AusBonsai

Hi Everyone,

Since I joined Ausbonsai recently I've been enjoying trawling through previous threads regarding a sometimes contentious issue; Australian native styling. The debate can sometimes get heated which underlines the passion people on this board can have on this topic.
A common point made is that there is too wide a variety of species, climate and even differences within same species to allow a definition of an “Australian Style”. Another point often made is that despite the previous statement, most people will instinctively recognise a large Eucalypt, regardless of the seemingly endless variations of trees in the wild.

So where does this leave us?

I'd like to start a discussion with a very narrow focus with the goal of coming up with a list of traits that would help as a guide for anyone wanting to design a tree to invoke the images we see in the wild.

River Red Gums are a favourite of mine and despite the enormous range of shapes and styles we see everywhere we all seem to be able to recognise one from a distance, and I believe that there are still some characteristics that is common to most of these trees.

So here's a couple of points to kick things off. Feel free to disagree, or better still, add to the list!

1. Lower branches are massive, often approaching the width of the trunk.
2. Even if a branch falls below the horizontal, it starts by leaving the trunk almost vertically.
3. Branches have a “wavy” appearance, often with dead stumps underneath the branch.

I've got more, but I'd like to hear from others.

Matt.

I'll bite mate.

Also one of my favourite trees. Here's a couple I have observed...

The silhouettes of old trees with a lot of growing room (i.e. open paddocks, cleared groves and river banks etc) resembles that of Ginko trees in leaf but with a lot more space between the pads

Deadwood and shari are a common feature of aged and wild trees.

good thread idea mate.

Cheers,

Ces.

Thanks Ces.

Yes, the Ginko's also tend to have upright branches, even on old tees. Foliage pads are complex on the gums, sometimes indistinct blobs but the overall effect is a soft hemisphere, like an umbrella.

Deadwood can be found throughout the tree, from large scars on the trunk to stumps within the branches.

Matt.

Beautiful tree. I shall contribute with pictures...

https://sjri.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/o ... d-gum-tre/

I only have one growing in my trees, and compared with this beast, it is indeed little.

Search "FlyBri", you'll find some interesting observations.

Gavin

Thanks for the tip Gavin, I'll start digging.
It would be good to consolidate some of these observations into one place.

Matt.

bonsaibuddyman wrote:Beautiful tree. I shall contribute with pictures...

https://sjri.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/o ... d-gum-tre/

I only have one growing in my trees, and compared with this beast, it is indeed little.

that one is almost like a clump style

Nice idea for a thread.
Eucs to me are quite open and airy with branches heading up and out@ 45 deg or so. the teeminal foliage not too dense.

Ken

Thanks Ken.

Yes the foliage is often concentrated at the tips leaving the branches mostly bare.

Anyone got any thoughts on the base? It seems to me that you don't see many flaring, buttressed roots. Although you often see a large lignotuber.

Matt.

Dunno about River reds ( not many round here ), but in the bush, trees that are growing on Sandstone tend to have large spreading bases.

Ken

I am a strong believer that we should shape our trees in a fashion which pleases us, personal expression of art in a living subject.
"Natural Style" is described in John Naka's bonsai techniques 1 printed in the 1970's
Dan Robinson (USA) author of Gnarly Branches Ancient Trees, stressed that trees are more beautiful if they appear to have never been touched by human hands regardless of how much it has been manipulated.
Robert Steven teaches that what we create must be credible, growth habits of different species should be respected.

Australian Style?
First there is a tree
Then there is manipulation in a pleasing fashion, this consists of choosing a front, potting angle, pruning, wiring etc.
Then the tree is presented for viewing
LAST someone will describe the tree by placing it in one of the categories of accepted styles.
If someone was to suggest that they are growing a tree in the "Australian Style" should I picture a river red gum? or perhaps a bottle tree? or a huon pine?

Hi Gerard,

I appreciate your comments. I agree that "Australian Style" is a very broad definition and isn't much use to us, which is why this discussion is very narrowly focused on 1 species.

My thoughts are that in order for us to create credible designs that respects the growth habits of a species we should first try and understand the growth habits and shapes we see in the wild, particularly of those trees that inspire us. That's what this thread is attempting to do.

As stated before, I believe that despite the wide variety of styles we see in Red Gums in the wild there are still some underlying principles that are common to all, and I'd like to capture them to help guide those of us who'd like to have a tree that invokes the same feelings we get when contemplating a magnificent Red Gum in the wild.

I'll leave discussions on the merits of a local style for another thread.

Matt.

Hi Ken,

Those trees growing on sandstone with a flaring root base, do they include Eucalypts?

Matt.

Matt S wrote:Hi Ken,

Those trees growing on sandstone with a flaring root base, do they include Eucalypts?

Matt.

Yep sure do.
Was up at Dunns Swamp ( Wollemi National park) and there are many of them around there with roots growing out and over the rock slabs.
did not have a camera with me but they are cool

Ken

Matt S wrote:Hi Gerard,
I'll leave discussions on the merits of a local style for another thread.

Matt.

this comment reminded me of this thread from the early dayz of A.B. It is worth a re read every now and then too
viewtopic.php?f=7&t=52

and this one is not bad either
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=13478

Ken