Information is available for the following clones:
As a scientist, it is important to me that this information be correct. However as I am
still learning about rhododendrons, some of it may not be. Thus I would appreciate
comments and/or corrections from more knowledgeable people.
Peter Wharton, Guizhou expedition 1994, 1570m, G. Herb. #134
New Name:
R. ochraceum
Comments:
This has been identified as ochraceum at UBC and the RSF. The flowers are nice but the plant tends to be sickly and chlorotic, and for me, short lived.
Original Name:
PW-39 - R. sp. Fortunea
Source:
Peter Wharton, Guizhou expedition 1994, 1360m, G. Herb. #135
New Name:
R. glanduliferum aff. ?
Comments:
This keys, with lots of uncertainty in the choices, to R. fortunei ssp. discolor, but differs from PW-43 in
that the outside of the corolla is covered with sticky glands and so catches small flies. It might be R. glanduliferum, but
has larger flowers and many more per truss than indicated for R. glanduliferum in the key. The RSF has been
calling it R. glanduliferum affinity.
Original Name:
PW-43 - R. sp. Fortunea
Source:
Peter Wharton, Guizhou expedition 1994, 1340m, G. Herb. #201
New Name:
R. fortunei ssp. discolor ?
Comments:
This is similar to PW-39, except that the outside of the corolla is not sticky and does not collect flies. It keys,
with lots of uncertainty in the choices, to R. fortunei ssp. discolor. It is probably the same as PW-41, PW-44 and PW-83,
according to Peter Wharton's field notes.
Original Name:
PW-51 - R. sp. Fortunea/(davidii?)
Source:
Peter Wharton, Guizhou expedition 1994, 1480m, G. Herb. #206
New Name:
R. auriculatum? (perhaps hybrid of or affinity)
Comments:
This comes true from seed. I have bloomed a half dozen plants which have been identical. It is like auriculatum in
its flowers, odor, and blooming time (much later than diaprepes or decorum), but apparently does not have the setulose-glandular shoots
supposedly characteristic of auriculatum. PW-50 and PW-52 (respectively R. auriculatum and R. auriculatum aff. according to the RSF) were collected nearby.
Original Name:
PW-66 - R. sp.
Source:
Peter Wharton, Guizhou expedition 1994, 1310m, G. Herb. #237
New Name:
R. sp. Triflora
Comments:
This is the same as PW-67.
Original Name:
PW-67 - R. sp.
Source:
Peter Wharton, Guizhou expedition 1994, 1310m, G. Herb. #239
New Name:
R. sp. Triflora
Comments:
This has pink, obviously subsection Triflora, flowers. The RSF 1998 catalog lists it as a possible new species.
Original Name:
PW-79 - R. sp. Barbata
Source:
Peter Wharton, Guizhou expedition 1994, 1470m, G. Herb. #294
New Name:
R. coeloneuron
Comments:
I received this as a plant, labeled PW-79, from Dave Sellars. It appears to be identical to other of Peter
Wharton's R. coeloneuron introductions.
Original Name:
PW-81A - R. sp. Triflora
Source:
Peter Wharton, Guizhou expedition 1994, 1390m, G. Herb. #293
New Name:
R. stamineum
Comments:
This is the same as PW-97.
Original Name:
PW-83 - R. sp. Fortunea
Source:
Peter Wharton, Guizhou expedition 1994, 1360m, G. Herb. #292
New Name:
?
Comments:
This has
not bloomed for me yet. According to Peter Wharton's field notes it is probably the same as PW-41,43,44. The RSF has
listed it (and PW-44) as R. glanduliferum aff., whereas the website of the Danish chapter of the ARS references a
picture of it from Glendoick Gardens labeling it as "R. gingonshanicum (R. fortunei ssp. discolor)".
Original Name:
PW-85 - R. sp. Irrorata
Source:
Peter Wharton, Guizhou expedition 1994, 1380m
New Name:
R. annae
Comments:
This keys to annae, and that identification is confirmed in the RSF Fall 2008 catalog. It is
similar to aberconwayii, but with longer leaves.
Original Name:
PW-97 - R. sp. Triflora
Source:
Peter Wharton, Guizhou expedition 1994, 1650m
New Name:
R. stamineum
Comments:
This has turned out to be a beautiful plant, with white flowers with a yellow blotch and long protruding
stamens. It seems to be much hardier than its rating (+15 F), as it survived the winter of 2008/09 when
even many rated +5 F were damaged.
Original Name:
AC-1128 - R. ochraceum
Source:
ARS-03-751, Alan Clark, 2350m, 50 km S of Yongshan,NE Yunnan
New Name:
R. neriiflorum ?
Comments:
This is not R. ochraceum. It keys, with some ambiguity, to R. neriiflorum, and was tentatively identified as such
in the seedling stage, by S. Hootman.
Original Name:
AC-2017 - R. mollicomum
Source:
ARS-03-034, Seeds from plant grown by John Howcroft,UK, supposedly from an Alan Clark collection, AC-2017
New Name:
R. pleistanthum ?
Comments:
This is clearly not R. mollicomum. It keys to the R. yunnanense complex, most closely to R. pleistanthum, which
is however poorly distinguished from others in this very variable complex.
Original Name:
AC-2079 - R. sp. nov. Falconera
Source:
ARS-03-779, Alan Clark, 3800m, Wumengshan, NE Yunnan
New Name:
R. rex ?
Comments:
The RSF Spring 2006 Plant Sale Catalog identifies this as R. rex.
Original Name:
AC-3018 - R. sinogrande
Source:
ARS-03-775, Alan Clark, 3200m, Zibenshan, SW Yunnan
New Name:
R. fulvum
Comments:
It is a very attractive plant, but even as a seedling was obviously not R. sinogrande. Leaves are mostly less than
20 cm long, densely covered with rusty indumentum on the underside (as are the branchlets). It
finally bloomed for us (2010) and keys to R. fulvum, and is essentialy the same as two other R. fulvum plants we have.
Original Name:
AC-3712 - R. ambiguum
Source:
ARS-03-701, Alan Clark, 2900m, Erlang Shan, SW Sichuan
New Name:
R. concinnum
Comments:
This has dark purple/maroon flowers, keys to R. concinnum, and is identical to other R. concinnum clones in our garden.
Original Name:
AC-4318 - R. bodinieri
Source:
ARS-03-707, Alan Clark, 1700m, Xiaocauba,Yiliang,NE Yunnan
New Name:
R. siderophyllum.
Comments:
This keys to R. siderophyllum based on tight, crowded inflorescences of white flowers, and nearly contiguous
scales, and is identical to another siderophyllum clone I have. It has proved to be fairly tender.
Original Name:
AC-5366 - R. tsangpoense
Source:
ARS-05-733, Alan Clark, NE India Exp.04, W.Kameng,A.Pradesh, 3500-3850m
New Name:
R. glaucophyllum var. tubiforme
Comments:
Plant keys to R. glaucophyllum and differs from R. tsangpoense in having pointed calyx lobes and leaves and
having a fairly straight style longer than the corolla.
Original Name:
AC-5419 - R. lepidotum
Source:
ARS-05-779, Alan Clark, NE India Exp.04, W.Kameng,A.Pradesh, 4100m
New Name:
R. anthopogon ssp.anthopogon
Comments:
Once this bloomed it was clearly a member of the section Pogonanthum. Plant keys fairly unambiguously to R. anthopogon.
Original Name:
C&N 6058 - R. searsiae
Source:
ARS-08-706, Alan Clark, China expedition 2007, Huangmaogeng, Sichuan,
2500-2800m
New Name:
R. rubiginosum
Comments:
This plant had trusses of 8-10 fairly symmetric flowers, and the underside of the leaf was green, not white. It looked nothing
like the other searsiae I have. It keyed to rubiginosum and both flowers and structure of the scales on the underside of the leaf
looked like the other rubiginosum I have.
Original Name:
C&N 6082 - R. sp. Fortunea, huianum or new
Source:
ARS-08-695, Alan Clark, China expedition 2007, Huangmaogeng, Sichuan,
2500-2800m
New Name:
R. decorum (ssp. ?)
Comments:
This keyed fairly unambiguously to decorum, but I could not be sure of the subspecies. Calyx was only 1-2mm, not the long calyx
characteristic of huianum.
Original Name:
R. bureavioides
Source:
Hammond's Acres of Rhodies
New Name:
R. bureavioides (pre 1986)
Comments:
This agrees with description in Davidian, but Cox and Cox (Ency. of Rh. Sp.) say pre 1986 versions of this
were misidentified. This does not have the very short petioles, supposed to be characteristic of the species
(and present on a more modern clone.)
Original Name:
R. carolinianum
Source:
ARS-02-639, D.and S. Kunst, USA, cw Blue Ridge Parkway near Mt. Mitchell, NC
New Name:
R. maximum
Comments:
This keys to R. maximum and is the same as other R. maximum clones I have. It is nothing like
R. carolinianum (R. minus var. minus Carolinianum Gp.)
Original Name:
R. charitopes
Source:
Originally from Milton Wildfong around 1990
New Name:
R. charitopes hybrid or ?
Comments:
I have had this plant for many years and have sold plants from cuttings as R. charitopes. Thanks to some recent (2013)
interactions with Sean Rafferty, I looked more carefully at it and keyed it out. While it is similar in some ways to charitopes
it does not have the glaucous underside of the leaves expected of a member of the Glauca subsection. It may be a hybrid of charitopes,
or something entirely differnt.
Original Name:
R. eximium
Source:
ARS-96-140, H. Berg, MI, hp, Berg very good yellow
New Name:
Unknown hybrid
Comments:
Seedlings were all quite different, and bore little resemblance to R. eximium.
Original Name:
R. galactinum
Source:
ARS-97-1340, Wolfgang Reich, Ger., hp
New Name:
R. galactinum hybrid
Comments:
Seedlings were all quite different. Some had some features of R. galactinum, but others not.
Original Name:
R. hemsleyanum
Source:
Plant obtained from Don Martyn
New Name:
R. fortunei ssp. discolor ?
Comments:
Plant keys to R. fortunei ssp. discolor and disagrees with R. hemsleyanum in having longer
leaves without cordate bases, too many stamens, and flecks in corolla.
Original Name:
R. microphyton
Source:
Whitney Gardens, 1995
New Name:
R. micranthum
Comments:
This was sold incorrectly labeled in the late 1990's. Identification was corrected by
keying and comparison with another plant of R. micranthum.
Original Name:
R. mimetes
Source:
ARS-04-209, J. Sinclair, US, Scotland, selfed
New Name:
?
Comments:
Apparently there was an error in the seed distribution. Seedlings are all uniform, but nothing like R. mimetes.
Leaves look more like R. barbatum. Plant has not yet bloomed.
Original Name:
R. ovatum
Source:
ARS-08-501, Philip MacDougall, cw Wuling, Taiwan, 2000m
New Name:
R. oldhamii
Comments:
This hasn't bloomed for us yet, but the identification as R. oldhamii was confirmed for the
seedlings by Philip MacDougall. R. oldhamii immediately follows R. ovatum in the ARS 2008 seed
catalog which suggests a mixup in the distribution procedure, which may apply only to the seed
packet we received and not to all packets distributed under this number.
Original Name:
R. pseudochrysanthun
Source:
RSF-09-3243, RSF 1976/051 x RSF 1995/243
New Name:
R pseudochrysanthum and R. williamsianum
Comments:
Two separate plantings of this seed lot in subsequent years gave 50-50 mixtures of what appears to be R. pseudochrysanthum,
which hasn't bloomed yet, and R. williamsianum.
So apparently there was some mixup in the seed distribution. I don't know
whether the error was in just the packet I got, or in the whole seed lot.
Original Name:
R. triflorum var. mahogani
Source:
ARS-04-139, A. Blee, New Zealand, hp
New Name:
R. triflorum
Comments:
Seedings from this seed lot varied from rather attractive reddish striping on a yellow flower
(See the picture in the Picture Gallery section.) to pure yellow flowers with no reddish color at all.
This lends support to the modern view that var. mahogani is just a color variation and should be
subsumed in R. triflorum.
Original Name:
R. zheguense
Source:
ARS-04-617, J. Nielsen, cw, Lapponica, NW Sichuan 4100m
New Name:
R. nitidulum var. nitidulum
Comments:
Plant keys to R. nitidulum using both Cullen (who does not include R. zheguense) and Flora of China. It
differs in number of flowers, length of style, and type of scales from R. zheguense.
Original Name:
Riplet
Source:
Elk Lake Nursery
New Name:
?
Comments:
This is a beautiful plant, more like Teddy Bear, but does not correspond to
existing pictures of Riplet, as pointed out to me by Garth Wedemire.
Fearing's Farm Nursery
