Regarding dead leaf retentions, are you sure you aren't confusing Quercus coccinea with Q. palustris? The former could be considered the superior ornamental to either Q. rubra or Q. palustris in many respects. I remember some years ago a landscape architect working for another L.A. who had retained me as a consultant complaining that getting Q. coccinea was always a problem, the other two being the usual offering.

Q. rubra is a brontosaurean tree with low, wide branching (in the open) and often boring autumn color. Q. palustris is useful primarily for being adapted to heavy soils. Its bottom branches sag and get in the way. Autumn color can be a nice mixture, but many of the dead leaves may take all winter to drop. Q. coccinea, however, often has an elevated crown and decidedly red fall display. Appearance of local examples of all of the above (and other oaks) can be viewed in person by picking up a copy of TREES OF SEATTLE - SECOND EDITION by Arthur Lee Jacobson (see his web site).

Being wind pollinated and related to one another a few of these one sees may perhaps be hybrids, of course. Q. ellipsoidalis has also been planted in this area.

bboy,

It's entirely possible that I've confused the identification of the tree delivered yesterday. It could in fact be Q. palustris. The leaf I'm working with is dry and brown at this point, and the leaves of Q. coccinea and Q. palustris look very similar. Unfortunately, the branching on the delivered specimen is rather bizarre -- so it's hard to figure out much from that. I'm afraid I'm no good at divining the subtle differences in their buds.

Anyway, I had three oak trees in my garden in California. All were supposed to be Q. Rubra, but it quickly became obvious that one of the three was different and turned out to be Q. coccinea (It had a more upright squarish shape than Q. palustris, which is rather pyramidal and, as you mention, has sagging lower branches). It coloured beautifully in the autumn, but held its leaves through the whole winter just as Q. palustris does. I wanted to avoid the clinging leaves up here, so I specified Q. rubra. The two northern red oaks that I had in California always coloured nicely for me -- but didn't hold thier leaves and had very attractive horizontal branching. I was hoping to achieve the same look up here.

Thanks for the tip on "Trees of Seattle". I'll track down a copy.

James

While I love the mature Q. rubra that came with my house, I wouldn't plant that variety myself. It's enormous (brontosaurean even)and lovely and all...but if I am going to be inundated with leaves that don't compost for $#^%, then I'd prefer they had some appealling color to them.

Oak pollen is supposed to be a bad allergen, being particularly spiky. Have you thought about Japanese maples? Burnt Ridge has a wide selection of oaks.