Hello everyone,

I saw these plants quite emaciated and being suffocated under my lilac
bush 2 years ago. Unaware of what they were I dug them up in 3 clumps
and re-planted them in a vacant space in the garden. Since then they
have thrived. They flower in late summer/early fall and on a warm
sunny day, the bees (of both the bumble and honey persuasions) are
attracted in droves. However the mint is constantly vying for space.

I don't know what this plant is. Neither does my Mom, the
time-honoured gardner that she is. Can anyone help? Area is south
Ontario Canada. Image at:

http://home.ca.inter.net/~deniswb/Mystery.jpg

Thanks in advance,

Denny

You must be kidding.

Its Hylotelephium (formerly Sedum) 'Autumn Joy', a succulent garden hybrid
widely grown in cultivation.


"Nudest" wrote in message
om...
Hello everyone,

I saw these plants quite emaciated and being suffocated under my lilac
bush 2 years ago. Unaware of what they were I dug them up in 3 clumps
and re-planted them in a vacant space in the garden. Since then they
have thrived. They flower in late summer/early fall and on a warm
sunny day, the bees (of both the bumble and honey persuasions) are
attracted in droves. However the mint is constantly vying for space.

I don't know what this plant is. Neither does my Mom, the
time-honoured gardner that she is. Can anyone help? Area is south
Ontario Canada. Image at:

http://home.ca.inter.net/~deniswb/Mystery.jpg

Thanks in advance,

Denny

U¿ytkownik "Nudest" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
om...

| I don't know what this plant is. Image at:
|
| http://home.ca.inter.net/~deniswb/Mystery.jpg

Surely it is Sedum spectabilis (stonecrop)?

B.

It appears that "Hylotelephium" is a sub species of Sedum.and means
'spectacular woody plant'.
The RHS plantfinder still refers you to sedum

--
David Hill
Abacus nurseries
www.abacus-nurseries.co.uk

No.

When Sedum section Telephium was raised to the rank of a separate genus, it
was named Hylotelephium by H.Ohba in 1978 because the generic name Telephium
was already in use for a completely different group of plants.

RHS plantfinder is completely out-of-date for Sedum as well as many other
genera of plants. It is not a reliable reference at all.


"David Hill" wrote in message
...
It appears that "Hylotelephium" is a sub species of Sedum.and means
'spectacular woody plant'.
The RHS plantfinder still refers you to sedum

--
David Hill
Abacus nurseries
www.abacus-nurseries.co.uk

No. Look closer and you will see many differences.

Hylotelephium (formerly Sedum) spactabile has a flat-topped inflorescence
and flowers with the stamens much longer than the petals. Also the leaves
are flat with shallowly lobed leaves that are alternate, paired or in
threes.

The plants is Hylotelephium (formerly Sedum) 'Autumn Joy' which has rounded
inflorescences and sterile flowers with stamens mostly absent or very short.
Also the leaves are prominently lobed and shell-shaped cupped.


"Basia Kulesz" wrote in message
...

U¿ytkownik "Nudest" napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci
om...

| I don't know what this plant is. Image at:
|
| http://home.ca.inter.net/~deniswb/Mystery.jpg

Surely it is Sedum spectabilis (stonecrop)?

B.

I don't know what this plant is. Neither does my Mom, the
time-honoured gardner that she is. Can anyone help?

Sedum 'Autumn Joy'?
sed5555

now called Hylotelephium 'Autumn Joy'


"Sed5555" wrote in message
...
I don't know what this plant is. Neither does my Mom, the
time-honoured gardner that she is. Can anyone help?

Sedum 'Autumn Joy'?
sed5555

now called Hylotelephium 'Autumn Joy'

Why so it has. Thanks.
sed5555

Despite the fact that the average gardener has absolutely no idea why any
plant is so named the way it is, I will tell you why.

Bottom line:

Type species for genus Sedum L. is Sedum acre L. and is a dwarf evergreen
perennial with connate kyphocarpic carpels.

Genus Hylotelephium H.Ohba (formerly Sedum section Telephium) are deciduous
perennials, usually with a tuberous rootstock, and with separate stipitate
(slender stalked) carpels.

It should be obvious that the growth form of Hylotelephium is very different
from that of typical Sedum.

Dissect the flowers and you will the differences between the two genera.


"Sed5555" wrote in message
...
now called Hylotelephium 'Autumn Joy'

Why so it has. Thanks.
sed5555

"Cereus-validus" wrote in message
m...
Despite the fact that the average gardener has absolutely no idea why any
plant is so named the way it is, I will tell you why.

Bottom line:

Type species for genus Sedum L. is Sedum acre L. and is a dwarf evergreen
perennial with connate kyphocarpic carpels.

Genus Hylotelephium H.Ohba (formerly Sedum section Telephium) are
deciduous
perennials, usually with a tuberous rootstock, and with separate stipitate
(slender stalked) carpels.

It should be obvious that the growth form of Hylotelephium is very
different
from that of typical Sedum.

Dissect the flowers and you will the differences between the two genera.

While this is all well and good in the interest of taxonomic accuracy, you
will not find these plants in the commercial trade listed under this name,
nor will you find Chamaecyparis nootkatensis listed as Xanocyparis, or
Platycladus listed as Biota or seldom Cimicifuga listed as Actaea or even
very often Clematis paniculata correctly labeled as C. terniflora. Old
habits die hard.

You really shouldn't make excuses for the sorry state of horticultural
knowledge unless you are willing to accept the blame for it being so bad.

Horticulture has long been only the idiot stepchild of botany when it should
be applied botany.

Most of the new gardening books are only lame rehashing of the older
obsolete books with more pictures with little or no effort made to bring the
information up-to-date.

The commercial trade is in most cases even worse. They are just hustling
plants with little or no regard for the plants being correctly named. Only
the specialty nurseries make an effort to have plants with proper names.
Even many of them are still using obsolete or fictitious names.

There is the attitude in the trade that there is no money to be made in
striving for accuracy nor does the public demand it. Actually correctly
named and documented "heirloom" plants are much more valuable than mass
produced garbage plants of dubious origin.


"Pam - gardengal" wrote in message
news:OEZ0d.178460$mD.2500@attbi_s02...

"Cereus-validus" wrote in message
m...
Despite the fact that the average gardener has absolutely no idea why
any
plant is so named the way it is, I will tell you why.

Bottom line:

Type species for genus Sedum L. is Sedum acre L. and is a dwarf
evergreen
perennial with connate kyphocarpic carpels.

Genus Hylotelephium H.Ohba (formerly Sedum section Telephium) are
deciduous
perennials, usually with a tuberous rootstock, and with separate
stipitate
(slender stalked) carpels.

It should be obvious that the growth form of Hylotelephium is very
different
from that of typical Sedum.

Dissect the flowers and you will the differences between the two genera.

While this is all well and good in the interest of taxonomic accuracy, you
will not find these plants in the commercial trade listed under this name,
nor will you find Chamaecyparis nootkatensis listed as Xanocyparis, or
Platycladus listed as Biota or seldom Cimicifuga listed as Actaea or even
very often Clematis paniculata correctly labeled as C. terniflora. Old
habits die hard.

In article ,
"Cereus-validus" wrote:

You really shouldn't make excuses for the sorry state of horticultural
knowledge unless you are willing to accept the blame for it being so bad.

Horticulture has long been only the idiot stepchild of botany when it should
be applied botany.

Most of the new gardening books are only lame rehashing of the older
obsolete books with more pictures with little or no effort made to bring the
information up-to-date.

The commercial trade is in most cases even worse. They are just hustling
plants with little or no regard for the plants being correctly named. Only
the specialty nurseries make an effort to have plants with proper names.
Even many of them are still using obsolete or fictitious names.

There is the attitude in the trade that there is no money to be made in
striving for accuracy nor does the public demand it. Actually correctly
named and documented "heirloom" plants are much more valuable than mass
produced garbage plants of dubious origin.

While I pretty much agree with all parts of that rant, "on the other hand"
to expect to find a great deal of astronomy expertise at a UFO convention
is unrealistic, or to demand a thoroughly expert assessment of the history
of Canada from a picture book published for tourists. One doesn't expect
up-to-date hard science from pop books & how-to books.

Gardening books tend to be about gardening not taxonomy, & sometimes not
even about gardening but about the photographs. Yet when better authors do
get into the taxonomical arguments for certain species, it is often about
the muddle of disagreements & contradicitions & who recognizes which
synonyms as definitive & how many other taxomic namnes it has had all the
way back to Clusius & whether or not certain subspecies are still
recognized or if they're only variants or only cultivated forms or
naturally occurring hybrids with something else the taxonomic standing of
which is still debated -- it's not necessarily all that apropos of
gardening, though it certainly interests me. I was this week trying to
sort out the names of Tulipa sylvestris, & quite enjoyed that minor bit of
research, but can't imagine that the majority of gardeners would find that
whole story useful.

One reason something like Cimicifuga doesn't get its name changed to
Actaea in garden shops even after four years is because about a bazillion
color-picture name tags were printed up & they have to have to be used up
before new ones will be printed, plus Cimicifuga has even worked its way
into the "common name" department in lieu of Snakeroot, so to change it
suddenly would confuse customers not aware of a name-change & who are not
shopping for plants in order to get a taxonomy lesson. In some cases the
"correction" of a name is only reported in some specialized botanical
magazine with a print-run of 500 copies subscribed only to the largest
university libraries so no wonder it takes a while to filter down; &
sometimes a mistake is so longstanding that even primary collections on
which the science is based have not been corrected so how could some mere
nursery retailer know about it.

So while your rant is correct in substance it's also understandable &
forgiveable.

-paghat the ratgirl


"Pam - gardengal" wrote in message
news:OEZ0d.178460$mD.2500@attbi_s02...

"Cereus-validus" wrote in message
m...
Despite the fact that the average gardener has absolutely no idea why
any
plant is so named the way it is, I will tell you why.

Bottom line:

Type species for genus Sedum L. is Sedum acre L. and is a dwarf
evergreen
perennial with connate kyphocarpic carpels.

Genus Hylotelephium H.Ohba (formerly Sedum section Telephium) are
deciduous
perennials, usually with a tuberous rootstock, and with separate
stipitate
(slender stalked) carpels.

It should be obvious that the growth form of Hylotelephium is very
different
from that of typical Sedum.

Dissect the flowers and you will the differences between the two genera.

While this is all well and good in the interest of taxonomic accuracy, you
will not find these plants in the commercial trade listed under this name,
nor will you find Chamaecyparis nootkatensis listed as Xanocyparis, or
Platycladus listed as Biota or seldom Cimicifuga listed as Actaea or even
very often Clematis paniculata correctly labeled as C. terniflora. Old
habits die hard.



--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com

"Pam - gardengal" wrote in message
news:OEZ0d.178460$mD.2500@attbi_s02...

"Cereus-validus" wrote in message
m...
Despite the fact that the average gardener has absolutely no idea why any
plant is so named the way it is, I will tell you why.

Bottom line:

What a jerk!

Clusius? Don't you mean Linnaeus?

I was not saying the horticultural literature needs to give the full history
of a particular plant's naming but only to use the currently accepted names
and not those that have been out of date for 200 years.

In the 1800's the term "variety" was used indiscriminately to describe both
botanical varieties collected from wild populations and garden cultivars of
selected plants and garden hybrids. Nowadays, botanical varieties and garden
cultivars are recognized as being two very different entities with their
naming governed by completely different rules of nomenclature. The problem
is that many in the horticultural community, including many celebrities that
should know better, are either unaware of the rules of nomenclature or
prefer to ignore them. They are doing the horticultural community a great
disservice by doing so.

http://www.bgbm.org/iapt/nomenclatur....Luistitle.htm

http://www.ishs.org/sci/icracpco.htm

Books, such as Hortus Third, that are supposed to be registries of valid
accepted names have failed miserable in actual practice and only added to
the confusion. The story goes that most of the work done on Hortus Third was
done by newbie grad students and not experts in most of the plant groups and
genera covered and was not properly researched at all.

The latest botanical research seldom filters down into the popular
literature, such as Horticulture magazine, but when it does, it often shakes
things up in the horticultural community and creates renewed interest in
undeservedly long forgotten or ignored plant groups. I have seen it happen
several times in recent years.



"paghat" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Cereus-validus" wrote:

You really shouldn't make excuses for the sorry state of horticultural
knowledge unless you are willing to accept the blame for it being so
bad.

Horticulture has long been only the idiot stepchild of botany when it
should
be applied botany.

Most of the new gardening books are only lame rehashing of the older
obsolete books with more pictures with little or no effort made to bring
the
information up-to-date.

The commercial trade is in most cases even worse. They are just hustling
plants with little or no regard for the plants being correctly named.
Only
the specialty nurseries make an effort to have plants with proper names.
Even many of them are still using obsolete or fictitious names.

There is the attitude in the trade that there is no money to be made in
striving for accuracy nor does the public demand it. Actually correctly
named and documented "heirloom" plants are much more valuable than mass
produced garbage plants of dubious origin.

While I pretty much agree with all parts of that rant, "on the other hand"
to expect to find a great deal of astronomy expertise at a UFO convention
is unrealistic, or to demand a thoroughly expert assessment of the history
of Canada from a picture book published for tourists. One doesn't expect
up-to-date hard science from pop books & how-to books.

Gardening books tend to be about gardening not taxonomy, & sometimes not
even about gardening but about the photographs. Yet when better authors do
get into the taxonomical arguments for certain species, it is often about
the muddle of disagreements & contradicitions & who recognizes which
synonyms as definitive & how many other taxomic namnes it has had all the
way back to Clusius & whether or not certain subspecies are still
recognized or if they're only variants or only cultivated forms or
naturally occurring hybrids with something else the taxonomic standing of
which is still debated -- it's not necessarily all that apropos of
gardening, though it certainly interests me. I was this week trying to
sort out the names of Tulipa sylvestris, & quite enjoyed that minor bit of
research, but can't imagine that the majority of gardeners would find that
whole story useful.

One reason something like Cimicifuga doesn't get its name changed to
Actaea in garden shops even after four years is because about a bazillion
color-picture name tags were printed up & they have to have to be used up
before new ones will be printed, plus Cimicifuga has even worked its way
into the "common name" department in lieu of Snakeroot, so to change it
suddenly would confuse customers not aware of a name-change & who are not
shopping for plants in order to get a taxonomy lesson. In some cases the
"correction" of a name is only reported in some specialized botanical
magazine with a print-run of 500 copies subscribed only to the largest
university libraries so no wonder it takes a while to filter down; &
sometimes a mistake is so longstanding that even primary collections on
which the science is based have not been corrected so how could some mere
nursery retailer know about it.

So while your rant is correct in substance it's also understandable &
forgiveable.

-paghat the ratgirl


"Pam - gardengal" wrote in message
news:OEZ0d.178460$mD.2500@attbi_s02...

"Cereus-validus" wrote in message
m...
Despite the fact that the average gardener has absolutely no idea
why
any
plant is so named the way it is, I will tell you why.

Bottom line:

Type species for genus Sedum L. is Sedum acre L. and is a dwarf
evergreen
perennial with connate kyphocarpic carpels.

Genus Hylotelephium H.Ohba (formerly Sedum section Telephium) are
deciduous
perennials, usually with a tuberous rootstock, and with separate
stipitate
(slender stalked) carpels.

It should be obvious that the growth form of Hylotelephium is very
different
from that of typical Sedum.

Dissect the flowers and you will the differences between the two
genera.

While this is all well and good in the interest of taxonomic accuracy,
you
will not find these plants in the commercial trade listed under this
name,
nor will you find Chamaecyparis nootkatensis listed as Xanocyparis, or
Platycladus listed as Biota or seldom Cimicifuga listed as Actaea or
even
very often Clematis paniculata correctly labeled as C. terniflora. Old
habits die hard.



--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
Visit the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com