[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Wollemi, Attenborough, and Branagh
On 11/5/05 3:39 am, "Phil Bigelow" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 May 2005 09:20:35 +1200 Christopher Taylor
> <email@example.com> writes:
>> Wasn't _Metasequoia_ originally known as a cultivated plant from
>> 'Natural habitat' wouldn't have been much of an issue.
> You may be thinking of Ginkgos, which have been cultivated for thousands
> of years.
> But referring to the original Metasequoia forest found in China as
> "cultivated" is probably stretching that definition beyond its intended
No, I was thinking of _Metasequoia_, which was originally collected from
a tree growing in temple grounds in Modaogi, Motaochi or Moudao (we get the
usual variation in transliteration of Chinese names). This town also appears
to have been the source for seeds taken out of China
http://flora.huh.harvard.edu/china/Harvard_Papers/Ma_8_1_009_018.pdf is a
detailed paper by Jinshuang Ma on the history of _Metasequoia.
I was mistaken, however, about how soon after discovery of the Moudao
trees wild specimens were found - about four years, it seems.