I am pruning my hazel clump, and I am certain it is Corylus avellana,
but the damn thing is over 10 metres high! All my books say that it
doesn't grow more than 6m. It was bought as ordinary hedging plants
a long time back, but there are 20 year old stems that reach that
high. Do other people have such large hazels, or is this unusual?

I am a long way from Grovely woods, or I could see how high they
grown there.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 27/08/18 18:14, Nick Maclaren wrote:
I am pruning my hazel clump, and I am certain it is Corylus avellana,
but the damn thing is over 10 metres high! All my books say that it
doesn't grow more than 6m. It was bought as ordinary hedging plants
a long time back, but there are 20 year old stems that reach that
high. Do other people have such large hazels, or is this unusual?

I don't know how many times I've told people that plants *can't* read books!

FWIW, both "Hilliers Manual of Trees and Shrubs" and the "RHS Dictionary
of Gardening" state that Corylus avellana is usually a shrub to 20ft/6m
or, more rarely, a tree to 35ft/10m in height.

--

Jeff

In article ,
Jeff Layman wrote:

I don't know how many times I've told people that plants *can't* read books!

Yes :-) A hell of a lot of "received wisdom" is repeated without being
checked, so one error lasts for ages.

FWIW, both "Hilliers Manual of Trees and Shrubs" and the "RHS Dictionary
of Gardening" state that Corylus avellana is usually a shrub to 20ft/6m
or, more rarely, a tree to 35ft/10m in height.

These are VERY much shrubs, and is just over 10 metres. The conditions
are such that it doesn't totally flabberghast me that they are larger
than usual, but I was wondering whether this was unusual or the books
were just plain wrong.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 27/08/2018 19:59, Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
Jeff Layman wrote:

I don't know how many times I've told people that plants *can't* read books!

Yes :-) A hell of a lot of "received wisdom" is repeated without being
checked, so one error lasts for ages.

FWIW, both "Hilliers Manual of Trees and Shrubs" and the "RHS Dictionary
of Gardening" state that Corylus avellana is usually a shrub to 20ft/6m
or, more rarely, a tree to 35ft/10m in height.

These are VERY much shrubs, and is just over 10 metres. The conditions
are such that it doesn't totally flabberghast me that they are larger
than usual, but I was wondering whether this was unusual or the books
were just plain wrong.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

as has been said, plants do what ever they feel like.
I remember seeing a catalogue describing Silver Birch as an elegant tree
to 10 ft.
I think that often the writers don't want to frighten off potential
customers

On 28/08/2018 10:23, David Hill wrote:
as has been said, plants do what ever they feel like.
I remember seeing a catalogue describing Silver Birch as an elegant tree
to 10 ft.
I think that often the writers don't want to frighten off potential
customers

Could almost have been a typo for 100 ft. (Wikipedia says exceptionally
to 31m/102ft, which looks like two rounds of conversion and rounding
from 100 ft.)


--
alias Ernest Major

In article ,
Ernest Major wrote:
On 28/08/2018 10:23, David Hill wrote:
as has been said, plants do what ever they feel like.
I remember seeing a catalogue describing Silver Birch as an elegant tree
to 10 ft.
I think that often the writers don't want to frighten off potential
customers

Could almost have been a typo for 100 ft. (Wikipedia says exceptionally
to 31m/102ft, which looks like two rounds of conversion and rounding
from 100 ft.)

Almost certainly. And the books I looked it up in were the two most
authoritative texts of their day (not long ago), one botanical and
one horticultural. That's why I was puzzled.


Regards,
Nick Maclaren.

On 28/08/2018 10:23, David Hill wrote:
On 27/08/2018 19:59, Nick Maclaren wrote:
In article ,
Jeff LaymanÂ* wrote:

I don't know how many times I've told people that plants *can't* read
books!

Yes :-)Â* A hell of a lot of "received wisdom" is repeated without being
checked, so one error lasts for ages.

FWIW, both "Hilliers Manual of Trees and Shrubs" and the "RHS Dictionary
of Gardening" state that Corylus avellana is usually a shrub to 20ft/6m
or, more rarely, a tree to 35ft/10m in height.

These are VERY much shrubs, and is just over 10 metres.Â* The conditions
are such that it doesn't totally flabberghast me that they are larger
than usual, but I was wondering whether this was unusual or the books
were just plain wrong.

as has been said, plants do what ever they feel like.

And it can vary with location. I have a lovely plant Leycesteria formosa
that just about survives and flowers well at 1m size in my garden in
full sun on heavy clay. I gave some to someone on very similar clay soil
but in partial shade and the thing romped away and became a 3m monster!

I remember seeing a catalogue describing Silver Birch as an elegant tree
to 10 ft.
I think that often the writers don't want to frighten off potential
customers

I suspect that is it. Most of the "dwarf" fruit trees I have are bigger
than their official book size (although some are now quite old).

--
Regards,
Martin Brown