Ulmus glaucescens?
Really? ...REALLY?!
"The variety is distinguished by its small leaves; ranging from ovate to lanceolate, their size rarely exceeds 5 cm in length by 2.5 cm breadth"
We're supposed to recognize the distinguishing character at a distance, right? How many elms have leaves in that range?
I'm all for learning new species but this is why I don't really participate in this thread, it's turned into a 'guess the weird species or cultivar' thread.
I could go to the arboretum and shoot dozens of oaks that look just like more common oaks except for small distinguishing characters, frequently ones that are apparent at a time of year other than when the pic was taken. We have species here named for the frikking bot gardens where they were developed, they're not on the web or books and you can hardly ID some of'em with the key in the paper describing them.
This thread has enormous potential for participation but at the moment it's just a few of you trying to stump each other.