A branch of Pinus pseudostrobus var. apulcensis
Reminding me of either jellyfish or wearers of grass skirts, the drooping clusters of needles borne by long branches of smooth-bark Mexican pine or Oaxacan pine do seem to float or dance in a light breeze.
Sometimes labeled in cultivation as Pinus oaxacana (like this specimen was), the Gymnosperm Database site goes into some of the details as to why Pinus pseudostrobus var. apulcensis is presently the preferred nomenclature. The epithet pseudostrobus is a reference to a superficial resemblance to Pinus strobus, while apulcensis refers to the Apulco area of Mexico’s Hidalgo State, where this taxon was first collected for Western science in 1839.
A tree reaching a height of up to 45m (~150 ft.), Pinus pseudostrobus var. apulcensis is native to southern Mexico, Guatemala, and El Salvador. It inhabits montane to high montane environments, within a range of 800-3250m (~2600-10500 ft.) above sea level. In its native range, it is a timber species, with the relatively knot-free wood important for light construction, carpentry, wall paneling, veneers, boxes, and matches (ref: A Handbook of the World’s Conifers by Aljos Farjon). The species has also been planted as a timber tree in Africa and India.
Vol. II of the 2012 atlas “Conifers around the World: Conifers of the temperate zones an adjacent regions” (Zsolt Debreczy and Istvan Racz) devotes a 12 page (folio size) appendix to “Pinus apulcensis Lindley and its Tortuous Taxonomic History.” Lavishly illustrated with photos of cone variability and cone comparisons with Pinus oaxacana, as well as in-depth habitat information. It’s well worth taking at this atlas for information on all things coniferous– and photos of every species in its natural habitat.
Oh my, yes, I see that now. This entry needs a big asterisk beside it when that is considered (we have a copy of the book). Without cones, I don’t even think I should guess as to the identity of this plant (though I shouldn’t, I suspect this is indeed Pinus oaxacana as asserted by those authors).
I’m guessing I just inadvertently waded into an area of taxonomic disagreement between Farjon and Debreczy & Rácz. To the credit of the latter authors, the 12 page appendix thoroughly details their reasoning. Farjon’s work doesn’t go into details, instead citing his papers, like this one: Typification of Pinus apulcensis Lindley (Pinaceae), a misinterpreted name for a Latin American pine.
I’m reminded of a tree that was in the park of the state capital in Sacramento, That is back in the 60s. It had very soft dropping needles. Downtown Sacramento is considered to be in the fringe of subtopic range and the park has many unusual trees.
The State Capitol Gardens? Interesting place, had many large specimen plantings. I didn’t have a lot of time to wander there when I visited, but I did manage to secure a handy guide to the trees of the grounds from some very kind folks at the downstairs public information desk (though they had to search for it!).