No, for that are the roots not far enough exposed I guess . This is still surface root display, that why I named it Nebari. Anyhow thanks for pointing this out , so we know the difference in the names too. Never learn out.

Indo wrote:

No, for that are the roots not far enough exposed I guess . This is still surface root display, that why I named it Nebari. Anyhow thanks for pointing this out , so we know the difference in the names too. Never learn out.

So... nebari are a root flare formed by the surface roots, where the roots are not fully exposed, but flare from the base of the tree. That is not what I'm seeing here? Not sure what you're trying to accomplish - good nebari or neagari style. It does look more like neagari.

Ok, I have thought it is neberi, because I have seen it described that way too, never-less next time I re-name it. Always good to have a different opinion.
While we are there, would you turn the first tree, because I was going for "Tōboku Style" (fallen tree). I won't change now but it could be done in the future. Just for an opinion.

Indo wrote:

Always good to have a different opinion.

It's not an opinion, really.

While we are there, would you turn the first tree, because I was going for "Tōboku Style" (fallen tree). I won't change now but it could be done in the future. Just for an opinion.

Never heard of that style nor did Google. Did you just make that up or it is a gap in my knowledge? I do know Ikadabuki style, that involves a fallen tree. Is that what you meant?

I wouldn't add a fallen tree, it doesn't seem to fit well in a young forest. You could argue that young trees could be blown down by the wind more easily, but then that would have an effect on all trees in the forest. I think a fallen tree would be more suitable for a forest with very old trees. Guess that's a matter of taste though.

Well noted, the Indonesian add this description, well we are in Asia. Should I turn the tree?

Beginner here. I really like your projects Indo Andrea. I have one question about this, maybe I need to train my eye, but something just doesn't seem very aesthetic. The foliage seems to close between tress, and a bit too much, I can't see the secondary branches, or tertiary branches if there are any. Aren't we suppose to thin the tree, open space so light gets into the inner structure of the crown? Don't take this as criticism, cause it isn't. It is just a question, I am trying to learn.

This is a tropical plant, it grows that way.

It's only my second day here, and I can already tell Auk is a stickler for terminology.

Indo wrote:

This is a tropical plant, it grows that way.

Hm.. That is what wire and trimming are for. It creates the difference between opiary and bonsai, I would say.

el_cheezer wrote:

It's only my second day here, and I can already tell Auk is a stickler for terminology.

It helps to say what you mean, and mean what you say: that way, everyone is talking about the same thing.

Indo wrote:

This is a tropical plant, it grows that way.

It is a boxwood (not tropical, I know) grows this way:



Some people seem to like the bushy style, and go with this:



Yet, even though it wants to grow "bushy" some people manage to grow this:



It seems like after some serious thinning, and "controlled" new growth (pinching upper growth) a bushy boxwood can turn into a bonsai with great ramification. Forgive my ignorance, but how does this not apply to tropical trees? If people can turn a bush into a miniature tree that doesn't look like a bush, even though it can grow like one. Why couldn't you do it with your tropical tree?