ID please on this paper bark

[peterb]

Hi All
Please could somebody help me ID this tree, it was growing in my garden and missus didn't want it anymore so I dug it up and put it in a pot last year mid spring. When I dug it up I cut it back to bare wood, no foliage at all. It has back budded profusely except on the part of the trunk that had started to form paper bark. What I want to know is 1) what species it is 2)how far down do you guys ( and gals )think I can cut it back and 3)what sort of style should I be aiming for. Thanks folk for any input
regards
peterb

[Pup]

Looks like Melaleuca lanceolata, but I could be wrong, it has been known.

[Jarad]

I could be wrong, it has been known.

Not when it comes to Melaleucas Pup.

[Elmar]

Love the bark on it (1st pic) , Peter.
Nice save!


Cheers
Elmar

[treebuilder]

do lanceolata backbud? wrong type of bark also i think.gd luck.

[Pup]

Common name Moonah black tea tree. ( Quote A variable tree shrub from 1 mtr to 8 mtrs a rounded tree with firm fibrous bark , the linear to elliptical leaves are 4-12 mm long and 1-1.5 mm wide.)

The ones I have grown do not shoot back on OLD wood.

Cheers Pup

[Joel]

Looks like Melaleuca lanceolata, but I could be wrong, it has been known.

Sorry Pup but this is definitely not Melaleuca lanceolata. Lanceolata refers to the lance shaped leaves. This specimen does not have lance shaped leaves but rather auriculate or rhombic (need better pics - in sunlight would be best).

[Pup]

Looks like Melaleuca lanceolata, but I could be wrong, it has been known.

Sorry Pup but this is definitely not Melaleuca lanceolata. Lanceolata refers to the lance shaped leaves. This specimen does not have lance shaped leaves but rather auriculate or rhombic (need better pics - in sunlight would be best).

Joel my quote is from the book by John Wrigley and Murray Fagg, are you saying they have described it wrong?

[Ryceman3]

Looks like Melaleuca lanceolata, but I could be wrong, it has been known.

Sorry Pup but this is definitely not Melaleuca lanceolata. Lanceolata refers to the lance shaped leaves. This specimen does not have lance shaped leaves but rather auriculate or rhombic (need better pics - in sunlight would be best).

I think I might agree with Joel. The lack of clarity/focus in the first few shots meant I could believe it was Lanceolata, but the last shot looks nothing like the leaf structure/shape or the configuration along the branch (at least compared to mine - which is 100% Lanceolata)... some better pics might help to resolve what it could be.

[Pup]

I think I had better give up growing mels especially lanceolata and its cultivars. As I cannot identify them after 20 years.

Bye

[Sno]

Maybe Melaleuca gibbosa ' slender honey myrtle' . I have one and it buds back when cut .

[Joel]

Looks like Melaleuca lanceolata, but I could be wrong, it has been known.

Sorry Pup but this is definitely not Melaleuca lanceolata. Lanceolata refers to the lance shaped leaves. This specimen does not have lance shaped leaves but rather auriculate or rhombic (need better pics - in sunlight would be best).

Joel my quote is from the book by John Wrigley and Murray Fagg, are you saying they have described it wrong?

You quoted three things - the size, the bark and the leaf size. We don't know what size it will get to. It's too young to know the bark type. Even if it is displaying mature bark, it isn't fibrous anyway. This leaves us with only the leaves which don't fit the description. Even if they did, there would be approx. 1000 other native plants that would have leaves in that range.

Pup, there's no need to get defensive. I'm not attacking you but trying to help eliminate the species that don't fit. Botany is a science. Like all sciences, you shoot down the fallible hypotheses and the one that remains is most likely to be true.

[Rory]

Hi All
What I want to know is 1) what species it is 2)how far down do you guys ( and gals )think I can cut it back and 3)what sort of style should I be aiming for.
peterb

Hi Peter,

You have heard the differing words of advice from members here of what species Melalueca you have. FYI, I have seen Casuarina/Callistemon grow completely different to the way they are 'described' or 'meant' to grow for the species. Thus I can understand the differing views of others'. Remember though, you will get variations in all species and there may be differences in the look of new foliage, like callistemon pinifolius for example, which only gets its long thin leaves as it ages. We are all human and only know what we are experienced with. PUP is literally a bible of knowledge, so take from it what you will. Personally I wouldn't sweat it about the exact species, as I have a few wild grown Casuarina that I wouldn't have a clue what species they are, but I have them down pat for looking after them well, so its all good either way. Just give it moderate Melalueca care in general to remain in good health.

As you have already said Peter, it didn't bud back on the older wood. Thus, you would assume to only cut back to where it has shot from already, so as not to risk losing the trunk (ie leave a bit of foliage below any further cuts). If you are trying to cut back lower, you may run the risk of having it die back and shoot from the base, so it is always a risk. [Just FYI, I have had this happen on an aged Mel paperbark that I originally cut back to about 15cm from the base and it shot like crazy from about 5cm down from the cut. I then cut back further a year later, and it died right back to the base. So many sad memories.]

I imagine you would have next to no hope of bending those trunks any more, and I wouldn't bother. Some might attempt strong bending though (in the middle section). Style it with the branches gradually upwards, and perhaps a slight broken broom style (split sections of the 'broom', so that it shows some spacing for visual appeal). I lean towards Mels with lots of gaps in the canopy, placing more emphasis on the trunk. I would just work with what is growing now so you could create long branching and secondary branching etc that reaches high to emulate that natural look that Mels often get. The canopy often shades and kills everything below this, which would compliment your tree because of the lack of growth on those middle sections and may give it a more natural aesthetic appeal.

If you want to try bringing the foliage lower, only cut back so you leave at least a small amount of growth, so as not to risk losing one trunk, similar to what I do with Casuarina so as not to risk losing the trunk. There isn't a lot of movement in the middle sections, thus you could just continue the upward growth into clouds from up high.

Good luck with it Peter, and congratulations on a free aged piece of stock.

[sreeve]

Hi Peter
For the last goodness knows how many years, my WA mate has always hit it on the head and been right every time. However, I think your tree looks similar to one I have which I think is a Melaleuca Squarrosa.

If so, mine buds back readily on old wood and can be cut back extremely hard.

They grow in a variety of natural styles from shrubby, to typical aussie non-descript, to a massive tree.
There is one about 400m from my house and it would be at least 5ft in diameter at the base and is a most impressive powerful tree.

Anyway, hope the above is of some assistance (at worst it will help crossing off another name...)

Regards
Steve

[Elmar]

Just been googling the two main 'Contenders' names and found this:

Mel. Lanceolata.jpg

and this:

Melaleuca_squarrosa.jpg

Look very similar (both images from Wikipedia) ... and resemble the tree in question.