I'd like to use more native shrubs in my yard, but it is a very urban-style yard. It's dominated by a brick house, with a boulevard on two sides, an alley in back, and a traditional, mostly grass lawn next door. No woodland to transition toward! Any suggestions?
Here's a bad panorama/montage picture from early last year to get an idea of the front yard:
P.S. I know I got a lot of great suggestions from a recent thread - this was put up to try to highlight those shrubs that would work for us not blessed with 10 acres of rough woodland.
Nice place Peg! At least you have two levels to work with, it's flat as a pancake in my yard. I have ninebark, itea and inkberries out front here.
Whew! I just went and double-checked, yucca is native right? Because I'm a little unhappy with my inkberries. After I planted them, I found out that this cultivar 'Shamrock' stays in a little globe more or less. And it looks a little too stiff, or static or something (with an 's', LOL). I saw this little grouping of shrubs on my way home the other day, it alternated little yews or junipers , I always mix them up, with yuccas. And there was some Siberian cypress (Microbiota decussata) in front of the whole thing. I don't know if I have room for that, but I'm thinking of trying the yucca in place of one of the inkberries. I'm pretty happy with the other side, I just wish the ninebark would get taller faster, but it was planted last (replaced dead grass) .
Your yard looks great! The house and lot look a lot like my neighborhood, and I could see something like your plantings fitting in really nicely. I love the itea/ninebark combination and I could see good uses for the little globe inkberries in my yard (maybe in the front planter, or in front of a foundation planting.)
My problem (well, one of my problems) is that my old place had a yard about a third of the size of the current yard, and I'm kind of intimidated by the scale of the new place (though the picture kind of stretches it out a bit). I'm not like some other folks who appear in this forum, that move massive amounts of dirt and plants, with movie star, drop dead gorgeous plantings.
And how about those nice little red bushes ...
Oh no! *slapping forehead* I have a hard time judging the ultimate size of things, probably hereditary, we always had to cut the top off the Christmas tree to get it in the house! At least you have room for error. Thanks for the kind words, all I see is what needs to be fixed.
I think I've bored everyone to tears with native plants, urban plants and Minnesota, but just in case anyone is reading - I came across a listing of species frequency for dry mesic oak maple woodlands in sourthern minnesota, which looks like it should match up to what this land would have been before European settlement (roughly - there was probably less tree cover then, more savanna). For low shrubs, the listing is short: red rasberry (rubus idaeus) and tall blackberries (rubus allegheniensis). For tall shrubs, by frequency (copied from site):
Chokecherry (Prunus virginiana) 82 ••
American hazelnut (Corylus americana) 80 •••
Gray dogwood (Cornus racemosa) 67 •••
Prickly ash (Zanthoxylum americanum) 67 ••
Poison ivy (Toxicodendron rydbergii) 64 •
Prickly gooseberry (Ribes cynosbati) 49 •
Downy arrowwood (Viburnum rafinesquianum) 49 ••
Juneberries (Amelanchier spp.) 47 •
Nannyberry (Viburnum lentago) 42 •
Bush honeysuckle (Diervilla lonicera) 33 •
Missouri gooseberry (Ribes missouriense) 24 •
Beaked hazelnut (Corylus cornuta) 22 •••
Snowberry or Wolfberry (Symphoricarpos albus or S. occidentalis) 20 •
Red-berried elder (Sambucus racemosa) 20 •
Round-leaved dogwood (Cornus rugosa)
OK, I'm going to stay away from anything with "poison" or "prickly" in the name. Here's what I'm thinking:
I could use a grouping of american hazelnuts along the fences on the left hand side of the picture above , both the fence between the neighbor's yard and the backyard. There's an existing lilac and cotinus coggygria there - they would be incorporated in the border. I'd put an irregulary shaped perenial border in front of the hazelnuts, sort of trying to define the lower area as an independent space. Would that work, or would the hazelnuts be to "rough" for that area? Symphoricarpos albus, instead?
There are currently three large eonymous alatus on the house corners (one on each side and one where the house angles back to the sunporch. Could I replace these with with amelanchier canadensis? (Amelanchiers were a suggestion from a previous thread)
There would be space for a viburnum rafinesquianum (also a previous thread suggestion) toward the back of the side yard (not seen in photo). I now have a viburnum dentatum 'blue muffin'. Are these closely enough related that they would cross-pollinate?
How about a chokecherry as a specimen plant on the right hand side of the yard?
Any other suggestions, or does anyone have prior experience to share about the above local natives?
Barberry?
You can see my lone little infamous barberry in the middle of the front right planter. Doesn't seem like much to make a fuss about, does it?
Sounds like you've given it a lot of thought. I would replace at least one of the euonymous with a ninebark, one with an oakleaf hydrangea and one with an amelanchier. That's just me, I've never been a matching shoes/purse kinda gal. (Probably why I can't abide my inkberry hedge). And I agonized over it same as your doing here. Wouldn't more than one or two hazelnuts be enough? They form thickets. You really need some itea, and inkberries for evergreen interest, maybe under the front windows. Why don't you try Nordic and we can compare growth habits? Symphoricarpus would be another smaller shrub for that area. Here's a link to the latest cultivars, from Monrovia.
http://www.monrovia.com/MonroviaWeb.nsf/8c104835579b67e18825685f006acdf8/a9d2838ee6240fee85256f3b00212d8b!OpenDocument
We cross posted. Peg, if you like the contrast in foliage, I don't think it matters much, unless, as you said, you want ethnic cleansing. Esp. if the neighbors all have them. You've got a great list of natives to fill in with. Don't forget the Sambucus, there's a great one with gold-green foliage. If I think of something/run across something else, I'll tell you.
Somebody recommended an Amelanchier Princess Diana. Would that count as a native since it is a named variety?
I'm going to toss out a few more to you that you might want to consider incorporating into your landscape because they are natives (to your area) and most would have been found in or at the edge of open woodlands-
Hypericum kalmianum- I’m probably going to get booed (sp?) for this suggestion but look it up and see what you think. It rarely grows to over 2’ around me and isolated stands of it have been found in southern MN.
Ceanothus americanus was a sub shrub of prairies and oak savannas but there is another one that is under 2' in height called C. ovatus that would have also been native to your area that would have been more prevalent in dryer prairies which would be more consistent with an urban lot.
Potentilla tridentata- nice low growing evergreen groundcover that supposedly prefers acid soil however mine is doing just fine along the side of the driveway. Masses of small white flowers on this which are striking against the glossy foliage. Mine are about 18’. I haven’t had them all that long but I think they are going to stay small.
Amorpha canescens would have been a classic prairie and Oak Savanna plant for your area. You'll love the grayish leaves on this and the plant has spikes of purplish flowers. I like this plant because it flowers in summer.
Diervilla lonicera is a small native bush honeysuckle that can take a beating in poor soil. Rather attractive plant because of it's blooms.
Physocarpus opulifolius- can’t say enough nice things about this. Love the bark. Unfortunately, it’s on the large side so you might want to consider the dwarf “Nugget’ which only grows to about 4’.
Euonymus atropurpureus is a native "Burning Bush". Decent fall color but not as showy as its popular cousin and the blooms are a soft pink. This is not a small shrub though per se.
Rubus parviflorus- supposedly prefers limey soils but I’m trying out a few of these for the first time this year. This is the thornless species and the flowers are supposed to look like thimbles. Don’t know much more about it other than that it’s native and I’d like to try it.
Amelanchier stolonifera- attractive bluish foliage with dainty white flowers and the fruits are edible. It is very low growing and likes sun. Great possibility for a ground cover should you need one. I love mine and am going to order about 25 more.
Comptonia peregrina- not necessarily an inhabitant of prairies and savannas but worthy of considering. It is indigenous to your area and is low growing. I tried a few of these last year and was thrilled to death. They take sun, are tolerant of poor soil, have attractive catkins, and their able to fix nitrogen which is an added bonus.
Gaultheria procumbens is a nice evergreen groundcover and I like the small bell shaped flowers and the red berries.
Arctostaphylos uva-ursi- evergreen with great winter interest because the leaves turn to a burgundy color through winter and the red berries persist. Although very tolerant of soil types, it is not all that tolerant of shade. This is another great possibility for a ground cover in an urban setting. I've tried these a few times by me and am not having good luck. I'm going to site them differently and try again this year.
Menispermum canadense- just a neat vine I’m tossing in that would cover a fence real quick in sun or shade. I don’t have this plant but I’m leaning toward trying it because I saw it trained to cover a garbage can enclosure and it sure was dense and lush. Leaves are Maple-Leaf shaped and it produces a proliferation of dark blue berries in winter that birds love.
That being said, good to toss out the Zanthoxylum americanum. Those are a real son of a gun to work with. I’ve planted them by using hot dog tongs and oven mits. I allow some Toxicodendron here for the critters but we’ve got kids running around and I don’t want it anywhere they play. Some of the plants recommended above in the list you posted are great choices but they’re decent sized plants and I thought you wanted smaller specimen type species?
How could I forget Hypericum? Great choice, why did you think you'd get booed?
hit send too soon. Will somebody please answer gloria's question?
This message was edited Feb 14, 2007 8:07 PM
Hydrangea arborescens "Annabelle" is a nice looking native.
Amelanchier 'Princess Diana' does not count as a native. It's a cultivar of Amelanchier laevis which is native though. I'd use a cultivar of a native but there are those who would not.
But why is a cultivar not a native? I know that some cultivars are hybrids between two native species such as Amelanchier laevis and A. canadensis, I would think that would make them "native" genetically. Maybe it's the distinction between naturally occurring and "developed" that trips us up? Some hybrids are naturally occuring.
Found this after I posted, it says Princess Diana is A. canadensis, of course they could be wrong. Anybody know positively, cause I want one!
http://www.sln.potsdam.ny.us/juneberries.html
This message was edited Feb 14, 2007 9:11 PM
Why is a cultivar not a native?
Simply stated, it's nursery propagated. A cultivar is nothing more than a plant selection isolated and perpetuated in cultivation by humans who selected it for characteristics deemed to be desirable. A cultivar is generally a result of selective breeding or it can be a result of a person who stumbles across a plant growing in the wild and recognizes it as being different from all the surrounding plants.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Amelanchier+%27Princess+Diana%27
Amelanchier x grandiflora is a synonym for A. laevis
Could be A. canadensis though.
Thanks for all the tips! I'm not caught up to checking out all the suggestions, but I can tell there are a lot of options.
Equilibrium - I started out asking about smaller specimen plants because I was originally thinking about starting with a smaller strip on the side yard (more of a scale that I'm used to), then working around to the front yard. Last fall, I did change some of the front foundation planting, before I found this forum - I tore out some spirea and some (to me) very boring looking viburnums that never bloomed (I think a viburnum opulus cultivar) and putting in some upright yews, 'anabelle' hydrangea, and some Cornus Alba 'Ivory Halo'. I left in the big euonymous alatus. I'm going to leave the new plantings alone, I think, though I'm wondering now why I thought a red-twigged dogwood would look nice in winter sitting in front of a red brick wall.
So anyway, now I'm thinking of replacing the euoymous (they're about twelve feet) and putting something along the fence lines, which could also be a little larger. I'm also thinking some lower shrubs might look nice backing up the front planters. I'd like to do something that has a coherent look from a distance (there's a park just across the street, and my house is visible for quite a ways) but doesn't look too monotonous close up, and I'm now intrigued by the idea of having a modern oak barrens as a yard. I'm thinking of trying to keep medium green, white and pale cream colors as a main theme, with just splashes of darker greens and brighter colors.
Anyway, probably this is too much information. Thanks for all the great suggestions, and keep them coming if you have more! This is a great way for me to get through the winter - I can look up plant pictures on the internet, then just shut my eyes and visualize summer! Peg
Are you set in your mind using plants that are indigenous to your area exclusively from here on out or is there a little leeway there for anything else along that fence line? I have several thoughts for a mixed border and only some would be actually indigenous to your specific area but a few would be indigenous to my area and a little bit south although hardy in yours.
Coincidentally, many of the plants I suggested are white or cream blooming save the ones noted otherwise and the Hypericum. I try to use as many white flowering plants here as possible for moths. So many people garden for butterflies and forget moths that could use a little helping hand these days too.
The Cornus alba (Siberian Dogwood) is one that you might not be all that happy with in the longrun based on some of your previous posts that I have read. Your 'Ivory Halo' is a cultivar of C. alba but I suspect it is more than capable of escaping. Same thing for your Euonymus alatus and those Japanese and European Berberis that so many people find irresistibly delectable. My neighbors have a few of the straight species C. alba. They were very popular a while ago. I've had hundreds of "volunteers" from their parent plants over here. Your zone is not all that different from mine. I posted a photo of the volunteers from their plants somewhere in these threads two years ago just before I sent them to plant heaven. (sigh) I continue to have to send the offspring to plant heaven.
Actually Peg's zone is a lot colder, I don't know if I could stand it any colder than it is here. Brrr.
Ok, I still wasn't clear, if it occurs in the wild (a sport) and then that sport is nursery (I believe you mean vegetatively) propagated, how that makes something non-native? So I looked it up myself, and found this definition. I think the answers might be in here somewhere. I specifically want to exclude crosses between natives and non-natives, as that is straightforward, at least to me: NOT native.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultivars#Cultivars_in_the_natural_world
Go with Article 2.1 of the ICNCP.
An interesting discussion of plants going on here. I look askance at the suggestion that a cultivar is not a native plant. I wonder if there is too much being included in supposing what makes a cultivar. Often in plants plants are bred to achieve certain characteristics and perhaps just as often, they are selected without any manipulation. I'll tackle the second part of the idea first since it's easier.
When a plant is selected for certain characteristics without any genetic manipulation involved, I can see of no logical reasoning that it could not be considered native. Up until the day that someone snipped wood for propagation, it was just the average joe maple/viburnum, doing it's thing. There is no change, no disinheritance of its genetics. It's genetics were already part of the gene pool, not a new addition to it. When it comes to man selectively breeding plants for desireable characteristics, it is perhaps a little different but I still can't see how using two members of the existing gene pool to achieve desired results makes a plant uncategorizeable as a native. The purple Physocarpus stick out in my mind. I don't know the history of it but lets assume that the first plant with purple leaves was a natural happening. We will call this plant 'Diabolo.' Now 'Diabolo' gets too large for many people's yards so someone decided to cross it with 'Nanus.' 'Summer Wine' emerges. Assuming that both of it's parents were naturally occurring plants, why would this desireable progeny not be given similar consideration? If a purple leafed form and a dwarf form were growing in southern MN and crossed naturally, to give similar offspring would we say "YOU, YES YOU! YOU ARE CONSIDERED HIGHLY DESIREABLE AND ARE HENCEFORTH BANISHED FROM THE NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITY. GET OUT OF THE GENE POOL!" Ok, so I'm using absurdity but because humans speed up certain processes doesn't disinherit a plant's genes. Crosses happen in nature. I use Acer x freemanii as an interspecific example and of course, it happens daily within species. Classification of what can be considered native where, is hard enough.
One last thought. Unless the taxonomists have struck again, Amelanchier x grandiflora is a distinct species of garden origin.
Best Regards,
Ernie
http://www.ishs.org/sci/icracpco.htm
For the less literate amongst us. ICNCP = International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants
Well, Article 2.1 of ICNCP defines a cultivar. What I was going for was the distinction between native and non-native cultivars, which I guess is not really explained in my link. Sorry, I thought that question would be addressed. Ernie's line of thinking is pretty much where I was going with this.
When I googled the words 'native cultivars' I came up with a debate on this very subject on another garden website.
I hope it's okay to provide a link to that discussion.
http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/load/natives/msg10145244955.html?8
Well personally, I just want to grow as many wonderful plants as I can. I have nearly 3 acres. There is a 50 acre clear-cut space behind me, where many animals (deer, rabbit, turkey and ground hog are the ones that Ive seen) have been deprived of their normal habitat. I can't provide for all of them, but I would like them to feel welcome. As long as they don't eat my roses! I have learned a lot about natives since I joined Dave's. Yes, I want to plant them, especially any that need to be rescued because their habitat has been destroyed. But there are also cultivars that I want to grow.
If I lived on the 50 acre clear-cut lot behind me, I might have a different attitude about native-natives, and being a purist about land restoration. But, I only have a little spot of this earth. All I am asking for is some good examples of the best of everything!
Well said gloria! My grandmother grew roses, and she was a real nature lover too.
SPP,
I have a few thoughts on some of the suggestions offered so far. First, don't be intimidated by the scale of your project. Just break your yard down into manageable sections and complete them one at a time. The end result will be a number of what they call "garden rooms." And these are fun and give even a normally sized yard a multi-faceted personality. And you can apply what you learn from your first projects on your subsequent projects.
For a really interesting book on the Americas before Columbus, find the book 1491 by Charles Mann. It is a real eye-opener. In it, he goes into great detail about the long lineage and the accomplishments of Native Americans, the land, and Native Americans influence over the land. Not a ton regarding horticulture per se, but plenty of information from which to speculate and/or draw conclusions.
Of the plants you listed Feb 14 at 6:15PM: American hazelnuts are a real thicket kind of plant. They can get kind of rough with a ton of suckers. I'm not sure if they'd be more attractive if cleaned up by pruning or not. They do get a very nice fall color, however. Here's a picture.
Scott
Oh, and regarding the hazelnuts. You'll need male and female plants to get nuts, if that interests you. Check Oikos nursery for good availability and prices on hazelnuts, or any fruit/nut producing plants.
Regarding "Princess Diana," you might consider buying one of the named varieties of serviceberry, despite its pedigree (or lack thereof). Buying seedling serviceberries, which I have done, can lead to disappointment. Mine, for instance, lacks any appreciable fall color, which is normally a very good reason for growing a serviceberry. A cultivar will give you known characteristics. "PD" is a good one. "Rainbow Pillar" is a variety which doesn't produce much fruit (why?), and "Regent" produces very big, delicious fruit. There are not a ton of serviceberry cultivars out there, but a good serviceberry is a spectacular, four-season plant. I wouldn't want to lose of any one of its fine attributes by gambling on a seedling.
From Equil's suggestions: Hypericum kalmianum is a wonderful plant. A little leggy, but cool foliage and beautiful flowers. Actually, I have found that Hypericum flowers are a hit or miss thing. People either love them or hate them. Here's an image.
Scott
I have found the Diervillas a disappointment. I have grown both species from seed and revelled one fall in the saturated red fall color of D. sessilifolia, but mature plantings of both this species and D. lonicera I have seen at Dawes Arboretum were flat out ghastly. One of the ugliest masses of vegetation I have ever seen. Perhaps, the tidying of a loving, caring gardener is all that's needed, but I'm not so sure.
Euonymus atropurpureus is a wonderful small tree, and delightful when the fruit colors up in the fall. It is quite susceptible to scale, however, and usually requires treatment to remain healthy. The flowers, though small, are cute in an oddball sort of way. Image.
I have Amelanchier stolonifera. It is a cute little thing, but usually defoliates early...like August. I don't think it cares for our heat and humidity. It might perform better in cooler, drier air.
I think the key to Arctostaphylos is immediate drainage and acid soil.
I think you should plant V. rafinesquianum just because it is so much fun to say.
Ernie, great points on cultivar status! Well stated too.
Gloria, hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you'll probably learn to hate deer, and they will eat your roses.
Scott
Well said, LHDP. I may repeat some of what he said, but here's my treatise on Native v. Cultivar (2007). I'll be, um, brief.
I haven't looked up the origin of Amelanchier x 'Princess Diana' to know how it came to be selected, so I'll avoid the pitfall of uncertainty and pick a route of more precision.
Plants created by the fusion of species (or parts of species, like pollen etc.) that couldn't have ever gotten together by lack of proximity (even with Match.com or E-Harmony around) just aren't native, even if both (or more) of them are from North America or **insert your continent here**. That doesn't make them bad, or you bad for planting them. But at least don't kid yourself, and please use other plants for restoration work.
Many of the woody plants commonly used today (that were selected from indigenous/native species) can comfortably be considered native plants in the region they were selected from. Thusly, Viburnum prunifolium Valley Vixen™ is a native plant that is a cultivar (and a clone) from central KY. Planted in central KY, it is still and always will be a native plant. Used elsewhere beyond where it might have expected to have migrated in the natural (what's that?) scheme of things, one could surmise it to have been introduced (say, like, northern IL).
Paralleling that idea, if the series of Viburnum dentatum clones introduced by Chicagoland Grows or Beaver Creek Nursery were selected from northern IL/southern WI parent plants, then these are native plants (which happen to be cultivars and clones) for that region. Planted elsewhere, they are perfectly good arrowwoods but not hardly native to, say, central KY.
To move off of this center means that just about every restoration effort performed by wo/man cannot be termed native. Especially if using the criteria mentioned above that anything nursery-propagated is no longer native. There's a whole bunch of midwestern nurseries that will be extremely disappointed to learn that they've been misleading or lying to their customers. Neil Diboll's eyes must be bugging out about now.
One could only "restore" an area by a few means:
•utter neglect, hoping that nature would take its proper course and allow sweetness and light to reign
•destroy all plants (properly DNA tested, of course, to verify paternity) not of that site/region, and allow the certified remainder to go forth and multiply
•destroy all the aliens, and then divvy up the remaining indigenous species to make more to fill the voids. No, wait, that kind of fits the term "propagation" which is what nurserymen do, and that's been predetermined to be verboten.
•destroy all the aliens, and then take seed from remaining natives and others appropriate to the site, plant them and watch-'em-grow. No, wait, nurserymen do that too...Third base!
Dilemma, Catch-22, call it what you will. A considered ruling in Native v. Cultivar may render the decision that used away from its homeland, no plant is a native son whether it was nursery-propagated or not. Plants of their native haunts (whether reproduced by man's or the rest of nature's efforts) legitimately belong there. This takes the emotion and politics out of the argument, and pretty much bases it in fact.
VV: If you took 500 year increments back into prehistory, It would be legitimate to ask native When?
Most inventories of native plants refer to the first historic mapping, but adding the temporal dimension could lead to a very muddy basis for that definition.
Gloria,
If you took enough 500 year encrements back into prehistory, you'd eventually find North American Metasequoia and Gingkos. But that really muddies the waters! LOL
Scott
Do you mean I can plant Gingkos amongst my Oak Leaf Hydrangeas and call the whole composition native plants? Well--no because the Gingkos were nursery-propagated from Chinese imported stock.
Well, it all depends what lens you want to apply doesn't it?
I've been away from this thread for a bit (kind of busy at work) and a lot has happened. Thanks for all the suggestions. I've got a few comments and questions:
First, it is cold in Minnesota, just not as cold as it used to be. I try to walk to work whenever my schedule permits - today, it was 0, and halfway there I'm thinking "I walk to work to try to keep it from getting warmer?". Didn't quite make sense.
Also, I'm not going to be real dogmatic about natives vs. cultivars vs. exotics in my personal space. I think that if I stick with natives that are indigenous to my area, or selections of those natives, I'm more apt to have plants that both do well and at least won't do too much damage if they spread beyond my yard. Minnesota, though, is not what it used to me. It was colder, had more grasslands (because of the burns) and there weren't earthworms here before European settlement. So I think the "natural" environment would probably be more similar to a pre-European Iowa river bluff. Right now, though, the "natural" environment is really predominantly buckthorn and a few other imports!
I don't have any good scientific references, but I have heard a couple of references that american cultivars did not start with the european settlers. The Lakota around here are said to have selected acorns from trees that produced low-tannin acorns for planting in sacred sites. "Wild" rice is apparently not all that wild, really - there was also a lot of selection there.
I'm thinking now that hazelnuts would be too natural looking for that area. Maybe snowberry?
I like Hypericum!
Scott - thankd for the calm words and book recommendation. It sounds exactly like the type of book I like to read.
V.V. - Do you know if V. dentatum and V. rafinesquianum would cross pollinate?
Thank you all, Peg
It has also been said that Native Americans cultivated pecans and spread them beyond their natural range.
Discussion with a master gardener friend in Tuscaloosa earlier this week. She works at a nursery which provides plants to local landscapers. She commented that the plants they are selling now are really zone 9 plants. Traditionally, this area has been designated zone 8. This means that native plants adapted to a specific geographic zone, will because of their climatological adaptation no longer flourish in that zone.
Native Americans did a lot of moving around. In one Middle Woodland (500B.C. - 500 A.D.) site near the Tennessee River where I worked, materials from Ishpeming (sp?), Michigan were identified. Trade, intermarriage, pecan butter sandwiches?
I like Hypericum too! And they would look really nice with your brick. I found this image online of a mature shrub in the landscape. If grown well, they lose the legginess of an awkward adolesence, and are refreshingly different.
http://www.mooseyscountrygarden.com/shrubs/hypericum-rose-arch.jpg
There is a cultivar with purple foliage and bright red berries, but it's a different species. H.androsaemum 'Albury Purple' is pushing it, even in my zone 5, but looks great in a container as well, at least I think. Maybe in a protected spot, it would pick up the color of the cotinus. Sshhh!
http://www.robsplants.com/plants/HyperAndro.php
BTW, I received a nursery catalog today (how's that for coincidence?) that addresses the natives vs cultivars issue. To paraphrase, since cultivars are selected for certain characteristics, namely uniformity of size and color and/or heavy seed set, they lack the genetic variability of the plants they were selected from. I think this is the basis of why you would not plant a cultivar in a restoration site, or one that attempts to recreate a native landscape, as they could ultimately dilute the gene pool of the original species. VV made an excellent point regarding provenance, that is why, for example, the prairie I lived in and loved as a child, was burned down in an effort to restore it. It worked! For anyone who didn't see this, I'll post it again.
http://chicagowildernessmag.org/issues/summer2000/gensburg.html
This message was edited Feb 16, 2007 3:54 PM
As I was re-reading this post, I looked again at my posting. I can see that the morning coffee hadn't quite stimulated all areas of the brain at the time that I typed it. This is evident in bad grammatical structure and worse attempts at humor. If it came across as offensive to anyone, especially Equil, I apologize. On the positive side, I did manage one lucid statement, that of the serviceberry. Well, anyway.........Vv, good rationale; I have added a couple more bits of info to my collection. I hadn't thought of the proximity issue.
Scott- I'm not a huge fan of Diervilla myself. Perhaps someone will get that plant genetically whipped into shape.
Peg- You can also try Amelanchier alnifolia, 'Regent' is the most common, Hamamelis virginiana (some southern boys have been selecting some plants for dwarf forms, not sure they'd be hardy but worth researching,) and don't forget some dwarf forms of evergreens: Abies balsamea 'Nana' and Tsuga canadensis 'Emerald Fountain' which is hard to find although Gerten's probably can get it. Also any number of dwarf or variegated forms of hemlock are available.
Best Regards,
Ernie
