You might as well label it Chamaecyparis nootkatensis. No-one in the collector's world is changing tags yet, not even arboretum's, or the guys with the pinetum's, nor the growers.

Dax

"The name Xanthocyparis has now been proposed for conservation, but until that is decided on at the 2011 International Botanical Congress, it is correctly classified in Callitropsis."

I'd wait until at least 2011 to name it anything other than a Chamy.

tj

One thing is fairly certain it seems, that Chamaecyparis is not the right genus. There really is not much of a point of keeping it there other than habit.

Cupressus seems the best fit for now imo, at least it is not incorrect just might be considered too vague. Splitters vs. clumpers argument. Hybridizes with other Cupressus.

If/when they officially decide to split it off into it's own genus, Callitropsis is the earlier name which should take precedent, unless the scientists decide that it was not valid, then the Xanth name would come into play. Have they really decided for sure that the Nootka and the Vietnamese cypress are really off the same branch? Suppose they could decide to not decide, if they can't come to consensus.

>Have they really decided for sure that the Nootka and the Vietnamese cypress are really off the same branch?"The evidence that the two species are closely related is becoming robust"

Here is a link that might be useful: Proposal to conserve the name Xanthocyparis against Callitropsis

On the other hand, another recent genetic study (Mu et al. 2006, Application of pet G-trn P sequence to systematic study of Chinese Cupressus species, Front. Biol. China 4: 349-352) has placed Nootka Cypress right in the middle of Cupressus, closest to the C. funebris  C. duclouxiana pair, with these three next most close to C. torulosa, and slightly more distant from the C. gigantea  C. chengiana pair. No support for Nootka being separable from Cupressus at all (or if one did, one would have to split Cupressus up into about ten or more different genera, mostly monotypic!).

USDA have followed suit (see link).

Resin

Here is a link that might be useful: USDA Plants Profile: Cupressus nootkatensis

i suppose i would be inclined to say its all greek to me ...

but that would add a whole other layer to the latin debate ..

lets meet at the agora .. to hash it out....

go figure ...

ken

ps: i refuse to change a tag to a name i cant pronounce... lol ...

Here is a link that might be useful: what???

What then becomes the new name for our good friend X Cupressocyparis leylandii ? Simply X Cupressus leylandii? T.

I read some of Damon P. Little's 2006 paper. It seems he has the New World Cupressus species with Nootkatensis and Vietnamensis closer to each other than to the Old World Cupressus species. In any event, Nootkatensis is not a Chamaecyparis.

"What then becomes the new name for our good friend X Cupressocyparis leylandii ? Simply X Cupressus leylandii? T"

Just Cupressus à leylandii. Since it is no longer an intergeneric hybrid, the hybrid sign à goes after the genus name, not before.

Resin

"I read some of Damon P. Little's 2006 paper. It seems he has the New World Cupressus species with Nootkatensis and Vietnamensis closer to each other than to the Old World Cupressus species"

Yep, that's his conclusion; he examined a different part of the genome to what Mu et al. did - this shows part of the complications of genetic analysis, that analysing different genes can throw up different results. The conflicting results make Little's segregation of the New World species (plus vietnamensis) into Callitropsis is premature; it could prove correct with further study, but isn't definitely so, and could equally well prove not to be accurate (so retention of them all in Cupressus is safest for the moment). But you're right that Nootka Cypress is definitely not Chamaecyparis, that's been well shown now from multiple studies.

Resin