Ciprés de Bután 'Cupressus tortulosa' en el Isola Madre, Isola Madre, Piamonte, Italia

Thank you Erwin, I will add Botanical Garden of Geneva to my book of dreams

@fontanaelia thanks to you for showing and reporting so many marvellous tree specimen, i do appreciate to watch your images!

This one at the island of Lago Maggiore is apparently the one called Tsenden in it's home Bhutan, described and published as Cupressus torTulosa (no capitals in words) synonym C. himalaica amongst others.

Saying the third species you liked to find is true Cupressus cashmeriana, published by naturalist Carriere, and apparently native in Indian state Arunachal Pradesh at eastern Himalaya.

This kind of cypress tree seems to have been propagated in France and later on to Switzerland. Maybe you got a chance to visit the tree in the Botanical Garden of Geneva, pictures are shown at cupressus.net

Thanks to all, I am are a mere "tree tourist", but I'm really proud to be part of this group of passionate and competent people. I recently had the fortune to fotograph both C.kashmeriana of Isola Madre and C. torulosa at Rivara (Conifers that helped to classify it correctly) and I can say that these two species are clearly different. I would like to see the "third species" just to have a personal idea

I think Erwin's first message in this thread shows that tortulosa is the name that leads to confusions.

Anyway MT is not a place to resolve nomenclature and I think you agree that we should keep these cypresses under C. cashmeriana until the dispute has been settled.

Hi Kouta ? "After all, aren't himalaicas and tortulosas only names?" ? to expand on last night's proverb, yes, but it is what those names refer to, is what causes the problems. Cupressus tortulosa Griff. has the big advantage that it is based on a known wild origin herbarium specimen. The next oldest name for the taxon is (probably) Cupressus corneyana Knight & Perry ex Carr., but this is based on a cultivated specimen which has been lost (or rather, never preserved in a herbarium in the first place), so its application carries a degree of uncertainty. It was this uncertainty which led Silba to describe it as a 'new' species Cupressus himalaica Silba, which - as you mention above - carries with it some baggage related to this author's reputation (which is not good, though not as bad as Farjon makes out). So for this reason, Griffith's clearly defined Cupressus tortulosa is the best name to use.

And of course, we cannot "concentrate on more important topics, like ecology, conservation etc. - and height measuring ;)" if we don't know what plant we are dealing with! Accurate identification and naming is vital for effective conservation; if two similar species, both endangered, are confused with each other, their endangered status risks downgrading as people (wrongly) think the larger combined population is not in danger. Too many rare trees are being lost due to this, sadly.

@ Kouta

"Wisdom begins with putting the right name on a thing"

(Old Chinese Proverb)

😀

Much luck to get the clue about Maerki's argumentations in Bulletin CCP 2(2)pdf

A bit funny how hard that community is pushing for their names. Mr. Maerki, the manager of a private arboretum in France if I have understood correctly, uses 6 pages to fight the decision of the committee. After all, aren't himalaicas and tortulosas only names? Isn't the meaning of committees to resolve disputes that we can concentrate on more important topics, like ecology, concervation etc. - and heigh measuring ;).

That Kashmir cypress is of unknown wild origin, was from "New Trees" by Grimshaw & Bayton. Maybe I have understood wrongly.

But also Long's conclusion is disputed - see Didier Maerki's post on the same thread. Maerki's conclusion may not be popular with the nomenclatural committee, but as far as I can tell, he is correct. More details of his case here. Of specific importance, the nomenclatural committee ruled out Farjon's original request to have 'torulosa' and 'tortulosa' ruled as homonyms; they are similar, but do not share the same derivation.

@ Kouta ? "The original Kashmir cypress (C. cashmeriana) is of unknown wild origin, probably from the western Himalayas" ? no; it is from Arunachal Pradesh, to the east of, and at lower altitude than, C. tortulosa from Bhutan.

The original Kashmir cypress (C. cashmeriana) is of unknown wild origin, probably from the western Himalayas. Some researchers (incl. Farjon) prefer to include the species from the eastern Himalayas (called "tsenden" in Bhutan) in C. cashmeriana. Some others think it is a distict species and should be called either C. himalaica or C. tortulosa. I see some high profile people favouring the former, but anyway here on MT we should continue to treat it as C. cashmeriana until the issue has solved.

Thanks, Kouta and Conifers, got the meaning of the whole confusion of taxa and names, and learned: Himachal Pradesh is at NW, Arunachal P. at E part of Himalaya range, despite i might have thought C. cashmeriana to be native in Kashmir ;-O

Unfortunately there are some nearby identical taxa like C. torulosa/tortulosa which might be interpreted as homonyms or not. However these will inevitably cause confusion, making clear decisions necessary.

Am thinking about last discussed tree name twins, no find at time, memory out of order, think, grumble....

Here David Long from Kew says (see message 1):

"The committee are NOT saying that C. tortulosa is the correct name for Tsenden. They are saying that C. tortulosa has been applied by some people to the Bhutan plant first found by Griffith and called by him C. pendula, (also an illegitimate name), but because the spelling of the name tortulosa is so similar to C. torulosa (a different species not native in Bhutan) it cannot be used for any species - it is an illegitimate homonym of C. torulosa.

They are suggesting that the correct name for Tsenden is C. cashmeriana (line 4 of their proposal), a proposal first made I think in a conifer checklist by Aljos Farjon several years ago. That is his opinion. I think it is incorrect, and that the Bhutan plant should not be lumped under C. cashmeriana. If it is distinct from C. cashmeriana the correct name is C. himalaica. However these are matters of taxonomic opinion, and cannot be decided by any nomenclatural rules.

In this note they are not concerned with finding the correct name for Tsenden, they are just establishing that the name C. tortulosa cannot be used for it under any circumstances.

The only way to resolve this properly is with a DNA study of C. himalaica, C. cashmeriana (cultivated plants) and all other close relatives. Such a study could be used to establish how many species there are in reality.

In conclusion, Tsenden can only be called either C. cashmeriana or C. himalaica, depending on whether you think these are a single species or two species."

Article here on Cupressus tortulosa, Cupressus cashmeriana, and Cupressus torulosa.

Erwin,

C. torulosa is a different (and accepted) taxon. From the Gymnosperm Database:

"Note that this is NOT the same species as Cupressus torulosa; the two species unfortunately resemble each other not only in name but also in appearance and distribution, and confusion is inevitable."

http://www.conifers.org/cu/Cupressus_tortulosa.php

I am a little confused, do know just Cupressus torulosa D. Don which is apparently treated as accepted, but be aware, written with a single "t" as first letter of species name, no 2nd "t" present. You copied the typo.

Cited from the Gymnosperm Database: Dallimore et al. (1967) report that "although not well known in Britain, it is represented in the Temperate House at Kew. The most famous tree in Europe was that on the Isola Madre at Lake Maggiore. It was a specimen over 60 ft. high, of remarkable beauty. C. cashmeriana can only be grown out of doors in the mildest parts of England and Ireland."

Despite being no expert on genus Cupressus, i do not see a reason to doubt that Cupressus torulosa and C. cashmeriana are distinct species.

The taxonomy of Himalayan cypresses seems to be somewhat unclear. "New Trees, Recent Introductions to Cultivation" by Grimshaw & Bayton says Farjon's C. cashmeriana should be divided to C. cashmeriana and C. himalaica Silba. I haven't seen any other source calling it C. tortulosa, only Gymnosperm Database citing Silba. Did you notice, already two names coming from Silba. Farjon says in his "A Monograph of Cupressaceae and Sciadopitys": "Silba has earned himself the dubious distinction of having added more names (almost all synonyms) of conifers to the International Plant Names Index (IPNI) than any other author in history." So I would be a bit cautious with Silba's names, though I admit I don't know him and this topic well.

Conifers, do you have an opinion/knowledge about this (C. cashmeriana/himalaica/tortulosa)? I am curious.

thank you,KoutaR, now I understand that C. tortulosa is not univesally accepted. I read the dispute about the name on "The Gymnosperme database" of conifers.org

Why would C. tortulosa be an universally accepted "new" name? Just because of conifers.org or do you have another reference?

A question: why in this site we use the old "C. cashmeriana" and not the new " C. tortulosa"?