Bill Valvanis "Dwarf Japanese maple" - any idea what cultivar?

[Canada Bonsai]

I wish people would stop guessing at Japanese maple cultivars when the tree might not even be a cultivar.

Thank you for doing this, and it does needs to be said over and over again

People taking guesses has caused a lot of confusion for quite a few cultivars. Deshojo is a very good example: in North America there are currently at least 5-6 strains circulating as 'Deshojo/Shin Deshojo' that were so-named 'because they look a lot like Deshojo' under certain conditions. It is sometimes possible to follow the supply chain and track down the source of these issues, but once the problem is out in the wild it is almost impossible to resolve (esp. because there is so much sharing and home-propagation in the world of Japanese Maples).

Similar troubles occur with transcribing and/or translating Japanese-named cultivars; the lowest-level of this gets as simple-minded as people arguing--and producing pictures to support their arguments--over whether Shishigashira or Shishi Gashira is the nicer cultivar...

 

[Bonsai Nut]

And it's such a waste of energy to aggressively take sides on something that is unknowable. It might be! It might not be.

Let me try stating this a different way. In order for it to be a cultivar, you have to know it is. You have to have proof. There is no "might be". "Might be" means "not a cultivar". You don't have proof, so it's not a cultivar. There is no "taking sides".

This is why nurseries have to tag ALL their cultivars. No tag, no cultivar. In fact, when I was buying citrus for my landscape in California, the trees would come with TWO cultivar tags - one for the scion and one for the rootstock, since different rootstock is better for some conditions versus others. If you are a commercial nursery you aren't going to "guess" what rootstock you are getting for your nursery.

And once again... just because a Japanese maple doesn't have a cultivar tag doesn't make it any less amazing. In fact, all cultivars start somewhere, and many start as genetic variations or random mutations from seedlings in a field. Some of the most valuable Japanese maple bonsai (probably the vast majority) aren't cultivars. And as many people will point out, in most cases commercially available cultivars are going to be grafts, which make them uniquely challenging to work with for bonsai. Show me an amazing Japanese maple bonsai on its own roots, and I couldn't care less if it is or isn't a cultivar. Give me a cutting from a non-descript Japanese maple that was owned and styled by John Naka, and I will treasure it more than any JM cultivar in my nursery.

 

[penumbra]

I have to side with anything not named is Acer palmatum, regardless of what it looks like. I have about 40+ named andf tagged cultivars. I also have half a dozen JM that are cultivars though the tags have been lost. Thus, these are just nice JM. I also have 50+ JM that are in there first year as seedlings. These are seedlings from well known cultivars and a few look identical to their parent's leaves at this point. These are just interesting JM, but I don't mind quoting their source. For instance, I have a Hubb's Red Willow seedling that has leaves exactly like the adult tree. But it is one season old. Who knows what it will develop into. This plant will be tagged seedling from Hubb's because it is close enough to the parent to matter. Still, it is a Acer palmatum, not an Acer palmatum Hubb's Red Willow. There is a bunch of genetic variation in this 50+ group but they are all JM seedlings. I will be watching them closely. Some of these may not even survive. There is also a thread leaf one and a couple super dwarf maples as well. They are all Acer palmatum.

 

[Bonsai Nut]

I have to side with anything not named is Acer palmatum, regardless of what it looks like. I have about 40+ named andf tagged cultivars. I also have half a dozen JM that are cultivars though the tags have been lost. Thus, these are just nice JM. I also have 50+ JM that are in there first year as seedlings. These are seedlings from well known cultivars and a few look identical to their parent's leaves at this point. These are just interesting JM, but I don't mind quoting their source. For instance, I have a Hubb's Red Willow seedling that has leaves exactly like the adult tree. But it is one season old. Who knows what it will develop into. This plant will be tagged seedling from Hubb's because it is close enough to the parent to matter. Still, it is a Acer palmatum, not an Acer palmatum Hubb's Red Willow. There is a bunch of genetic variation in this 50+ group but they are all JM seedlings. I will be watching them closely. Some of these may not even survive. There is also a thread leaf one and a couple super dwarf maples as well. They are all Acer palmatum.

A local JM nursery is selling "red JM seedlings" as "these are seedlings from A. palmatum 'Bloodgood' in a field". Not a cultivar. But nice to know the source.

 

[Mikecheck123]

Let me try stating this a different way. In order for it to be a cultivar, you have to know it is. You have to have proof. There is no "might be". "Might be" means "not a cultivar". You don't have proof, so it's not a cultivar. There is no "taking sides".

This is why nurseries have to tag ALL their cultivars. No tag, no cultivar. In fact, when I was buying citrus for my landscape in California, the trees would come with TWO cultivar tags - one for the scion and one for the rootstock, since different rootstock is better for some conditions versus others. If you are a commercial nursery you aren't going to "guess" what rootstock you are getting for your nursery.

And once again... just because a Japanese maple doesn't have a cultivar tag doesn't make it any less amazing. In fact, all cultivars start somewhere, and many start as genetic variations or random mutations from seedlings in a field. Some of the most valuable Japanese maple bonsai (probably the vast majority) aren't cultivars. And as many people will point out, in most cases commercially available cultivars are going to be grafts, which make them uniquely challenging to work with for bonsai. Show me an amazing Japanese maple bonsai on its own roots, and I couldn't care less if it is or isn't a cultivar. Give me a cutting from a non-descript Japanese maple that was owned and styled by John Naka, and I will treasure it more than any JM cultivar in my nursery.

Man that JD Vertrees guy sure wasted a lot of time creating a guide to identify cultivars, then, didn't he?

Instead of spending 40 years meticulously documenting the characteristics of each one, he should have just written one paragraph that says, "In order for it to be a cultivar, you have to know it is. You have to have proof. There is no "might be"." <end book>

Similarly, if I'm walking in a botanical garden and I see a massive shishigashira and a friend asks me what it is, should I say, "I'm sorry, since I have no proof, there is no way to identify this tree and it is simply an unknown Japanese maple."?

I'm being facetious to make a point: I think what you're saying is right for people in the nursery trade who are selling Japanese maples.

It's not true for people who just want to ID cultivars as best they can. For us, it is entirely appropriate to make a cultivar identification from evidence without notarized chain of title documentation.

 

[A. Gorilla]

Do you know a molecular geneticist? Otherwise, no... no one can tell you specifically what it is.

If you are lucky, and @William N. Valavanis recalls the cultivar, he might be able to tell you. However it may be a cutting or air-layer from a non-cultivar, or it may be a seedling. The description simply means yes, it is a Japanese maple and yes, based on the growth pattern, it is a dwarf.

I wish people would stop guessing at Japanese maple cultivars when the tree might not even be a cultivar.

Don't tell me what to do.

 

[penumbra]

I understand your position and empathize, but you have rules to follow regardless of your intent. It is enough for me to have a non named plant that resembles another. As an example in another post I show a seedling of Hubb's Red Willow that at this point looks identical to the parent. I will never call this seedling a Hubb's Red Willow. It really is just that simple my friend.

It's not true for people who just want to ID cultivars as best they can. For us, it is entirely appropriate to make a cultivar identification from evidence without notarized chain of title documentation

 

[Bonsai Nut]

Man that JD Vertrees guy sure wasted a lot of time creating a guide to identify cultivars, then, didn't he?

You need to re-read the book. The book isn't a "guide to identify cultivars". It describes them.

Pay special attention to Chapter Two - when he discusses "The Naming of Cultivars" and Chapter Four - "Naming Seedlings".

 

[HorseloverFat]

Knowing thatWith each seedling producing ENTIRELY "specific-to-that-plant" genetics..

And there are well over 1000 known, accepted Palmatum Cultivars..,

Knowing each cultivar only "happens"... ONCE.... and the PROPAGATOR the only one who really knows...

Specific and EXACT cultivar differentiation (ESPECIALLY amongst JM) seems like walking up to a Police sketch artist... with a stick-figure drawing.. and asking, "Doesn't this look JUST like Jim, from Connecticut?"....

"Who's Jim?"



The aggression, OP, that you are experiencing is a direct result of misinformation and amatuer-identification "muddying" up the waters of the mainstream Acer Palmatum market.

It's definitely not YOUR fault.. nor is the aggression pointed at you, directly...

Just want to nip these things in the bud, right away.

Nice Tree, too!

Looks awesome.... no matter WHAT the original grower named it.

 

[Bonsai Nut]

if I'm walking in a botanical garden and I see a massive shishigashira and a friend asks me what it is, should I say, "I'm sorry, since I have no proof, there is no way to identify this tree and it is simply an unknown Japanese maple."?

"if I'm walking in a botanical garden and I see a massive JAPANESE MAPLE and a friend asks me what it is, I should say, "HERE, LET ME READ THE SIGN" otherwise it is "A PRETTY JAPANESE MAPLE". I have a friend that has several hundred big Japanese maples in landscape. Most he grew from seed. When you walk through his property, you might think that a tree looks like one cultivar or another... but very few are cultivars. Does it make his garden any less beautiful?

And to refer to @HorseloverFat 's post above... I hope I am not sounding aggressive like - I'm mad or upset. Rather, this is (to me) pretty straight-forward horticulture and an important point to make that some folks trip over.

 

[penumbra]

This post should be required reading for JM lovers.

 

[Lorax7]

Man that JD Vertrees guy sure wasted a lot of time creating a guide to identify cultivars, then, didn't he?

Instead of spending 40 years meticulously documenting the characteristics of each one, he should have just written one paragraph that says, "In order for it to be a cultivar, you have to know it is. You have to have proof. There is no "might be"." <end book>

You completely missed the point of that book. It’s not an identification guide.

 

[HorseloverFat]

"if I'm walking in a botanical garden and I see a massive JAPANESE MAPLE and a friend asks me what it is, I should say, "HERE, LET ME READ THE SIGN" otherwise it is "A PRETTY JAPANESE MAPLE". I have a friend that has several hundred big Japanese maples in landscape. Most he grew from seed. When you walk through his property, you might think that a tree looks like one cultivar or another... but very few are cultivars. Does it make his garden any less beautiful?

And to refer to @HorseloverFat 's post above... I hope I am not sounding aggressive like - I'm mad or upset. Rather, this is (to me) pretty straight-forward horticulture and an important point to make that some folks trip over.

Yes!.. Definitely IMPORTANT to instill this understanding.

What WE see as "Urgent and Important"... is normally an issue we are passionate about..

And Urgent Passion.. can be misread as aggression...

I know... I'm a big-personalitied, loud talker.....

So This SAME thing happens to me, often.



Your point still stands, and I would not have stated it differently. I just wanted to reiterate the UTMOST importance and relevance.

 

[Mikecheck123]

You completely missed the point of that book. It’s not an identification guide.

Lmao wut.

 

[Lorax7]

Lmao wut.

View attachment 445406

I have the J.D. Vertrees book, "Japanese Maples" second edition. The text you cite above does not appear anywhere in it. The back flap of my second edition book says Mr. Vertrees passed away in 1993. So, either you're quoting some article somewhere written by someone else about Mr. Vertrees' book or perhaps you're quoting a foreward added posthumously to a later edition of the book, again written by someone else (someone who was being imprecise in their use of language). The book is concerned with taxonomy and nomenclature. It does not suggest that you can look at a tree and decide, "Oh, this tree here is an Acer palmatum 'Nana segawa' because I think it looks like one."

 

[A. Gorilla]

>>It does not suggest that you can look at a tree and decide, "Oh, this tree here is an Acer palmatum 'Nana segawa' because I think it looks like one."

It absolutely does.

 

[Lorax7]

>>It does not suggest that you can look at a tree and decide, "Oh, this tree here is an Acer palmatum 'Nana segawa' because I think it looks like one."

It absolutely does.

It’s been a while since I read it, but I recall that it never gave me that impression. Cite the paragraph or STFU. I’m certainly not taking your word for it.

 

[A. Gorilla]

[EDIT] @A. Gorilla Please do not misquote people. If you have to change what they said to make your point... perhaps you shouldn't be making it. [/EDIT]

Bro, it's just plants!

 

[penumbra]

Nothing is black and white. Never has been, never will be.

 

[A. Gorilla]

Nothing is black and white. Never has been, never will be.

Guessing cultivars has a 90%+ success rate.