Resin

That is good fall color for a tulip tree. If you don't know, they flower also. It's a taller growing tree so if you prune off all the lower branches you'll be looking up at the flowers but still its a great flower. My neighbor's is now about 15 or 20 feet (6 meters!) tall and just flowered for the first time this year. If he didn't have one I would plant one myself. Around here they're large impressive trees with unique leaves AND flowers.

Here's a flower photo from the web site.

the fall yellow is typical .... though variable depending on a hard freeze/frost ...

there is a neat center variegated one.. and some near dead brain cell says there is a second variegated type that is escaping me right now ... whats the other option... edged.. lol ...

roots seems to be deep for the most part.. unlike my hated maples .... but mine are only about 10 years old.. so time will tell on that ...

though they are called a tulip poplar.. they are not poplars .... but the growth rate is pert near ....

ken

Dan

I have two of the variegated variety. Almost creamy center. Great trees.

Gorgeous!

It was more a yellowish brown.

The color in the pic posted is what I'd call, stunning/brilliant fall color.

Resin

Resin

Anyone who looks at the tree for 2 seconds knows it not a poplar. I understand where you're coming from as I had this same discussion with a high end nursery here in town this fall. They couldn't wrap their minds around a common name other than "Tulip Tree" and chuckled when I called it a yellow poplar. Didn't matter how many times I explained this to them, but here I am again . . .

This is true, and nor is a Douglas-fir a true fir, which is why we use the [ - ] to distinguish it from a true fir. Nor is a salt cedar a cedar, and so on. This is why the Latin is used - when I moved to West Germany (long ago, obviously), I may not have known the German for something, but I knew the Latin...

Perhaps we can use tulip-poplar??

;o)

Nonetheless, I do like that lf color and judging from the caliper, one wonders whether it is a new cultivar (The Google has no wisdom today) and if not, the OP should take cuttings!

Dan

Of course they can be incorrect. The idea that they can't is a recent myth. To say so is to say that no-one ever makes mistakes in identification. The result is that names mean nothing at all and are worthless because communication cannot be achieved.

"Look at all the conifers that are commonly called 'cedars' that have no relationship to Cedrus species"

"The common name Cedar is widely misapplied, especially to species and varieties of Chamaecyparis, Cryptomeria, Cupressus, Juniperus, Libocedrus, and Thuja. This illustrates the importance of the principle adopted by the Joint Committee that a common name properly belonging to one genus should not be used for a plant of another genus" - Standardized Plant Names, ed.2. American Joint Committee on Horticultural Nomenclature; Harlan P. Kelsey and William A. Dayton. J. Horace McFarland Company, Harrisburg, Pa.

"On a similar note, the Liriodendron tulipifera is not a member of the Tulipa genus either. So if we can't call it a Tulip Poplar, you shouldn't call it a Tulip Tree"

No. Completely irrelevant argument. Your argument here is as nonsensical as saying that a Black Walnut is a species of black, or that a Chestnut Oak is a species of chestnut. That's not how names are constructed in the English language. The first part of the name is a descriptor, the second part the classification part. A "tulip tree" means a tree that looks like a tulip, while a tulip that looks like a tree would be a "tree tulip". So all it means is that you shouldn't call it a Tree Tulip.

"and there it was, the 'state tree' - Tulip Tree - with a big photo of M.x soulangeana in all its pink-blossomed glory. Wrong"

QED. Shows perfectly the importance of good education and defining names properly. That error wouldn't have happened if names were used correctly. Hope you mentioned it to the class!

Resin

Lots of common names are incorrect. I suppose where there are other common names in use that aren't as egregious, one should try to use those, but Tulip Poplar or Yellow Poplar are the only names that many people know for this tree so I doubt it is going to go away any time soon.

Nonetheless, common names have been a problem for centuries. And they'll continue to be a problem, even after this thread suffers linkrot. The BH calls it 'geum', I call it 'avens' except when it's in the way, then I call it something unprintable but she'll never stop calling it 'geum'.

Dan-poplar

I'm sorry but it is only a myth in your eyes. We are speaking about common names or vernacular terminology. And since these vary widely according to country, regions within countries and all the other factors I already listed, who can possibly judge which is "correct" or "incorrect"? Many plants have multiple common names and in many other cases, the same common name can be applied to multiple different plants.....if I were to refer to a plant commonly known as "bluebell", would you know what specific plant I was referring to? Would it be Mertensia, Hyacinthoides, Campanula, Polemonium, Penstemon, or Wahlenbergia? Who decides which is the true/'correct' common name and that all the rest are erroneous? And by what basis?

Common names have never been used as a standard for identification - that's what the Latin-based binomial system is intended to do. It is to unify and globalize plant identification and to facilitate communication about those plants. And if you persist on defining common names by the same binomial process of a descriptor and classifer, how in the world do you explain a common name like Love Lies Bleeding, Heart's a Burstin', Kiss Me Over the Garden Gate or London Pride?? These are truly the epitome of common or vernacular plant names and they have nothing to do with descriptor/classifier but everything to do with folklore, legends and often herbalism. Common names are not derived from a basis in education but more typically from the lack thereof.

Sorry, your argument holds not even a drop of water :-)

Take Red Cedar and Northern White cedar, neither of which is a cedar. "I'd like to ID the cedar I have on my front yard"- is it a true cedar, or one of the various trees from around the world incorrectly called cedar? I'd rather have an appropriate name like Red Juniper or Eastern Arborvitae so that we can correctly understand its origin. And isn't "common name" a misnomer if there is no commonality to it? Calling a tree a cedar can substantially add to confusion. Here's and example; "I was thinking about putting an ash tree in the back patio- should I go with Mountain Ashe or Green Ash?"

There is room for various interesting can colorful common names, and in that sense I enjoy the variety of ways people can perceive and name things. However, as people acquire a deeper understanding of tree relationships with other species and from an evolutionary perspective, they will have to sort through numerous examples of misnomers. Why not make things more simple, logical, and straightforward, while trying to preserve local flavor? Tulip Tree vs. Yellow Tulip tree?

The only standard for plant identification is the scientific name. Period. And even that can get mooshy :-)

But the general public will never take hold of the scientific names, they are usually too long and sometimes tough to pronounce.

Thats why we have common names...its not as confusing when you talk to someone within your area. Versus here, we have people from all over the US, technically the world, arguing over common names...good luck!

Exactly. So some form of standardisation of vernacular language names to reflect botanical accuracy is very necessary and valuable, so that plants can be talked about meaningfully without having to use scientific names that put off a very large proportion of the populace. Britain has done so for the last 150 years at least, and so too has the American Joint Committee on Horticultural Nomenclature referenced above. And birders / ornithologists throughout the world have always done so. It is only in plants, and only quite recently, that there has been this anti-educational trend in some circles to validate every error that has ever been made and legitimise these errors as 'correct' usage. It appears to have much to do with creationist ideals that (since in their view, everything is created uniquely by god) no one thing can be related to anything else, and therefore names which confuse and reject any suggestion of evolutionary relationship are to be encouraged. Me, I'll have nothing to do with that, thank you!!

Resin

This seems to me to be a particularly American approach to the issue and has even broader implications. For some reason, there seems to be a huge reluctance on the part of the general populace -- speaking only of the US here -- to consider attempting to communicate in anything other than their native, bastardized American tongue. And if encouraged to do so, a major imposition and inconvenience. Most Americans traveling abroad insist on English being spoken and will not venture out of their comfort zone to learn even the most basic of phrases in the language of the country they are visiting. Yet foreign visitors to this country most often have an impressive command of this language, one of the more difficult to learn (not to mention pronounce) if not native. I've met some that speak it better than many native born Americans :-) Even our schools do a very poor job of teaching foreign languages - most require only the briefest introduction to one for graduation, if that. Just curious, but how many US posters here are comfortable conversing in a foreign language, if not fluent in one? I bet only a few at most.

Scientific plant names could be considered a foreign language in some sense.......but certainly an easier one to learn than virtually any other, as there is no sentence structure, grammar or idiomatic phrases to navigate :-) There is also a logic to much of it that is missing with other 'languages' and that makes it rather simple once understood. And many folks know more botanical Latin than they think, as a great many plants including many widely grown and popular ones have NO common name. So why is there this persistence on adhering to what are in essence plant nicknames as a primary form of communication? Oddly, I've not encountered this same tendency when conversing with others around the globe about plants.......could it be that they do not share this inclination to refer to plants by something other than their correct scientific name? Or they have no idea what the "correct" common name is? How can this be?

And Resin, with your obvious background and education, at least in plant matters, I'm surprised you advocate this notion of dumbing down plant names to what is an unregulated and essentially unregulatable exercise. How can one derive anything "meaningful" about a common name when it is often so unique to a set of specific circumstances not shared by the global population or diluted beyond reasonable communication by multiple application?

And what the heck any of this has to do with 'creationist ideals' is beyond me and seems to be at the very least grasping at straws by way of justification.

Many English words are derived from Latin. Americans don't speak Latin. In essence common plant names where derived to better fit the English language / American culture. I'm not saying its right, because it does lead to confusion, lol.

English is the closest thing to a universal language. The preceived value of an American to learn a different lanugage is not as great as a European, Asian, etc.

Then I grew up.

I really love the enthusiasm at this forum!

I never read much on whatever conferences decided on using Latin for "official" or "scientific" naming of different species. What I imagine is scientific folks wanted a standardized way of referring to anything. Naturally the French wanted French names, the British their English, us ours, and the Germans, well German and so on. So the Eurocentric world of the time picked a dead but not particularly obscure language, Latin.

It works for being standardized and for showing as little favoritism as reasonably possible. Usually I get away with calling my dawn redwoods just dawn redwoods here. Sometimes I type Metasequoia Glyptostroboides. When there is some doubt or "regionalness" with names like in the case of "black gum" I try to use Nyssa Sylvatica to avoid confusion.

Its more cool to sound "learned" than like Archie Bunker or Al Bundy anyways.

In essence common plant names where derived to better fit the English language / American culture.

Nonsense! Since common names are not strictly English or American in origin but rather are entirely dependent on the language/usage of the common person in the area in which the plant may grow, they can just as easily be African, Spanish or Chinese or any of a hundred other languages. They are just names derived by those without a formal or scientific education to refer to locally common plants. They are neither right or wrong, they just are. But they cannot be considered any kind of standardized form of communication, simply because there are NO standards. What is valid in one location may have no recognition in another.

English is the closest thing to a universal language. The preceived value of an American to learn a different lanugage is not as great as a European, Asian, etc.

And that is exactly the xenophobic attitude I was describing! English is only considered a 'universal' language because the English speaking world - America and the UK - have superimposed their will and their language on the rest of the globe. "Speak our language or we won't do business with you!" It is certainly not the most widely spoken language by any means. Just ask 1.3 billion Chinese! And given the way the world is moving these days, it would not beyond the realm of reason to find Chinese becoming the 'universal' language in the not too distant future.

I don't understand how thats a xenophobic attitude. Its perceived value. Yes, I'm sure there are many Americans that have a xenophobic attitude towards foreign language...that doesn't mean ones desire to learn a foreign language is xenophobic in nature but value as well.

Secondly, the common name for Ailanthus, "Tree of Heaven," makes perfect sense - the tree is exceedingly fast-growing with a branch structure that, indeed, reaches up to the gods.

Thirdly, I certainly *wouldn't* expect Chinese to become a lingua franca, per se (Oh! the irony!). Chinese is a tonal language, not syllabic, which makes it incredibly difficult for non-native/non-accustomed ears to cognitively learn. For much of history, language has been used to identify group-members and to exclude non-group members - not necessarily to promote communication. This is particularly true for isolationist China.

Josh

I get very frustrated with common names, because they are confusing and imprecise, but recognize that most people are not going to make the effort to learn scientific names of the plants (or other creatures). It is hard work to learn the names - but essential for anyone with a serious interest in plants - plus I figure it keeps my brain from atrophying!

I have an axe to grind with the taxonomists though - do they intentionally try to make some of these names cumbersome? Why on earth would they take a beautiful lyrical botanical name like "Aster azureus" and change it to "Symphyotrichum oolentangiensis"??? 8-O

Anyway, speaking of beautiful fall color, the Acer saccharum around here is spectacular right now -

Not too many trees that size have excellent fall color (like those acer saccharum!) AND a good flower.

BTW a friend of mind who has a house in Niagara Falls on the water tells me they have what they thought was a tulip tree - a huge tree at the front of the house - a good 20 feet and it's very old but it doesn't turn yellow. She says it does have beautiful tulip shaped flowers in the spring and a few in the early fall. Niagara Falls water frontage doesn't have the lime content that other areas in grape country have so maybe that's the reason. Cheers

I wonder if the bright yellow color in the OP will occur every year. Usually the Norway maples around here are quite bland, but this year, they are an unusually bright yellow (makes it easy to see how this scourge is invading the woodlands and edges right about now - time to get out the saw and herbicide).