Area 8 – Notes

Unsurprisingly, given the origins of this section, the terrain is very steep and of a shape that is not easily surveyed. Quite a few of the plants on the original map are no longer there and with many of the labels missing it took some time to work out what was still standing. Of the seven below the path only one remains. There are several varieties that are not singles.

‘Benihassaku’. (8-014) This was labelled ‘Hassaku’. The register lists two ‘Hassaku’ forms, both white sasanquas. There is a C. japonica ‘Hassaku-shibori’ which is white with a faint peppering of red and which has a red sport called ‘Benihassaku’, described as single red, medium size campanulate flowers opening out flat, very profuse and very early. Could be, the flower form matches the pictures of ‘Hassaku-shibori’. Good match for picture on Rhododendrons.com

Candy Stripe (Waterhouse) (8-004) There are two ‘Candy Stripe’s in the register and this one doesn’t really fit either. It is much more likely to be the Australian ‘Candy Stripe’ (Waterhouse) version, for which the description is single, white ground with red flecks and stripes. About half of this bush is flowering solid red.

‘Golden Spangles’ (8-013) has largely lost the variegated leaves which distinguish it from its parent ‘Mary Christian’.

(8-011) Was labelled C. japonica ‘Fragrans Comber’. This seems a good match with the 2D-006 plant of the same name. It is described in the Register as a white flowered sasanqua, the name a synonym for ‘Fragrans’. It seems likely that ‘Fragrans’ was one of several names invalidly used for C. sasanqua ‘Tago-no-tsuki’. The plant here is neither a sasanqua nor is it fragrant.

(8-016) was labelled C. japonica ‘Jitsugetsusei’, which should should have white blotches on a crimson background. This plant seems only to have had unblotched red flowers so it may have been the self red form from which ‘Jitsugetsusei’ arose as a sport, called ‘Asahi-no-minato’. The main plant snapped at ground level early 2018, leaving a group of small stems from the ground. These shoots flowered in spring 2019 and are white with red stripes, presumably from the rootstock if the plant was grafted, or a chimaeral variant if not. The cleanness of the break suggested the failure of a graft union.

The register description of ‘Judith Anderson’ (8-017) is rose form white so it or this plant is incorrect.

‘Southern Star’ (8-028) was labelled ‘Southern Cross’, the Register description of which is “crimson red, medium large peony form. It is likely to have been a plant supplies in the early days of the collection by David Trehane. Trehane Nursery’s catalogue from the time lists ‘Southern Star’ and the description fits. It does not list ‘Southern Cross’.