Correct cultivar name: Picea pungens 'Saint Mary's Broom'. St. just and abbreviation of the word. Cultivars get short changed on their names at times. A common practice that leads to much confusion.

Picea pungens ÂSaint Mary (1970)
A dwarf, dense mound with conspicuous buds; grows about 3 cm per year; foliage is bright blue; found as a witchesÂ-broom at Saint MaryÂs Convent in New Jersey by Greg Williams and introduced about 1970 by Hillside Nursery, Lehighton, Pennsylvania. It is not uncommon for specimens of this cultivar to have many buds that never push.

In simple terms your 'Saint Mary's Broom' is hardy or will not perish in Zone 2. The farthest northern exposure it will live in. Some say to Zone 3/4. The most comfortable zone,in my opinion, for it to grow in, would 4 through 7. Some of our European form members can tell you which zone you live in.

Dave

Here is a link that might be useful: USDA hardniss map for North America

not that i know all the plants out there ... but i am not familiar with a 'St Mary' ... spelled 'st' or 'saint' ...

i suspect its a catalog makers error in the spelling differences... plus add on nomenclature rule changes ...

you are thinking it is a broom of st mary ...

I THINK it is a broom of picea pungens.. named St. Mary ... or Saint Mary ....

ergo .. the nomenclature problem of a broom named st mary is a broom is redundant ... like adding aurea to a green plant name because it is yellow ... just give it its own name ... dont add on to the first name ....

i might be wrong.. i am sure i will be corrected if that is the case ...

ken

I don't know if it is still there but it was located just out side the main gate of the Skylands Manor. It was in a row of Moerheim (I believe) along the driveway of the St. Mary's Convent. The last I saw it was approx. 20 years ago. Real nice. I have one of the originals in my plantings. I would say it is definitely round and not even a slight bit conical. Great blue color and grows about 4" a year. Very dense grower. I think the original name give was Picea Pungens Glauca St. Mary's Witchbroom or (W/B)

Dave

If the convent abbreviates it then it would be consistent to abbreviate "Saint" in the cultivar name.

Maybe I'm remembering wrong, but I thought words like 'Broom' were being dropped because they were more like 'descriptors' rather than 'names' of cultivars. Yes, I know, words like 'Yellow' or 'Blue' are still used, but 'Broom' was singled out and seems to have a concerted effort to remove it from names. Or...it's just lazy tag makers.

tj

Broom shouldn't be part of a name anymore than seedling or sport. I used to offer 'St. Mary's Broom' and changed it to 'St. Mary' to keep the name more in line with the cultivated code of nomenclature. I didn't think there would be any confusion since names cannot be duplicated within a genera, meaning only one 'St. Mary' should exist in the Picea.

So Kleckas, they are the same plant and I recommend calling it 'St. Mary'. It is an excellent cultivar and even though I am producing many of the newer ones, I will always be doing this one. Its only problem appears to be a number of dead buds that do not push each spring.

Bob

I think we spend to much time trying to correct cultivar names that appear to be wrong according to one group or another. It's kind of like the war in Iraq nobody will ever agree to agree on anything.
Only can we agree when enough research has been done to substantiate what the true cultivar name is.
Iseli sells one. Pinus banksiani 'Broom'. According to them cuttings were given to them by the late Ed Rezek and they propagated this cultivar and the name is correct and will stay that way.
As far as St. or Saint Mary's Broom' I see it spelled both ways even at the college.

Picea g. 'J.W. Daisy White' or 'Daisy White' what did we conclude concerning that discrepancy on that name...nothing.
I have 5-6 in question. Of the two recent cultivars in question...I will keep the names that came with them. "J.W. Daisy White' and Picea p. 'Saint Mary's Broom' until someone has hard evidence a change is in order.

Dave

Bob, thank you very much.

Dave, I have somewhere 25% of my cultivars in question (from 700 in total). Mainly the question is - "does the label correspond to the fact?". The rest - "what is the exact name?" or for unlabelled - "what is the name?". In both cases the investigation brings me additional knowledge, sometimes - intriguing facts, interesting stories, history. I simply like it. Exact name, origin, history - simply I want to know and like the process.

Kleckas

Kleckas, I appreciate you sharing you comments with us.

I tend to agree with your quote: "the investigation brings me additional knowledge, sometimes - intriguing facts, interesting stories, history. I simply like it. Exact name, origin, history - simply I want to know and like the process".

In view of the fact that I am just an amateur collector I tend to shy away away from discussions on subject matter that I am not qualified to discuss.

Wanting to be correct in everything that I am involved in, just my nature type A personalty, I only get involved when I need answers relating to subject matter such as conifer labeling. I often hear "You don't have the correct cultivar name it should be this".

I am learning more about conifer collecting every day. One thing for sure, with more and more collectors grafting just about everything they can get their hands on the misrepresentation or the misnaming of cultivars will only get worse and not better.

In spite of that I love conifer collecting and will always want to know as you say: "does the label correspond to the fact"? To bad a lot of this is slipping through the cracks.

Dave

Regarding Picea glauca DaisyÂs White - this plant was entered into a major plant exhibition in Holland by Mr J Jeurissen-Wijnen, the plant originator. He was advised to shorten the name to DaisyÂs White by the growers at that exhibition because of its high commercial potential. He agreed to the change. I donÂt have a sworn affidavit IÂm afraid, so you will have to take my word that DaisyÂs White is now the accepted name in Europe, so should also be adopted by the US.

As for the issue with the word Âbroom being part of a plant name, technically it might not be correct (although I canÂt find anything in the Cultivated Code that actually excludes the word Âbroom) but itÂs my opinion that the word Âbroom can form part of the plant name and not just be seen as a descriptive word. I have, in fact, named three of my brooms to include the word Âbroom in the plant name and as far as IÂm concerned no one person has the right to delete that part of the name.
As for Picea pungens St MaryÂs Broom, unless there is a general agreement by, for example the majority of major growers, collectors/experts, ACS to change it - then the name should stay as it is. There is no point in Coenosium Gardens listing it as St Mary and Iseli, for instance, still listing it as St MaryÂs Broom. Confusion once again, as this thread has already demonstrated. Most people know nothing of the Cultivated Code and just see two different plant names and wonder if itÂs the same plant. Also, of course, there are hundreds of conifer names with technically incorrect names according to the Code  how, for example do all the Czech names fit into the code, as their language is based on descriptive names. Besides, the Cultivated Code is a work in progress and not something that is set in stone, and is in fact constantly being amended.

So, in my opinion, plant names should be left well alone until enough research has been done, and general agreement has been reached to warrant a change.

I think that a plant that has the mention of broom or witchbroom already describes the plant.

The changing of a plant my father found and named 'Picea Orientalis Tom Thumb Witchbroom' also occurred. It is now 'Picea Orientalis Tom Thumb'. I just say again that including the term witchbroom or broom helps take away a lot of questions.

Dave

Codes are come up with because otherwise there is no basis for uniformity. Getting more people to play along with codes is the way to get consistency, rather than waiting for the not-likely-to-be-seen time when everyone happens to decide they like a particular combination. Iseli should change their listing to conform to the code rather than Bob changing his to conform to the non-code. Shoppers can be clued in what has happened by including discarded names as synonyms in catalog listings (and on retail nursery signs).

bboy,

>> "Codes are come up with because otherwise there is no basis for uniformity" Bob calling the plant 'St Mary', and Iseli and others calling it 'St MaryÂs Broom' doesnÂt smack of uniformity to me. In fact, the uniformity was already there because Picea pungens 'St Marys Broom' has been around under that name (legitimate or not) for many years and everyone knows this plant in Europe and the US under that name.

>> "Getting more people to play along with codes is the way to get consistency rather than waiting for the not-likely-to-be-seen time when everyone happens to decide they like a particular combination"I agree with the first part, however just one person unilaterally changing a name does not constitute consistency, and in my experience most major growers, collectors etc either know or have some sort of contact with one another and it doesnÂt take too much effort to discuss these issues and come to agreement that a change is warranted.

>> "Iseli should change their listing to conform to the code rather than Bob changing his to conform to the non-code"You are assuming Bob is right with his change but I have seen nothing in the code that convinces me that including the word Âbroom as part of a cultivarÂs name (as opposed to it being used in its descriptive connotation) is illegitimate.

Quote from UBC in an email response to me.

Hello David,

If we had one of these here at the garden, we would use the name:

Picea pungens 'Saint Mary's Broom'

http://www.rhs.org.uk/databases/HortDatabase.asp?ID=82191

Considering that this name is the one used by the International
Cultivar Registration Authority for conifer cultivars (the RHS), and
they only tentatively accept it, I doubt that resolution on whether
Saint or St. should be used will ever be easy to come by.

Best,
Daniel