Start a consultation

Support Tree TSAR: Sponsorship Opportunities

Cupressaceae Gray

Cypress Family

Suggest a Correction

Family Overview

Cupressaceae, the Cypress Family, is one of the principal families of conifers and the most genus-rich component of Cupressales. Tree TSAR recognizes 28 nonhybrid extant genera and roughly 170 extant species, together with the accepted intergeneric nothogenus ×Hesperotropsis, for 29 generic entities in the Accepted Genera table. Species totals vary among modern sources because Juniperus, Cupressus and its relatives, and Callitris remain sensitive to species concepts and continuing systematic study. A recent gymnosperm classification estimated 169 extant species in the family, while the current Plants of the World Online backbone recognizes more ordinary genera because it retains Fokienia and Pilgerodendron separately (Yang et al. 2022; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew 2026).

Members of Cupressaceae are woody trees and shrubs ranging from Sequoia sempervirens and Sequoiadendron giganteum to low or prostrate species such as Microbiota decussata. Most are evergreen, although Metasequoia and Taxodium include familiar deciduous trees. Leaves may be linear, awl-shaped, needle-like, or reduced to overlapping scales, and juvenile foliage often differs markedly from adult foliage. Seed cones range from large woody structures to highly reduced forms; in Juniperus, the cone scales become fleshy and form the berry-like galbuli commonly called juniper berries. Monoecious and dioecious reproductive systems both occur, while aromatic resins and decay-resistant wood are widespread family traits.

The modern family is substantially broader than Cupressaceae in many older classifications. Sequoia, Metasequoia, Sequoiadendron, Taxodium, Cryptomeria, Glyptostrobus, Taiwania, and Cunninghamia were traditionally placed in Taxodiaceae, while cypresses, junipers, arborvitae, and their allies formed Cupressaceae sensu stricto. Combined morphological and molecular evidence demonstrated that Taxodiaceae, after exclusion of Sciadopitys, forms a paraphyletic grade relative to traditional Cupressaceae. Modern classifications therefore unite those lineages in Cupressaceae sensu lato and recognize Sciadopitys separately in Sciadopityaceae (Gadek et al. 2000; Yang et al. 2022).

Tree TSAR recognizes seven principal subfamilies: Cunninghamioideae, Taiwanioideae, Athrotaxidoideae, Sequoioideae, Taxodioideae, Actinostroboideae, and Cupressoideae. The name Callitroideae remains widely used for the lineage treated here as Actinostroboideae. Relationships among these major branches are generally well supported, although the exact order of some early divergences has varied among plastid, nuclear, and broader phylogenomic analyses (Gadek et al. 2000; Liu et al. 2022; Yang et al. 2022).

Cupressaceae is also a useful demonstration that Tree TSAR does not apply a uniform preference for either splitting or lumping genera. Traditional Cupressus sensu lato is divided because nuclear evidence places the New World HCX lineage (Hesperocyparis + Callitropsis + Xanthocyparis) apart from the lineage containing Cupressus sensu stricto and Juniperus. A broad Cupressus that combines Old and New World cypresses while excluding Juniperus is therefore paraphyletic. Tree TSAR recognizes Cupressus sensu stricto, Hesperocyparis, Callitropsis, and Xanthocyparis while retaining a broad Juniperus (Mao et al. 2019; Liu et al. 2022).

Elsewhere, broader genera better represent the evidence. Actinostrobus and Neocallitropsis are included in Callitris, avoiding fragmentation of a closely related southern-cypress radiation (Piggin & Bruhl 2010). Fokienia hodginsii is treated as Chamaecyparis hodginsii because species-complete phylogenetic work places it within Chamaecyparis, and its morphology overlaps that of the broader genus (Yang et al. 2021; Wang et al. 2022). Tree TSAR likewise retains the major lineages of Juniperus, including the traditional Sabina, below genus rank because broad Juniperus remains phylogenetically coherent.

Tree TSAR also uses a broad six-species Libocedrus, incorporating the Patagonian lineage traditionally recognized as Pilgerodendron uviferum under Libocedrus uvifera. Earlier molecular work recovered Pilgerodendron among sampled Libocedrus lineages, whereas denser southern-hemisphere sampling later recovered conventional Libocedrus and Pilgerodendron as sister lineages. Broad Libocedrus remains monophyletic under either principal topology, and reproductive morphology shows substantial structural continuity despite the distinctive foliage and branching of L. uvifera (Gadek et al. 2000; Crisp et al. 2019; Dörken & Nimsch 2022). Because a species-complete nuclear phylogenomic treatment of all six lineages is still lacking, this boundary remains a useful target for re-evaluation rather than a permanently closed question.

The family’s geographic history is exceptionally deep. Molecular dating links early diversification to the breakup of Pangaea, but the modern distribution cannot be explained by vicariance alone. Extinction and long-distance dispersal were also important, particularly among southern lineages. The Miocene divergence between South American Libocedrus uvifera and its Zealandian relatives is far younger than the separation of South America from Zealandia, supporting transoceanic dispersal and later regional extinction rather than simple continental inheritance (Mao et al. 2012; Crisp et al. 2019; Liu et al. 2022).

Cupressaceae also has a fossil history rich enough to test how confidently living morphology can be projected backward in time. Jurassic Austrohamia from Patagonia preserves both reproductive and vegetative characters close to the early history of the family, while the Early Cretaceous Athrosequoia walkeri combines cone characters now distributed among several living subfamilies (Escapa et al. 2008; Molano et al. 2026; Pfeiler et al. 2026). Conversely, developmental variation can create the illusion of extinct diversity: Miocene Japanese material divided between Sequoia and Protosequoia was recently reassessed as Sequoia primaria after comparison with the continuous leaf variation of living S. sempervirens (Ikeda & Momohara 2026). Together, these fossils show why extinct Cupressaceae should be interpreted through suites of characters and developmental context rather than forced mechanically into living genera.

Horticultural and Agricultural Uses

Cupressaceae is among the most important conifer families in horticulture, forestry, landscape planting, and living collections. Juniperus, Thuja, Chamaecyparis, Cupressus, Hesperocyparis, Calocedrus, Platycladus, Cryptomeria, and Taxodium include extensive cultivar traditions selected for habit, foliage color, cold hardiness, dwarfness, columnar form, and site tolerance. Members of the family range from monumental specimen trees and forestry crops to hedges, screens, foundation shrubs, rock-garden plants, shelterbelts, and bonsai.

Durable and aromatic wood has made several lineages economically important. Western redcedar (Thuja plicata), Lawson cypress (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana), sugi (Cryptomeria japonica), species of Cupressus, Callitris, and Juniperus, and the redwoods have been used for construction, shingles, fencing, cabinetry, carving, and traditional woodcraft. The same slow growth and durable heartwood that make some species valuable can also increase pressure on wild populations when extraction exceeds regeneration.

The family contains trees with very different ecological requirements, so cultivation cannot be reduced to a single “cypress” recipe. Taxodium tolerates prolonged inundation, Metasequoia performs best with reliable moisture, and many Chamaecyparis favor humid climates. By contrast, numerous Cupressus, Hesperocyparis, Juniperus, and Callitris are adapted to seasonal drought, nutrient-poor soils, or exposed sites. Provenance can therefore matter as much as species identity when living collections are established for long-term conservation, climate-response studies, or restoration.

Intergeneric hybridization has also produced important horticultural plants. Tree TSAR recognizes ×Hesperotropsis for hybrids between Callitropsis and Hesperocyparis. The best-known lineage is Leyland-cypress, derived from Nootka cypress (Callitropsis nootkatensis) and Monterey western-cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa). Recognition of the nothogenus preserves the identity of the parental genera while providing a coherent name for their hybrids (Garland & Moore 2012).

Conservation Issues

Cupressaceae contains many classic relict distributions: monotypic genera, island endemics, isolated mountain populations, desert survivors, and species whose fossil records show that their lineages once occupied much larger regions. These patterns concentrate conservation risk because a small modern range may represent the final remnant of a lineage already reduced by long-term climatic change and extinction.

Major pressures vary across the family but repeatedly include logging for durable timber, habitat conversion and fragmentation, altered fire regimes, grazing and regeneration failure, introduced pests and pathogens, and increasing drought and heat stress. Small populations on islands, karst or limestone systems, nutrient-poor soils, isolated mountains, or climatic margins may have little opportunity to shift their ranges as conditions change. Long-lived trees can also mask demographic decline because mature individuals persist for decades after successful regeneration has become rare.

Examples span the family. Fitzroya cupressoides has a long history of exploitation for exceptionally durable wood. East Asian relicts such as Glyptostrobus and Chamaecyparis hodginsii have experienced extensive habitat loss and harvesting pressure. The narrowly distributed Xanthocyparis vietnamensis illustrates the vulnerability of substrate specialists, while redwood and giant-sequoia ecosystems show that even large charismatic trees on protected lands can be affected by interacting drought, fire, and climate pressures.

Ex situ cultivation is most valuable when it preserves wild genetic and geographic representation rather than only a few horticultural clones. Documented provenance, sampling across populations, and coordination among botanic gardens can make living collections useful for genetic safeguarding, propagation research, restoration, education, and climate-response studies. The Global Conservation Consortium for Conifers provides a framework for coordinating that work across institutions.

Major Clades

Cunninghamioideae. Cunninghamia represents the earliest-diverging living subfamily in most modern analyses. Its broad spirally arranged leaves and relatively large cones contrast with the scale-leaved cypresses of more derived lineages, and fossils indicate a formerly much wider Northern Hemisphere distribution.

Taiwanioideae. Taiwania forms another isolated early branch. Its surviving East Asian populations are remnants of a lineage with a much richer fossil history, and its juvenile-adult foliage transition and large cones help illustrate the morphological grade between early-diverging and more derived Cupressaceae.

Athrotaxidoideae. Athrotaxis, now restricted to Tasmania, forms the living core of this ancient lineage. Relationships around Athrotaxidoideae, Sequoioideae, and adjacent early branches have shifted among genomic datasets, making fossils such as Athrosequoia particularly valuable for interpreting character evolution (Pfeiler et al. 2026).

Sequoioideae. The redwood lineage contains Metasequoia, Sequoia, and Sequoiadendron. All three are relicts of formerly widespread Northern Hemisphere lineages. Their extensive fossil record makes the subfamily especially informative for studies of climatic range contraction, extinction, and morphological plasticity.

Taxodioideae. Cryptomeria, Glyptostrobus, and Taxodium form another relict radiation with deep Cenozoic fossil histories. Their living ranges extend from East Asian forests to wetlands of southeastern North America, while deciduousness and wetland adaptation distinguish important parts of the group.

Actinostroboideae. Often called Callitroideae, this predominantly Southern Hemisphere lineage contains five principal tribes in the Tree TSAR treatment: Papuacedreae, Austrocedreae, Libocedreae, Diselmeae, and Actinostrobeae. Broad Callitris and broad Libocedrus are both used here. The subfamily records a complex history of Gondwanan ancestry, extinction, long-distance dispersal, and ecological specialization (Crisp et al. 2019).

Cupressoideae. This predominantly Northern Hemisphere radiation contains Thujopsideae, Chamaecyparideae, Tetraclineae, and Cupresseae. Tree TSAR places Chamaecyparis hodginsii within broad Chamaecyparis. Cupresseae contains Callitropsis, Cupressus, Hesperocyparis, Juniperus, and Xanthocyparis, together with ×Hesperotropsis. Nuclear data separating the HCX lineage from the Cupressus + Juniperus lineage provide one of the clearest examples in the family of molecular evidence correcting a long-standing generic boundary (Mao et al. 2019; Liu et al. 2022).

Accepted Genera
Athrotaxis D.Don (1838) Pencil-pine
Austrocedrus Florin & Boutelje (1954) Cordillera-cypress
Callitris Vent. (1808) Cypress-pine
Callitropsis Oerst. (1864) Nootka-cypress
Calocedrus Kurz (1873) Incense-cedar
Chamaecyparis Spach (1841) False-cypress
Cryptomeria D.Don (1838) Sugi
Cunninghamia R.Br. (1826) China-fir
Cupressus L. (1753) Cypress
Diselma Hook.f. (1860) Heath-pine
Fitzroya Hook.f. ex Lindl. (1851) Alerce
Glyptostrobus Endl. (1847) Swamp-cypress
Hesperocyparis Bartel & R.A.Price (2009) Western-cypress
× Hesperotropsis Garland & Gerry Moore (2012) Leyland-cypress
Juniperus L. (1753) Juniper
Libocedrus Endl. (1847) Southern-cypress
Metasequoia Hu & W.C.Cheng (1948) Dawn-redwood
Microbiota Kom. (1923) Carpet-cypress
Papuacedrus H.L.Li (1953) Dzasihanini
Platycladus Spach (1841) False-arborvitae
Sequoia Endl. (1847) Redwood
Sequoiadendron J.Buchholz (1939) Sequoia
Taiwania Hayata (1906) Coffin-cypress
Taxodium Rich. (1810) Baldcypress
Tetraclinis Mast. (1892) Arar
Thuja L. (1753) Arborvitae
Thujopsis Siebold & Zucc. ex Endl. (1842) Hiba
Widdringtonia Endl. (1842) African-cypress
Xanthocyparis Farjon & T.H.Nguyên (2002) Golden-cypress

Additional Information

References and Further Reading

Crisp MD, Cook LG, Bowman DMJS, Cosgrove M, Isagi Y, Sakaguchi S (2019) Turnover of southern cypresses in the post-Gondwanan world: extinction, transoceanic dispersal, adaptation and rediversification. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.15561.

Dörken VM, Nimsch H (2022) Pollen cone structure of Libocedrus s.l. (Callitroideae, Cupressaceae) and its systematic implications for a controversial genus complex. Bulletin of the Cupressus Conservation Project 11(1): 2–19.

Escapa IH, Cúneo NR, Rothwell GW, Stockey RA (2008) Austrohamia minuta, a new conifer from the Early Jurassic of Patagonia, Argentina. Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 151: 110–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.revpalbo.2008.03.002.

Farjon A (2005) A Monograph of Cupressaceae and Sciadopitys. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

Gadek PA, Alpers DL, Heslewood MM, Quinn CJ (2000) Relationships within Cupressaceae sensu lato: a combined morphological and molecular approach. American Journal of Botany 87(7): 1044–1057. https://doi.org/10.2307/2657004.

Garland MA, Moore G (2012) ×Hesperotropsis, a new nothogenus for hybrids between Callitropsis and Hesperocyparis (Cupressaceae). Taxon 61(3): 667–670. https://doi.org/10.1002/tax.613015.

Ikeda S, Momohara A (2026) Taxonomic reassessment of fossil Sequoia and Protosequoia from the Upper Miocene of Central Honshu, Japan, with implications for leaf morphological variation in extant S. sempervirens. American Journal of Botany 113(7): e70227. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajb2.70227.

Liu XQ, Xia XM, Chen L, Wang XQ (2022) Phylogeny and evolution of Cupressaceae: updates on intergeneric relationships and new insights on ancient intergeneric hybridization. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 177: 107606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2022.107606.

Mao KS, Milne RI, Zhang LB, Peng YL, Liu JQ, Thomas P, Mill RR, Renner SS (2012) Distribution of living Cupressaceae reflects the breakup of Pangea. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109(20): 7793–7798. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114319109.

Mao KS, Ruhsam M, Ma YZ, Graham SW, Liu JQ, Thomas P, Milne RI, Hollingsworth PM (2019) A transcriptome-based resolution for a key taxonomic controversy in Cupressaceae. Annals of Botany 123(1): 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcy152.

Molano SA, Nunes GC, Escapa IH, Bodnar J, García Massini JLG, Guido D (2026) Exceptional anatomical preservation of Jurassic Austrohamia leaves from Patagonia reveals distinctive features of ancient Cupressaceae. American Journal of Botany 113(6): e70212. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajb2.70212.

Pfeiler KC, Bippus AC, Ortiz A, Kammet AR, Escapa IH, Tomescu AMF (2026) Expanded character sampling inspired by a new Cretaceous conifer seed cone from California: importance of morphology in resolving relationships among the Cupressaceae. Annals of Botany 137(6): 1902–1918. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcaf099.

Piggin J, Bruhl JJ (2010) Phylogeny reconstruction of Callitris Vent. (Cupressaceae) and its allies leads to inclusion of Actinostrobus within Callitris. Australian Systematic Botany 23(2): 69–93. https://doi.org/10.1071/SB09044.

Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (2026) Cupressaceae. Plants of the World Online. https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:77126767-1.

Wang Y, Ruhsam M, Milne R, Graham SW, Li J, Tao T, Zhang Y, Mao K (2022) Incomplete lineage sorting and local extinction shaped the complex evolutionary history of the Paleogene relict conifer genus Chamaecyparis (Cupressaceae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 172: 107485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2022.107485.

Yang Y, Ferguson DK, Liu B, Mao KS, Gao LM, Zhang SZ, Wan T, Rushforth K, Zhang ZX (2022) Recent advances on phylogenomics of gymnosperms and a new classification. Plant Diversity 44(4): 340–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pld.2022.05.003.

Yang Z, Yang Y, Rushforth K (2021) Lectotypification of Chamaecyparis hodginsii of the Cupressaceae. PhytoKeys 185: 117–122. https://doi.org/10.3897/phytokeys.185.75796.