Ulmus 'Rebona'
elm cultivar
Ulmus 'Rebona' is an American hybrid cultivar raised by the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (WARF) as selection 'W916', derived from a crossing of Japanese Elm clone W43-8 = 'Reseda' with Siberian Elm clone W426 grown from seed collected from a street tree at Yankton, South Dakota. The tree was registered in 1993 by Conrad Appel KG, of Darmstadt (ceased trading 2006) and is a sibling of 'New Horizon' (selection 'W917'). In Europe, 'Rebona' is marketed as a Resista elm protected under E U breeders' rights (E U council decision 2100/94).
Description
'Rebona' bears a close resemblance to its sibling 'New Horizon', but requires less maintenance owing to a better leader. The tree grows rapidly, developing a fastigiate pyramidal shape with ascending branches. The glossy leaves (6 to 9 cm long by 3 to 5 wide) are described by Resista Ulmen as "a little smaller and darker" than those of 'New Horizon'. The petiole is 10 to 15 mm long. The seed is central in the samara.
Pests and diseases
'Rebona' is highly resistant to Dutch elm disease, rated 5 out of 5.
Cultivation
'Rebona' has been widely planted as a street tree in Germany, the Netherlands, and to a lesser extent France and the UK. In the Netherlands lines of 'Rebona' were planted in the Parade in the centre of Den Bosch, North Brabant, in 2022.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Ulmus 'Rebona'” is elm cultivar. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Ulmus, 'Rebona' and cultivar, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “elm cultivar” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Feb 25, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q7879336. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1993, 2006 and 2022.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Ulmus 'Rebona'”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Ulmus 'Rebona' primary sources, Ulmus 'Rebona' archive and Ulmus research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Ulmus 'Rebona'”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Ulmus 'Rebona'” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.