A Comprehensive Guide to Clematis

21 years ago

This book by John Howells was originally published in 1989 and I just recently got a copy of it from Half.com. In the book, Howell relates some information about the history of clematis that I found interesting. From 1860 to 1890, there were more clematis hybridized and introduced into the gardening world than at any other time (don't know if that is still the case or not today). Over 200 cultivars of the large flowering hybrids were introduced during this time period and the large flowering hybrids were the most popular type of clematis. There were many of the smaller flowering varieties introduced, but due to the popularity of the LFH, these varieties didn't catch on and were lost from production and are no longer in existence. It was the trend during this period to name the new introductions after the members of the royal family and aristocracy. The popularity of clematis as a whole waned at the start of the 1900s and new hybridization programs didn't really pick up until the 1950s.

One thing that Howells talks about and provides information on that is in conflict with other similar advice concerns where to plant a clematis if you want it to grow up a tree. I am not sure if this advice is what Howell now believes since it is direct conflict with the advice of others who have published since 1989, but here is what he recommends in the book:

"The usual recommendation is to plant the clematis on the outer extremmity of the host tree and lead it to the outer branches on a long cane or rope. This method is visually unattractive and means you must forever watch out for a slender stem when working in the garden. The position is also where the feeding roots of the tree are located and the carefully prepared site for the clematis will be just an hors d' oeuvre for the tree. Although the soil is drier at the base of the trunk, there are no feeding roots here, and it is easier to take a cane straight up the trunk."

I think I will stick with planting them further away and leading the clematis into the tree or shrub with a garden stake!

Another thing Howells talks about is an alternate method of propagating clematis. It is not probably going to be something that most of us would try since we don't have access to seedlings of clematis vitalba (it is considered an invasive plant by some states here in the US). The method is grafting of a stem of the chosen clematis onto a seedling of a vitalba seedling. Here is his description:

"Choose a seedling of C. vitalba, about 3/16 in thick, cut across the top just below the cotyledons;using a sharp knife, cut a thin sliver, about 1 in. long, from one side and an equivalent sliver from the chosen scion consisting of one leaf complete with dormant bud. Fit the the cut surfaces together, matching the cambium layers, and bind with raffia. Put the grafted plant in a small pot of potting compost, burying the union, and place it in a closed frame for four weeks, after which it can be gradually hardened off. The best time to do this in in the early spring. An expert will be successful with 100 percent of the grafts."

Sound interesting but like I said, who has access to vitalba seedlings! Interesting however!

Sort by:Oldest

Comments (8)

shebear
21 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
Interesting but not surprising info. That period in history seems to be "man's triumph over nature" time. Grafting was the big thing. Contolled pollination was pretty well perfected and with England having economic control (major opium trade in China) over so many countries, it's not surprising planting breeding moved to clematis. If you ever study some of our favorite plants, you'll discover that they started or were heavily influenced by Chinese plants. I guess it's a good thing Britain liked to trade and hybidize.
nckvilledudes
Original Author
21 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
Funny shebear, I think it is still very much man's triumph over nature time ;), although I do admit that there were lots of different plants that went through the hybridizing phase at that point in history. Additionally, a lot of new and exciting plants also came into vogue during the Victorian era even here in the US.
Related Professionals
Santa Barbara Landscape Architects & Landscape Designers · Montrose Landscape Architects & Landscape Designers · Kennewick Landscape Architects & Landscape Designers · Madison Landscape Contractors · Clarksburg Landscape Contractors · Ottumwa Landscape Contractors · Rockford Landscape Contractors · Lansing Landscape Contractors · Marquette Landscape Contractors · Spanish Fork Landscape Contractors · Lafayette Design-Build Firms · Toms River Design-Build Firms · Montrose Design-Build Firms · Hobbs Design-Build Firms · Hilo Design-Build Firms
shebear
21 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
Oh I'm not so sure about man triumphing. Seems she's shown "it's not nice to fool mother nature" more than once. I think our dead soils and allergies to bio-crops has shown that. And how about prescription drug remnants showing up in our water. Yes I'd say our "technology" has bitten us more than once.
nckvilledudes
Original Author
21 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
Shebear, I was being facetious in my statement about man triumphing over nature (see the little winking emoticon in my previous post). This year's hurricane season surely told us that as well as now with the threat of avian flu and mad cow disease. I do think however that there are still many "knowledgeable" people out there in various disciplines who think they are making inroads into better understanding how nature works--there sure seems to be lots of journal articles which seem to think so anyway!
halds
21 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
We tend to think of nature as 'kindly' and nurturing, but many aspects of nature are very deadly! Thank God we have triumphed over nature in many aspects....otherwise most of us would have died by now from small pox, pneumonia or infections!

Hal
nckvilledudes
Original Author
21 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
I agree wholeheartedly Hal.
nckvilledudes
Original Author
21 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
Hit the submit key a little to fast there Hal--too early and not enough coffee this am. I meant to say further that there are certain things man has been able to do to improve our quality of life such as the vaccines against the diseases you mentioned. There are countless other things that have been improved upon also. But Mother Nature always seems to be one step ahead of us in some respects also like shebear notes. I will agree with you that Nature is not kind in a lot of ways--one very important way is that in Nature it is survival of the fittest. The weaker animals get culled out so their gene pool doesn't continue on. To some, this appears cruel. To Nature, it is just everyday survival.
halds
21 years ago
last modified: 11 years ago
You and I are of same minds Miguel.

I just get upset when all I hear is people complain about how humans do nothing but destroy the earth. For every action there is a reaction, and adaptation is a necessary part of nature. If we want to go back to living in caves, we can stop worrying about changing the earth, but nobody is willing to do that, so we must learn to adapt and control as much as possible the reactions that occur to our triumphs over nature.

The great ice age was not brought on by humans, but I am sure there are some who would try to blame the cave men.

Sorry, I have taken this off topic, so I will shut up and not continue......