4 responses to “Magnolia sargentiana”

  1. Katherine Hughes

    Glad it’s not just me! I got a new camera (Canon Powershot S3) for Christmas, and the initial photos I took were terrible. Now I am getting better, but still trying to get the hang of the macro settings.
    Must be even tougher with a digital SLR!
    But your photos look like you are getting the hang of it 🙂

  2. Daniel Mosquin

    Katherine, some very nice photos on your site. For most of us, the secret is indeed practice, practice, practice. Yesterday was the first time I’d been out in a few weeks, and it certainly showed to me in the numbers of photographs I tossed.

  3. Ron B

    In these shots it looks it may have originated from a crossing with M. sprengeri ‘Diva’ at Chyverton (if this plant is an example of ‘Chyverton Dark Form’). Perhaps the original seedling was grown from open-pollinated seed. I see ‘Diva’ characteristics in the coloring and structure of the flowers in these pictures.

    There has also been speculation elsewhere that the ‘Chyverton Red’ cultivar of M. dawsoniana got its coloring from a cross with ‘Diva’. One would have to pick and compare flowering specimens of the suspected parents and the named selection to go much farther with this. And without a confirming DNA analysis it would still be speculation.

  4. Douglas Justice

    For what it’s worth, this is the “dark form” (UBC accession 1987-0514) that we acquired from Gossler Farms (Oregon) in 1986, not the “Chyverton Dark Form” (UBC accession 1986-0225) we grow in another part of the garden (not yet in flower) that came from Chyverton in 1985. I discussed the Gossler form a few days back (March 11) on BPotD. Like Ron, I suspect that this particular clone is a hybrid, as it does not have the same loose, seagull-hitting-a-brick-wall look that I associate with the true Magnolia sargentiana var. robusta (apologies to bird lovers). Indeed, my esteemed predecessor, Gerald Straley, who knew a thing or two about plants, described M. sargentiana var. robusta in flower as looking like a tree strewn with women’s underwear. Clearly, the tree pictured above does not.

Leave a Reply