Jack pine is not related to P. contorta. It is a different species.....Pinus banksiana
I think you misunderstood my comment, I did not claim these were the same species.
To clarify: p. contorta and p. banksiana are very closely-related species -- being directly part of the exact same species is not the only way that one conifer can be related to another. This is especially true of (all) pines which hybridize liberally where they geographically overlap and already share ancestry, but generally true in conifers as well -- look at the already-known blurred lines of hybridization all over the western US and in places like Klamath mountains (see references below), with blurry hybridization gradients amongst pines, firs, and junipers (see references below -- edit: also, please note I am not claiming hybridization between firs, junipers, and pines, just within their own respective buckets). Jack and lodgepole share a common ancestry and existing biological classifications (
contortae subsection) acknowledge this. They encounter each other at their northern extent. They look similar in needle, cone, flower, and habit, and genomic studies prove they're closely related.
Pines can be divided into phylogenetic groupings which show which pine species is related to which other pine species. Jack and Lodgepole are about as related as can be in the pine world without being part of the same species. Pinus banksiana is part of the
contortae group or subsection, which includes:
- p. banksiana (jack)
- p. clausa (sand)
- p. contorta (which includes v. contorta, v. latifolia, v. murrayana, v. bolanderi -- lodgepoles and shores)
- p. virginiana (virginia)
Re: the first claim, that they're related, see sources such as:
- the Wikipedia page for pinus, specifically the phylogeny section which is based on genetic analysis and the existing widespread documentation that banksiana fits into contortae (as a group or subsection, not as a species)
- the wikipedia page for p. banksiania itself, where this relation and hybridization aspect is mentioned at the top of the article.
- PNAS volume 118, #20 (2021), "
Phylogenomic and ecological analyses reveal the spatiotemporal evolution of global pines" (Wei-Tao Jin et al). This is a genomic study that can show you some nice charts of genetic groupings of closely-related pines.
- other studies that come up when searching for "phylogeny of pinus"
Re: Pine/conifer hybridization and also blurring of lines between neighboring pine / fir / juniper species, see books like:
-
Ecology and Biogeography of Pinus (Richardson, 1998)
-
Conifer Country (Kauffmann, 2012)
-
Conifers of the Pacific Slope (Kauffmann, 2013)
I think it is useful to call out groupings and genetic similarities between closely-related pine species because for bonsai purposes, the behavior and characteristics are close enough that we can take knowledge from a highy-documented species with many practitioners and import that knowledge into a lesser-documented species, and hopefully get something useful out of it. A pine doesn't need to be the same species to have the same behavior as another very closely related pine species. The lines are already pretty blurred within contortae, with folks often discussing shore pine as if it's a different species of pine than lodgepole even though it is biologically considered a subspecies or variant of lodgepole -- yet if you grow both shore and lodgepole, you see their behavior is extremely similar when it comes to management (even if their growth habits are aesthetically distinct). Contortae as a group is a vast kingdom of blurry lines even within the part that is just inside of the confines of "p. contorta". Generally, IMO, we should treat pine like a spectrum more than a perfectly segregated set of baskets. This is true for a few of the other groupings within pinus as well.