J. virginiana could be either sex as well, although 'Taylor' is not known for any berry production, so likely a male clone.

J. virginiana 'Canaertii' is a female selection which stays green in winter. Here is a description with photo. If you search for description and images of your selection and fruit is never mentioned, assume it is a male.

Thing is Juniper virginiana 'Taylor' is described online, and by different sources as either male or female. These plants often do not bear fruit until they are 10 years old, so a lot is invested in growing this plant just to find out it is the wrong sex. People that live in long grass prairie areas where female Juniperus virginiana is a native, but invasive plant, need male options for safe planting. Conversely, pollen from male junipers is one of the most highly allergenic substances in the garden. Allergy-prone people would like to keep male junipers out of their gardens, if possible. These two predicaments fuel my desire to learn more about whether certain selections are male or female or both.

Embothrium, Can you provide links or verification for your information? There is no room for error on this for me.

Juniperus chinensis is generally dioecious, but not necessarily. Monoecious clones are known to exist. I could find no references claiming berry production in 'Blue Point' so it's relatively safe to assume that it's male.

J. virginiana is dioecious. Monrovia nursery is the originator of 'Taylor' and makes to claim about berry production. Again, (maybe) assume male.

J. scopulorum is only rarely monoecious. 'Skyrocket' is another Monrovia introduction and makes no claim about berry production. Once more, assume male.

Is your concern about pollen or invasiveness? Why no room for error?? If Juniperus is a potentially problem plant, why not play with a different species?

Be aware that conifer cultivars are selected and reproduced from a single distinctive clone. If the original plant is male, female, or both, then all subsequent generations into the future will be carbon copies (unless somebody is being sloppy with their cuttings). So your question regarding using male/female plants ... is moot.

In addition even though a young plant might only have 2- to 3-year old roots, the cuttings come from mature plants (or certainly propagants from mature plants). That DNA is very old, meaning young plants are of sexual maturity almost immediately.

Ron, the second clause of your last response made no sense to me. Please rethink and edit as appropriate.

Ron, varietal and forma designations have nothing to do with cultivar designation and nomenclature. Please try to avoid muddling the situation. While Jacobson's book is pretty good, it doesn't stand alone as a definitive authority.

After a second third and fourth look, it appears that (Eastwood) Bailey's attempt to break torulosa out as a named variety of J. chinensis hasn't gained any traction (I couldn't even find the study). Maybe someday they'll try again and try to get the authorities to accept Juniperus chinensis f. torulosa, which is probably what it should be. I looked in Echenwalder, RHS, ConiferSociety, Earle, and find no mention of it at all. All Welch and Haddow have to say about it is that it's "now usually considered just a cultivar ('Kaizuka') ... and poor old Mesterhazy, the guy who lists everything — he lists var. torulosa as well as the absurd, var. torulosa variegated (Hort USA). That one's too funny.

Now that we've established speculation that multiple clones are implicated as DNA parents of 'Kaizuka,' its legitimacy as a distinct cultivar is at risk. BTW, nobody on this thread said anything about 'Kaizuka' until you did.

Thanks, David, I am assuming the cuttings are taken from either a male or a female plant. It would be nice to know what the original plant is. Since they are named cultivars, it would seem to me that they would be either male or female since the species are dioecious. "Be aware that conifer cultivars are selected and reproduced from a single distinctive clone" From this quote it would lead me to believe that named cultivars of dioecious juniper species would be male or female. Why is this information unavailable?

I did find out that 'Taylor' Juniper is grafted.

It sounds to me from the following quote that Juniperus virginiana 'Taylor' could be male or female. How is this possible? This is from Missouri Botanical Garden, "‘Taylor’ is an upright narrow columnar eastern red cedar that typically grows to 15-20' tall but to only 3-4' feet wide. Silvery blue-green foliage is attractive throughout the growing season. Foliage may take on some bronze tones in winter. Round, blue-purple, berry-like cones on female trees are often ornamental. Cones are attractive to many birds. 'Taylor' was reportedly discovered in Taylor, Nebraska as a chance seedling."

This next quote is from Sugar Creek Gardens about Taylor, "Many birds find its ornamental round gray-green cones found on female trees a tasty treat."

Hopefully, some reader will have grown these plants and can say whether they produce female or male cones. I need to able to confidently steer people to strictly male or female plants because of allergy and/or invasiveness concerns.

Cones, or in the case of junipers, berries, are the female reproductive structures. A male juniper berry is not possible.

Since you found evidence of berry production on 'Taylor' you've confirmed that it's a female clone.

To me, it sounds like you should work with a different species.

So are you saying that because some 'Taylor' Junipers are female that ALL 'Taylor' Junipers are female?

Yes, unless they're been mislabeled.

Thank you, David, that is helpful.

Finally got the straight scoop from a man who has been researching this for 30 years! Here is the definitive answer on juniper sex!

1. Juniperus chinensis ‘Blue Point’ is a female clone.
2. Juniperus virginiana 'Taylor' is a male clone.
3. Juniperus scopulorum 'Sky Rocket' is a male clone.

This is from Tom Leo Ogren who has been going to hundreds of arboretums all over the world for decades now, collecting exact cultivar info.
Per propagation: if we make cuttings from a male tree/shrub, all, 100% of those cuttings that root and grow will end up as male clones. The same thing is true with females....except that in the trade the females are usually much harder to find.

so how does Leo reconcile Missouri botanical gardens' report of Juniper berries on 'Taylor.'

I am wondering if part of the comments about Juniperus virginiana were not just copied and pasted for 'Taylor' without thought. To me, this appears to have happened.

I wouldn't accept either claim at face value. This is a conflict between two "authorities" that must be resolved. If you can get photographic evidence from Missouri Botanic garden, that would effect Leo's credibility.

I heard from Missouri Botanical Garden. This is what they say, "The best we can find is that the sex of the plant was not noted when the cultivar was introduced by the Nebraska Statewide Arboretum but it appears that many horticulturists list it as a male clone. We have several growing at the Missouri Botanical Garden and we have not noted any “berries” on them to date, leading us to believe also that it is male. We have updated our information on the cultivar. As you will see, our usual format is to describe the species in a paragraph or two and then follow with information specific to the cultivar. So, we have retained the information on “berries” in the species information but removed it from the cultivar."

Something can't be invasive and native at the same time .... but sometimes plants that are generally considered dioecious can be male and female. Some juniperus that are described as dioecious can be monoecious occasionally some can be male one year and female the next. Its not as simple as the plant is always male or always female. Having said that I'm pretty sure that Taylor is thought of as male. Canaertii is definitely female its known to make a prodigious amount of cones (not berries)

Oh no Todd, that is not true. Some plants CAN be invasive and native at the same time. As is the case with Juniperus virginiana 'Taylor' in tall grass prairie areas. This tree existed before but was kept from dominating by fire and grazing by our native fauna like buffalo. Fires have been suppressed and grazers no longer exist and this Juniper is destroying the grassland ecosystem.

"Eastern red cedar (Juniperus

virginiana, Carl Linnaeus), even though it is

one of the most widely distributed conifers in the

United States (Fowell 1965), while native, was

historically not abundant in the prairie-forest border

region (Curtis 1959; Bragg and Hulbert 1976) because

it is inhibited by fire. Eastern red cedar has increased

dramatically in this region with the advent of fire

suppression and decline of large ungulate populations

(Bragg and Hulbert 1976; Onmsbee et al. 1976; Hoch

and Briggs 1998; Briggs et al. 2002a). Schmidt and

Leatherberry (1995) found that between the North

Central Forest Inventory and Analysis (NCFIA)

periods of 1962 and 1990 forest land cover increased

by one million hectares in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, and

Missouri. A major component of this increase was

eastern red cedar invasion into open grassland systems

(Ferguson et al. 1968; Schmidt and Leatherberry

1995; Batek et al. 1999). Increases in fragmentation,

suburbanization, and seed sources act as a positive

feedback mechanism for this process by both increasing

the invasion of eastern red cedar to the grassland

community and decreasing land managers’ ability to

use fire as a management tool (Coppedge et al. 2001)."

I guess it is just a semantic issue then... To me an "invader" has to come from somewhere else. I am familiar with the argument the proliferation of junipers in Texas is about fire suppression. I think the real answer is more complicated and includes juniper exploiting increased deer pressure , screwworm eradication , benefiting from more CO2 in the atmosphere more than other plants etc etc. How many wildfires are we really putting out in juniper dominated texas? lots of these areas aren't super fire prone - years ago there was a big fire in east texas but that was in the piney woods. I rarely if ever see anything on the news about wild fires in the hill country which is dominated by juniper. I would bet that a vast majority of fires out there are probably set by people burning the junipers ... But back to the point a native species becoming more common isn't "invasive" to me because as a definitional matter an invasive species must be exotic

Another reason I wouldn't want to call native species "invasive" is because truly invasive species should be removed. They are bad for the ecosystem. Even if some juniper populations have gotten out of hamd in the view of some i certainly wouldn't think it makes sense to eradicate them. Whereas where ligustrum, triadica , and water hyacinth are choking out native plants and wildlife they should be ...