I do not know what tree this is but how did you post the photo so that it would just come up, rather than a link.

it IS a a beautiful tree though.

Ya can use a photo hosting site like photobucket.com to hold images and provide the html needed to get a picture on most messageboards. On photobucket its the third line down.

Sorry I am more help with that than identifying your tree. It is good looking though

its a conifer ....

and it is most likely .... Chamaecyparis nootkatensis 'Pendula'

check out soem other cool conifers in the conifer forum

ken

Here is a link that might be useful: link

Hard to tell without seeing needles close-up. I call the Chamaecyparis nootkatensis Alaska-cedar but it has several common names (and Latin changing too). In the woods they are very beautiful.

Dan

I agree. Weeping Alaskan Cypress (aka Cedar).

A most beautiful tree. There is one about 1/4 mile down the road from me that isn't too much smaller than the one in the photo appears to be.

Tell the folks in the green house on the corner of Lincoln and whatever that they have good taste.

Without a doubt a Nootka cypress. Multiple different clones have been sold as 'Pendula', specimen shown might have been acquired under that name or simply as the typical plant. More dramatic, 'Pendula' growth habits are common among wild trees here in my area.

It is Cupressus nootkatensis (it is still mistakenly referred to as "chamaecyparis", a genus which it is most certainly NOT a part of.) As the species itself is naturally "pendulous" I doubt that it is any sort of cultivar. Just looks like a normal, healthy specimen of the regular species.

For a look at a really odd cultivar of this species, google image search "green arrow" or "van den akker".

I used Nootka-cypress when kids were around, as it is fun to say and talk about. The old (correct) Chamaecyparis nootkatensis apparently has been changed to Callitropsis nootkatensis for the time being. The dash in Alaska-cedar and Nootka-cypress indicates it is not a true cedar or cypress.

That tree should do very well in western NY and should have a fair amount of room. Tolerates poor soil and the weeping cultivars named above are much smaller than the species. In the wild lives to be very old and that tree will easily outlive that house.

Dan

Ditto to Nootka Cypress Cupressus nootkatensis.

It is a cypress, but not a cedar (Cedrus).

Latest evidence shows that putting it into Callitropsis leaves Cupressus paraphyletic, so that treatment is best abandoned.

Resin

>As the species itself is naturally "pendulous" I doubt that it is any sort of cultivarThe plant shown here could have either been put on the market as a named form or as the typical plant. Similar plants being called cultivars are not hard to find in internet photos and elsewhere.

>the weeping cultivars named above are much smaller than the speciesSpecimens being identified as 'Pendula' include one in Tacoma determined to be 74' tall during 1990 and listed by R. Van Pelt in Champion Trees of Washington State (1996, University of Washington, Seattle).

A local known planting of 'Van den Akker', as identified for me by a member of the family who still propagates and sells the clone includes trees over 70' tall. It was grown originally by the father's nursery as 'Pendula'; the new name 'Van den Akker' is believed to have been first applied by T. Buchholz.

Plants seen here labeled 'Green Arrow' show no obvious indication of being any more dwarf than these others.

Common in Seattle, it is grown for its unique ornamental silhouette: most here are especially slender, gaunt, and strongly weeping, presenting such a wilted "Dr. Seuss" aspect that mistaking them for any other kind of tree (except weeping Lawson Cypress) is impossible. Such trees have been sold as 'Pendula', 'Strict Weeping', 'Green Arrow', 'Van den Akker' and the like

--A. Jacobson, Trees of Seattle - Second Edition (2008)

Jacobson's book came out in 2006.

It is most certainly not a Chamaecyparis, cones on nootkatensis take 18-24 months to mature, chamaecyparis cones mature in a season. Also, it readily hybridizes with at least three other species of Cupressus. There are no inter-genera cases of hybridization among conifers.

I'd point out that Seattle has perhaps perfect garden conditions for this plant (and others), and findings may not transfer to W NY. And I'm not a taxon nazi, but the journey for this one was sort of fun so I kept going. A 2004 paper in Am J Bot worked out the details of the systematics and named the plant as Callitropsis nootkatensis from Chamaecyparis n. I think we can still call it Alaska-cedar or Nootka-cypress or Yellow-cedar or Alaska yellow-cedar or yellow-cypress though...

/geek

I trust shoveling and tamping some decomposed granite this morning will help me recover from my trip deep in the weeds of systematics.

Dan

Possible regional variations in garden performance do not affect naming of specimen being discussed, nor do they make non-dwarf cultivars genetically dwarf. The same environmental conditions that dwarfed a weeping cultivar physically would also be likely to have a reducing effect on the size reached by a typical wild seedling.

The difference is between dwarf and dwarfed. Dwarf is what it is, dwarfed is what has happened to it.

I think most of the time claims of inherently tall-growing trees being small or much smaller growing are based really on lack of long-term or general experience. A common example is commercial sources stating various red maple cultivars grow 20'-30' tall. You can read nursery listings that give tall tree heights for seedlings but named forms of the same species are all somehow semi-dwarf. Fully developed wild trees in woods are much older than cultivated specimens being observed in cultivation, typical growth of common native trees like red maple may have been noted centuries ago.

Not so much about being a "taxon nazi", but having enough respect and admiration for a plant to want to have a correct understanding of it's evolutionary history and it's relationship to other living things, especially other equally fascinating members of its genus. I'm not trying to condescend or belittle by correcting, I'm trying to better the understanding. Either way, it seems we have established that it is NOT a Chamaecyparis.

I'm a volunteer naturalist and my grad degree focus was urban ecology. So no danger of not having enough respect and admiration for a plant to want to have a correct understanding of it's evolutionary history and it's relationship to other living things, but thanks for your concern about human constructs attending the Nootka falsecypress, an attractive and desirable tree in the built environment!

Dan

This is an old post but I have been searching for the same tree for 4 years now and posted something on gardenweb (since purchased by Houzz) and finally was able to identify it and find the wholesale nursery that grows it. Today I bought 2 40" 7 Gal of these trees. The exact botanical name is Chamaecyparis Nootkatensia 'Select' and the common name is Select Weeping Nootkacypress. I've attached the plant tag and also a picture of one of trees I just bought today. The wholesale grower is http://www.langendoennurseries.com/ near St Catherines, ON and you can contact them to see which nursery in your area they are selling these to as they do not sell direct to the public.