Is Acer tataricum ssp. ginnala same as Acer tataricum ssp. ginnala ´flame` or what is the story about flame, is it different only fall colour or something else? I have sprouting seeds from both or do i have just one? Is flame just a seedling from ginnala? ( i have a fully grown ginnala, completely hardy would i say;-) )
Hi ZB, IIRC 'Flame' is a Canadian selection of the species. I have a rooted cutting of 'Flame' (ostensibly), it has good fall color but is not very different from the species. Apparently the fall color is more reliable. Mine is very small so too early to evaluate yet. Your seedlings are just ginnala, but still nice trees of course, and perhaps you will find an interesting one in there! cheers, -E
Well yes, a seedling from a cultivar isn't the cultivar, since it's not clonally propagated. So the any seedling just counts as A. tartaricum ssp ginnala. -E
'Flame' is a seed strain introduced from Missouri around 1978 by the USDA Soil and Conservation Service.
Thanks for this info, Ron. "Maples of the World" says "[Flame] ... came nameless from Canada. ... It is a seed source selection and is an important improvement to seedling plants of A. tartaricum ssp ginnala." This is my source for the Canadian comment, do you have a reference for your information? MotW implies it was named in the Netherlands. When you say "seed strain" do you mean that 'Flame' is not properly a cultivar at all? thanks, -E P.S. The World Checklist, which is the registrar for maple cultivars, lists the source of Flame as Esveld with a date of 1982, citing MotW and Vertrees. If you have better information you should contact Westonbirt with your source.
See Jacobson, North American Landscape Trees (1996, Ten Speed Press, Berkeley). As for Firma C. Esveld, their (the van Gelderens) book Maples for Gardens (1999, Timber Press, Portland) says the cultivar was received from Canada and introduced by them (Esveld) in 1982. "Introduced", in this case, would be to Europe, and not the world.
Is the difference between ginnala and flame described somewhere,what are the caracteristics of flame? More stable fall color doesn´t realy say much. Better color, holding color longer, starting to autum earlier? Nothing about the leaves? growt pattern? Thanks for the info so far! Eager to learn more.
That's great info, thanks. Do you have the text etc from the Jacobson? It's always useful to forward information to the keepers of the flame ;) in this case the cultivar registrars. Interesting that although the Checklist gives Jacobson one of the sources, in this case they don't use that information. Perhaps this is because the maple (as implied in MotW) was actually named by the Firma C Esveld? It's not clear to me from the Checlist whether "origin" is the person/firm who introduced and named or who developed the plant. In any case if the cultivar was introduced as 'Flame' prior to 1982 in the US, the information in the Checklist is clearly wrong. ZB, I believe that 'Flame' is smaller than the species, Van Gelderen has it "reaching 7-8 m". In the photo in "Maples for Gardens" the samaras are conspicuously red, which is certainly not always the case for the species. VG states "... leaves without any variegation; fall color often spectacular ..." The leaves resemble the species closely in form but I have observed a slightly darker and shinier aspect, perhaps because of the lack of variegation. The budding leaves also have a darker, more red than pink, aspect. -E
Recently the moderators said Canadian copyright law makes it so they don't want copyrighted material posted here, even small passages. As I posted earlier 'Flame' was first introduced by the USDA around 1978. The way Jacobson words it, the implication is the cultivar name was in use by them at that time - but he does not specifically state as much. Perhaps seedlings were sent out under a number (and Jacobson missed this part of the history), with Esveld later coining the name 'Flame' for their material. Or the USDA named the introduction 'Flame' after Esveld had gotten their plant(s). It was chosen (ostensibly by the USDA) for its red fall color and red seeds. However, since it is a seed strain rather than a grafted clone there is variation in fall color and growth habit among specimens sold under the name. If Esveld brought in a single specimen which has since been grafted from in Europe then there may be only the one, uniform clone there - unless seedlings have in turn been raised from it and sold as 'Flame' - as has been done with other stock in North America. Their book Maples for Gardens says the fall color is "usually better than average", as though the authors were aware the name covers a variable seed strain. That may be an allusion to the behavior of the North American plants, or there may have been more than one clone introduced to Europe*. They don't say. Another cultivar, with the similar name 'Fire' is also shown and described in the same book. The same history is given as for 'Flame', that is that it was sent from Canada to Esveld and they introduced it in 1982. The statements they (Esveld) introduced these cultivars perhaps had something lost in translation to English for Timber Press. In other parts of the work, for instance when treating A. campestre 'Evelyn' Queen Elizabeth they specify that the clone was found and introduced in the US, with the subsequent introduction by A. van Nijnatten, Netherlands being "into Europe". (By the way, their attribution of this plant to the Studebaker and Lake County Nurseries differs from Jacobson's account, which states it was discovered in Oregon and introduced by Schmidt nursery in Boring; Schmidt claims it as one of their introductions on their web site). *If Esveld ordered from a wholesale nursery in Canada and got a block of 'Flame' all at once, then that introduction might consist of multiple variable seedlings as well.
That means my flame seedlings is as much flame as all the north american flames? I´m getting more enlightened and confused. I will keep a close eye on my seedlings of flame and regular ginnala to see if there is a difference in any time during their young stadium of development. sorry for my bad english.....
In contemporary practice tree cultivars are usually grafted clones. But not always. This is an example of a seed-raised cultivar. Seed-raised cultivars of annual flower and vegetable plants are re-selected to keep them true. In the case of this maple probably nobody has ever done this, so 32 years after its introduction the name is likely to have become pretty much meaningless (except when and if applied to any surviving examples of the original selection(s) - or any reasonably close descendents that look like them).
The rice and fall of a cultivar...wonder if anybody more care for these losses than me. Being in the climate i´m in ,i´m so happy for every cultivar of any acer that survive in my climate.
I see 'Durand Dwarf', 'Fire', 'Flame', 'Red Wing' and perhaps other Amur maple cultivars have been offered in Britain. http://apps.rhs.org.uk/rhsplantfinder/plantfinder2.asp?crit=ginnala&Genus=Acer
Thanks for the heads up as to recommended quoting on the forum. I don't really follow the other groups so I wasn't aware of it. We quote our sources here all the time, it seems to me that it is difficult to engage in a reasoned discussion without quoting source material in support of argument. (I appreciate your effort to get around it in post #13, but certainly you'll agree it makes our discussion less precise.) I hope the moderators will remind me if I quote in such a way to cause problems for UBC under Canadian law. Otherwise such discussion could take place within the closed format of the Maple Society forum, but personally I think that would be unfortunate. I believe 'Flame' is propagated clonally in Europe. Mine is meant to be a rooted cutting. There seems to be a divergence of view as to what is acceptable commercial practice with regards to Europe and the US. As a European collector frankly ZB I would not consider your seedlings to be 'Flame' because they are not propagated vegetally. 'Fire' seems to be unavailable in the trade here now. I have had it back ordered for some years, and other inquiries have not yielded anything. Anyway thanks very much Ron for the clarification re Jacobsen. -E
If 'Flame' never was clonal than cloning 'Flame' seedlings now would serve only to assure purchasers of getting the traits of the stock plant used in each instance. There would be no guarantee of getting superior fall color and red wings unless it was known the stock plant exhibited these.
It would be realy nice to have a comercial propagator to ask if they do clone them in europe. And offcourse if they are cloned, mine is simply a seedling. I´m amaced of the knowledge you guys possess
