Talk:Ulmus 'Rugosa'

Not merge
These are two cultivars, one U. glabra and the other probably U. minor or possibly U. x hollandica.

These pages were split following a query from, see threads below:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tom_elm&diff=next&oldid=750868988#Ulmus_glabra_.27Rugosa.27

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ptelea&diff=prev&oldid=751934340#Rugosa_cultivars.

If we were to merge the pages I fear they would end up being confused, so I would suggest not merging them.

Tom_elmtalk 09:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Not merge. Spath consistently used U montana for wych and hybrid cultivars, U campestris for U minor cultivars. His U campestris Rugosa, a wrinkled-leaved corky-branched Field Elm, must therefore be different from Audibert's, Loudon's, and Rumpler's tree(s), which have old species names for wych or wych hybrids. Hanham (1857), who sounds a reliable witness, described the two specimens of U montana Rugosa he knew in Bath as Rugose Scotch Elm. Wych elm never has corky branchlets. So we have at least two cultivars called Rugosa.


 * OK, fair enough. I was confused by the history of the pages. At some point, presumably one of these 'Rugosa's will need to be renamed; except in very limited circumstances, the ICNCP doesn't permit reuse of cultivar names in the same designation class (i.e. genus). But it looks like there's a long way to go before elm cultivar nomenclature is sorted out. Morton Arboretum is the Cultivar Registration Authority and they've got numerous duplicate cultivar names shown here. Plantdrew (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)