7th photo down...My favorite.

Dave

Dave,
we can't have them all.
But if seen, thats a halfway to having them. Teoretically of course.
Thats why I like photographing conifers, and seek for little details, which help to recognize the character of the different selections.
Thanks for your interest.

Zsolt

'Pirin #3' is a winner. Found on a P.l 'Pirin 3' which is a large tree?

Nice pics Szolt, indeed I saw most of these at Mira Malik.
Why do you still name these Pinus leucodermis while it is Pinus heldreichii now?

Pinus heldreichii 'Zwerg Schneverdingen' isn't a broom but a dwarf seedling found by the Horstmann nursery named after there hometown...

Edwin,
the Pinus heldreichii contra Pinus leucodermis game is not ours. The two species are not the same.

Lets see this taxonomically:
What is Pinus heldreichii? P. laricio var. heldreichii /Christ/ Mast. Described as the Steel pine, a geographical version of the Pinus nigra laricio.

What is Pinus leucodermis? Bosnian black pine.
P. heldreichii var. leucodermis /Ant./Markgr. ex Fitsch./ 1930
P. heldreichii var. leucodermis /Ant./ Markgraf & Fitschen 1930
P. laricio var. leucodermis /Ant./Christ

This seems very clear. My problems starts, as any breeders cant make difference of heldreichii and leucodermis. They want cultivars without beeing botanists.

For me its only a logistical problem: I take all to Pinus heldreichii as the species, and if anybody thinks, it is leucodermis, I take this as a secondary name. This means, that the Pinus heldreichii-leucodermis complex is written under heldreichii, with notes if they are.

With this behaviour I dont take to me any failures of the breeders, and taxonomy stays also clear.

It is far not the problem, that heldreichii and leucodermis could be the same. No. They are not the same, just some breeders are unable to recognize them.

Zsolt

Yep, the whole lot need changing to Pinus heldreichii. That has priority (1863) over P. leucodermis (1864).

Resin

"They are not the same, just some breeders are unable to recognize them"

In my opinion it's the other way around, maybe some breeders can see the differences but 99% can't...

Resin, are Pinus leucodermis and Pinus heldreichii differend in the way they look like Szolt is telling us and what are the differences?

"Resin, are Pinus leucodermis and Pinus heldreichii differend in the way they look like Szolt is telling us and what are the differences?"

There's no difference. Pinus heldreichii was described by Konrad Christ in 1863, and then Franz Antoine described it just a year later without knowing about Christ's earlier description.

The problem lay in that (a) Antoine's publication was more widely available so his name became better known, (b) Christ's herbarium cone specimen was immature (collected in July) and was also later lost, and (c) Balkan nationalist politics made it expedient for local people to believe their tree was different to the one across the border in the territory of the enemy. So claims of "differences" between them were invented, based at least partly around the shrivelled immature cone of Christ's material.

Zsolt's claim of P. heldreichii being "a geographical version of the Pinus nigra" is totally without foundation.

Christ's description (translated from German):
Leaves 2½" to good 3" [6-8cm] long, narrower than 1''' [2mm], the shoots thickly covered by them (5 years), standing curved out. Cones 2½" [6cm] long, 1" [2.5cm] broad, long conic, very slender at apex, twinned (in Boissier's herbarium), standing out horizontal, sessile. Apophysis unripe and dried finely wrinkled, cross-keeled. Umbo totally different to P. pinaster: in a hollow, the edge of which rises in a swelling above and below, above with a small, smooth and sharp mucro sharply bent in or sunken. This, with the habit and locality, approach the next species [P. mugo], from which it is told by the size and shape of the cones. Colour of the latter purple-brown.
A highly interesting species, which, as intermediate between P. pinaster and P. montana [mugo], justifies that Endlicher 169 places both of these together.
A true mountain plant: from Heldreich, 31 July 1851 on the Thessal. Olympus, found with Pinus laricio [P. nigra], Abies apollinis [A. cephalonica] and Fagus sylvatica, and sent to Mr Boissier as 'Pinus pinaster ? Aiton'. Common name ῥεμὦαγα.

Pinus heldreichii, Pirin Mts., Bulgaria:
{{gwi:670315}}

Resin

Great picture!

tj

I mentioned the synonyms above from Krussmann: Die Nadelgeholze,- The Conifers - 1983.

Christopher J. Earle gives also area map to heldreichii. Look at the link, please. He also mentioned, that the heldreichii-leucodermis debate is still not finished among botanists.

About my "claim"
There are two botanists - Master and Christ - who described the Pinus laricio connection:
P. laricio var. heldreichii /Christ/ Mast.
P. laricio var. leucodermis /Ant./Christ

For me this debate appears by an other way with cultivars.
Some examples

Pinus heldreichii Green Bun
Pinus leucodermis Green Bun

Pinus heldreichii Indigo Eyes
Pinus leucodermis Indigo Eyes

Pinus heldreichii Irish Bell
Pinus leucodermis Irish Bell

Pinus heldreichii Satellit
Pinus leucodermis Satellit

and finally a classical one
Pinus heldreichii Smidt
Pinus leucodermis Smidt Mesterhazy & Malik photo
Pinus leucodermis Smidt American Conifer Society
Pinus leucodermis Smidt J�rg Kohout Nursery, Prietitz GER
Pinus leucodermis Smidt Burdan Nursery, Lubska POL
Pinus heldreichii Smidt Jiri Holata Nursery, Kouty CZ
Pinus heldreichii leucodermis Smidt Edwin Smits Nursery, Volkel HOL
Pinus leucodermis Smidt Daglezja Nursery, Ryki POL
Pinus leucodermis Smidt Dax Herbst in Harper Collection USA

Breeders and nurseries are simply not sure because of the still going botanical debates, I think. Kr�ssmann and C. J. Earle votes for different, Resin votes for beeing the same, and I must wait with the final cultivar lists a while.

Zsolt

Here is a link that might be useful: Pinus heldreichii in Gymnosperm Database