Lama Temple

[ShmuBamboo]

Hey Shmu.

Harbin Inversa is my favorite bamboo (so far). Had your BG lama temple survived, do you have a sense for how big it would have been compared to the Inversas?

No, not really. I got mine in a deal from BG right when they got them in and they were propagating them, so they did not have any in the ground or full size in pots. The Lama Temple that I had was smaller than Yellow Groove for sure though. I have all my Phy. aureosulcatas in the ground here. Alata and Yellow Groove are the same height and the largest of the lot. Spectabilis and auroecaulis are shorter, and about the same height as Harbin Inversa. Harbin is the shortest of the lot.

[ShmuBamboo]

As far as green stripes on aureosulcatas, some very mature aureosulcata aureocaulis at Bamboo and Koi Gardens have random green stripes at the base. Castillon will do the same thing here when they are fully mature; they will have random green stripes at the base of the culms and not just green on the sulcus.

I think if Lama Temple is a sport or cultivar that it should be named Phy. aureosulcata aureocaulis 'Lama Temple'. As for Temple as a name, that is the common name for Semi. fastuosa. I have a lot of that. As for Harbin Inversa as a name, that is terrible, as it has nothing to do with Harbin, nor is it a sport or cultivar of Harbin. Harbin inversa is a random culmination of all the aureosulcata traits, except the ridges of Harbin. Streaks, stripes, bends, etc. It is a premium bamboo specimen on my property here.

BG has some photos of mature Phy. a. Lama Temple and Noah gives an account of the size, shape and color after being in the ground there for several years now. I do not always agree with BG on things, but I have learned to do some research before I come up with a contrasting theory to what they print. I always have interesting conversations whenever I am out there anyway. Woody would probably have a better account of where BG's Lama Temple cultivars came from originally, but he does not work there any more.

[Nicholas]

I think if Lama Temple is a sport or cultivar that it should be named Phy. aureosulcata aureocaulis 'Lama Temple'.

Isn't this generally the case? As far as I can tell there is just an endless number of "cultivars" all with the "Lama Temple" addition.

e.g spectabilis "Lama Temple", spectabilis "Lama Temple 2", aureocaulis "Lama Temple", aureocaulis "Green-Stripe Lama Temple" or plain old aureosulcata "Lama Temple"

I guess this is in part also a marketing strategy as aureosulcata is generally abundantly available. What are you going to buy, the plain old aureosulcata aureocaulis or the flashy aureosulcata aureocaulis "Lama Temple" (does sound more exotic....).

To me there is often just not enough of a difference to really justify all the cultivar names, aside from trying to highlight their different import origins.

[wufeng]

As far as green stripes on aureosulcatas, some very mature aureosulcata aureocaulis at Bamboo and Koi Gardens have random green stripes at the base. Castillon will do the same thing here when they are fully mature

Not only mature P.a. aureocaulis have green stripes, many clones in the trade produce green stripes on young plants too. I think it is genetically coused. Some clones have stronger tendency to made green stripes, some are only yellow, or green stripes are very thin and very rarely present. I have seen this variability in many gardens.

I think if Lama Temple is a sport or cultivar that it should be named Phy. aureosulcata aureocaulis 'Lama Temple'.

I agree, I think bambooogardens name Phyllostachys aureosulcata "Lama Temple" is confusing.

Harbin inversa is a random culmination of all the aureosulcata traits, except the ridges of Harbin. Streaks, stripes, bends, etc. It is a premium bamboo specimen on my property here.

I think, better example "a random culmination of all the aureosulcata traits, except the ridges of Harbin" is Phyllostachys aureosulcata Argus (flavostriata). For me really nice new introduction. Have green sulcus like spectabilis and green stripes like Harbin-invera. Coloration is vissible on small stems yet, but on small Harbin-inversa stems green stripes are not vissible. I think Argus is better. Try it, i can recomend it.

[johnw]

Now that the name Lama Temple has been applied to so many different aureosulcatas and appeared in print my guess is the name would be disallowed as a nomen confusum by the powers to be. The marketers have screwed up a perfectly good name. However it may be all for the best, if none of the forms are any different than those that were around long before the imports were made.

[wufeng]

Now that the name Lama Temple has been applied to so many different aureosulcatas and appeared in print my guess is the name would be disallowed as a nomen confusum by the powers to be. The marketers have screwed up a perfectly good name. However it may be all for the best, if none of the forms are any different than those that were around long before the imports were made.

You are not right. Not now has been applied, these names (Lama Temple) has been applied for many years in continental Europe (at least 15-20 years). Mistakes (Phyllostachys aureosulcata aureocaulis Lama Temple - reverts to Phyllostachys aureosulcata Lama Temple) first appears in GB (I notice) and follow to US. There, in continental Europe I have no problem if i have oportunity buy "normal" or Lama Temple clon. I can choose one or two, it depend only on my solution. If there are differencies between them, it is another question, but at least Phyllostachys aureosulcata aureocaulis Lama Temple and Phyllostachys aureosulcata aureocaulis seems little bit different for me.

As far as I can tell there is just an endless number of "cultivars" all with the "Lama Temple" addition.

e.g spectabilis "Lama Temple", spectabilis "Lama Temple 2", aureocaulis "Lama Temple", aureocaulis "Green-Stripe Lama Temple" or plain old aureosulcata "Lama Temple"

I guess this is in part also a marketing strategy as aureosulcata is generally abundantly available. What are you going to buy, the plain old aureosulcata aureocaulis or the flashy aureosulcata aureocaulis "Lama Temple" (does sound more exotic....).

To me there is often just not enough of a difference to really justify all the cultivar names, aside from trying to highlight their different import origins.

I agree partially with Nicholas. Of course that it is good marketing, because Lama Temple in the name, sounds great, but according my experience, if you offer "normal" clone or Lama Temple clone, ordinary customer buy one or another, usually not both of them. Only bamboo collectors or very interested people have tendency to try both or are seeking more info about them. But it is only a few people, so i think, profit is not big.

For me,it is not bad, to have labeled different imports. In some bamboo kinds it is very important to know it. For example Phyllostachys propinqua Li Yu Gan, very hardy bamboo, is very different from another imports, especially in hardiness, so for my cold localities I need this one and it is good, that has name Li Yu Gan. Mess is with Phyllostachys nigra Boryana. In Europe i have experience with at least two different clones. Hardiness between them is very different. But if you want buy more hardy clone, you dont know where, because nobody has labeled these two.

P.S. P.a. aureocaulis "Green-Stripe Lama Temple" doesn exist - see my post here: http://www.bambooweb.info/bb/viewtopic. ... 7&start=45

[johnw]

"You are not right. Not now has been applied, these names (Lama Temple) has been applied for many years in continental Europe"

Whoever gets to the Registrar first will be the winner. Sound like one nursery is responsible for this terrible mix-up??

[wufeng]

Whoever gets to the Registrar first will be the winner. Sound like one nursery is responsible for this terrible mix-up??

Only what I know is, that Lama Temple clones has been sold for many years by F. Vaupel, (http://www.bambus-lexikon.de/ - but informations were available mainly in German language. First notice about Lama Temple clones in English, I think, is in Paul Whittaker book, Timing Dragon. On page 135 he describe different clone of aureocaulis under the name Phyllostachys aureosulcata "Lama Temple". I think he starts this mix-up.

[johnw]

On page 135 PaulW describes one and only one Aureocaulis type as 'Lama Tempel', note the German spelling. As he has it in ' 's then it should be a valid name. The accompanying picture looks quite like the one here.

On Vaupel's site he lists the ones shown in the attachment below. Those names in ' 's contravene nomenclatural regulations, those regulations state one cannot include any Latin names in a cultivar name and that's precisely what he's done. So the mess lies squarely with him.

See http://www.actahort.org/chronica/pdf/sh_10.pdf for more.

[wufeng]

On page 135 PaulW describes one and only one Aureocaulis type as 'Lama Tempel', note the German spelling. As he has it in ' 's then it should be a valid name. The accompanying picture looks quite like the one here.

On Vaupel's site he lists the ones shown in the attachment below. Those names in ' 's contravene nomenclatural regulations, those regulations state one cannot include any Latin names in a cultivar name and that's precisely what he's done. So the mess lies squarely with him.

See http://www.actahort.org/chronica/pdf/sh_10.pdf for more.

I agree with you. Vaupel describes different imports like cultivars. It is nonsense.

If P. Whittaker have describe new cultivar, you are right again. Name could be valid. Problem is, that is not clear if plant, he describe, is really cultivated plant or is identical with Vaupels Phyllostachys aureosulcata aureocaulis Lama Tempel. I think both looks similar, so i think these plants are identical. But we can only guess. P. Whittaker doesn know source of this plant. (I ask him a few years ago by email).

What I mean "he starts this mix-up" is, that he choose name Lama Tempel. It looks like he mean this plant is Vaupels Phyllostachys aureosulcata aureocaulis Lama Tempel. If his cultivar is new, could be better to choose another name.

Your point of view is strictly about nomenclature, for me it is not so important. Much more important for me is to know, which plant is under the specific name. If this name is valid acording nomenclature or is distributed under the bad name, but everyone know, what plant it is, i have no problem with it.

Sometimes is not possible to choose right name, I think.

For example: I have two Harbin-inversa clones.
One is mutation from Phyllostachys aureosulcata spectabilis in private garden. So it is cultivar, acording nomenclature.
Second one is from nature. Discovered in China in Phyllostachys aureosulcata spectabilis growing in the wild. So it is not cultivar but variety, acording nomenclature. (I hope i am right in English)
So what is it? Cultivar, variety? For me it is not important if i know that Harbin-inversa is yellow with green stripes. It is important for me.

So for me mess starts with Whittakers book, but I dont want to advocate Vaupels aureosulcata "cultivars". He has another mistakes on his website, too, but it is another discussion.

[johnw]

Wufeng - I wonder who the world registrar for Bamboo is? If you email me Paul's address I would write to him about this matter. I have asked Susanne Lucas.

I suppose the real nightmare is as you mention reversions that happen to named bamboo cultivars. Much the same happened to Dwarf Alberta spruce, first Gnom apopeared on the previous, then Pixie appeared on Gnom and so it goes. Then a label gets switched and no one can tell what's what.

[Leo S]

You guys are getting so wound up you almost sound like a pack of orchid growers. Relax and accept that as horticulturists we would like to uniquely identify each color variation with a unique name. Botanical taxonomy can not do this for us, botanical taxonomy has a purpose to identify populations, species and unique geographic races. Taxonomy rules specificlly say it is not to be used to name a ''one of a kind'' mutation. It's purpose is not to be used to name individual clones.

'Lama Tempel' or 'Lama Temple' in single quotes refers to a single clone or single seedling of Phyllostachys aureosulcata. The name Phyllostachys aureosulcata is a species name and is sufficient to be used for all individual clones within the species. This means Phyllostachys aureosulcata 'Lama Temple' is one correct way to describe this clone. Phyllostachys aureosulcata aureocaulis 'Lama Temple' is a second correct way to refer to the same clone, if and only if, the original 'Lama Temple' was described as a sport or seedling from a plant of P. aureosulcata aureocaulis. But one would have to look at the original description to see what the provenance or origin of the original clone was. If no direct link to aureocaulis was made in the original description, if it was of unknown origin, then the correct name would be simply P. aureosulcata 'Lama Temple' or 'Lama Tempel' depending on which language you were typing in.

I believe the assortment of names you are worrying about all refer to a single clone of Phyllostachys aureosulcata, I dont believe there are multiple clones out there. So this is just a case of people being uniformed about how to correctly use botanical taxonomy.

As my interest is horticulture, I am not concerned about taxonomy at all, except toward the need to understand which clone I am purchasing

Truth be told, most of the publish taxonomic varieties used would most likely be reduced to forma status if reviewed by a Phd botanical taxonomist. But taxonomists are rare, and expensive to employ, so we should just muddle though without getting too excited about the tangled mess of names we have to deal with.

Someone asked about what constitutes a valid publication of a clonal name. Validity of a publication is complicated, with rules as to how, where, when, and distribution. But few rules about type of publication exist. There are examples where a vendors catalog was considered sufficient. If you want valid publication information, you really need to pursue this yourself, because even taxonomists have a hard time sorting out this issue. If a name appears in the Kew index, that alone does not mean it was validly published. Most people have no clue just how twisty and difficult the issue of valid publication can be. This topic I also leave to those dedicated souls that take the time to search the herbariums and botanical libraries of the world, because the majority of publication do not exist in digital formats. Whole genera of orchids have been renamed, after a century of using a name assigned by a European, because a Journal published a few years earlier than the European one surfaced in a library in Peru. Both names were over one hundred years old but the Peruvian name was older by a couple years. So validity is a difficult issue to really hang an argument on unless one really has a complete library of all relevant literature.

At this point I need to stop typing and do something more productive, like water my orchids and the few bamboo I have indoors.

[johnw]

As my interest is horticulture, I am not concerned about taxonomy at all, except toward the need to understand which clone I am purchasing

Yes wound up for precisely that reason. What is the unitiated to do when offered 15 different clones of 'Spectabilis' by a nurseryman when only one exists. Notable cultivar names should be registered or put to print so we know what we are getting. Worse still are the false hardiness ratings of bamboos made by seemingly reputable nurseries.

[wufeng]

Wufeng -If you email me Paul's address I would write to him about this matter.

Code: Select all

pw@hardybamboo.com

but he sells his nursery, so i dont know if this adress is still valid.

There is his answear from email:

" I obtained my plant from another gardener who I think got it from Germany (a nurseryman). "

So you can try ask him again, but i think, it does not make sense, becouse he only guess.

As my interest is horticulture, I am not concerned about taxonomy at all, except toward the need to understand which clone I am purchasing

At this point I need to stop typing and do something more productive, like water my orchids and the few bamboo I have indoors.

I agree with Leo S, stop talking about taxonomy, bamboos are waiting for us.

[johnw]

"I agree with Leo S, stop talking about taxonomy, bamboos are waiting for us"

Some knowledge is better than none. With a little understanding of naming rules one would immediately suspect the validity of Vaupel's names.

Meanwhile yes the bamboos wait. Friend reports his big P. aureosulcata 'Aureocaulis' is pretty much green with little damage as of yesterday (actually drove past it today and from afar looks like the top 2+ft of foliage is fried, otherwise green down to head height) . Low was circa -.5F / -17.8c. Fargesias - aside from 'Rufa' & 'Scabrida' - are still curled here but I expect no damage, they never fail.