When a body just looks at pictures on the web and reads no descriptions highlighting pertinent points they can be confused by misidentified or otherwise misleading images.

The second conifer is like a sort of truncated version of P. macrophyllus.

"Podocarpus chinensis Sw.

= Podocarpus chinensis Wall. ex J. Forbes 1839
= Podocarpus macrophyllus var. Maki S. & Z. 1846
= Podocarpus macrophyllus var. Maki Sieb. ex Endl. 1847
= Podocarpus japonica hort. Bogor. ex Sieb. 1844
= Podocarpus japonicus Sieb. ex Endl. 1847

This species is from China, though long cultivated in Japan, where it is the Kusa-maki. For years it was not known in the wild state. It is still very poorly understood and grossly confused with Podocarpus macrophyllus. It differs from Podocarpus macrophyllus mainly in being smaller and having smaller leaves --only 1.5 to 3.5 inches long. In cultivation it is a mere shrub, at most perhaps to 15 feet tall."

http://www.arthurleej.com/p-o-m-jan05.html

Afrocarpus gracilior (Pilg.) C.N. Page (Podocarpus gracilior Pilg.) is a more graceful, tree-sized and -shaped species with slender leaves to 4 (7.2) in. long. Correctly identified stock should not have the comparatively tufted and stiff appearance of Podocarpus chinensis.

"In appearance it closely resembles A. falcatus, which has slightly smaller leaves (mostly 2-4 cm long), and slightly smaller (to 15 mm long), spherical cones with verrucose skin (like an orange)"

http://www.conifers.org/po/Afrocarpus_gracilior.php

where p. Gracilior seems to have more of an exposed trunk, but that could be from pruning, no?

==>>> in any setting other than in the wild.. i would also presume.. that pruning is why a plant does not grow from the ground up ... especially in a collection or arboretum ....

heck.. even in a virgin forest .... they self prune lower branches.. as they grow together ..and block out sun ...

kudos to embo's research for you ... but frankly... at that level ... my eyes glaze over .. lol ..

and my end result.. was to either buy the one that pleases me most .... or the usual alternative.. that one which was available ...or finally.. the cheaper of the two ...lol

ken

Thank you Embo for the info. I read it several times but I'm afraid I need to read it some more b/c, frankly, over my head.

I already grow Maki aka p. Chinensis. I have an opportunity to get a p. Gracilior but didn't want to get something that look just like something I already grow. Seems like p. Gracilior is wispier. Anyway, I think I will get it. Every year at this time, I'm lusting after evergreens and conifers. I don't have many options in Houston area.

maki has much showier cones and is smaller. Otherwise, if you've seen one, you've seen the other.

if you've seen one, you've seen the other

It really seems this should not be the case, makes me think mislabeled stock is in circulation.

1943 printing of L.H. Bailey, Standard Cyclopedia of Horticulture has them keyed like this:

"C. Midrib of lvs. distinct above; width 1/2 in. or less

P. macrophylla (incl. var. Maki), P. neriifolia

CC. Midrib of lvs. indistinct above; width of lvs. 1/4 in.

P. gracilior, P. elongata

with var. Maki having blunt leaves and P. gracilior having pointed ones

Interesting discussion and to further add to the confusion, there are various forms of P. maki/P. chinensis/P. macrophyllus in the south, some of them hardier than others though that would not matter to bossy in 9a Houston

From what I an tell the so-called hardy(ist) "P. chinensis" has the thinnest leaves but is still very bold compared to say, a Taxus. The typical P. macrophyllus in the south is a little showier due to fatter leaves. 'Maki' of commerce is again different; and Camellia Forest recently started selling a 4th form!

"I already grow Maki aka p. Chinensis." Not sure this is really the case.

Actually I think this page helps sort things out:

http://www.camforest.com/product_p/ts-podcar3g.htm

Broadly, there is macrophyllus and Maki. What I've thought of as "Chinensis" is that selected hardier form of "Maki", long offered (on and off, I remember a hilarious phone call I once had with Kai Mei about propagating it) by Camellia Forest. Which bboy will no doubt say is probably the same but if you actually see them side by side there, looks different from typical Maki. They used to sell the 3 separately and distinctly. macrophyllus which they would list as zone 8, 'Maki' and 'chinensis'.
More confusion: JC Raulston Arboretum - Our Plants - Search Results

Planted in 2000 "P. chinensis" is surely the hardy Camforest form, having reached 14'. The one they are offering more recently is 'Edgefield'.

Davidrt28

again, data embothrium posted is over my head. But if I read correctly, this section I've copied below suggests to me these are synonyms for same plant. I was going by the "=" symbol next to each name.

"Podocarpus chinensis Sw.

= Podocarpus chinensis Wall. ex J. Forbes 1839
= Podocarpus macrophyllus var. Maki S. & Z. 1846
= Podocarpus macrophyllus var. Maki Sieb. ex Endl. 1847
= Podocarpus japonica hort. Bogor. ex Sieb. 1844
= Podocarpus japonicus Sieb. exEndl. 1847

I started the discussion b/c Houston is not conifer country so likelihood of mislabeling is High. Not unlike likelihood of citrus or hibiscus being mislabeled up north.

Well, there's the way taxonomists formally classify plants, and the realities of what is out there in the marketplace.

Are there actually large, healthy Afrocarpus gracilior in your part of Texas? If not, it would seem to me that the East Asian species are a safer bet.

Idk

well, before spending money, ysk

I was responding to 'didn't want to get something that look just like something I already grow'. They are very similar. I have seen very large specimens of each at a nursery (48" boxes) side by side and have seen both in the ground in either smaller or larger sizes. The best maki that I ever saw was espaliered to look like a split-rail fence and was covered with cones. Have been searching for the photo but can't find it. It was planted around a hot tub in Alameda (which is Sunset zone 17).

If one is a 'collector', having both is no problem, no matter how similar they are. Who doesn't have multiple Chamaecyparis obtusa, or Picea orientalis, where the distinctions are minor, but the provenance varies in interesting ways. If one is not, or if either the space or the budget is limited, I'd go with maki and forgo gracillior.

I grow plants than nobody else grows in my subdiv or the next four flanking mine. I also live within 2 mi of a good nursery and they don't carry much in the way of conifers. It's a new thing yet to capture mainstream's interest. so, while "looking around and see what grows" is excellent advice and one I often dole out, I've never seen p. Gracilior unless mislabeled as p. Maki, unfortunately but it doesn't necessarily mean it won't do well here.

I just really doubt it's in Houston...more of a zone 9/10 California plant. "Look around" also means at botanical gardens btw...maybe try Peckerwood an hour from Houston. Open by appointment I believe. Or SFASU...their website used to have a list of all plants in the garden, but appears to have been dumbed down for smartphones.

Peckerwood is too nw of me that be 100% guarantee that their plants will do well in my BY but excellent advice re: Peckerwood. I visit often and a few of my plants came from their sales, all doing well. But none were conifers, most were Quercus, magnoliaceae and bulbs.

which one do you doubt is in Houston? Gracilior or maki? Both grow at the Mercer arboretum. I just attended a lecture on that. Yes, I understood look around included botanical gardens.

It's good to know there is a Afrocarpus Gracilior in a Houston arboretum; but there are thousands of East Asian podocarpus along the Gulf Coast so those seem like a surer bet for gardens there. I found my copy of the SFASU plant list and they have 3 forms of macrophyllus, one of "chinensis" and none of the African podocarps.

are you in TX? have you been to the pinetum in e tx? I'm dying to go and see what speaks to me. Have not been to sfasu, ashamed to admit.

also, are you saying macrophyllus is not Syn. to chinensis? I thought that is what embothrium posted.

I haven't paid attention to gulf coast flora but I will. I just assume it is oleanders and palms. my bad.

are you saying macrophyllus is not Syn. to chinensis? I thought that is what embothrium posted

Jacobson wrote that P. macrophyllus var. maki was a synonym of P. chinensis.

Whew! At least that much understood

It appears Kew has resurrected Podocarpus macrophyllus var. maki and placed Podocarpus chinensis as a synonym.

http://apps.kew.org/wcsp/namedetail.do?name_id=386625

As your posted excerpt states that was the result arrived at by compiler R Govaerts. What Kew says is

The editors of WCSP would first like to thank the users for the more than 1000 emails of feedback they send each year. These help greatly to correct the many mistakes and reassess taxonomy by questioning expert decisions.

The compilers listed below are the people who compiled the provisional checklist from available literature and some herbarium consultation. This document is then peer reviewed.

http://apps.kew.org/wcsp/compilersReviewers.do