I can believe the first type is Maackia chinensis, but I have no idea what the second type could be. Any guesses?

Ken: I'm pretty sure this is not one of those invasive junipers. (-;

Same plant, bad genetics/undesirable mutation? If all else is the same, all arrows point to this. Disease also possible, but unlikely since they germinated this way.

"Same plant, bad genetics/undesirable mutation? If all else is the same, all arrows point to this."

I think it's very highly unlikely to be a genetic mutation since the leaves are so totally different. Multiple sets of genes would have had to mutate all at the same time on multiple seedling. The odds suggest that's not the solution.

I also don't see disease as a possibility.
______________________________________________

By far the most likely option, IMO, is that I have two different species of plants. If this is the case, I'd really like to ID both of them.

The other option is so unlikely I hesitate to mention it, but I guess there is some possibility that there is some type of dimorphism present in the species. I haven't seen anything in the literature that indicated the existence of this though.
______________________________________________

As a side note to this discussion, does anyone know the proper terminology for the leaf shape in picture 2?

Do the vein structure/distribution look similar on each of the two different leafs? Also can you post pics of the leaf underside?

almost looks like a ginkgo

Did you mean opposite (slightly subopposite) LEAFLET arrangement? What did the seeds look like? (When I first saw the top leaf--or leaflet--photo, I was thinking along the lines of Maclura being close to Maackia in the alphabet...)

"Do the vein structure/distribution look similar on each of the two different leafs? Also can you post pics of the leaf underside?"

Somewhat, but there is much less noticeable branching of the veins of the type 2 leaves, and the primary veins of the type 1 leaves are spaced considerably further apart. The undersides of both leaf types have the same color and texture.

After taking the above pictures, my camera battery went down and I realized I had left my charger in Hawaii. I won't have it for about a week, so I don't have a way of taking more pictures at the moment.

"almost looks like a ginkgo"

Yeah, leaf type 2 does kind of have some visual similarities. Although the venation is pinnate, it has a dichotomous-like appearance.

"Did you mean opposite (slightly subopposite) LEAFLET arrangement?"

No, both types have the same opposite (slightly subopposite) leaf arrangement. The first true leaves are all made up of a single leaflet. What few, small compound leaves are beginning to grow, appear to have exactly opposite leaflet arrangement.

"What did the seeds look like?"

Exactly like typical Maackia seeds. See link below.
___________________________

Additional leaves are starting to form on the type 2 plants, and they appear to be "normal", although too small to really tell for sure. Maybe this will turn out to be a very limited (occurring only on some individuals and only with the first true leaves) example of heteroblasty. Google turns up nothing (that I see) about heterblasty associated with Maackia.

Here is a link that might be useful: Good example of what the seeds look like

OK, first true leaves...I'm guessing the later leaves will gradually approach typical form for the species. I've seen that happen with a number of things grown from seed, an example being Juglans microcarpa. Sometimes the first leaves on that one look almost like maple (unifoliate) which is kind of shocking and then you squint and can see how three developing leaflets fused into a single leaf instead of separating. Your seeds look pretty right--I collected some a year or two ago from WA but unfortunately none germinated.

brandon,
I have to wonder if it's something to do with light exposure. Not uncommon for the amount of light to affect leaf shape. Oaks are prime example of this. I've always had trouble ID'ing Oak, and that is one of the primary reasons.

Arktrees

Nope, I don't think it could have anything to do with light. The variation shows up randomly in pots placed on two propagation shelves. Many of the pots have three seedlings in them. Two will be one type, one will be the other.

The new leaves have grown a little more now and they are looking more like typical Maackia leaves. Apparently Maackias just produce two different weird type of leaves (one slightly weird and the other really weird) for their first two real leaves. Maybe this is some type of heteroblasty-ish phenomenon. If anyone happens upon further info, please let me know, but for now I'm just going to mark it off to some weird quirkiness of this species.

neither plant is Maackia chinensis. M. chinensis has pinnately compound leaves (think of a feather or a boston fern). They really look like 2 different species of Catalpa. If the leaves are quite large, that's my bet.

Thanks Vineyarder, but there is no doubt that the first leaflet is Maackia and very similar (if not absolutely identical) to M chinensis. The individual leaflets only kind of resemble a Catalpa leaf in overall shape and do not resemble Catalpa at all in size, etc. At this point (after growing the plants), I really do not doubt that the first leaflet is that of M chinensis. My only concern was/is the difference between the first and second one. As the seedlings have grown, the leaves of the second type have become much more like those of the first type, but are still slightly different.

Sure could have fooled me for a Kentucky coffeetree leaf. The leaf is deceiving from the top side and doesn't look like the seedlings I had. Easily identified by the leaflet and underside. Surely no expert on this end though.

Second one sure is interesting. Never seen anything like it with the exception of the foremetioned similarity to Ginkgo.

Perhaps you could update the topic with comparison pics when they leaf out, Brandon.

John

Update?

Remind me again in June or sometime. The oddball ones are growing more slowly than the others. I also notice that they are more sensitive to dry conditions. I really haven't been paying enough attention to them to tell you much more.

I can't believe these are nearly three years old. If the date wasn't on the first post, I wouldn't believe it. It seems like I just grew them last year.

This is Rick Sheffield who originally sold you this seed. I'm sorry that I just saw this post! I'd appreciate an update on the difference between the seedlings. I'm thinking that the juvenile foliage can often be misleading as to ID. Our seed came directly from China and there is a chance that another Maackia species got mixed in by mistake. I would like to know if you have solved the mystery, however!

Rick, all the oddball ones died. They just weren't nearly as tough or vigorous. The ones with the more normal looking leaves did great and are decent size little trees now. I tried to keep the others alive, because I REALLY wanted to see what would happen. But, they just couldn't take the slightly-better-than-average care I was able to give them. If I had really babied them, they might have made it...who knows.

So, unfortunately, unless someone else comes up with a similar outcome or someone is able to figure something out from the pictures above, it will remain a mystery. I'm fairly sure I kept all the odd ones, but, if I didn't, there's no way to track any that might have left my care, at this point.

Thanks Brandon! I'm glad you got some nice trees anyway. The ones that died could have been from a less hardy source or different species, hard to say at this point.