Hhhhmmm...those two Chinese varities are of similar prickliness to me, IIRC; firma is definitely softer. A. holophylla is supposedly very prickly.

Another easier way to tell if it is firma is having almost no foliar odor. This does not look like firma.

I'm pretty sure that A. holophylla is very light in odor, too...but I can't 100% remember which tree at the VA State Arboretum I was smelling.

A. chensiensis is intermediate.

A. recurvata is pretty close to "full power" fir needle odor, albeit not as sweet as say Abies grandis.

Just based on looks, I'd say it is A. chensiensis...but is is closely related to A. ernestii, apparently. Sadly I killed my plant trying to graft Abies concolor to it! So I can't take a picture to compare now. FWIW I said in another thread the needles were 'softer' than firma, but I wasn't talking about the pointy tip, but the overall stiffness. Firma has very rigid needles that make branchlets feel like a giant wire brush, but the tips are not especially sharp. IIRC!

Thanks, guys. So, it seems it's clearly not firma, and the more I read, I think not chensiensis either. And seems it's not recurvata var. recurvata, as the needles are longer (up to 3.5cm) than the guides say is true for that plant.

I guess it could be Abies holophylla. I hadn't thought of that at first, but after Clement's comment, I checked, and it does fit many of the parameters. (I hadn't realized holophylla was so close in characteristics.) But, thing is, I have a holophylla, and that plant's foliage is slightly different. The needles are more curved upward, and longer (more like 4-4.5cm). And less sharp. Also, the white lines of stomata on the bottom seem thicker.

Also, on the first plant, the needles do seem to recurve slightly downward on the leader. So I think, on balance, it seems more similar to Abies ernestii (or recurvata var. ernestii, if you prefer!). The frustrating thing is that some of the botanical surveys seem to differ on the characteristics for this one.

As for fragrance, that's interesting. The plant in question has very little. But my Abies holophylla actually does have some. So there's that difference, anyway, too.

Thanks, guys, for the input!

FWIW the fir groupings...

Group 1 bracteata.
Group 2 alba, cephalonica, nordmanniana, borisii-regis, bornmuelleriana, nebrodensis, equi-trojani.
Group 3 pinsapo, numidica, cilicica, tazaotana, marocana
Group 4 firma, homolepis, recurvata, pindrow, gamblei, chensiensis, holophylla, beshanzuensis [kawakamii].
Group 5 amabilis, mariesii.
Group 6 spectabilis, densa, delavayi, forrestii, fabri, fargesii, squamata, chengii.
Group
7 sibirica, semenovii, nephrolepis, sachalinensis, veitchii, koreana,
sikokiana, [kawakamii - moved to group 4], lasiocarpa, balsamea,
fraseri.
Group 8 grandis, concolor, durangensis, coahuilensis, mexicana, guatemalensis.
Group 9 procera, magnifica.
Group 10 religiosa, vejari, hickelii, oaxacana.

I too find various species look very similar to one another, especially when small.

Just found this interesting recent (2014) paper. Here, the authors argue that A. chensiensis and A. ernestii (and A. saluenensis) are really all one species with variation between them. So, if this is right, A. recurvata var. ernestii is actually Abies chensiensis var. ernestii. (A. recurvata is, they argue, still a separate species.)

If that's so, then one could legitimately call my plant A. chensiensis after all. So maybe my plant source is vindicated.

Crazy taxonomical stuff!

Abies chensiensis, have a longer foliage and different buds.

"Abies chensiensis, have a longer foliage"

But I would argue it is trickier with seedlings. I have literally seen some where the needle appearance has changed over a couple years as they get larger. Or perhaps in my case they were heavily fertilized by the mail order nursery but I planted them and did not fertilize for a few years so there was a slight morphological change.

BTW I went out just before sundown last night and confirmed that indeed, A. recurvata is more needle sharp than firma. You can run your hands "against the grain" of firma, it's like running your hands against the teeth of an acetate comb. The needles of recurvata are not as angled as firma, so it's harder to run your fingers against the grain, but if you try to, you're in for some pokes! Not nearly as bad as blue spruces, though.

Abies recurvata.

Interesting...in that case I do not have real A. recurvata! On mine, only the central leader has recurving needles.

This guide could be outdated, but has a helpful system for keying them: 730.pdf

I need to get a magnifying glass and see how some of mine key out!

With various plant genera young and small, seed-raised plants of different species within the same genus often resemble one another more than they will when older. Another variable encountered when plants are raised from seed in horticultural settings is hybrid natures. With crossing being sometimes encountered even when seeds used were collected from wild populations.

A. holophylla needles put blue spruce to shame -- they'll actually stab your fingers:

Specific epithet holophylla refers to leaf tips not being divided (cleft).

Hi all,
this group of Abies has a wide range, with very different climates. I would
like to react on the idea of grouping A. chensiensis, A. recurvata, A.
ernestii and A. salouensis into one single species. They certainly have a
common ancestor but have evolved separately. In reference to the types of each
species, each spécies has individual characters that separate them. But it must
be understood that these characters are not fixed like a statue, and that there
are meeting areas. For example, in southern Gansu, in northern Yunnan and in C.
Sichuan, and in these places, intermediate forms are sometimes difficult to
classify in one or the other species. In the type locality of a species the
taxa are very characteristic and the further away we are the more we find
variations. It is therefore normal that the trees we grow are not always as
characteristic as those described in the books. The authors of the descriptions
often had only herbarium specimens at their disposal. The original descriptions
represent only a moment T of the life of a plant. They do not reflect all the
variation of a species. Here is an example of two-year variations of an original
Abies recurvata from the type locality, min river valley, south of Songpan
city, Sichuan.

Interesting. Mine only "recurves" on the lead shoot. I have never seen side branches like this.

I have never seen side branches like this

"Two-year variations of an original Abies recurvata from the type locality" presumably refers to a seed-raised plant. Yet growth shown looks too heavy for this - as though it is a grafted clone. In which case it might have more adult foliage characters than a young seedling.

Otherwise yours might be showing the introgression referred to in the above post, with less recurved foliage being seen where the sensu strictu species blends into another. Things like this can also be examples of variation within what is taken to be a true species, for example some Rhododendron barbatum have no barbed hairs on their stems. But are utterly typical otherwise.

The original pictured plant looks like A. holophylla to me. I have a seedling of that species that looks pretty close the plant in question.