Well it certainly doesn't seem like the 'Adcock's Dwarf' I am growing. Maybe there is some variance in growing habit for this cultivar but what do I know. You don't suppose that's under stock free ranging inside that cultivar that was missed and left to grow. Maybe Edwin will chime in.

Mine is slow growing with dense foliage. I am lucky if I see 2 inches of growth a year.

I planted mine in 2000. A one gal. pot and about a foot tall. I am guessing 15 + years old now. Now 30 H 24 W.

Dave

Ken, it looks like a midwest interpretation of 'Adcock's Dwarf.' My notes show that it is a seedling selection named for Graham Adcock of England's Hillier Arboretum in the 1960s.

~Dave

i dont know dave ... take out 3 leaders.. and they look pretty close to me ... have you removed any leaders to maintain your ball of love???

dave2 ... you really have notes like that.. lol ... thx!!

waiting for the joy of my life ... lol .. well.. my conifer life.. lol ..

ken

that's how I roll, Ken. For the lion's share of my 600+ cultivar collection, I have noted the responsible human, along with the date and place of the discovery. For me, the story is just as important as the plant. Lacking the stories, they're all just a bunch of really peculiar trees, right?

~Dave

I came across both growing habits of the 'Adcock's' Dwarf.
One like Dave's, which is a pretty globose one, but also one like Ken's, which is an upright form with several leaders and faster growing.
I don't know what happened in the past, maybe a faster growing mutation arose which also came in ciculation under the same cultivar name...

Dump it Ken! not 'Adcock's Dwarf' ... at least not anymore! :o)

Ken,

I have never touched mine.

It seem strange that one cultivar will have two different growing habits and still retain the same cultivar name.

Leave yours as is ..Looks good to me.

I am not sure what blue is referring too. Even Edwin calls it 'Adcock's' Dwarf'.

Dave

Edwin can call it what he likes Dave, it ain't Adcocks's Dwarf! if it ever was it's reverted so still isn't entitled to that name ..

I didn't say that I call both forms 'Adcock Dwarf'.
I said that I came across both forms under the same cultivar name...

could this be an understock issue???

a more vigorous understock making the scion into a more aggressive plant???

and no.. i have no clue what my understock is ...

and no again ... its one of my first.. beloved ... regardless of name or form ... it isnt going anywhere.. unless i decide its too big for the spot.. and i send a few pieces off for grafting.. and destroy this one ... though i doubt that will ever happen..

ken

Stephen or Edwin,

Sorry for the confusion here.

I guess I will have to ask a simplistic question. I am almost afraid to ask or comment anymore but I feel safe with you.

If Ken cuts the reversion out, assuming that is what happened, could it still retain Adcock's Dwarf' cultivar name?

Is the one I am showing correct? I am thinking it is.

Dave

Ken and Dave,

It has nothing to do with the kind of understock which was used for this dwarf cultivar.
Imo a faster growing branch arose which was propagated and since then it started to live it's own life under the same name...

The same thing is happening with the Chamaecyparis obtusa 'Nana Gracilis' and Picea glauca var. albertiana 'Conica'.
In both cases faster growing branches were taken for propagation and the original dwarf form is slowly diasappaering...

Ken's specimen doesn't show a reversion which could be "helped" by cutting it out, no his whole plant is a reversion.

Dave, you're showing the true 'Adcock's Dwarf' here, which is a very nice specimen!

Please, never feel afraid to ask or comment something about conifers at this forum.
That's why this forum is for, there are specialist here in all kind of fields...

I've read several times that 'Adcock's Dwarf' isn't a realiable bushlike plant. Whether that is the original or seedling, I'm not sure.

Since I was on Bob's site recently I remember seeing this.

PINUS PARVIFLORA �PYGMY YATSUBUSA�

A congested, dwarf form with twisted foliage, it is similar to �Adcock�s Dwarf� only it stays more reliably bushlike.

Yes Dave, yours is a nice specimen indeed, and ken keep yours by all means, you got the space to indulge yourself, where as I'm more or less full, so any excuse for me to move something out to make room for others ... and discovering I have a plant incorrectly named is all the motivation I need :o)

Looks to me like 'Al Fordham'

-Brent