everyone can learn a little something that way. I'm as curious to know the answer as everyone else, but I also know that I don't know for sure, so collecting evidence and/or consulting with experts to work it out seems so much better than throwing around absolute truths that seem to be anything but.

And outright telling people "YOU ARE WRONG" just seems so counter-productive to reasonable conversation, not to mention rude. Even if the other person is wrong, all that does is escalate silly drama. From reading this thread, it seems far more likely that we're dealing with shades of grey here, and I think the conversation level would improve if we started from that perspective.

Here's how this thread reads to me in a nutshell:

A: "My nana has needles only". Therefore JPN has only needles.
B: "My nana has both. You clearly don't know what you're talking about."
A: "Wrong! You have clearly misidentified the tree."
B: "What are you an idiot? "
<drama, drama, drama, more bullshit drama>
C: "Well, I guess there are a number of possibilities ... mislabeling stock, growing differently in different zones, etc, etc"

An alternative:
A: "My nana has needles only". Therefore JPN has only needles.
B: "That's interesting. The ones I've bought and seen that were labeled JPN clearly had both."
A: "Yes, that is interesting. I wonder where the discrepancy lies?"
B: "Well, I guess there are a number of possibilities ... mislabeling stock, growing differently in different zones, etc, etc"

Both ways arrive at the same conclusion, but only one way causes a bunch of people to hate each other afterwards.

Sorry for the rant - I guess I'm sick of the stupid juvenile arguments I continuously see here lately. Can't we all just get along and discuss little trees without being jerks to one another?

Cheers.
~MM
 
music~maker said:
After reading through yet another thread full of pointless drama, I'm left wondering if maybe everyone is right.

I have a juniper that is afaik a JPN. Bought it from a bonsai nursery that I'm sure knows the difference. I've been working on it for 7 years, and never seen a single bit of scale foliage. I've seen others online complain that JPN develops scale foliage, and was always a bit confused by that. Now you've got me seriously wondering if maybe this is just a location-specific thing, and perhaps different people get different results in different locations with the same species.

Or perhaps the possibility of a mass mis-labeling is also plausible. Maybe everyone bought or saw a tree labeled juniper procumbens nana, and it either did or did not generate scale foliage. And based on that, many apparently formed an unassailable opinion.

But either way, I'm guessing everyone is probably right from their point of view, given the level of passion going into this discussion.

Those are at least two possible scenarios where both sides are correct. There are almost certainly others. It could even be a combination of things. Could even be the case that nobody fully knows for sure.

People really need to chill the hell out and stop being so attached to being right and proving the person with the counter-point wrong. Maybe everyone can learn a little something that way. I'm as curious to know the answer as everyone else, but I also know that I don't know for sure, so collecting evidence and/or consulting with experts to work it out seems so much better than throwing around absolute truths that seem to be anything but.

And outright telling people "YOU ARE WRONG" just seems so counter-productive to reasonable conversation, not to mention rude. Even if the other person is wrong, all that does is escalate silly drama. From reading this thread, it seems far more likely that we're dealing with shades of grey here, and I think the conversation level would improve if we started from that perspective.

Here's how this thread reads to me in a nutshell:

A: "My nana has needles only". Therefore JPN has only needles.
B: "My nana has both. You clearly don't know what you're talking about."
A: "Wrong! You have clearly misidentified the tree."
B: "What are you an idiot? "
<drama, drama, drama, more bullshit drama>
C: "Well, I guess there are a number of possibilities ... mislabeling stock, growing differently in different zones, etc, etc"

An alternative:
A: "My nana has needles only". Therefore JPN has only needles.
B: "That's interesting. The ones I've bought and seen that were labeled JPN clearly had both."
A: "Yes, that is interesting. I wonder where the discrepancy lies?"
B: "Well, I guess there are a number of possibilities ... mislabeling stock, growing differently in different zones, etc, etc"

Both ways arrive at the same conclusion, but only one way causes a bunch of people to hate each other afterwards.

Sorry for the rant - I guess I'm sick of the stupid juvenile arguments I continuously see here lately. Can't we all just get along and discuss little trees without being jerks to one another?

Cheers.
~MM
Click to expand...

YOU ARE WRONG!!!


(sorry, couldn't resist)
 
My procumbens nana will produce some scale here and there as seen in the pics, we have pretty high humidity here in the summer , usually when I thin and re wire and all that jazz it produces needle. Then I let her grow and she continues to produce needle and then scale here and there , I'm going to leave the scale alone and see what happens over the next couple of years . Lovely tree @MichaelS , do you always pinch the growing tips ?
IMG_1193.JPG IMG_1194.JPG IMG_1199.JPG

Next is a prostrata
IMG_1200.JPG


And lastly San Jose
IMG_1202.JPG
 
Adair M said:
That's true.

I just doubt that they have done a genotype of Kishu, or Itoigawa, or Sargents Juniper. So that if someone were to send a sample, the geneticist would be able to determine which one it is.
Click to expand...

Or maybe they have and found no difference. That's why those species are not on the list.

From the list of junipers scientifically accepted there certainly is no J procumbens nana in there. The only nana is a j communis. So when people here refer they have a procumbens nana that's probably a commercial name or mislabeled species.
 
Gustavo Martins said:
Or maybe they have and found no difference. That's why those species are not on the list.

From the list of junipers scientifically accepted there certainly is no J procumbens nana in there. The only nana is a j communis. So when people here refer they have a procumbens nana that's probably a commercial name or mislabeled species.
Click to expand...
Like I said "scientifically accepted" is meaningless in this discussion. We're talking cultivars here.

Scientically, a rose is a rose is a rose. There's no "scientific" difference between one that makes red flowers than one that makes pink. Obviously there are some genetic differences, but to a scientist, not enough to matter. Kinda like eye color in people.
 
image.png A quick search revealed some more information.

According to the book juniperus of the world, and based both genetic and morphological data, j procumbens only has juvenile foliage. This is a documented fact against which there is not much one can argue
 
You are wrong. Scientists are interested on genetics of eye colour or rose colour. Genetic are also used to distinguish among subpopulations within species or varieties. The booked I just posted has a chapter on juniperus cultivar but I was not able to access it :(
 
Gustavo Martins said:
You are wrong. Scientists are interested on genetics of eye colour or rose colour. Genetic are also used to distinguish among subpopulations within species or varieties. The booked I just posted has a chapter on juniperus cultivar but I was not able to access it :(
Click to expand...
Sure, it was distinguishing between Procumbens and Sargents. But not within cultivars of Sargents (aka "Shimpaku".
 
Gustavo Martins said:
Or maybe they have and found no difference. That's why those species are not on the list.

From the list of junipers scientifically accepted there certainly is no J procumbens nana in there. The only nana is a j communis. So when people here refer they have a procumbens nana that's probably a commercial name or mislabeled species.
Click to expand...

Gustavo. Juniperus procumbens is the species. Nana is the same species not a sub-species. However it is a selected form of the species. It is described as ''smaller in all it's parts'' than the procumbens. Hence it's a cultivar. (cultivated variety)
Notwithstanding the controversy in this thread. The fact is that procumbens ''Nana'' has never been observed with scale foliage in this country - regardless of climate or stress on the plant. If scale foliage really does occur on J p. nana, it is inconceivable that it only occurs in the US. Therefore the only explanation left is that the junipers exhibiting scale foliage which are called nana are if fact a different plant. From the junipers which I have observed over the years, the only one which has both types was the J chinensis San Jose. ( there is also a clue here in that ALL cultivars of J chinensis have the capacity for producing both types of foliage) There may be other cultivars of chinensis which regularly produce both types as well. I am not aware of them. A very easy way to identify San Jose is the wart like bumps on the trunk of vigorous trees. These are probably adventitious leaf or root buds beneath the bark which don't develop further. I have grown both side by side and at times the needle foliage between them can be very similar. Another - extremely remote - possibility is that at some stage procumbens produced a sport with scale foliage and was propagated, in which case of course it is no longer J procumbens nana. Again this is very unlikely. I realize sometimes some people enjoy trying to tear me down (and that's quite ok, it can be a bit of fun sometimes) because of my manner but the evidence so far is stacked heavily against these junipers with both types of foliage as being related to the procumbens in any way.
Labeling is very easily misused. As a example, Pinus thunbergia ''Mikawa'' is now sold and distributed as such by a local conifer nursery. This is of course wrong as ''Mikawa'' is neither a variety or a cultivar. The pine in fact turned out to be ''Yatsubusa'' which also is not strictly correct as there are many forms of yatsubusa which simply means ''many buds'' or something like that. So just because we buy something with a particular name does not make it so. Yet the same name will continue to be attached to that plant in perpetuity.
 
Boy! What a mess I made with my comment that Procumbens can make scale foliage.

It really doesn't matter if you like the juvi foliage!

One thing is for certain: if you pinch the tips as MichaelS does, they will always produce a Juvi type foliage. If you don't pinch, I guess that depending upon your location, you have a chance of getting a Procumbens with scale foliage.
 
We do suffer from being fed on occasion a re-occuring error. One person gets it wrong and every body else follows along. Like Adair I don't really care that much.
 
Just pointing out that every Non US person has this right.

Wake up USA!

They convince you you are free.

Why do you think they care what bush they sell you?

It doesn't matter what the Damn tag said...

Stop believing what you thought you believed!


Tesla!

I Want the modelX!

Sick doors!

Sorce
 
Marie1uk said:
There are only 2 types of Juniper bonsai: Bad Juniper bonsai and good Juniper Bonsai. This is the latter :)
Click to expand...
That's true! and the ones with both types of foliage on the one tree are in the ''bad'' category.:D
And that really is the most important point isn't it? It ''looks'' horrible with two kinds of leaves.
 
MichaelS said:
Gustavo. Juniperus procumbens is the species. Nana is the same species not a sub-species. However it is a selected form of the species. It is described as ''smaller in all it's parts'' than the procumbens. Hence it's a cultivar. (cultivated variety)
Notwithstanding the controversy in this thread. The fact is that procumbens ''Nana'' has never been observed with scale foliage in this country - regardless of climate or stress on the plant. If scale foliage really does occur on J p. nana, it is inconceivable that it only occurs in the US. Therefore the only explanation left is that the junipers exhibiting scale foliage which are called nana are if fact a different plant. From the junipers which I have observed over the years, the only one which has both types was the J chinensis San Jose. ( there is also a clue here in that ALL cultivars of J chinensis have the capacity for producing both types of foliage) There may be other cultivars of chinensis which regularly produce both types as well. I am not aware of them. A very easy way to identify San Jose is the wart like bumps on the trunk of vigorous trees. These are probably adventitious leaf or root buds beneath the bark which don't develop further. I have grown both side by side and at times the needle foliage between them can be very similar. Another - extremely remote - possibility is that at some stage procumbens produced a sport with scale foliage and was propagated, in which case of course it is no longer J procumbens nana. Again this is very unlikely. I realize sometimes some people enjoy trying to tear me down (and that's quite ok, it can be a bit of fun sometimes) because of my manner but the evidence so far is stacked heavily against these junipers with both types of foliage as being related to the procumbens in any way.
Labeling is very easily misused. As a example, Pinus thunbergia ''Mikawa'' is now sold and distributed as such by a local conifer nursery. This is of course wrong as ''Mikawa'' is neither a variety or a cultivar. The pine in fact turned out to be ''Yatsubusa'' which also is not strictly correct as there are many forms of yatsubusa which simply means ''many buds'' or something like that. So just because we buy something with a particular name does not make it so. Yet the same name will continue to be attached to that plant in perpetuity.
Click to expand...
Mikawa JBP is supposed to be seed from the JBP native to the island of Mikawa. They supposedly have better bark and somewhat shorter needles than JBP native to other parts of Japan.

Itoigawa Shimpaku are supposed to have been originally from the mountains near Itoigawa, likewise for Kishu.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ozz80
How to Grow a Procumbens Nana Into a Literati?
Replies
4
Views
41
ZombieNick
ZombieNick
U
Juniperus procumbens ‘Nana’ - styling critique/advice
Replies
8
Views
523
UncleTrout
U
Nera
Juniper Procumbens Nana
Replies
7
Views
435
Nera
Nera
Gonzoe
Juniper Procumbens nana
Replies
0
Views
289
Gonzoe
Gonzoe
Matt3839
Pest on procumbens nana
Replies
17
Views
790
Wires_Guy_wires
W
Back
Top Bottom