Hi, Is anyone able to identify this red berry tree? It is growing in Bonsor Park, Burnaby and keeps it's nice dark green leaves and red berries all winter long. It is about 2 meters tall and does not appears to grow much taller. Looks like a dwarf or shrub variety. Thank you for your help, much appreciated!
Welcome to the forums! It looks like a Cotoneaster. There are many sp. Possibly Cotoneaster frigidus Cornubia. cotoneaster tree - Google Search: cotoneaster frigidus 'Cornubia' - Google Search
Ooops! Michael..I considered that very carefully as a choice. Please can you tell me how to tell the difference. In the flesh I can tell them apart...usually by the odd red leaf on Photinia...what clues did I miss? Thanks. S.s.
I find this intriguing for the reason that such a relatively unusual plant has been found growing in a scruffy area near Bonsor Park in Burnaby. The fact that there appear to be bulbs growing beneath the shrub makes me wonder if this was part of an adjacent garden that was incorporated by the Park many years ago. (I lived in the area most of my life.) I doubt that it was deliberately planted by Burnaby horticulturists. Another possibility is that a bird dropped a seed there but the Plants for a Future Website notes that "the fruit persists into the winter and seems to be unattractive to birds". It also says that this is a "vigorous fast-growing plant with vicious spines". Is that true? It's hard to see spines in GojiMan's (beautiful) pictures. Photinia davidiana PFAF Plant Database If it's any help, here is a comment from Oregon State: Photinia davidiana | Landscape Plants | Oregon State University *Students sometime confuse it with the Willowleaf Cotoneaster (Cotoneaster salicifolius), but the leaves on that plant have a winkled upper surface (rugose). The leaf surfaces of Chinese Stranvaesia are smooth, additionally vigorous stems have claw-like stipules at the base of the petioles.
I thought a rugose leaf surface should be distinctive for Cotoneaster, but the photo on the Wikipedia page at Cotoneaster - Wikipedia shows leaves with a much smoother surface than I would have expected, and there doesn't seem to be any evidence on the leaf backs of what the Vancouver Trees App | UBC Botanical Garden calls "floccose pubescence" (which hyperlinks to a definition that tersely says "hair"). So it's easy to think that photo matches the tree featured here. I wonder if the Wikipedia photo isn't even correct. Actually, the Willowleaf Cotoneaster looks very different from Photinia.
Just trying to learn. I don't doubt answer. Cannot see any stipules on the leaves shown. I really debated......with myself..... for quite some time before answering. Here in UK the Photinia always seems to have a few red leaves...a dead give away for me. Always very shiny/glossy. Photinia davidiana - Google Search: This pic of Cotoneaster is by well known botanist Graham Rice and leaves appear quite smooth...so assume it is accurate. Certainly aren't rugose. Cotoneaster frigidus 'Cornubia | Plant & Flower Stock Photography: GardenPhotos.com
It could be the Photinia you are familiar with in the UK is the same one we see frequently here - Photinia x fraseri which frequently has red, shiny leaves. There are many cultivars. From the photos above, Photinia davidiana (syn. Stranvaesia davidiana) appears to have duller leaves with no apparent red colour (at this time of year anyway).
The wavy edge of Photinia davidiana leaves is characteristic, I don't know of any Cotoneaster species showing the same (except perhaps C. frigidus, rarely); their leaves tend to be flatter, stiffer and thicker-textured. Also the rather lax branching, with Cotoneaster having a stiffer, often 'herringbone' branch pattern. The berries are also larger than Cotoneaster berries. For a clincher, the stipules Margot mentions (post #5) are visible on the right in the 4th pic. As an aside, just been checking - it seems that it is Stranvaesia davidiana again, the lumping of Stranvaesia into Photinia was apparently premature, the two genera are genetically distinct.
That's because the one in the Wikipedia photo is Cotoneaster frigidus (which has smooth leaves), not C. salicifolius (which has rugose leaves). The lack of visible pubescence is partly due to the photo being from late autumn / winter (when most of the pubescence has worn off) , but also the low resolution of the photo. Here's a better C. frigidus pic: File:Cotoneaster frigidus berries 1.jpg - Wikimedia Commons
Thanks Michael and all others for help. Back to the class room on this I need to have a good look at both. "As an aside, just been checking - it seems that it is Stranvaesia davidiana again,"...blinking name changes...names are like yoyo 's
