Re: A bit of identification (off topic)

gardenguru@yahoo.com writes:
>As far as I remember (nobody grows either in yards
>here in Santa Maria), the "substance" of the plant was
>a give-away to me.  S. puekleri (Tupidanthus) had
>stiffer, seemingly huskier leaves versus the thinner,
>slightly drooping leaves of S. actinophylla.  The
>leaves of S. puekleri also seemed not so much "paler
>green" as they did less glossy than those of S.
>actinophylla.
>
>To me, it was kind of like knowing who Uncle George
>was when you saw him -- you didn't think "well, he has
>slightly larger hands than Uncle Jake and more hair
>than Aunt Sally".  You just knew it was Uncle Goerge. 
>It was the superficial, overall, subtle-but-obvious
>kind of i.d.

Yes, this helps a lot. Looking at my plant, and seeing the habit of the
leaves, I do think this is really Tupidanthus calyptratus, because the
leaves arent really glossy (more matte finished looking). The leaflets
also "stand" upright, they dont droop at all. 

Geeze, both are close enough in appearance.It really is difficult to tell
both apart unless you've seen either side by side, or have some
experience. 

____________________________________________

"The adventuresome gardener who tries plants that supposedly "will never
live", who carries that proverbial snowball through the depths of hell,
enriches our lives and expands the pleasures that we all can share."

Daniel J. Hinkley, in "The Explorer's Garden."
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index