'Verdon' W.H. Rogers 1966

'Verdun' = Chamaecyparis obtusa 'Verdon'

Erhardt, Walter - 'List of Conifer Names' (2005); ISBN: 3800148813

-----
Dax

Randy,like Dax mentioned, the 'Verdon' was named in 1966.
Because this is after 1959, this cultivar may not be written with an double ii, so 'Verdonii' is never possible.
I also came across 'Verdoni', but this name is just 'Verdonii' with one i less which is just a mistake in writing or maybe the cause of a badly written tag.
This is how such misnaming can take place...

I guess you've to inform the staf now ;0)

Thanks, Dax, your answer is helpful.

So if "Verdon" is the legitimate cultivar name it can be still be sold and listed as "Verdonii" as a trade name correct?

Bax, no, because there's no trade name for this one, there's only a cultivar name.

Randy, you're an ungrateful person!

Edwin, I have a great number of flaws, thank you for making me aware of this one, here.

Randall, this is your own fault, Dax provides you a bit of info, I gave you the rest you needed...
For that you could thank me as well.
Unfortunately, your arrogance has not chosen to do this which is not very polite if you ask quiestions here at this forum.

Furthur I can tell you that the 'Verdoni' isn't the only mistake on the Iseli website, at least a dozen are also wrongly written , which is one of the main reasons that my forum friends here are buying conifers which could be mis labeled.
Luckely for them there's someone around here who will solve these problems afterwards.
But it is your task as the Iseli Nursery conifer promoter to offer non mis labeled conifers.
This will never happen if you will remain your arrogant attitude, because you don't have the skills yourself for doing this.

You don't even see the differences between the true 'Bentham's Sunlight' and the fake one which is named 'Aurea', and they're huge...

Edwin,

Regarding your contribution to my question - you simply repeated what both Dax and I had already said. Your additional comments about carelessness and misspelling did not contribute anything positive to the topic, nor did they lead me closer to answering my original question. My mother taught me that if I had nothing nice to say, say nothing at all.

Now you are lashing out angrily at me. Why? Because I thanked you for voicing your opinion regarding one of my flaws.

I have always been appreciative of anyone pointing out errors in our publications. May I suggest that you send an email listing the errors you see on our website. Then our staff may carefully consider each one and make a decision on how to proceed - just as we did with 'Gotelli's Weeping' - and other plants whose names have officially changed over the span of time.

The issue of nomenclature is a huge undertaking - especially with plants that have been in the market for many decades. We may become aware that the name of a plant, which has been accepted in the trade for many, many years, does not adhere to the "Code." From a large-scale business perspective, changing the accepted name in the trade is something that takes time (and re-education of thousands of garden center and landscape customers). Thankfully, for the collector and enthusiast, we have people such as yourself to police the naming of these plants once they are in the hands of those who desire to have the most accurate records. I personally would love all plants to be named perfectly.

You bring up 'Bentham's Sunlight' - Your opinion has been clearly refuted, not only by myself and Paul Halladin, but also by Bob Fincham.

Here is what Mr. Fincham said on the topic on Sun, Dec 23, 2012:

"... I spent time there yesterday with Paul and this tree is definitely the one I named 'Bentham's Sunlight'. It is an excellent specimen...."

You visited the nursery a few weeks after Bob. You witnessed the same tree. You and Paul had a very lengthy and detailed discussion about the tree, and yet you stand firm in your arrogant pride, telling the world that we are wrong and you are right - because you say so.

Edwin, I have said before that you have a great deal to contribute to the world of conifers. Your knowledge of cultivar names may be unmatched, but, young man, you have a great deal to learn as well. Your bullying tactics are disrespectful, not only to others, but to yourself. Giving a lecture on politeness and arrogance while ignoring your own advice is unwise.

I do hope that you find peace in your heart and forgive me for my many flaws. I have been working hard over the years to make myself a better person, but there is still much work to do.

Randall

Here is a link that might be useful: The 'Bentahm's Sunlight' thread referenced by Edwin.

Randall, my comment to the 'Verdon' was very helpful, because I explained why the Iseli Nursery have this one under 'Verdoni'.
Dax didn't mention this, he even didn't say nothing about 'Verdonii', I did.
It doesn't matter what I told you, I spend time and effort to your quiestion to which you could thank me for.
I would thank everybody who will try to answer my quiestions, which should be quite normal in my opinion.

I'm still truly convinced that the 'Bentham's Sunlight' at the Iseli Nursery isn't the right one, no matter what you, Paul and Bob are saying.
What I still don't understand was that Paul didn't even consider if he could be wrong, this while I gave him all the evidence, you should call that "arrogant pride".
If I wasn't sure for a second, I would have shut my mouth, just like your mother taught you.

Thanks for the link of the 'Bentham's Sunlight' discussion.
This reminds me that it was you telling the world that the one you've is differend from the 'Bentham's Sunlight'
You even mentioned to give it the cultivar name 'QCI Golden'.
Here is what you wrote:
"All of that being said, it does seem that a logical and wise solution to prevent further confusion would be to give the rejuvenated form a different name. I have been referencing the plant pictured above as the QCI Golden Sitka spruce. We believe this may be a good name for this form, 'QCI Golden'. This would allow the cultivarient, 'Bentham's Sunlight', to remain a distinctive product for conifer collectors and enthusiasts and would distinguish the rejuvinated tree form for further observation.

It's strange to me that after this renaming Paul and Bob both still saying that this one is the true 'Bentham's Sunlight'...don't you think?

Back in January during our visit to the Iseli Nursery I mentioned your rejuvenated story to Paul at the beginning of our discussion of this conifer.
Paul asked you if you said (wrote) this, and your answer was "no, I did not".
This is what they call a lie, because you wrote it yourself here at this forum.
Remember, I was not there alone, otherwise you could say that there was something wrong with my ears.
I had 2 members of this conifer forum as withnesses with me and they heard you saying the same thing...

Ofcoarse I've to learn a lot, but I'm not disrespectful if you're speaking the truth to me.
If you don't do this, well, then you've a very big problem because sooner or later I'll find out what you're trying to hide...

Have I told you that I did detective school for a while?...

Since the "rejuvenated" tree is what you are going to get when the spreading form eventually develops a leader, using another name only adds to the confusion.
When a 'Bentham's Sunlight' plant decides to become a nice tree, the robust growth leads to more efficient chlorophyll production and a dulling of the bright yellow color to the foliage. However, there will still be areas with the bright yellow color of the "rambling form". The Iseli plant has these bright yellow areas and photographs of the tree are not very effective at showing them.
I am anxious to see how the tree does this late spring and early summer. I expect to see some burn.
Edwin, you do share a tremendous amount of knowledge on this forum but you sometimes step "over the line". In no way is Randy ever a liar. I have known him for over 25 years, and although a misunderstanding can happen from time to time, in no way would he deliberately lie.

Bob

Dear Edwin,

I do see that we clearly suffer from differences in our languages. I, of course, do not speak your native tongue. As good as your command of English may be, we have had at least one misunderstanding which I believe is founded in our lack of communication.

First let me answer your final accusation. You state that I lied to you when you visited the nursery regarding what you have quoted from the thread above.

What I understood you to say, when you were here at the nursery, is that I claimed that our "rejuvenated form" of 'Bentham's Sunlight' was the result of a sport or mutated growth. I did not ever say that. Clearly a misunderstanding - not a lie. Knowing now that you have believed for these past few months that I lied to you, Henk, Dave and Paul explains a great deal to me. That is a very sad situation which I hope we may rectify here and now.

The rejuvenated form is simply that - a vigorous, upright growing form. It has been rejuvenated to its natural, original, large tree form through selecting the strongest, most vigorous terminal growth from a number of our 'Bentham Sunlight' clones for propagation as I described thoroughly in the reverenced thread.

The quote that you have pulled was not an absolute decision made by Iseli Nursery to name a new cultivar. It was discussed as a way to distinguish the new rejuvenated form from the weak, plagiotropic cultivarient that has become the expectation of 'Bentham's Sunlight'. (Remember, the original tree was a large forest tree. It did not resemble the plagiotropic cultivarient.) After further thought, we decided not to make any change to the name. Again, we are not producing or marketing this plant. The only reason to consider giving a different name at the time was to prevent confusion. Renaming the plant is not the right thing to do, since it is a direct clone from the mother tree.

You are correct, Dax did not mention, Verdonii, I did. As I said, your answer repeated what Dax and I had already said. It is possible that I misunderstood your intent in sharing your opinion about misspellings. I apologize for causing you such undo grief.

What I am seeking is more of the story behind how the seedling, which was germinated in the very early 20th century, and named 'Verdonii', came to be named 'Verdon'. What I seemed to receive from you was a lecture on making proper name tags. Dax did provide a reference to a publication, that upon further research seems to have derived its information from the 1993 publication The World Checklist of Conifers by Humphrey Welch and Gordon Haddow. Unfortunately, a big part of the story remains a mystery. There is quite a span of time from when the seedling is reported to have germinated, was named 'Verdonii', and its emergence as 'Verdon' in 1966.

What I have not misunderstood is that you have decided I am a liar. You made slanderous accusations in the 'Bentham's Sunlight' post, and now you are calling me a liar again. But, I will forgive you, because clearly our problem is one of communication.

Let me now thank you for all the time and effort you have put into this topic thread. It has been enlightening.

Randall

Surely when the man who named the 'Bentham's Sunlight' in the first place views the Iseli material and determines it to be the same item, then that is good enough for most practical purposes. Bob would have to fail to see it was different from his plant in order for there to still be a wrong identification.

And it is definitely not desirable to give different cultivariants of the same clonal cultivar different cultivar names.

"Young man" may say it all. There is definitely a component of keen but young people out there who appear to think everything starts with them. Sometimes not so young.

Ok, now all is clear to me, but it still wasn't very smart of Randall to mention the renaming here at this forum and not to come back to this afterwards to say that this wasn't definitive...
Because of this it looks to me that he didn't spoke the truth during our visit back in January, while he had the oppertunity to explain this to us all then.
Unfortunately he didn't, which causes the mis understanding. This could be the cause for thinking me stepping over the line, for that I want to appoligize for using the words lie and liar...

The rejuvenation part:
You can claim rejuvenation only if the plant continue to show exhibit seedling
characteristics all the time.
Last winter during the hunting for rare brooms here in The Netherlands I've seen and touched a lot of young Picea sitchensis seedlings, all of them were soft to the touch.
I also felt this Iseli clone when I was there and it was prickly as can be.
This feeling was far from the soft juvenile needles in which I was familiar with, juvenile needles also have a smaller size.
Because of this it's seems not possible that this clone arose as a rejunevate branch.

There's another possibillity that it arose original as a rejunevate branch at first, which later on turned into adult needles.
If this was the case, then the adult needles must have the same characteristics as the original 'Bentham's Sunlight' which are situated flat on the branch.
This clone has it's needles surrounded to the branch.

All this together doesn't convince me still if this one is a clone of the original 'Bentham's Sunlight'...

It would be very nice if this could be explained as well.
Many thanks in advance!