HARVARD UNIVERSITY

LIBRARY

OF THE

GRAY HERBARIUM

Received

ARNOLD ARBORETUM

HARVARD UNIVERSITY

ARNOLDIA

A continuation of the
Bulletin of Popular Information

VOLUME XXIV
1964

PUBLISHED BY THE

ARNOLD ARBORETUM

JAMAICA PLAIN, MASSACHUSETTS

ARNOLDIA

A continuation of the
Bulletin of Popular Information
of the Arnold Arboretum, Harvard University

Volume 24 FEBRUARY 28, 1964 Number 1

REGISTRATION LIST OF CULTIVAR NAMES OF FAGUS L.

The cultivars of Fagus sylvaiica only are listed, since no cultivars of the other
seven species have been found.

Group Names: It has become expedient to adopt the provisions of Article 18
of the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants, which states
that ‘^Within a species or interspecific hybrid which includes many cultivars
(varieties), assemblages of similar cultivars (varieties) may be designated as
groups” as, for example, Fagus syhatica Atropunicea Group ^Cuprea’. Two group
names have been proposed, “Atropunicea Group” and “Variegata Group”.
Some of the cultivars in these groups are so similar it is most difficult to tell them
apart, yet they rate individual cultivar names.

Accepted cultivar names are in large and small capitals. Synonyms are listed
in roman type. Plants starred with an asterisk (*) are known to be in cultivation
in the United States at the present time.

‘Albo-marginata’ (“E.S.”, Gard. Chron. III. 26: 484. 1899). “A variegated
form. The silvery variegation is generally prominent on the margin of the leaf,
but some leaves have blotches and streaks of the same color” = Albo-variegata’
Variegata Group.

‘Albo-variegata’* Variegata Group (Weston, Bot. Univ. 1: 107. 1770). Leaves
variegated with white.

‘Ansorgei’* Atropunicea Group (Schwerin, Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. 13:
198. 1904). With lance-shaped, dark purple leaves, 1-2 cm. broad, and of
weak growth. Originated about 1891.

‘Arcuata’ (Schwerin, Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. 28: 167. 1919). Similar to
Tortuosa’ but with an extraordinary tangled appearance and supposed to be no
longer in cultivation.

*Argenteo-marmorata’ Variegata Group (Spath Cat. 104: 98. 1899). The leaves
are soft white, pow^dered and mottled.”

^Argenteo-variegata’ (Jouin, Jardin 13: 41. 1 899)= ‘ Albo-variegata’ Variegata
Group.

‘Asplenifolia’* (Duchartre in Jacques & Herincq, Man. Gen. PI. 4: 237. 1859).
Leaves narrow, linear, in various shapes.

^ Atropunicea’* Atropunicea Group (Weston, Bot. Univ. 1: 107. 1770). Leaves
red to reddish purple.

Atropunicea Group — This group name is here adopted to include cultivars with
reddish or purplish foliage, for differences in characteristics among some of
these cultivars are not marked. It includes the following cultivars : Ansorgei’,
‘Atropunicea’, ‘ Atropurpurea Globosa’, ‘ Atropurpurea M acrophylla’,
‘Brocklesby’, ‘Cuprea’, ‘Interrupta Purpurea’, ‘Norwegiensis’, ‘Purpurea’,

‘ Purpureo-pendula’, ‘Reygerloo’, ‘Riversii*, ‘Rohanii’, ‘Spaethiana’, and
‘Swat Magret’.

‘ Atropurpurea’ (Regel, Gartenflora 4: 93. 1855). With leaves “dark red” =
Atropunicea’ Atropunicea Group.

‘Atropurpurea Globosa’ Atropunicea Group (A. Dervaes, Moller’s Deutsch.
Giirt.-Zeit. 42: 287. 1927). A small, rounded variety with reddish leaves,
similar in habit to Acer plat anokles ‘Globosum’.

‘Atropurpurea Macrophylla’* Atropunicea Group (Kirchner in Petzold & Kirch-
ner, Arb. Muscav. 661. 1864). Similar to other purple beeches, but with
slightly larger leaves.

‘Atropurpurea Pendula’ (jager in Jager & Beiss., Ziergeh. Gart. & Park. 2nd
ed. 155. 1884). The leaves are a dark red and the branches are pendulous =
Purpureo-pendula’ Atropunicea Group.

‘Atropurpurea Rohanii’ (Henry in Elwes & Henry, Trees Gt. Brit. Irel. 1: 8.
1906)= Rohanii’ Atropunicea Group.

‘Atropurpurea Tricolor’ (Hort. ex Pynaert, Revue Hort. Belg. 12: 145. 1886)
= ‘Tri(Olor’ Variegata Group.

‘ Atro-rubens’ (Du Roi ex Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1950. 1838). “The leaves
when half developed are a cherry red, and when fully matured at mid-summer
are of so dark a purple as to appear almost black” = ‘Purpurea’ Atropunicea
Group.

‘x\urea’ (Hort. ex Schelle, Beissner et al.. Hand. Laubh.-Benenn. 62. 1903) =
Zlatia’ Variegata Group.

‘Aurea Spaethii’ (Nicholson, Kew Hand-List Trees & Shrubs, ed. 2, 717. 1902)
= Zlatia’ Variegata Group.

‘ Aureo-penuula’* Variegata Group (Van der Bom, Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges.
20: 423. 191 1). Originated in 1900 on a green-leaved plant. The leaves are
pendulous and golden green ; during the summer the color gradually turns
green.

‘ Aureo-variegata’ (“E. S.”, Gard. Chron. HI, 26: 434. 1899). “Bright green
leaves, splashed and streaked with golden yellow” = ‘Luteo-variegata’ Varie-
gata Group.

‘Bornvensis’* (Bean, Garden London 55: 267. 1899). Originating before 1870
in Borny, France, this is a weeping beech with upright trunk, broadly colum-
nar habit and branches “symmetrically pendulous”, differing from ‘Penddla’
because of its more fastigiate habit.

‘Brocklesby’ Atropunicea Group (Jouin, Jardin 13: 41. 1899). Very similar to
other purple beeches but with slightly larger leaves.

‘Castanaefoeia’* (Bean, Garden London 55: 267. 1899). “One of the cut leaved
forms. A proportion of the leaf is divided into narrow, regular segments, al-
most reaching the midrib, other leaves are merely coarsely toothed.”

‘Circinata’ (Hort. ex Kriissmann, Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. 52: 115. 1939)
= ‘Grandidentata’.

‘Cochleata’* (Kirchner in Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 659. 1864). A
dwarf form with compact growth and cone-shaped habit.

‘Comptoniaefolia’ (Kirchner in Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 661. 1864)
= ^Asplenifolia’.

‘Conglomerata’ (Jouin, Jardin 13: 42. 1899). A dwarf bush of rounded form,
leaves small and contorted.

‘Crispa’ (Hort. ex Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1952. 1838). “A monstrosity
with the leaves small and almost sessile, and crowded into small dense tufts”
= Cristata’.

‘Cristata’* (Dumont de Courset, Bot. Cult. 6: 415. 18 1 1). Slow growing, leaves
on the twig ends, as a rule, but in a triangular shape and deformed.

‘Cucullata’ (Koch, Dendr. II, 2: 19. 1873). With smaller leaves than the spe-
cies and with curled leaf margins.

*Cuprea’* Atropunicea Group (Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1951. 1838). “Young
leaves and shoots of a paler colour than those of the purple beech. ... in a
state of repose, and on a dark cloudy day, it can hardly be distinguished from
the common green-leaved beech.”

*Cupreata’ (Hort. ex Kriissmann, Mitt. Deutsch. Dend r. Ges. 52: 117. 1939)
= ‘Cuprea’ Atropunicea Group.

‘Dawyckii’* (Hesse Cat., 1913-14: 120. 1913). A fastigiate beech on the es-
tate of the late Mr. F. R. S. Balfour of Dawyck, Scotland.

‘Fastigiata’* (Simon-Louis ex Koch, Dendr. 11,2: 17. 1873). A narrow colum-
nar form.

‘Faux DE Vesey’* (Meyer, F. G., PI. Explor. ARS 34-32, 111. 1963). “When
grafted upon a standard, plants develop horizontally spreading branches from
the crown, these with somewhat pendulous tips.” Probably identical with F.
sylvatica Tortuosa’ found in the Forests of Verzy, France, for hundreds of years.

‘Grandidentata’* (Hort. ex Kirchner, Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 662.
1864). “Leaves coarsely toothed, branches slender.”

‘Hartigii’ (Schneider, Ulus. Handb. Laubh. 1: 154. 1904). “Golden yellow

[3]

bands showing between the nerves” of the leaves = Striata’ Variegata Group.

^Hepatica’ (Ambrosi, FI. Tirolo. Merid. 2: 59. 1857). ^ ^Foliage chiefly liver
colored on the outer branches exposed to the sun”= Atropunicea’ Atropuni-
cea Group.

‘ Heterophylla’ (Lodd. ex Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1951. 1 838) = ‘Laciniata’.

‘Horizontalis’* (Hort. ex Hesse Cat., 1932-33: 66. 1932). “A new form,
valuable landscape growth form with completely horizontal growing branches.”
The parent plant is at the Botanic Garden of Munich, Germany.

‘llicifolia’ (Hort. ex Kriissmann, Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. 52: 116. 1939)
== ‘Laciniata’.

‘incisa’ (Hort. ex Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1951. 1838). “Leaves variously
cut, sometimes in narrow shreds, so as to resemble ferns” = Laciniata’.

‘Interrupta’* (van Hoey Smith, Deutsche Baumschule 7: 265; fig. 154. 1955).
Selection made by van Hoey Smith at Rotterdam. Peculiarly cut up leaf, al-
most appearing compound, and of most irregular form.

‘Interrupta Purpurea’* Atropunicea Group (Meyer, F. G., PI. Explor. ARS
34-32. 111. 1963). “Similar to ‘Interrupta’ except the leaves are purplish.”

‘King’ (Elwes in Elwes & Henry, Trees Gt. Brit. Irel. 1: 20. 1906). A famous
beech at Knole Park in Sevenoaks, England, which in 1905 had “the largest
girth of any beech I know standing in England. ” At five feet above the ground
the girth was thirty feet. This may not have been propagated.

‘Laciniata’* (V^ignet in Schmidt, Samml. Phys.-Oekon. Aufs. 1: 173. t. 1.
1795). Leaves deeply cut or lobed.

‘Latifolia’* (Kirchner in Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 662. 1864). With
large leaves, 3-6 inches long and 2-4 inches wide.

‘Luteo-variegata’ Variegata Group (Weston, Bot. Univ. 1: 107. 1770). Leaves
variegated with yellow.

‘Macrophylla’ (Hort. ex Dippel, Handb. Laubh. 2: 52. 1892). “Leaves large
and broad” = ‘Latifolia’.

‘Marmorata, (Schneider, Ulus. Hand. Laubh. 1: 154. 1904). “Abnormal white
variegation” = ‘Argenteo-variegata’ Variegata Group.

‘Miltonensis’ (Henry, Garden London 1: 267. 1899). Originated at Milton
Park, Northamptonshire, England. “A weeping beech with erect trunk and
branches horizontal and pendulous.”

‘Milton Variety’ (Jouin, Jardin 13: 41. 1 899)= ‘Miltonensis’.

‘Monstrosa’ (Kirchner in Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 662. 1864). Smaller
habit than wild plants, with monstrous leaves, very dark green on upper sur-
face and pubescent beneath.

‘Nano-pendula’ (Domin, Vereinss. Forst-, Jagd. , & Naturk. 57: 12-25. 1867).
A dwarf pendulous form.

[-H

‘Nigra’ (Hort. ex Schelle, Beissner et al., Hand. Laubh.-Benenn. 61. 1903).
Listed without description. Probably a synonym of Puhcuuea’.

‘Nigra Pendula’ (deVos, Woordenboek 46. 186?)= ^Purpukeo-cendula’ Atro-
punicea Group.

Nivea’ Variegata Group (Masse, Revue Hort. IV. 1: 369. 1852). Weak grow-
ing, leaves white to streaked white, branchlets red ; probably never more than
a shrub because of weak growth. Probably not now in cultivation.

‘Norwegica’ (Kriissmann, Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. 52: 118. 1939)= ‘Nor-
wegiensis’ Atropunicea Group.

‘Norwegiensis’* Atropunicea Group (Hillier Cat. #34T : 22. 1923). Purple

leaves, but not so dark as those of ‘Swat Magret’.

‘ Pagnyensis’* (Simon-Louis, Cat, 1868-69, name only; Schelle in Beissner et
al.. Hand. Laubh.-Benenn. 61. 1903). Similar to F. sylvatica ‘Tortuosa’, if
not identical.

‘Paul’s Gold-Margined’ Variegata Group (Anon., Proc. Hort. Soc. London 27:
92. 1902). “Free growing, pale green leaves irregularly margined with yellow. ”

‘Pendula’* (Lodd. ex Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1952. 1838). First listed in
1836, the branches are “beautifully pendant, and even the last six feet of the
top bend down.” The larger limbs are usually horizontally spreading.

‘Prince George of Crete’ (Bean, Trees & Shrubs Brit. Is. 1: 552. 1914). Leaves
up to 7 inches long and 5^ inches wide, “an unusually large-leaved form.”
Sent to Kew in 1898 by the gardener of the King of Denmark.

‘Purpurea’* Atropunicea Group (Aiton, Hort. Kew. 3: 362. 1789). “With foli-
age blackish red. ” Loudon (Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1952. 1 838) stated that all the
purple-leaved beeches in Europe have come from one tree found in the woods
in Germany in the middle of the eighteenth century.

‘Purpurea Colorata’ (Schelle, Beissner et al. , Hand. Laubh.-Benenn. 61. 1903).
Listed without description as a synonym of ‘ Purpurea’ = ‘ Purpurea’ Atropuni-
cea Group.

‘Purpurea Latifolia’ A name which has been used since 1903 (Schelle, Beissner
et al.. Hand. Laubh.-Benenn. 61. 1903), but apparently never described. It
is supposed to be the name most used in Europe to designate grafted purple
beech (as compared to seedlings).

‘Purpurea Macrophylla’ (Schelle, Beissner et al.. Hand. Laubh.-Benenn. 61.
1903)= ‘Atropurpurea Macrophylla’ Atropunicea Group.

‘Purpurea Major’ (Hort. ex Schelle, Beissner et al.. Hand. Laubh.-Benenn. 62.
1903). Listed without description. Is probably the same as ‘Atropurpurea
Macrophylla’ Atropunicea Group.

‘Purpurea Metallica Nigra’ (Hort. Walter ex Schelle, Beissner et al.. Hand.
Laubh.-Benenn. 61. 1903). Listed without description.

‘Purpurea Norwegiensis’ (Nicholson, Kew Hand-List Trees & Shrubs, ed. 2,
717. 1902). Listed without description. = ‘Norwegiensis’ Atropunicea Group.

‘Purpurea Pendula’ (Jager & Beiss., Ziergeh. Gart. & Park. 225. 1865) = ‘Pur-
pureo-pendula’ Atropunicea Group.

‘Purpurea Pendula Nana’ (Hort. ex Dippel, Handb. Laubh. 2: 52. 1892).

Listed without description.

‘Purpurea Pendula Nova’ (Hort. ex Dippel, Handb. Laubh. 2: 52, 1892).

Listed without description.

‘Purpurea Pendula Reygerloo’ (Dippel, Handb. Laubh. 2: 52. 1 892) = ‘Reyger-
Loo’ Atropunicea Group.

‘Purpurea Pendula Vera’ (Schelle, Beissner et al.. Hand. Laubh. -Benenn. 62.
1903). Listed without description.

‘Purpurea Roseo-marginata’ (Henry in Elwes & Henry, Trees Gt. Brit. Irel. 1:
8. 1906)= Roseo-marginata’ Variegata Group.

‘Purpureo-pendula’* Atropunicea Group (jiiger in Jager & Beiss. , Ziergeh. Gart.
& Park. 225. 1865). A pendulous form with purple leaves.

‘Pyramidalis’ (Kirchner in Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 662. 1864). An
upright pyramidal form.

‘Pyramidalis Purpurea’ (Bean, Kew Hand-List Trees & Shrubs, ed. 3, 307.
1925). Listed without description.

‘Queen’ (Elwes in Elwes & Henry, Trees Gt. Brit. Irel. 1: 20. 1906). A famous
beech at Knole Park in Sevenoaks, England, 100 feet high, 130 foot spread
with a trunk 21 feet in circumference. This may not have been propagated.

‘Quercifolia’* (Booth Cat. ex Kirchner in Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav.
662. 1864). With oak-like leaves.

‘Quercina’ (Hort. ex Schelle, Beissner et al. , Hand. Laubh. -Benenn. 62. 1903).
Listed without description.

‘Quercoides’ (Persoon, Trans. Linn. Soc. Lond. 5: 233, t. 11. 1800). “The
bark of the trunk and larger branches is entirely formed like that of an oak.”
A tree in Reinhaussen, Germany, was dying in 1800.

‘ Remillyensis’ (Simon-Louis Cat. 1868-69, name only; Jouin, Jardin 13: 41.

1899) . A low, compact, tightly growing tree with slightly arching and droop-
ing branches and umbrella-like shape.

‘Retroflexa’ (Hort. ex Dippel, Handb. Laubh. 2: 51. 1892). Rounded crown,
branches at first upright, then hanging pendulous to the ground.

‘Reygerloo’* Atropunicea group (Kriissmann, Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. 52:
1 17. 1939). A red-leaved variety with pendulous branches.

‘Riversii’* Atropunicea Group (Rehder in Bailey, Cycl. Amer. Hort. 2:570.

1900) . “Very dark purple leaves and compact habit.” This is said to have
been selected by the British nurseryman Thomas Rivers prior to 1900.

‘Rohanii’* Atropunicea Group (Koerber, Fromme’s Oester.-Ungar. Gartenk.
19: 1 Marz. 1894). “With purple leaves similar in general shape to those of
‘Laciniata’. ”

[0]

‘Rosko-makginata’* Variegata Group (Cripps, Card. Chron. III. 3: 779. 1888).
“Leaves purple with an irregular light pink border.”

‘ Rotundifolia’* (Jackman, Hibberd’s Gard. Mag. 37: 839. 1894). With small,
rounded leaves f-l^ inches long, about the smallest orbicular leaves of any of
the clones of Fagus sjjlvatica. Apparently this originated at Brook wood. Knap
Hill, Woking, England, in 1872 and was put into commerce later by Jackman
Nursery of Woking, England. It was listed as “new” without description in
Jackman’s Cat. 26. 1878.

‘Rotundifolia Minor’ (Jurissen ex Spath Cat. 79: 9. 1890). Listed without de-
scription. = Rotundifolia’.

‘Rubra* (Anon, in Jour. Roy. Hort. Soc. 39: 795. 1914). Listed without de-
scription.

‘Salicifolia’ (Hort. ex Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1951. 1838). “Leaves various-
ly cut, sometimes in narrow shreds so as to resemble ferns. ”= Asplenifolia’.

‘Sanguinea’ (Persoon, Syn. PI. 2: 571. 1807) “foliage blackish-red” = ‘Atro-
punicea’ Atropunicea Group.

‘Spaethiana’* Atropunicea Group (Spath, Spath-buch 1720-1920. 230. 1920).
Leaves red with the under surface a distinct blackish red.

‘Striata’ Variegata Group (Bose, Allg. Forst- Jagd-Zeit. 27:46. 185l). Nor-
mal growth and normal leaves at first green, then with bright yellow-green
stripes along the main veins.

‘Subcordata’ (Murr, Deutsch. Bot. Monatsschr. 18: 194. 1900). With “clearly
heart shaped leaves.”

‘Suentelensis’ (Hort. ex Schelle, Beissner et al.. Hand. Laubh.-Benenn. 61.
1903). Listed without description. = ‘Tortuosa’.

‘Suntalensis’ (Hort. ex Beissner, Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. 6: 84. 1897). A
dwarf beech. = ‘Tortuosa’.

‘Swat Magret’* Atropunicea Group (Spath, Spiith-buch 1720-1920. 230. 1920).
Introduced about 1895, this is a red-leaved beech with the leaves opening 8-
10 days earlier than those of ‘Atropunicea’. Also, these leaves hold their
black-red color longer in the fall.

‘Tortuosa’* (Pepin, Revue Hort. 1861:84. 186l), “Dwarf and spreading form,
with twisted and contorted branches, pendulous at the tips.” Plants of this
have been known to be in the forests of Verzy, France, for hundreds of years,
and some are still growing there. The first one brought into cultivation should
have the cultivar name ‘Tortuosa’. Other named cultivars have been obtained
from the same source.

‘Tricolor’* Variegata Group (Simon-Louis ex Koch, Dendr. 2 (2): 18. 1873).
“Leaves nearly white, spotted green with a pink margin.”

‘Undulata’ (Hort. Simon-Louis ex Jouin, Jardin 13: 42. 1 899) = ‘Cochleata’.

[7]

‘Variegata’* (Duchartre in Jacques & Herincq, Man. Gen. PI. 4: 237. 1857).
Leaves particolored with white and yellow, interspersed with some streaks of
red and purple. Many variegated plants have been found in the wild.

Variegata Group — This group name is taken to include all those cultivars with
leaves variegated with any color of white, yellow, pink or varying shades of
green. These cultivars include the following: *Albo-variegata’, ‘Argenteo-
marmorata’, ‘Aureo-pendula’, ‘Luteo- variegata’ ‘Nivea’, ‘Paul’s Gold-
Margined’, ‘Roseo-marginata’, Striata’, ‘Tricolor’, ‘V^ariegata’, ‘VTridi-
variegata’ and ‘Zlatia’.

‘Versicolor’ (Kuntze, Taschen-Fl. Leipzig. 239. 1 867) = ‘ Atropunicea* Atro-

punicea Group.

‘ Viridi-variegata’ Variegata Group (Lombarts Cat. 1935-36: 75. 1935). “Dark
green leaves with light green spots.”

‘Zlatia’* Variegata Group (Spath Cat. 88: 89. 1891 ; Goeze, Gard. Chron. III.
12: 669. 1892). Leaves at first yellow, later turning green at maturity.

Donald Wyman

[8]

ARNOLDIA

A continuation of the
Bulletin of Popular Information
of the Arnold Arboretum, Harvard University

Volume 24 APRIL 10, 1964 Number 2

LABELS IN THE ARNOLD ARBORETUM

Requests are constantly being received at the Arnold Arboretum for in-
formation regarding the labels used on the thousands of trees and shrubs
growing here. Many types are available and those found satisfactory in one place
may not prove to be the same elsewhere.

Labels in the Arnold Arboretum must be:

1 . Low in cost

2. Easily made

3. Sturdy

Since thousand of labels must be made every year by our own crew during the
winter months and unfortunately become exposed to occasional vandalism, it is
easily seen that they should meet those three prime requisites.

Other kinds have been tried over the years, but the types described here have
proved satisfactory after many years under our conditions.

Embossed or Record Label

Every plant of sufficient size to be placed in the collections has a label showing
its record number, scientific name, the type of material which w^as originally re-
ceived (whether plant, cutting, graft or seed), place of origin and sometimes the
date, although this is also indicated by the record number. These are made on
^-inch zinc tape (no. 018 gauge) purchased from Alles Corporation, 225 Msgr.
O’Brien Highway, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Each carton contains six 100-foot
rolls and currently a carton costs $17.50.

These labels are made on a Graphotype embossing press (Addressograph Model
6340, priced in 1962 at $1900). This press is electrically operated, having a key-
board similar to a standard typewriter. Another embossing press used by the
Arnold Arboretum is the hand operated Model T-40 “Tapewriter” (Roovers,
Inc., Duryea, Pennsylvania, priced in 1962 at $735). This machine can emboss
from one to five lines.

[9]

Labels are made on either of these machines by our own men during the win-
ter months. This label is attached to a branch by means of no. 18 gauge copper
wire and will last as long as the wire. Recently some labels were removed which
must have been on the plants for twenty years and were still in perfect condition.
Thousands of these are made each year since some are inadvertently removed in
pruning, others are ‘^lost” in the center of shrubs and still others occasionally
break off and fall after slapping against the tree trunks.

Plastic Labels

In a few of the protected areas about the greenhouse and in the plant beds at
the Case Estates in Weston we are starting to use the laminated plastic labels.
These certainly look well for the first few years, but their long-term durability
under New England weather conditions is not yet known. These are made of
layers of white and black plastic. The router bit of the engraving machine used
for cutting out the letters merely cuts through the layer of black plastic on top,
thus exposing the white underneath (Plate l). The engraving machine is made
by the Green Instrument Company, 295 Vassar Street, Cambridge, Massachu-
setts (Model 106, with accessories, costing about $d25 in 1962). The plastic
material varies in size and thickness to meet specific requirements. The labels
are placed in aluminum holders stuck in the ground.

Wooden Display Label

These are made of white pine strips sf inches long, 1^ inches wide and f inch
thick, planed on all four sides. Pressure paint sprayers are used to apply the
paint. DuPont ‘^Dulux Outside White” is used, the first coat thinned somewhat,
the second with as little thinning as possible. Special racks have been made to
accommodate as many as 2000 labels at one time while being sprayed.

The printing of the labels is done from carefully prepared lists which include
the scientific and common names of the plant and its habitat, set up as they are
to appear on the label. The rubber type used (from R. A. Stewart Company, 80
Duane Street, New York, New York) is set up in special holders made to con-
form to the size of the label. Three sizes of type are used: nos. 105, 851 and
998. A special long-lasting ink (Special Black no. 54c 5479) is obtained from
the Interchemical Company, 175 Albany Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and
the fluid for cleaning the ink from the rubber type is “Fedroid” made by the
James H. Matthews Company, 375 Broadway, Boston. The ink is applied to the
type by a rubber roller and the type holder and label are pressed tightly together
with a small binding press borrowed from the library. We have found it expedient
to make twice the number of labels currently needed. The extras go into a file
for future use.

When the ink is thoroughly dry a coat of DuPont “Clear Varnish” RAK-190
is sprayed on the printed side of the label. This improves the appearance of the
label and extends its usefulness several years. Finally, two small holes are drilled

[ 10]

ACER GRISEUM ' jyNIPERRS PROCUMBENS

in one end of the label and it is strung with no. 16 gauge copper wire for hang-
ing on the plant. We find that with this treatment these wooden labels will re-
main on the plants in good condition for approximately ten years.

Metal Display Labels

These are of two types (Plate l), one with two holes is put on a metal stand
placed before a low shrub and the other, with four horizontal slits, is nailed to a
tree trunk with galvanized nails. The nails are placed as close together as the
slits allow and, when driven into the tree trunk, at least one inch of the nail should
protrude so that there is room for growth as the tree increases in girth. Both
metal display labels are made of cold rolled steel; in the case of the trunk label,
20 gauge metal cut 4^ inches by 6j inches ; in the case of the stand label, we use
18 gauge metal cut 4- inches by 64 inches. Both types of unpainted plates are
made for us by W. T. von Schoppe, 35 Otis St. , Watertown, Mass. The,v are first
washed with DuPont “ Prep-Sol” no. 3919 to remove the oily film from the metal,
then wiped thoroughly dry and sprayed with one priming coat of DuPont ^^Prep-
arakote Gray” followed by two coats of DuPont “Dulux Yellow” no. 93-24441,
the paint being thinned only enough to allow smooth spray applications. In most
cases “Vari-Temp Reducer” no. T3864 is satisfactory, but if spraying is done in
a cold room, then Reducer no. T8508 is used. The labels are then printed in the
same manner as the wooden labels and finally sprayed with a coat of DuPont
“clear Varnish” RAK 190.

Carved Wooden Directional Signs

Signs are placed about the Arboretum to show visitors the paths leading to the
main collections and to the exit gates. These are made of first quality cypress
planks, 30 inches long, 12 inches wide and 2 inches thick, but of course other
woods might also be used. They are carved on a regular drill press, using a 5/ 16-
inch router bit ground to make a V cut. At first these signs were coated with
linseed oil, but it was found that after several years the wood darkened materi-
ally, making the letters difficult to read from a distance. To avoid this, a dark
shingle stain is now used and the letters are painted with a bright yellow weather
proof paint which lasts for several years.

It is necessary, of course, to keep a complete set of maps showing the location
of the plants growing in the various areas and to check them from time to time
for missing labels. Some collections, such as the lilacs, are reviewed every year,
while otheas are done every three years. These, then, are the labels and methods
of making them at present in use in the Arnold Arboretum.

Heman a. Howard

[12]

ARNOLDIA

A continuation of the
Bulletin of Popular Inp'ormation
of the Arnold Arboretum, Harvard University

Volume 24 APRIL 17, 1964 Number 3

BLACK POLYETHYLENE AS A MULCH

The Arnold Arboretum exhibited 24 different kinds of mulching materials in
the New England Flower Show at Boston this spring, an educational exhibit
which caused much favorable comment. Experiments and experience both have
shown that in Massachusetts almost any material which can be used as a mulch
results in better plant growth than where no mulching is used. There are many
kinds of materials available, but one should consider several important points in
making selections.

For instance, the appearance and suitability of the material is important. A
mulch should be neat in appearance ; it should not blow away in a high wind or
wash away in a rain storm ; it should not contain harmful materials to be leached
out into the soil and cause damage to the plants.

A mulch should be easily applied and not too heavy to handle. Spent hops
have been used in the Arboretum with good success, but the material as it comes
from the brewery is 87 percent water and so is heavy to handle. Cocoa shells
have been used also, but this is dry as a bone and very light when it is obtained.
Crushed gray stone may be used as a mulch and it looks well, but it is heavy to
handle and must be removed when the soil is to be worked, since it does not dis-
integrate. Maple leaves, when applied as a deep mulch, have a tendency to pack
tightly and thus reduce the amount of air which is so necessary in the upper
layers of soil where the feeding roots are located.

The cost and availability of a mulch are, of course, important. Ground redwood
bark and ground sugar cane (bagasse) may be excellent mulching materials in
areas where they are easily available locally, but shipping costs to the New Eng-
land area make these rather costly when compared with others.

Finally, the length of time the mulch is serviceable is important. Some may
last only a year or two, while others may remain in good condition for four years
or longer, if undisturbed.

When planting trees and shrubs in sod, the area where the soil was disturbed

PLATE II

in the planting process is quickly overgrown with grass. This may look well as
far as the lawn is concerned, but it can be bad for the young plant since the
vigorous growing grass (and/or weeds) will compete with the plant in its struggle
for nourishment and moisture from the upper few inches of the soil.

If a mulch is applied in a ring around the tree, grass and weeds are reduced
or eliminated and more nourishment and moisture become available for the young
plant. After a few’ years, if the tree is well established, it can compete favorably
with the grass, but those first few years are very important in the success or
failure of that young plant.

Polyethylene film is an ideal material for all kinds of horticultural uses. In
fact, w’e could hardly do without it today. The use of black polyethylene as a
mulching material has been widely and successfully tried with vegetables, pine-
apples and certain flow’er crops. It is now easy to use black polyethylene when
planting trees and woody shrubs merely because an enterprising company in New’
Jersey has begun to manufacture and merchandise it in large or small quantities
in a form easily used by anyone.

Five years ago w e placed black polyethylene squares around some plants at the
Case Estates in Weston, merely to see whether it would prove a satisfactory
mulch. Cornus mas. Viburnum dilatatum, a few’ crab apples and some grape vines
w’ere selected as the subjects for trial. Some of the plants were only about four
feet tall at the time and had been struggling along in the same situation for
three years, having a most difficult time because the soil in theses areas is grav-
elly and extremely dry. They w’ilted occasionally unless w’atered during the hot
summer, an indication that they w’ould not grow’ well, or possibly live long in
those situations, unless something were done. Four-foot squares of black poly-
ethylene W’ere placed around them in 1958 and the plants have thrived ever since.

Black polyethylene as a mulching material aids in the conservation of soil
moisture about the plant. Holes are punched at a few places to allow’ the water
to drain through. Of course no w’eeds or grass grow underneath. Also, one of
the important properties of any polyethylene film is that most gases can diffuse
through it normally, but w’ater vapor cannot. Hence this does not cut off normal
soil aeration as do many thickly applied mulches, and definitely conserves soil mois-
ture by preventing w’ater evaporation from the soil covered by the polyethylene.

The Gerling Plastics Company fa department of Monsanto Chemical Company)
of Kenilworth, New’ Jersey, started manufacturing these squares in 1961 (avail-
able from Eastern States Farmers Exchange outlets), although black polyethylene

Plate II. Left: Sketch showing the roll of perforated black polyethylene squares and method
of “digging in” the corners when laid about the base of the plants. Right: The black poly-
ethylene was laid about the base of this Cornus mas 5 years ago when this plant was 3 feet
tall. The polyethylene is in good condition with a few leaves and twigs on top, and grass
which has overgrown slightly from the edge, but it saved this plant from dying in very poor,
dry soil. The plant is now 8 feet tall.

[ 15]

had previously been available in rolls. These squares are marketed in rolls with
perforations at three- or four-foot intervals so that they may be easily torn from
the roll, square by square. There is also a perforation line to the center of the
square so that this can be opened and fitted around the tree trunk and they are
being used in large numbers in planting young fruit orchards of various kinds
about the country.

We have found it advisable to dig the four corners of the film square into the
grass sod, merely by lifting a piece of sod, placing the corner underneath and
letting the sod fall back into place. This is better than placing stones on the
corners. Also, it is advisable to punch a few holes with a nail or an ice pick in
the depressions, merely to insure that rain water will leak through to the soil
underneath.

Black polyethylene (of 2 mil. thickness) thus placed has lasted for five years
about the few shrubs and trees at the Case Estates and is still in serviceable con-
dition. One must be careful that the film is not cut with the lawn mower, but
other than that, this mulch needs no attention whatsoever.

One square may cost six to twenty cents (depending on the size and thickness
of the film), which is little enough when one considers the fact that the plant has
a far better chance of survival and may sometimes grow twice as much in one
year because of the mulch.

Placing a layer of black polyethylene film on the soil as a mulch around a tree
or shrub at planting time is the surest and most inexpensive way of obtaining
good growth during the first five critical years that follow.

Donald Wyman

ARNOLDIA

A continuation of the
Bulletin of Popular Information
of the Arnold Arboretum, Harvard University

V\)LUME 24 JUNE 12, 1964 Numbers 4-5

CLIMBING HYDRANGEAS AND THEIR RELATIVES

The climbing habit is relatively rare in the family Saxifragaceae, the majority
of the species being shrubs. All the climbing species, which are found in
four genera. Hydrangea Linnaeus (hereafter abbreviated as L.), Schizophragma
Siebold & Zuccarini, Decumaria L., and Pileostegia Hooker ik Thomson, utilize
the same method of climbing, i.e., attachment to a supporting substrate by means
of fine rootlets arising directly from the upright stems (a method of climbing
similar to that of poison ivy, Rhus toxicodendron L.)» In nature, climbing is ac-
complished on tree trunks, which implies that the plants are adapted, of neces-
sity, to growing under conditions of low^ light intensity. This combination of
peculiar characteristics enhances the horticultural possibilities of these plants by
permitting the growth of fine specimens on shaded walls or trees. The beauty of
the foliage of plants grown under such conditions (not to mention the relative
freedom from insect damage) is reason enough to warrant the serious considera-
tion of the homeowner. Moreover, in many of the species, showy inflorescences
add to the beauty of the plants to such a degree that one wonders why they have
not been more widely grown.

The family Saxifragaceae has yielded many plants with extensive horticultural
uses. Certain genera, such as Asti/he Buchanan-Hamilton, Deutzia Thunberg,
Heuchera L., Hydrangea L., Philadelphus L. , and Rihes L., have found particular
favor because of their great variety and the relative ease with which they may be
grown. The Saxifragaceae includes not only the ornamental genera mentioned
above but also about 70 others.

The family is distinguished from related families (Rosaceae, Crassulaceae,
Cunoniaceae) on the basis of technical characteristics such as the leaves usually
lacking stipules, the relatively few stamens and pistils (primarily two carpels),
and the abundant endosperm in the seed. These characters may seem to be rela-
tively esoteric to the layman ; that they appear so to some taxonomists as well is
reflected in various taxonomic schemes designed to divide the family into a series

[ 17 ]

of smaller families, in order to obtain greater morphological cohesiveness in each.
The outstanding example of this viewpoint is that of Hutchinson who divided the
family into eleven : Baueraceae, Donatiaceae, Eremosynaceae, Escalloniaceae,
Francoaceae, Grossulariaceae, Hydrangeaceae, Fhiladelphaceae, Pterostemona-
ceae, Saxifragaceae, and Vahliaceae. It is not my intention to discuss the merits
of this alternate and extreme system but to maintain the family in the broad
sense and to discuss the climbing species in particular.

Botanists, regardless of field of specialization, tend to study and discuss natu-
ral groups of plants, such as families, genera, or closely related species. 1 here is
no question that this is the most satisfactory- approach, both for the botanist and
the layman. In this paper, I prefer to discuss only those species of Saxifragaceae
which have in common the scandent habit. Such grouping by growth form may-
be considered unnatural or artificial, but the similarity of possible horticultural
application has prompted me to present these plants as a group. The names used
are those currently- accepted, and for each I have added the original literature
citation. Synonyms and their equivalents are treated in a name-finding list at the
end of the paper. Those interested in the intricacies of the nomenclature are re-
ferred to the recent studies cited in the bibliography.

Figs. 1-4. Hydrangea anomala subspecies petiolaris. 1, Sterile flower showing petal-like
development of the four calyx lobes, XI. ^2, Top view of capsule, X7. 3, Side view of cap-
sule, X7. 4, Seed, X7. Figs. 5-7. Schizophragma hydrangeoides. 5, Sterile flower showing
petal-like development of a single calyx lobe, XI. 6, Side view of capsule, X7. 7, Seed, X7.

KkV to THK iDFNTIKirATlON OF ClIMIMNG (jFNKRA

a. Inflorescences with fertile flowers and with or without showy sterile flowers,
the sterile flowers with 4 calyx lobes much enlarged and petal-like, the fertile
flowers with 2-4 or rarely 5, completely free, recurved styles; fruit opening

by a terminal pore between the styles I. Hydrangea

a. Inflorescences with fertile flowers and with or without showy sterile flowers,
the sterile flowers with 1 calyx lobe enlarged and petal-like, the fertile flow-
ers with the styles erect and fused; fruit opening by the disintegration of tis-
sue between the conspicuous ribs.

b. Leaves deciduous; fertile flowers with free petals; sterile flowers either
present or absent.

c. Fertile flowers with 8-10 stamens, 4 or 5 petals; sterile flowers (usually

present) with 1 calyx lobe enlarged and petal-like II. Schizophragma

c. Fertile flowers with 20-30 stamens, 7-10 petals; sterile flowers never

present III. Decumaria

b. Leaves persistent, the plants evergreen; fertile flowers with fused petals

which fall off together as a cap (calyptra); sterile flowers absent. . . IV. Pileostegia

I. HYDRANGEA L.

The name Hydrangea is derived from Greek hydor, water, and angeion^ vessel
or container, an allusion to the shape of the mature capsules. This genus has
been the subject of a lifetime study by the noted horticulturist Haworth-Booth
and of a scientific monograph (195?) by Dr. Elizabeth McClintock. The follow-
ing treatment is based largely on McClintock’s study which readers are urged to
consult if more detailed information is desired. She recognizes the genus as being
composed of two sections. Hydrangea and Cornidia, containing eleven and twelve
species respectively. The horticulturally important species are all members of
Sect. Hydrangea. The scandent species, however, have one representative in
Sect. Hydrangea and twelve in Sect. Cornidia. Therefore, a total of thirteen
species are climbing, or at least have this potentiality under suitable conditions,
and so are of particular interest.

Key to the Sections

a. Leaves deciduous; immature inflorescences usually not enclosed by bracts;
petals (in fertile flowers) free or (in our species) connate (fused) and falling

together as a cap Sect. Hydrangea

a. Leaves persistent; immature inflorescences always enclosed by bracts; petals

(in fertile flowers) free and falling separately Sect. Cornidia

Section Hydrangea

Only one species of this section. Hydrangea anomala D. Don, is scandent. In
addition, it also has fused petals which fall together as a cap and winged seeds.
These technical characteristics distinguish it from all other species of the genus.
McClintock has treated H . anomala as being composed of two subspecies, although
previous authors have recognized these as two distinct species. She points out,

[ 19]

quite correctly, that the variation within the species is slight and that only a
single character, in conjunction with geographic distribution, can be used to
separate the two subspecies. Of the two, subspecies peiiolaris seems more hardy,
but there is no other significant horticultural difference between them. My later
comments apply equally to both subspecies.

1. Hydrangea anomala D. Don, Prodromus Florae Nepalensis. 211. 1825.

Key to the Subspecies

a. Stamens 9-15; plants of the Himalaya and western and central China.

la. H. anomala subsp. anomala

a. Stamens 15-20; plants of Japan, Formosa, and associated islands.

lb. H. anomala subsp. peiiolaris (Siebold & Zuccarini)

McClintock, Journal of the Arnold Arboretum 37 : 373. 1956.

This species, known as the “climbing hydrangea,” was introduced into horti-
culture in the United States in 1865 by Mr. Thomas Hogg, who was consul to
Japan, and together with his brother James, operated a nursery in New York.
In addition to their own nursery, these gentlemen distributed seed to Parson’s
Nursery of Flushing, New York. The introductions were made under the incor-
rect name Schizophragma hydrangeoides which led to the mistaken belief that the
Arnold Arboretum (rather than Messrs. Hogg) was responsible for the first intro-
duction of Hydrangea anomala. In 1876, the Arboretum received seed from Japan
(presumably subspecies peiiolaris) and has grown the species since that time.
According to Haworth- Booth, Hydrangea anomala subsp. anomala was introduced
into Great Britain in 1839, with subsp. peiiolaris following in about 1878. To the
best of my knowledge, subspecies anomala was introduced into the United States
by the Arnold Arboretum in 1923. Our plant flowered in 1961 and 1964 and re-
mains relatively small.

The dark-green glossy leaves of Hydrangea anomala unfold in the spring, be-
coming fully expanded prior to those of other deciduous climbers (such as Par-
ihenocissus Planchon or Campsis Loureiro). The leaves, in general, are heart-
shaped, smooth, long-petiolate, and with serrate margins. The density of the
leaves seems to vary from plant to plant, depending on the immediate growing
conditions. Lateral branches tend to grow at right angles from the main climbing
shoots, their length being irregular but seldom exceeding three feet, forming an
uneven leafy pattern which is unobtainable with standard climbers such as Par-
thenocissus tricuspidaia (Siebold & Zuccarini) Planchon and Hedera helix L.

The lateral branches bear terminal inflorescences which open in June, coming
into full bloom before the other hydrangeas hardy in our area. The inflorescences,
usually six inches or more in diameter, are composed of several hundred small
fertile flowers surrounded by a corona of a dozen or more sterile ones. The latter,
are white and borne on long pedicels which accentuate their peripheral position.
When compounded by several hundred inflorescences the results are more than

[•>0]

PLATE IV

Tree-grown specimen of Hydrangea anomala subspecies petiolaris during flowering
period.

gratifying. The calyx lobes of the sterile flowers are much enlarged, being ^ to
f inches long and nearly as broad, rounded in outline. The white color is re-
tained long after the fertile flowers have passed, creating the impression of an
extraordinarily long blooming period.

The fruit, technically a capsule, is small (about ^ inch long), opening by a
pore formed at the base of the spreading styles. The number of styles varies in
this species from two to three in individual flowers : the majority have two styles,
although the larger tend to be 3-stylar. The significance of this variation is not
understood. The fruits are not attractive, nor is there any notable leaf coloration
in the fall. During the winter, the stems and lateral branches are interesting
because of their growth pattern and the yellowish-orange bark which peels irregu-
larly into large, thin flakes.

Plants of this species are found in nature, not only as powerful tree climbers,
but also as scramblers in shaded rocky ravines. Their diverse horticultural appli-
cations are based, at least in part, on their adaptation to these environments.
The species may be used effectively as a ground cover in difficult places, such as
rock-piles or rocky outcrops, even in shaded areas. Likewise, it does very well
on stone fences or brick walls, although the rate of growth is retarded in such
places ; but it is most vigorous and spectacular when grown as a tree climber.

Several precautions should be taken when growing the plant as a climber. In
a wall situation, particularly on a building, it should be grown on a shaded side.
The actual exposure depends on the area, but in the vicinity of Boston it does
best with a northerly or northeasterly exposure. If grown in a southern exposure
it may be damaged by the winter sun and do very poorly. One should keep in
mind that the entire inflorescence is shed as a single unit, usually in early winter,
and may present a problem in cleaning up. Planting it against a wall behind
existing plantings, such as Rhododendron L. and Enkiantkus Loureiro, should,
therefore be avoided. Hydrangea anomala climbs, as mentioned previously, by
means of secondary rootlets which penetrate the substrate, causing damage ap-
parently no greater than that of other woody climbers. Haworth-Booth suggests
growing the species in conjunction with Tropaeoliim speciosum Poeppig& Endlicher,
a spectacular climbing ‘‘Nasturtium” with orange-red flowers, an excellent sug-
gestion which applies, unfortunately, only to warm climates or, perhaps, a large
greenhouse. An excellent example of wall-grown Hydrangea anomala^ raised from
seed in 1892, may be seen on the northeast corner of the Administration Build-
ing in Jamaica Plain.

A tree-grown specimen should be started on a mature tree, for growth will be-
come more vigorous with time. Branches eventually will encircle the tree, although
not girdle it, and may even reach the crown of very large specimens. When tree
and Hydrangea are mature the inflorescences will cover the tree trunk and large
secondary branches at flowering time. During the height of flowering, the fertile
flowers are worked heavily by honey bees, welcome to some but not to others. A

PLATE V

Close-up of inflorescences of Hydrangea anomala subspecies petiolaris. Note
dissimilarity between the central fertile and peripheral sterile flowers.

fine tree-grown specimen may be seen at 380 South St., adjacent to the Arbore-
tum grounds, in Jamaica Plain.

The future possibilities for this plant rest, I believe, simply in growing it more
widely. It is obtainable from many nurserymen, who should not hesitate to recom-
mend it. New introductions probably are in order, even though a large part of
the natural range (mainland China) is not open to us at present, for one finds, in
the herbarium, specimens with very large sterile flowers (up to 2 inches or more
in diameter), with flowers with deckled edges instead of smooth ones, and with
orange-green to pinkish flowers. All or any of these variations would be welcome
additions to horticulture. Occasionally, a plant with o-lobed sterile flowers is
found, but the condition seems unstable, and 4-lobed flowers may occur on the
same plant.

A haploid chromosome number of 18 has been reported by Sax (l93l) from
cultivated material of Hydrangea anomala subsp. petiolaris. This is consistent with
reports of other members of the genus, excepting the more spectacular clones of
H. paniculata Siebold, such as ‘Pee Gee’ which have a haploid number of 36. The
beauty of this cultivar is due to the increased number of sterile flowers, suggest-
ing that interesting results might be obtained by raising the chromosomal level
of H. anomala.

[23]

Section Cornidia

I

The name Cornidia, derived from corww, refers to the horn-like recurved styles
in the mature fruit. This section is characterized, in part, by the development
of large bracts which enclose the immature inflorescence. These bracts often are
colored and add to the general interest of the group. All the plants are evergreen
in their native habitat, and all are climbers under proper conditions. Any or all
of them could be used in gardens as climbers, either for themselves or as poten-
tial breeding stock. In the latter category, it should be noted that hybrids be-
tween species are relatively rare in Hydrangea and up to now no chromosome
counts have been reported for members of this section of the genus. Results of
a proper breeding program, even though difficult to obtain, could be well worth
the effort. Haworth-Booth has pointed out that it should be possible . .to
produce a red-flowered, evergreen, self-clinging climber hardy enough for fairly
general use on shaded walls.”

The tropics and the temperate regions of the Southern Hemisphere have con-
tributed extraordinarily few plants to the horticulture of the North Temperate
Zone. The reasons for this may be obvious for tropical plants, but are much less
so for plants originating in the Temperate Zone of the Southern Hemisphere.
Indeed, the situation is a real puzzle which probably does not have any simple
biological explanation.

All the members of Sect. Cornidia are native to the tropics of the South Tem-
perate Zone. I have listed the species (according to McClintock’s classification) al-
phabetically, together with the characters which may be of horticultural importance.

'2. Hydrangea asterolasia Diels, Notizblatt des Botanischen Gartens und Mu-
seums zu Berlin-Dahlem. 15: 370. 194-1.

Native in Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, and Ecuador at elevations of 3600-
7500 feet; shrubs or climbers; fertile flowers white; sterile flowers present, about
1 inch in diameter, white; bract color unknown.

1 have seen no material referable to this species.

3. Hydrangea diplostemona (Donnell Smith) Standley, Journal of the Wash-
ington Academy of Sciences. 18: 160. 1928.

Native in Costa Rica and Colombia, at altitudes of 1800-4500 feet; shrubs or
climbers ; fertile flowers pink to rose ; sterile flowers absent or rarely present ;
bracts green.

This species is poorly known at this time, but the general lack of sterile flowers
is disadvantageous from a horticultural point of view.

4. Hydrangea integrifolia Hayata, Journal of the Faculty of Science, Univer-
sity of Tokyo. 22: 131. 1906.

Native in the Philippine Islands and Formosa at high altitudes ; strong climbers ;
fertile flowers white; sterile flowers many, about 1^ inches in diameter; bracts
large, but color undetermined.

[•2-t]

There is a marked seasonal fluctuation in stem elongation in this species, and
the plants might be deciduous under more arduous climatic conditions. It is,
however, worthy of further investigation for ornamental use. McClintock has
placed it in Sect. Corniuia, but I suspect that its proper relationship is with
Sect. Hydrangea, specifically near H. involucrata Siebold.

5. Hydrangea jelskii Szyszylowicz, Rozprawy Akademija Umiejetnosciwydzial
Matematyczno-Przyrodnicz.v II. 9: 215. 1895.

Native in Ecuador and Peru at an altitude of about 6000 feet; climbers; fer-
tile flowers white ; presence or absence of sterile flowers unknown ; bract color
unknown.

Known only from two collections, both well past their prime.

6. Hydrangea mathewsii Briquet, Annuaire du Conservatoire et du Jardin
botaniques de Geneve. 20: 4-13. 1919.

Native in northern Peru ; climbers ; fertile flowers white ; sterile flowers ab-
sent; bract color unknown.

Known only from two collections, but because of lack of sterile flowers appar-
ently unworthy of serious consideration as an ornamental plant.

7. Hydrangea oerstedii Briquet, Annuaire de Conservatoire et du Jardin bo.
taniques de Geneve. 20: 407. 1919.

Native in Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru at altitudes of
3600-9000 feet ; shrubs to strong climbers ; fertile flowers pink to dark magenta ;
sterile flowers numerous, f-1^ inches in diameter, pink to dark magenta; bract
color pink, becoming greenish with age.

This seems to be the most promising species, of Sect. Cornidia, in terms of
showiness and should be tried in a southern garden.

8. Hydrangea peruviana Moricand in De Candolle, Prodromus. 4: 14. 1830.

Native of Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, h'cuador, and Peru, usually at alti-
tudes of 3600-9600 feet ; shrubs or climbers ; fertile flowers pink ; sterile flowers
few to many, ^—1 inch in diameter, pink ; bracts pink, becoming greenish with age.

This plant is very closely related to the preceding species. Hydrangea oersiedii,
and, according to McClintock, the two perhaps may represent forms of a dimor-
phic species. In my opinion, they may be conspecific, with a tendency toward
dioecism (male and female flowers on separate plants) such as one finds in the
Hawaiian genus Broussaisia Guadichaud. This might prove to be a very valuable
ornamental species because of its colorful sterile flowers.

9. Hydrangea preslii Briquet, Annuaire du Conservatoire et du Jardin botani-
ques Geneve. 20: 409. 1919.

Native in Costa Rica, Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru at altitudes of

[ -^5 ]

300-7500 feet; shrubs or climbers ; fertile flowers pink to wine-red ; sterile flow-
ers absent; bract color unknown.

This species has large inflorescences but always lacks sterile flowers. It might
be useful as a stock for breeding towards a large inflorescence.

10. Hydrangea seemannii Riley, Kew Bulletin. 1924: 207. 1924.

Native of the Sierra Madre of Durango, Mexico, at altitudes of 6000-7800
feet ; strong climbers ; fertile flowers white ; sterile flowers relatively few, about
l|^ inches in diameter and assumed to be white; bract color unknown.

This species is known from only a few collections, and its horticultural value
cannot yet be judged.

11. Hydrangea serratifolia (Hooker & Arnott) Philippi f . , Plantarum Vascu-
larium Chilensium. 97. 1881.

Native in Chile and Argentina at altitudes of 2400-4500 feet; shrubs or robust
climbers ; fertile flowers white ; sterile flowers generally absent but about 1 inch
in diameter when present; bract color unknown.

This southernmost Hydrangea normally is exposed to the coldest environment
of any species of this section. It would seem to be the logical choice of the whole
section to grow, and is being cultivated, in Great Britain. Introduced there by
H. F. Comber {Comber 064) in 1927, it is grown on walls, particularly with a
southern exposure, where the temperature may reach 15° F. for short periods,
unfortunately, it generally lacks sterile flowers in its large compound inflores-
cences. According to a personal communication from Edinburgh, the Comber
material is unisexual.

12. Hydrangea steyermarkii Standley, Publications of the Field Museum,
Botanical Series. 22: 233. 1940.

Native in Guatemala at an altitude of 4500-9000 feet; climbers; flowering
material unknown. Known only from juvenile plants and one mature fruiting
specimen.

13. Hydrangea tarapotensis Briquet, Annuaire du Conservatoire et du Jardin
botaniques de Geneve. 20: 415. 1919.

Native in Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia at altitudes of 2400-4500 feet; shrubs
or climbers; fertile flowers creamy white; sterile flowers absent; bract color
unknown.

Closely related to Hydrangea serratifolia but less likely to be successful in cul-
tivation as it is probably less hardy.

II. SCHIZOPHRAGMA Siehold Zuccarini

The name Schizophragma is derived from Greek schizo, to divide, and phragma
a fence or screen, in allusion to the skeleton-like mature capsules. Unlike cap-

[20]

PLATE VI

Wall-grown specimen of Schizophragma hudrangeoUles during flowering period.

sules in most of the Saxifragaceae, these open, not by an apical pore, but by dis-
integration of the tissue between the calyx ribs. This adaptation apparently is a
consequence of the development of fused styles which prevented the normal de-
hiscence mechanism. Capsules of this type are characteristic of Schizophragma,
Decumaria, and Pileostegia.

All of the plants of Schizophrag7na, which I am treating as three species in this
paper, are climbers similar to Hydrangea anomala. All are deciduous, and in two
species there is an interesting development of a single calyx lobe of each sterile
flower into an enlarged petaloid structure. This is equivalent to one of the four
enlarged calyx lobes of Hydrangea or the single enlarged lobes of Mussaenda L.,
Pseudomussaenda Wernham, and several other genera of the family Rubiaceae. As
in Hydrangea, the sterile flowers are the primary source of beauty of the plants.

Key to the Species of Schizophragma
a. Sterile flowers present.

b. Leaves coarsely dentate; plants of Japan and Korea 1. 5. hydrangeoides

b. Leaves entire to sparingly dentate: plants of China, Tibet, and Burma.

2. S. integrifolium

a. Sterile flowers absent; plants of Burma and China 3. 5. crassum

1. Schizophragma hydrangeoides Siebold & Zuccarini, Florae Japonicae. 60.
tab. 26. 1835.

At the time of the introduction of Schizophragma hydrangeoides into horticulture,
it was so often confused with Hydrangea anomala that it is not definitely known
when it did come into cultivation. In The Garden 1879 there is an illustration,
but it is hard to be certain whether this was prepared from life. A plant definitely
flowered m Great Britain in 1905, but this seems a very late date. Plants of
Schizophragma and Hydrangea were sometimes illustrated together under the lat-
ter name, although a few observant growers indicated that two varieties might
be represented. In retrospect, it is not difficult to imagine how this confusion
came about, for the plants are superficially alike. What is puzzling is the long
delay in correcting the error, for casual examination of fertile flowers should have
been sufficient, the styles being free in Hydrangea but fused in Schizophragma.
In addition, the mature capsules are quite distinctive.

Known to occur naturally in Japan and Korea, Schizophragma hydrangeoides
commonly is found as a tree climber, although it also occurs on rocks and sand-
stone cliff's. Its uses are therefore similar to those noted previously for Hydrangea
anomala, with the same precautions applicable. It seems to be more difficult to
find a location in which the plants will thrive than for the Hydrangea. Our best
plant at the Arboretum is grown on the northeast-facing wall of the Administra-
tion Building, where it is perfectly hardy.

The light-green leaves opening early in the spring, although not as early as
those of Hydrangea anomala, are quite attractive. They are ovate to heart-shaped

[28]

PLATE VII

Close-up of inflorescence of Srhizophragma hydran(feoide.s. Note striking dissimilarity
between the central fertile flowers and peripheral sterile ones.

in outline, with a coarsely dentate margin, and are somewhat reminiscent of the
cottonwood leaf. Under proper conditions, the leaf blade may become six inches
long and broad. The lateral branches usually grow at right angles to the main
climbing shoots and seldom exceed three feet in length. The foliage is oriented
towards the light and forms an interesting mosaic. Insect damage appears to be
minimal.

The lateral branches also bear the terminal inflorescences, which open in July
and August. Seldom exceeding six inches in diameter, each inflorescence is com-
posed of several hundred small fertile flowers and up to a dozen sterile flowers.
As in the hydrangeas, the sterile flowers are arranged about the periphery of the
inflorescence and are borne on long pedicels. A single calyx lobe of each sterile

[•29]

flower is enlarged and petaloid . Curiously, the lobe which develops is the one
oriented away from the central axis of the inflorescence. In Schizophragma hy-
drangeoides, it is ovate or sometimes lanceolate, to 4 inches long, ^ to 3 inches
broad, and white. None of the flowers are shed, and, as a result, the blooming
period appears to be quite long. The entire inflorescence is either dropped in
early winter or retained as long as the following winter. In this respect, S', hy-
drangeoides is a cleaner plant than Hydrangea anomala.

There is no fall coloration, nor are the small laterally dehiscing capsules at-
tractive. The tight bark is dull gray in color and not particularly interesting.

On the basis of herbarium material from wild sources, the species seems to be
relatively uniform with very little geographic variation. New selections would
have to be made on the basis of individual plants which might have desirable
characteristics; for additional introductions, on a broad scale, should not be ex-
pected to yield more spectacular plants than those which we now" have.

A haploid chromosome number of 14 had been reported by Sax (l93l) and
others for Schizophragma hydrangeoides. On the basis of chromosome number only,
two possibly fruitful experiments are suggested. One w"ould be to raise the chromo-
some level in hopes of obtaining a greater percentage of more robust sterile flow-
ers. The second is to attempt to cross this species with Decumaria harhara, of the
southeastern United States, to obtain information regarding the relationship of
the two genera.

2. Schizophragma integrifolium Oliver, Hooker’s leones Plantarum. 20: tab.
193J^. 1890.

This species, Schizophragma integrifolium, was introduced into cultivation in
Great Britain in 1901 from seed collected the previous year by E. H. Wilson in
Hupeh, China. Wilson was also responsible for bringing it into cultivation in this
country via the Arnold x^rboretum in 1909. The Arboretum’s material, collected
in Szechuan, presumably has been lost since. This species is not available com-
mercially in this country at present. A voucher specimen {Wilson 1068) deposited
in the herbarium of the Arnold Arboretum substantiates the identification and
the introduction. Schizophragma integrifolium has not been grow-n widely here,
perhaps because it is less hardy than S. hydrangeoides. It has, how'ever, as an
ornamental plant an extraordinary potential which has not yet been realized.

Know"n in the wild from Formosa, central and south China, Schizophragma in-
tegr folium is found generally at high elevations. It sometimes takes the form of
a free-standing shrub but most often clambers or climbs over, or up, steep rocky
places or trees. The climbing mechanism, again, is by adventitious roots arising
from the main climbing stems. The uses and precautions given for Hydrangea
anomala apply also to this plant.

The growth form of this species is essentially the same as that of Schizophragma
hydrangeoides. While S. hydrangeoides is marked by little variability, S. integrfo-

[30]

Hum is extremely variable in a number of important characteristics such as size,
shape, serration of the margin, and pubescence of the leaves; size of inflores-
cence; and size and shape of sterile flowers.

The light green leaves, darker above than beneath, range in shape from ovate
to broadly elliptic. Leaf size varies from 2^ to 8 inches in length, and if to 5
inches in breadth. The margin may be entire, minutely denticulate, or sinuate-
dentate. The leaf undersurface varies from glabrous to densely woolly or felted.

The lateral branches bear terminal inflorescences which, with a few exceptions,
are much more showy than those of Schizophragma hydrangeoides. The inflores-
cences are at least six inches in diameter but may be up to a full foot across.
There are several hundred fertile flowers with a dozen or so sterile flowers ar-
ranged about the periphery. A single calyx lobe of each sterile flower is enlarged.
It varies from ovate to broadly elliptic in shape, is f to sf inches long, f to 2
inches broad, and yellow to cream or white in color. All flowers are retained on the
inflorescence, with the entire structure being shed in early winter to late spring.

There is little fall coloration and the small capsules are unattractive. The bark
is an uninteresting dull gray color.

Some readers may realize that the varieties which Rehder described in this
species are swamped in the welter of variability which I have mentioned very
briefly. On the basis of the material now available, I believe that these varieties
lack any distinct biological basis. The varieties must have appeared more distinct
to Rehder as he had very few specimens. It is interesting to note that the type
specimen of each of his varieties represents almost the extreme expression of a
particular variable character.

My general remarks concerning this species may have misled some into believ-
ing that this is just another species similar to Schizophragma hydrangeoides. This
is not my intent, for Schizophragma iidegrifolium is the most spectacular of all the
species considered here. It has not been grown much in this country because it
is tender and does not over-winter well. It is a magnificent plant that should be
introduced into our warmer areas.

At this time, it is impossible to make additional selections from native plants,
but if it were, the prime area for source material would be Szechuan Province, in
western China. The plants in this particular province show tremendous variability
in all characteristics and would be a breeder’s delight. However, all of the ma-
terial in cultivation in Europe, is not the result of a single introduction, so that a
breeding program could be devised and based on available materials. A diploid
chromosome number of 72 has been reported by Hamel (l953) for S. iniegrif'oHum,
a number which is especially interesting in light of the diploid count of 28 for
Schizoph ragma hyd rangeoides.

3. Schizophragma crassum Handel-Mazzetti, Anzeiger der Kaiserlichen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche
Klasse. 59: 247. 1922.

[31 ]

This species is native in southwestern China and Burma and is readily distin-
guished from others of the genus by the lack of sterile flowers. It is, however,
strikingly similar in gross morphological characters to Schizophragma integri folium
and may represent only another extreme in variation of that diverse species. This
is a question which I hope to clarify in the near future. To the best of my knowl-
edge, it has never been in cultivation nor, because of the lack of sterile flowers,
does there seem to be any future for it.

III. DECUMARIA L.

The name Decumaria, is derived from Latin decimarius, relating to tenths, an
allusion to the often 10-parted flowers. Today, such a derivation may seem tenu-
ous, but the classification of Linnaeus was based upon his so-called “sexual sys-
tem” which system rested primarily on the number of parts in the flower. The
species of this genus are woody deciduous climbers having fertile flowers with
7-10 petals, and 20-30 stamens, and lacking sterile flowers. Only two species
are known, one from the southeastern United States, the other from China.

Kkv to the Species of Decumaria

a. Leaves deciduous; leaf blade ovate to elliptic, li-4| inches long, 1-3^ inches
broad, the apex acute, abruptly short-acuminate, or rarely obtuse; stigma
borne on a well-developed stylar column; plants of the southeastern United

States 1. D. barbara

a. Leaves persistent or semipersistent; leaf blade elliptic to oblanceolate, lj-2f
inches long, ^-1 inch broad, the apex obtuse; stigma subsessile; plants of
China 2. D. sinensis

1. Decumaria barbara L. Species Plantarum ed. 2. 1663. 1763.

This species has a tangled background of considerable interest, but I am not
prepared to explain fully all of the more interesting aspects. It was described by
Linnaeus in 1763, from a specimen grown in the botanic garden at Uppsala,
Sweden. Linnaeus was the first to apply a binomial name to the plant, although
it was known from earlier works in which it was believed to be a Clusia (family
Guttiferae). Linnaeus apparently lost track of, or never knew the origin of this
particular material, for his specific epithet barbara indicates the native origin as
the Barbary Coast. He says Habitat an in Africa?^’’ Thus, it joins a host of
other plant species first described from material in cultivation, and like so many
of them there is some doubt about its original source. Rehder gives the date of
introduction into cultivation in this country, as 1785.

This species, Decumaria barbara^ is found as a tree climber and rock climber in
very moist habitats in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Florida,
Georgia, North and South Carolina, and Virginia where it is sometimes known
as “wood vamp.” The inflorescences of fragrant, white, fertile flowers are rela-
tively small (generally about three inches in diameter). The flowering period

[ 32 ]

lasts several weeks; with the time of flowering, varying geographically, from
April 1 through early June.

In this country, these plants have been cultivated primarily as a greenhouse
curiosity. There is no question that they are not as showy as either Hydrangea
anornala or Schizophragma hydrangeoides. I have no information, however, concern-
ing their heat tolerance, and they may prove unsatisfactory in the south. The
use of Decumaria barbara may also be restricted in the south because of its high
water requirements. If these can be met, however, the plants are handsome
enough to warrant growing them. If, however, these same plants are grown
farther north the water requirement is not critical. Plants of D, barbara grown
out of doors in this area have not proven winter hardy, but new selections from
Georgia (particularly Lumpkin, Rabum, and Habersham counties) might be
sturdier.

Sax (l93l) has recorded a meiotic chromosome number of 14 for this species.
Two interesting experiments listed under Schizophragma hydrangeoides are also
applicable here.

2. Decumaria sinensis Oliver, Hooker’s leones Flantarum. \S: tab. 1741 • 1888.

Native in Honan, Hupeh, and Szechuan provinces of China, this species is
similar to the preceding but has shorter and narrower persistent leaves. The
plants tend to be less robust and so have denser foliage than D. barbara. As in
the latter species, the small inflorescences lack sterile flowers, a character par-
tially offset by its evergreen or semi-deciduous nature. This characteristic would
be of some importance in considering the species for cultivation in our southern
states.

This species is grown out of doors as a wall climber in the Royal Botanic Gar-
dens, Kew, where it seems to be perfectly hardy. It is also grown in other gar-
dens of western Europe, flowering in late May. The Arboretum grew this species
many years ago, as a pit-house plant. Our plants, the first introduction in the
United States, were grown from seed collected by Wilson in China, in 1908. So
far as I know this species is no longer available in this country.

IV. PILEOSTEGIA Hooker f. Thomson

The name Pi/eostegia is derived from pilos, meaning cap, and stegnns, meaning
drawn together, probably in allusion to the petals, which are fused into a cap-
like structure. This petal cap falls as a unit when the fertile flowers open. The
plants are evergreen with elliptic, leathery leaves with petioles very much shorter
than the leaf blades. The resulting leaf mosaic is unlike that formed by the plants
described previously. The relatively large inflorescences are composed entirely
of fertile flowers and, therefore, not as showy as they might be. Except for minor
differences in size and shape, the fruiting capsules are of the same type as in
Schizophragma and Decumaria.

The evergreen nature of these plants may limit their use in cold-temperate
areas such as ours, but they could be extremely useful in our warmer climates.
I believe the water requirements would prove to be less difficult to meet than
those of our native Decumaria harhara.

Key to the Species of Pileostegia

a. Lower leaf surface smooth (glabrous); plants of India, China, Formosa, Hong

Kong, and the Ryukyu Archipelago 1. P. viburnoides

a. Lower leaf surface with rust-colored stellate hairs; plants of southeastern

China 2. P. tomentella

1. Pileostegia viburnoides Hooker f. & Thomson, Journal of the Linnean
Society of London. Botany. 2: 57, 58, 76, tab. 2. 1858.

Tree and rock climbers of relatively small stature, native to India, China
(Anhwei, Chekiang, Fukien, Hunan, Hupeh, Kiangsi, Kwangsi, Kwantung,
Kweichow, Szechuan, and Yunnan provinces), Formosa, Hong Kong, and re-
ported from the Ryukyu Archipelago. The leaves are elliptic in shape, glabrous,
dark-green above, and light-green beneath. The margin is entire or sometimes
slightly serrate. It is of interest that the plant described to establish the genus
was thought at first, to be a holly (//ex) because of the leaf shape. Some years
later, the reverse confusion occurred when a plant from Mexico described as a
Pileostegia, later had to be transferred to Ilex. The fertile white flowers are borne
on huge inflorescences (up to seven inches long, and eleven inches in diameter) !
The floral odor is described either as **fragrant” or ‘‘ill smelling.” The flower-
ing period, in the native habitats, seems to be in August.

This species was introduced into cultivation by E. H. Wilson, in 1908. At
present it is grown as an ornamental in western Europe and in southern Califor-
nia where it is employed as a wall climber. It is not available commercially in
this country.

2. Pileostegia tomentella Handel-Mazzetti, Anzeigerder Kaiserlichen Akad-
emie des Wissenschaften, Wien, Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Klasse.
59: 55. 1922.

Tree and rock climbers, of small stature, occurring wild in Fukien, Hainan,
Kiangsi, Kwangsi, and Kwangtung provinces of China. The oblong or elliptic
leaves are somewhat bicolorous because of the rust-colored, stellate hairs on the
lower surface. The fertile, fragrant, white flowers are borne on large inflores-
cences (to eight inches long and eleven inches in diameter) in September and
October. The small fruiting capsules generally are yellow, although I have seen
one report of black.

This plant has tremendous possibilities as an ornamental because of the in-
teresting evergreen leaves and very large inflorescences. The most advantageous
characteristic, however, the late flowering period, would greatly improve its po-

[34 ]

i

tential. It seems to be limited in its cold tolerance and may be satisfactory only
under warm conditions. I do not believe it is available at the present.

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank my fellow staff members of the Arnold Arboretum and Gray
Herbarium for their interest, encouragement, and helpful suggestions during the
course of this preliminary study. Special thanks are due P. S. Green, B. G. Schu-
bert, C. E. Wood, Jr., and D. Wyman for the critical reading of the manuscript
and the resulting improvements. The line illustration is the careful work of Miss
E. Carroll.

Name Finding List

Names in bold face type are names accepted here as correct and used in the text
Names in italics are considered synonyms and each is followed by its accepted equivalent.
Names of authorities appear in roman type. Generic names are abbreviated (D. = Decu-
maria; H. = Hydrangea; P. = Pileostegia; S. = Schizophragma).

Cornidia

integerrima Hooker & Arnott = H. serratifolia
peruviana (Moricand) Small = H. peruviana
radiata Oersted = H. oerstedii
serratifolia Hooker & Arnott = H. serratifolia
umbellata Ruiz & Pavon = H. preslii

Decumaria
barbara L.

forsythiaM\c\i?M^ = Yy. barbara
prostrata Loddiges ex Loudon = D. barbara
radicans Moench = D. barbara
sarmentosa Bosc = D. barbara
scandens (Walter) Salisbury = D. barbara
sinensis Oliver

Forsythia

scandens Walter = D. barbara
Gilibertia

diplostemona Donnell Smith = H. diplostemona
Hydrangea

altissima Wallich = H. anomala subsp. anomala
anomala D. Don subsp. anomala

anomala D. Don subsp. petiolaris (Siebold & Zuccarini) McClintock
antioquiensis Engler = H. tarapotensis
asterolasia Diels
bangii'Eng\er = Yi. tarapotensis

bracteata Siebold & Zuccarini = H. anomala subsp. petiolaris
briquetii Engler=H. preslii
caucana Engler = H. peruviana

cordifolia Siebold & Zuccarini = H. anomala subsp. petiolaris
cuneatifolia Elmer = H. integrifolia
diplostemona (Donnell Smith) Standley

[ ]

durifoliaBr’\q\xet = YL. oerstedii
ecuadorensis Briquet = H. preslii

epiphytica Morton ex Haworth-Booth = H. asterolasia
glabra Hayata = H. anomala subsp. petiolaris
glandulosa Elmer = H. integrifolia
Briquet = H. oerstedii
Integra Hayata = H. integrifolia
inornata Stan(iley = H. diplostemona
integerrima (Hooker & Arnott) Engler = H. serratifolia
integrifolia Hayata
jelskii Szyszylowicz
lehmannii'EngXer^'^. peruviana
mathewsii Briquet
oerstedii Briquet

Standley = H. peruviana
peruviana Moricand

petiolaris Siebold & Zuccarini = H. anomala subsp. petiolaris

petiolaris Siebold & Zuccarini y. bracteata (Siebold & Zuccarini) Franchet & Savatier =

H. anomala subsp. petiolaris

petiolaris Siebold & Zuccarini /3. cordifolia (Siebold & Zuccarini) Franchet & Savatier =

H. anomala subsp. petiolaris

petiolaris Siebold & Zuccarini var. cordifolia Maximowicz forma formosana Miyushima =

H. anomala subsp. petiolaris

petiolaris Siebold & Zuccarini a. ovalifolia Franchet & Savatier = H. anomala subsp.
petiolaris

platyphylla Briquet = H. oerstedii
preslii Briquet

scandens Maximowicz = H. anomala subsp. petiolaris
scandens Poeppig=H. serratifolia

scandens Maximowicz cordifolia Maximowicz = H. anomala subsp. petiolaris
scandens Maximowicz a. petiolaris Maximowicz = H. anomala subsp. petiolaris
Briquet = H. oerstedii
seemannii Riley

serratifolia (Hooker & Arnott) Philippi f.

Briquet = H. diplostemona
steyermarkii Standley
taquetii Leveille = S. hydrangeoides
tarapotensis Briquet

tilaefolia Leveille = H. anomala subsp. petiolaris
trianae Briquet = H. peruviana
umbellata (Ruiz & Pavon) Briquet = H. preslii
volubilis Hort. ex Rehder = H. anomala subsp. petiolaris
Engler = H. peruviana

Pileostegia

obtusifolia (Hu) Hu = D. sinensis
tomentella Handel-Mazzetti
urceolata Hayata=P. viburnoides
viburnoides Hooker f. & Thomson

viburnoides Hooker f. & Thomson W3.r . parvifiora Oliver ex Maximowicz = P. viburnoides

Sarcostyles

peruviana Presl = H. preslii

Schizophragma
crassum Handel-Mazzetti

crassum Handel-Mazzetti var, elliptica Anthony = S. crassum
fauriei Hayata = S. integrifolium
hydrangeoides Siebold & Zuccarini

hydrangeoides Siebold & Zuccarini formosa Nakai = S. hydrangeoides
hydrangeoides Siebold & Zuccarini var. integrifolium Franchet = S. integrifolium
hypoglaucum Rehder = S. integrifolium
integrifolium Oliver

integrifolium Oliver var. denticulatum Rehder = S. integrifolium
integrifolium Oliver v^x. fauriei Hayata = S. integrifolium
integrifolium Oliver var. glaucescens Rehder = S. integrifolium
integrifolium Oliver var. minus Rehder = S. integrifolium
integrifolium Oliver var. molle Rehder = S. integrifolium
obtusifolium Hu = D. sinensis

tomentellum (Handel-Mazzetti) Stapf=P. tomentella
viburnoides (Hooker f. & Thomson) Stapf = P. viburnoides

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, E. Hydrangea petiolaris and Schizophragma hydrangeoides. Bulletin of
Popular Information, Arnold Arboretum. IV^ 1: 53-56. 1933.

Anonymous. Schizophragma hydrangeoides and Decumaria barbara. Ibid. II. 8:
5-1. 1922.

Boehmer, L. The climbing Hydrangea. Gardener’s Monthly. 21: 291. 1879.

Burkett, G. W. Anatomical studies within the genus Hydrangea. Proceedings
of the Indiana Academy of Science. 41: 83-95. 1932.

Burtt, B. L. Hydrangea integerrima . Curtis’s Botanical Magazine. 168: tab. loS
and text. 1951.

Clute, W. N. The meaning of plant names — XXV. Saxifragaceae. The Ameri-
can Botanist. 32: 11-18. 1926.

Fosberg, F. II. Taxonomy of the Hawaiian genus Broussasia. Occasional Papers
of the Bernice P. Bishop Museum. 15: 19-60. 1939.

Hamel, J. L. Notes Preliminaires a I’etude caryologique des Saxifragacees : VI.
Les Chromosomes somatiques des Kirengeshoma palmata Yamabe, Deinanthe
coerulea Stapf et Schizophragma integrifolium (Franch.) Oliv. Bulletin du Mu-
seum National d’Histoire Naturelle (Paris). II. 23: 651-654. 1951.

. Contribution of L’Etude Cyto-Taxinomique des Saxifragacees, pp. 113-

313. Paris, 1953.

[37]

Hatfield, J. D. Schizophragma hydrangeo'ides. Horticulture. 4: 232. 1906.

Hayata, B. Flora Montana Formosae. Journal of the Faculty of Science, Uni-
versity of Tokyo. 25(l9): 1-260. 1908.

Henderson, F. The climbing hydrangea — Schizophrogma hydrangeoides. Garden-
er’s Monthly. 21: 2, 3. 1879.

. The climbing hydrangea. Ibid. 54. 1879.

Hogg, T. History of Sciadopitys, and other Japan trees Ibid. 53, 54. 1879.

Hutchinson, J. Contributions towards a phylogenetic classification of flowering
plants: VI. A. The genera of Hydrangeaceae. Kew Bulletin. 1927: 100-
107. 1927.

. The Families of Flowering Plants, ed. 2. 1: pp. 510, Oxford, 1959.

Maekawa, F. Reduction in chromosomes and major polyploidy, their bearing on
plant evolution. Journal of the Faculty of Science, University of Tokyo. HI.
8: 377-398. 1963.

McClintock, E. The cultivated hydrangeas. Baileya. 4: 165-175. 1956.

. Hydrangeas. The National Horticultural Magazine. 36: 270-279. 1957.

. A monograph of the genus Hydrangea. Proceedings of the California

Academ}’ of Sciences. 29: 147-256. 1957.

Rehder, a. Manual of Cultivated Trees and Shrubs. Ed. 2, pp. 996. New York,
1947.

Sargent, C. S. The climbing Hydrangea. Gardener's Monthly. 21: 2. 1879.

Sax, K. Chromosome numbers in the ligneous Saxifragaceae. Journal of the
Arnold Arboretum. 12: 198-205. 1931.

Sealv, j. R. Decinnaria sinensis. Curtis's Botanical Magazine. 159: tab. 9J/.29.
1936.

SoLVMosY, S. L. Climbing Hydrangeas. American Horticultural Magazine. 43:
55. 1964.

Staff, O. Schizophragma integrifolia. Curtis's Botanical Magazine. 149: tab.
8991. 1924.

. Schizophragma viburnoides. Ibid. 155: tab. 9262. 1932.

W. The climbing hydrangea {Schizophragma hydrangeoides). The Garden. 15:
301. 1879.

Ward, L. F. Decumai'ia barbara. The Botanical Gazette. 7: 99, 100. 1882.

Wilson, E. H. Plant novelties from China. Horticulture. 11: 257, 258, 1910.

. Schizophragma hydrangeoides. Bulletin of Popular Information. Arnold

Arboretum. III. 2: 59, 60. 1928.

Wyman, D. Shrubs and Vines for American Gardens, pp. 442. New York, 1649.

Ground Cover Plants, pp. 175. New York. 1956.

Lorin I. Nevling, Jr.

[ ]

ARNOLDIA

A continuation of the
Bulletin of Popular Information
of the Arnold Arboretum, Harvard University

Volume 24 JULY 24, 1964 Numbers 6-8

REGISTRATION OF CULTIVAR NAMES IN ULMUS
P. S. Green

The compilation of a list of cultivar names in Ulmus has proved more
complex than might at first have been expected. One of the primary reasons for
this is that within the genus there is no unanimity of opinion over the delimitation
of species or the extent of spontaneous hybridization. However, several species
have been in cultivation for centuries and, within these, numerous varieties have
arisen. This contrasts with the situation in Fagus, the subject of the most recent
registration list to be published (Arnoldia 24 (1): 1-8. 1964) where only one
species was involved and where there were no problems of specific identity; in
Ulmus the identity of cultivars is often masked by confused synonymy at the
specific level.

The list of names which follows is primarily bibliographic in nature, giving
reference to the first place of publication that has been discovered for each name.
Ideally, perhaps, its formation should have gone hand in hand with attempts to
find and study authentic material of each clone so that correct specific identities
could have been ascertained and many questions of synonymy resolved. However,
it was never intended that the compilation should be accompanied by a taxonomic
revision of the genus Ulmus, and it must be stressed that the list, as published, is
almost completely based on the literature and not on the plants themselves.
That it may be dangerous to include taxonomic opinions in a purely bibliographic
list of names is illustrated by the misleading attempts to include synonymy in the
first volumes and supplements of the Index Kewensis. Nevertheless, in drawing
up this list of names in Ulmus, evidence of synonymy and specific identity has
often come to hand and it would be wrong not to mention it for the benefit of
other workers. It should be understood, however, that such information is given

[ 41 ]

RECEIVED

JUL 2 4 lybAl

librar'^

solely as a guide and is only very occasionally based on the sure evidence of

authentic material. In a few cases there appear to be conflicting opinions as to

the correct species to which a particular clone belongs, but, fortunately, with (

the names of cultivars all that is essential is the name of the genus followed by \

that of the clone, e.g. Ulmus ‘Acutifolia’ (or elm ‘Acutif olia’ ) , to take the first j
name in the list below. In this way, therefore, the few examples of conflicting j
identities cited in the text that follows may be referred to as Ulmus ‘Argenteo-
marginata’, U. ‘Christine Buisman’, U. ‘Klemmer’ and U. ‘Lombartsii’, or, where
the species is uncertain because of juvenile or other atypical foliage, as Ulmus i i
‘Myrtifolia’ and U. ‘Nana’.

Where reliable information on identity or synonymy is given it is often (
attributable to two correspondents to whom I would like to express my most )
sincere and grateful thanks. Dr. R. Melville, of the Royal Botanic Gardens at I
Kew, has given me much help and has kindly looked over an early draft of the
registration list. In many cases he has examined material in the Nicholson
Herbarium at Kew and has personal knowledge of the living trees. Much of the
evidence of his help will be seen here and there in the list, in the comments after
various names. To Mr. H. M. Heijbroek, of the Stichting Bosbouwproefstation
‘De Dorschkamp’, Baarn, Netherlands, I am likewise greatly indebted. To him
I also sent an early draft of the list and from him received many wise comments,
several additional names and much information concerning the elms of the Nether-
lands and adjoining regions. Though this list would have been considerably
poorer without the help of Mr. Heijbroek and Dr. Melville, any mistakes, errors,
and omissions are attributable to me and the responsibility for the opinions >

expressed is mine alone. I should also like to take the opportunity to thank <•

numerous nurserymen and other correspondents who have cooperated and helped 1
with information about the origin of various cultivars and the publication of their i
names, together with the provision, in many cases, of living plants or specimens.
These correspondents are too numerous to mention personally but the nurseries
they represent are often cited in the list which follows and my appreciative thanks
is expressed to them all.

The taxonomy of Ulmus is far from simple and there is no general unanimity
over the correct botanical names. Dr. Melville, of Kew, has studied the genus for
many years, especially in Britain, where the situation appears to be most complex,
and a number of papers have presented some of the conclusions he has reached.
However, these conclusions are still being debated by other botanists and the
resultant lack of agreement, while it does not affect the names of cultivars, does
mean that the nomenclature of the species to which they may be attributed is
unstable. In an attempt to overcome this difficulty I have endeavored, wherever ’
a name used by Melville is different from that given by Rehder in his Manual of
Cultivated Trees ir Shrubs (ed. 2, 1940) to give both names as equivalent
synonyms. In this way it is hoped that cultivars can be placed in their botanical
species correctly, whether the more revolutionary classification of Melville is
followed or the widely known arrangement as published by Rehder.

Because of the frequent difficulty in ascertaining positively the species to

[ 42 ]

which a cultivar should be assigned, it has been deemed advisable in this list to
arrange the names in one single alphabetical series. Previous registration lists
published in this journal (with the exception of that of Fagus) have listed the
species alphabetically with the appropriate cultivars arranged under each specific
name. In the list which follows the specific identity, or suggested identity, is
given (in italic type) at the end of the paragraph which follows each accepted
name. Such accepted names are printed in Large and Small Capitals, while
synonyms are listed in Roman type, followed after the bibliographic reference,
by an indication of the name to which it is believed it should be applied.

In the majority of cases only a single reference is given after each name: that of
the first printed publication of the name that has been discovered; but where this
was not accompanied by a description, the first reference is followed in the list by
a second, indicating where the first description was provided. Most of the names
in the list are in Latin form, governable by the International Code of Botanical
Nomenclature, but more recently, and in a relatively few cases, some of these
Latin names have been formally proposed at the rank of cultivar; where this has
also been done, additional reference is given to the first such publication.

It has been the experience of colleagues compiling registration lists of cultivars
that each new list raises problems which have not previously been apparent.
This elm list is no exception and a point which has first arisen with this list is the
realization that the word “hybrid” is unsuitable as part of a cultivar name.
Article 21 of the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants ( 1961 )
makes it inadmissible to include the words “variety” and “form” in new cultivar
names. To this article should be added the word “hybrid” (see ‘Broadleaf
Hybrid’ in the list below) and a proposal to this effect has been made to the
Secretary of the International Commission for the Nomenclature of Cultivated
Plants, for consideration when amendments to the Code are next discussed. In
addition to this, it has seemed to me, that as cultivar names may correctly be
associated with generic names and in either Latin or a modern language, it is
inadvisable to include the actual name of the genus in any new name. The name
‘Huntingdon Elm’ was formally proposed in 1961 but when cited as “elm
‘Huntingdon Elm’ ” we have a mild tautonym; the word “Huntingdon” alone
would have been preferable. It is doubtful whether a formal proposal for the
amendment of the Code is necessary to guard against this, for Article 21a may
possibly be interpreted as preventing such tautonymy, even though it is clear that
the intention of the article was to outlaw the inclusion of names of other genera
in those of a cultivar.

Another point which has arisen in the compilation of this list is the problem of
Latin names proposed in the ablative case. The International Code of Nomen-
clature for Cultivated Plants has a starting date earlier than that of the Botanical
Code: that of the sixth edition of Philip Miller’s The Gardeners Dictionary, 1752.
Several names (e.g. eleganter variegate) have been taken from that work for
inclusion in this list but the nomenclature is not binomial and the names take the
form of descriptive phrases. However, the use of the ablative case in Latin
names did not end with the establishment of binomial nomenclature, but,

[ 43 ]

especially for varieties based on leaf color, continued throughout the 19th century.
In this list the liberty has been taken to make these names agree grammatically
with the generic name Ulmus. Authority is given in the Code for Cultivated Plants
(Art. 16) to correct names in Latin form which are not in accordance with the
Rules and Recommendations of the Botanical Code and although the case of
names in the ablative is not cited, the article is considered as granting authority for
such changes.

It has several times proved difficult to decide what actually constitutes a name
intended for what is today called a cultivar. Ulmus ‘Modiolina’ was referred to as
“I’onne tortillard” by Duhamel du Monceau as early as 1804 (Traite Arb. Arbust.
ed. 2. 2: 144). Should ‘Tortillard’, therefore, have been listed below, or is it
Duhamel’s descriptive “common” name, comparable to the name “Fernleaf Elm”
(Ulmus ‘Crispa’)? Similar in some ways are the numerous specimen trees which
have been given individual names from time to time, usually based on those of the
places or family estates in which they were growing, but often named for their
historic associations. This is particularly true of several fine examples of U.
americana in the eastern U.S.A. but it is believed that because they have been
propagated clonally, only two have warranted inclusion in this list (‘Markham’
and ‘Washington’). It is interesting to note that these two are not distinguished
by any special morphological characteristics and that they are distinct solely by
virtue of the place where they were originally growing.

In contrast to this there are almost certainly a number of cultivars which have
never been named. This was pointed out to me by Mr. Heijbroek, for elms have
been propagated and grown as roadside trees in the Netherlands and Flanders for
many centuries. Manv of these clones have received names which have been
published, e.g. ‘Klemmer’ and ‘Malines’, but there are others as yet unnamed and
unlisted. In one case, that of ‘Schuurhoek’, one of these nameless clones has been
retaken into cultivation relatively recently and named.

Decisions about the synonymy of the many cultivars distinguished by their leaf
variation or habit of growth have been veiy difficult to reach. It is possible that at
different times more than one clone has been known by the same name and during
the last two hundred vears or so vei*v similar sports may have arisen more than
once in each species. Any information which will help clarify the identity of
these plants will be most welcome.

According to the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants,
a particular name can be correct for only one cultivar, and, if it has been given
to more than one, the other usages must be treated as synonyms. In the list that
follows it will be readily seen that certain names have been used over and over
again for different clones ( for example ‘Pendula’ has been proposed eight times ) .
Fortunately the Code for Cultivated Plants does not bind one rigidly to a rule of
priority, as does the Botanical Code, and by the selection of a later well known
name it has often been possible to reduce the duplication of acceptable names.
However, in other cases this has proved impossible. The obvious way out would
be to propose new names to replace the duplicates, but there is a chance that
some of the clones no longer exist and such names would then be supeiHuous.

[ 44 ]

It is believed that it would be wrong, in a bibliographic compilation such as this,
to propose new names, either because the plants may no longer- be in cultivation
anywhere or because the study of living material may yet show that some of the
duplicate names are in fact synonyms of others which are unambiguous. For the
present at least all that is necessary for precision is the citation of the name of the
species as well as that of the genus. Whenever possible in this registration list
alternative names have been chosen to reduce synonymy but in the following
eight cases this has proved impracticable. ‘Argenteo-variegata’ is a well known
name in Ulmus procera, but amongst other plants it has also been used as the
name for a white-variegated form which is probably assignable to U. X viminalis,
yet is possibly no longer in cultivation. ‘Aurea’ is also known as the name for a
cultivar of U. procera, and is one of the relatively few that have been formally
proposed as such at this rank, but it clashes with a variety of U. americana which
has no synonym and may not be in cultivation today. ‘Aureo-variegata’ has been
used for clones in three different species ((7. X hollandica, U. laevis and U. X
viminalis) and for all three there are no published synonyms. With the name
‘Pendula’ the duplication has been reduced in most cases by taking up synonyms,
but in both U. carpinifolia and U. pumila, ‘Pendula’ has been formally proposed
as a cultivar name and in neither case is there a known synonym. Similarly there
are no known alternatives for ‘Pyramidalis’ of either Audibert or Gibbs, although
the identity of the former is somewhat dubious. In ‘Rugosa’ two authorities and
references are listed below but there is possible doubt about their distinctness, the
published descriptions being hardly diagnostic. Lastly, in ‘Variegata’, although
the name has been proposed some seven different times, five of them are disposed
of as synonyms of other names, but of the two which remain, one is little known
and perhaps misidentified as to species in this list, whilst the other may well have
been used at different times for more than one clone of U. carpinifolia.

Many names have been considered for inclusion and rejected on the grounds
that either the botanical rank of varietas is most appropriate or because the
plants have never been in cultivation. All authorities list Ulmus pumila L. var.
arborea Litvinov (17. pinnato-ramosa Dieck) as a botanical variety yet it is possible
that, in modem terms, it does not warrant recognition at this rank but is a variant
of U. pumila maintained and known only in cultivation, and therefore best treated
as a cultivar. There is a widespread misunderstanding that all cultivars must
have arisen in cultivation. It is agreed that this is tme in the vast majority of
cases, but all that is required for recognition as a cultivar is that the plant be
under cultivation, unsuitable for treatment at any of the taxonomic ranks under
the Botanical Code, yet in need of a distinctive name.

Finally, some comment should be made about the inclusion of the epithets
fungosa and suberosa in the list. The development of corky wings on branches is
a juvenile character which has appeared in different individual plants of Ulmus
carpinifolia and other related elms. There is no doubt that the name suberosa
has been applied to cultivated clones, but not always to the same one. As a
name it should be dropped from use, except perhaps at the botanical rank of
forma, yet even there it is hardly appropriate. The corky wings may be exhibited

by sucker shoots throughout the life of the plant yet they are still primarily a
juvenile character and as such are comparable with the Retinospora-iorms of
conifers.

A list of this size and type can hardly be compiled without some errors and
misinterpretations, and for this reason any comments, corrections or additions
will be gratefully received. It is hoped, however, that this registration list will
help towards nomenclatural stability for the numerous cultivated varieties and at
the very least, will aid in preventing future duplication.

Botanical Names and their Authorities Referred to in the
Registration List

Ulmiis americana L.

U. angustifolia (Weston) Weston var. cornubiensis (Weston) Melville {U. car-
pinifolia Gled. var. cornubiensis (Weston) Rehder)

U. carpinifolia Gleditsch

U. X elegantissima Horwood {U. glabra Huds. X plotii Druce)

U. glabra Hudson

U. X hollandica Miller {U. carpinifolia Gled. X glabra Huds. X plotii Druce)

U. laevis Pallas
U. parvifolia Jacquin
U. procera Salisbury
U. pumila L.

U. rubra Muhlenberg

U. X sarniensis (Loudon) Bancroft (17. angustifolia (West.) West. X hollandica
Mill.)

{U. carpinifolia Gled. forma sarniensis (Loud.) Rehd.)

U. X vegeta (Loud.) Lindley (U. carpinifolia Gled. X glabra Huds.)

([/. X hollandica Mill. var. vegeta (Loud.) Rehd.)

V. X viminalis Loddiges (C7. carpinifolia Gled. X plotii Druce)

{U. procera Salisb. var. viminalis (Lodd.) Rehd.)

REGISTRATION LIST OF GULTIVARS IN ULMUS

‘Acutifolia’ (Masters, Hort. Duroverni 66. 1831, as U. campestris acutifolia,
without description; Mottet in Nicholson & Mottet, Diet. Prat. Hort. 5: 383.
1898. Described as having the leaves of mature trees narrower and the branches
more pendulous. U. procera.

[ 46 ]

‘Adiantifolia’ (Kirchner in Petzold & Kii'chner, Arb. Muscav. 563. 1864, as U.
adiantifolia Hort., name in synonymy) = ‘Crispa".

‘Alata’ (Kirchner in Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 566. 1864, as “17. montana
alata” without description). Possibly a juvenile form of U. carpinifolia, (see
under suberosa) .

‘Alba’ (Kirchner in Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 559. 1864, as U. fulva
Hort. var. alba Hort., without description). A specimen in Herb. Nicholson at
Kew has been identified by Dr. Melville as a rather broad leaved U. X vegeta
(that is U. X hollandica var. vegeta sensu Rehder).

‘Alba’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 6. 286. 1958, as U. carpinifolia sarniensis alba).
Mistake for sarniensis aurea = ‘Dicksonii’.

‘Albo-dentata’ (Baudriller, Angers, France, Cat. 43, p. 117. 1880, as U. micro-
phylla foliis alb o -dent atis, without description). Called the small-leaved elm
with silver teeth. Later described as a small tree, the leaves with white margins
and spots. U. carpinifolia.

‘Albo-variegata’ (Weston, Bot. Univ. 1: 315. 1770, as U. glabra var. albo-
varieg. ) . Described as having leaves striped with white. U. glabra.

‘Albo-variegata’ (Weston, Bot. Univ. 1: 315. 1770, as U. hollandica var. albo-
varieg.) = ‘Eleganto-variegata’.

‘Alksuth’ (Dieck, Zoschen, Germany, Haupt-Cat. 1885, p. 81, as U. scabra
forma von Alksuth Hort.). Described as having acute-rounded leaves with a
number of, sometimes almost thread-like, teeth. Possibly U. carpinifolia.

‘Amplifolia’ (Meded. Comite Best. Bestr. lepenz. 10: 9. 1932, as U. foliacea
var. amplifolia [not seen] ) . Received from Hesse’s Nurseries, Weener, Ger-
many, and said to have very short internodes with crowded leaves. U. carpini-
folia.

‘Androssowii’ (Litvinov in Sched. Herb. Fl. Ross. 8: 23, no. 2445. t. 2. 1922, as
U. Androssowi) . Described as having a very dense spherical crown and pubes-
cent leaves. Used as a street tree in Samarkand in 1913. According to Lozina-
Lozinskaia (in Sokolov, Trees & Shrubs in the U.S.S.R. [in Russian] 2: 506.
1951) unknown in the wild and apparently a hybrid between U. densa and
U. pumila.

‘Angustifolia’ (Weston, Bot. Univ. 1: 315. 1770, as U. hollandica var. angusti-
folia). Described as having narrow leaves. U. X hollandica.

‘Ansaloni’ (Ansaloni Nurseries, Bologna, Italy, Cat. 1935, p. 23, as “Olmo
Siberiano Ansaloni”). Said to Rave been introduced from the Far East about
1930 and to be a quick growing variant with a compact crown which holds
its leaves well into the autumn. U. pumila.

‘Antarctica’ (Kirchner in Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 551. 1864, as U.
antarctica Hort.) = ‘Viminalis’.

[ 47 ]

‘Antarctica Aurea’ (Hartwig, 111. Geholzb. ed. 2. 391. 1892, as U. campestris
var. antarctica aurea A.M.). Described as a golden-eolored ‘Antarctica’, =
‘Aurea’.

‘Antarctica Pendula’ (Hartwig, 111. Geholzb. ed. 2. 391. 1892, as U. campestris
var. antarctica pendula Hort.). Described as the pendulous ‘Antarctica’, =
‘VIMINALIS’?

‘Argentea’ (Bean, Kew Hand-List Trees & Shrubs, ed. 3. 275. 1925, as U. vimin-
alis var. argentea, without description). = ‘Viminalis marginata’.

‘Argenteo-maculata’ (Audibert, Tonelle, France, Gat. 1817, p. 23, as U. campes-
tris var. argenteo-maculata, without description) . Referred to as the striped elm.
= U. procera ‘Argenteo-variegata’?

‘Argenteo-marginata’ (Deegen in Deutsch. Mag. Gart. Blumenk. 1879: 60. pi.
1879, as U. campestris elegans argenteo-marginatis) . Described as having the
leaves bordered with white, and in a later reference, as rather strongly rough,
weakly hairy below, measuring 6-8 by 3-4 cm. U. carpinifolia or, possibly,
U. X hollandica.

‘Argenteo-marmorata’ (Schelle in Beissner et ah, Handb. Laubh.-Benenn. 83.
1903, as U. campestris argenteo-marmorata Hort., without description) =
‘M ARM grata’.

‘Argenteo-variegata’ (Weston, Bot. Univ. 1: 314. 1770, as U. campestris
argenteo-var.; Kriissmann in Parey’s Blumengartn. ed. 2. 1: 519. 1958, as a
cv.) . Said to have originated in England by 1677 and to have leaves striped and
spotted with white. U. procera.

‘Argenteo-variegata’ (Weston, Bot. Univ. 1: 314. 1770, as U. campestris var.
angustifolia argenteo-var.). Described as the silver-striped, narrow-rough-
leaved Elm. Probably a cultivar of U. X viminalis {U. carpinifolia X plotii,
that is U. procera var. viminalis sensu Rehder) and then possibly = ‘Viminalis
Marginata’.

‘Argenteo-variegata’ (Bean, Kew Hand-List Trees & Shrubs, ed. 3. 273. 1925, as
U. nitens var. argenteo-variegata, without description) = U. carpinifolia
‘Variegata’.

‘Argenteo-variegata’ (Weston, Fl. Angl. 46. 1775, as U. glabra var. argenteo-
variegata) = U. glabra ‘Albo-variegata’.

‘Argenteo-variegata’ (Weston, Fl. Angl. 46. 1775, as U. belgica var. argenteo-
variegata) = ‘Eleganto-variegata’.

‘Ascendens’ (Slavin, Am. Midi. Nat. 12: 225. 1931, as a form). Lateral branches
small and fastigiate, forming a narrow oval head. Name given originally to a
tree growing, in 1927, in Seneca Park, Rochester, New York. U. americana.

‘Aspera’ (Loddiges, Hackney, London, Gat. 1823, p. 35, as U. stricta aspera,
without description). Possibly U. procera.

I 48 ]

"Asplenifolia’ (Rehder in Bailey, Cycl. Amer. Hort. (4): 1881. 1902, as U. aspleni-
folia Hort., in synonymy) = ‘Crisp a’.

‘Atropurpurea’ (Spath, Berlin, Germany, Cat. 55, p. 2. 1882, as U. montana
atropiirpiirea; Boom, Ned. Dendr. 1: 157. 1959, as a ev.). Said to have dark
purple, folded leaves, and to have originated in Germany about 1881. 17.
glabra.

‘Augustine’ (Proe. Am. Assoc. Nurserymen 174. 1951 [Woody Plant Register
No. 267] ). Originated by selection at Bloomington, Illinois, in 1927. Described
elsewhere as differing most strikingly in its fastigiate habit, more vigorous
growth, stouter twigs and larger, more deeply toothed leaves. U . americana.

‘Augustine Ascending’ (Weston in Horticulture, 11. 30: 448. 1952) = ‘Augustine’.

‘Aurea’ (Temple ex Rehder in Bailey, Cycl. Amer. Hort. (4): 1880. 1902, as a
var.). Described as having yellow foliage and originally found in Venuont by
F. L. Temple. U. americana.

‘Aurea’ (Morren in Belg. Hort. 16: 356. t. 19. 1866, as U. campestris var. aurea;
Kriissmann in Parey’s Blumengartn. ed. 2. 1: 519. 1958, as a cv.). Described
as having golden-yellow leaves, occasionally approaching bronze, branchlets
drooping. Originated by Mr. Egide Rosseels at Loewen in Belgium about the
middle of the last century. U. X mminalis (that is U. procera var. viminalis
sensu Rehder).

‘Aurea’ (Hillier and Sons, Winchester, England, Cat. Autumn 1914- Spring 1915,
p. 24, as U. campestris sarniensis aurea). Dickson’s Golden Elm = ‘Dicksonii’.

‘Aurea Roezlii’ (James Dickson, Chester, England, Cat. 340, p. 38. 1887, as
U. campestris aurea Roezlii). Probably an error for aurea Rosseelsii = ‘Ros-

SEELSIl’.

‘Aureo-variegata’ (Weston, Bot. Univ. 1: 315. 1770, as U. hollandica var.
aureo-varieg.) . Described as having leaves variegated with yellow. U. X
hollandica.

‘Aureo-variegata’ (Schelle in Beissner et ah, Handb. Laubh.-Benenn. 87. 1903,
as U. effusa f. aureo-variegata Hort., without description; Henry in Elwes &
Henry, Trees Gr. Brit. Irel. 7: 1853. 1913). Described as having leaves spotted
with yellow. U. laevis.

‘Aureo-variegata’ (Weston, Bot. Univ. 1: 314. 1770, as U. campestris aureo-var.)
= ‘Folia Aurea’.

‘Aureo-variegata’ (Weston, Bot. Univ. 1: 315. 1770, as U. campestris var.
angustifolia aureo-varieg.). Described as the gold-striped narrow-rough-leaved
Elm. Probably a cultivar of U. X viminalis (that is U. procera var. viminalis
sensu Rehder).

‘Aureo-variegata’ (Weston, FI. Angl. 46. 1775, as U. glabra var. aureo-variegata)
= ‘Luteo-variegata’.

‘Aurescens’ (Dieck, Neuheiten-OflFerten, Nat.-Arb. Zoschen, Germany, 1894-95,
p. 12, as U. pinnato-ramosa f. aurescens) . Described as having the leaves of
emergent shoots yellow^ish. Originated in the National Arboretum, Zdschen, near
Merseburg, Germany. U. pumila.

‘Australis’ (Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1398. 1838, as U. montana var. australis
Hort.). Described as having “rather small leaves and a more pendulous habit
of growth than the species”. U. glabra.

‘Bataviana’ ( Simon-Louis, Metz, France, Gat. 1869, as U. campestris bataviana,
without description) = ‘Belgica’.

‘Batavina’ (Koch, Dendr. 2 (1): 414. 1872, as U. batavina) = ‘Belgica’.

‘Bea Schwarz’ (J. G. Went in Ned. Staatscourant, 4 Nov. 1948, no. 214 [not
seen] and in Meded. Gomite Best. Bestr. lepenz. 44: 6. 1949 [not seen];
Kriissmann in Parey’s Blumengartn. ed. 2. 1: 519. 1958, as a cv.). A selec-
tion raised by the elm disease committee in the Netherlands from French
seed, about 1945, for its resistance to Dutch Elm Disease, issued in 1948, and
said to be slightly hardier than ‘Ghristine Buisman’. Earlier referred to as
“Glone no. 62.” U. X hollandica.

‘Beaverlodge’ (Kept. 11th Annual Meeting of the West Canadian Society for
Horticulture 1955 [not seen] ) . Selected in 1925 as a seedling from the Experi-
mental Station, Morden, Manitoba, for its hardiness and vigor with an upright,
moderately spreading head. Introduced by the Experimental Farm, Research
Branch, Canada Dept, of Agriculture, Beaverlodge, in 1954. U. americana.

‘Beere’s Weeping’ (Meehan in Garden & Forest 2: 286. 1889, as “Beebe’s Weep-
ing Elm” and U. fulva pendula) . Described as having branches which are
thick and cord-like but curve over as they grow, much as those in the Weeping
Willow. Propagated by grafting from a tree growing wild near Galena, Illinois,
collected by Mr. E. Beebe. U. americana.

‘Belgica’ (Weston, FI. Angl. 46. 1775, as U. belgica, without description; Kriiss-
mann in Parey’s Blumengartn. ed. 2. 1: 519. 1958, as a cv.). As an epithet under
the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature belgica is an obligate syn-
onym of U. X hollandica but as the International Code of Nomenclature for
Cultivated Plants is independent of the Botanical Code the name is here main-
tained as a cultivar for the clone widely grown and known as such in the
Netherlands. U. X hollandica.

‘Berardii’ (Simon-Louis, Metz, France, Cat. 1869, p. 96. fig. 7. 1869, as U. Ber-
ardii; Kriissmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 539. 1962, as a cv.). Raised in the
nursery of Messrs. Simon-Louis, near Metz, in 1863. A bushy tree with slender
upright branches. Judging from dried speciments of this plant it is possibly a
form of U. pumila.

‘Betulaefolia’ (Loddiges, Hackney, London, Cat. 1836 [not seen]; Loudon, Arb.
Frut. Brit. 3: 1376. 1838, as U. campestris var. betulaefolia). Described as

having “leaves somewhat resembling those of the common birch,” and again as
“a tree of pyramidal habit with ascending branches and elliptic to elliptic-
oblong leaves 4-8 cm. long, narrowed toward the unequal base.” Probably
U. X viminalis (that is U. procera var. viminalis sensu Rehder) to which, ac-
cording to Dr. Melville, the tree growing under this name at Kew may be
attributed.

‘Betulinoides’ (Dieck, Zdschen, Germany, Haupt-Cat. Nachtrag I, 1887, p. 28)
= U. carpinifolia ‘Betulaefolia’.

‘Betuloides’ (Kirchner in Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 553. 1864, as U.
suberosa hetuloides Hort., name in synonymy) = ‘Betulaefolia’.

‘Biltii’ (Groenewegen en Zoon, de Bilt, Netherlands, Gat. 1921-22, as U. camp-
estris Bilti [not seen] ) . Selected by Bernard Groenewegen in his nursery at de
Bilt, possibly from French seedlings. Said to have a compact, pyramidal crown,
not unlike the Cornish Elm, with dark green, nearly round, and crowded
leaves. Tips of young shoots with a purplish-bronze tinge, contrasting with the
yellowish-green young leaves. U. carpinifolia.

‘Biltii’ (Pierre Lombarts, Royal Nurseries, Zundert, Netherlands, Cat. 1959-60,
p. 83). Error for ‘Biltii’.

‘Bitchuiense’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 5. 253. 1949). Mistake for Viburnum
bitchiuense.

‘Boulevard’ (Rosehill Gardens, Kansas, Missouri, Cat. Spring 1960 [not seen])
= ‘Rosehill’.

‘Brea’ (Keeline-Wilcox Nursery, Brea, California, Cat. Winter 1952 [not seen])
= ‘Drake’.

‘Broadleaf Hybrid’ (E. L. Kammerer in Bull. Pop. Inf. Morton Arb. 36 (5): 25.
1961). Found in a nursery row in 1938 or 1939 at the Neosho Nurseries,
Neosho, Missouri, who state that it is a bud sport of U. pumila and not a hybrid
as the name suggests. = ‘Green King’.

‘Bubyriana’ (Litvinov in Sched. Herb. Fl. Ross. 8: 23, no. 2444. t. 2. 1922, as
U. densa var. Bubyriana). Described from a cultivated tree in Samarkand,
Turkestan. Mentioned by Lozina-Lozinskaia (in Sokolov, Trees & Shrubs in
the U.S.S.R. [in Russian] 2: 505. 1951) under U. densa, as a cultivated form,
but by lanuolenko (in Komarov, Fl. U.S.S.R. 5: 369. 1936) as a cultivated form
closer to U. campestris umbraculifera than U. densa. Furthermore Litvinov
(in Sched. Herb. Fl. Ross. 6: 163, no. 1991. 1908) states that he believes the
plant called “Narwan” in Persia, and which in 1922 he called var. bubyriana
to be the same as the “Narband” of Trautvetter which is the latter’s var. um-
braculifera. = ‘Umbraculifera’.

‘Buisman’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 6. 285. 1958, without description) = ‘Chris-
tine Buisman’.

[ 51 ]

‘Burejaecticum’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 5. 253. 1949). Mistake for Viburnum
burejaeticum.

‘Bush’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 5. 253. 1949, as U. glabra Bush, without descrip-
tion) = ‘Nana’.

‘Buxifolia’ (Nicholson, Kew Hand-List Trees & Shrubs 2: 135. 1896, as U. btixi-
folia Hort., in synonymy, without description) = ‘Myrtifolia’.

‘Camperdown’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 5. 253. 1949, as U. glabra Camper-
down) = ‘Camperdownii’.

‘Camperdownii’ (Rehder in Bailey, Cycl. Amer. Hort. (4): 1881. 1902, as U.
camperdownii Hort.; Kriissmann in Parey’s Blumengartn. ed. 2. 1: 519. 1958,
as a cv.). The Camperdown Elm. Described as “having branches and branch-
lets pendulous, forming a globose head, in marked contrast to the flat stiff-
looking crown of var. pendula’" Originated at Camperdown House, near Dun-
dee, Scotland, about 1850. A nothomorph of 17. X vegeta (that is, U. X hol-
landica var. vegeta sensu Rehder) with close similarity to U. glabra.

‘Cebennensis’ (Audibert, Tonelle, France, Cat. Arb. 2, p. 53. 1831-32, as U.
campestris var. cebennensis, without description; Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3:
1398. 1838). The Cevennes Elm. “Its habit is spreading like that of U. mon-
tana vulgaris but it appears of much less vigorous growth.” U. glabra.

‘Chinkota’ (South Dakota Farm & Home Research 7: 14. 1955, but named pre-
viously by the South Dakota Farm Forestiy Council). A line selected at South
Dakota State Experiment Station from ‘Harbin Strain’ for its early ripening
habit and tendency to remain doiTnant until after severe spring frosts are passed;
distributed by the Station as certified seed. Said by some to be the same as
‘Dropmore’. U. pumila.

‘Christine Buisman’ (Meded. Comite Best. Bestr. lepenz. 26: 1. 1938 [not seen]
and J. C. Went in Phytopath. Zeits. 11 (2): 188. 1938 [not seen]; Boom, Ned.
Dendr. 1: 158. 1959, as a cv.). A selection made by Dr. Christine Buisman at
the Phytopathology Laboratory “Willie Commelin Scholten,” Baarn, Nether-
lands, from plants grown from seed collected in Madrid, Spain, in 1928. Re-
leased to growers after her death in 1937, and referred to in earlier reports as
“no. 24.” Resistant to Dutch elm disease. Attributed by Dr. Melville to U. X
hollandica and by others to U. carpinifolia.

‘Cicestria’ (W. A. & J. Mackie, Norwich, Cat. 1812, p. 59, as U. campestris var.
cicestria, without description) = ‘Vegeta’.

‘Cinerea’ (Andre Leroy Nurseries, Angers, France, Cat. 1856, p. 70, as U. drier ea,
without description; Planchon in De Candolle, Prodr. 17: 160. 1873). Said to
have branches which are “stunted and tortuous, the upper ascending, the lower
more or less pendulous. Leaves crowded and similar to those of var. fastigiata
from which var. cinerea appears to differ only in not being fastigate in habit.”
The tree of this cultivar at Kew is U. X hollandica.

‘Cinerea’ (Kirchner in Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 565. 1864, as U. cinerea
Hort., name in synonymy) = ‘Nigra’.

‘Clemmeri’ (Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 235. 1877, as U. campestris var. Clemmeri,
without description) = ‘Klemmer’.

‘Cochleata’ (C. de Vos, Handbook 204. 1887 [not seen]) = ‘Cucullata’.

‘CoLORANs’ (Kirchner in Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 559. 1864, as U. effusa
var. colorans) . Described as turning a beautiful scarlet red in the autumn, not
golden. U. laevis.

‘CoLUMNARis’ (Rehder in Jour. Arnold Arb. 3: 42. 1921, as a form). Described
as a columnar form discovered by Mr. John Dunbar inside a garden wall at
Conesus Lake, New York. U. americana.

‘Commelin’ ( Bosbouwproefstation Baarn ex Boom, Ned. Dendr. 1: 158. 1959,
as a cv.). This cultivar has a fair resistance to Dutch Elm Disease and was
selected for this at the Phytopathology Laboratory “Willie Commelin Schol-
ten” at Baarn, Netherlands. Derived from a cross between U. X vegeta and a
selected French seedling of U. carpinifolia, made in 1940, at the Laboratory
of Genetics, Wageningen; it differs from ‘Vegeta’ in the narrower habit, the
darker gray branches, the duller and brown branchlets, the smaller leaves, the
smaller number of veins (9-12) and the pilose undersides of the leaves. U. X
vegeta (that is, U. X hollandica var. vegeta sensu Rehder).

‘Concavaefolia’ (Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1378. 1838, as U. campestris var.
concavaefolia Hort.). Described as resembling var. cucullata. U. carpinifolia.

‘Coolshade’ (Sarcoxie Nurseries, Sarcoxie, Missouri, Cat. 1951, p. 6). Originated
in 1946 from the parent tree growing in the Sarcoxie Nurseries, and said to be
of rapid, stocky growth with a compact top resistant to breakage under ice and
snow and foliage a much darker green. Said to be a hybrid of U. pumila X
rubra.

‘Cornubiensis’ ([Weston] Boom, Ned. Dendr. 1: 158. 1959, as a cv.). The Corn-
ish Elm. More correctly placed in the botanical rank of variety: U. angustifolia
(Weston) Weston var. cornubiensis (Weston) Melville {U. carpinifolia Gled.
var. cornubiensis (Weston) Rehder).

‘Cornubiensis Parvifolia’ (Boulger in Card. Chron. H. 12: 298. 1879, as U.
campestris cornubiensis parvifolia, without description). Probably U. angusti-
folia.

‘Cornuta’ (David in Revue Hort. H. 4: 102. 1845, as U. campestris cornuta;
Boom, Ned. Dendr. 1: 157. 1959, as a cv.). The large leaves have two long
projections or lobes on the shoulders or apex. U. glabra.

‘Corylifolia’ (Host, FI. Austr. 1; 329. 1827, as U. corylifolia) . Described as
having broad-ovate, scabrid leaves, doubly toothed with broad, obtuse teeth.

[ 53 ]

Later as having “leaves 8X6 cm., rather crowded, usually slightly rough and
similar to scabra [glabra] but according to the texture, position and fruits,
belonging to glabra [carpinifolia] U. glabra.

‘Corylifolia’ (Zapelowicz, Conspec. Fl. Galic. 2: 98. 1908, as U. montana var.
corylifolia, not U. corylifolia Host) = ‘Cornuta’.

‘CoRYLiFOLiA Purpurea’ (Pynacrt in Tijdschr. Boomteelt. [Bull. Arb. Flor. Cult.
Potag.] 1879: 57. 1879, as U. campestris corylifolia purpurea). Described as
having large purplish leaves resembling those of a Hazel in shape. Raised from
seed of ‘Purpurea’. U. glabra.

‘Cretensis’ (Nicholson, Kew Hand-List Trees & Shrubs 2: 135. 1896, as U.
campestris var. cretensis Hort., without description).

‘Crispa’ (Willdenow, Enum. PI. Hort. Berol. 295. 1809, as U. crispa; Kriissmann,
Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 536. 1962, as a cv.). The Fernleaf Elm. Leaves narrow,
incisely serrate with twisted and incurved teeth; of slow growth. U. glabra.

‘Crispa Aria’ (Maxwell ex Jour. Roy. Hort. Soc. 18: 91. 1895, as U. montana var.
crispa aria, without description). Error for ‘Crispa Aurea’?

‘Crispa Aurea’ (Schelle in Beissner et ah, Handb. Laubh.-Benenn. 86. 1903, as
U. montana crispa aurea Hort., without description; Schneider, Ulus. Handb.
Laubh. 1: 217. 1904) . Described as “like f. crispa but with more or less golden
leaves.” U. glabra.

‘Crispa Incisa’ (Koch, Dendr. 2 (1): 416. 1872, as U. crispa incisa, name in
synonymy) = ‘Exoniensis’.

‘Cucullata’ (Loddiges, Hackney, England, Cat. 1823, p. 35, as U. campestris
cucullata, without description; Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1378. 1838, as
U. campestris var. cucullata). “Has the leaves curiously curved, something like
a hood.” U. carpinifolia.

‘Cucullata Folia Variegata’ (C. de Vos, Woordenbook 135. 1867, as U. americana
cucullata fol. var.) = ‘Cucullata Variegata’.

‘Cucullata Variegata’ (Schelle in Beissner et ah, Handb. Laubh.-Benenn. 82.
1903, as U. campestris concavifolia cucullata variegata Hort., without descrip-
tion). U. carpinifolia.

‘Dampier’ (Plant Buyer’s Cuide, ed. 6. 1285. 1958, as U. carpinifolia Dampier,
without description) = ‘Dampieri’.

‘Dampieri’ (Wesmael in Bull. Fed. Soc. Hort. Belg. 1862: 389. 1863, as U. cam-
pestris var. nuda subvar. fastigiata Dampieri Hort. Vilv.; Boom, Ned. Dendr.
1: 158. 1959, as as cv.). Described as a narrow pyramidal tree, leaves crowded
on short branchlets, broadly ovate, deeply and doubly toothed with crenately
serrate teeth. Specimens in the Kew herbarium from cultivation have been
determined by Dr. Melville as U. X hollandica.

‘Dampieri Aiirea’ (Wrede ex Jager & Beissner, Ziergeh. Gart. & Park. ed. 2. 403.
1884, as U. montana var. Dampieri aurea) = ‘Wredei’.

‘Dauvessei’ (Nicholson in Kew Hand-List Trees & Shrubs 2: 139. 1896, as U.
montana var. Dauvessei Hort., without description; Henry in Elwes & Henry,
Trees Gr. Brit. Irel. 7: 1874. 1913; Kriissmann in Parey’s Blumengartn. ed. 2. 1:
519. 1958, as a cv.). Described as having branches ascending, forming a broad
pyramidal tree. Leaves smaller and thinner in texture than L7. glabra, rarely
exceeding 4 in. long and 2% in. wide, with petioles up to % in. long. U. X
hollandica.

‘Dauvessi’ (Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 235. 1877, as U. campestris var. Dativessi
Hort., without description) = ‘Dauvessei’.

‘Decumbens’ (Masters, Hort. Duroverni 67. 1831, as var. decumbens, without de-
scription, name in synonymy) = ‘Horizontalis’.

‘De Dumont’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 6. 286. 1958, without description) =
‘Dumont’.

‘Densa’ (Litvinov in Sched. Herb. Fl. Ross. 6: 163, no. 1991. t.l, 2. 1908, as U.
densa). Maintained at specific rank by Lozina-Lozinskaia (in Sokolov, Trees
& Shrubs in the U.S.S.R. [in Russian] 2: 504. 1951) and by Mulkidjanian (in
Takhtajan, Fl. Armenia [in Russian] 4: 341. 1962) but stated to be unknown
in the wild and maintained in cultivation solely by budding on U. carpinifolia.
In Armenia there are said to be two forms; the typical one with a few main
branches which are much branched in the upper part, with dense foliage of
thicker and darker leaves and almost sterile. The other much branched from
the place of the graft but on the whole with a less dense more uniformly
developed crown, the leaves less leathery and lighter and with fruit produced
almost every year. Probably the former is Litvinov’s U. densa var. bubyriana,
despite the use of the word “typical” above. Ulmus densa was treated by
Rehder (Bibl. Cult. Trees & Shrubs, 142. 1949) as a synonym of U. carpini-
folia var. umbractdifera, which var. bubyriana almost certainly is.

‘Dicksonii’ (Dickson ex Jour. Roy. Hort. Soc. 32: cxix. 1907, without description;
Dickson’s Nurseries, Chester, England, Cat. 667, p. 31. 1909-10, as U. cam-
pestris cornubiensis Dicksonii). Described as being free and upright in growth,
the foliage a clear glowing gold, very constant, and retained till late in the
autumn. Originated in Dickson’s Nurseries about 1900. U. X sarniensis (that
is U. carpinifolia var. sarniensis sensu Rehder).

‘Dijk\\t:l’ (Van ’t Westeinde, Holland, Cat. 27, p. 28. 1957-58 [not seen]). Said
to resemble ‘Schuurhoek’ closely, have slightly larger and lighter leaves, and
be more difiicult to propagate from cuttings. Original tree free from frost-
cracks. U. carpinifolia.

‘Drake’ (Monrovia Nursery, Azusa, California, Cat. 1952-53 [1 July 1952, not
seen] ) . Described as having “rich evergreen foliage on sweeping branches
which grow more upright than the regular evergreen elm.” U. parvifolia.

"Dovaei’ (Andre Leroy Nurseries, Angers, France, Cat. 1868, p. 82, as U. Dovaei).
Described as a vigorous tree, well shaped, proper for avenues. U. glabra.

‘Dowei’ (Baudriller, Angers, France, Cat. 43, p. 117. 1880, as U. Dowei, without
description) = ‘Dovaei’.

‘Dropmore’ ( 1953 Report of the Great Plains Section of the Amer. Soc. for Horti-
cultural Science [not seen] ) . A name proposed to replace ‘Harbin Strain’,
‘Harbin’, ‘Manchu’, and ‘Chinkota’, on the assumption that these are all the same
line, and to remove the confusion of several names for the same cultivar.
17. pumila.

‘Dumont’ (Anon, in Rev. Hort. Belg. 18: 12. 1892, as VOrme Dumont) . Described
as very vigorous, having a straight trunk and a narrow, regularly fonned, pyra-
midal crown. The leaves being somewhat smaller than in ‘Belgica’. Discovered
by a gardener on the estate of M. Dumont at Tournay in Belgium about 1865.
17. X hollandica.

‘Dumontii’ (Mottet in Nicholson & Mottet, Diet. Prat. Hort. 5: 383. 1898, as
17. campestris var. Dumontii; Kriissmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 537. 1962, as a
cv.) = ‘Dumont’.

‘Elegans Folia Argenteo-variegata’ (Goeschke, Bunte Gehblze 46. 1900, as

17. campestris elegans foliis argenteo variegatis Hort.). Described as having
beautiful gray-green foliage with a broad silver margin, and the tip of the shoot
pink. = ‘Tricolor’.

‘Elegantissima’ (Kirchner in Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 556. 1864, as
17. suberosa elegantissima Hort., in synonymy, not 17. X elegantissima Horwood,
1933) = U. X viminalis ‘Variegata’.

‘Elegantissima Variegata’ (Miller, Card. Diet. ed. 6. Ulmus no. 6. 1752, as 17.
minor, folio angusto scabro, elegantissima variegato) . Described as having
beautiful striped leaves. = 17. procera ‘Argenteo-variegata’?

‘Eleganto-variegata’ (Miller, Card. Diet. ed. 6. Ulmus no. 7. 1752, as 17. folio
glabro, eleganter variegato) = 17. carpinifolia ‘Variegata’.

‘Eleganto-variegata’ (Miller, Card. Diet. ed. 6. Ulmus no. 9. 1752, as 17.
major Hollandica, angustis ir magis acuminatis samarris, folio latissimo scabro,
eleganter variegato). Described as the Dutch Elm with striped leaves. 17. X
hollandica.

‘Erecta’ (Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1396. 1838, as 17. (campestris) suberosa
var. erecta). “Has a tall narrow head, resembling the Cornish Elm; but differ-
ing from that tree in having much broader leaves, and a corky bark.” 17. carpini-
folia.

‘Erubescens’ (Henry in Elwes & Henry, Trees Gr. Brit. Irel. 7: 1853. 1913, as
17. pedunculata var. erubescens) = ‘Rubescens’.

‘Escaillard’ (Andre Leroy Nurseries, Angers, France, Cat. 1849, p. 28, as
Ulmus ‘"elm” escaillard, without description; Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 235. 1877,
as U. campestris var. Escaillardi, without description). U. glabra.

‘Etrusca’ (Nicholson, Kew Hand-List Trees & Shrubs 2: 139. 1896, as U. montana
var. etrusca Hort., without description). The tree with this name at Kew has
been identified by Dr. Melville as of hybrid origin, U. glabra X plotii (U. X
elegantissima ) .

‘Evergreen’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 5. 253. 1949, as U. parvifolia Evergreen,
without description) = ‘Sempervirens’.

‘Exhibition’ (Patmore Nurseries, Brandon, Manitoba, Cat. 1952 [not seen]). A
selection made by Patmore Nurseries from seed gathered near Brandon in
Manitoba and propagated clonally by grafting. Upright in habit, it develops
a narrow vase-shaped head with branches densely covered with small twigs.
U. americana.

‘Exoniensis’ (Loddiges, Hackney, London, Cat. 1823, p. 35, as U. exoniensis,
without description; Kriissmann in Parey’s Blumengartn. ed. 2. 1: 519. 1958,
as a cv.). The Ford or Exeter Elm. Said to have strictly upright branches
forming a narrow columnar head, leaves small, broadly obovate, coarsely and
deeply serrate, wrinkled above and often twisted. Raised at Exeter, England,
by Mr. Ford. U. glabra.

‘Fastigiata’ (Audibert, Tonelle, France, Cat. 2, p. 53. 1831-32, as U. suberosa
fastigiata) = U. angustifolia var. cornubiensis {U. carpinifolia var. cornu-
biensis) .

‘Fastigiata’ (Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1399. 1838, as U. montana var. fastigiata
Hort.). Described as having “peculiarly twisted leaves and a very fastigiate
habit of growth” = ‘Exoniensis’.

‘Fastigiata’ (Charles Fiore Nurseries, Prairie View, Illinois, Wholesale Cat. 1959-
60, p. 33). Latin name proposed after 1 Jan. 1959 and therefore illegitimate.
= ‘Fiorei’.

‘Fastigiata Aurea’ (Nicholson, Kew Hand-List Trees & Shrubs 2: 141. 1896, as
U. montana var. fastigiata aurea Hort., without description) = ‘Wredei’.

‘Fastigiata Macrophylla’ (Dieck, Zoschen, Germany, Haupt-Cat. 1885, p. 82,
as U. scabra fastigiata macrophylla Hort., without description; Hartwig, 111.
Geholzb. ed. 2. 393. 1892). Described as a beautiful pyramidal form with
large leaves. U. glabra.

‘Fastigiata Plumosa’ (Schelle in Beissner et ah, Handb. Laubh.-Benenn. 85.
1903, as U. montana f. fastigiata plumosa Hort., without description). =
‘Exoniensis’.

‘Fastigiata Stricta’ (Bean, Kew Hand-List Trees & Shrubs, ed. 3. 273. 1925, as
U. montana var. fastigiata stricta Hort., without description) . U. glabra.

‘Fastigiata Variegata’ (Baudriller, Angers, France, Cat. 43, p. 117. 1880, as
U. montana fastigiata variegata, without description). Referred to as the varie-
gated, pyramidal, Exeter elm. U. glabra.

‘Fiorei’ (Charles Fiore Nurseries, Prairie View, Illinois, Wholesale Cat. 1948).
Described as a budded elm of narrow form with heavy foliage, dense growth,
and smooth bark. U. americana.

‘Firma’ (Schneider, 111. Handb. Laubh. 1: 217. 1904, as U. scahra f. firma).
Said to have leaves like the species but with a firmer texture. U. glabra.

‘Fjerrestad’ (Meded. Comite Best. Bestr. lepenz. 13: 9. 1933, as U. hollandica
“Fjerrestad” [not seen], without description). The clone was received from
Sweden.

‘Flava’ (Dieck, Zoschen, Gennany, Haupt-Cat. Nachtrag I, 1887, p. 28, as U.
scabra f. jiava, without description) . U. glabra.

‘Folia Albo-punctata’ (C. de Vos, Woordenboek 135. 1867, as U. campestris
fol. albo punctatis) . With leaves dotted with white, not flecked. Probably
U. carpinifolia.

‘Folia Argentea’ (Baudriller, Angers, France, Cat. 43, p. 116. 1880, as U. cam-
pestris foliis argenteis) . Described as having leaves which are very beautifully
and constantly variegated, and resist the bleaching of sunlight. Possibly = U.
carpinifolia ‘Variegata’.

‘Folia Argenteo-marginata’ (Kirchner in Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 557.
1864, as U. campestris var. foliis argenteo-marginatis) . This variety was placed
by de Vos (Handbook 203. 1887) in synonymy with ‘Tricolor but the leaves
are generally described as bordered with white alone. = ‘Argenteo-mar-
ginata’.

‘Folia Argenteo-marmorata’ (Dippel, Handb. Laubh. 2: 25. 1892, as U. campestris
f. fol. argenteo-marmoratis) . Described as having leaves streaked with white.
= ‘Marmorata’?

‘Folia Argenteo-variegata’ (Kirchner in Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 554.
1864, as U. campestris var. foliis argenteo-variegatis Hort.). Described as
having the leaves streaked with white. = U. procera ‘Argenteo-variegata’.

‘Folia Aurea’ (Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1378. 1838, as U. campestris var.
foliis aureis Hort.). Described as having the leaves variegated with yellow.
U. procera.

‘Folia Aurea’ (Huberty in Bull. Soc. Centr. For. Belg. 11: 427. 1904, as U.
campestris foliis aureis) = ‘Louis van Houtte’.

‘Folia Aurea Variegata’ (Jager, Ziergh. Cart. & Park. 548. 1865, as U. ameri-
cana var. fol. am. varieg. ) . Described as having leaves variegated with yellow.
U. americana.

‘Folia Aureo-variegata’ (Baudriller, Angers, France, Cat. 43, p. 116. 1880, as
U. campestris latifolia foliis aureo-variegatis) = ‘Latifolia Aureo-variegata’.

‘Folia Flavescens’ (Miller, Card. Diet. ed. 6. Ulmus no. 8. 1752, as U. minor ^
foliis fiavescentibus) . Described as the yellow-leaved Elm. = ‘Louis van
Houtte’?

‘Folia Maculata’ (Loddiges, Hackney, London, Cat. 1823, p. 35, as U. campestris
fol. maculatis, without description) = U. procera ‘Argenteo-variegata’?

‘Folia Marginata’ (Wesmael in Bull. Fed. Soc. Hort. Belg. 1862: 389. 1863, as
U. campestris var. nuda subvar. foliis marginatis) = ‘Argenteo-marginata’.

‘Folia Picturata’ (Dippel, Handb. Laubh. 2: 25. 1892, as U. campestris f. fol.
picturatis) . Described as having the leaves spotted with white. = ‘Picturata’.

‘Folia Punctata’ (Dieck, Zoschen, Germany, Haupt-Cat. 1885, p. 82, as U. scahra
viminalis fol. punctatis, name in synonymy) = ‘Pulverulent a’.

‘Folia Purpurea’ (Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 235. 1877, as U. campestris ya.r. foliis
purpureis, without description) = U. carpinifolia (?) ‘Purpurea’.

‘Folia Rhomboidea’ (Morren in Jour. Agric. Prat. Belg. 4: 509, 511. 1851, as
U. campestris latifolia, foliis rhomb oideis) . Said to be growing in the Pitteurs
estate at St. Trond, Belgium and to be like foliis rotundatis (‘Pitteurs’) but
distinguished by the rhomboid shape of the leaf. U. X hollandica.

‘Folia Rotundata’ (Morren in Jour. Agric. Prat. Belg. 4: 509, 511. 1851, as
U. campestris latifolia, foliis rotundatis) = ‘Pitteurs’.

‘Folia Rubra’ (Louis de Smet, Ghent, Belgium, Cat. 10, p. 59. 1877, as U.
campestris foliis rubris) . Later described as having small leaves with a reddish
green tinge. Probably U. carpinifolia.

‘Folia Variegata’ (Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 4: 2587. 1838, as U. americana var.
foliis variegatis Hort., without description) = ‘Folia Aurea Variegata’.

‘Folia Variegata’ (Hartwig, 111. Geholzb. ed. 2. 392. 1892, as U. pedunculata
var. foliis variegatis Hort.). Described as having leaves beautifully marked
with marbled and streaked variegations. U. laevis.

‘Folia Variegata’ (Loddiges, Hackney, London, Cat. 1820, p. 39, as U. campestris
fol. var., without description; Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1376. 1838).

Described as having leaves striped with white. = ‘Argenteo-variegata’.

‘Folia Variegata’ (Loddiges, Hackney, London, Cat. 1823, p. 35, as U. campestris
fol. variegatis, without description; Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1395. 1838, as
U. (campestris) suberosa var. foliis variegatis) . Described as being exactly like
U. suberosa except in its variegation. = U. carpinifolia ‘Variegata’.

‘Folia Variegata’ (Loddiges, Hackney, London, Cat. 1823, p. 35, as U. major fol.
variegatis, without description) = ‘Eleganto-variegata’.

‘Folia Variegata’ (Dieck, Zoschen, Germany, Haupt-Cat. 1885, p. 82, as U. scabra
viminalis fol. variegatis, name in synonymy) = ‘Viminalis Marginata’.

‘Folia Variegata’ (C. de Vos, Handbook, 1887, as U. plumosa foliis variegatis
[not seen] ) = ‘Fastigiata Variegata’.

‘Folia Variegata Pendula’ (C. de Vos, Woordenboek 137. 1867, as U. suberosa
fol. var. pendula ) . Described as a weak growing tree, of unsatisfactory duration
but otherwise beautiful. Possibly U. X hollandica.

‘Fordii’ (Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1399. 1839, as U. Fordii Hort., name in
synonymy) = ‘Exoniensis’.

‘Fulva’ (Meded. Comite Best. Bestr. lepenz. 10: 9. 1932, as U. hollandica var.
fulva Hort., without description [not seen]). Received from Hesse’s Nurseries,
Weener, Germany. U. X hollandica.

fungosa (Aiton, Hort. Kew. 1: 319. 1789, as U. campestris var. fiingosa) . See
under suberosa.

‘Gaujardii’ (Silva Tarouca, Unsere Freil.-Laubgeh. 366. 1913, as U. Gaujardii,
without description). U. X hollandica.

‘Gigantea’ (Kirchner in Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 564. 1864, as U.
montana var. gigantea Hort. ) = U.X hollandica ‘Major’.

‘Glabra’ (Walpers, Ann. Bot. Syst. 3: 424. 1852, as a var.) = U. americana
‘Pendula’.

‘Globosa’ (Spath, Berlin, Germany, Cat. 89, p. 57. 1892-1893, as U. campestris
globosa Behnsch). Described as having an uninterrupted, very dense, strongly
branched, globose crown with firm, coriaceous, shining leaves; said to be quite
different from ‘Umbraculifera’. Probably U. carpinifolia.

‘Gracilis’ (Kirchner in Petzold & Kii'chner, Arb. Muscav. 551. 1864, as U. gracilis
Hort., name in synonymy) = ‘Viminalis’.

‘Gracilis’ (Kriissmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 534. 1962, as a cv.) = ‘Umbraculi-
fera Gracilis’.

‘Gracilis Aurea’ (Schelle, in Beissner et ah, Handb. Laubh.-Benenn. 86. 1903, as
U. montana viminalis gracilis aurea Hort., without description) = ‘Pulveru-
lenta’.

‘Gracilis Monstrosa’ (Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 235. 1877, as U. campestris var.
gracilis monstrosa, without description) = U. X sarniensis ‘Microphylla
Pendula’.

‘Grandidentata’ (Dumortier, FI. Belg. 25. 1827, as U. corylacea var. grandiden-
tata) = ‘Cornuta’.

‘Green King’ (Henry Field Seed & Nursery Co., Shenandoah, Iowa, Spring Cat.

1960, as a registered trade mark, (r)) . Stated to be of hybrid origin, and first
distributed as Field’s new hybrid elm, but see under ‘Broadleaf Hybrid’.
Described as of particularly rapid growth.

‘Hamburg’ (Interstate Nurseries, Hamburg, Iowa, Cat. Spring 1948, p. 34, as
Hamburg Elm ) . Said to be a hybrid of U. americana and U. pumila. Described
as a hardy, very rapid grower and stronger in branching than U. pumila.
Originated in the Plumfield Nurseries, Fremont, Nebraska, in a bed of seedlings
raised from seed of U. pumila from Tekamah, Nebraska, and selected by Mr.
Lloyd Moffet, about 1932. Has also been sold as the “Hybrid Chinese Elm.”

‘Hamburg Hybrid’ (Interstate Nurseries, Hamburg, Iowa, Cat. Spring, 1949, p.
34, as Hamburg Hybrid Elm) = ‘Hamburg’.

‘Harbin’ (Skinner’s Nursery Ltd., Manitoba, Cat. 1954, p. 20) = ‘Dropmore’.

‘Harbin Strain’ (Skinner’s Nursery Ltd., Manitoba, Cat. 1951, p. 23). A hardy
line raised by Dr. F. L. Skinner from seed collected by Mr. Ptitsin from near
Harbin, Manchuria, quite hardy in Manitoba and described as fast growing,
with small neat foliage. = ‘Dropmore’.

‘Haarlemensis’ (Springer in Mitt. Deutsch. Dendr. Ges. 21: 366. 1912, as
U. campestris haarlemensis). Described as having a not very rapid growth,
forming an unbroken, broad pyramidal crown; the leaves glossy dark green and
remaining on the tree for two or three weeks longer in the autumn. It was
selected from amongst seedlings of U. X hollandica. U. X hollandica.

‘Hertfordensis Angustifolia’ (Boulger in Card. Chron. II. 12: 298. 1879, as
U. campestris hertfordensis angustifolia?, without description; Loudon, Arb.
Frut. Brit. 3: 1396. 1838, as U. (campestris) suberosa var., “the narrow-leaved
Hertfordshire Elm”). Probably U. carpinifolia.

‘Hertfordensis Latifolia’ (Boulger in Card. Chron. H. 12: 298. 1879, as 17.
campestris hertfordensis latifolia?; Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1396. 1838, as
U. (campestris) suberosa var., “the broad-leaved Hertfordshire Elm”). Probably

U. carpinifolia.

‘Hillieri’ (Hillier & Sons, Winchester, England, Cat. 38T, p. 52. 1928, as U.
hillieri Hort. ) . Described as a very graceful, slow growing, small, weeping tree
with small leaves and slender branches which turn crimson in the autumn.

V. X hollandica.

‘Hoersholm’ (Kriissmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 534. 1962, as a cv.) = ‘Hoer-

SHOLMIENSIS’.

‘Hoersholmi’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 6. 285. 1958, without description) =
‘Hoersholmiensis’.

‘Hoersholmiensis’ (Spath, Berlin, Germany, Cat. 242, p. 69. 1928-29). A tree
with upright habit and quick growth through many years, leaves clear green,

I 61 ]

lanceolate or narrowly obovate, acuminate, base cuneate. Said to have origi-
nated in the H0rsholm Planteskole between Copenhagen and Helsingpr, Den-
mark, probably about 1885, from seed of unknown origin. U. carpinifolia.

‘Hoersholmensis’ (Meded. Comite Best. Bestr. lepenz. 13: 10. 1933 [not seen])
= ‘Hoersholmiensis’.

‘Holgeri’ (Holger Jensen ex Spath-Buch 1720-1920, 230. 1921). Described as
of very strong growth, straight and sturdy with beautiful dark green leaves.
Originated in Sweden. U. glabra.

‘Holmstrupii’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 6. 286. 1958, without description).
Selected from amongst seedlings of ‘Hoersholmiensis’ in Asger M. Jensen’s
Nursery, Holmstrup, Denmark about 1930, because of its strong quick-growing,
upright stem and branches, bearing small leaves and making it suitable for
planting in avenues. U. carpinifolia.

‘Horizontalis’ (Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1398. 1838, as U. horizontalis Hort.,
name in synonymy). Branches horizontally spreading and, when grafted,
forming a low flat top with pendulous branches. Originated early in the 19th
centuiy as a seedling in a nursery at Perth, Scotland. A tree of this cultivar was
selfed by Melville at Kew (personal communication); it segregated for the
pendulous habit but remained true to species. U. glabra.

‘Horshohnii’ (Melville in Jour. Linn. Soc. Lond. Bot. 53: 88, 90. 1946, as var.
horsholmii Kort.) = ‘Hoersholmiensis’.

‘Huntingdon’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 5. 253. 1949, as U. hollandica Hunting-
don, without description) = ‘Vegeta’.

‘Huntingdon Elm’ (Richens in Forestry 34: 63. 1961). Formally proposed by
Richens as a cultivar name but known by this as a common name to many
previous authors = ‘Vegeta’.

‘Huntingdonensis’ (Dieck, Zoschen, Germany, Haupt-Cat. Nachtrag I, 1887, p.
28) = ‘Vegeta’.

‘Huntingdonii’ (Rehder in Bailey, Stand. Cycl. Hort. (6): 3411. 1917, as U.
Huntingdonii Hort., in synonymy, without description) = ‘Vegeta’.

‘Hunnybunii’ (Moss, Cambr. Brit. Fl. 2: 90. 1914, as U. nitens var. hunnybuni
Moss). Described as a taller tree than var. sowerbyi, with the lower branches
spreading at right angles, the upper less tortuous; leaves even more asymmetrical
at the base, more acuminate; and said to be often planted. U. carpinifolia.

‘Improved Coolshade’ (Sarcoxie Nurseries, Sarcoxie, Missouri, U. S. Plant Pat.
No. 1747, July 1958) . Originated at the Sarcoxie Nurseries. Said to be of rapid
growth giving a quick shade without an unsightly whippy top, with a non-
crotching central trunk and branches resistant to breaking. Said to be a hybrid
of U. pumila X rubra.

‘Incisa’ (Loudon, Arb. Fmt. Brit. 3: 1406. 1838, as U. americana var. incisa
H.S.). Described as having “leaves somewhat more deeply serrated and rather
smaller”. Possibly now extinct. U. americana.

‘Incisa" (Wesmael in Bull. Fed. Soc. Hort. Belg. 1862: 389. 1863, as U. campestris
var. nuda subvar. incisa Hort. Vilv.). Described as having the leaves irregularly
sinuate-incised with long pointed teeth. Possibly U. X viminalis (that is U.
procera var. viminalis sensu Rehder).

‘Insularis" (Nilsson in Lustgarden 30: 127. 1949, as f. insularis) . Described as
having the crown rounded elongate-ovoid, branches dense, suberect. U. glabra.

‘Intermedia’ (Kirchner in Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 567. 1864, as U.
intermedia Hort., name in synonymy) = ‘Cornuta’.

‘Jersey’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 6. 286. 1958, as U. procera Jersey, without
description) = ‘Sarniensis’.

‘Kansas Hybrid’ (Kansas Nursery Co., Salina, Kansas, Retail Cat. Spring 1961,
p. 52). A selected seedling of U. pumila showing hybrid characteristics, raised
by the Kansas Nursery Co. in the late 1920’s and maintained by grafting.
Described as having an upright branching habit and dark green, shining leaves
as large as U. americana, but of fast growth and cold and drought resistant.

‘Kimley’ (Sheridan Nurseries, Sheridan, Ontario, Cat. 1957, p. 47). From a
large tree found near Oshawa, Ontario, of fine pendulous habit. U. americana.

‘Klehm’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 5. 253. 1949, as U. americana Klehm) =
‘Klehmii’.

‘Klehmii’ (Naperville Nurseries, Naperville, Illinois, Cat. 270, p. 6. 1929).

Described as being of a shapely form. The original grafts taken from a tree in
Arlington Heights, Illinois, by Mr. Charles Klehm; selected for its fine vase-
shaped appearance. U. americana.

‘Klemeri’ (Spath, Berlin, Germany, Cat. 104, p. 134. 1899-1900, as U. Klemeri)
= ‘Klemmer’.

‘Klemmer’ (Gillekens, Elem. Arb. Forest. 41. 1891, as Tonne champetre klem-
mer; Krussmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 537. 1962, as a cv.). Said to be a rapid
growing, tall tree with ascending branches forming at first a narrow pyramidal
head which widens later, with plenty of root-suckers and some epiconnic shoots.
Susceptible to frost cracks. The timber is reddish and strong but liable to warp.
Possibly attributable to U. carpinifolia, but probably U. X hollandica.

‘Klemmer Blanc’ (Feneau in Bull. Soc. Centr. For. Belg. 9: 162. 1902). Said
to be intermediate between ‘Klemmer’ and ‘Belgica’. The leaves are smaller
than ‘Klemmer’ and the trees have no root-suckers or frost cracks. The timber
is white and softer than ‘Klemmer’. U. X hollandica.

‘Klemmer Rouge’ (Feneau in Bull. Soc. Centr. For. Belg. 9: 162. 1902). =
‘Klemmer’.

‘Koopmannii’ (Lauche ex Spath, Berlin, Germany, Cat. 62, p. 6. 101. 1885, as
U. Koopmanni; Kriissmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 534. 1962, as a cv.). De-
scribed as a form resembling U. carpinifolia var. umbraculifera with small ovate
leaves but with an ovoid head if grafted high, shrubby and stoloniferous if
propagated by cuttings. U. carpinifolia.

‘Laciniata’ (Wesmael in Bull. Fed. Soc. Hort. Belg. 1862: 390. 1863, as 17.
campestris var. nuda subvar. microphylla laciniata Hort. Vilv.). Described as
having laciniate leaves 3 to 5 cm. long. U. carpinifolia.

‘Lake City’ (Wyman in Trees Magazine 3 (4): 13. 1940; 4 (1): 17. 1941).
Said to be upright in habit, wide at the top and narrow at the base. U.
americana.

‘Lanuginosa’ (Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 236. 1877, as U. suberosa var. lanuginosa,
without description ) . U. carpinifolia.

‘Latifolia’ (Audibert, Tonelle, France, Cat. 1817, p. 23, as U. campestris var.
latifolia). Described as having broader leaves than the species which expand
very early in the spring. Possibly the same as ‘Belgica’ but also called ‘M alines’
by Gillekens (Elem. Arb. Forest. 38. 1891).

‘Latifolia Aurea’ (Schelle in Beissner et ah, Handb. Laubh.-Benenn. 84. 1903,
as U. glabra var. latifolia aurea Hort. Croux, without description). U. glabra.

‘Latifolia Aureo-variegata’ (Neubert in Deutsch. Mag. Cart. Blumenk. 1871:
343. 1871, as U. campestris latifolia aureo-variegata) . Described as a beautiful
new variety with colored ornamental leaves. U. glabra.

‘Latifolia Nigricans’ (Pynaert in Tijdschr. Boomteelt. [Bull. Arb. Flor. Cult.
Potag.] 1879: 58. 1879, as U. campestris latifolia nigricans). Described as
very vigorous, the leaves being large and of a dark tint. Raised from seed of
‘Purpurea’. U. glabra.

‘Libero-rubra’ (Planchon in De Candolle, Prodr. 17: 160. 1873, as U. libere-
rubro, without description ) = ‘Rubra’

‘Littleford’ (Sherman Nursery, Charles City, Iowa, Wholesale Cat. Spring
1957, p. 5). Described as upright branching, rather narrow vase-shaped,
foliage larger and somewhat heavier than usual. Grafts taken from original tree
in Hinsdale, Illinois, about 1915; first marketed 1927. U. americana.

‘Littlefordii’ (Bailey & Bailey, Hortus Second, 746, 747. 1941, as a var.) =
‘Littleford’.

‘Lobata’ (Waisbecker in Oesterr. Bot. Zeitschr. 49: 67. 1899, as U. montana f.
lobata) = ‘Cornuta’.

‘Lombartii’ (Floralia 41 (39): 615. 1920, as U. suberosa pendula Lombartii
[not seen] ) = ‘Lombartsii’.

[ 64 ]

‘Lombartsii’ (Lombarts, Zundert, Netherlands, Cat. 1921-22, p. 25 as U.
suberosa pendula Lornbartsi [not seen] ) . A graceful tree with pendulous
branches covered with corky wings. As the tree ages the wings become less
prominent. Originated in the Lombarts Nurseries, Zundert, Netherlands, about
1910. Possibly U. carpinifolia or 17. X hollandica.

‘Louis van Houtte’ (Deegen in 111. Monatsch. Gartenb. 5: 103. 1886; Boom, Ned.
Dendr. 1: 158. 1959, as a cv.). Said to have leaves entirely yellow, retaining
this color throughout the summer, and to have been cultivated in Belgium about
1863. From specimens, this appears to be U. procera.

‘Ludwig van Houtte’ (Spath-Buch 1720-1920, 229. 1921), error for ‘Louis van
Houtte’.

‘Luteo-variegata’ (Weston, Bot. Univ. 1: 315. 1770, as U. glabra luteo-

varieg. ) . Leaves variegated with yellow. U. glabra.

‘Lutescens’ (Dieck, Zoschen, Germany, Haupt-Cat. 1885, p. 81, as U. campestris
lutescens; Boom, Ned. Dendr. 1: 157. 1959, as a cv.). Described at first as
having gold-bronze foliage and later as having yellow leaves at least in the
spring. U. glabra.

‘Macrophylla’ (Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 237. 1877, without description). Later
described as having the largest leaves and being of very strong growth.
U. glabra.

‘Macrophylla’ (Dieck, Zoschen, Germany, Haupt-Cat. 1885, p. 82, as U. scabra
macrophylla Hort., not U. campestris var. macrophylla Spach, 1841) = ‘Pit-

TEURS’.

‘Macrophylla Aurea’ (Bean, Kew Hand-List Trees & Shrubs, ed. 3. 273. 1925,
as U. montana var. macrophylla aurea, without description). U. X hollandica.

‘Macrophylla Aurea’ (Spath, Berlin, Germany, Cat. 116, p. 125. 1904-05, as
U. americana macrophylla aurea). Described as a very vigorous growing form
with young shoots golden. = U. X hollandica ‘Macrophylla Aurea’?

‘Macrophylla Fasti giata’ (Nicholson, Kew Hand-List Trees & Shrubs 2: 141. 1896,
as U. montana var. macrophylla fastigiata Hort., without description) =
‘Major’?

‘Maculata’ (Audibert, Tonelle, France, Cat. 2, p. 53. 1831-32, as U. scabra
maculata) . Described as spotted. U. glabra.

‘Major’ (Smith in Sowerby, English Botany 36: t. 2542. 1814, as U. major;
Kriissmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 537. 1962, as a cv.). A nothomoi*ph of
U. X hollandica widely planted in Britain.

‘Major’ (Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1398. 1838, as U. montana var. major
Masters) . Described as having an “upright and rapid growth with few branches,
approaching the habit of the Scotch elm but of a more tapering form.” =
‘Superba’.

‘Malines’ (Gillekens, Elem. Arb. Forest. 38. 1891, as orme de M alines) . Said
to have originated about 1750 in Malines, or district; widely planted in Belgium.
= Xatifolia’.

‘Manchu’ (Stewarts Nurseries, Sutherland, Saskatchewan, Cat. 1951 [not seen]).
A hardy strain raised by Mr. H. D. Stewart from seed collected by Mr. Ptitsin
from near Harbin, Manchuria, and quite hardy in Saskachewan. U. pumila.

‘Marginata’ (Kriissmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 539. 1962) = ‘Viminalis Mar-
ginata".

‘Marijne’ (C. de Vos, Handbook 205. 1887, as a Dutch name for U. sativa
[not seen]). Without description and possibly a corruption of the French
‘Malines".

‘Markham’ (Peattie, A Natural History of Trees of Eastern and Central North
America 240. 1950) . A clone taken from an outstanding tree growing naturally
at Avon, New York, which is now dead. As well as great size the original tree
apparently possessed an extreme pendulous branching habit. U. americana.

‘Marmorata’ (Dieck, Zoschen, Germany, Haupt-Cat. 1885, p. 81, as U. campestris
marmorata Hort.). Described as beautifully variegated with white. The
original tree in Destedter Park was said to have produced massive variegated
suckers. Probably U. carpinifolia.

‘Microphylla’ (Loddiges, Hackney, London, Cat. 1823, p. 35, as U. stricta
microphylla, without description). The specimen of this cultivar in Herb.
Nicholson at Kew has been identified by Dr. Melville as U. X hollandica
with leaf shape approaching U. carpinifolia.

‘Microphylla Albo-dentata’ (Dippel, Hand. Laubh. 2: 25. 1892, as U. campestris
f. microphylla albo-dentatis) = ‘Albo-dentata’.

‘Microphylla Folia Marginata’ (Hartwig, 111. Geholzb. ed. 2. 391. 1892, as

U. campestris var. microphylla foliis marginatis Hort.). Described as the
margined small-leaved elm. = ‘Argenteo-marginata’?

‘Microphylla Pendula’ (Hartwig & Riimpler, 111. Geholzb. 580. 1875, as U.

campestris var. microphylla pendula Hort., in synonymy) = ‘Viminalis’.

‘Microphylla Pendula’ (Kirchner in Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 561.
1864, as U. microphylla pendula Hort.). The tree growing under this name
at Kew, is, according to Dr. Melville, a nothomorph of U. X sarniensis (that
is U. carpinifolia f. sarniensis sensu Rehder).

‘Microphylla Rubra’ (C. de Vos, Handbook 203. 1887, as U. campestris

microphylla rubra, without description [not seen] ) . Said to be slightly different
from U. campestris microphylla purpurea.

‘Minneapolis Park’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 6. 285. 1958, without description).
A selection made by the Minneapolis Park Department as being particularly
fitted for boulevard plantings. U. americana.

[ 66 ]

¥

‘Minneapolis Park Board’ (Sherman Nursery, Charles City, Iowa, Wholesale Cat.,
Spring 1960) = ‘Minneapolis Park’.

‘Minor’ (Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1398. 1838, as U. montana var. minor
Masters). Described as having a “more branching and spreading habit, of
lower growth, with more twiggy shoots and these more densely clothed with
leaves.” U. glahra.

‘Modiolina’ (Dumont de Courset, Bot. Cult. 3: 700. 1802, as U. campestris var.
modiolina) . “L’orme tortillard.” Described as a pyramidal fonn of medium
height with small leaves and crowded branches and by later authors as having
twisted and crowded branches and gnarled stems. The Kew tree under this
name has been identified by Dr. Melville as 17. X hollandica.

‘Moline’ (Plant Buyer’s Index, ed. 2. supplement, 1928). Originated as a wild
seedling transplanted to Moline, Illinois, in 1903 and propagated from 1916; a
narrow tree, when fully grown rather open, the main trunk upright but the
older branches eventually horizontal. U. americana.

‘Molinensis’ (Bailey & Bailey, Hortus Second 746. 1941, as var. molinensis) =
‘Moline’.

‘Monstrosa’ (Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 235. 1877, as U. campestris var. monstrosa,
without description; Hartwig, 111. Ceholzb. ed. 2. 394. 1892, as U. scabra var.
monstrosa Hort.; Kriissmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 536. 1962, as a cv.). De-
scribed as a compact shrub; branchlets often fasciated, leaves 5-8 cm. long,
partly pitcher shaped at the base and on a slender stalk to 2.5 cm. long. U.
glabra.

‘Monument’ (Plant Buyer’s Cuide, ed. 5. 253. 1949, as U. procera Monument,
without description) = ‘Monumentalis’.

‘Monumentalis’ (Kirchner in Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 554. 1864, as
U. campestris var. monumentalis Rinz ) . Said to be a columnar tree, with a few
upright main branches and numerous short twigs bearing dense crowded dark
green leaves which was propagated by Rinz at Frankfurt from a sucker of
“17. suberosa.” Possibly U. carpinifolia but placed by some as a synonym of
‘Sarniensis’.

‘Morden’ (Patmore Nurseries, Brandon, Manitoba, Cat. 1948 [not seen]). Se-
lected in 1939 by the Dominion Experimental Farm, Morden, Manitoba, as
being able to withstand severe ice-storms without breakage; hardy, fast growing,
large and strong, but rather coarse. 17. americana.

‘Muscaviensis’ (Schneider, 111. Handb. Laubh. 1: 219. 1904, as U. dippeliana f.
muscaviensis) . Described as being larger than U. glabra viminalis, leaves
measuring about 9X5 cm. U. X hollandica.

‘Myrtifolia’ (Nicholson, Kew Hand-List Trees & Shrubs 2: 135. 1896, as 17.

[ 67 ]

campestris var. myrtifolia Hort., without description; Rehder in Jour. Arnold
Arb. 20: 87. 1939; Kriissmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 540. 1962, as a cv.).
Leaves ovate or rhombic-ovate to oblong-ovate, 2-3 (-5) cm. long, with
nearly simple teeth, loosely pilose on both sides; fruit obovate, 12-15 mm. long.
The specimen under this name in Herb. Nicholson at Kew has been identified
by Dr. Melville as having small-leaved, juvenile-type foliage and probably being
U. carpinifolia X plotii or U. X hollandica.

‘Myrtifolia Purpurea’ (Louis de Smet, Ghent, Belgium, Cat. 10, p. 59. 1877, as
U. myrtifolia purpurea) = ‘Purpurascens’.

‘Nana’ (Loddiges, Hackney, London, Cat. 1836 [not seen]; Loudon, Arb. Frut.
Brit. 3: 1378, & 4: 2586. 1838, as 17. campestris var. nana Hort.; Kriissmann,
Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 536. 1962, as a cv.). The Bush Elm. Described as a very
distinct variety not growing above 2 feet in 10-12 years. Species uncertain, the
Kew bush is said by Dr. Melville to be U. carpinifolia X glabra or possibly
U. X hollandica.

‘Nemoralis’ (Schelle in Beissner et ah, Handb. Laubh.-Benenn. 84. 1903, as
U. campestris f. nemoralis Hort., without description). Possibly U. carpinifolia.

‘Nigra’ (Loddiges ex Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1398. 1838, as U. montana var.
nigra). The Black Irish Elm. Said to have particularly deep green leaves.
U. glabra.

‘Nigrescens’ (Pynaert in Tijdschr. Boomteelt. [Bull. Arb. Flor. Cult. Potag.]
1879: 57. 1879, as U. campestris betulaefolia nigrescens) . Described as having
leaves like a birch and of a darker more persistent color than ‘Purpurea’. Prob-
ably U. carpinifolia but said to have been raised from seed of ‘Purpurea’.

‘Nigrescens’ (Schelle in Beissner et ah, Handb. Laubh.-Benenn. 87. 1903, as
U. americana f. nigrescens Dieck, name only) = ‘Nigricans’.

‘Nigricans’ (Dieck, Zoschen, Germany, Haupt-Cat. 1885, p. 80). Selected from
seedlings raised at the Zoschener Baumschule, distinguished by the deep dark-
green color of the leaves. U. americana.

‘Nigricans’ (Bailey & Bailey, Hortus 625. 1930, as JJ. nigricans, name in synony-
my) = ‘Nigrescens’.

‘Oblongata’ (Koch, Dendr. 2 (1): 415. 1872, as U. oblongata Hort.). Described
as having a broad oblong leaf without noticeable apical teeth. U. glabra.

‘Ohioensis’ (Nicholson, Kew Hand-List Trees & Shrubs 2: 141. 1896, as U.
ohioensis Hort., in synonymy, without description) = ‘Exoniensis’.

‘Ontariensis’ (Koch, Dendr. 2 (1): 416. 1872, as U. ontariensis, name in synony-
my) = ‘Exoniensis’.

‘Ornata’ (Carriere, Revue Hort. 1858: 554. 1858, as U. communis ornata).
Described from Toulouse and characterized as having leaves which are not

eaten by insects whilst those of the common type are. Through the kindness
of Mile. Y. de Ferre it is understood that two individual trees still exist in the
original locality, still show resistance to insect attack, and are probably two of
the plants referred to by Carriere. They prove to be U. laevis, of which plant-
ings had been made at that locality in the 18th century, and not U. glabra
{U. communis) which had been planted to replace most of the U. laevis.

‘Oxfortii’ (Wesmael in Bull. Fed. Soc. Hort. Belg. 1862: 389. 1863, as U. cam-
pestris var. nuda subvar. fastigiata oxfortii Hort. Vilv.). Described as a py-
ramidal tree with the leaves not lying against the branches. Possibly = ‘Sar-
NIENSIS’.

‘Oxoniensis’ (Audibert, Tonelle, France, Cat. 2, p. 53. 1831-32, as U. suberosa
oxoniensis, without description; Wesmael in Bull. Fed. Soc. Hort. Belg. 1862:
389. 1863, as U. campestris var. nuda subvar. fastigiata oxoniensis Hort. Vilv.).
Described as a pyramidal tree with the leaves perceptibly lying towards the
branches. Possibly an error for ‘Exoniensis’.

‘ParasoP (Koch, Dendr. 2 (1): 417. 1872, name in synonymy) ‘Horizontalis’.

‘Pendens’ (Rehder in Jour. Arnold Arb. 26: 473. 1945, as U. parvifolia f. pen-
dens). Described as having long, loosely pendulous branches. Originated in
California before 1930 from seed of the typical plant received from China.
U. parvifolia.

pendula (Aiton, Hort. Kew. 1: 320. 1789, as U. americana var. pendula) . Has
a vase-shaped habit but with branches pendulous at their ends. This habit is
part of the natural variation of U. americana and would seem to warrant no
higher botanical rank than forma. It is doubtful if the original clone cultivated
in Britain in 1752 still exists. It was later confused with a pendulous variant of
U. glabra.

‘Pendula’ (Masters, Hort. Duroverni 66. 1831, as U. campestris pendula, without
description; Kriissmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 537. 1962, as a cv.) = ‘Smithii’.

‘Pendula’ (Audibert, Tonelle, France, Cat. 2, p. 53. 1831-32, as U. suberosa
pendula, without description) = ‘Propendens’.

‘Pendula’ (Loddiges, Hackney, London, Cat. 1836 [not seen]; Loudon, Arb. Frut.
Brit. 3: 1398. 1838, as U. montana var. pendula; Kriissmann in Parey’s Blumen-
gartn. ed. 2. 1: 519. 1958, as a cv.) = ‘Horizontalis’.

‘Pendula’ (David in Revue Hort. H. 4: 101. 1845, as U. campestris pendula;
Kriissmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 540. 1962, as a cv.). Described as having
small leaves with equal teeth and pendulous branches. U. ptimila.

‘Pendula’ (Kirchner in Petzold & Kii'chner, Arb. Muscav. 565. 1864, not of Lou-
don 1838, as U. montana var. pendula) = ‘Camperdownii’.

‘Pendula’ (C. de Vos, Handbook 20. 1887, as U. sativa pendula [not seen]);
Boom, Ned. Dendr. 1: 158. 1959, as a cv.). Described as having slender

pendulous branches and having been grown in Belgium in 1863. Young twigs
may die back in hard winters. U. carpinifoUa.

‘Pendula’ (Meehan, Garden & Forest 2: 286. 1889, as U. fulva pendula). De-
scribed as being a weeping elm and correctly identified as U. americana and
not U. rubra (U. fulva). = ‘Beebe’s Weeping’.

‘Pendula Camperdownii’ (Henry in Elwes & Henry, Trees Gr. Brit. Irel. 7: 1867.
1913, as U. montana var. pendula camperdowni Hort.) = ‘Gamperdownii’.

‘Pendula Macrophylla’ (Maxwell ex Jour. Roy. Hort. Soc. 18: 91. 1895, as
U. montana var. pendula macrophylla, without description). U. glabra.

‘Pendula Nova’ (Kirchner in Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 565. 1864, as
U. montana pendula nova Hort., name in synonymy) = ‘Gamperdownii’.

‘Pendula Variegata’ (Hartwig & Riimpler, 111. Geholzb. 583. 1875, as U. mon-
tana var. pendula variegata Hort. ) . Described as a form of ‘Pendula’ with beau-
tiful white-variegated leaves. U. glabra.

‘Pendulina’ (Sinclair in Donn, Hort. Gantab. ed. 12. 110. 1831, as U. pendulina,
without description) = ‘Horizontalis’?

‘Picturata’ ( Simon-Louis, Metz, France, Gat. 1880, p. 66, as U. picturata
Gripps). Said to differ little from ‘Variegata’ but with larger leaves. Probably
U. carpinifoUa.

‘PiTTEURs’ (Morren in Jour. Agric. Prat. Belg. 1: 114, fig. 1848, as L’Orme Pit-
teurs, & Belg. Hort. 2: 133. 1852). Described as a tall tree, with very large (20
cm. long X 18-19 cm. broad) convex rounded leaves, a little attenuate at the
apex and with prominent nerves. Said to have originated in the Pitteurs estate
at St. Trond, Belgium. U. X hollandica.

‘Pitteursii’ (Wesmael in Bull. Fed. Soc. Hort. Belg. 1862: 382. 1863, as U. cam-
pestris var. Pitteursii Mor.; Kriissmann in Parey’s Blumengartn. ed. 2. 1: 519.
1958, as a cv.) = ‘Pitteurs’.

‘Pitteursii Pendula’ (G. de Vos, Handbook, Supplement 16. 1890, as U. Pitteursii
pendula [not seen] ) . According to Mr. Heijbroek the material under this name
obtained by de Vos proved to be identifiable with U. verschaffeltii, which is a
Zelkova.

‘Planereoides’ (Carriere in Revue Hort. 1875: 287, fig. 48. 1875, as U. planere-
oides) . Described as having leaves like Planera. Possibly U. carpinifoUa.

‘Planifolia’ (Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1377. 1838, as U. campestris var.
planifolia Hort.). Described as “a handsome small tree, closely resembling U.
campestris var. parvifolia” (i.e. U. parvifolia Jacq.). Species uncertain and
probably now extinct.

‘Plumosa’ (C. de Vos, Woordenboek 136. 1867, as U. plumosa) = ‘Exoniensis’.

Traestans’ (Beterams in Mitt. Dent. Dendr. Ges. 20: 250. 1911, as U. praestans)
= ‘Major’.

‘Primus’ (Sarcoxie Nurseries, Sarcoxie, Missouri, U. S. Plant Patent No. 1747, July
1958, as ‘Improved Coolshade variety Primus’) = ‘Improved Coolshade’.

‘Princeton’ (Princeton Nurseries, New Jersey, Cat. 1934, p. 107). Originally
selected in 1922 by Princeton Nurseries for the large healthy foliage, usually
vigorous growth habit and resistance to Elm Leaf Beetle. Vase type similar
to ‘Moline’ but with a slightly more spreading top. U. americana.

‘Propendens’ (Schneider, 111. Handb. Laubh. 1: 220. 1904, as U. glabra var.
suberosa f. propendens; Kriissmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 535. 1962, as a cv.).
Described as “a form of var. suberosa with pendulous branches.” U. carpini-
folia.

‘Propendens Lombarts’ (Lombarts, Zundert, Netherlands, Cat. 1955-56, p. 85, as
U. procera ‘propendens Lombarts’). = ‘Lombartsii’.

‘Pulverulenta’ (Dieck, Zoschen, Germany, Haupt-Cat. 1885, p. 82, as U. scabra
viminalis pulverulenta Hort., without description; Dippel, Handb. Laubh. 2:
30. 1892). Described as having the leaves streaked with white and yellow. U.
X viminalis (that is U. procera var. viminalis sensu Rehder).

‘Pumila’ (Loddiges, Hackney, London, Cat. 1823, p. 35, as U. montana pumila^
not U. pumila L., without description). Species unknown and probably extinct.

‘Punctata’ (Simon-Louis Nurseries, Metz, France, Cat. 1886-87, p. 60, as U. cam-
pestris punctata). Described as having spotted leaves. = U. carpinifolia ‘Varie-
gata’?

‘Punctata’ (Schelle in Beissner et ah, Handb. Laubh.-Benenn. 87. 1903, as
U. effusa f. punctata Hort., without description; Schneider, 111. Handb. Laubh.
1: 213. 1904). Described as having leaves flecked with white. U. laevis.

‘Punctata’ (Schelle in Beissner et al., Handb. Laubh.-Benenn. 87. 1903, as U.
{elliptica?) punctata Hort., without description). Species doubtful.

‘Punctata’ (Schelle in Beissner et al., Laubh.-Benenn. 83. 1903, as U. campestris
punctata Hort., without description). = ‘Argenteo-variegata’.

‘Purple Leaf (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 5. 253. 1949, as U. procera Purple Leaf,
without description) = ‘Purpurea’.

‘PuRPURASCENs’ ( Lavallec, Arb. Segrez. 236. 1877, as U. campestris var. purpura-
scens, without description; Schneider, 111. Handb. Laubh. 1: 220. 1904; Kriiss-
mann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 540. 1962, as a cv.). Said to have leaves about
1 inch long tinged with purple or purplish when young, dark green later, and
normally remaining a shrub. Possibly U. carpinifolia.

‘Purpurea’ (Wesmael in Bull. Fed. Soc. Hort. Belg. 1862: 390. 1863, as U. cam-
pestris var. purpurea Hort. Vilv.; Kriissmann in Parey’s Blumengartn. ed. 2.

[ 71 ]

1: 519. 1958, as a cv.) . Described as having the leaves tinged with dark purple-
brown when unfolding and reddish-green later. Cultivated in Belgium by 1863.
Probably U. carpinifolia.

‘Purpurea Coiylifolia’ (Dieck, Zoschen, Germany, Haupt-Cat. 1885, p. 82, as
U. scabra purpurea corylifolia Hort., without description) = ‘Corylifolia
Purpurea’.

‘Purpurea Nigricans’ (Dieck, Zoschen, Germany, Haupt-Cat. 1885, p. 82, as U.
scabra purpurea nigricans Hort., without description) = ‘Latifolia Nigricans’.

‘Pyramidalis’ (Audibert, Tonelle, France, Cat. 2, p. 53. 1831-32, as U. campes-
tris pyramidalis. Referred to as pyramidal. Possibly U. carpinifolia.

‘Pyramidalis’ (Wesmael in Bull. Fed. Soc. Hort. Belg. 1862: 387. 1863, as U.
americana var. pyramidalis Hort. ) = ‘Pyramidata’.

‘Pyramidalis’ (C. de Vos, Woordenboek 137. 1867, as U. pyramidalis) = U.
angustifolia var. cornubiensis (U. carpinifolia var. cornubiensis) .

‘Pyramidalis’ (Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 237. 1877, as U. montana var. pyramidalis,
without description) = ‘Dampieri’.

‘Pyramidalis’ (Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 236. 1877, as U. suberosa var. pyramidalis,
without description) = ‘Sarniensis’.

‘Pyramidalis’ (Gibbs in Card. Chron. III. 71: 227. 1922, as U. campestris pyra-
midalis). A pyramidal tree originating from a sport at Aldenham about 1890.
U. procera.

‘Pyramidalis Bertinii’ (Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 236. 1877, as U. campestris var.
pyramidalis Bertini, without description). Possibly U. carpinifolia.

‘Pyramidalis Fiorei’ (Charles Fiore Nurseries, Prairie View, Illinois, Cat. Spring
1957, p. 27). Described as being strictly pyramidal in form, selected from a
plant in nursery grounds at Prairie View about 1950. U. pumila.

‘Pyramidata’ (Baudriller, Angers, France, Cat. 43, p. 116. 1880, as U. americana
pyramidata). Described as pyramidal. U. americana.

‘Queen City’ (Sheridan Nurseries, Sheridan, Ontario, Cat. 1949, p. 34). Selected
about 1944, the original tree growing on the Lake Shore Blvd., Toronto; a very
symmetrical vase-shaped, densely branched tree, the lateral branches spreading
horizontally, and with a rather smooth bark. U. americana.

‘Ramulosa’ (Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1405. 1838, as U. (montana) glabra
var. ramulosa Booth, without description). U. glabra.

‘Replicata’ (Masters, Hort. Duroverni 67. 1831, as var. replicata, name in sy-
nonymy, without description) = ‘Exoniensis’.

‘Rosehill’ (Willis Nursery Co., Ottawa, Kansas, Cat. Fall 1958 - Spring 1959,
p. 18. 1958). A hybrid of U. pumila and U. rubra. A selection made in 1951

and described as growing a little more slowly than ‘Willis’ but cariying a
heavier crown for the height, also that it branches well and has very attractive
foliage. Raised by Rose Hill Nurseries, Kansas City, Missouri.

‘Rosscelsii’ (Schelle in Beissner et ah, Handb. Laubh.-Benenn. 83. 1903, as

U. campestris var. Rosscelsii Hort.). Mistake for Rosseelsii. = U. X viminalis
‘Aurea’.

‘Rosseelsii’ (Koch, Dendr. 2 (1): 412. 1872, as V. Rosseelsii, name in synonymy)

= U. X viminalis ‘Aurea’.

‘Rotundifolia’ (Mottet in Nicholson & Mottet, Diet. Prat. Hort. 5: 383. 1898, as
U. campestris var. rotundifolia Hort.). Described as having leaves rounded,
oval or suborbicular. Possibly U. carpinifolia.

‘Rubescens’ (Schwerin in Mitt. Deut. Dendr. Ges. 20: 423. 1911, as U. efftisa
rubescens) . Described as having leaves which turn a beautiful blood-red in the
autumn. = U. laevis ‘Colorans’? {U. campestris var. rubescens Herder in
Gartenflora 20: 347. 1871, is possibly an earlier publication of this cultivar
under the name of another species ) .

‘Rubra’ ( Simon-Louis, Metz, France, Cat. 1869, p. 97, as U. campestris rubra;
Kriissmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 536. 1962, as a cv.). Distinguished by the
inner bark of young branchlets deep red. U. glabra.

‘Rueppellii’ (Spath, Berlin, Germany, Cat. 73, p. 124. 1888-1889, as U. campes-
tris Rueppelli; Kriissmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 535. 1962, as a cv.). Described
as a pyramidal tree with a distinct stem and numerous ascending branches
foiTning a globose or ovoid crown. U. carpinifolia.

‘Rufa’ (Dieck, Zoschen, Geimany, Haupt-Cat. Nachtrag I. 1887, p. 28, as U.
campestris f. rufa, without description). Possibly U. carpinifolia.

‘Rugosa’ (Audibert, Tonelle, France, Cat. 1817, p. 23, as U. campestris var.
rugosa, without description; Hartwig & Riimpler, 111. Geholzb. 583. 1875, as U.
montana var. rugosa Hort.). Described as having very hard, roughly harsh,
somewhat folded leaves, and as being pramidal and thick bushy. U. glabra.

‘Rugosa’ (Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1398. 1838, as U. montana var. rugosa
Masters). Described as having “dark reddish-brown bark, cracking into short
regular pieces, very like Acer campestris; a tree of spreading growth and moder-
ate size.” Possibly different from the previous cultivar. U. glabra.

‘Rugosa Pendula’ (Kirchner in Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 566. 1864, as
U. rugosa pendula Hort., name in synonymy) = ‘Propendens’.

‘Sarniensis’ (Loddiges, Hackney, London, Cat. 1836 [not seen]; Boom, Ned.
Dendr. 1: 158. 1959, as a cv.). The Jersey, Guernsey or Wheatley Elm. Us-
ually treated as a variety of U. carpinifolia; Dr. Melville believes it is more
correctly considered as a hybrid between U. angustifolia and U. X hollandica,
for which the botanical name would be U. X sarniensis (Loud.) Bancroft.
However the original clone may still be called cultivar ‘Sarniensis’.

‘ScAMPSTONiENSis’ (Kirchner in Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 560. 1864, as
U. glabra var. Scampstoniensis Loud.). The Scampston Elm. Originated at
Scampston Hall, Yorkshire, England, before 1810. A quick growing, weeping
form possibly no longer in existence. Probably a form of U. X hollandica.

‘Scampstoniensis Pendula’ (Kirchner in Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 560.
1864, as U. Scampstoniensis pendula) . Said to be of a very beautiful weeping
habit but scarcely different from U. montana pendula = U. glabra ‘Pendula’?

‘Schuurhoek’ (Van ’t Westeinde, Holland, Cat. 27, p. 28. 1957-58 [not seen]).
An old, nameless clone growing in several places around Goes, Holland, retaken
into cultivation and named by Van ’t Westeinde. Of high growth, the trunk
being covered with not-too-heavy branches over its whole length, and resistant
to exposure. U. carpinifolia.

‘Sempervirens’ (Bailey & Bailey, Hortus Second 747. 1941). Said to be an
evergreen form of the Chinese Elm, but can be deciduous or evergreen depend-
ing upon the climate. U. parvifolia.

‘Sericea’ (Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 236. 1877, as U. campestris var. sericea, with-
out description). Possibly U. carpinifolia.

‘Serpentina’ (Koch, Dendr. 2 (1): 417. 1872, as U. serpentina, name in synony-
my; Kriissmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 536. 1962, as a cv.). Given by Koch as a
synonym of ‘Pendula’. Plants with this name at Kew have been identified by
Dr. Melville as Ulmus glabra introgressed by U. carpinifolia and distinct from
‘Camperdownii’. It is said to have more pronounced zig-zag twigs.

‘Siber-Ansaloni’ (Ansaloni Nurseries, Bologna, Italy, Cat. 1946-47, p. 28) =
‘Ansaloni’.

‘Siberica’ (Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 237. 1877, as U. sibirica Hort., in synonymy,
without description) = U. pumila ‘Pendula’.

‘Smithii’ (Henry in Elwes & Henry, Trees Gr. Brit. Irel. 7: 1868. t.412, fig. 24.
1913, as U. Smithii). The Downton Elm, first named as such by Sabine (ex
Knight in Trans. Hort. Soc. Lond. 5: 146. 1824, as the Downton Elm). Raised
in 1810 in Smith’s Nursery at Worcester from seed obtained from a tree in
Nottinghamshire. Some seedlings were purchased by Mr. Knight of Downton
Castle of which one turned out to be pendulous. It has the habit of ascending
branches but pendulous branchlets. U. X hollandica.

‘SowERBYi’ (Moss, Cambr. Brit. Fl. 2: 90. 1914, as U. nitens var. sowerbyi Moss).
Described as a smaller tree than var. Hunnybunii, the branches shorter and the
upper ones very tortuous; leaves smaller and acute; often planted. U. carpini-
folia.

‘Spectabilis’. Appeared about 1915 in Pallesens Nursery, Kolding, Denmark.
Selected for its extremely rapid growth in the first two or so years but this
characteristic lessened as the plants grew older, and it seems to have dropped
out of cultivation. U. glabra.

‘Star’ (Plumfield Nurseries, Fremont, Nebraska, Wholesale Cat. 1957 [not seen]).
Selected about 1945, as grafts from a local tree of compact growth and much
branched, globe-shaped head. C7. americana.

‘Striata’ (Audibert, Tonelle, France, Cat. 2, p. 53. 1831-32, as U. campestris
striata). Possibly a typographic error = ‘Stricta’.

‘Stricta’ (Audibert, Tonelle, France, Cat. 1817, p. 23, as U. campestris var.
stricta). Described as of very rigid growth. A specimen under this name in
Herb. Nicholson at Kew has been identified by Dr. Melville as U. X viminalis.

suberosa (Moench, Verz. Baume Weissenst. 136. 1785, as U. suberosa). Said to
differ chiefly in the corky-winged branches but this is a juvenile character
which occurs here and there in otherwise unrelated populations of U. carpini-
folia and related elms and is inapplicable, along with fimgosa, and possibly alata,
as the name of a clone or cultivar.

‘Suberosa Alata’ (Kirchner in Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 556. 1864, as
U. campestris var. suberosa alata Hort. ) . Described as having corky pendulous
branches = ‘Propendens’?

‘Suberosa Pendula’ (Audibert, Tonelle, France, Cat. 1831-32, p. 53, as U.
suberosa pendula, without description; Spath, Berlin, Germany, Cat. 69, p. 9.
1887, as U. campestris suberosa pendula Hort.) = ‘Propendens’.

‘Suberosa Tortuosa’ (Schelle in Beissner et ah, Handb. Laubh.-Benenn. 84. 1903,
as U. campestris var. (?) suberosa tortuosa Hort., without description). U,
carpinifolia?

‘Suberosa Variegata’ (Hartwig & Riimpler, 111. Geholzb. 579. 1875, as U. cam-
pestris var. suberosa variegata Hort.). Described as having leaves with very
white streaks. Possibly a cultivar of U. carpinifolia or U. X viminalis, see
comments under U. carpinifolia ‘Variegata’.

‘Sublaciniatus’ (Mathieu, FI. Gen. Belg. 1: 480. 1853, as U. campestris var.
sublaciniatus) = ‘Crisp a’.

‘Superba’ (Morren in Jour. Agric. Prat. Belg. 1: 411. 1848, as U. montana var.
superba; Kriissmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 537. 1962, as a cv.). Raised in
Masters Nursery near Canterbury, probably early in the 19th century, and
referred to as Master’s Canterbury seedling; later known by the epithet major
(but not that of Smith). U. X hollandica.

‘Superba’ (Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 237. 1877, as U. montana var. superba, name
in synonymy) = ‘Cobnut a’.

‘Tabletop’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 5. 253. 1949, as U. glabra Tabletop, without
description) = ‘Horizontalis’.

‘Tiliaefolia’ (Host, Fl. Austr. 1: 329. 1827, as U. tiliaefolia) . Said to be a form
with ovate leaves, rounded or subcordate, and usually not strongly oblique at
the base. U. glabra.

Tomentosa’ (Kirchner in Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 566. 1864, as U.
tomentosa Hort.). Later described as having the undersides of leaves with
thick, soft, hairs giving a pronounced gray-green appearance. U. glabra.

‘Tortuosa’ (Host, Fl. Austr. 1: 330. 1827, as U. tortuosa). Described as having
a trunk and branches which zig-zag. U. carpinifolia.

‘Tricolor’ (C. de Vos, Woordenboek 137. 1867, as U. suberosa tricolor). De-
scribed as beautifully silver-variegated, the leaves near the top of growing
branches colored red, but not a vigorous grower. U. X hollandica.

‘Tricuspis’ (Koch, Dendr. 2 (1): 415. 1872, as U. tricuspis Hort.) = ‘Cornuta’.

‘Tridens’ (Hartig, Vollst. Naturg. Forstl. Culturpfl. 460. 1850, as U. tridens) =
‘Cornuta’.

‘Triserrata’ (Kirchner in Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 567. 1864, as U. triser-
rata Hort.) = ‘Cornuta’.

‘Turkestanica’ (Regel in Gartenflora 33: 28. 1884, as U. turkestanica, without
description) = ‘Umbraculifera’.

‘Umbraculifera’ (Trautvetter in Act. Hort. Petrop. 2: 590. 1873, as U. campest-
ris var. umbraculifera; Boom, Ned. Dendr. 1: 158. 1959, as a cv.). A tree with
a dense globose head, introduced to European gardens from Persia [?], before
1878. U. carpinifolia.

‘Umbraculifera Gracilis’ (Spath, Berlin, Genuany, Cat. 100, p. 121. 1897-98,
as U. campestris umbraculifera gracilis). Described as a form of var. umbraculi-
fera foiTning a long oval and not a globose crown, also with slenderer, more
crowded branches and smaller leaves. Originated in Spath’s nursery in Berlin,
as a shoot from ‘Umbraculifera’. U. carpinifolia.

‘Urnii’ ( Siebenthaler Co., Dayton, Ohio, Cat. 122, p. 15. 1931, as U. urni, with-
out description). See ‘Vase’.

‘Urticaefolia’ (Audibert, Tonelle, France, Cat. 2, p. 53. 1831-32, as U. urticae-
folia = ‘Crispa’.

‘Urticaefolia’ (Jacques in Revue Hort. 2: 128. 1832, as in U. urticaefolia) . De-
scribed as having deeply toothed leaves, the teeth unequal and very pointed
Raised as a chance seedling by Jacques in 1830, now probably lost from cultiva-
tion. U. laevis.

‘Van Houttei’ (Schelle in Beissner et ah, Handb. Laubh.-Benenn. 86. 1903, as
U. montana lutescens van Houttei Hort., without description) = ‘Louis van
Houtte’.

‘Variegata’ (Dumont de Courset, Bot. Cult. 3: 700. 1802, as U. campestris var.
glabra variegata; Boom, Ned. Dendr. 1: 158. 1959, as a cv.). Described as
having leaves spotted with white, especially near the margins. Said to have been

[ 76 ]

cultivated in France in 1772. Variegated forms arise frequently and several
clones may have been known under this name, most of them U. carpinifolia,
but variegated forms of U. X vegeta have also been known by this name.

‘Variegata’ (Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3: 1405. 1838, as U. (montana) glabra var.
variegata) . Described as having variegated leaves. = U. glabra ‘Albo-varie-
GATA?

‘Variegata’ (Wesmael in Bull. Fed. Soc. Hort. Belg. 1862: 390. 1863, as U. cam-
pestris var. nuda subvar. microphylla variegata Hort. Vilv.). Described as
having the leaves spotted with white. U. carpinifolia, possibly = ‘Variegata’.

‘Variegata’ (Wesmael in Bull. Fed. Soc. Hort. Belg. 1862: 387. 1863, as U. ameri-
cana var. variegata Hort.). Described as having leaves spotted with white.
U. americana.

‘Variegata’ (Lee ex Jour. Roy. Hort. Soc. 6: cxxix. 1880, as U. campestris varie-
gata). Described as having leaves like those of Ficus Parcellii, i.e., marked
with a creamy-white mosaic. Probably = ‘Argenteo-variegata’.

‘Variegata’ (Dippel, Handb. Laubh. 2: 25. 1892, as U. campestris var. variegata
Hort.) = ‘Argenteo-variegata’.

‘Variegata’ (Bean, Kew Hand-List Trees & Shrubs, ed. 3. 272. 1925, as U. major
var. variegata, without description) = ‘Eleganto-variegata’.

‘Variegata Nova’ (Nicholson, Kew Hand-List Trees & Shrubs 2: 137. 1896, as
U. campestris var. variegata nova Hort., without description; Henry in Elwes
& Henry, Trees Gr. Brit. Irel. 7: 1895. 1913). Said to bear “leaves which are
often much reduced in size and entirely whitish. Occasionally branches are
produced bearing leaves of noi*mal size with the variegation confined to the
margin and one or two branches with green leaves.” Possibly U. carpinifolia.

‘Vase’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 5. 253. 1949, as U. americana Vase, without
description). The name for a growth form neither clonal nor a true cultivar.
U. americana.

‘Vaseyi” (Bailey & Bailey, Hortus Second 747. 1941, as U. vasetji) = ‘Vase’
(which see) .

‘Vegeta’ (Lindley in Donn, Hort. Gantab. ed. 10. 193. 1823, without description;
Kriissmann in Parey’s Blumengartn. ed. 2. 1: 519. 1958, as a cv.). The Hunt-
ingdon or Ghichester Elm, said to have originated at Wood & Ingrams Nursery
at Huntingdon, in England, about the middle of the 18th century. Gonsidered
by Dr. Melville as a hybrid of U. carpinifolia X glabra for which it is the earliest
epithet, but treated by Rehder and others as a variety of the hybrid U. X hol-
landica. The widespread clone may be known as Ulmus ‘Vegeta’ in either case.

‘ViMiNALis’ (Masters, Hort. Durovemi 66. 1831, as U. campestris viminalis,

without description; Boom, Ned. Dendr. 1: 158. 1959, as a cv.). Described as

[ 77 ]

a tree with ascending branches but pendulous branchlets, slightly pubescent
while young; leaves obovate to narrow-elliptic, 2-6 cm. long, acuminate, incised
doubly serrate, scabrous above, slightly pubescent beneath. Said to have been
raised by Mr. Masters in 1817. Usually treated as a variety of U. procera but
according to Dr. Melville this is of hybrid origin: U. carpinifolia X plotii, and
is the correct epithet for this hybrid, as U. X viminalis. However the original
clone may still be known as Ulmiis ‘Viminalis’.

‘Viminalis Argentea’ (Hillier, Winchester, England, Cat. 2P, p. 100. 1938, as
U. viminalis argentea). Described as having leaves variegated with silver.
U. X viminalis (that is U. procera var. viminalis sensu Rehder).

‘Viminalis Aurea’ (Henry in Elwes & Henry, Trees Gr. Brit. Irel. 7: 1907. 1913,
as U. campestris var. viminalis aurea) = U. X viminalis ‘Aurea’.

‘Viminalis Gracilis’ (Dieck, Zoschen, Germany, Haupt-Cat. 1885, p. 82, as U.
scabra viminalis gracilis Hort., without description) = ‘Viminalis’.

‘Viminalis Marginata’ (Kirchner in Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 556. 1864,
as U. campestris var. viminalis marginata Hort. ) . Said to be a form of ‘Viminalis’
with the leaves variegated with creamy white near the margin.

‘Viminalis Marmorata’ (Schelle in Beissner et ah, Handb. Laubh.-Benenn. 85.
1903, as U. montana viminalis marmorata Hort., without description) = ‘Pul-
verulenta’.

‘Viminalis Pendula’ (Masters in Jour. Roy. Hort. Soc. 13: 90. 1891, as U. viminalis
pendtila, without description) = ‘Viminalis’.

‘Viminalis Pulverulenta’ (Hartwig, 111. Geholzb. ed. 2. 394. 1892, as U. scabra
var. viminalis pulverulenta Hort.). Described as the pulverulent ‘Viminalis’. =
‘Pulverulenta’.

‘Viminalis Stricta’ (Boulger in Card. Chron. H. 12: 298. 1879, as U. campestris
viminalis stricta Loudon, without description) .

‘Viminalis Superba’ (Schelle in Beissner et ah, Handb. Laubh.-Benenn. 85. 1903,
as U. campestris viminalis superba Hort., name in synonymy, without descrip-
tion) = ‘Viminalis Marginata’.

‘Viminalis Variegata’ (Lee ex Jour. Roy. Hort. Soc. 18: 90. 1895, as U. viminalis
variegata, without description) = ‘Viminalis Marginata’.

‘Virens’ (Masters, Hort. Duroverni 66. 1831, as U. virens, without description;
Loudon, Arb. Fmt. Brit. 3: 1376. 1838, as U. campestris var. virens). The
Kidbrook Elm. Described as being almost evergreen in a mild winter; the bark
is red and the tree of a spreading habit. U. X hollandica.

‘Virgata’ (Pepin in Revue Hort. 1865: 347. 1865, as U. campestris virgata and
U. virgata). Described as having slender, erect branches giving the tree a
fastigiate shape. Planted before 1789 near Nangis, Seine-et-Marne. U. carpini-
folia.

l 78 ]

‘Virginalis’ (Lavallee, Arb. Segrez. 235. 1877, as U. campestris var. virginalis,
name in synonymy) = ‘Viminalis’.

‘Viscosa’ (Loddiges, Hackney, England, Cat. 1836 ex Loudon, Arb. Frut. Brit. 3:
1378. 1838, as U. viscosa) . Leaves rather large and dark green, with some
anthocyanin pigment. An early specimen in Herb. Dumortier named U.
viscosa Audibert has been identified by Dr. Melville as U. X hollandica.

‘Washington’ (Anon, ex Dame, Typical Elms & Other Trees of Mass. 25. 1890;
Jack, Bull. Pop. Inf. Arnold Arb. HI. 5: 69. 1931, as the “Washington Elm”).
Not distinguished morphologically but clonally propagated and distributed
from the tree (now dead) under which George Washington is reputed to have
taken command of the Colonial Troops at Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1775.
U. americana.

‘Webbiana’ (Lee ex Simon-Louis, Metz, France, Cat. 1869, p. 97, as U. campes-
tris Webbiana; Kriissmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 535. 1962, as a cv.). Said to
be a form of the Cornish Elm with leaves folded longitudinally, and to have been
raised in Lee’s nursery about 1868, but possibly to be placed with U. X hollan-
dica along with ‘Viscosa’.

‘Wendworthii’ (Schelle in Beissner et ah, Handb. Laubh.-Benenn. 84. 1903, as
U. campestris Wendworthii Hort., without description) = ‘Wentworthii
Pendula’.

‘Wentworthiensis’ (Spath, Berlin, Germany, Cat. 143, p. 135. 1910-11, as U.
campestris wentworthiensis) = ‘Wentworthii Pendula’.

‘Wentworthii’ (Dippel, Handb. Laubh. 2: 24. 1892, as U. campestris Went-
worthii) = ‘Wentworthii Pendula’.

‘Wentworthii Pendula’ (C. de Vos, Handbook, Supplement, 16. 1890, as U.
Wentworthii pendula [not seen]). De Vos suggests it belongs in U. X hollan-
dica but the Kew tree under this name has been identified by Dr. Melville as
U. X vegeta.

‘Wheatley’ (Plant Buyer’s Guide, ed. 5. 253. 1949, as U. procera Wheatley,
without description ) = ‘Sarniensis’.

‘Wheatleyi’ (Simon-Louis, Metz, France, Cat. 1869, p. 98 [not seen]) =
‘Sarniensis’.

‘Willis’ (Willis Nursery Co., Ottawa, Kansas, Cat. Fall 1958-Spring 1959, p. 18.
1958). Probably a hybrid of U. pumila and U. rubra, although at first thought
to be U. americana X H. pumila. A selection made by Mr. Minnick of Kansas
City and first referred to as “Hybrid.” Described as having a smooth gray bark
on young trees, large leaves resembling those of U. americana, and as being of
veiy rapid growth.

‘Wredei’ (Jlihlke in Hamburg Cart.- & Blumenzeit. 33: 485. 1877, as U. Dampieri
var. Wredei; Kriissmann in Parey’s Blumengartn. ed. 2. 1: 519. 1958, as a cv.).

Described as a yellowish-leaved variant of ‘Dampieri’. Originated in 1875 at
the Arboretum at Alt-Geltow, near Potsdam, Germany. It may be a chimaera
as it often develops green twigs which are identical with ‘Dampieri’. The Kew
tree of this name has been identified by Dr. Melville as U. X hollandica.

‘Wreedi Aurea’ (Leach ex Jour. Roy. Hort. Soc. 16: Ixi. 1893, as U. Wreedi aurea)
= ‘Wredei’.

‘Ypreau’ (Poederle, Man. Arb. For. Belg. 266. 1772, as VOrme Ypreau). Also
called Porme-teille, Orme-tilleul and lindolm, each translatable as the T ilia-like
elm. Fonnerly much planted in the region of Ypres in Belgium. This name
has since become the subject of much confusion, involving two elms, a poplar,
and a willow (see Huberty in Bull. Soc. Gentr. For. Belg. 11: 571. 1904). U.
X hollandica.

l 80 ]

ARNOLDIA

V

A continuation of the
Bulletin of Popular Information
of the Arnold Arboretum, Harvard University

Volume 24 SEPTEMBER 18, 1964 Number 9

THE CHINESE BUSH CHERRY — TOMENTOSA

For over a century northeastern China has served as an experimental garden
from which visiting explorers have selected ornamental flowering and fruiting
plants for use in North America. One plant well known in the gardens of north
China has been tried in North America but not in other temperate areas. Even
in the United States it has dropped from serious consideration, yet it does deserve
a re-examination.

The Chinese bush cherry, Prunus tomentosa, has a natural distribution from
Korea through northern and western China and Tibet into the northern Hima-
layan portion of India. Long ago it was introduced into Japan and it was from
one plant in Japan that Thunberg described the species as the downy cherry.
Being both hardy and useful, its cultivation was increased until today it occurs
through the whole of the Russian Far East including Amurlandand Transbaika-
liai, into northern Kazakhstan and the mountainous regions of western China. In
Manchuria Prunus tomentosa has escaped from cultivation into the Liaotung Penin-
sula and it is found spontaneous along roads in the area surrounding Kirin or east
of Harbin. The Chinese have called this plant ying-t'ao (cherry), while in Man-
churia it is known as the Shanghai cherry, in Amurland as the ‘‘ando cherry.”
Around Peking it is the “mountain cherry” while the introduced plants have
been named Manchu cherry, Nanking cherry, Chinese bush cherry or Chinese
dwarf cherry in the U.S. and in Canada. The Russian horticulturist Skvortzov
suggested “Chinese cherry” as the most appropriate name but VVoeikoff preferred
a direct translation of its scientific name and used “downy cherry.”

In the northern parts of Asia Prunus tomentosa is an important fruiting shrub.
It tolerates cold and dry climates in areas where the winters are long and snow-
less and the temperatures regularly reached 31° F below zero. Grown near or in
the protection of houses, the plant is long-lived and fruitful. Generally it is a
vigorous twiggy shrub which becomes wider than tall in outline and averages 5-6
ft. in height. The dark reddish black bark is lustrous and the young branches

[ 81 ]

RECEIVED ^

1 19641 J

OCT

and leaves densely soft tomentose pubescent. The flower buds open before the
leaves, are white or pink with a red calyx, and are borne in clusters on bright
red pedicels. The regular habit of annual flowering coupled with its dependable
profusion of blossoms makes Prunus tomentosa a conspicuous and a desirable orna-
mental shrub. The flowers are followed by fruits which are equally abundant,
generally globose but rarely oblong in outline. In wild plants one quarter to one
half inch is the average fruit size but strains have been reported with fruits to
one inch in diameter. In Asia the plants are valued for the abundance of fruit,
sweet yet tart, brilliant in color, maturing in July and with moderate keeping
qualities. As a cultivated plant it does best on well drained soils which are
slightly acid and in locations which are protected. Frost damage is common to
this plant in Asia when it is grown in wet areas and poor results can be expected in
alkaline locations. It is, however, the most tolerant of drought of all the cherries.

The first introduction of this species to the United States is credited to the
Arnold Arboretum in 1882 when Bretschneider sent seeds collected in the area
of Peking to Charles Sargent. The United States Department of Agriculture
records of plant introductions list 49 introductions of Primus tomentosa and its
varieties between 1903 (3920 1) and 1953 (207515), the latest listing available.
Thirty-three of these introductions were from outside North America, e.g. , Tokyo,
China, Chinese Turkestan, Italy, Manchuria, Korea, India and Afghanistan. In
addition, there have been introductions by arboreta, state departments of agri-
culture, and private nurserymen in the U.S. and in Canada which are not recorded
in the USDA lists. Considering these many introductions, the present record of
the distribution of Primus tomentosa in cultivation in the U.S. is incomplete. A
check of five major herbaria reveals specimens only from plants cultivated in the
New England states. New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Georgia and Cali-
fornia. The species is also ofl'ered only by nurserymen in these same states, yet
unsubstantiated distribution records in various publications cite Iowa, Minnesota,
the Dakotas and Montana as areas of cultivation. In Canada the species has been
grown in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec and Labrador, but
recent information supplied by F. L. Skinner and VV. A. Cumming indicates that
only selected strains are to be recommended for such areas as Saskatchewan and
Alberta. The work of these men indicates that seedlings from stock obtained in
northern Manchuria are more suitable for Canadian horticulture than plants origi-
nating from farther south in Asia.

After its first introductions, the Chinese bush cherry seemed assured of a real
place in American horticulture. It was praised in many horticultural magazines
by many writers and in 1931 H. Lloyd Haupt, editor of the National Nursery-
man, devoted editorial comment and most of the text of the issue of January 1 5th
to the praise of this species. Haupt was so sure of the future of Prunus tomentosa
that he noted the many introductions and suggested, “just who is going to take
the final credit is hard to say.’*

[ 8-2 ]

r

PLATE VIII

Top: Primus tomentosa, fruitinp^ branch. Bottom: Primus tomeutosa in flower.

The horticultural uses of Prunus tomentosa are numerous and varied. In the |
Boston area it is one of the earliest flowering cherries, blooming at the end of |
April. The plants grow well as specimen plants or in a group. Although records
are available of plants 30 to 50 years of age in Manchuria, the experience in the i
Boston area indicates the plant has outlived its attractiveness in 20 or 25 years. |
A Wilson introduction of 1907 is still alive in our collections and propagations !
from the original Bretschneider introduction are maintained. The oldest single i
specimen is in Highland Park, Rochester, New York, and is a plant obtained |
from the Arnold Arboretum in 1892. In 1931 Haupt reported this plant as 8 feet '
tall and 25 feet in diameter and Harkness (Plants and Gardens 19: 13. 1963) i
indicated the correct size is today 10 by 12 feet. He also suggested its longevity |
and vigor may have been aided by the fact that it has never borne fruit. Primus j
tomentosa is grown as a hedge plant in Manchuria and is used also as a wind break. ,
At the Arnold Arboretum hedge test plots, Prunus tomentosa has not proven sue- |
cessful when subjected to pruning twice a year. Gerling’s illustration (Plants and
Gardens 19: 33. 1963) of the Nanking Cherry as an upright branching tree is
certainly the result of pruning.

Although varieties of Prunus tomentosa have been described often on minor
botanical characteristics, some of these must be considered as cultivars. '

Prunus tomentosa ‘Graebneriana’. Described by Koehne (Plantae Wilsonae 2 : 268-
79. 1912) as a botanical variety but based on material cultivated near the botan-
ical garden of Berlin Dahlem.

Prunus tomentosa ‘insularis’. Described as a variety by Koehne (l.c.) who cited |
material from Japan and material from cultivated plants in Korea. Hedrick (The I
Cherries of New York 22. 1915) cited this variety as in cultivation in Japan. '

Prunus tomentosa ‘Spaethiana’. Koehne states this new variety was cultivated in
European gardens but the only specimen cited was a Thompson collection, a
sterile species in the Herb. Ind. Or. of Hooker and Thompson from Kashmir.
The remaining varieties described by Koehne are based on wild specimens col-
lected in China.

Rehder described Prunus tomentosa iorms. I eucocarpa {3 oov. Arnold Arb. 20: 99.
1939) and Kriissman (Handbuch der Laub Geholze 2 : 277. 196l) has recognized
this as cultivar ‘Leucocarpa’. The holotype of Rehder’s form was taken from a
plant in the living collections of the Arnold Arboretum donated by Harlan P. I
Kelsey. Mr. Seth Kelsey has checked the records available and reports the plant
was one of a dozen white fruited forms grown from seed obtained directly from
Manchuria in 1930. Professor G. L. Slate has indicated that light fruited seed-
lings are not rare and, in fact, of 148 seeds planted he had 64 germinate, among
which were 7 albinos (Proc. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 28: 1 12-1 13. 193l). Prunus
tomentosa ‘Leucocarpa’ is no longer offered commercially.

[ 8^ ]

I

There have been many attempts to improve the Chinese bush cherry by breed-
ing and selection. Rehder (Bibliogr. Cult. Trees & Shrubs 331. 1 949) listed some
of the hybrids reported involving P. tomentosa. K. Yashiroda reported from Japan
on ^^Prunus tomentosa and its improvement” (Card. Chron. 3rd ser. 88: 109.
1930) and concluded “happily, it is a self-fertile cherry.” Slate (l.c.), in an
article entitled “Self-unfruitfulness in Primus tomentosa'’’’ clearly demonstrated
that the majority of strains of this species are instead self-sterile and that less
than 6 per cent of open pollinated seedlings were satisfactory as ornamental or
fruit-producing plants. Professor Slate was able to select strains for habit and for
fruit size. The two best strains were named and distributed as “Geneva” and
“Monroe” along with several numbered strains. The selections were also dis-
tributed by the New York State Fruit Testing Cooperative Association. Regret-
tably, these names were never published. The plants received of these selections
by the Arnold Arboretum grew, and herbarium specimens were made recording
these cultiv'ar names and numbers.

The Dominion Experimental Station, Morden, Manitoba, Canada (Results of
Experiments 1931-1937 : 55. 1938)named a selection of Prunus tomentosa as the
Drilea Cherry. Prunus tomentosa ‘Drilea’ was described as “a seedling of a pale
yellow Nanking Cherry that has stood up productively on the dry leas during
seasons when most of its kin suffered. Bush upright and spreading, vigorous,
annual bearer, fruit round, from to § inch across, bright red, flesh firm, tender,
sweet sprightly, pit small, season mid-July, quality good as dessert, canned, jelly
or jam. ”

In 1946, W. H. Alderman reported the development of three new varieties of
Nanking Cherry (Minnesota Horticulturist 74: 28. 1946) given designation as
Minnesota No. 41 “Large roundish fruit, requires a pollinizer,” Minnesota No.
63 “Very vigorous, large oval fruit, self fertile, ” and Minnesota No. 64 “Simi-
lar to No. 63.” In 1949 (Minnesota Horticulturist 77 : 37. 1949) the selection
Minnesota No. 63 was named ‘Orient’ and its origin noted to be self-pollinated
seed from a self fertile strain of Nanking Cherry obtained in 1925 from O. M.
Jensen of Albert Lea, Minnesota. The description is general and unique only
for the self fertile characteristic. In 1957 P. tomentosa ‘Orient’ was described
again by Alderman, Wilcox and Weir (Minn. Agr. Station Bulletin 441 : 12.
1957). Prunus ‘Orient’ was distributed in 1 949 and the largest plants had reached
a height of seven feet as a bush or small tree.

Not one of these cultivars can be located by name in modern nursery catalogues.

Prunus tomentosa deserves another trial and additional horticultural considera-
tion. The specimens grown at the Case Estates of the Arnold Arboretum are truly
handsome shrubs in flower, in foliage and in fruit. The pink flowered strains ap-
peal to more people than do the white flowered forms. The moderate sized fruits
are tasty eaten out of hand and make one of the most brilliantly colored jellies.
Although the plants are susceptible to peach borer and brown rot fungus, both

[8o]

afflictions can be controlled without difficulty. The species is used as an indicator j
plant for indexing certain viruses, but this sensitivity does not impair its life or '
its beauty.

R. A. Howard
A. I. Baranov

Propagation of Prunus tomentosa |

I

Collection, cleaning and storage of seeds.

The fruits of Prunus tomentosa are sufficiently mature in the last week of June
. in the Arnold Arboretum and can be harvested. Once fully ripe, the fruits are ,
enticing to birds and to men, and the crop disappears quickly. Ripe fruits are
placed in a small amount of water to allow the pulp to separate from the endo-
carp generally referred to as the “seed. ” Finally, cleaning can be done by hand
with the aid of a sieve or a strong jet of water. Although it is not good practice
to hold seeds of Prunus in dry storage for long periods, experimental lots of
Prunus tomentosa germinated without loss of viability after storage in an unsealed
polyethylene bag in a heated room for 21 months. A second lot stored under
comparable conditions but in a cloth bag for 45 months produced a 52 per cent
germination.

The natural dormancy of Prunus tomentosa seeds can be broken down by cold
treatment. Seeds sown without cold treatment have not germinated unless well
aged. A three month treatment of cold stratification will produce about 98 per
cent germination.

Seeds sown in the fall out of doors germinate in the spring. The seeds, how-
ever, are attractive to rodents and must be protected with wire mesh. Artificial
stratification can be accomplished by placing the seeds in a medium of equal parts
sand and peat moss. This, in a plastic bag tightly sealed to be vapor proof, can
be placed in a refrigerator at 40 degrees for 3 months. The contents of the bag
can then be sown and full germination will occur within a week of sowing. In
the Boston area fruits collected in June are stored dry until February, then sub-
jected to cold stratification and sowed directly in mid-May. A stratification be-
ginning in December allows planting in flats in greenhouses in March for trans-
planting to field locations during the summer.

Cuttings.

Prunus tomentosa rooted readily from softwood cuttings taken in the Boston
area in mid-June. A root-inducing substance should then be used and the cutting
placed in a polyethylene chamber or under mist.

Bud-grafting.

Bud grafting of selected clones is best accomplished in late July or August
using the species as understock. Prunus tomentosa seedlings have been used ex-
perimentally as a dwarfing rootstock for peaches and plums (Arnoldia 10: 76.
1950) and as an easily transplanted root system for clones of the beach plum
Prunus maritima.

Alfred Fordham

[87]

1964 FALL PROGRAM OF THE ARNOLD ARBORETUM
Field Classes

Friday mornings, 10 a.m.-12 noon Jamaica Plain

Oct. 2-30 Administration Building

Fall foliage and attractive fruits may be counted upon to extend the garden sea-
son. The fall field classes, conducted by Dr. Donald Wyman, will consider these
plants, in addition to those perennial favorites, the evergreens. Opportunities are
afforded for questions relating to the identification or culture and care of plants
hardy in New England. In case of inclement weather, the meetings are held
indoors. Fee $2.00

Tuesday afternoons, 2 p.m. Case Estates

Sept. 29-Oct. 27 Weston

The class, led by Dr. Mary Sanders, will become acquainted with the special
plantings in Weston, such as ground covers, trees for small areas, late lilies, and
the low maintenance garden, as well as with the natural areas. Identification of
trees and shrubs in winter and techniques of plant breeding will also be considered.
The group will meet at the Barn, 13.7 Wellesley St., Weston, rain or shine.

Fee $2.00

Plant Propagation

(short course)

Instruction in the major phases of plant propagation will be given by Mr. Alfred
J. Fordham in an irregular schedule planned so that each may be dealt with in
proper season. Emphasis will be placed on methods whereby the student can
successfully reproduce woody plants at home using simple, inexpensive and readily
available equipment. Propagational material will be furnished by the Arboretum.
In some cases it will be taken home for treatment while in other instances green-
house space will be provided. Meetings are scheduled on Saturday mornings and
Thursday evenings in October, February, xApril and June. The first session will
be held at Charles Stratton Dana Greenhouses, 1050 Centre Street, Jamaica
Plain, on Saturday, October 3, 1964, at 9:30 a.m. A full schedule will be fur-
nished at that time. A sharp knife is needed and casual clothing will be in order.
Class size will be limited to 20 participants. Fee $10.00

ARNOLDIA

A continuation of the
Bulletin of Popular Inp^ormation
of the Arnold x4rboretum, Harvard University

Volume 24 NOVEMBER 6, 1964 Number 10

LILIES IN THEIR ORDER OF BLOOM

The Lily Demonstration Plots of the Arnold Arboretum were started in the
fall of 1962, as the result of a cooperative effort between the New England
Lily Group of the North American Lily Society and the Arnold Arboretum. At
present there are 2.50 species and varieties of lilies growing in these plots and the
majority of them have bloomed in 1963 and again in 1964. During the blooming
periods careful weekly notes were taken each year. Since I have had little pre-
vious experience in growing lilies, some of the information noted was elementary,
especially to the experienced lily grower. However, the best way to become ac-
quainted with any plant is to make frequent observations and take profuse notes,
which we did.

The following table is of value because it shows the sequence in which this
large collection of lilies has bloomed under the conditions at the Case Estates of
the Arnold Arboretum where they are planted. The date of emergence (not given
in the following table, but it was April 20-June 1 for almost all of them this
year), the height of the tallest stalk, the number of flowers and the size of the
flowers on the stalk are all characteristics varying with the age of the bulb, the
amount of available water and soil fertility, but it has been interesting, in learn-
ing about lily growth, to note such information during the past two years.

Since these lilies are growing in beds adjacent to one another on the same piece
of ground, the blooming dates, as well as the number of days of bloom, are com-
parable. The other notes are given merely “for the record.’* It was deemed ad-
visable to list the lilies as they come into bloom by weekly intervals. The column
listing the number of days the flowers remain in good condition contains some
interesting figures for comparison.

Color comparisons are always difficult. The most prominent color in the newly
opened flower was compared with the American Horticultural Society’s color fan.
Most flowers fade as they mature and lilies are no exception. The colors noted
are those in the flower the first day it opened. Precise color descriptions cannot

[ 8i> ]

RECEIVED

NOV 9 lywi

be listed in a table of this type, since one flower may be of several colors — more
pronounced toward the center of the corolla, fading to lighter colors towards the
edges of the petals; hence these notes are to be considered as only a general in-
dication of flower color. In the column on flower size, the first figure is the over-
all diameter of the flower; the second figure is the depth of the corolla.

The ^ type of flower” has been generally indicated thus:

E — Flower erect on stalk, either bowl-shaped (b) or starry-shaped (s).

T — Trumpet-shaped, short (s) if corolla is under b" long; long (l) if b" or over
in length.

H — Flowers held horizontally on the stalk. This is an excellent trait and makes
for a good display.

N — Flowers nodding on stalk, either pendulous (p) or bell-shaped, or with the
flower widely open and petals reflexed (r).

It is hoped that growers who do not see their favorites in this list will send
them to the Arnold Arboretum, Jamaica Plain, Mass, for further trial.

Lilies in their Order of Bloom
Case Estates of the Arnold Arboretum

Notes taken June-September 1964

Name and Week

First Flower Opened

No. Days in Bloom

No. Flowers per Stalk

Size of Flower
(width and depth
in inches)

Height of Stalk
(in inches)

Color

Type of Flower

June 7

‘Beacon’

25

4

5 X2

38

5YR 7/11

Es

June 14

‘Achievement’

17

9

2iXl

26

white

N r

‘Adagio’

27

14

3X1

44

lOR 5/l0

H

‘Azalia’

18

7

5 X3

24

7 . 5 Y R 7/4

Es

Butterball Strain

44

14

3X1

50

5 YR 8/6 (varies)

N

Coronado Hybrids

22

3

4 X3

13

7.5YR 7/11

Eb

‘Corsage’

26

12

4X1

33

2.5R 8/5 to pale yellow

H

‘Dieppe’

24

9

34

dark reddish

Es

‘Earlibird’

27

12

5^ X3

25

2.5YR 6/12

‘Fireflame’

26

10

5iX3

24

lOR 4/9

H

‘Grand Slam’

20

14

4^X3

38

7.5R4/^1

Es

‘Harmony’

25

16

4^ X 3

29

5YR 7/11

Eb

[90]

June 14 (cont.)

^Lemon Queen’

28

12

4i X2

46

5Y 8/ 12

H

L. concolor coridion

lo

9

1 XI

20

5Y 8/ 12

H

L. d auric um

15

6

2^X2^

20

lOYR 8/ 10

Kb

L. graiji

14.

1

2 X2

12

7 . 5 R 5 / 13

H

L. hansonii

14

4

2^X1

28

yellow

H

L. kelloggii

16

2

2 X2

12

2.5RP 7/8

Np

L. mart agon album

15

4

s^-xii

27

white to 7. 5Y 9/8

N r

‘Mountaineer’

18

2

4^ X 1^

20

lOR 5/l 1

E

‘Mrs. R. O. Backhouse’

13

16

3iXl

54

5YR 7/ll

N r

Paisley Strain

23

1 1

2^X1

31

2.5RP 9/2

N r

‘Queen of Hearts’

20

5

5 X2

27

lOR 5/1 1

Es

Rosette Hybrids

42

17

2iX

42

5Y 8/12

H

‘Scottiae’

25

9

.^X2i

20

lOR 6/12

Es

‘Sunspot’

19

5

4iXli

20

7.5R 4/1 1

Es

‘Tabasco’

18

13

5 X2

32

7.5R 4/11

Es

Terrace City Hybrids

17

14

3X1

53

lOYR 7/10

N r

Toccata’

21

12

4 X2

38

7 . 5 Y R 8/8

N r

June 21

‘Amaryllis’

1 1

4

18

2.5YR 6/1 1

E

‘Brandywine’

17

2

S^Xl

17

5YR 7/11

H

‘Brocade’

18

28

2ix|

58

7.5 YR 6/9

N r

‘Buttercup’

17

7

s xii

44

2.5YR 8/1 1

N r

‘Cinnabar’

19

8

2iX2

20

7 . 5 R 5/13

E

Corsair’

18

1 1

six—

29

5YR 7/1 1

Es

‘Destiny’

24

6

5i X2

26

5Y 8/12

Es

‘Enchantment’

28

25

5i X2

36

lOR 6/12

Es

Golden Chalice

37

3

3 X2

12

yellow

H

Hybrids

‘Golden Jubilee’

22

10

4X —

18

5YR 7/1 1

Es

‘Guinea Gold’

8

1 1

lixf

41

7.5YR 8/8

H

Harlequin Hybrids

18

13

2^ X 1 ^

34

7.5R 9/3

N.r

L. amabile

8

1

2ixii

12

lOR 6/12

N r

L. candid um

17

13

2iX3i

42

white

Ts

L. tsingtauense

22

4

3^X2

20

lOR 6/12

Es

‘Meadowlark’

20

6

5 X —

16

7.5Y 9/ 8

Es

‘Mego’

10

3

4iXli

26

2.5Y 9/9

E

‘Orchid Queen’

17

8

25

2. 5RP 8/ 5

H

‘Overture’

22

12

2'2' X

38

2.5YR 9/3

H

‘Paprika’

1 1

6

5 Xli

18

7.5R 4/1 1

H

‘Primadonna’

7

7

2X1

27

7.5R 9/3 to whitish

H

‘Prosperity’

19

12

4 X2

23

2.5Y 8/12

H

[ 91 ]

June 21 (cont.)

‘Tarantella’

17

1 1

4 X2

36

5YR 8/7

N r

‘Red Bird’

18

17

4i X2

48

7.5R 4/1 1

H

‘Sonata’

1 1

sxii

40

2.5YR 9/6

N r

‘Sunshine’

‘24

12

3 X—

29

2.5Y 8/12

H

June 28

Amber Gold’

17

9

2^ X 1 ^

36

2.5Y 8/12

N r

Bellingham Hybrids

18

1 1

3 X2

46

lOR 6/12

N r

Brigadier Hybrids

29

2

6 X3

20

5YR 7/8

E

‘Bronze Queen’

17

21

2^ X 1 2

47

5YR 6/11

N r

Burgundy Ball Strain

6

13

2^X2

25

lOR 4/9, varies

N

‘Croesus’

17

4

5 X3

10

2.5Y 8/12

Es

‘Dora Pinnow’

26

10

4 X3

42

7.5Y 9/8

N r

‘Dunkirk’

‘Edith Cecillia’ X

21

13

5 X2

34

7.5R 4/8

E

‘ Rosabelle § \ ’

15

14

38

7.5RP 5/12-4/1 1

H

Evening Star’

24

14

3iX —

27

lOR 6/12

Es

Firecrown’

‘Flame’ X ‘Xmas Red

17

6

24

lOR 6/2

Es

^4’

1 1

14

5 X3

43

7.5YR 6/9

Eg

‘Gold Flake’

29

2

5 X2i

1 5

5YR 7/11

E

‘Hurricane’

27

1 5

3'j X —

34

7.5R 4/11

E

‘Joan Evans’

18

t

5 X2i

24

5YR 7/11

Es

‘Lady Lou’

25

32

3^ X —

54

lOR 5/1 1

H

L. amabile luteum

1 1

1

2iXli

34

5Y 8/12

N r

L. taliense

13

1

2 X 1

36

7.5P 7/7

N r

‘Mystic Gold’

27

13

5 Xli

33

5Y 8/12

H

‘Orange’ X ‘Flame’

18

6

3 XI

lOR 5/1 1

E

‘Primrose Lady’

1 7

12

2f XI

39

pale yellow

N r

Rosabelle’

18

6

4X —

26

lOR 7/4

Es

‘Rose Dawn’

18

9

3 XI

33

5R 6/1 1

H

Sentinel Strain

15

4

5^ X5

29

white

T1

‘Shuksan’

1 1

5

2^X2

31

7.5YR 7/1 1

N r

‘white Princess’

30

8

3 Xli

31

7.5R 9/3

N r

July 5

African Queen Strain

24

1 1

5 xsi

50

lOYR 8.5/7

Ts

‘Afterglow’

16

6

six—

30

7.5R 5/13

‘Amethyst Temple’
Apricot Royal

19

8

5 X4

49

2.5RP 6/10

Ts

Trumpets

16

3

5 X4

29

lOYR 8/10, varies

Ts

Bronzino Strain

7

6

24

yellowish bronze

N r

‘Burnished Gold’

21

17

6 X6

56

7.5Y 9/8

T1

[9-2]

July 5 (cont.)

Carrara Strain

17

1

6 X5

86

white to yellow

T1

Celestial Hybrid

Helies Strain

28

9

5 X 4^

44

5Y 9/9

Ts

‘Dainty Lass’

16

1

5X4

28

lOP 6/10

Ts

‘Delicious’

20

28

8if X —

85

7.5YR 7/11

E

Fascination Strain

1 5

18

7X7

50

white

T1

‘Gold Urn’ X

philadelphicum if‘2

1 1

4

18

7.5R 6/12

Es

‘Golden Clarion’

16

2

29

5Y 9/9

Ts

Golden Showers Strain

81

6

oXsi

42

lOY 9/10

N r

Golden Splendor Strain

18

4

5^ X 4^

84

5Y 9/9

Ts

‘Green Dragon’

7

4

7X5

86

pale yellow

T1

‘Lemon Fair’

7

2

5X4

2 4

white to yellowish

Ts

‘Lemon Lady’

1 1

2

8Xl

16

5Y 9/9

H

L. cernuum

21

12

liXi

15

5RP 8/5

N r

L. davidii macranthum

29

90

sxh

60

8.5YR 6/12

N r

Limelight’

16

5

6X4

86

7.5Y 8/12

Ts

Majestic Hybrids

22

12

5X5

48

lOF 8/6 to white

T1

Majestic Strain

1 5

4

6X4^

82

2.5GY 8/6

Ts

‘Red Knight’

25

27

4Xi4

87

7.5R 3/7

H

‘Rose Queen’

9

10

8Xl

81

7.5RP 7/10

N r

Shelburne Yellow

Trumpets

16

5

5X5

44

7.5Y 9/8

T1

‘Spitfire’

19

16

8^ X 2

27

lOR 6/12

Es

‘Sun Temple’

28

7

4^ X 5

49

7.5Y 9/8

T1

‘White Gold’

10

5

2|X1

29

pale yellow

N r

White Trumpets

16

4

5 X 5^

88

white

T1

‘Winter Sunset’

14

7

5iX4i

41

1 OP 7/8 to whitish

Ts

July 12

Big Tom’

25

12

7X4

42

lOYR 8/ 10

Ts

‘Black Dragon’

15

4

7X5

44

white to 5 RP 2/ 8

H

Black Magic Strain

15

4

5 X 5

47

white to purplish

H

‘Bright Star’

21

5

5^X2

88

yellowish to white

N r

Burgundy Strain

15

7

2iXl

14

7.5R 4/1 1

N r

‘Charity’

21

9

7X4

25

5Y 5/1 8

Ts

‘Damson’

16

8

4^ X 4

26

2.5RP 3/10

Ts

‘Edith Cecillia’

7

26

2Xl

20

2.5R 9/3

N r

‘Golden RoyalTrumpet’

18

8

5X5

47

5Y 9/9

T 1

GoldenTrumpets Strain 28

9

7X8

40

7.5Y 9/8-2. 5 YR 7/10

N r

Golden WeddingStrain

19

25

3iXl

80

7.5Y 9/8

N r

Green Knight Flares

Strain

16

12

6X4^

46

2.5Y 8/12

Ts

[93]

July 12 (cont.)

Green Magic Strain

10

1

4^X4

40

white

Ts

‘Hearts Desire’

18

5

5 X ?>h

31

white

Ts

‘ Honeydew’

17

3

5 X 4^

20

lOY 9/8

Ts

Inca Princess Strain

12

18

8X3

46

pale greenish yellow

H

‘Lemon Royal Bowl’

19

6

5X4

38

7.5Y 8/12

H

‘Life’

17

4

4^X4

34

5Y 8.5/12

Ts

L. longiilorum

13

2

4X6

14

white

T1

(tetraploid)

L. regale

22

5

5X6

48

white to pinkish

T1

L. sargentiae Hybrids

25

6

6X6

31

white to greenish

T1

‘Luna’

21

9

5X5

48

lOY 9/6

T1

‘Matawee’

10

5

6X5

46

pale yellow

H

Moonlight Strain

19

2

6X5

33

5Y 9/9

T1

Olympic Hybrids

12

2

5X5

30

white

T1

Pink Perfection Strain

1 6

6

six 34

33

pale pink, varies

Ts

Pink Sunburst Strain

25

6

5X3i

36

white to pink

H

‘Red Torch’

U

20

4iX li

32

7. 5 R 5/13

H

Shelburne Pink

Trumpets

17

8

4X4^

33

2.5RP 6/10

Ts

‘Shenandoah’

18

6

5X2^

38

pale yellow to deep orange N r

Stardust’

18

6

6X2

42

white

H

‘Sunlight’

14

7

6X3-4

34

5Y 8.5/12

H

‘Thunderbolt’

19

7

8X5

42

5YR 7/1 1

N r

‘Victory’

44

5

s4Xi

18

2.5YR 6/ 13

H

Warrior’

10

9

6X24

27

2.5R 4/10

H

‘ Whiteface’

14

2

5 X44

31

white

Ts

‘Wildfire’

10

14

44X44

24

7.5R 4/11

H

‘Yellow Regal’

19

3

44X4

24

7.5Y 9/10

Ts

July 19

‘Autumn Glory Flares’

16

8

5X2

42

5YR 7/ 1 1

H

‘Cupid’

9

1

4X4

19

white to pinkish

‘Golden Royal Corona’

22

8

33

5Y 9/9

H

‘Greatheart’

1 1

4

4 X3i

27

7.5YR 8/8

H

‘Lady Allice’

18

6

6X2

40

white to yellowish

H

L. canadense flavum

10

6

4X2^

46

2.5Y 8/12

N r

L. mar gat on cattaniae

10

8

lix li

20

reddish black

N r

L. tigrinum

28

7

4X2i

36

lOR 6/14

N r

Lovely Lady’

1

1

5X4

1 7

white

H

‘Mystic Virgin’

16

8

6X4

28

white to greenish

Np

Pink Glory Strain

23

7

6 X 1 i

30

white to 2.5 RP 9/ 10

H

‘ Pioneer’

9

3

5X4

20

5Y 8.5/12

Ts

[94]

July 19 (cont.)

Superba Strain

18

21

5^ X 3

46

creamy white

X

‘Wahula’

^28

12

6X6

36

2.5Y 9/9

H

July 26

Canary’

18

4

3^ X 1 ^

34

5Y 8.5/12

Centennial Hybrids

13

3

9^X2^

17

white

H

Barryi Hybrids

18

3

7X-

27

very pale yellow, varies

H

‘Black Beauty’

22

5

2X —

2.5R 3/7

H

‘Canary’

18

4

six\i

34

5Y 8.5/12

H

‘Cherry Glow’

9

3

5X5

21

white to reddish

T1

‘Eventide’

14

4

5X2

7.5YR 8/9 to white

H

Golden Showers Strain

1 5

2

6X2^

30

5Y 8.5/12

‘Good Hope’

19

8

6X2

34

2.5Y 8/12

H

‘imperial Crimson’

26

13

7^X31^

42

white

H

L. henryi citrinum

19

22

4X2

72

5Y 8/12

H

‘Mme. Edouard Debras’

21

13

6X4

36

7.5Y 9/8

H

‘Mystic Star’

1 1

5

30

5R 5/13

H

‘ Reverie’

1 1

3

5X —

36

white to yellowish

Silvervine’

10

4

6X3

40

white

H

August 2

Centennial Hybrids

13

3

9^X2^

17

white

Imperial Silver Strain

1 5

1 1

6X2

42

white

H

L. Jormosanum u'ilsonii

5

2

4X6

I 7

white

T1

L. leichtlinii

14

4

^^ix 1

40

lOY 9/9

H

August 9

Crimson Dream Strain

14

5

6X2

35

lORP 4/12 to white

H

Imperial Gold Strain

1 7

6

9X6

51

white to yellowish

H

‘jamboree’

26

5

5X2

38

7.5RP 5/12

H

August 16

‘Ellabee’

17

6

4X2

48

white

H

L. aurafum plat yphy Hum

17

4

5X4

36

white

Ts

August 23

L. speciosum album

20

4

6X2^

34

white

H

Superstar Strain

30

1 1

3iXlf

40

7.5RP 5/4 to white

H

August 30

L. brorcnii australe

1 1

2

4X6

60

white

T1

Donald Wyman

[95]

ARNOLDIA

A continuation of the
Bulletin of Popular Information
of the Arnold Arboretum, Harvard University

Volume 24 DECEMBER 4, 1964 Number 11

THE NEW HEDGE DEMONSTRATION PLOT

A COMPLETE study of the old Hedge Demonstration Plot of the Arnold
Arboretum was published in Arnoldia 17 : 17-32, April 12, 1957. Most of
those hedges had been growing on the site by the Bussey Building since 1936.
However, when the Charles Stratton Dana Greenhouses were erected in 1962, a
hedge demonstration site was prepared in this newly developed greenhouse area.
Some of the hedges were moved to the new site, the old one being abandoned.
The hedges which were moved are marked with asterisks in the following list.

The majority of the hedges for the new site were made from plants bought or
given to the Arnold Arboretum in 1962 or 1963 specifically for this purpose. Most
were plants \^-5' tall. Nearly all of the deciduous ones among these were cut to
within a few inches of the ground as soon as they were planted in hedge forma-
tions and the few older deciduous hedges which were moved from the old site
were treated similarly. The evergreen hedges, of course, were not pruned back
so severely when they were transplanted. The measurements here given were
taken in November 1964, after two full growing seasons.

The peculiar plan for this new’ site w’as made necessary because of an under-
ground drain. This is flanked on either side by a right of way reserved by the
City of Boston to allow for possible alterations of the drain at some future time.

Hedges planted 1963

* = Moved from old Hedge Collection. The remainder were planted as young
plants in 1963.

Map Measurements in Feet

Location Height Width

Acanthopanax sieboldianus

48a

3

1

Abies concolor

28

l4

2

Acer campestre

13

li

1

Acer ginnala

14

A

2

Acer saccharum Globosum’

59b

li

[i*7]

Location

Height

Width

Berberis mentorensis

49a

1 1

A 2

1

B. thunbergii

49c

1

B. thungergii atropnrpurea

49b

1

B. thunbergii ‘Crimson Pygmy’

44

1

2

1

B. thunbergii ‘Erecta’

38b

1

1

2

*B. thunbergii minor

37

1

1

Betula populifolia

1 5

2

1 ^

Buxus ‘Curly Locks’

16

2

1

*B. microphylla koreana

23

3

3

B. ‘Tide Hill’

24a

1

1

Caragana arborescens

60a

2

Carpinus betulus

1

2

1 ^

Chaenomeles speciosa

40a

1

1

Chamaecyparis pisifera filifera

36a

1

2

1

C. pisifera plumosa

36b

2

2

Cornus mas Flava’

63

3

2

Crataegus crus-galli

5

3

o

C. phaenopyrum

59a

2

Deutzia gracilis rosea

46a

2

Elaeagnus angustifolia

62a

2

Euonymus alata ‘Com pacta’

8

1

E. fortunei vegeta

30a

1

2

Fagus sylvatica

6

2

i4

Forsythia intermedia ‘Spectabilis’

65

3

2

Gleditsia triacanthos inermis

4

2

i4

*Ilex crenata convexa

25a

3

3

*1. opaca ‘Clark’

24b

li

Juniperus virginiana

34b

3

2

*Kolkwitzia amabilis

51a

2

2

Ligustrum amurense

50a

2

1

L. ibolium

50b

3

3

L. obtusifolium ‘Regelianum’

42

2

2

L. ovalifolium

43a

2

2

*L. vicaryi

50c

1

1

*L. vulgare

43b

2

2

*L. vulgare ‘Lodense’

30b

1

li

Lonicera fragrantissima

67

4

3

*Lonicera tatarica

61a

2

2

*Malus sp. dwarf

52b

3

*Philadelphus coronarius

61b

3

3

*P. lemoinei ‘Erecta’

38a

2

2

*Physocarpus intermedius parvifolius

47a

2

1

P. opulifolius

47b

3

Picea abies

21

2

3

*P. omorika

33b

3

4

[98]

w

a. 9. /o- //.

The new Hedg'e Demonstration Plot at the Arnold Arboretum, photog^raphed Nov, 17, 1964.

Location Height

Width

*Picea orientlias

33a

3

*P. pungens glauca

32b

4

Pinus mugo prostrata

39a

1

P. strobus

22

34

P. sylvestris

29

4

Potentilla fruticosa grandiflora

56

2

Prinsepia sinensis

5 1 b

1

*Pseudotsuga menziesii glauca

32a

4

Quercus palustris

10

2

Rhamnus cathartica

1 lb

1

R. frangula

1 la

2

R. frangula Columnaris’

54

4

Rhododendron yedoense poukhanense

58b

1

Ribes alpinum

41

3

Rosa rugosa

57

3

Salix pentandra

48b

3

Spiraea bumalda Anthony Waterer’

46b

2

*S. prunifolia

64

2

S. vanhouttei

53

"^4

*Syringa chinensis

12a

2

*S. laciniata

60b

0

S. ‘Vestale’

12b

1

*Taxus cuspidata

19

4

*T. cuspidata nana

31

14

*T. media ‘Hatfieldii’

20b

3

*T. media hicksii

20a

3

*Thuja occidentalis

35a

4

*T. occidentalis ‘Globosa’

17a

^4

*T. occidentalis ‘Pumila’

17b

2

*T. occidentalis ^Robusta’

35c

si

*T. occidentalis ‘Spiralis’

35b

5

*T. plicata

18

3

Tilia cordata

3

2

Tsuga canadensis

27

2

*T. canadensis ‘Compacta’

25b

3

T. canadensis Stricta’

39b

1

T. caroliniana

26

1

*Ulmus parvifolia

62b

2

U. pumila

2

4

^Viburnum dentatum

66b

24

prunifolium

66a

1

V. trilobum Compactum’

52a

2

[ 100 ]

3

4.

1

3

1

4

1

*2

o

1

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

4

4

2i

5

4

4

24

^4

2

s4

2

1 1

l2

2

1

2

2

1

i4

Donald Wyman

ARNOLDIA

A continuation of the
Bulletin of Popular Information
of the Arnold Arboretum, Harvard University

Volume 24 DECEMBER 18, 1964 Number 12

BONSAI AT THE ARNOLD ARBORETUM

^ ^ r I 'I HE Larz x\nderson collection of Japanese dvv^arf trees presented to the
X Arnold Arboretum as a memorial to his friend, Charles Sprague Sargent,”
is an explanatory statement quoted from the carved inscription displayed with
these intriguing plants. This group of dwarfed trees was given to the Arboretum
in the fall of 1937. The plants have been on public display in a specially erected
shade house ever since. Brought to this country at a time when strict plant
quarantines were not in force, these plants were imported with soil around the
roots in their original Japanese containers. The Arboretum welcomes the oppor-
tunity of being able to display these striking examples of Japanese horticulture.

The honorable Larz Anderson became interested in Japanese horticulture as
early as 1907 and built a particularly attractive Japanese garden on his estate in
Brookline, Massachusetts. Somewhat later he became interested in dwarf trees
and in 1913 he brought back from Japan a splendid collection of them, which
he acquired while serving as Ambassador Extraordinary from the United States
to Japan (1912-1913). These he placed on display in his own garden where they
were carefully tended for twenty-five years by different Japanese gardeners.
When he died, his wife presented the collection to the Arnold Arboretum.

In 1962 this fine collection was moved to a specially built lath house in
front of the new Charles Stratton Dana Greenhouses. Here the plants are given
the necessarj’ shade and the pots in which they are growing, all originals from
Japan, are displayed to good advantage. There is overhead irrigation so that on
hot days the atmosphere about the plants can be moist. They are taken into a
cold house for the winter months, so that the plants and the pots will not freeze,
and then returned to their display house in early May.

There are twenty-seven specimens, ranging in age from 56 to 226 years. Prun-
ing and other care is given by our own work crew. This collection has been
shown at one time or another in most of the major flower shows of the East, but
because of its great value (as well as the great weight of some of the pots !) it is

[ 101 ]

Upper left: Chamaecyparis ohtusa; 175 years old. Upper right: Chamaecypariti ohtnsa; 160 years old. Lower left and right: The
new Bonsai house in front of the Charles Stratton Dana greenhouses at the Arnold Arboretum, with plants conveniently displayed.

PLATE XI

Upper left: Acei' huergerianum; 110 years old. Upper right: Chamaevyparis pisifera squarrosa;
65 years old. Lower left: Pinus parviflora; 75 years old. Lower right: Chamaecyparis obtusa; 130
years old.

not expected that the collection will again leave the Arnold Arboretum.

Recently there has been a surge of interest in Bonsai. In order to assist those
who wish to learn more about the art some of the more recent books on the sub-
ject are listed here.

Brooklyn Botanic Garden’s publication, Plants and Gardens, Vol. 9, No. 3, 19.53,
entitled, ‘‘Dwarfed Potted Plants as the Japanese Grow them.”

Chidamian, Claude. “Bonsai. Miniature Trees” D. Van Nostrand Co., Prince-
ton, N.J. 96 pp. 1955.

Kawamota, Toshio and Joseph Y. Kurihara. “Bonsai-Saikei” Nippon Saikei Co. ,
Tokyo, Japan. 361 pp., ill. 1963.

Yashiroda, Kan. “Bonsai” Charles T. Branford Co., Newton, Mass. 166 pp.,
ill. 1960.

Yoshimura, Yugo and Giovanna M. Halford. “The Japaaese Art of Miniature
Trees and Landscapes” Chas. E. Tuttle & Co., Rutland, Vt., and Tokyo,
Japan. 220 pp. 1957.

Donald Wyman

[ lo-t ]

INDEX TO V^OLUME XXIV

Illustrations are in bold face type.

Acer buergerianum, Plate XI, 103

Baranov, A. I., 86
Bonsai at the Arnold Arboretum,
101-104

— house, new, Plate X, 103

— references, 104

Chamaecyparis obtusa, Plate X, 103;
Plate XI, 103

— pisifera squarrosa, Plate XI, 103
Chinese Bush Cherry, The — Prunus

tomentosa, 8 1-86

— cherry, 81

Cultivar Names in Ulmus, Registra-
tion of, 41-80

of Fagus L., Registration List

of, 1 — 8

Decumaria, 17,32

— Barbara, 32

— sinensis, 33

— , Key to the Species of, 32
Directional Signs, Carved Wooden, 12
Embossed or Record Label, 9, 10
Fagus L., Registration List of Culti-
var names of, 1-8
Hedges Planted 1963, 97, 98, 100
Hydrangea, 19

— anomala, 19, 20, 22

subsp. petiolaris, Plate III, 1 8,

20 ; Plate IV, 21; Plate V, 23

— asterolasia, 24

— diplostemona, 24

— integrifolia, 24

— jelskii, 25

— oerstedii, 25

— mathewsii, 25

— peruviana, 25

— preslii, 25

— seemannii, 26

— serratifolia, 26

— steyermarkii, 26

— tarapotensis, 26
Hydrangeas and Their Relatives,

Climbing, 17-39

Labels in the Arnold Arboretum, 9-
12, Plate I, 1 1

Lilies in Their Order of Bloom, 89-95
Manchu cherry, 81
Metal Display Labels, 12
Mulch, Black Polyethylene as a, 13-
16

Nanking cherry, 81
New Hedge Demonstration Plot, The,
97-100, Plate IX, 99
Pileostegia, 17, 53
— , Key to the Species of, 34

— tomentella, 34

— viburnoides, 34

Pinus parviflora, Plate XI, 103
Plastic Labels, 10

Polyethylene as a Mulch, Black, 13-
16

— , Black, Plate II, 14
Prunus tomentosa, 81-86;
VIII, 83

— — ‘Drilea’, 85

‘Geneva’, 85

‘Graebneriana’, 84

Insularis’, 84

Leucocarpa’, 84

‘Orient’, 85

‘Monroe’, 85

‘Nanking Cherry’, 85

Plate

10.5

Prunus tomentosa, Propagation of,

86, 87

Spaethiana’, 84

Registration of Cultivar Names in
Ulmus, 41-80

— List of Cultivar Names of Fagus
L., 1-8

Schizophragma, 17, 26

— crassum, 31

— hydrangeoides, Plate III, 18, 20 ;
Plate IV, 27, 28, 29

— integrifolium, 30

— , Key to the Species of, 28
Ulmus, Registration of Cultivar Names
in, 41-80

Wooden Display Label, 10, 12

[ 106 ]

r