Ruth wrote: Why do we say it can't be bonsai when it is in various public bonsai gardens, grown by a bonsai masters? Who sets the criteria? I read so much about bonsai guidelines, not rules but guidelines. I get personal preference, but personal preference and a definition of what is bonsai are two totally different things.

Bonsai = tree in pot. P. Afra is not a tree.
If you consider it bonsai because you can find websites that say it is bonsai, then coconut is bonsai too.
dakwahdigital.blogspot.nl/2015/05/how-to...-coconut-bonsai.html

However, it is not just this website that mentions P. Afra, many good bonsai sites do the same. So, I guess it's an exception, and LB and I are just being traditionalists.

"A great deal of traditionalists don’t like them, though. The refrains are
“it’s not a real tree”
“the leaves are funny”
“I always over water them”
…etcetera etcetera etcetera…."

adamaskwhy.com/2012/08/22/dwarf-jade-portulacaria-afra/

A "tree" is defined as a perennial plant with an elongated stem, or trunk, supporting branches and leaves in most species.

Perennial is defined as a plant that lives for more than two years.

So the bonsai requirement from the definition "tree in pot" seems to be anything over 2 years old with an elongated stem or trunk and supports branches and possible leaves.

Curious why the hate towards P. Afra, but azaleas and rosemary are fine. As I said in a post earlier, the fact that it is a succulent does not bar it from being a tree. Baobab, quiver, and palm tree are all succulents.

Anyways, if u look around you should be able to find a better specimen to start with. I have a nursery 20 mins away with tons of P. Afra much cheaper than online, of a greater age by far, and a greater quality. What you have in that pot are cuttings from another Afraid. I've got tons of them lying around, lol.

Good luck!

Cash wrote: So the bonsai requirement from the definition "tree in pot" seems to be anything over 2 years old with an elongated stem or trunk and supports branches and possible leaves.

The mistake here is that bonsai is more than just a mere tree in a pot. And of course that a tree is defined as a WOODY plant. With many succulents not forming wood, you can exclude them from the category trees.
The challenge with succulents is that as they do not create wood, they are hard to shape in specific forms. That being saidm there are some great bonsai from Portocularia out there. Those are however exceptions.

So now the argument changes? Originally Auk said "bonsai = tree in pot P Afra is not a tree," but now bonsai = more than just a mere tree in a pot?
the definition of a tree does not require it to be "woody," although wild P Afra's are quite cork like, which is a wood.
as I look up P. Afra: It is a soft-wooded, semi-evergreen upright shrub or small tree,

I guess I just dont understand the bias. Either way, please stop using the fact that it is a succulent to exclude it from having the possibility of being a tree. If you believe you cannot both be a succulent and a tree, that would be incorrect. if the general consensus is, we just dont like them so they are not an official bonsai, i get that. but the reasons for it not being considered a bonsai i have heard thus far have been smoke and mirrors and pretty much incorrect.

I would imagine that the powers that decide what species can and cannot be an accepted bonsai have reasonable reasons, that information just hasn't flown downhill well enough. Either way, for someone just starting out, its an excellent choice. The plant is so forgiving, and you can learn alot about how plants grow from interacting with P Afra.

Im off to bed, night night.

Cash wrote: So now the argument changes? Originally Auk said "bonsai = tree in pot P Afra is not a tree," but now bonsai = more than just a mere tree in a pot?

How does that change the argument? The context is different, so you cannot compare. Also, please don't attribute other people's quotes to me.

Cash wrote: if the general consensus is, we just dont like them so they are not an official bonsai, i get that. but the reasons for it not being considered a bonsai i have heard thus far have been smoke and mirrors and pretty much incorrect.

I would imagine that the powers that decide what species can and cannot be an accepted bonsai have reasonable reasons, that information just hasn't flown downhill well enough. Either way, for someone just starting out, its an excellent choice. The plant is so forgiving, and you can learn alot about how plants grow from interacting with P Afra.

Of course, you know better than everyone else. I am just going by the botanical definition which DOES include the requirement of woody. But the whole discussion is moot if you think it is smoke and mirrors. There is more to bonsai than just being a tree-species in a pot. It is a plant that gives the impression of a tree and typically of age and maturity. So whether or not the species is a treespecies or not is less relevant than the impression it gives. Which is where my argument comes from:

leatherback wrote: With many succulents not forming wood, you can exclude them from the category trees.
The challenge with succulents is that as they do not create wood, they are hard to shape in specific forms. That being saidm there are some great bonsai from Portocularia out there. Those are however exceptions."

Feel free to do what you wont. But be aware that you are going to have some challenges which make this a less suitable species, especially for beginners: You do not have a lot of control over the shape it takes.

So what you're saying is the people that put together this web page, just don't know what they're talking about.

If you go to the top of the page, click on "Tree species" looks like this...




If you go down the list, you run across this link, www.bonsaiempire.com/tree-species/jade-tree note it says "jade Tree" Scroll on down you'll see this ...

There it says tree too, It doesn't say anything about the wood being to soft, to meet our "standards".

I realize you are just going to argue anything that I post, for reasons I cannot understand. ut well. I would not dare say that Oscar does not know what he is doing. I do not want to get into a fight with him next time I see him.

But it makes you wonder. To have a page recommending crassula for bonsai, and then having a plant that very much looks like portulacaria as illustration.

And again. Read my posts. For reasons specfied I would not call this a suitable species. What anyone does, is up to them. i also have plants that people consider unsuitable.

Samantha wrote: So what you're saying is the people that put together this web page, just don't know what they're talking about.

Is that your proof that it's a good species for bonsai? Schefflera is listed too. If you see the picture, you will agree that it's a pretty bad example.
The people of this page - I think - probably just wanted to be complete, listing species that are often used, without judging the suitability.
Jade is just not very good bonsai material. I know. I have (and I just tried to count) about 50 of 'm. About a dozen in a 'forest' (I posted it before), about 15 in small bonsai pots, one in a large pot, quite a few cuttings. Fun to play with, but they will not become good bonsai. With the fleshy trunk, branches and leaves, it will just never become a really refined tree.

I guess it's a matter of taste. Let's agree that Jade traditionally isn't used as bonsai, but that they can be trained and people may find the results acceptable.

sometimes I agree.

www.bonsaioutlet.com/jade-bonsai-care/
homeguides.sfgate.com/steps-prune-perfec...de-bonsai-46869.html
www.bonsaimary.com/Jade-Bonsai.html
bonsaidude.com/practical-guide-on-how-to...or-your-jade-bonsai/

Perhaps if you would dare to broaden your horizons

rameshsinhabonsai.blogspot.com/2009/04/m...-under-training.html

they are sort of ugly, I must agree. Bonsai or not.