I agree, Cupressus? I'm not even convinced that it should be Xanthocyparis since this has not been made official and it will be at least another 1-3 years before they decide. I still think it makes sense to use Chamaecyparis until it is official. There is not such thing as "official". Even if X.nootkatensis is not rejected as asked by Little at the next Conifer Conference, Cupressus nootkatensis will remain a complete valid name. To use Chamaecyparis for the Nootka Cypress makes no sense. The diagnose of Chamaecyparis by Spach says (in French) that the cones mature in one season. That is not the case for Cupressus nootkatensis. As Resin pointed it, dolphins are no fish. I can add for instance that bats are no bird. All data, all new research articles point to the fact that the Nootka Cypress belongs to the genus Cupressus. When describing his new genus X., Farjon discarded without even a comment the evidence brought by Frankis and made a false statement about Gadek's conclusion. Thanks to Farjon there is now a total confusion with the genus Cupressus. He developed a strong bias toward reducing the number of species and multiplying the number of genera, as explained in his last book. This has nothing to do with science: one must stick to the facts. Now there is not less than 6 genus names to describe true Cupressus species: Cupressus,Callitropsis, Chamaecyparis, X., Hesperocyparis and Tassilicyparis. The only reason: every body wants to put his name after the new genus name. It has nothing to do with plant taxonomy, but all to do with psychological ego motives and glory. If X. will be validated, it will be because of personal relationships, not because there is any scientific support for a new genus name. The nomenclatural comittee which made the recommendation about X. has no conifer specialist and the decision was not even unanimous. Further this recommendation is violating the priority rule. What to expect from such comittee if it is even not able to follow and enforce the rules? These are the same rules which allowed Farjon to link his name to this new species, after the name chosen by the Vietnamese discoverers (nobody know their names) of this tree was declared not validly published for not respecting the rules (Vu Van Can, Vu Van Dung and Le Van Cham (1999b) [Discovery of a new species of Cupressaceae, Thuja quanbaensis sp. nov., from a limestone area in Ha Giang province].) Deux poids, deux mesures. In his last book, Farjon is writing, speaking about Cupressus vietnamensis : This species was serendipitously discovered in 1999 by my colleague, the great orchid specialist at Kew, Phil Cribb. [Emphasy added.] This species was discovered in 1997 by the Vietnameses. Why such a lie? Multiplying without scientific reasons the number of synonyms is not only bad taxonomy, it is completely discrediting it. It is not anymore a science, it is an art where anyone can do as he pleases according to his taste and ego. One should expect now that the genus Pinus will be split in the same way into 2 or 3 new genera. Same with Juniperus. Everybody can do it tomorrow, and if the rules will be respected, they will be validly published and stand.

Grief Ellie, you are asking for a lot. Most people here have no idea the climate in San Diego or of the viable crops. Not to mention that there are about 5 different microclimates. Here are a few for you to carefully consider. tomato: Bloody Butcher - good flavored early red golf ball size. Eva Purple Ball - Not so good flavor sliced but makes good juice and is very productive. Big Beef - Arguably the best overall hybrid indeterminate tomato available today. Onion - SuperStar carrot - bolero DarJones

Just by the size description, I think it might be s. Indigo Spires.

If you can photograph the ripe fruit cluster with some leaves and post it here, it may be identified. Is it a seedless type?