Ulmus 'Turkestanica'

Ulmus cultivar
Cultivar	'Turkestanica'
Origin	Turkestan

The elm cultivar Ulmus 'Turkestanica' was first described by Regel as U. turkestanica in Dieck, Hauptcat. Baumschul. Zöschen (1883) and in Gartenflora (1884). Regel himself later stressed that "U. turkestanica was only a preliminary name given by me; I regard this as a form of U. suberosa [:U. minor]". 'Turkestanica' was distributed in Europe as U. turkestanica Regel by the Späth nursery of Berlin, in whose catalogues it was listed separately from U. pinnato-ramosa, now U. pumila 'Pinnato-ramosa', and from U. campestris umbraculifera, with both of which it was later confused – the former by Elwes and Henry, the latter (as U. 'Turkestanica') by Green.

Späth in his catalogue of 1903 described U. turkestanica Regel as "a densely growing, small-leaved tree of upright growth, close to U. pumila".Melville noted in 1958 that the specimen of U. turkestanica at Kew had "frond-like leading shoots".

Not known.

One tree was planted as U. turkestanica Regel, 'Turkestan Elm', in 1899 at the Dominion Arboretum, Ottowa, Canada, where again it was distinguished from U. pinnato-ramosa. A specimen of U. turkestanica was planted at Kew. Three U. turkestanica Regel were supplied in 1902 by Späth to the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh. A tree accessioned by that name at the RBGE's Benmore garden in Argyll in 1902, and surviving (2016) almost certainly as a sucker or cutting of one of the three originals, was, following Green's confusion of 'Turkestanica' and 'Umbraculifera', believed for a time to be 'Umbraculifera'. 'Umbraculifera', however, though present in Späth's 1903 catalogue, does not appear in the RBGE 1902 accessions list from Späth. Being grafted, it does not sucker. Later still the tree was misidentified by the Garden as U. pumila L. var. arborea Litv., though the leaves do not match those of the latter cultivar, and though U. pumila does not sucker. A second tree labelled U. turkestanica stood till 1993 in RGBE itself, near the U. pinnato-ramosa. This was also a small tree; it produced suckers, and may itself have been sucker regrowth from one of the 1902 trees. A possible third, a tall suckering field elm with leaves closely matching those of the Benmore specimen and herbarium-specimens labelled U. turkestanica Regel (Späth), and with the "frond-like leading shoots" described by Melville, stands in Carlton Terrace Gardens, Edinburgh, above Carlton Terrace Brae.

...
Wikipedia