I believe that x Cupressocyparis leylandii has recently been changed to Cupressus leylandii. Any data on this would be appreciated. No doubt parenthood is in question, but when did the research and findings take place? Or is this all just an April fool???

Thanks

Paul H.

Reply to post by Paul H, on May 02, 2001 at 17:01:09:

You get bl**dy everywhere don`t you Paul..............only joking.

Does it matter what they call it as long as it burns ?

Reply to post by Eirion, on May 02, 2001 at 17:01:09:

Eirion, so you don't know the answer to my question and yes we need to burn them all!!

How's things generally? I've been over your way quite frequently, I must call in some time and take a look at your computer system - how is that panning out regarding TPO's, GPS etc..? - I'm hearing good things!! Are you attending any Arb events this year? F&M has caused major problems, but a few are still on. Hopefully, we will be at Highclere, Germany, Prague, Leeds, Windsor (in that order over the next few months) and any others we can fit in.

Regards

Paul

Reply to post by Paul H, on May 02, 2001 at 17:01:09:

Hi Paul,
I don't khow if recently the name has changed, but calling Cupressus Leylandii rather than
X Cupressocyparis leylandii from the botanical point of view is very different because the tree
we are talking about is an hybrid and not a species of the genre cupressus. So i agree you if you
are disappointed of a posibble changement of name, and it is very important to underline these
things because botany is a science.