What are two factors that should be considered when choosing a particular Pinus mugo cultivar at a nursery or garden centre.
Find out whether it is a low-growing cultivar (derived from P. mugo subsp. mugo), or an erect, tall-growing cultivar (derived from P. mugo subsp. uncinata) For Paul - I'd guess, because (a) it is quite an attractive shrub, and (b) there are not many other alternatives hardy in zone 4. One that is worth looking into is Pinus pumila (Dwarf Siberian Pine).
Hi Paul, You want to go and see them in the wild - superb there :-) http://www.pinetum.org/PhotoMPF/pinmug1.gif http://www.pinetum.org/PhotoMPF/pinmug2.gif (pics from the Pirin Mts, Bulgaria)
Michael: I would never have guessed those were mugo pines! Paul is right, they are over used around here (gov't spec in landscape contracts; keeps getting cut & pasted into new contracts in lieu of actual design work!), but they don't look anything like these pics. If they did, we'd see even more of them. What are the climatic conditions where they are native? Are they alpine in the photos? Ralph
for Paul here is a couple of Mugo's from VanDusen. I agree it is over used in the landscape but you gotta remember it is easier to say the words Pinus mugo than to actually give a clear definition. So many cultivars and so many names that look almost the same like a Pinus Mugo
Scale insects becoming prevalent on them around Seattle. Cold climate conifers generally bug prone here in USDA 8, where winters are too mild to kill sucking pests off.
What are two factors that should be considered when choosing a particular Pinus mugo cultivar at a nursery or garden centre. I look for any browning of the needles as for us spider mites can be a problem here. Tip and shoot moths can be a problem in Oregon. I also look for any resin (sap) anywhere on the tree. It depends on what we want from the plant for a specific spot or whether we want to grow the tree in a container. Some people like the golden needle forms which are very nice but they have their limitations also, especially in warm climates. Varieties of Pinus mugo can make nice container plants. For some reason I do better with the named varieties grown as container plants rather than in the ground, although Pinus mugo var. pumillo (sorry Michael I am too regimented to change over to subspecies), not to be confused with Pinus mugo 'Pumilla' as they are not the same plant and I have both of them, have done very well for me in the ground. Ralph, I have an old Pinus mugo var. uncinata growing in a Western Garden book zone 3 without any trouble. Michael, I like Pinus pumila a lot. A pretty Pine all year round for me in the mountains.. Jim
Hi Ralph, - they're at 2300m altitude, 41°42'N 23°31'E, at the southeastern limit of the species' range, middle of its altitudinal range there (1800-2700m); slightly above the tree line (scattered Pinus peuce at 2250-2300m). The whitish tips on the needles on the 2nd photo are water droplets from cloud condensation - it was cloudy up there shortly before I took the photo Hi Jim - Pinus mugo var. pumilio is just a synonym of Pinus mugo subsp. mugo var. mugo. This species has suffered more than most from the attentions of over-zealous plant namers (Farjon lists over 170 synonyms in his Kew checklist of conifers)
Our source of Pinus mugo var. pumillo came out of Switzerland and is a shorter plant than mugo var. mugo is of which we had some 25 foot tall ones in the Conifer collection in the nursery. Mugo var. pumillo will only get up to about 6-8 feet tall in 25-30 years in comparison of same aged plants. Technically, there are people that feel mugo var. mugo is synonymous with mugo var. mugus of which some people also feel that mugo var. pumilio is included in that same group but mugo var. pumillo is a different plant than the others.. Jim
Hi Jim, Pinus mugo subsp. mugo var. mugo typically only reaches 1-3m tall. If you had one that got significantly taller than that, it wasn't that, being either Pinus mugo subsp. uncinata or (perhaps more likely) Pinus mugo nothosubsp. rotundata (= hybrid subsp. mugo x subsp. uncinata) Sorry, this is incorrect, as Pinus mugo var. mugo is an autonym (i.e., automatically the valid name as it is the type variety, and therefore must take the same varietal name as the species name). It is the other way round, with var. mughus being the synonym. For a detailed monograph of the species, see Christensen, K.I. (1987). Taxonomic revision of the Pinus mugo complex and P. × rhaetica (P. mugo × sylvestris) (Pinaceae). Nordic J. Botany 7: 383-408. Essential reading for any discussion of the species!
Sorry, this is incorrect, as Pinus mugo var. mugo is an autonym (i.e., automatically the valid name as it is the type variety, and therefore must take the same varietal name as the species name). It is the other way round, with var. mughus being the synonym. Yes, I realized my mistake after I wrote the post and said the hell with it. There was a time that mughus was considered to be a subspecies, not a variety of mugo. Based on the plants we had in the collection and they are still there intact, we always felt that mughus was a subspecies of mugo. In the last few years I am seeing more of the mugus spelling and how it is being used in relation to mugo is not the mughus that I know. We may very well be talking two different forms here. Yes, I should have written that mugus is considered by some people to be a synonym of mugo. I did have it backwards. On the other hand there is no comparison of a mugo var. pumilio and mugo var. pumillo as they are not even close to being the same form. They are worlds apart in needle color, needle length and growth habit. Spreading is not a term to be used for pumillo, that is "way" wrong! Jim
There will always be some disagreement with the Mugo Pines. A lot depends on where these Pines were first found and what others have done to the names later that never grew these plants. How a book author will describe a form of mugo may indeed be a lot different than how these plants will behave either grown in a collection, a nursery or even grown in a Botanical Garden. The old school people grew them on to see how they were different from what they already had. The problem area is when a book author comes in to set the record straight and has to deal with a variety of forms from collections and then has to figure out what to do with them. In such cases it is easier to lump them together and call the varieties as being the same as one of more rather than have 50 or more named subspecies. I agree with this as many of the names of mugo that were varieties to us, now considered to be subspecies are not distinguished enough to be considered different than mugo var. mugo. We considered the mughus form to be a subspecies while at the same time feeling the pumillo was a variety. We were not the only ones to feel this way as it was a consensus opinion as others in other countries that had many forms of mugo also felt that mughus and pumillo deserved to be considered a subspecies and the other a variety of mugo as well. It did not matter what a book author wrote about the plant when the people that were doing the growing and the research on the plant were talking among themselves about their plants and what those plants were showing them. Not all the time and in some cases never did the book author know the consensus opinion and then we had some authors deliberately attack the opinions of others just to knit pick them without having any real knowledge of the plant and how it grows in a variety of locations. When this kind of thing happens I side with the growers almost every time. The people that did the footwork and the research trials are easily forgotten when the books come out. There was also a time in which book authors with post graduate degrees made it a point to go after the growers and collectors because some to many of them only had college level degrees or less and it became a matter of who are people going to believe the guy with a Ph.D. or the lowly nurseryman with a B.S or B.A. . I've seen it done and have witnessed people using that same scenario as one to discredit someone else and I've seen it done more than once. It matters not that the guy with the B.S. has 50 years of background knowledge of the plant, the guy that with perhaps no real prior knowledge of the plant and may never have seen one will have more credence among the intellectual community. So, in effect, for many authors doing a treatise on Pines may have to depend for much of their information from other people that they are indeed wanting to push off to the side as being meaningless, which is one reason why the people that supplied much to most of the information for the basis of the book are not always given their due credit and in a few cases I know no credit at all was given in the book. I know of one professor/book author that about died from fright when he saw 23 forms of Cephalotaxus all together side by side in a Conifer collection in which those plants had been in the ground since the early 70s. He wrote of being an expert on three of them and did not know them at all when he saw them here in 1986. You guys can buy his books, I will not. I will read them if I have them available to me but I will not be overly excited about them. Michael, I don't mind people coming back at me. I made a big mistake and at the time did not care as I am tired of giving away secrets that I did not want to tell in this forum. You pointed my error out like you should do. I have no problems with that. Jim
I would also look for a named variety of P. mugo. Pinus mugo var. pumilio is a seed-grown selection and all of the plants will vary slightly in size, form and look. Depending on how you're going to use these plants, that may or many not be acceptable. Good luck, Mike (p.s. a couple of my favorites are Pinus mugo 'Teeny' (aka 'Sherwood Compact') and Pinus mugo 'Jacobsen'. There are so many different cultivars that you could have a collection of just P. mugo and have a very nice landscape. Be sure to check out the cultivars that turn gold in the winter or that are variegated, also.)
Ron, You mentioned scale on mugo pines. I am having that problem here in Bend, OR and have been frustrated with the solution. Horicultural oils and neem have not been effective. Have you found something that works and how do you tell when it is successful?
scale controll is all about the timing. you are right by putting out a neem or horticultural oil. the best time to spray for the scale is right around the time they are about to lay their eggs. where i am from, that would be now. that way you will hopefully prevent most of those eggs from hatching.
for the record, Neem oil is not registered as a pesticide in Canada. It is however sold as a 'leaf shine" product.
