I wanted to asked about this tree when it was in bloom, now it has fruits. Looks like Photinia to me but it is not mention for this area
Hey Nadia, Douglas tells me it is Stranvaesia davidiana, a close relative of Photinia, lumped together by some. There was one listed in that area, but it is recorded as dead. Doesn't looks so dead does it.
I think it is perfect, healthy and beautiful. And I found pictures of this tree from last summer, it is named Photinia davidiana, probably it had a tag then? I wasn't sure if it was a tag or why I named it? Decided to ask. Are Photinia davidiana and Stranvaesia davidiana both correct? Thank you.
Photinia davidiana is naturalized in this region so unless it does not occur around Vancouver any found specimen could also be spontaneous, unless known otherwise to have been planted. I see it often down here, making me inclined to call it a pest species. This treatment follows that of the FRPS. Alternatively, there is considerable evidence that Stranvaesia should be included within Photinia (Kalkman, Blumea 21: 413–442.1973; Iketani & Ohashi, J. ***. Bot. 66: 319–351. 1991; Ohashi & Iketani, J. ***. Bot. 69: 22–23. 1994; Phipps et al., Syst. Bot. 16: 303–332. 1991; Robertson et al., Syst. Bot. 16: 376–394. 1991; Rohrer et al., Amer. J. Bot. 78: 1617–1635. 1991; Rohrer et al., Amer. J. Bot. 81: 574–581. 1994). Basically, all of these point out that the primary character often used to differentiate the two genera, i.e., whether the carpels dehisce or not, is “artificial.” Kalkman (loc. cit.) was the first recent author to note that the supposedly dehiscent carpels of Stranvaesia are an artifact of pressing herbarium specimens. Also, Rohrer et al. (loc. cit.) found that Photinia and Stranvaesia do not differ in connation of the carpels or in the adnation of the carpels to the hypanthium. http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=2&taxon_id=131653
Some recent molecular phylogenetic analyses seem to suggest that Stranvaesia and Photinia are not so closely related. See C.S. Campbell et al.: Molecular phylogeny of Pyrinae and D. Potter et al.: Phylogeny and classification of Rosaceae. Personally, I like to keep them separated.
Molecular evidence should trump exterior morphology; the arguments mentioned in the eFloras account I excerpted are apparently based on the latter.
Further to Ron's observations around Seattle, Stranvaesia davidiana is a relatively common escape around here, as well. However, extreme cold temperatures (< minus 10C) every decade or so and fireblight conditions (warm weather with rain in early spring) every couple of decades, usually take care of these adventive populations, so that they don't usually become established. The bigger question, of course, is that climate change may have an effect on the establishment and survival of this species in the Vancouver area. Being proactive in this regard, we have been removing S. davidiana from the Botanical Garden. Clearly, we missed this one. A side note is that we have a couple of other really attractive Stranvaesia species in the garden: S. niitakayamensis from the mountains of northern Taiwan and S. microphylla collected by former Asian Garden curator, Peter Wharton, on Phansi Pan in northern Vietnam.
Wow, Nadia, now see what you've done! They're going to rip this "perfect, healthy and beautiful" thing out and you won't get to see it any more. Such a nice flower photo too. I guess we'll have to find those other two species. It sounds like you should be able to find the S. davidiana around town anyway.
