Talk:Ulmus of King & Co

Incorrect information

This page has been created without my consent or approval. Part of the information is not correct as none of the contributors have spoken to me to obtain accuracy. Much of the reporting by the national press initially misquoted myself and the local Tree Officer. At the time we protested to the press, in particular the science editor of the Daily Mail who acknowledged the issues we had. It follows that a number of people still believe that those reports were true. The original cuttings were taken from four trees. Those trees are still in full leaf every year. Of the 2000 trees we micropropogated, I am aware that some have probably died but at least 95% of them are still surviving in different locations throughout the British Isles. In 2010 Dr Felicidad Fernandez of East Malling Research carried out a Genotyping of seven samples for King and Co. The fingerprinting set showed distinct variations in the samples. All three original trees used in the test were distinct. Over the years the proliferation of cultivar naming has contributed to the confusion when trying to identify Ulmus species. Calling these trees "Paul King" is neither desirable or correct. The Royal Botanical Society 's Ulmus referee, Dr. Max Coleman has alluded to Ulmus .minor "Atinia". He advises me that without widespread publication and confirmation of a new cultivar, the procedure is incorrect. As far as I am concerned the trees are U.minor, a variable species. 89.213.26.127 (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC) Furthermore, the original cuttings were taken from the four surviving trees by local tree officer Melvyn Crow. Mr Crow deserves as much credit as any other individual for this attempt to bring back some elm populations to the UK. Melvyn passed away recently, and I believe this page may cause considerable distress to his wife and children. The anonymous individuals who are editing this site with only a partial knowledge of the facts will be entirely responsible for that.89.213.26.127 (talk) 10:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

The article is now, it is hoped, more balanced and factual. It includes information and corrections based on the Talk edit above and made by the editor above. It contains information not mentioned on the nursery website or in the media. The suggested article heading, 'King & Co.'s elm', is a plain man's version of what the nursery calls the tree (Ulmus of King & Co The Tree Nursery Ltd). The rationale for an article, stated towards the end of the Introduction, seems strong. Indeed, if the tree is what the nursery says it is, a highly resistant form of English elm or (as above) U. minor, either an article or a subsection on another page on Wikipedia would in time be expected. For the subsection option, editors might expect more evidence of identification. There is, it seems to me, currently no page other than a 'King & Co's elm' page where detailed information on this elm could go. A lengthy edit of +2526 words about King & Co's elm‎, added to the English Elm page by editor 92.18.144.121 on 12 December 2011 (presumably an editor with information from the nursery), and shortly after transferred without protest to the U. minor subsp. minor page, would have been better on a page called 'King & Co's elm'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.39.159.73 (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)