I came across this tree today and while it's obviously in the rose family, I don't recognise it. Stranvaesia, Cotoneaster or something like that, but what. It's a tree, probably up to 12m tall and a good 6m wide at the base. The foliage is quite glaucous and the leaf margins are downy. The fruit is a dull, dark purplish-red, not at all glossy and less than 1cm diameter. Can anyone help? Thanks. Geoff Bryant
There's a 2009 Timber Press monograph by western Cotoneaster experts Fryer and Hylmo that has keys and color photos, sorts out naming mistakes that have occurred in western cultivation. The only mess that persists is differences in interpretation between western and eastern botanists - if you are inclined to go by eastern references using interpretations made by workers where such plants occur wild (such as efloras Flora of China) then you will sometimes be using naming not conventional or even accepted in the west.
Yes reclassification. Fun, isn't it? Just found out this morning that the New Zealand beeches are no longer in Nothofagus but have been assigned to two new genera: Fuscospora and Lophozonia. The increased use of DNA analysis can only make this a more frequent occurrence, but better to have it right - or at least more accurate.
Each time someone publishes new combinations the taxonomic community has to review and respond to them before these become a done deal. It is not unusual for some of these to not "stick"; sometimes many years may elapse before it is pointed out that there are flaws in the new thinking, and all or part of the preceding interpretation prevails.
Yes, Ron. Currently, among our plants Hebe is a case in point. They were originally classified in the 19th century as part of Veronica. Then for many years there were separate genera, principally Hebe, but also Parahebe and Derwentia. Then around 2000 new ideas were accepted and some went to Chionohebe and Leonohebe. Then, in 2007, with the Garnock-Jones, Albach and Birggs revision, just about everything went back to Veronica. Now, I see Hebe is reappearing, though NZ Landcare Research is sticking with Veronica - for now. Anyhow, the original plant in question may, I think, be Cotoneaster transens, which according to some is synonymous with Cotoneaster glaucophyllus var. glaucophyllus. Does that seem possible?
Well, if this shot, ( http://www.howardianlnr.org.uk/treescotoneaster-frt.html ) supposedly Cotoneaster transens, is to be believed, it's a very good match. However, a Google Image search for Cotoneaster glaucophyllus yields many shots with brighter red fruit, but as with every Google Image search, so many of the photos are obviously wrong it's hard to know what to trust.
Yes, unless there are sub-forms with purple fruits I would expect red fruit on that one - it is like a lighter weight version of C. lacteus.
The C. glaucophyllus specimens we have in a local arboretum have leaves that are more glossy, leathery with somewhat more prominent veins, and the fruits are more of a glossy, bright red (so yes, look pretty much like C. lacteus). With that being said, this one might still be C. glaucophyllus.
Looking at aforementioned print reference standout features are the bluish white reverse of the leaves and the many flowers (about 60) per head, as well as the longevity of the "globose, 6 mm, orange-red, shiny, glabrous" fruits.
