Do you have a close-up of the foliage (and cones if present), please?
SE DE QUE ARBOL SE TRATA PERO NO SE COMO PONER SU NOMBRE,YA QUE NO LO ENCUENTRO EN LA LISTA.
Chamaecyparis funebris (ciprés fúnebre)
Thanks for the extra photos! Yes, clearly Thuja plicata. The bark photos also show typical Thuja plicata bark.
I faced Christoph Michels and the "Kiefernspezi" as representatives of the "Deutsche Dendrologische Gesellschaft e.V." with your determination and asked to comment.
The historic heights for this tree seem to show the limitations of both hypsometers and lasers. 33m is optimistic, aiming at branches which are arching slightly towards the observer. 27m is much too low, due to the laser hitting low twigs on the near side (the top of a tree with a crown as rounded as this is completely hidden, even from a distance, in summer. Having measured it several times (with hypsometer) before it leafs out, I'm going to plump for 30.8m - though I can't really claim that degree of accuracy.
Yes, I think with 31 m you are near the true height of this tree. My 33 m measurement in 2007 with Suunto clinometer was not very accurate. Owen, you should add your 30.8 m measurement also in the system with the right date.
When you visit Kew next time you could measure it again with laser. I also think Wim B. did not hit the tallest branches.
What both of you are saying might well be true. It's not always easy to find the highest one and a mistake is easily made.
Wouldn't an answer for this tree be to email Kew and ask them to meet you with one of those hydraulic extendable things which men stand in to get up to the crowns of trees to prune? It would give you a view over the top of the crown more and down to the base, that said some of the branches look low and could obscure the view of the laser from some windows.
That sounds a good idea, offer them £1000 for the costs of using it, and I'm sure they'd do it ;-))
One mistake I made before 2014 is that I didn't add my own length to the measurement. So my measurement must at least be heightened with 1.80 meters.
I regularly enjoy a walk around the Fountains Abbey estate and the National Trust often have their hydraulic container mounted on the back of a Land Rover out and pruning trees, I imagine that Kew will have something similar. Shouldn't be a difficult job to email them to ask when they might be doing some pruning in that area. If it is to confirm a champion tree they possibly would be quite obliging.
I am sure that it is not that difficult to measure the height of this tree, you just have to get far enough to see the real top: from the north there is an open view from over 100 m to the tree, the top can be seen easily from there.
Wie wil mij vertellen wat ze vinden van de monumentaliteit van deze boom ?Ik ben zeer nieuwsgierig? Geen sparende antwoorden svp. Zeg gewoon wat je vindt. Al vind je het helemaal niks, maakt mij niet uit.
Hi Wim - it looks to be a good specimen for its species (if I am right with it being Malus sylvestris!), above average but not exceptional in size or location; if rating it, I guess I would give it around 3.75 or 4 on MT's rating system.
Hai Wim and Conifers,
Malus sylvestris checks out with it's overal treeform, bark, flower and leaf. It is a beautiful old tree and belongs in MT as I see it.
Thank you fot your opinion There is also somebody who speaks in numbers. Probably a bit shy person
Ik geef foto's een waardering als fotokwaliteit en de mate waarin de boom mijn bewondering, verwondering of andere emotie oproept. Dat is meer bepalend dan de maten (geen Miss World verkiezing).
Veel plezier trouwens volgende week met de fotocursus van Hans Clausing in de Leidse Hortus.
Dat is ook mijn lijn. Daarnaast Geef ik niet stelselmatig allerlei foto's die ik lager waardeer dan 3 een cijfer. Dat is zo flauw en irritant. Maar ja, kennelijk heeft de betreffende figuur daar veel behoefte aan want hij doet het vaak. Hier ook weer. Ik snap niet waarom je één van deze foto's een 2,5 moet geven. Het is niet zo dat ik me daardoor gekwetst voel. Eigenlijk interesseert het me niet zo veel. Ik vind het plaatje wel mooi, zo van die frisse voorjaarsbloesem, maar dat hoeft niemand met me eens te zijn. Ik vind het alleen raadselachtig en ik begrijp graag alles. (Ik was nou eenmaal een controlfreak in mijn werkzame leven)
From your photo, Wim, I'm fairly confident this is Malus hupehensis, a species from China and Japan introduced (to Britain) around 1901. It is one of the largest-growing Malus, as well as one of the most beautiful.
Hello Owen,Wim and others
M. hupehensis could be right, or M. baccata. Both species have pure white flowers. They differ in fruits, but from the image of the flowering tree it is difficult to say. M. baccata is more common than M. hupehensis in the Netherlands. Flowers of M. sylvestris are not white, so it is certainly not M. sylvestris. I agree in changing the species in M. hupehensis.
Thank you all for the intrest. With your comment in mind I will try to give additional information.I'm not at all surprised if this is a special tree. I talked to some people in the neighbourhoud, they keep being attracted to it's beauty. Besides The Clingendael estate is a very special place. During centuries is was habitated by people that made a difference in history. Up till now it is habitated by a scientific elaborate institute that studies international relations.
Today I visited this tree again and was very much surprised that it didn't show any flowers. Apparently it blooms only one time in two years?. Does this add information for you? Ik will upload some new pictures of the leaves and bark. Furthermore I saw a smaller similar tree next to it and another apparently the same some hundred metres furtheron.
In England they bloom each year, but they are not the earliest to bloom (still in bud now). I find it difficult to tell M.hupehensis with confidence from M. baccata (or M. mandshurica which is the commonly grown form), but this tree's wide-spreading irregular habit and bark cracking into big scales with orange and pink tints are characteristic of M. hupehensis.
Today I again visited the Malus Hupehensis (t 16999) and to my pleasure I saw it is full of buds. Next week I will visit it again accompanied by Martin Tijdgat. For now I upload a picture of the bus.
Furthermore, apparently there was someone in the Hague who really liked these trees, I found another example in the West of the Hague on the Hyacinthweg. I will post it later on.
Hello all, this bear has just woken up from hibernation.
The recent and ongoing photo voting saga, these photos will trounce any ever posted on here (winks)
Seriously, the biggest tragedy since I have been tree hunting and measuring. Forestry is not sentimental I know but walking around this site up the devastated land up the hill, this must have been the or one of the largest and most mature stands of Abies Procera anywhere judging by all the stumps. I could see big shadows on Google Maps, these stragglers that are left were probably not the tallest, I suspect a 40 meterer here. The tallest left is the slightly leaning tree immediately above the lady on the horse, 33.8 metres consistantly but had to aim just below the tip to get a hit with the laser. Anyone have any opinions as to why seemingly isolated trees like this are left standing? Are they likely to be left standing? If not then the trees here are likely to have gone already. If only I had visited a month earlier.
Storms are always a problem for trees and plantations in especially for a monospecific plot of the same age, exposed to wind corridor.
It's a shock at the time, but we are forced to go ahead and then nature abhors a vacuum, so in years other species grow on the ground.
This is my main fear for some old specimens open field I spotted but what can you do front from the elements.
The other option is that they left some standing to act as seed trees to regenerate the site naturally - Noble Fir is quite good at producing natural regeneration in Britain.
Hello Conifers, funny that you should say that, I was struck by how many self seeded Nobles there were on bits of the slope where the caterpillar machine hadn't been, all really small ones no bigger than about 6 inches, none of any higher height? Whether taller ones had been destroyed but I couldn't find any evidence if they had? When I visited Cragside, there were seedling Douglas Firs and Hemlocks around many tree bases but no Noble Fir seedlings around the big Nobles, the seedlings here are Greenhow are the first that I have ever seen. Perhaps if they are leaving the remaining trees for self seeding, this Yorkshire County champion Noble will survive unless exposure leads to it being dropped.
What are the old specimans you fear for Sisley? Does that big near 58 metre Sequoiadendron have reasonable shelter, do you think that there may be more Seqys of this height waiting for you to find?
Kun je de leeftijd van deze beuk onderbouwen? Volgens jouw melding de oudste beuk in Nederland die op MT is vermeld en ouder dan de oudste beuk die we in het boek Bijzondere bomen in Nederland hebben gemeld, die uit Haastrecht van 1694.
Dat het park in 1651 is aangelegd zegt weinig over het plantjaar van de beuk, wellicht heb je meer specifieke informatie.
Zo ook is de leeftijd van ± 314 jaar van de beuk van Oegstgeest bepaald niet zeker. Van de beuk in Haastrecht zijn er in ieder geval documenten betreffende de aanplant ter gelegenheid van de geboorte van een kind van de toenmalige eigenaar, zie het artikel in Bijzondere Bomen.
Frank Moens meldt in dat boek voor de beuk in Oegstgeest 1860 - 1870 als plantperiode, ook dat onderbouwt hij niet, maar het vermoeden van de eigenaar van 300 jaar moet op meer gebaseerd zijn om het als feit te accepteren.
Ik zal uitzoeken op grond waarvan ik die leeftijd heb toegevoegd. .
Tussendoor een vraag. Normaal krijg vragen ook via mijn mail door. Deze vraag kwam ik toevallig tegen omdat ik op de hoofdpagina langs de nieuwe posts scrolde en jouw vraag tegenkwam. Snap jij het, weet je er iets meer van?.
NB. De eerste keer ( 5 minuten geleden) dat ik deze vraag probeerde te beantwoorden kreeg ik de melding dat er geen verbinding met monumentaltrees.com gemaakt kon worden. Nou gebeurt dit laatste wel vaker, maar in dit geval waard om bij stil te staan, terwijl ook mijn tekst verdwenen was.
Ik heb me gebaseerd op het feit dat de Burcht in 1150 is aangelegd en dat het stadsbestuur hem heeft aangekocht en er in 1651 een stadspark van heeft gemaakt. Gezien de plek van de boom en het feit dat deze zo hoog boven het maaiveld stond, vond ik het niet onlogisch dat de boom er al vanaf het begin heeft gestaan. De vertakking van de wortels lijkt daar ook op te duiden. Jij vindt dat dus niet aannemelijk?
I agree with Jeroen, this tree is not so old. First, Fagus sylvatica is not a long-lived tree; specimens over 250 years old are very exceptional (and usually only found at high altitude where growth is slower), and even trees >200 years are rare. Second, the cultivar 'Atropunicea' was only described in 1770; there are no records of any
purple-leaf Fagus sylvatica cultivars until 1680 (when one was reported at Buchs, Zurich, Switzerland).
It should be possible to find historical evidence for planting dates, or old illustrations with useful information. In a quick look, I found this 1742 drawing showing newly planted trees where this tree is now, but whether it is one of these is not certain (if it is, it would be the middle right tree in the set of nine). However, I suspect even ~1740 is too old for this tree; my guess for its planting date would be around 1800. Can anyone estimate a date for this undated drawing, where the tree is not present?
Edit: I asked someone with experience of historical clothing fashions; he dated the undated drawing as later 18th century, 1750-1800, and definitely later than the 1742 drawing. So the young trees in the 1742 drawing had been removed and replaced with a parterre garden, and cannot include the beech in question.
I started to try and find an answer to your question about the age of the drawing. It's not that simple. I think I'll go to the archives this week. And thanks for your research.
Fagus sylvatica is not a long-lived tree; specimens over 250 years old are very exceptional (and usually only found at high altitude where growth is slower), and even trees >200 years are rare.
I guess you slightly under-estimate the longevity of beech. At least in Central Europe, it regularly reaches 300 years in the few remaining old-growth forest remnants, also at low elevations. Or maybe you mean that specimens over 250 years are very exceptional because there is so little old forest left?
Thanks for the extra details! Although I had not known about these older trees in natural forest conditions, it does not surprise me, as they will spend a long period growing slowly in the understorey before reaching maturity (same applies to e.g. Abies, which I did know about). That won't apply in the present case of a planted tree, of course.
I know of one beech in that grew naturally to over 400 years:http://www.dendrochronology.se/res/pdf_s/niklassonfritz2003.pdf
Girth was only 232 cm.
"In 2001 an extraordinary old (Fagus Sylvatica) was found in a beech forest at the Mårås nature reserve. The tree died in 2002. A sample from about 50 cm off the ground contained 397 annual rings. Normally the beech in that area needs between three and ten years to reach that height. The tree was therefore at least 400 years and is the oldest dated individual so far in Northern Europe. Slow growth during most of it's life is like to have contributed to it's high age by keeping it's dimensions down. The tree showed no signs of having been pollarded"
There is one heavily trimmed beech in Epping Forest in England mentioned in that pdf that is said to be between 500 to 1000 years, is that tree on this site?
This tree is not 9014 years old, but dead wood remains from roots and cones in the soil appeared to be 9550 years old according to radio carbon dating. The age of the tree itself is not known, there has been no tree ring data research as far as I know. The press release was not correct, only dead wood remains are 9550 years old.
Could you please put the right information at MT? For the list of oldest trees in the world, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees.
This is an interesting discussion. An old oak where the centre is rotten and only the younger outer parts of the tree remains, is it as old as the living wood or should the dead parts count?
I don't know the answer and is not in any position to say what belongs on this site or not, I'm merely posting a tree that some sources claim to be 9550 years old. Not that very trunk that is visible, as I wrote it appeared in krummholz formation for thousand of years and have taken a more treelike appearance lately.
The reason it says 9014 years is that when you come to this ages the site wont let you be more specific than 8000, 9000 or 10000 BC.
I reread my answer and thought to myself that I do not wish to start arguments as I am clearly the newbie here. Do not know whether this discussion disappears when I remove the registered tree but I'll do that anyway.
While I agree that the evidence for its age is not good (in the absence of DNA matching, how can they prove the 9550 year radiocarbon-dated wood is from the same individual as the living tree?), it is still scientifically and dendrologically a far more interesting and significant tree than many others on this site. It is also a tree that (from the publicity about it) people might expect to find included here. So, please bring Old Tjikko back!
Agreer with Conifers: please bring Old Tjikko back on MT.
Ok, I added it again. No picture this time as I got no photo myself and just read the disclaimer...
My wife and I have talked about getting back to Fulufjället again some day as we have a cabin in the family nearby and then I promise to take photos. Last time we where there we just took some photos of the waterfall as my interest in trees is a quite recent thing.
Thanks! I can add a photo from Wiki Commons, as they are creative-commons licensed for use by people other than the photographer.
Photo added - Tim, could you change the Photographer attribution from 'Conifers', to Karl Brodowsky, please (I can't work out how to do it!)
Ter aanvulling. De eigenaar vertelde me dat ze er jaarlijks heerlijke zoeter pruimen van krijgt. Dus Prunus, maar welke?
Ik denk aan een Kerspruim, maar dan een groenbladige. Prunus cerasifera. Toevallig heb ik deze boomsoort kortgeleden toegevoegd. Exact dezelfde omtrek als de roodbladige boom in Nuenen, hoe groot is die kans! Ze bloeien heel vroeg.
Ben in Wijdemeren net bezig met een sierfruitcontrole en inderdaad staat de Prunus cerasus nu vol in bloei, naast de sleedoorn (Prunus spinosa) en een hybride als Prunus 'Accolade'. Prunus spinosa bloeit spierwit en heeft op vrijwel alle takken een paar takdoorns als einde van de kortloten en heeft ronde zure knikkers, de sleepruimpjes. Prunus 'Accolade' bloeit roze, net als veel andere nu bloeiende Prunus-hybriden.
Ik ben het met Nardo eens dat het hier een Prunus cerasus betreft.
Sorry tikfoutje op de vroege morgen niet cerasus (zure kers) maar Prunus cerasifera (kerspruim)!! Martin
I agree with Prunus cerasifera, the crown shape also fits.
This tree interests me because the bark is very different from the Prunus cerasifera that grows in Britain (the crown is also broader and fuller and the blossom more profuse). If I had to give it a name I would plump for Prunus x dasycarpa (Black Apricot), but this is a rare tree in Britain and I have only studied a few, in big collections.
You could well be right. Wim mentioned that the owner of the tree has tasty & sweet fruits from this tree. I think we need more details on the leeves and fruits to be sure.
I'll post everything I have on the tree. Cannot do anything more. Hope it will clear out.
Cannot deliver any addition.
Hier hat sich wieder mein "Abwerter" gemeldet.
Das ist ein historisch bedeutsamer Baum an historischer Stääte, gepflanzt anlässlich der Vereinigung Deutschlands! (siehe Kommentar zum Herbst-Foto).
Ich bin gespannt ob sich der Erstbewerter einmal meldet und seine Note kommentiert.
Hi Frank, This time I agree with the rating, allthough I myself will not rate it. My preference is nice and beautiful trees of some monumentality.For me the picture is the most important and not the height of a tree or whatever record might be broken.
I like your picture but I think the composition could be better. In my opinion the tree should be dominant and to be seen completely. This composition gives too much weight to the bridge as if that is the object of intrest. I like the idea of the bridge in the background, but it should be less dominant. So I wouldnt rate above 3 and than I do not rate it, Unless it has an average score of above 4,25.
Tank you for your friendly opinion.
best wishes frank
I did rate this picture first. My comment is almost the same as Wim wrote as a comment. I think the tree should be more dominant in this picture and more complete to rate it higher than I did. I do rate a lot of pictures in MT in this way. I also try to rate the photo's for their technical skils
Greetings, Martin Tijdgat
Die Komposition ist super, wie in deinen Fotos immer, aber da MT eine Baumseite ist, könnte der Baum wirklich ein Bisschen mehr Gewicht haben.
Ja, da hast du prizipiell recht. Aber ich wollte der weltbekannten Glienicker Brücke, welche als Pflanzort hier bewust anlässlich des Falls des "Eisernen Vorhangs" gewählt wurde etwas Raum geben. Das können naturgemäß wir Deutsche besonders gut verstehen. Ich bin direkt an dieser furchbaren Grenze aufgewachsen. Insbesondere dieser Baum hat für uns einen hohen symbolischen Wert und ich hoffe sehr, er wird reletiv alt und mahnt uns immer Diktaturen ernergisch zu begegnen.
Vergleichbar wäre ev. dieser noch so junge Baum mit den vielen "Kaiser- od. Königs-Eichen bzw. -Linden die wir nicht nur in Deutschland kennen.
viele Grüße Frank
What I find odd with this tree is the choice of species, a very short-lived one, to commemorate such a momentous event of history. Sadly, the tree will likely be dead while there are still people alive who remember the event. I saw it was a gift from Japan, maybe a long-lived species like Sugi (Cryptomeria japonica) or Keaki (Zelkova serrata) would have been a better choice?
The photo composition (unless truly dreadful!) doesn't matter to me in giving a rating, this is after all a site about monumental trees, not monumental photographs. It is a nice pic for balance of subjects (though a bit over-saturated*), but what matters to me in rating is the monumentality of the tree itself.
* (something I've noticed with many of Frank's photos, perhaps the camera settings need adjusting slightly so as to reflect actual colours better?)
About the saturations: I think it's only that tastes differ. What someone regards as over-saturated, is a stunning photo to another. And what is natural for the first person, is boring to the second.
I wish a little more tolerance of conifers to other opininons and a correspeonding rating. He always finds something to criticize. He should better more owne trees present of MT.
It seems that several of the frequent users of this website still have completely different opinions about what is important at the website, what are beautiful or important trees and what are beautiful or good photographs.
The same discussions can be seen many times again but there seems to be little understanding of each other.
I like to repeat that Tim Bekaert did start the photo-rating system to rate the quality of the photos, just to get a good order in the photos of one tree so that the heighest rated photos would be on top and seen first.
Alas mr. Conifers has never understood this and still likes to give ratings of the monumentality of the trees themselves, wich never was the meaning of the system. The monumentality, importance or beauty of a tree is rather subjective and I don't like to make ratings of them. Everybody can have his own preference and it is clear that those differ a lot among the users.
Concerning the photograph by Frank of the Sargentkerselaar at Glienicker Brücke: to my opinion it is a very beautiful photo of an important subject. Indeed also a photo of the whole tree would be nice.