First one is Tulipa hageri, I believe. See the link. If the second one has long strap-shaped leaves that are present for most of the winter, I think it is Tulipa saxatilis. If not, it might be T. bakeri. Here is a link that might be useful: tulipa hageri

hey i am not aware of a dwarf ... probably because i have not been looking .... but i can give you some observations on the non-dwarf ... though not a poplar.. they are a very aggressive growing tree ... so i doubt you will do well in pots ... for very long... because you will outgrow it fast ... in mineral sand.. with no fert ever... and only watering for 2 years .... i would think i was/am getting 3 to4 feet per year .... no tree ever really stops growing at some magical height ... so you will never find a MAX height ... google your common name.. find the latin name... and then add ANNUAL GROWTH RATE ... and you ought to be able to learn about its potential .... but also.. if you see one listed at less than the otherwise norm.. then that will be a dwarf.. and if you can associate a name with it ... then bob's your uncle ..... in other words.. a reduced annual growth rate... is the definition of a dwarf .... from two foot tall mail order sticks 11 years ago ... most of mine are going over 30 feet tall .... why are you limiting yourself to pots .... i really dont see this huge tree.. as a friend you will be taking on your travels... lol ... IMHO .. your only option... should you insist on pots... is BONSAI .... ken ps: i wonder on bonsai ... if you would have this tiny mature tree... with a whompin big flower ... lol .... i might have to google that .... i did.. but no luck ... and then the coffee hit.. and i gave up.. WWW not moving fast enough.. lol ....

Here is the best attempt at definition I have found. To make regulation possible, we (scientists, regulators, etc.) think of genetically modified organisms as those that humans have purposefully modified using recombinant DNA technologies. Recombinant DNA is defined as "molecules that are constructed outside living cells by joining natural or synthetic DNA segments to DNA molecules that can replicate in a living cell, or (ii) molecules that result from the replication of those described in (i) above." (link). Basically, sticking together two pieces of DNA that aren't found together in nature. This can mean re-arranging an organism's own DNA, giving it DNA from another organism, or giving it completely synthetic DNA. So, a wild-type, unengineered tulip mosaic virus is not recombinant or GMO. A tulip infected with the virus is also not GMO, because the process of genetic modifcation that results from the infection has not been intentionally modified by humans. It's a slippery slope because introducing tulip mosaic virus into a line that hasn't previously been infected does result in genetic changes that were intended by humans. But, the vehicle doing the modification (the virus) is not modified, it's just doing what it's always done. We (scientists, regulators, etc.) don't consider that GMO, but one could easily make the argument that it is. This post was edited by albert_135 on Wed, Jan 30, 13 at 16:36

KirstenMarie: Temple of Beauty outsold everything else I had. I loved Menton, but old Temple wowed them so much that they never even noticed any of the others. SusanM