AusBonsai

klaery wrote:
It has pretty much all been said but I'll add my bit:
In science/taxonomy you use the most up to date information. The species name is Allocasuarina torulosa and so that is the name that should be used. The fact that the supplier uses a name changed/abandoned in 1982 (over 30 years ago) is reason enough to be skeptical. If they are in fact the same species then they are Allocasuarina torulosa and what you are seeing is variation. Casuarina torulosa is what is known in nomenclature as a synonym (having been replaced by Allocasuarina torulosa), it no longer exists.

The thing is though, I have been to council nurseries where they grow the non corky bark torulosa from SEED, and have been doing so for years. The fact that there are nurseries that also grow torulosa independant of purchasing from wholesale nurseries without the corky bark, is reason enough to suggest that there is a very significant difference in their variation.

Please don't take the following the wrong way....

Simply put bonsaibuddyman, the smoother bark one is NOT C. torulosa or A. torulosa, it may not even be a Casuarina or Allocasuarina at all.

Basically names can change but the plant is still the same plant. Forest Sheoak = corky bark = C. torulosa = A. torulosa. No matter what you call it, it is always the exact same plant it started out as.

The other one appears to be a totally different plant and no matter what you or anybody else wants to call it, C. torulosa is definitely NOT the right scientific name as it is a different plant from the 'original'.

Cheers

Drac0 wrote:Please don't take the following the wrong way....

Simply put bonsaibuddyman, the smoother bark one is NOT C. torulosa or A. torulosa, it may not even be a Casuarina or Allocasuarina at all.

Basically names can change but the plant is still the same plant. Forest Sheoak = corky bark = C. torulosa = A. torulosa. No matter what you call it, it is always the exact same plant it started out as.

The other one appears to be a totally different plant and no matter what you or anybody else wants to call it, C. torulosa is definitely NOT the right scientific name as it is a different plant from the 'original'.

Cheers

Well, that is fair enough, and your opinion, but the botanist I spoke to says it is torulosa, so... go figure.

Maybe they discovered a new Casurina and called it torulosa after the name was freed up some time after 1982.

bonsaibuddyman wrote:
Well, that is fair enough, and your opinion, but the botanist I spoke to says it is torulosa, so... go figure.

Yeah, it wouldn't surprise me variation considered and I wouldn't comment on that anyway as my torulosa knowledge is limited. My taxonomy is ok though and If the botanist says it is torulosa then it is Allocasuarina torulosa.



As an aside it is good practice not to treat any one source as the be all and end all when searching for conclusions. My best friend is a botanist and wouldn't have a clue what Allocasuarina torulosa even was. My background is in zoology but ask me to id anything other than mygalomorph spiders and I would be researching it in papers/books just as you would do.

Waltron wrote:Maybe they discovered a new Casurina and called it torulosa after the name was freed up some time after 1982.

I reckon they would love to re-use names, just to confuse us...

Technically they names are never free, they just keep getting listed as synonyms. They can't even use just one language to try & name them....

Allocasuarina
- From Greek allos = "other", indicating differences, alternatives or divergence from the genus Casuarina.
torulosa
- From Latin torulus, = slightly uneven, meaning little bumps (on the cones).

Like others, I just wish they would stop moving things around. Only just discovered a Port Wine Magnolia has finally been identified as a true magnolia (in 2006) so is no longer Michelia figo but Magnolia figo.

Anyway, would really love to find out what the smooth bark one being called Casuarina torulosa really is, looks like a nice tree, at least when young......

bonsaibuddyman wrote:but the botanist I spoke to says it is torulosa, so... go figure.

I'm just wondering if it might be some other species using torulosa? Though the only one I can find is the Himalayan or Bhutan Cypress - Cupressus torulosa.

Cheers

Drac0 wrote: Anyway, would really love to find out what the smooth bark one being called Casuarina torulosa really is, looks like a nice tree, at least when young......

bonsaibuddyman wrote:but the botanist I spoke to says it is torulosa, so... go figure.

I'm just wondering if it might be some other species using torulosa? Though the only one I can find is the Himalayan or Bhutan Cypress - Cupressus torulosa.

Cheers

Yeah, I can positively assure you, it is from the Casuarinaceae family, that much is 100% certain. It in no way resembles anything else, but that is getting sidetracked. It is perfectly identical to the needles and stems on the allocasuarina torulosa, just a teeny tiny little bit thicker. However, I am comparing this to an already cut back and regrown stem and needles of the allocasuarina torulosa, so before the needles are reduced in size, it is the EXACT same, obviously apart from the bark.

It is likely that your smooth barked 'torulosa' is actually a different species...but not in the way you think. It may have been collected under the pre-tense that it was C. torulosa or A. torulosa and so on but may in fact be something entirely different like C. cumminghamiana, which is likely given the bark. The only way to know for sure would be to grow it on until it fruits unfortunately. The fruit is the easiest way to tell which genus your specimen belongs to. Allocasurina have a significantly different looking fruit with the 'lids' of the seed openings being almost shield like while Casurina has thin coverings. Another key identifier is the number of teeth that are present on the joins between the pieces of the 'needles', but this is more useful when you are drilling down at the species level.

Getting hold of a decent key that is specific for these two genus will make it relatively easy to identify which species you have, but you will need a good glossary to go with it as there will be a bunch of technical plant part names used. PlantNet is a great free key to use, but it can be tricky.

http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/cgi-b ... n=OK&dist=

Ninegrain wrote:It is likely that your smooth barked 'torulosa' is actually a different species...but not in the way you think. It may have been collected under the pre-tense that it was C. torulosa or A. torulosa and so on but may in fact be something entirely different like C. cumminghamiana, which is likely given the bark. The only way to know for sure would be to grow it on until it fruits unfortunately. The fruit is the easiest way to tell which genus your specimen belongs to. Allocasurina have a significantly different looking fruit with the 'lids' of the seed openings being almost shield like while Casurina has thin coverings. Another key identifier is the number of teeth that are present on the joins between the pieces of the 'needles', but this is more useful when you are drilling down at the species level.

Getting hold of a decent key that is specific for these two genus will make it relatively easy to identify which species you have, but you will need a good glossary to go with it as there will be a bunch of technical plant part names used. PlantNet is a great free key to use, but it can be tricky.

http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/cgi-b ... n=OK&dist=

I appreciate your comments. It is definitely not cunninghamiana, I know that species very well. It is absolutely identical to the other variant torulosa except for the differences in bark. As the C. Torulosa gets older, it gets a distinctive bark which cracks and ages nicely too, but it is completely different from cunninghamiana, glauca, liitoralis etc etc. It may be a different casuarina species, but I doubt it. It appears identical to A. Torulosa except for the bark. it even develops the trademark bulge at the base. The botanist I spoke to said they are indeed the same, just genetic variation. I lost the much older C. Torulosa that I had because it was just out of reach of the water sprinkler when we went on holidays but I have plenty more seedlings that I will cherish and allow to flourish.