I am pretty sure this tree is a Chamaecyparis lawsoniana, but what cultivar? Also what are the self sown saplings in the second photo growing a few yards away (the large centre one has had the leader eaten out by deer, and there is a Chamaecyparis pisifera 'Squarrosa' nearby).
Yes, Lawson's Cypress; not sure it is any cultivar in particular at all, it looks close to the natural wild type (slightly yellowish, but not really yellow enough to be one of the named yellow-foliage cultivars, unless the colour balance in the pics is off). The seedlings look like straight Lawsons' too, I can't see any evidence of hybridisation with C. pisifera (as far as I know, this hybrid has never been recorded, either).
Thanks. Yes, that photo does not convey quite what a vivid yellow it is, particularly compared to the saplings that are presumably its, they look very different in colour, a muddy grey green in comparison, but if the seedlings are plane Chamaecyparis lawsoniana then I presume thats what the plant must be, as i cant see them as having come from anywhere else. Attached is a photo hopefully giving a better colour, and showing a sapling in the bottom right.
Cultivars of this species are too numerous and poorly described for any but the most distinctive ones to be easily identified. New ones continue to be named, by now there are probably not a few that are almost interchangable (closely similar). And similar seedlings pop up spontaneously near purchased, deliberately planted examples. A found tree or group of trees can be quite different from the typical (wild) species usual appearance yet still not be vegetative propagations of a named form that was put into commerce. An additional complication is that it is usual for the appearance of a Lawson cypress to change as it ages and goes over mostly to fertile (cone bearing) foliage. This is often less distinctive (less yellow, less erect, whatever) than the sterile foliage that most or all of the plant consisted of when purchased. Common old 'Alumii' shows this very well, with a spire or spires of fluffy, arching fertile foliage sprays erupting out of a broader, often forking base of conspicuously vertical sterile sprays. Without a paper trail (planting record) stating what a particular specimen was acquired as it can be pretty much impossible to put a name on it with certainty.
Yes, thanks, my rather old copy of Hillier lists nearly 100 different cultivars. Unfortunately there is no paper trail in this case. I think I agree it may be a plane one, after looking here there is another quite a distance away on the same site that looks very different in shape (and size), but the foliage looks the same (see pic below).
There's over 200 now! Equally, yours is an older specimen so there wouldn't have been so many choices back when it was planted. 'Lutea' is a very old (1873!), and still quite popular cultivar; another early one (pre-1920) is 'Stewartii'.
Yes, the site was quite extensively planted between about 1855 and 1880, which was when the Sequoia Sempervirens, and Sequoiadendron Giganteums were planted. I was looking at the second Chamaecyparis lawsoniana shown just above and did consider 'Lutea', it must be at least 40', I also wonder how old it is.
While it's true the first one resembles 'Lutea' somewhat I wouldn't guess either that one or 'Stewartii' from these photos. Even if you picked samples of each of the trees in question and held them up to labeled specimens in collections elsewhere, found ones that looked quite like it that still wouldn't necessarily establish with certainty that they were, in fact, the same introductions. There are just too many similar ones, of somewhat plastic morphology, with seedlings resembling them also popping up and garbling the situation further. However, if you become familiar with some locally prevalent cultivars dating from the same time period you may eventually be able to name at least one of those shown here. If you visit other properties and repeatedly see a particular variety you will be able to tell if one of these is the same.