Acer argutum Acer barbinerve Acer calcaratum Acer caudatifolium Acer cordatum Acer diabolicum Acer distylum Acer heldreichii Acer laurinum (evergreen) Acer longipes Acer lucidum Acer okamotoanum Acer osmastonii If you have personal pictures of these species please create a new topic with it. Thank you !
Any chance the gallery could be arranged taxonomically or alphabetically, rather than by date of submission? Another suggestion: split out all the Acer palmatum cultivars to a sub-forum! I don't see Acer cappadocicum in the list and will add it
I'm looking into this. There are a few photo gallery packages that can be plugged into the software for a small cost, but I need to be certain that they accomplish what is needed.
Re: O.T. cultivars and subforums Since most of the action in this forum has dealt with cultivars why make them a subforum? Although I do see the logic of separating the commonly seen palmatum cultivars from species forms and their various forms and cultivars and have two separate forums for each group but there will be some issues with crossover cultivars and with Shirasawanum especially. The people that have been around Maples a long while will know some of the problems with Shirasawanum that the taxonomists have yet to clear up or give us a solid explanation for. The old school Japanese Botanists may have had it right by placing Shirasawanum as a forma or subspecies of Japonicum and there has not been much offered to us old folks to give credence that Shirasawa's Maple had not already been identified long before it became officially discovered, official mainly to the Europeans but not so much to the Japanese. There has not been a whole lot of interest in species forms in this forum until just recently. Even with the current derision with palmatum cultivars we may also see the same or similar problems with species forms in that some arboretums (I know this is not what people want to hear) may not be altogether correct in what or how they have named a particular species. Just like in the more commonly seen palmatum cultivars there will be some problems with some of the species and their cultivar forms also. What I'd like to see are a series of taxonomic relatives singled out or grouped together to show the variances in them. A series of photos of the snake barks alone would be rather educational to a lot of people. If you want to build up people's awareness of the species forms then it will require others that know the snake barks to freely comment and show photos of them. I see nothing wrong with the UBC Botanical Garden showing photos with some commentary of each snake bark they have in their garden. I, for one, would be rather appreciative to know what they have as when I am up there again I will head for them like a missile to take a good look at them. I would want to match the photo or photos I have stored in memory with the visual imagery that I will see from them in person. Then I will learn something from them. Jim
I think it is a good idea to have a cultivar sub-forum as well as have a species sub-forum. Just because I may envision eventual problems to crop up later does not mean that separating out both into sub-forums is not a worthwhile task. I was raised, grew up on cultivars, many of them specialty plants and I will freely admit that I am real weak on species forms and their cultivars as I have not placed much of my emphasis on learning them but I do know a few and have been around some of them. I think if photos of a particular species are to be shown from a garden, an arboretum or a botanical garden, as an example of a species form that a notation be made as to where the plant currently resides. If you've been out and about enough looking at these species Maples you'll know why this is rather important for us to know. Let me give an example of an element with species forms that has caused some problems in the past and also the present I would think. Let's say someone from Japan back in the 1800's got some seed from a Maple found in the wild in Korea and promptly germinated the seeds, grew them on and then gave some plants back to someone in Korea to plant. Will the new seedlings look the same as the original source did? For a few years they may not and it may take several years for them to look the same as the original plant but what happens if those seedlings never do look the same as the original plant did or does? Let's also assume the original plant dies out during the time the seedlings are developing, do we also assume that through a later years plant exploration in the 1900's that those plants found are native to that area? Let's play with the idea that a well known plantman in Korea has one of the seedlings in a collection that was brought in from Japan, do we assume that the plant in Korea was found in the wild or do we ask where the plant originally came from that is now in the collection? I know of examples of each of the above scenarios that have indeed occurred, which has lead to some problems that arboretums have had with some of their species forms. It does matter how they obtained their plant as some of us need to know the sourcing of the plant so we can piece enough of the puzzle together to know if the species form that is in Strybing is the same Maple that can be found in Esveld (only mentioned for general, not necessarily for exacting, purposes). I am glad to see the current and some past attempts to show some of the species forms. I am not going to get into their individual merits as I do not know many of them well but I do feel that when we see what a species form may look like in England be different than what one may look like in France and further still how they may look different again in Seattle compared to San Francisco that a whole lot of assuming will be going on for people to make others think they are the same plants. What it may require is to have someone come in that has seen that particular species form growing in Holland, Korea, Taiwan and Canada that can tell us why those plants that we are being told are the same species look different to us when we either see them in person or see them in photographs or in digital photos online. Where you guys can help is show a species form from an arboretum in France, one from Esveld and one from England, one from Japan and perhaps Canada and let us see those differences, not to gripe and get upset about them but so we can equate what the similarities are for when we see that plant in our home areas. It is with that in mind that I would not ever make a negative comment about someone willing to show a photo of a Maple from an arboretum. I may not agree that the plant is named right but it does not matter what I feel in that regard. What matters is that all of you got to see the photo and you can determine on your own whether you feel it is right or not. Don't stop André with your attempts to amass photos of the species forms. This interested observer is all for it. There will be some of them that may not have any photos online or in University archives as yet. What I find lackluster is a species form supposedly found in Taiwan, named by a Japanese person whom we need to be talking to but he is no longer alive, in which we have to go through someone originally from mainland China living in the US to provide us with scant information through a web site that does not have a photo on hand or in person or any real specific information about the Maple other than they have some documentation from literature that suggests the Maple exists and who discovered it. Fine, fellas where is the Maple right now and what documentation can be provided where we can find a living example of it? Jim
Okay, the Maple Photo Gallery and new Acer palmatum cultivars are now sorted alphabetically by thread title as default - I can see there's a bit of tidying up to do. I should also mention that it previously was possible to sort threads alphabetically (which you'll now want to be able to do for "Last Post" reasons...) In the bar across the top of the threads that says: Thread / Thread Started / Thread Starter | Last Post | Replies | Views You can click on any of those to sort. A little arrow appears beside whatever you clicked, and you can use that to toggle sory by ascending or descending.
Note to Andre: You can quickly edit thread titles by double-clicking in the cell that contains the thread title...
I am not sure how to work this but the Pictures missing in the gallery thread perhaps should be edited or have the majority of the content in my posts thrown out and deleted as the thread became more than one subject issue. At first I did not like seeing the thread in the photo gallery without any photos in it but with the added hot links I see the basis of the thread being quite important as someone can list as many species as they can and then create hot links from the Maple photo gallery to serve almost as a quick link starting point foundation and leave just it as a sticky. I do think that if the palmatum cultivars and the species forms were to be separated out, now is a good time to do it and be done with it. It took me a while to better see the need for it to be done but I think in time most everyone will agree this is for the best as it may eliminate some confusion for people later. As a side note, I know why the Maples should be listed in alphabetical order but boy is it going to take me some getting used to in a forum format. I'll try to figure out a way to have things set to go back to the recent posts listed first for this particular access challenged location where I am right now. Jim
Problem solved. I had to sign in to get to see the last post link. Then I let the new page load in and then bookmarked the new page. It was not that simple to do last evening. Thanks for your help. Jim
Jim (and others), I think another way you can set the sort order is to override the forum defaults. My Settings -> Edit options -> Thread Sorting Options -> Last Post / Descending That will force the Maple Photo Gallery to look normal.
