Ok i will quote from an excellent book I found by Colin Tudge(the secret life of trees)A tree is a big plant with a stick up the middle.

Everyone seems fired up about this topic. A word of caution....Too much inflammatory rhetoric gets your gardenweb account disabled. Then you'll have to get another screen name.

I suppose a 'real tree' should attain a certain size. This picture is a good test. It's not a clone. Grew up from seed in its natural range. But not the typical tree shape. not yet anyway.

{{gwi:823555}}

Useyourloaf(love the name!) is that some kind of pine? At the moment that would be defined as a shrub,becoming a tree later. Hey,remember that game with a grass flower,tree or bush? Well this would be bush.

It's one of the pinyon pines, I'd say either Pinus remota or P. cembroides.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As to what a 'real tree' is - two ways of looking at it.

First is trees more than about 50m tall; that's the height at which trees are no longer just large, but truly awesome, where walking among them gives a real sense of one's own insignificance in comparison with the trunks soaring up high above. You don't get this with smaller trees, even at 30-40m tall, it's just not the same. For anyone that's never visited a tall tree grove . . . put it to the top of your list of priorities. It's an experience you won't regret. (pic: Abies grandis, 54m tall)
{{gwi:607994}}

Second is rare and endangered trees; maybe not large, but something special, that you have to go a long way out of your way to see. (pic: Pinus pinceana, an endangered species from a remote area of northeastern Mexico)
{{gwi:637715}}

Resin

Nice pinyon resin.

FWIW I like both cultivated garden forms and species plants. I think anyone that lives in a climate where you can grow a pinceana, culminicola, or maximartinez definitely absolutely should. Actually grow two or three. Cultivated plants might be all thats left someday.

A seed grown plant of a very rare or obscure species may not be special in the sense that its demonstrated a characterisitc that sets it apart from the plain species (dwarfism, variegation etc.) But it will be unique in that they are so rarely cultivated no one else on the street will have one.

Culminicola,now where have I heard that name before...;)

Here you are, Pinus culminicola (with Pinus hartwegii behind in second pic):

Resin

Nothing good can come of this thread.

RE: Nothing good can come of this thread

I totally diagree. The thread has already produced photos of 3 or 4 very special pine trees almost unknown to cultivation, 1 or 2 of which could be extinct outside of cultivation in the relatively near future. And some beautiful fir trees 150 feet tall.

We're all friends here. friends need to be able to disagree and argue periodically.

was referring to the tone of the original post...

Whoa, Resin! (pic: Abies grandis, 54m tall) Now that's not a tree.... that's a behemoth! lol

Not that hard... what is the big deal.

A "real" tree = a typical (or ideal) example of a natural species of tree... a tree that is like or very similar to a naturally occuring tree (or once occuring naturally, if extinct in the wild).

Cultivars with aberrant growth, or abnormal foliage that would not surivive and reproduce in the wild natural world are not natural trees.

Both are of interest. Hopefully natural types of trees will not become extinct in a continuing man-altered environment, they should have first priority in that event.

I was discussing a very large exemplar of Chamaecyparis lawsoniana 'Erecta' or 'Erecta Viridis' with someone the other day, and found myself using that word too, Noki - saying it's not a "natural" tree but a cultivar. Of course, I was speaking from the midst of my plant collection, which consists of dozens of cultivars. So it's not that I have anything against cultivars...

One can only grow so many 54 m trees.

KarinL

In New Zealand they have 20m+ treeferns. Now that's awesome!
Resin, do you feel the same about all cultivars, or just conifer cultivars?

Nice tree that culminicola Resin,so thats your favourite then eh?

I have been thinking more about this thread and this topic. I find that the issue seems to be yet another example of political correctness run amok, and as such is an example of one group of people seeking to muzzle another. Whenever there are things one just can't say in a certain environment, then the value of the environment is being lost. There is no question that preserving and promoting biological diversity in the tree world is a good thing. But if you succeed at creating a world in which more natural conifers are grown instead of cultivars, but do so at the expense of peoples' freedom to grow other things or their freedom speak under and about those trees, you won't make it a better world. A tyranny of trees is no better than any other sort of tyranny.

As far as the openness of this forum is concerned, many people have rallied to its preservation by posting threads about cultivars - good on them! Your participation would enrich them, Dave; I hope we haven't lost you.

The tyranny of trees is a kind of personal issue with me. I have been embroiled for three years in a campaign to get neighbours to cut down a gigantic conifer in their yard that, through its roots and debris etc, kind of controls my life. We live in its windshadow, not to mention in its canopy. Besides forcing us to do all sorts of work to preserve our house from being buried and otherwise wrecked, the tree' roots and debris prevent me from growing the conifers and other plants I would like to grow in my own yard, and its massive overhead weight threatens to crush my house and family.

Failing to acknowledge the capacity of trees to tyrannize, through the work they create and the territory they require, is a missing element in the whole concept of tree enthusiasm. Anyone who promotes the growing of trees should also embrace their growth where they do not victimize anyone as our neighbours' tree victimizes us.

KarinL

But conservation wise a world where more species is grown over cultivars would be a better place. Maybe a bit dull but technicaly and ecologically better. I'm not against cultivars,if I was i wouldn't have half the plants I do,including that Goldcrest out back.

tyranny of trees thatÂs a interesting way of putting it.

Part of the reason I visit this forum is to see new and interesting species and, especially, CLULTIVARS that I can incorporate into my current or any future yards. Look  I have made a list  my favorites are Âlow glow and Âhelga I hope to continue to expand my wantlist in months to come!

Two amazing cultivars Pinus densiflora 'Low Glow' ad Pinus nigra 'Helga'. Definitely at the top of my list.

I've separated this issue in my mind either many times or at a recent time that I can recall and I concluded that some of us garden (political correctness) and others call themselves foresters. I happen to want both in my gardens. Pretty simple issue...

Dax

It just hit me like a brick... "conifers" is the topic here! lol oh now it's funny of course.

Dax

It has been reported that the Ivory-billed woodpecker has been spotted in the wetlands of Arkansas. If Bald Cypress is supporting this exquisite bird species then BC is surely a real tree.
I've been to the NJ Pine Barrens many times and seen the pitcher plants, sundew and rose pagonias growing beneath the Atlantic White Cedar which is surely a real tree.
Solomon was the wisest man in history. He chose Cedar of Lebanon for his temple. Did you ever see an ancient C of L? Now that's a real tree.
I visited the Black Forest about 25 years ago. I visited a friend who gave me some honey. Although something may have been lost in translation, I know that he said this was a conifer honey, I'm assuming P. abies. That's a real tree.
Ginkgos are unparalleled street trees. They tolerate the worst conditions. I've never seen any insect damage of any type on the leaves. Another real tree.
Monarch Butterflies are on their way south to Mexico where they overwinter. They overwinter in specific trees. Someone write back and give the name of the trees, whatever they are, they are real trees.
The real trees exist independently without any trifling or meddling by man, everything else is so much fluff
Sam

Its discussions like this that make visiting forums worthwhile for me. While my personal feeling about "real" trees is much closer to the pictures Resin has posted and the words Sam just laid out, I think both sides can make a persuasive case. This might be a poor analogy, but to me dwarf conifer gardening is similar to model railroading. It can be very impressive and I'm sure satisfying for those who do it, but still not a real realroad. Its not practical for those that love railroading to have the "real" thing, so they do the next best thing. The talent some have for it is amazing, just as Dave obviously has for conifer gardening. There's no way I could replicate what he's done with his garden--I'm not that talented! For me its pretty simple: real trees are those that regenerate naturally. I don't know if everything else is fluff, but IMO they cerainly don't rise to the level of nature.

Bob

I disagree to agree. Still-calmly-written Sam I accept your view but my view is now unaccepted. Therefore I now disagree to agree. Let's face it, birds nest in conifers as do squirrels I presume, maybe lots of other animals and in Illinois, they will still nest in all the non-native conifers (seed grown or cutting grown or grafted) and this type of view lends to some understanding from your side of a bargaining table. So who is winning?? It's obvious to me that 'Real Trees' are trees and that I like just as much 50Meter Abies grandis planted in Britain out of it's range just as much as I like the color pattern pallete a gardener of dwarf or miniature or intermediate-growing, or a large-growing conifer... the way they lend true space, known true space in many instances -- that these plants are known to do through established written and visual observation. How could your 'true trees' such as Norway Spruce only be "another real tree" when I can plant one here and it thrives just as well or close to, as in its natural habitat of Germany and this not be bending, rules. Does shape (only unknown) as from a seed tree dictate??? Sounds a little one-sided to me and a bit out of reach for those that grow the ones with (known charcteristics). Also, how could a dwarf conifer that during my lifetime reaches a height of 5 meters not be called a tree instead of a shrub? It's a tree even if it has slower genetic growth. That's how I see things. Heigth being a definer of terms.

I may have made an argument from a different approach, maybe from several different approaches and then summed it up with an argument to all its own; but really this has become a tad heavily opinionated and sort of silly in ways.

Can we agree to disagree?

Dax

"Did you ever see an ancient C of L? Now that's a real tree"

;-)

I agree,conifers

This thread is just like an argument that would ask what makes Âreal menÂ. Opinion would be all over the map. There would be people who say that being moral and just makes you a real man, while others would say that showing any emotion or gardening and planting would mean your not a real man. I see interesting parallels and similarities in the mindset, opinions and arguments of both sides in this tree thread also.

Stanley Park is Vancouver's urban forest, and it is somewhat covered in fallen "real trees" at the moment, having lost some 10% of its cover in a "real storm" in December 2006. Anyway, I was cycling through the park (on a "real bike") the other day and suddenly off to the side thought I saw a weeping Tsuga canadensis, like a Jeddeloh, growing down from the bank above me. Somewhat startled to see this piece of artifice in a "real forest" I took a closer look and realized it was the tip of a fallen but not dead "real hemlock" hanging over the bank.

It strikes me that, since brooms do grow on "real trees" that if the broom-bearing trees were to fall over, the brooms might take root and grow on their own, generating "real cultivars" growing in "real forests." Wouldn't that cause a conniption?

Anyway, I'm on side with giving this a rest. We all do what we do, and the forum is great because it is common ground that supports what all of us do. And surely no one here needs to put others down to make themselves feel more important.

KarinL

Yes I agree, it's time to move on,
BTW, Resin, fantastic! Cedar. - Bluespruce.

Not so fast!
There are countless posts discussing cultivars on this forum. Surely subscribers can endure one discussion of species conifers. This forum is not meant exclusively for
cultivars.
We know that conifer cultivars arise from sport mutations, witch's brooms and other congenital defects. They seldom are the result of controlled breeding research. Dwarf Alberta Spruce is a perfect example of an undesirable mutation. Consider for a moment how many years from cutting to finished plant? Production nurseries must saturate them, even in the prop bench with miticide. Once they are planted in the landscape the homeowner better keep the sprayer handy. Odd growth habits are especially sought out for cultivars (dwarf, weeping, columnar). These plants are often damaged by snow and ice but species trees are supremely adapted to same.
In my area, native conifers are pioneer species and early colonizers. They play a vital role in forest succession. Residential landscaping shows no deference to this principle. Cookie-cutter landscaping with spirals, pom-poms and gumdrops abound. They use Willie Wonka for their designer, there is really no accounting for taste.
Species trees have a well-defined role in the "Web of Life" The Oyamel Fir, Abies religiosa is the one I was referring to in the previous post. This is the Mexican tree which is cloaked with Monarchs each Winter. Cultivars are not self-sustaining or regenerating, they have no role whatsoever in the web of life.
To me, these forums are meant for discussion. If someone doesn't like this post fine, take a position and defend it, just don't wimp out.
Sam
P.S. Congrats to VP Gore on the Nobel Prize, he has the right idea.

I agree with everything you just said sam_md, right up till the Al Gore part...

Sorry, this thread is so five minutes ago. Let it fade away...along with Gore.

tj

Well let's just keep the politics outta here... we did that once... it was a lonnnng thread... and it wasn't pretty! lol