Other sources are suggesting that Murray Cypress is actually C. x ovensii, not C. x leylandii. So instead of a Nootka x Monterey, it's a Nootka x Mexican (lusitanica). The different parentage could explain the claimed improvement in performance.

I did see one source indicating it might be a Cupressus x ovensii (or xCuprocyparis ovensii if you prefer) but the vast majority (all of maybe 10 websites in total) refer to it as a cultivar of Leyland cypress. To be honest, none of the websites I could access impressed me with their horticultural acumen so I am open to be directed to any more authoritative sources for confirmation.

If in fact an ovensii, I wonder about some of the claims made. C. lusitanica would tend to be a more climate sensitive plant to my mind so hardiness may be restricted and I can understand the increased drought tolerance but not sure if any of the other 'superior attributes' jive with this.

these types of claims make me think about market hype.. and snake oil claims ... leaving me leery of what is said ...

ken

ps: a curious aside .... how can a cutting.. at a xmas tree farm ... end up some new or odd plant, from a different family ??? .... we arent talking scion of a dwarf or mini.. or some such ....

"these types of claims make me think about market hype.. and snake oil claims ... leaving me leery of what is said ..."

Ken - my thoughts exactly!! If this is such a 'wonder' tree - faster, better, stronger than Green Giants or Leylands - then why isn't it better known and distributed? Why such a paucity of available info?

As to the cutting thing.....Leylands are/were heavily planted in the southeast for the cut Xmas tree trade and supposedly the Murray was a cutting taken from one of these trees. Which would tend to confirm its ID as a cultivar of Leyland cypress rather than an ovensii as, except for the Murray (if it IS an ovensii), these do not seem to be a common or widely grown plant anywhere. Except maybe New Zealand :-)

If this is what you are talking about (above) then they are either saying it IS Ovens cypress renamed - or the calling it Ovens cypress that occurred during the 1990s was a misapplication. Otherwise statements that it was derived from Leyland cypress combined with the habit shown in photos imply it was a bushier branch sport on a Leyland cypress, with claims that it grows faster and so forth perhaps not standing up to organized trails - were these to be conducted.

http://hollowcreektreefarm.com/Murray-Cypress.html

If a United States Plant Patent (with accompanying description) has not been applied for or nobody has prepared a complete historical account of the cultivar name in a manual or on a similarly serious web site then this information may just not be out there.

Yet.

The tree that is superior is ovensii which if I remember right is Alaskan yellow cedar crossed with cupressus lustianica in lieu of macrocarpa (the other parent of leyland cypress)

That would make it better for most of the contiguous 48 states I think just because cupressus macrocarpa isn't hardy at all and needs cooler summers than most people have in the us. Lustianica is hardier in both respects.

Another hybrid, notabilis is a cross with Arizona cypress I think.

I agree that a lot of the Christmas tree growers might just be passing off a variety of leyland, and probably don't know the difference

After more research and reading, I think I am even more confused about these trees than before I started! Reliable data about them seems to be very limited.

Various websites - mostly nurseries located in the southeastern US - label them as xCupressocyparis leylandii 'Murray'. A few others label them as a "variant" or a "derivative" of Leyland cypress, whatever that means. And after locating an article written by Mr. Murray about these trees, it appears the cuttings were not taken specifically from a Christmas tree plantation but just cuttings from a "forested area".

I did manage to find more info asserting these to be xCuprocyparis ovensii, mostly from Australian or NZ websites, where these trees are apparently quite common. And they often tag them with the common name of 'Murray (or Murray X) cypress' although the first recorded hybrid was in 1961, well before Mr Murray happened upon his cuttings. And it seems the 'superiority' over Leylands is mostly attributable to their increased resistance to the cankers and other fungal issues that plague Leylands. And the fact that they have stiffer branches, which seems to be a big plus for a Christmas tree product!! The 'faster', 'better', 'stronger' hype that the websites tout may be just that - hype - as there is nothing in the literature that I could locate that supports/documents these claims.

i question some of the hardiness assumptions made above. C. lusitanica is listed only to zone 9 while C. macrocarpa is listed down to zone 7. That would logically track to Leylands being more cold tolerant than the Murray/ovensii and that seems to be borne out by the literature, as Leylands are known to grow in z5 but the Murrays are only rated to z6 yet they do not seem to be at all common in any area with a hardiness zone of less than 7. Both seem to be quite adapatble to heat, as the popularity of both of these hybrids in the southern hemisphere (as well as the southeastern US) would indicate.

I guess my original question still stands - if these are so much better than Leyland cypress for screening purposes, why are Murrays not more common? And why is there such little reliable information about them? 55 years should have generated a reasonable amount of data........

I understood C. lusitanica to be less cold hardy then C. macrocarpa but more tolerant of hot humid conditions seen in the US southeast.

smivies, my research - such as it was - would seem to confirm your opinions although Leylands are still widely grown in the SE, specially for the cut Christmas tree trade.

I also find well-grown and correctly sited Leylands very attractive trees - I live next door to a 50' long row of them - and I quite like them as well. They are planted extensively in this is area, as are Green Giants and various other similar type cultivars of Thuja plicata (which makes sense, since they are native). I was out on a consult yesterday and there was a gorgeous specimen of Leyland about 40' tall and close to 20' wide at the base planted across the street from my client. But more often, unless on a large suburban or rural property, one finds Leylands as sheared hedges. As is the planting adjacent to my property. These trees are immensely manageable if one is willing to put forth the effort.

We have all three hybrids : Leyland, Ovensi, and Notabilis. So far the Leylands have grown fastest. However they have been hit by disease and insects and in addition are not sufficiently drought resistant to thrive here. Most of them have died and been cut down. I have been replacing them with Notabilis Cypress. These are normally moderate growers and are distinctly more blue in color, disease and insect resistant, and drought tolerant.

The two Ovensi Cypress at year two are still establishing. Too early too tell much at this point. Color is a darker green than the other two. They have survived one of our Z8 winters.

Interestingly the foliage of all 3 is very similar and difficult to tell apart if just looking at the foliage.

edlincoln, poor/old pic (taken around 2001) of a leyland I planted around 1976 in Hagerstown, MD. As a single specimen, I think it's pretty good:

I call it Tree Tam as it has a similarly horticultural appearance, not as interesting as either parent.

I got my C. X ovensii from Colvos Creek years ago. I spoke with Mike Lee on the phone: he said he was sure it was the real thing, the cuttings had come from an arboretum, and he also got C. X notabilis at the same time. He said he hadn't been able to root any of the C. X notabilis; later on my PNW trip when speaking to Larry Stanley of Stanley and Sons he said the same thing, that that C. X notabilis was known to be difficult to root. I would therefore question any sources who claim to be easily rooting C. X notabilis if two of the PNW's best nurserymen said it isn't easily rooted.

I had to click through quite a few pictures on google images to make a decision, but my thinking is the so-called Murray cypress is, in fact, C. X ovensii. What's annoying is many of the full specimen pics show ones that are sheared, and mine of course is not sheared. But the foliar close ups show what I expected. It really makes more sense for another species to contribute the ability to withstand disease pressure in the SE, and not a mere reselection of Leylandii. They probably market it as such...as...a marketing move! Or simply out of ignorance.

I was worried about it in the last two winters, but it showed no damage here. Granted my leylandiis (planted by previous owners) showed no injury here either, but up in Lancaster County PA there were quite a few damaged ones and even some that looked outright killed. So it's hard for me to conclude X ovensii is less hardy than X leylandii. But IMHO the actual hardiness differences between C. microcarpa and the entirety of the C. lusitanica genetic population are probably slight. Even though the latter is usually rated zn 8 and the former zn 7, the native range of C. macrocarpa is ridiculously small. Unlike coastal redwoods, for example, it doesn't occur even slightly inland or even at slight elevation. Whereas C. lusitanica occurs at elevation in Mexico, in places where
overall, frosts are probably more common than at Pebble Beach. (Sean Hogan told me he has collected S. semprevirens from almost 3000' in the Coast Ranges; the mere fact the species can occur that high easily explains why some genotypes of it can withstand mid-Atlantic east coast winters like the last two, albeit with damage. Winters that high aren't going to really be cold, but they are going to be colder than the frost-free winters at sea level in say, Eureka.)

Oh and btw my leylandiis do get spots of foliar injury from Seridium I presume, while the C. X ovensii is 100% disease free here. I actually kind of regret that it is C. X ovensii, as it will now just become more over-planted screening material; in many cases hollies would be a better choice for what people use conifer screens for at least around here. That will take a while though; suckers continue to buy Leylandii. There's some huge nursery up in Chester County PA that sells acres of them each spring to idiots. Hope they don't find out about the "Murray Cypress" for a while LOL.

" As a single specimen, I think it's pretty good"
I think you're being generous. That's an awfully nondescript overall shape and the internal branching structure borders on the hideous. Some old "Field Cedars" (J. virginiana) might be similarly blob-like, but at least have a single bole/lower trunk.

Luckily today is mild and I have tomorrow off so time to kill LOL.

Here they are, C. x ovensii on the left, C. x leylandii on the right.

and a closeup:

You will see that the C. X ovensii is slightly more thread like, while the leylandii is slightly more fan like. The ovensii has has somewhat less glaucous material covering the needles. Thus overall, from a distance, the ovensii is slightly more of a dark green, as is reported by most "Murray" hawkers LOL.

It would be hard for me to take a picture of the full ovensii without taking a picture of my neighbor's house. And I'm very careful to respect people's privacy. The habit is slightly more open, the growth has been slightly slower than leylandii but still fast, and yes, the branchlets though slightly thinner are more upward pointing, so they would hold ornaments better than leylandii.

one more thing: regulars will know of my Abies sniffing nose...LOL

One website reports ovensii to smell slightly of hazel nuts. I'd never bothered to smell it. But, indeed, compared to leylandii it has a sweeter, milder, nuttier scent. Leylandii is more citrus with a hint of phenolic - think Dettol if you've been to a commonwealth country ;-). Definitely another way to distinguish them.

The third picture on the page looks very much like my ovensii

https://www.southernwoods.co.nz/shop/cupressus-ovensii/

You can see the ascending branchlets and open form.

I wonder how it holds up to snow and ice.

Good looking tree though.

Mike

I got my C. X ovensii from Colvos Creek years ago. I spoke with Mike Lee
on the phone: he said he was sure it was the real thing, the cuttings
had come from an arboretum

His mother plant was bought by me at a nursery on my trip to Britain during the mid-1990s. I also supplied Colvos (and the Seattle arboretum) with other kinds of conifers I imported from England at that time.

Well, thank you Mr. Embothrium! If you want to do it again I can think of about 20 cultivars of various things I want from the UK LOL.

When I saw your name listed I figured you were about to tell me the ID was probably wrong: but I'm sure you can vouch for your own ability to buy something in a nursery haha. Whereabouts did you get them? Hillier's? My impression is that for many years they were the Forestfarm of Europe: many woody plants from A-Z on offer.

I get the impression you must have worked for some well known PNW horticultural institution but are being modest and not telling us...

"I wonder how it holds up to snow and ice."

Well, my guess would be somewhat better. It was years ago we had a bad ice storm but I saw at the time that some branches of the leylandiis were splayed outwards. The ovensii wasn't big enough then to spot a difference but it looks to me like the branches, because they are less dense, would just get pushed down and spring back up. In other words leylandiis are so dense they have some branches that are almost growing like waterspouts, and those will get permanently pushed out of the fold. I had to cut a few after the ice storm. I see the same sometimes happened the heavy snows of the past winters. Some of the damaged looking leylandii hedges around here had branches falling out from the front of the hedge.

While this is being discussed: I have 3 other Cupressus in my garden that are not hybrids. Under one of them is a mysterious looking seedling. The foliage doesn't resemble the parent: it's probably just a juvenile selfed seedling, but since at least the original leylandii arose by chance, I cannot ruled out that mine is a hybrid too. Let me get back to you on that...in 5 years or so. It's growing pretty fast so I should know by then.

BTW the "Alaska Cedar" (nails on chalkboard for Resin!) is now just Cupressus:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cupressus_nootkatensis

I guess all of the hybrids are "Cupressus X ______________".

I went to a conifer specialist but do not remember who it was. They had certain things I was looking for in small sizes that could be easily boxed up and inspected.

I was traveling with someone who was more interested in things like hellebores so I did not mop up all the woody plant hubs I would have otherwise. For instance we made it to the Hillier Arboretum and Gardens but not the National Conifer Collection at Westonbirt. Also we had problems with seasonal closures, for example Caerhays hadn't opened for the year yet even though it was March(!). We drove all the way out there anyway hoping we might be able to talk our way in or something but there is a vast expanse of grass between the castle and the gate house at the start of the lane; the castle stood there and stared at us - with pretty much the entirety of the world famous woodland garden tucked behind it - like a mother shielding her children from suspicious strangers.

My principal background is in commercial horticulture but I did work for the Seattle arboretum for a short time also. I was hired to work as a temp on a specific project. Most of my institutional experience is as a volunteer.

Thanks, that's interesting. Agree it's surprising Caerhays wouldn't open March 1 since a lot of the earlier camellias, rhodies and magnolias would be starting around that time. The ever useful Phillips & Rix 'Shrubs' shows reticulatas being in full bloom on March 15th at the Savill Gardens.

Yes, we should have been in the thick of the season for those - we did see a Campbell magnolia in bloom at the Burncoose nursery office. Unfortunately it had been frosted. We also went to the Valley Garden at Windsor but I think it was too late in the day to do more than rush around through part of it - or there was some other problem that prevented me from coming away with clear memories of standing in front of things I had known about for years. Also had the same kind of thing happen at Kew, although we did have plenty of time there we skipped parts of it that probably should not have been, labeling of outdoor specimens there was scattered, certain famous old trees turned out to look dinky in person - and the tender rhododendrons in the Temperate House had been made tatty by foliage mildew.

We were able to assist a local (British) couple with the identity of a specimen of our own local native Oemleria cerasiformis that was conspicuously full of bloom - and not labeled.

Don't remember much in the way of blooming magnolias at Hillier either - and we wandered all over there. So really it came down to Johnstone's place, where we did see the famous large mollicomata in flower on the lawn.

Unfortunately his 'Lanarth' - although in bloom - turned out to be tiny, fallen and blighted. An ironic outcome for what might even be the same example that provided the specimen for the painting of the sensational flowers of this clone debuted in Asiatic Magnolias in Cultivation.

(Kind of hard to believe it would still be so small after so long but it did appear to be full of bacterial blight, which if nobody had ever sprayed it for on a consistent, year to year basis would be quite capable of keeping it down indefinitely - I have seen the same thing happen to a long-established planting of Yulan magnolias in a collection here, which after I pointed out what the problem was to the curator suddenly started progressing in leaps due to being released from the disease suppression).

If you want to say a really bad swear word to a Brit gardener, lean in close and whisper 'Leylandii' and watch the teeth grinding, nostril flaring...but step well back before the vast head of steam erupts from every orifice possible. And keep your distance unless you wish to be in range of furious spittle as the venting and ranting reaches a climax.

We have had murders over this abomination. And the High Hedges laws came into being as a direct result of the blighted lives, condemned to live in the shade of this hideous green (and brown - lots of brown) vileness.

Not keen on it myself, either.

On the other hand Britain shows as bare brown dirt from high altitudes because most of the countryside is grass, whereas Germany - with all of its planted conifers - appears as a big green block.

Um just a tiny bit of generalising here embo - are you sending me a subtle message?

Nonetheless, you have hit on something of a sore point - although recovering slightly, the UK has the least woodland cover of any European country. Certainly, the forestry commission has been caught out by a reliance on disease-prone Scots pine and larch but worse is a recent attempt to sell off the remaining public woodlands into private hands...politically, this has led to something of a revival of woodland management, trades and crafts and general sylvanian movements to preserve our remaining forests and increase the diversity and quantity of woodland cover.

Oh yes, Germany has a lower population density than the UK.

I'm not generalizing, as you then go on to state yourself Britain is under-treed by a wide margin. The simple fact is the Germans planted a whole bunch of trees and the British did not - the British countryside looks like a giant golf course, with all that short, thin grass doing very little to cover the soil - unlike all those dreadful tall coniferous evergreens (including Leyland cypress) would do.

Not that I think anyone is wise to plant a tree where there isn't room for it.

When I was in Britain during the 1990s one of our hosts had a Forestry Commission poster on the refrigerator that said the original scalping of the country had finally been completed by about the 18th century, with many of the still extant landmark trees attending the plus sized rural habitations of the landed gentry dating from that time - because that was when it was becoming noticed there weren't any significant trees around anymore, people started doing some serious planting of new trees. It also said that by the time of publication (1990s, I guess) Britain was about 80% deforested.

When I saw Adrian Bloom speak (about gardening with conifers) in Seattle he exclaimed during his presentation "At least people here plant something!". The demonstration plot he showed before and after pictures of was a contemporary brick tract house with absolutely nothing planted except lawn when the conifer etc. garden went in.

(It lasted for awhile and then somebody started shearing everything)

"It also said that by the time of publication (1990s, I guess) Britain was about 80% deforested" — in terms of native forest, about 98% deforested; there's hardly anything natural left.

But of "On the other hand Britain shows as bare brown dirt from high altitudes because most of the countryside is grass" what you're seeing there is the brown of Calluna vulgaris on mismanaged upland grouse farms.

Resin

Well we had a navy to supply and an empire to build dontcha know?

Oddly enough, conifers are pretty much the forgotten species here in the UK. They last had a moment in the sun sometime back in the 70s (for which we certainly thank the Bloom family)...when they were planted, along with the ubiquitous heather, as low maintenance foundation plantings. Since then, with apologies to you guys, conifers have been relegated to the 4th division of trendoid planting styles and categories (unlike the sodding new perennialistas with bloody echinaceas, grasses and rudbeckias popping up everywhere, no matter how ludicrous and inappropriate). Naturally, I have been loudly and contrarily singing the praises of these much underused plants (conifers) for the past few years - falling on deaf ears but hey, baby steps...and I confess I am also starting from a position of woeful ignorance - although only yesterday, I ordered a Bhutan pine to add to the fruit tree order) and I have seedlings - lots of them.

It is true though, that national characteristics (albeit largely imaginary and stereotyped) does have some bearing on our planting preferences. Unlike the French, the English have always romanticised the countryside...and that countryside, at least the one which lives in the national imagination, is largely of the green rolling hills and hedgrows variety with only a tiny bit of Highlands to compare with the vast arborial forests of the American psyche. And we are a tiny country with nothing of the geographical variety of the US (our default imaginary landscape tends to be the coast). No deserts, no prairies (although we do have the flat waterworld of the fens and Somerset levels).

Ho resin...expect some action on some of these grouse moors this summer - the misery of flooding, exacerbated by the unnatural draining and clearing of the peat moors will not go unpunished for much longer - the hunting/shooting and riding to hounds fraternity are diminishing (despite recent monied converts desperate to buy into some olde english tradition) and deference to class is receding year on year.

"Ho resin...expect some action on some of these grouse moors this summer -
the misery of flooding, exacerbated by the unnatural draining and
clearing of the peat moors will not go unpunished for much longer"

I wish! But it won't happen while the current mob are in power :-(

The dominant layout of the countryside is still that of estates. By the time of its peak in the Edwardian era the landed gentry was owning 60% of the land area of the country. After that the basis for wealth shifted to areas other than huge farms but the pastoral nature of rural areas remains.

Interesting discussion; my only tiny comment to add about land ownership in the UK is it was alarming to read in recent years of two estates, modestly well known as tourist attractions for their gardens, being sold by the original "landed gentry" class owners, to wealthy outsiders, and being closed to the public. Those being Torosay in Scotland and the Loder Estate in southern England. Although from the POV of forest cover versus traditional open-with-hedgerows landscape, you could wonder if these new, outsider owners would be more likely to practice forestry on the land if it's the most profitable option. Which in some cases it might be...more likely for the one in Scotland I suppose.

@ Resin: So where are these magnificent plantings of coast redwood, western hemlock et al, you have given us a peep of over the years?

it was alarming to read in recent years of two estates, modestly well
known as tourist attractions for their gardens, being sold by the
original "landed gentry" class owners, to wealthy outsiders, and being
closed to the public

I get the impression that many of them get opened in the first place because the owners need the gate receipts to keep them going - we are talking about private properties that are sometimes as big and expensive as government installations. For example the couple that lives in "Downton Abbey" recently spent millions on having the roof renovated.

Have you seen the documentary about the renewal of Dumfries? It's been on TV. The house contains 10% of the World's surviving Chippendale furniture, including a single piece that is valued at 30 million pounds. Half of the furniture was in trucks and on the way to being auctioned off when Charles Windsor stepped in with money he was able to raise. Since then they've spent millions on the house, have turned a derelict building (trees were growing in it) into an artist colony, established a restaurant with cooking school, restored a great big walled garden and planted a new arboretum with hundreds of trees. Kids from the local community, which has a long history of economic depression are thrilled to now have someplace to work. One girl they talk to in the film had no idea the estate was even there, right near the village.

https://dumfries-house.org.uk/

Well, you do have a point there. But having to open them to raise funds is the only way most of us are ever going to get to see some of these places.

Oi, Resin! Since you miss no opportunity to correct our identifications - a trait we all surely find endearing - am I to assume my C. X ovensii and C. X leylandii identifications are correct as far as you are concerned?

I'm on the 9 a-b line and have both Murray's and Leylands. The Leylands hardly move. After a period of years you notice it grew a bit the Murrays grew like they had somewhere to be. My Florida sandhill and it's root knot nematodes has difficulty growing anything but no one told the Murrays. They went from 30 inches to 15 feet in a few years. No luck propagating babies thou

Yes, there is every reason to think the C. X ovensii (aka 'Murray') would do better in FL.