Very nice .....an weird.

Dave,
Very nice 'Diana'. I have had one for about 10 years and it grows very fast. If I were you, I would move that plant at least 6' away from that fence. That tree is going to take off now that it's in the ground.

When I purchased my 'Diana', the plant was a fresh graft about a foot tall. It's now more than 20' tall. My tree has yet to produce any cones.
Thanks for posting the pics.
Mike

L. decidua is the fastest growing tree I've planted, with L. kaempferi being a close second. I just wish my Pseudolarix would take a hint from these two and get moving. Mike, when did you plant your Diana?

Hi Bob,
I planted my L. k. 'Diana' in the summer of 1997 and then moved the plant to its current location in 2000 or 2001.

This is a pic of my tree in the fall a couple of years ago:

{{gwi:681929}}
Larix kaempferi 'Diana'

Mike

Hi Mike,

Very nice Larix k.'Diana. The fall coloring makes a statement and if your a serious collector is this one you should consider.

There is an interesting comment in the ACS Database about this conifer. Also check out the 1st photo credit of Dennis Groh.

Yea, I know the location is all wrong on mine. I hadn't planed on buying this conifer yet but the deal on it was to good to pass up. It should be fine in that location for several years then I plan on moving it to a permanent location which is still in the design stage at this time.

Dave

I almost purchased a young L. k. 'Diana' this Spring but have gone with a L. decidua 'Horstmann's Recurved' instead, which I have also heard is a fast grower. Having seen the beauty of a mature Diana perhaps now I'll buy one of those as well...

Dave, in several years your Diana will be about 15feet high, you sure you will be able to move it then ??

Well spruce you got me thinking. Should not put on much growth this year with not enough root base to support a lot growth on top. I'll have to see where it goes this year. I could possibly move in March of 2009 if need be. I'll get it out of there before it gets me.

Good point.

Thanks,

Dave

I cannot believe how far ahead your are even though you are in a colder zone than I am. None of my larches has started to leave out yet. Last week, the soil here was still frozen...

If you guys would have read Dave's article in the ACS Quarterly (those of you who are members that is) he gardens with conifers in a way that maybe most wouldn't, that is, he buys a plant and when it outgrows the space, he replaces it with something else. He wrote something along the lines of, 'I don't fret about a plant getting too big, that would take all the fun out of, "gardening."
So that's his skew.

coniferophytus, that's a new one for Dave. He'll confirm it but, I'll assume it was a deal he couldn't pass up.

Dax

Yea Dax you got me pegged.

When it gets to big for one area a plan is already in place for relocation. Probably moved 10 last fall and this spring. All went into two new areas I am developing. I don't want any of you to think I just tear out and throw away. Not the case. Gardening this way keeps me engaged in something you really enjoy doing. One day at a time and always one step ahead. Not for every body but good for me.

The Larix k.'Diana' is a new purchase. Probably 3 weeks ahead in new growth as opposed to anything else here.

These are new plants coming from Stanley, Coenosium and Dennis Dodge next week. Some for replacements to fill in voids from relocation and others as companion plants.

1 Acer japonica 'Ogurayama'
3 Buxus microphylla 'Compacta'
3 Buxus microphylla 'Kingsville'
1 Chamaecyparis lawsoniana 'Elwoods Pygmy'
1 Chamaecyparis lawsoniana 'Green Globe'
1 Chamaecyparis lawsoniana 'Rimpelaar'
1 Cotoneaster horizontalis 'Cheney'
1 Euonymus japonica 'Rukujo'
1 Ilex crenata 'Dwarf Pagoda'
1 Ilex X 'Rock Garden'
1 Juniperus sabina 'Variegata'
1 Picea abies 'Hildburghausen'
1 Picea omorika 'Treblitzensis'
1 Picea pungens 'Montana Ave'
1 Pieris japonica 'Little Heath'
1 Pieris japonica 'Nang'
1 Pinus thunbergiana 'Okinakabu'
1 Rhododendron azalea 'Brianne'
1 Ulmus parviflora 'Hokkaido'
1 Picea glauca 'J.W. Daisy White' Correct cultivar name confirmed by Bob Fincham
1 Picea pungens 'Blaukissen'
1 Pinus sylvestris 'Pixie'
1 Pinus u. 'Paradekissen'
1 Ginko biloba 'Munchkin'
1 Ginko biloba 'Mariken'
1 Ginkgo biloba 'Green Pagoda'

Dave

These are mostly broadleafs. There are rather few conifers in your orders. We are not loosing you as a conifer enthusiast, Dave, are we? ;-))
I take pride in never having planted any flowers or anything other than conifers...

Not at all but by the same token if I just bought conifers and just stuck them here and there in my property, with each one being attractive in its own right, I couldn't deal with the stark reality of that. That's just me.

I think you need a mix of companion plants if you are trying to create a natural garden setting. Most of the deciduous plants are dwarfs and miniatures that will tuck into rock areas to give good flow to the design I am trying to create.

I do have stand alone conifers in my garden but the big picture consists of many conifers with a mix of deciduous wood.

If I had an area to work with like Dax has I might try a different approach and go the conifer only approach. Whatever he does there in 10 years it will be a show place being completely different from my place.

Mean while back at the ranch I'll just keep trucking along with my gravel, rocks and whatever else it takes to make something out of nothing.

Sure is fun.

Dave

Watch out Dave, the purist will be saying the term "natural garden" is an oxymoron.

Although as a northerner I can't imagine a garden without plenty of conifers, I also can't imagine my garden without Acers, Cornus, Amelanchiers, etal.

Never planted a flower or anything other than conifers? That would be coniferophytus maximus.

tj

Sorry Dave, all my information points to the correct name as Picea glauca Daisy's White, and no longer J.W.Daisy's White.
BTW, nice new list , I would be interested in some info on Picea pungens Montana Ave ?

Hi tj,

Let's just say as natural as I can imagine. Whether anyone else will buy it I don't know.

bluespruce, You can understand my dilemma. I am getting two different cultivar names from two different experts. Would you care to share your information points.

The Picea p.'Montana Ave' is a miniature, blue variety. Steel blue on a ball shaped plant. Plant found by Clayton Berg.
I ordered this in a 10.gal. size. I can't imagine a miniature conifer sold in 10 gal. pot. Must be ancient. I'll post a photo for you.

Dave

Hi Dave,

Unfortunately some people tend to be lazy at writing out names. The man who found and named 'J.W. Daisy's White' put that name on it. Some people think it makes the name too long and dropped the J.W. I don't like to change names from the one given the plant by its discoverer. Unfortunately some people have no problem doing that.

There are other example:

Picea orientalis 'Tom Thumb Gold' to 'Tom Thumb'
Abies koreana 'Horstmann's Silberlocke' to 'Silberlocke'
Picea glauca 'Arneson Blue Variegated' to 'Arneson Blue'
Picea pungens 'Iseli Foxtail' and 'Iseli Fastigiate' to 'Foxtail' and 'Fastigiata'(illegal)
Picea pungens 'R.H. Montgomery' to 'Montgomery'

I'm sure I can come up with more but why belabor the point.

Always enjoy you comments and pictures.

Bob

Dave,

With reference to Picea glauca 'Daisy's White'- the minor name change has been generally accepted throughout mainland Europe. My information is sourced from all the major European collectors and nursery lists, and the change has also been cited in the Dutch publication 'Promising Conifers part 1'. Anthoine Clement, a prominent European collector from Belgium, the country of origin for 'Daisy's White', also has this plant listed as 'Daisy's White' So, in my opinion, that makes the name generally accepted and I am happy to go with the flow. Another possible explanation for the change, is if the plant has been now officially registered (ICNCP code) and the 'JW' might well have been considered superfluous to the clarity of the cultivar name.

Look forward to seeing your photo of Picea pungens 'Montana Ave'. I have a one year graft of this plant, but no other informatiom.

Bob,
Aren't you forgetting the Horstmann cultivar Juniperus communis 'Schneverdinger Goldmachandel', you renamed 'Golden Schnapps' for the US market. So, not always the case of sticking to the originators name. :o)

Bluespruce

Corollary: if finding and naming a new cultivar, always select a name that is fairly simple, and readily pronounceable in as many languages as possible!

Resin

Hi guys, my opinion:

The original name will always stand and the registered incorrect name needs to be changed. This is why people like Jerry Morris still have file cabinets of information on each cultivar they introduced/grew. I spoke with him on the phone and was impressed that he could pull up information on a broom that was being questioned its' id of.

There was another recent debate on Pinus x 'Brepo' (man is this a weird one) see ACS Database for this one. Heck, it's registered as a trademark of some 'Vulcan' plant group in Europe and it's name to is superfluos to a 'European' name that originally was given to the plant. Talk about a nightmare this one was to research. All because of a debate over the buds and needles. It however got ironed out, in the end...

That's the beauty of the ACS Database as my friend Chub Harper says... he'll say: 'One stroke of the keyboard and it's instantly changed'. I don't by any means feel 'lonely' working on these records, but maybe guys like Bob, Jerry Morris, and others with access to the records sometime start adding anything they are sure of. Like I say I don't feel lonely in fact I enjoy it. It's just a hassle when it takes a week sometimes of tracking down 'the whole story' for one record.

It's just like school and I mention this occasionally, "write, re-write, and re-write again... read, re-read, and read, ...again. Don't get yourself all flustered. Take your time and do it right the first time. We all get lazy including me...

If you don't feel like working on the Database, send me an email. That's what I'm here for.

Best regards,

Dax

Actually, I didn't even think of it since it doesn't really fit with what I am trying to say. 'Schneverdingen Goldmachangel' means 'Schneverdingen Golden Schnapps' and I discussed altering the name with Gunter and he approved. However, in England the name was changed to 'Golden Showers', which did not make Gunter very happy and has nothing to do with the original name. Nobody likes having a name altered after it was given to a plant. Of course if everybody goes with the flow then the feelings of the founder don't matter :-(

I have no problem if someone wants to shorten an unregistered name, provided the person who named it approves. Otherwise, unless the name violates the code, hit the few extra keys on the keyboard.

Bob,
I would recommend, perhaps, that you take the time to check out the facts relating to the name-shortening to DaisyÂs White. You are coming across as very dismissive of me and all the major collectors and growers in Europe over this issue. Do you really think that all would have accepted the change to DaisyÂs White on a whim or through laziness (not hitting the extra keys)?

Your comment about Schneverdinger Goldmachangel and your translating the name to Golden Schnapps, even with the permission from Horstmann, is very relevant to what you were saying, i.e. " I donÂt like to change names from the one given the plant by its discoverer". Anglicising plant names for commercial purposes has exactly the same effect as renaming or altering the plant name in my book and should be avoided at all costs, because, believe me, it does cause confusion.
Just to clarify my 'going with the flow' - I don't accept name changes lightly - only if the majority of respected collectors and growers in Europe have accepted the change. I see no reason to disagree unless I have evidence to prove that the change is invalid or illegitimate.

»Never planted a flower or anything other than conifers? That would be coniferophytus maximus.«

My interest is really collecting and growing conifers, not necessarily gardening. Having an outstanding garden is a secondary benefit. I cannot imagine to ever plant flowers between my conifers. Besides, the boys consider growing flowers a girly thing and would make fun of their dad. ;-))

So who's planting flowers between their conifers? If your just growing conifers you will never have an outstanding garden. Just something that is pleasing to your eye.

"I take pride in never having planted any flowers or anything other than conifers"... Cool...If your happy that's all that matters.

What you got growing? Let's see some photos.

"What you got growing? Let's see some photos."

This is what I got growing as of this morning: 30 different genera, 116 different species ... 280+ different cultivars or wildforms. The only broadleaves to be found are occasional weeds...

{{gwi:693820}}

"The only broadleaves to be found are occasional weeds"

That's some big weeds you've got there behind the house!

;-)

Excellently tight.

Dax

looks a little busy. What do the neighbors think? I bet every timew you go out and plant something they're like, "man look at him.. here he goes again".

"What you got growing? Let's see some photos."

I knew if you were for real you would run for the camera. Most talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

Your for real. Probably not the way I would do it but we are all unique in our own right and much can be learned by how the other guy/gal does it.

I am impressed. Nice conifer garden. Let's have some close ups of your favorite cultivars. I see a lot of neat stuff.

Dave

Great photo, looks like a nice collection, where will you put all the new stuff you are likely to acquire over the coming years ?

Fascinating, stunning garden, coniferophytus. Everything looks perfect. Along with needing space for new acquisitions: do you own the land behind, and will you clear it to replant when things start to outgrow where they are?

I give you credit for self-discipline. Everytime I plant something herbaceous I think, but what I really like are conifers...then I discover another interesting perennial and can't help but buy it.

I still see a patch of grass to the left of the house -- NO PROBLEM planting more conifers !!!

....then of course there's that driveway:
If you get a car with enough ground clearance, I'm sure you could plant minis down the middle :O)

A+

Jaro

I am landscaping a mobile home park south of Youngstown, OH, so I have 8 acres to play with. This is one tree I am considering. Can anyone answer the following questions:

1. Just how wide will this get? Height is no problem but width is.
2. Can it handle light snow loads?
3. Hoping to plant it in full sun on slightly sloping site. Occasional high winds from north. Yes? No?
4. Do you have to stake it to obtain height or will it grow upwards on its own

Thanks.

Rolf

Hi Rolf,
I would guess the tree could get to be 10' wide over time.

Snow loads are not problem at all. It's deciduous so the branches are bare during the winter. It's just like any other deciduous tree, except it's contorted.

Winds shouldn't be a problem.

If you purchase a young plant, you will need to stake it for a while, but once it starts going upward on it's own, it needs no further help.
tl³