Japanese Maple ‘Bloodgood’

Good catch @Canada Bonsai definitely not a 'Bloodgood'.

@Balbs yours looks like a typical red leaf JM. Those leaves have very large edge serrations. Unless you did some serious pruning to force the tree to produce immature foliage I really doubt thats a 'Bloodgood'. The leaves look like they dried out from not being watered. Are the branches starting to blacken?

I've attached a 'Bloodgood' that I have as a landscape tree on my property and a rooted cutting. Note the edges of the leaves. They are also beginning their fall transitional colors now.


View attachment 394470View attachment 394471
Now when you put Bloodgood in quotes, is that a pseudo-bloodgood, or an authentic bloodgood? I have two landscape trees nearby that look similar to both pictures this time of year, one even stays red year round. But they don't have that deep red color of the bloodgoods sold at the local garden center.
 
Now when you put Bloodgood in quotes, is that a pseudo-bloodgood, or an authentic bloodgood? I have two landscape trees nearby that look similar to both pictures this time of year, one even stays red year round. But they don't have that deep red color of the bloodgoods sold at the local garden center.
The qoutes refer to the cultivar name...... 'Arakawa' 'Shishigashira' 'Nishiki gawa'......etc. I have an actual 'Bloodgood'. Light intensity also plays a role on keeping the red leaves red. Too much shade and they will loose some of the red. Mine leaf's out red and stays red until end of summer. It then looses some red and turns some green and then back to red in fall when the leaves drop.
 
Now when you put Bloodgood in quotes, is that a pseudo-bloodgood, or an authentic bloodgood?

@Pitoon is correct. It isn't mandatory to use standard notation in this forum (I doubt I follow it thoroughly on my website), but there are a number of situations when it can help keep things clear by either removing ambiguity, or by conveying information to the reader in fewer keystrokes/words. It's a bit like learning notation styles for a bibliography in high school; it introduces order that helps people convey information to each other in a situation where things easily get complex, or where the volume of information can be overwhelming.

Formal style suggests that we write:

Acer palmatum 'Bloodgood'

genus: capitalize and italicize
species: italicize
cultivar: single quote and capitalize

But in this context, bloodgood jm, is just as good and just as clear.

I mentioned Amoenum above, this is a subspecies, which are written in italics:

Acer palmatum subs. amoenum

There's a lot more to it, this link might be helpful if you're interested. It's good to know but don't go crazy with this :)

 
@Pitoon is correct. It isn't mandatory to use standard notation in this forum (I doubt I follow it thoroughly on my website), but there are a number of situations when it can help keep things clear by either removing ambiguity, or by conveying information to the reader in fewer keystrokes/words. It's a bit like learning notation styles for a bibliography in high school; it introduces order that helps people convey information to each other in a situation where things easily get complex, or where the volume of information can be overwhelming.

Formal style suggests that we write:

Acer palmatum 'Bloodgood'

genus: capitalize and italicize
species: italicize
cultivar: single quote and capitalize

But in this context, bloodgood jm, is just as good and just as clear.

I mentioned Amoenum above, this is a subspecies, which are written in italics:

Acer palmatum subs. amoenum

There's a lot more to it, this link might be helpful if you're interested. It's good to know but don't go crazy with this :)

Good info. I was always under the understanding......

Genus capitalized first letter, not italicized

Species is all lower case, but italicized

Cultivar capitalized first letter and in quotes, not italicized
 
Back
Top Bottom