You might have a one of those on the left and a Thuja plicata on the right. They smell different from one another and have different leaf structure (and cones). If you posted good close-ups it would become possible to tell.

In the top photo, the one on the left looks like Chamaecyparis nootkatensis 'Pendula' and the one on the right looks like 'Glauca Pendula'

I have a a Glauca Pendula that looks just like that one. But could be wrong.....

mark

the potential.. on either is MASSIVE ... if space is at a premium ... yes.. you may need to get rid of one of them ...

its all about the annual growth rate.. and on these.. its easy to 'see' that ...

from the top.. you will see the fresh new trunk to be part green... part brown..

if you look close enough ... you will see that it changes to a more uniform weathered brown .... everything above is this years growth.. and it will grow that much forever .... probably a foot to two feet ... once it gets firmly established...

below the change noted above.. as you trace down another foot or 2... you will see a third bark pattern .... in between those two.. is last years growth .... it should be near uniform to this years.. but for the transplant ... drought.. etc ....

the term 'pendulous' ... tees me off as it can mean 2 different things... in this case.. everything off the branch hangs down.. or is pendulous .... or weeping ...

on other plants.. the whole branch hangs down .. so what is that all about.. using one term for two differing phenom's????

so by simply looking at your plants .... you can easily see that they are pendulous.. or weeping... the guys are arguing over whether you have a blue version in your plants... [which isnt realy all that blue]

check out the link below.. and note the latin name... and use that to google more info if you wish

ken

Here is a link that might be useful: first pic shows young potential .. and that could easily double

They certainly are and I would say leave them be, they seem to happy and doing fine where they are. They also seem to be decently spaced from each other. These trees in the wild can grow very large (three foot diameter trunks about five feet apart) practically right next to each other, so if you were to move one it would be solely for ornamental or visual appeal rather than for the health of the tree. How old are they, when did you plant them, and how long did it take them to grow this large? They are beautiful.

Thanks for all the input. I 'rescued' these trees from an abandoned nursery that was completely overgrown. Each of these trees is a little different in their shade of green. Below is a pic of when I planted them in June 2008. Really just dug up a 2' root ball, transplanted them, and mulched. I did hear these can get huge quick, but if it's true that they'll just grow straight up if in close proximity to each other, I think I can handle all 3. Not sure though.

The biggest of the trees (in the front) is now 3' taller than the lamp post. All were shorter when I transplanted them 2 years ago.

Hey, could you post a photo of the foliage? The glaucous one is most certainly Cupressus nootkatensis, however the one behind is a bit more of a draw as it's out of focus and farther away. P.S. - after looking at a clearer picture of the landscape that they're in they are MORE than far enough away from each other. You're very lucky to have those. Where are you located, if you don't mind my asking?

shastensis, I live in Philadelphia. Here are the close-up pics:

Still not close enough to make out the individual leaf shapes.

Well, I can tell you that both are Xanthocyparis nootkatensis cultivars, the colour of the branches ánd the foliage are typical!
You have very nice and beautiful speciments!

Agreed. Very nice little trees.

+oM

I concur with texjagman on the specific cultivars. Nice find! Nootkas are under-appreciated and can become stately specimens within time.

Could the 2nd or 3rd be Chamaecyparis lawsoniana... one of the bluer cultivars?

A little finer foliage? Less droopy primary branches?

Yes, i think the one in the foreground is actually a C. lawsoniana. they are a hybrid of alaskian cyparis and (blank) I recently bought one called 'Colorado Blue', it's a beautiful blue color, and looks much like what you have. I don't see much information on this cultivar, but the hybrids are supposed to be very fast growers.

No way that these are Chamaecyparis lawsoniana cultivars, both are Xanthocyparis nootkatensis cultivars.

The red brown older branches with the younger yellowish green branches (during Autumn and Winter) are typical for this species and so is the foliage which is thicker than Chamaecyparis lawsoniana.

This pic is from the cultivar 'Jubilee' and is taken during the growing season when the young growth is still green but the foliage is simular to the green one at the pics c2g showed us.

Some botanists will say that Xanthocyparis nootkatensis is now Cupressus nootkatensis and crosses with Chamaecyparis are named Cupressocyparis x leylandii.
This conifer and it's cultivars can grow very fast indeed.

I like your trees. A little advice to consider... #2 is growing very wide and is going to be almost as wide as it will be tall. This leaves you two options: a)start it's journey by beginning to remove the lowest branches, maintaining 2/3 of the foliage at all times... the bark will be a beautiful aspect if you choose this option. b)?remove it completely... make it a handout. ... Eventually the same thing will need to be done with #3. Still quite a picturesque photo if you think of long-term pruning. You really can't go wrong if you decide to keep and maintain them. They would become an awesome triplet-canopy.

Thanks for the pictures, I really enjoy these trees akin to almost no other.

Dax

ken...

adpressed may be just the word you're seeking

"lying close to and parallel to a surface, but not joined"

Rushforth, Keith ÂConifers (1987); First published in the United States in 1987 by Facts On File, Inc., 460 Park Avenue South, New York, New York 10016; ISBN: 0-8160-1735-2.

later -

Some botanists will say that Xanthocyparis nootkatensis is now Cupressus nootkatensis and crosses with Chamaecyparis are named Cupressocyparis x leylandii.

Not exactly. Nootka Cypress (this is the common name) was first described correctly as Cupressus nootkatensis. Then it was mistakenly transferred to Chamaecyparis by Spach, when he gave himself the description of cones maturing in one season for his new genus. Cupressus and Chamaecyparis do not cross. Never. Cupressus nootkatensis crosses with 3 other Cupressus species (macrocarpa, glabra and lusitanica). So that the generic names are all Cupressus. There are no known intergeneric hybrids within the Conifers.

The description of a new genus by Farjon does not stand the facts. Instead it triggered a lot more confusion with a lot of so called botanists insisting to rename more than half of the Cupressus species with names of their own, based on a superficial study.

Here is a link that might be useful: NOOTKA CYPRESS: CHAMAECYPARIS OR CUPRESSUS ?

Thanks nothotsuga for your explanation, I didn't know this part of historie.

At school were I learned to become a nurseryman, I learned that the name was Chamaecyparis nootkatensis.
Soon I learned that something wasn't right about this species because the cones were much differend then all the other Chamaecyparis species.
Another thing was that it wasn't possible to graft the Chamaecyparis nootkatensis cultivars onto Chamaecyparis lawsoniana understock.

Later on I heard that the name Chamaecyparis nootkatensis was renamed in Xanthocyparis nootkatensis because it was related to a new find conifer in Vietnam, Xanthocyparis vietnamensis.

Lately I found out at this forum that a 3th name for this species was given, Cupressus nootkatensis which was allready given as the very first name you're telling me and that it was Spach (or Spät?) who named it in the wrong way as Chamecyparis nootkatensis...
This is quite a story but the very sad thing is that in a lot of books discriptions are mentioned about Chamaecyparis nootkatensis and Xanthocyparis nootkatensis.
I hope that this confusion will be explained in a good way in new written books.
For me and other nurserymen is this new name a big problem because our customers are just familiar with the name Xanthocyparis and now whe have to tell them that also this name isn't right and that the correct name is Cupressus nootkatensis...

How about the famous cross Cupressocyparis x leylandii?
This name isn't possible, because Cupressus and Chamaecyparis will never cross.
What should be the correct name for this plant, Cupressus x leylandii?
Thanks again!

Coniferjoy,
Thanks for mentioning that for C.nootkatensis "the younger yellowish green branches (during Autumn and Winter) are typical for this species". I have a 5 ft C.n. 'Van den Aker' which I had to plant in June with high heat afterwards, foliage on lower 1/3 branches is brown, but flexible, upper green branches are getting a little yellowish, cones remain blue, so I can still hope the plant will be OK next spring.
Bernd

Hi Edwin,

Cupressus x leylandii has the parentage of
Cupressus nootkatensis x Cupressus macrocarpa.
Here is a page to see the contributors to this naming (x Cupressocyparis leylandii).

I am now under the impression that (Cupressus vietnamensis) will hybridize with these other Cypress'.

Dax

Thanks for everyone's input. I just finished planting a white oak in my backyard, a slow grower, but I'd really like one fast-growing tree on my property that I can see grow to a tall height in my lifetime.

The only way I can do this is to replace one of the Nootka Cypress, and I was thinking #1. The trees I'm considering are Sycamore, Black Gum, or Dawn Redwood. Does anyone know how well the other 2 trees would fare as understory trees? Or will these grow fast enough that I should just leave the 3 of them be and enjoy a nice, 3-tree canopy? How tall can they potentially grow in 10, 20, 30 years? I've heard many conflicting opinions on the growth rate of these. Thanks.

If you want an oak, you don't have room for the (3)Cypress' and, the oak. It's one or the other.

On the other side of the hedge, is that a Redbud? That's already encroaching, however it would make for a very good understory tree for an oak. The conifers will never have enough room alongside an oak. None of the three of them.

Your house would look better with one one nootkatensis in the very front - the other two removed - and you could add a couple fastigiate columnar oaks/maples to replace the other two cypress/relative to where they are planted if necessary. That seems like a much better proposition, at least to me. It's one or the other, like I said. Picture that in your mind... two columnar oaks in front of that giant house - kind of makes me think of two steeple points at the front of a castle.

Dax

thanks Dax. If you're looking at my house, that's a dogwood to the left. It's about as high as the twin.

If I remove two, I may just move them to the corners of the backyard with the young white oak.

I like your steeple idea. What about leaving the two nootkensis in the back as the two steeple points, with a smaller tree replacing the nootkensis in front? Will those two in the back grow to the height of my house?

Absolutely-yes.

I'm not sure about adding another tree to the front. Acer japonicum Acontifolium would fit height-wise and you'd just need to do some pruning to keep it from spreading... at least for many years.

Another option to consider instead of a large oak could be either an Acer carpinifolium or Acer nikonese. I'd plant (them/one) a little closer to the house from where the nootka is, and a little to the left. Either of these with the pillar-oaks directly behind them, would look exemplary.

Dax