What tree? Heavy 8-inch serrated leaves, red buds

I saw this tree in Seattle on Phinney, just south of N. 50th at the bus stop on the west side of the street. It's very striking looking, and I'm interested to know what it is. I'm not guessing this time, since I'm always wrong, and a couple of fairly knowledgeable plant people couldn't identify it. I think the leaves were about 8" long, tough (but maybe not as tough as I think I remember), serrated, same colour on the undersides, some of them purple. Photos are from February 20.

 

Photinia? Would like to see the flowers when they've opened.

 

Photinia serratifolia (syn. P. serrulata).

"A broadleaf evergreen shrub or small tree up to about 50' x 5'. It is common here in older yards as a foundation planting that grew into a tree, arching out from the house. In March-April very conspicuous bronzy new foliage emerges; flat-clustered white flowers (March) April-May give rise to little red berries. Chinese photinia has been superseded by its hybrid offspring the Fraser photinia"

"- south of 4919 Phinney Ave N: one 41 1/2' tall"

--A.L. Jacobson, TREES OF SEATTLE - SECOND EDITION

 

Thanks, guys. It's not like I've never seen photinia(!), but I've always identified it by the red leaves, and maybe not noticed it before they developed. It's not obvious on this that the new leaves would be red, as the few open new leaves on this seem to be green. But it's not March yet.

 

As with the hybrid different specimens display different amounts of redness. Some places here also have the other parent in the cross, P. glabra. This also produces new growths varying from bronzy to quite reddish.

 

This is a Prunus lusitanica which easily grows up to 10 metres as is the gorgeous specimen in the pictures, commonly known as a Portugal Laurel. On second thought it may just well be a Photinia....the purple leaves and new growth habit.

 

Sorry, definitely not Prunus lusitanica.

Not all Photinia have red young leaves; it is just the popularity of the few that do, that makes them so common in cultivation.

 

My dwarf P. lusitanica foliage looks similar to the foliage in the pictures...my mistake.

 

Dwarf?

 

There's a photo of a similar-sized Photinia serratifolia on the Trees of Reed College (in Portland, Oregon) website. That website is amazing - they have every tree on campus mapped (I've walked around there with map pages - everything was there). I'm going to be in the building in the photo in June at the ukulele festival, so I'll check it out. And there are some in Vancouver mentioned in Straley's book, so I'll see if I can add a photo of the flowers for you, Michael.

 

As with many such efforts not every specimen may be correctly identified, I've gone all through the Reed College trees also and don't remember the specific outcome - but it seems like there may have been a few mistakes.

A good place to stop between Portland and Vancouver is the Hulda Klager Lilac Gardens in Woodland. If you haven't been there the property has a pretty nice collection of trees around the house, many of them with signs. A fun little diversion with signs directing you from the freeway, close and small enough to not be too time-consuming. More than one specimen there is of noteworthy size. See the page numbers listed for Woodland in the Quick Reference on page 108 of Van Pelt, CHAMPION TREES OF WASHINGTON STATE.

 

And no reply address for reporting errors, either!

 

Michael, I see what you mean about no place to report errors on the Reed site - it looks like there's a contact link, but it's not a link to any contact.

Ron, thanks for the garden recommendation! If I can't get my travel mates to stop, it's only a half hour north of Portland, so I can go there myself.

So Ron, it was suggested to me today that the Photinia seems not serrated enough to be Photinia serrulata and might be Photinia x fraseri instead. I'm attaching photos of the P. serrulata from UBC Botanical Garden for comparison. There weren't any flower buds yet. I see you've made some fraseri ids on other threads. What do you think?

 

I think the tree shown here is the same P. serratifolia listed as "south of 4919 Phinney Ave N: one 41 1/2' tall" by A.L. Jacobson in TREES OF SEATTLE - SECOND EDITION. I don't see anything in your picture that indicates it is instead a Fraser photinia. To take it further I would next pick samples from other Chinese and Fraser photinias and hold them up to the tree in question. Often it immediately becomes apparent where a particular example falls using this method.

 

Well, I know you're not going to argue with Jacobson! I think I picked up my copy of that book at Powell's in Portland last year, but it's the first edition and doesn't have "my" tree listed. Thanks, Ron.

 

For me it's not a matter of what someone else is calling it, it's a matter of what it looks like to me in your photos. I thought it was a Chinese photinia before I looked to see if it was in Arthur's book.

I don't subscribe to the "Joe Dokes is calling it that so that's what it is" school of garden plant identification. The only times when what a particular party calls something carries extra weight are when they originated the cultivar and it is known the material in question is the same clone that got the name originally, and when they are a specialist in a particular group and have worked on its taxonomy to an additional degree. Even in the latter case their conclusions may be subject to interpretation and argument, with other specialists in the topic not agreeing.

I do know that Jacobson is careful and serious, and seldom gets them wrong.

Not that I haven't noticed some mistakes and pointed them out to him.

Or made mistakes myself.

 

Ron, I only meant that I know you regard him highly.

 

I'm not offended, just relating some things I am aware of.

Now, if on the other hand you keep coming down here and looking at trees without contacting me so I can show you around - I might start to get miffed about that.