|
| I need a reputable source for the correct nomenclature for boxwood. Searching the Internet produces a varied assortment of botanical names for the same cultivar or form. And I need a source that is current with the latest introductions if that's possible. I was thinking about 'Boxwood: An Illustrated Encyclopedia' by Lynn Batdorf but I'm open for better suggestions if there are any.
Marshall |
Follow-Up Postings:
|
| As with all such questions a survey of the literature will be required to get a good view of the matter, rather than trying to rely on a single reference. Pieces of the puzzle will be found here and there, which are then used to fill the holes. |
|
| OK - I'll present this in a different way. Say an arboretum wants to review all the boxwood in their collection for proper/current/correct botanical names based on cultivar names - where would you suggest they start? |
|
| I would think plant patents would have the right botanical parentage listed for any registered cultivar names. |
|
- Posted by ken_adrian z5 (My Page) on Sat, Dec 10, 11 at 8:44
| Say an arboretum wants to review all the boxwood in their collection for proper/current/correct botanical ====>>>>presuming you have an old name .. wouldnt google bring up a change or newer name??? sounds like a PITA .. lol ... [that would be .. pain in the buttacles] ken |
|
| Rephrasing the question does not change my answer. I'm acquainted with the new boxwood encyclopedia, as I bought a copy myself and gave it to the local horticultural library. Even a recent monograph like this I doubt I would depend on solely to resolve any specific labeling issue, but rather I would be likely to check all pertinent-seeming sources of information I could find before making a decision. This is one of the reasons I cringe whenever someone comes on here and says the Dirr manual (or whatever) is the last word, the only reference you need and the like. That just is not how it works. |
|
| The American Boxwood Society is the international cultivar registration authority for that genus, so should have more information than any other source. They are the ones that determine which cultivars are official cultivars! Lynn R. Batdorf, the curator of the National Boxwood Collection at the US National Arboretum, is the actual ICRA registrar of Buxus for the ABS. So, I guess you could say that, at least in this case, there's a "last word" after all. |
Here is a link that might be useful: The American Boxwood Society website
|
| Batdorf is behind the new encyclopedia, a Boxwood Society publication. Again, I would not say that all you have to do is read what he (or they) says about any single question and be sure every time it is all you need to know, to get it right at your end. The world is more complex than that. And new box cultivars continue to be introduced, so I don't think even a tome this recent will have all the "latest introductions". The internet, with its scope and plasticity is pretty much kicking the asses of printed reference manuals at this point. However, I continue to consult both. |
|
| seems like there is so much variance in boxwood species depending on who you talk to so I doubt there is no cut and dried source. Probably best to pick a source and stick to that. Recent introductions aren't too difficult to track as most are patented or trademarked plants - it's the old varieties that seem to change whenever the wind shifts to a different direction. Thanks for your comments Marshall |
|
| "--there is no cut and dried source" should read "--there is a cut and dried source" Marshall |
|
| Your discussion might benefit from separating out thoughts about species nomenclature from thoughts concerning cultivars. Understanding of phylogeny improves with time, hopefully clarifying relationships between species, etc. Specific cultivar names shouldn't be in flux, although mistakes can sometimes be made and corrected. It might also be a good idea to avoid the term "variety" unless that's really what is meant. The word has a specific meaning when discussing taxonomy, but is often misused (or at least used with a much broader meaning) in casual/non-technical conversation. |
|
- Posted by viburnumvalley z5/6 KY (My Page) on Fri, Dec 23, 11 at 7:40
| I think our good fellow from the Dayton area will be on track to consult the new boxwood text as a primary source for current nomenclature. The USNA isn't exactly a slouch when it comes to doing its homework. I would imagine that this text would have extensive references noted and a long bibliography supporting its documentation. That said: when changes/corrections come along that are substantial and verifiable, then you have a point of departure upon which you've relied - rather than a mix of opinions from all over the place. I don't have the recent boxwood text, but I do have a number of texts regarding a single genus (Malus, Ilex, etc.). The quality authors will state what they believe the plant to be, and back it up with data (references) and often anecdotes or histories of the plant's selection and naming. This gives you a point of departure if/when someone offers a different answer than the one you've chosen. To argue over whether a certain person's text is the "end-all be-all" isn't particularly useful, since taxonomists and the DNA testers will be with us forever - and trying to adjust nomenclature forever. Being human, and all. What should/could be stated is that is one of the best for its time (like Rehder, Bailey, Krussman, etc. - even Jacobson), but that newer information further informs the base of knowledge. I think if you are interested in woody plants and express this interest in the eastern half of the US, and don't have one of the multiple versions of Dirr's text, you are working with one eye closed. I'll never say this text is the only answer to anything - but it's vast array of information from identification to locations of specimens to the author's opinions spanning 40 years in multiple employment sites, well, it is nearly if not definitively unmatched for gardeners/horticulturists in this part of the world. Sure, there are errors (as with most texts, AND much more frequently on unedited and un-peer-reviewed websites) but these are typically corrected with updated editions or errata publications. Even the homeboys on the west coast stub their toes, or need updates to their bibles. In addition to the Batdorf text, mrgpag might benefit from contacting the owner of Pine View Nursery in Leitchfield, KY. This gentleman has spent the past few decades passionately pursuing, collecting, propagating, and growing all the Buxus selections he can lay his hands on. It looks like he offers over 60 taxa currently. He doesn't slack off on all things Ilex as well, nor in the vast range of plants offered at his relatively small place of business. He could use a few more viburnums, though. You could contact him through his website - I'm sure he'd be a trove of information and advice. |
Here is a link that might be useful: Pine View Nursery
Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum. If you are a member, please log in. If you aren't yet a member, join now!
Return to the Shrubs Forum
Instructions
- You must be a registered member and logged in to post messages on our forums.
- Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review the contents and make changes.
- After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
- It is illegal to post copyrighted material without the owner's consent.
- HTML codes are allowed in the message field only.
- No advertising is allowed in any of the forums.
- If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
- If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.