AusBonsai

[quote="Pup"][quote="treebuilder"]lol,
PS double post

treebuilder wrote:lol,
The only mel rhaphs you can judge by are the ones shown on this forum and they are pretty standard.
it's good progress from the op on this tree.

Ah Craig you're such a stirrer .

Sno wrote:

treebuilder wrote:lol,
The only mel rhaphs you can judge by are the ones shown on this forum and they are pretty standard.
it's good progress from the op on this tree.

Ah Craig you're such a stirrer .

Thought the same, still stand by my post,s

Sno wrote:

treebuilder wrote:lol,
The only mel rhaphs you can judge by are the ones shown on this forum and they are pretty standard.
it's good progress from the op on this tree.

Ah Craig you're such a stirrer .

Rory wrote:

By this I mean I prefer anchoring branches and clip-&-grow over wiring...I prefer to develop branch thickness first over solid placement and ramification, but this also depends on the species for bulging / back-budding etc.

Correct, but I don't know how species dependent it is. All the trees I have observed grow the same way. Sometimes you can trace the continuation of a branch from beginning to end but there are always other branches further back developing at more or less the same rate as the leader. The braches immediately behind the leader start to grow one year later and the ones behind those a year before etc etc. To explain further, if we look at the diagram below, we can see that there is one main branch starting at A and ending at B. However, (and this is my point) ,you cannot take a long branch from A and wire it down to B and expect to ''fill in'' the rest later. It is actually a beginner's way of doing things.
You want the branches in the blue circles to be approximately the same age (and diameter) as area C. If they are grown later after first wiring the main line from A to B, by the time they are the diameter of area C the original branch will be way too thick and out of scale with the rest. Not to mention The line from A to B will become all the more obvious and artificial looking.
Therefore, for a more natural and I think pleasing and satisfying image, we will need to develop the branch and it's ramifications as we go. The only way to do this is to cut and grow. Strangely enough, I have noticed that for many average sized bonsai, you can count approximately 10 points where there is a divergence in the branch before you get to the end. You would assume that this would mean 10 cuts and you're there, but the reality of course is that there are many more because you are continually replacing the leader with a new one. Some very old trees would have possibly have branches cut 1000 times before reaching their tips. But for the sake of illustrating the point, About 10 is a good working number.

jumping_jack wrote:

A 'Rolling Stone ' gathers no moss

Who knows whether it is right or wrong?
Somewhere out there in the Never Never there will be a Melaleuca growing similarly to this. Some environmental, or genetic factor, will have imposed this form on the tree.
Let's appreciate this current tree of Hugh's as a piece of Art. It will work for some, but not for others.
Whether the horticultural requirements of this species will tolerate the design Hugh has come up with remains to be seen. I suspect some very careful management of strong and weak growing areas of the tree will be required.
In the meantime register for the Sixth Symposium on Australian Native plants to see Australian Natives designed and discussed. All the considerations previously spoken about will be discussed.