European beech at Trollskog in Torna Hällestad, Dalby, Sweden
A technical point: as these trees are seed-grown (self-sown), they are Fagus sylvatica f. tortuosa, and not the cultivar 'Suenteliensis', which to be true to name can only be propagated clonally by grafting.
Thanks for this. You are absolutely right; this is the naturaly occuring forma tortuosa. I had the same type of discussion with Fagus sylvatica 'Asplenifolia'.or 'Laciniata'. This leafform also occurs naturaly and has been grafted under a few different names.
Thanks, that's true, it's not a clone. I changed name. New problem: I cannot get a small "f" before tortuosa. The system automatically generates a capital F. Will ask Tim to change it. But what must we think about the oak, MT nr. 18706? :)
I changed the cultivar 'Tortuosa' in subsp. tortuosa, and registered this tree as such.
I also made it so that cultivars/varieties always get a capital letter (as was the case), but subspecies don't.
Thanks! A bit of clarification though, re "I also made it so that cultivars/varieties always get a capital letter (as was the case), but subspecies don't".
The ranks of subspecies, variety and forma are botanical, and governed by the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature; they are always in italics and begin with a lower case letter, and must always show an indication of which rank is being used (the rank NOT in italics!):
Pinus nigra subsp. salzmannii
Pinus sylvestris var. hamata
Fagus sylvatica f. tortuosa
Cultivars, and cultivar groups, are governed by the International Code for Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants; they are not in italics, and begin with a capital; individual cultivars are in single quotes, groups of similar cultivars not in quotes:
Acer platanoides 'Crimson King'
Acer palmatum Dissectum Group
Hope this helps!
Het is mij niet duidelijk wie aan de beschrijving een verhaal over meten op verschillende hoogtes heeft opgeschreven. Mijn ervaringen stroken daarmee. Ik heb nadrukkelijk het centrum van de boom opgezocht, maar daar alleen meten is hachelijk. Het is de kunst om het meetlint strak te houden en steeds te letten op 1.30 meter. Mijn eerste meting kwam uit op 6,57 meter en mijn tweede en derde op 6,56 en 6,49. Ik probeerde met alle macht het lint strak te trekken op de middenpositie. Uiteindelijk lukte me dat (denk ik) en ik kwam op 6,38 meter. Ik had van tevoren wel wat gegevens verzameld en in mijn gegevens stond een hoogte van 6,10 meter. Ik kan die hoogte absoluut niet aan mijn praktijkervaring koppelen.
Het stukje tekst over het meten is van mij. De laatste keer dat ik er aan het meten ben geweest was dit voorjaar samen met Corine van Dun, hoofdredacteur van Bomennieuws. Bomen op hellingen zijn lastig te meten, als je de methode hanteert van het centrum van de boom, waar de boom ooit ontkiemde of werd geplant, kom je bij heel dikke bomen op steile hellingen soms onder het hoogste punt rond de stam uit. Bij bomen op zo'n locatie is het aardig op verschillende hoogtes te meten. Wat je bedoelt met die hoogte van 6,10 m is me niet duidelijk.
De Villa dateert uit 1742, maar hoe weet je dat de lindes ook uit 1742 dateren? Zijn het heel zekere winterlindes, ik zag ze tot nu toe aan voor Hollandse lindes maar heb er niet heel goed op gelet. Leo, Maarten en Simen Brunia waren tijdens de Donateursdag van de Bomenstichting vorige week ook present bij deze bomen, misschien hebben zij er ook op gelet.
Apologies, the measurement should be 20 August 2013, forgot to change from 2014.
Ernie certainly loved these trees so much that he was buried amongst them with his dogs but these have been the single most disappointing trees that I have ever measured. Planted in 1860 and 37 metres in 1957 I was hoping that the measurement was abit out and that they had spurted in growth and there would be 60 metre trees in Yorkshire. Even with the growth rate of 37 metres in 1957 they could have been 56/57 metres. What a disappointment when I got there and measured with the laser.
Wow at least 6 trees over 60m! How long are the leaders of these trees Rob? Any noticeable wind damage from last winter?
I saw these trees in the dark with the car headlights and kick myself for running out of time to see them last year, will have to return soon. Looks like the weather will change next week so may hold off holiday there, until another anticyclone arrives to ensure good weather in Wales.
Will be at Europe's largest forestry show on Sat in the Midlands so may look at impulse lasers and the new model out and may or may not be tempted! Trouble is that would I have the time to use it? 10 years ago definitely would.
Hello Stephen, just run out of time with fiddling with the maps.
Six trees of 60 metres, the lot I bet are 60 metres if you could find windows in to measure them, the whole stand of probably nearing a hundred trees.
Stephen, your visit on Saturday, I wouldn't be tempted would be my advice. Look, ascertain what you want but don't buy or else you will be robbed blind. Try sourcing the same instrument in Holland or the continent, you will get the same thing much cheaper, ridiculously cheaper. I got the Forestry Pro that I bought for half the price that they were being advertised over here. I couldn't have justified £500 odd quid for the laser but I am happy now with what I paid, I think that I have measured enough trees to justify it. Don't think that I could have ever have justified the price of one of the Impulse lasers, not for the number of trees that I have found and measured and am now likely to find in the future. I think you would have to be travelling the world measuring or a forestry professional or professional tree measurer to justify the Impulse. Judging by Karlheinz's and Kouta's recent measuring of the 59 metre Norway Spruce, the margin of error is not too bad for the Nikon Forestry Pro. We don't know if Kouta and Karlheinz chose precisely the same spot on the trunk to measure to so this is another error margin also Kouta may actually have had the correct spot and Karlheinz may have just been a tad high, we don't know but some of this probably accounts for the small difference.
Hello Owen, this is/was the tree at the top of the stand where the path turns to the left, straight in front of you with Ivy on the trunk. I could only get 52 metres for this tree but I couldn't see the top at any point with a view of the base. Assessing from further down where I managed to see the tip, I think I will have missed about twenty feet off, every tree that I have measured in this stand is/was 60 metres so I will assign 60 metres for this one. It certainly was not 14 0r 15 metres taller then 52 metres.
I think the tree in the lower photograph is one I got 60m for - on the left of the footpath after you've gone round the bend and continued climbing. The one I made 61m was about 50m below this, a few metres away from the bend in the path (o the SW side) and with a lot of ivy. Maybe it has been removed since.
Hello Owen, both photographs are the same tree, I couldn't get it in one photograph so took two photos like this.
A very impressive stand of trees for that part of the country! It may be that the North Sea moderates the climate somewhat here? Although to a lesser degree than say the New Forest on the channel coast? Any Sitka there?
There is a Douglas just north of Henley, Oxon (close to me) which is almost as tall planted 1917 and still growing (on chalk!) Possibly tallest tree in Oxon if not Bucks and Berks.
I agree with Stephen, abit of a surprise but an impressive one. The Grand Fir is very impressive. I do abit of plane spotting and have been to RAF Lakenheath several times and the soil there is like dust-sandy,dry. As said to someone, amazing that the conifers in Thetford Forest can survive in the soil. I imagine it will be very dry at the moment as it has been very dry in Eastern England for the last few weeks.
Ik heb de betreffende boom gemeten op 16-9-2014. Wat mij betreft is meten op 1.30 niet reëel of mogelijk. Op circa 1.10 meter loopt een tak uit, waardoor je volgens mij op 1.10 meter moet blijven. Ik heb op die plek 5,27 meter gemeten. Ik vind de sprong naar mijn voorgangers erg groot(die nb op 130 cm hebben gemeten!), maar...ik kan niet anders dan dit maar opvoeren.
Conifers, this is just at the other side of the road further to the left than I put it, tree nearest road. Thanks.
Done, can you check I've got it right, please!
When I press on 'Show on Map' the Google Map is close with individual trees visible. Press to change the location the map has panned out and I cannot get it to zoom in, I have to just stick a red bubble. Conifers, would you be able to put this directly in front of the 65 metre tree.
Zooming in now, intermittant problem.
Yeah that's what I thought, did not know sure for 100%
Weet iemand houd oud de linde op het hof van Slot Hämelschenburg is ?? Is een flinke boom.
Difficult measuring conditions on the slope in the upper part of the Waterloo Grove, difficult on many or most of the trees to see base and apex tip together. I did manage to measure three trees cleanly through gaps and this was the tallest. The others were also 60 metres. I didn't explore enough further up last year on my visit and thought that there may be a taller tree in the higher part of the stand but I think they will be all around this height in the higher and slightly more exposed part of the stand. The tree looks like just a trunk but the sun was shafting through the trees and I was photographing towards it.