Aziatische lork in het arboretum Tervuren, Tervuren, België

The branching structure (light branches, pendulous side shoots) is very unlike the species in the wild* and also unlike the small number of verified specimens in cultivation in Britain (e.g. RBG Edinburgh) or elsewhere, which have long, stout branches with level side shoots. The overall aspect of this tree is more like L. decidua. If you can collect some cones from this tree for me I'll be happy to make a more definitive identification.

* See e.g.: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Larix_gmelinii_Aershan_1.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Larix_gmelinii_Aershan_4.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Larix_gmelinii_Kochechum.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Larix_gmelinii0.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Larix_gmelinii1.jpg http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:20070801_forest.jpg http://www.conifers.org/pi/Larix_gmelinii.php http://hosho.ees.hokudai.ac.jp/~tsuyu/plants/larix/kae.html (scroll to end of page) http://woodyman.ru/_pu/28/99686835.jpg http://www.flickr.com/photos/giggle1025/4057512503/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/kurtq/3001883313/ (cultivated, Stockholm) http://www.flickr.com/photos/52265752@N00/569517342/ (cultivated, Helsinki) http://www.flickr.com/photos/lucmtl/4485007658/ (cultivated, Montreal)

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with the branching structure, since I have checked it with other pictures of the species, and type specimen of L. gmelini in Belmonte arboretum.

That is what is mentionned by the officials sources here. What else do you suggest?

Larix (sp.), but not L. gmelinii (wrong branching structure for that species).