Registration of Cultivar Names in Ulmus - Arnoldia - Harvard ...

the kindness
of Mlle. Y. de Ferre it is understood that two individual trees still exist in the
original locality, still show resistance to insect attack, and are probably two of
the plants referred to by Carriere. They prove to be U. laevis, of which plantings
had been made at that locality in the 18th century, and not U. glabra
most of the U. laevis.
eaten by insects whilst those of the common type are. Through
(U. communis) which had been planted to replace
’Oxfortii’ (Wesmael in Bull. Fed. Soc. Hort. Belg. 1862: 389. 1863, as U. campestris
var. nuda subvar. fastigiata oxfortii Hort. Vilv. ) . Described as a py-
’SAR-
ramidal tree with the leaves not lying against the branches. Possibly =
NIENSIS’.
’Oxoniensis’ (Audibert, Tonelle, France, Cat. 2, p. 53. 1831-32,
69 9
as U. suberosa
oxoniensis, without description; Wesmael in Bull. Fed. Soc. Hort. Belg. 1862:
389. 1863, as U. campestris var. nuda subvar. fastigiata oxoniensis Hort. Vilv.).
Described as a pyramidal tree with the leaves perceptibly lying
branches. Possibly
an error for ’Exoniensis’.
towards the
’Parasol’ (Koch, Dendr. 2 (1) : 417. 1872, name in synonymy ) _ ’HORIZONTALIS’.
’PENDENS’ (Rehder in Jour. Arnold Arb. 26: 473. 1945, as U. parvifolia f. pen-
dens). Described as having long, loosely pendulous branches. Originated in
California before 1930 from seed of the typical plant received from China.
U. parvifolia.
pendula (Aiton, Hort. Kew. 1: 320. 1789, as U. americana var. pendula). Has
a vase-shaped habit but with branches pendulous at their ends. This habit is
part of the natural variation of U. americana and would seem to warrant no
higher botanical rank than forma. It is doubtful if the original clone cultivated
in Britain in 1752 still exists. It was later confused with a pendulous variant of
-
U. _
glabra.
’PENDULA’ (Masters, Hort. Duroverni 66. 1831, as U. campestris pendula, without
description; Krussmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 537. 1962, as a cv.) = ‘SMITHII’.
’Pendula’ (Audibert, Tonelle, France, Cat. 2, p. 53. 1831-32, as U. suberosa
pendula, without description) = ‘PROPENDENS’.
’Pendula’ (Loddiges, Hackney, London, Cat. 1836 [not seen]; Loudon, Arb. Frut.
Brit. 3: 1398. 1838, as U. montana var. pendula; Kriissmann in Parey’s Blumengartn.
ed. 2. 1: 519. 1958, as a cv.) = ‘HORIZONTALIS’.
’PENDULA’ (David in Revue Hort. II. 4: 101. 1845, as U. campestris pendula;
Krussmann, Handb. Laubgeh. 2: 540. 1962, as a cv. ) . Described as having
small leaves with equal teeth and pendulous branches. U. pumila.
’Pendula’ ( Kirchner in Petzold & Kirchner, Arb. Muscav. 565. 1864, not of Loudon
1838, as U. montana var. pendula) = ’CAMPERDOWNII’.
’PENDULA’ (C. de Vos, Handboek 20. 1887, as U. sativa pendula [not seen]);
Boom, Ned. Dendr. 1: 158. 1959, as a cv.). Described as having slender