You aren't signed in · sign in · register
Add new topic

Recent discussions


Only show discussions in English


KoutaR, at 2014-11-01 07:33:51, said:
Sehr schönes Foto, Rainer!
Rainer Lippert, at 2014-11-01 08:03:49, said:
Danke für das Kompliment!

Viele Grüße,


Jeroen Philippona, at 2014-10-31 22:29:40, said:
Hello Rainer,

It looks like there is one branch still alive of the Wappeneiche but in the list it is given as a dead tree. Could you explain how it is?

It would be nice if you gave some more information about the trees wich you upload at MT. That would make your contributions still more valuable compared to only measurements and photographs.

Best regards,


Rainer Lippert, at 2014-11-01 08:03:15, said:
Hallo Jeroen,

der Baum lebt noch, wie du richtig erkannt hast. Die Wappeneiche befindet sich zwar in einen sehr schlechten Zustand, der eine Ast ist aber noch grün. Bei meinem letzten Besuch 2008 war da noch mehr grün. Später hatte ich dann im Internet gelesen, dass die Eiche inzwischen abgestorben sei. Und wie ich den Baum dann in MT eingetragen habe, habe ich ihn entsprechend markiert. Ich war deswegen vor ein paar Woche auch überrascht, wie ich den grünen Ast gesehen habe. Habe es aber versäumt, hier entsprechend abzuändern, was ich jetzt nachgeholt habe. Also Danke für den Hinweis.

Mir fehlt leider halt immer etwas die Zeit, um da noch Beiträge dazu zu schreiben. Ich nehme mir das immer wieder vor, aber leider wird es dann nichts. Wie jetzt aktuell habe ich wohl noch so um die 50 Bäume, die ich in MT eintragen möchte, die ich die letzten Wochen aufgesucht habe. Und das eintragen und bebildern hat bei mir zuerst Priorität. Aber bis ich die 50 Bäume eingetragen habe, sind schon wieder neue dazugekommen. Es ist einfach ein Teufelskreis ;-)

Viele Grüße,


Linde in Haut-le-Wastia
Visible for everyone · permalink · fr
Marc Meyer, at 2014-10-31 20:49:36, said:
Halo Paul,

Nice to meet you! Sorry maar mijn nederlands is niet altijd 100% OK.

Ik was vandaag in Haut-le-Wastia naast de mooie lindeboom dat je hier geregistreerd hebt.

In feite, na enkele checks gaat het hier over een Tilia X europea en dus geen cordata.

We zouden dus het moeten van soort verhuizen. Ik ben niet echt specialiest maar ik baseer me op verschillende inventaarissen die dit boom beschrijven. Groetjes. Marc

Wim Brinkerink, at 2014-10-24 17:06:19, said:
Hi I think this tree is the same as Chinese wingnut (Pterocarya stenoptera) '13346'

TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-10-28 18:06:22, said:
Yes, it is the same tree. Easiest solution here would be to delete Wim's photo from '13346', upload it for '15304' and then delete the tree '13346'. I could do this, but then I think the photo would appear with a hyperlink to me instead?


Wim Brinkerink, at 2014-10-31 20:25:59, said:
Hi Owen,

The usual way of dealing with this kind of issues is that the older upload will be respected and that the newer tree will be adjusted to and merged with the older upload. I prefer that option.

Conifers, at 2014-10-31 20:47:09, said:
Agree with Wim, the older, first registering should be used.

TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-10-30 18:27:18, said:
Thanks for these records! I uploaded a couple of trees from the Gosford Castle pinetum last year when I was adding the UK and Ireland record-holders to Monumental Trees, but, as you've probably gathered, I don't know this site personally. (The records we have at the Tree Register include Irish National Grid grid-references but I don't have the means to convert them into latitude/longitude.) So any corrections or updates will be most welcome!

Aubrey Fennell, who recorde the trees at Gosford in 2000 and in 2010, is a member of this site, but hasn't had time to add his own records in person. But he may pick up this message.


Owen Johnson (The Tree Register)

RedRob, at 2014-10-24 16:30:17, edited at 2014-10-26 17:10:39, said:
Only two Common Laburnums registered! I wish I had realised this as have seen quite a few good sized Laburnums, probably around 10 metres, but didn't record them as have been meaning to visit Wakefield Castle to measure and confirm the B&I champion height there, 12 metres if I remember correctly? They are lovely trees when in flower. Will have to now try and remember where I have noticed some of the Laburnums.

Conifers, at 2014-10-24 16:56:26, said:
Hi Rob - you'd need to check identities carefully. 'Common' Laburnum is actually far from common in cultivation now, and rarely exceeds 6 metres or so tall. Larger ones are almost all Alpine Laburnum L. alpinum, or (most frequently of all now) the hybrid between the two, Voss's Laburnum L. × watereri 'Vossii'. Distinguishing them is fairly tricky; I suspect the ones in these photos here are Voss's, but can't confirm it without close-up pics.

Wim Brinkerink, at 2014-10-24 16:57:51, said:
Hi Rob,

Intriguing that you stumbled upon this tree. Don't know how you see it, but in the 60's and 70's the babyboomers in Holland, judged this species as a thoroughly "burgerlijk" plant/tree. A lot of people (probably outside the world of agriculturalists, naturalist and dendrologists) defied this trees.

I used to be one of them. By now, I am a bit independent and judge everything without prejudice. And true, Laburnums can be very nice. That's what a lot of people in Asia think.

RedRob, at 2014-10-24 17:04:08, said:
Hello Wim, it is a very nice Laburnum, these trees always bring a smile, lift the mood because they are so bright even on a dull day when in flower.

Hello Conifers, probably too late now as the leaves will have gone but any that I measure I will get an ident for from the expert eyes on here.

TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-10-28 18:13:42, said:
Rob, you probably know the very big thriving Laburnum in the Valley Gardens in Harrogate (near the north edge of the main park). This is L. alpinum. (There is one much bigger but collapsing one in Ireland, which I've not seen.) Generally L. alpinum grows better the further north you go and I've recorded 14m trees in Scotland. There should be a 15m one somewhere. (12m tree in the park at Wakefield was anagyroides and exceptional in its way, though it's moot whether we should really award champions for height for trees that grow no taller than this.)

RedRob, at 2014-10-29 18:29:56, said:
Hello Owen, not seen the Laburnum that you mention, I will have to try and find it which will probably be easier with foliage on.

TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-10-30 18:19:49, said:
I've just uploaded the Laburnum, as we've discussed it. It has a monumental quality to it - for a Laburnum.

TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-10-28 18:19:37, said:
I wonder if these are hybrids (Larix x marschlinsii) again? They would be much the tallest so far. It would depend whether they are Victorian plantings from the original landscaping of the reservoir, like the tallest Douglas Firs and, presumably, the 40m larch which is among them, or Forestry Commission plantings from 1920 onwards. I wouldn't like to say from their outlines against the sky here. The tall Grand Firs in this view are post-1920, I would guess? Did you take more pictures of the larches?
RedRob, at 2014-10-29 17:53:38, said:
Hello Owen

grand fir (Abies grandis) '19170'

1st and 3rd photos here, some of Larches visible next to Grand Firs and trunks visible behind Grand Fir trunks in photo 3. You probably know but if you click on the photos you can magnify them.

tree of undetermined species (?) '19190'

Photo 1 at top, a good view of the plantation, probably eventually likely to be felled?

I have just had a look on Google Maps and you can get a pretty good view up to them from the road. This also illustrates the difficulty of measuring the interior trees, dense vegetation. I measured one of the clear view trees at the bottom of the plantation roadside.

RedRob, at 2014-10-29 18:03:40, said:
European larch (Larix decidua) '19225'

Hello again Owen, I have just added another photo for this tree. I toook them as just Larix Decidua and didn't take any close up photos. The tree I measured is on the left of the photo with the car in the lay-by, you can see the tip. You can look on Google Maps from the same position (where the car is) and the trunk is clear but the Google Maps camera blurs the tips as it is a steep view straight up. They look fairly young trees, comparative, not Victorian although I am far from being an expert I discover seemingly more very day.

TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-10-29 18:13:08, said:
Hmmm. I'm going to plump for European Larch on the basis of the foliage colour in the one picture in good light, but Conifers might have clearer ideas.
Stephen Verge, at 2014-10-30 08:36:05, said:
Yes likely E. Larch? Seems to be free of the awful Phytophthora ramorum.

I can't keep up with these latin names changing all the time for Larch!

RedRob, at 2014-10-25 17:11:20, said:
Did you have a look at the trees below the dam at Vrnwy Stephen? On my visit I wasn't alone so just didn't get down to see these but pointed the laser at them from the dam. Probably towards the limit of the laser's range but recorded a consistant c40 metres for the Noble Fir (?) on the right of the photo. Could not see the bases of the Douglas Firs but look as though they may be mid 50 metres possibly to the late. The red trees, Copper Beeches, must be very close to the 34.2 metre record, couldn't see any bases but 34 metres came back from an estimation, looking down on them so will have hit foliage higher then the base.

Stephen Verge, at 2014-10-26 12:17:09, said:

Yes I saw them but ran out of time to visit them. Incidentally very tall Douglas at North western end of the lake. Some of them could be 53-55m opposite the bird hide.

Stephen Verge, at 2014-10-26 12:19:48, said:

Abies procera is a tree for Scotland. Likes it cool as its a sub alpine species. There are some massive trees there which must be the largest outside the Pacific Coast. Will reach 60m+.

RedRob, at 2014-10-26 16:49:46, said:
Drat, I went so far down the west shore of Vyrnwy and then double backed over the dam, stopped at the ex 64 metre Douglas grove and then went over the top and down in to Aber Hirnant and so did miss the 55 metre Douglas you mention. The drive over the top to Aber Hirnant is superb for anyone reading and visiting this area. The day I drove over, I was in amongst a convoy of TVR cars which must have been having a club run out or something, what a drive for them.

RedRob, at 2014-10-26 16:58:50, said:
Stephen, when you said that you had found trees others hadn't in hidden places and which may be champions, I wondered if Noble may be one and you had found a very tall speciman?

Stephen Verge, at 2014-10-27 09:28:12, said:

Visit them next time! Yes nice Noble Fir. It is considered only a minor species and has not really been trialled properly in plantations. Big trees are all in collections but best place for big Nobles are at Benmore and Blair Atholl. If they don't cone up at the top (causes breakage but grow new leaders) they could reach 60m+ as they are exposure resistant.

Drive up the other way from Vrnwy up to 'Hell Fire' pass at over 530m a real gem of a ride!

Another beauty Abies concolor 'Lowiana' massive trees in Scotland but only in collections again 60m one day.

Off to Windsor Great Park today to look at a massive Sessile oak one of S. England's finest. Will report back.



RedRob, at 2014-10-29 18:13:56, said:
Hello Conifers, thanks for placing this one on the map, I have just tweeked him to the correct location.

I wish that I had visited this group of trees, I wouldn't have known how to get down to them but on Google Maps the road down is clear although there is no sign posting at the entrance. I could have driven right down in the car and walked around these in not too much time.

RedRob, at 2014-10-29 18:20:25, said:
Hello Stephen

the Greenhow plantation

Interesting what you say as it seems that Noble have been tried in plantations. I spotted a large swathe of blue on Google Maps, went to check and was frankly devastated as much as the trees when I found this. The whole plantation of Abies Procera was in the process of being or had just been felled. The tallest examples of this species in Yorkshire were certainly here, probably some 40 metres, 34 metres is the tallest remaining (County champion) that I measured (above the lady and horse) I was taken at what nice spire shapes they had retained as every single speciman that I have looked at either has a broken top or a squat, flat headed top. This plantation had retained spires probably because they were growing in a dense plantation.

RedRob, at 2014-10-29 18:23:26, said:
Hello Stephen, I drobe over the 'Hell Fire' pass a few years ago (2011) but drove along the north east shore. I have just had a look on Google Maps and think that I can see your 55 metre Douglas Firs at the north west point of the lake, just over the bridge from the turn to go over the pass mentioned above. They are not visible from where I turned.

RedRob, at 2014-10-29 18:24:14, said:
I didn't really 'drobe', I drove.

Conifers, at 2014-10-29 18:33:25, said:
Hi Rob - I improved the map location of this tree from the photos, can you double-check to see if I've got the right tree, please?

I can't find where this nearby tree is though, at the moment it's mapped in the middle of a building (!).

Stephen Verge, at 2014-10-30 08:22:39, said:
Hi Rob

My tall Douglas is along the roadside, just opposite the bird hide on the other side of the lake.

Stephen Verge, at 2014-10-30 08:27:18, said:

So sad about the Noble Fir. Commercially the timber is not that valuable, could have left them alone. Lets hope that this 'natives only' virus does not spread like Ebola! Not another new planting of scrub please!

Nobles can break at the top due to the weight of cones in autumn gales, but very resistant to exposure to wind generally.


mattyhendy, at 2014-10-29 04:14:23, said:
otago arboriculture class
RedRob, at 2014-10-29 18:08:56, said:
Hello Matt, the look like Christmas lights at first glance, a tree decorated. You have some big Redwoods in New Zealand, 72 metres in the famous grove near Rotorua.

Conifers, at 2014-10-28 20:48:14, said:
The narrow leaves make me suspect this might be Ulmus × hollandica, rather than pure U. glabra - anyone else have any advice?
Rainer Lippert, at 2014-10-28 21:26:42, said:
Hallo Conifers,

die Ulme wurde schon mehrmals wissenschaftlich untersucht. Angeblich soll es die einzige Bergulme Europas sein, die resistent gegen den Ulmensplintkäfer ist. Es wurden schon Klone davon gezogen, die ebenfalls resitent sind. Hier mal ein paar Artikel über die Ulme:

In der Literatur wiederum heißt es, dass die Samen, unbehaarte Flügelnüsschen, für Bergulme sprechen würde.

Ich selbst kann es nicht sagen, was nun stimmt.

Viele Grüße,


Conifers, at 2014-10-28 23:17:34, said:
Danke! I am happy to accept that ;-)
Rainer Lippert, at 2014-10-29 17:59:47, said:
Hallo Conifers,

ich kann es wie gesagt nicht beurteilen. Hoffen wir einfach mal, dass die Fachleute, die sich die Ulme angeschaut haben, richtig liegen ;-)

Viele Grüße,


smal65, at 2014-10-28 20:53:43, said:
Het is de boom op de achtergrond.

RedRob, at 2014-10-24 17:13:16, said:
Just looking for the Lydney Beech I have realised that I have made a mistake with this tree, must have hit the wrong digit when registering. 41 metres was the reading with the laser, David Alderman had recorded 40 metres in 2005 with one of his readings, clinometer suggested 43 metres.

TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-10-28 18:08:04, said:
You can edit your record by clicking on the pencil icon which follows your user-name after the measurement.

Conifers, at 2014-10-27 23:11:45, said:
This photo shows Celtis sp.
TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-10-28 17:55:53, said:
Probably Celtis occidentalis (var.cordata) - bark developing flanged ridges, leaves matt, downy and serrated.

Conifers, at 2014-10-27 23:09:39, said:
This photo shows Celtis sp.

Stephen Verge, at 2014-09-28 10:09:46, said:
Hello Rob

Off to Wales next week to see your trees near Waterloo Bridge plus some new ones. Will try to take a look at the Elan Valley Douglas on the way, where exactly are they?

Have you contacted the F.C. (now Natural Resources Wales) about these trees as I think they need a guarantee of protection. Especially it seems very likely they are the tallest Douglas Fir in the Northern Hemisphere outside the Pacific Coast of North America. I am sure they would be very interested. Although some ways better to keep the public quiet about them as having thousands of people trampling around them can be detrimental to their health due to root/ soil compaction, as the F.C often makes a trail to the trees. But letting the forest manager know is I think a good idea. What do you think?


RedRob, at 2014-10-01 17:22:42, said:
Hello Stephen, these are the trees in the Elan valley area.

Owen reported the Waterloo Grove trees to the Forestry Commission last year if I remember correctly. You are right about people tramping around them would cause damage although that said the land in front of them is full of bracken, brambles and hidden gullies. Have a good time, look forward to hearing about your experiences. Take some photos and report your trees whatever or wherever they are.

Stephen Verge, at 2014-10-13 17:05:20, said:
Hello Rob

Got back on Sat. 12 days in North Wales. 1326 miles driven! Loads to talk about some good some bad with discoveries expect posts and much talk in the coming weeks. Waterloo Grove is amazing!


RedRob, at 2014-10-23 15:46:25, edited at 2014-10-23 16:03:55, said:
Hello Stephen, have you been to North New South Wales, 1,300 miles is some going! Looking forward to hearing about what you found and hopefully some trees registered with photographs?

How long did you spend at the Waterloo Grove, it is the sort of place that you don't want to leave in a way as the trees tower. Did you measure it yourself? Don't be afraid of submitting readings, your readings for the Aber Hirnant trees were practically identical with what the Forestry Pro recorded when I pointed it. I think anyone or everyone will accept your measurements.

Stephen Verge, at 2014-10-25 11:38:01, said:
Hello Rob

Big Douglas around Betws y Coed:-

1326 miles is including the journey there and back, but drove about 850 miles around Snowdonia! Very easy to do as its such a big area and driving 100 miles a day from my B+B was very easy and with no potholes!

Spent several mornings at Waterloo Grove. Crashing about the undergrowth! One thing which is apparent is that you don't get any sense of scale of the trees. Your 36m Scots Pine looks very small in comparison. I did not measure any, crashing about the brambles and ferns could have taken days with a tape for a baseline.

It looks as though they have been thinned about 15 years ago judging by the stumps, which they have responded to. The quality of the trees is superb and you may have noticed a massive cone crop at the top. This was a once a decade opportunity to collect seed which I did in abundance! There must have been a drought year in 2013 as trees often produce a heavy seed crop during times of stress. This has taken a lot of energy for growth out of the trees and put it into seed production. Consequently the leaders have been much shorter this year also possibly due to a dry early summer.

The Douglas seed now collected from Washington is absolutely crap with coarse poorly formed trees. The Waterloo Grove is most likely to have originated from the Washington Coast or Cascade foothills according to my FC seed import records, possibly from near Vancouver as well. The high quality is due to the loggers felling the best trees with good genes and subsequently collecting the seed for export to the UK as a byproduct. Sorry my forestry hat is on now!

I would say average height of the stand is over 55m with many dominants at or over 60m. The growth rate is as good or better than anywhere in their native range. Very sheltered could reach 75m! If left alone!

Saw the trees at Miner's bridge and across the road at Artists Wood. Even better quality here with perfect cylindrical stems with nice thin bark (some of the best I have ever seen.) These were planted in 1927. I am convinced that you may have missed the tallest at the bottom of the slope where I am sure there are at least 6 trees at or approaching 60m. Also a Grand fir 60m? They are at the bottom of the slope and I think Owen got 60m for one in his book?

Thats the good news now the bad:-

I'm afraid Dothistroma or otherwise known as red band needle blight is attacking Douglas now and the trees at Miners Bridge are suffering with 30-40% needle loss caused by the fungus prematurely removing the older needles.

I will write a report on this for MT as this I'm afraid will have an impact on these trees in Europe, something which I find very depressing!


RedRob, at 2014-10-25 16:23:56, said:
Hello Stephen, keep putting your forestry hat on as very interesting for a lay man like myself.

I just don't know how I missed the biggest trees here as I wandered round and round up and down the trails above the Miners Bridge and drove right along the road at the top and stopped and measured numerous trees?

east bank of the Afon Llugwy River, about 400 metres above t

I crossed the Miners Bridge and turned immediately left along the east bank of the Afon Lugwy and followed the track north for more than 300 metres, quote:

'Douglas Fir 60 metres 297 cm 300 metres north of Miners Bridge, at bottom of bank of 1921 trees'

I definitely went further along than 300 metres, the views that I could get the to the tips the trees were not 60 metres with the Forestry Pro but early 50 metres? They are difficult to measure I accept and I was hoping to beat the previous day 65 metres at the Waterloo Grove but I was disappointed as none came near. I probably could live with a speciman or two or perhaps late 50 metres but I don't think that they are any taller. I did see several broken stumps (photo in link) which I wondered if could be Owen's tree as it was about 300m north of the Miners Bridge just up from the bottom of the stand. My lay man's eye is abit different to your professional eye, the Afon Lugwy trees did/do not look as luxuriant as the Waterloo Grove (see clean 53 metre in link above), the crowns were narrower which I thought may be because the location is more exposed to the west and north west winds howling down the valley.

RedRob, at 2014-10-25 16:35:39, said:
Pentre du farm, opp Miners Bridge path just west of Betws

I agree about the Artists Wood trees, finer specimans than the Lugwy trees, for me anyway.

I didn't particularly notice the heavy cone crop but interesting to know why this occurs. Agree about the ferns and brambles around the big trees at Waterloo, there are also hidden gullies which you cannot see. I ended up in one up to my chest last year when attempting to get to the base of the 65 metre tree to girth, the gully was completely hidden, the ground looked no different to that which I had traversed. At least this will add a degree of protection for these trees. I did notice when measuring the 67 metre tree that the crown looked sparser then the 65 and 64 metre tree just in front of it which are still luxuriant. The leading shoot was also short, funny that you should make that point as this is something that I definitely did notice as it was more stumpy then the neighbouring trees and abit easier to get a hit on. I muts update the other tree, readings of 65.6-65.8 metres for him this year and still a good leading shoot. You are right about the Scots Pines, look like comparative dwarfs, as said measured numerous trees now at Waterloo and every one is 60 metres, one being early 50 metres to the part that I could hit but 60 metres I estimate to the top.

Stephen Verge, at 2014-10-26 11:04:27, said:
Morning Rob

The 53m tree you measured at the Western end of the grove is at the opposite end where the tall trees I saw. The trees I viewed were definitely taller than 53m. Feel I am a good judge of height now and my trees I am sure 55-60+. The soil is better here also. I have some pics to upload but of low resolution, soon I promise.

Stephen Verge, at 2014-10-26 11:12:04, said:

You may be right and may have measured them? Feel that this stand is not too exposed and low elevation is the key to shelter, but yes potentially exposed to the south west, but there was no damage from last winters storms, but at sheltered Coed y Brenin there was damage exposed to the south west.

Stephen Verge, at 2014-10-26 11:31:13, said:

Ha! I think I fell in the same hole! There were a lot of rotten logs hidden in the undergrowth! Such are the hazards of measuring trees!

The thinning crown I'm afraid is Dothistroma. 10 years ago I thought Douglas was bombproof, but now not so sure. I did think it could live at least 300 years here and maybe 500 in the colder regions of Scotland. But now we have to factor in climate change and diseases.

Do you have a big garden? You could grow your own Waterloo Grove as I have plenty of seed!

There are so many diseases now mostly brought in by man and his incompetent greed. Now oak trees are under threat in Southern UK by Oak Processionary Moth. Brought in from the continent on a few trees. Now in Greater London and slowly spreading outwards. It could have been stopped but incompetence and politics have stopped this. Apparently helicopter spraying is not popular in London as a few Blue Tits were killed by the safe insecticide. Now their entire habitat is under threat and sacrificing a few birds I think is a price worth paying!

RedRob, at 2014-10-26 17:33:03, said:
Stephen, of the miles that you drove around Snowdonia, did you travel up the A4085 north from Beddgelert? A mile or so north on the west side of the road in the plantations are some conifers standing proud above the rest, one looks abit like Grand Fir? Did you assess the height if so? Never wennt this far up. Further north, Llyn Cwellyn looks a place with great potential, mountain shelter but the stands don't look 60 metres, 35-40 metres at most I would estimate from the buildings.

Stephen Verge, at 2014-10-27 09:15:59, said:

Yes I did drive up here but not all the way. Big conifers below Snowdon at Youth Hostel. Redwood and Big Noble Fir. Owen may have visited here?

Visible for everyone · permalink · en
KoutaR, at 2014-10-09 11:24:58, edited at 2014-10-09 11:35:40, said:
I send this at the request of Michael Spraggon. The text is his. It is about this tree: coast Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) '15298'

"A friend of mine climbed the tallest tree in Scotland, at Reelig Glen Wood last weekend to measure it by tape drop. TO HIS HORROR HE FOUND THAT SOMEONE HAD CLIMBED IT USING SPURS!!! There were deep wounds ALL THE WAY from the lowest branches to a few metres from the top. There were also very bad rope burns on some branches from natural-crotched dDRT descents.

I have reported this to the Forestry Commission and also the Tree Register of the British Isles, who are investigating it.

The tree was climbed a month ago by a film unit and a presenter for the BBC. The program was aired on national TV 2 weeks ago. Is it possible that someone saw the program and decided to 'have a go at climbing it?

We need to come together to condemn such total disregard for any healthy tree, let alone a national champion!


Stephen Verge, at 2014-10-13 16:59:33, said:
Hello All

I think this is appalling and always feared that this would happen. I feel it is a very difficult balancing act to:-

Educate and show the trees to the general public, without causing damage and also revealing such tree's exact location is perhaps not a good idea except between us tree fans/owner. I think by doing this the risk that a vandal or a so called recreational tree climber damaging it through perhaps just ignorance or just not caring is reduced significantly.

I wonder if the UK Tree Register has considered listing the trees but keeping the location deliberately vague to the public.

Owen what do you think?

I do not think it is a good idea to tell the media!

With these giants often growing in very fragile environments should we not take the policy as the same as the tallest Coast Redwoods in California? Perhaps treating them like rare protected orchids and not revealing their exact location, like say a rare military orchid.

A classic example is the Giant Sequoia just off Rhinefield Drive in the New Forest 51m tall. I have been visiting this tree for over 20 years and at first the Forestry Commission just put up a vague post some distance away which attracted little attention from the public. But now a large sign has been put up some years ago and now attracts many people to the tree.

The result is now significant soil compaction around the base, touching and picking of bark and even someones ashes had been deposited at the base! I estimate several thousand people are trampling around its root zone, which I'm sure you know is generally the most vulnerable part of the tree, with fine feeder roots only 20-30cm below the surface. I fear the tree is now showing early signs of stress. (Sequoia's are shallow rooted.)

I hope to contact the F.C. and recommend that they fence off around its root zone to prevent further damage, I am a qualified arborist/forester by the way. It would be nice if they paid for a full decompaction by compressed air to aerate the root zone.

I have a number of champion conifers which may be some of the tallest in Europe which as far as I know remain unknown except to myself, which I hope to reveal to you, but I would appreciate that they are just admired by us on this site and the UK Tree Register but not revealing exactly where they are to the media and general public to protect them.

As to the damage, I would say that it is just confined to a small area of the thin bark at the tree top and the cambium layer and as long as this is not repeated should only have a minor impact, with transpiration and subsequent growth unaffected.

Sorry for the rant but this has been a worry for me for sometime.



KoutaR, at 2014-10-13 17:25:12, said:
Hello Stephen,

You can always put the coordinate point to the nearest village or onto a lake, for example, and write in the description something like "the exact location is not revealed for preventing vandalism".

TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-10-16 18:06:26, said:
My feeling is that the benefits to trees in general by interesting the public in remarkable and champion specimens outweighs the risk that the most famous trees may be damaged by climbing or soil compaction. People as a whole are less and less aware of the natural world around them and the threats which it faces, and trees, being big and spectacular, are a good way of getting them (and especially their children) more emotionally involved.

We sometimes have to disguise tree locations at the request of owners who are touchy about their privacy, but 95% of trees on the Tree Register do have precise location details. To re-record the trees in 20 or 50 years time, the recorder needs to know what and where it is, and the extra paraphernalia involved in keeping the locations disguised makes me worry that sometimes this may become difficult. A tree record kept in somebody's head or on the back of an envelope is of no use at all after 50 years!

The 50m Giant Sequoia at Nymans has a boardwalk for the 10m of path that traverses its root-run, which seems a good idea.

I don't think the BBC news item that showed the Reelig Glen Douglas being climbed clearly showed at any point which of the many similar trees there the tallest actually was. I suspect they were deliberately keeping its identity unclear, as copy-cat climbs are a health-and-safety nightmare even if they don't damage the tree. The tree called Dughal Mor (on OS maps) and which has or had a plaque claiming it as Britain's tallest tree is about 30m from the new candidate and would have been the obvious tree for people to have climbed. When I visited in 2013 and identified the new tree as taller, this wasn't evident at all from the few viewpoints on the ground - hence I don't have a good photo with this one as the centre of attention.

Stephen Verge, at 2014-10-17 07:16:52, said:
Hi Owen

Thank you for your views.

It is always a difficult balancing act to educate the public and at the same time, preventing damage either accidental or worse, deliberate.

My personal feeling is that there are enough sacrificial trees in arboretums and collections now to educate the public and the next generations of tall trees which are often in fragile environments should be protected.

Trouble is when the word gets out, that there is a new tall tree, it does attract public attention, especially when its in state forests which inevitably leads to a trail to the tree and over the years much potential damage can be done by soil compaction. I always advised the FC of their trees but to keep quiet about them where possible. I notify them just to let them know and hope they will be retained for their scientific value.

I would of course let the Tree Register know where they are, but often in big stands of many hectares with hundreds of trees pin pointing the tree exactly even with GPS can be impossible.

For us dendrologists I think studying these trees is great, but I think letting the general public know 'exactly' where they are is a potential risk to them. One can always say a new tree has been discovered and dimensions given, though but location kept is deliberately vague from the public.

Kind Regards


Karlheinz, at 2014-10-18 11:05:38, said:
Good arguments presented here speak for not to reveal the Champion Tree by single photo or exact coordinates. On the other hand we want to raise interest of people in forest and nature, which is supported by focusing on distinctive superlatives. MT also heats up the search for the champion with the ability to sort by tree heights and by the "European tree height records list". The competition of the regions according to the motto: "Who has the highest tree" is opened. Who has measured a tree and now claimes the title of champion for this tree, must allow for review, anything else would be unfair. The incentive for me to go to Scotland to see and remeasure the tallest tree is little, if not previously is clear that I can find and identify the particular tree on site. Who does not want the tree to become famous, may not register it on MT. He must not boast of having found it. He must keep the secret for himself and approve that others will discover and publish the tree.


Stephen Verge, at 2014-10-18 11:26:14, said:
Hi Karl

Thanks for your comments. I have no problem posting the tallest trees on this site or the UK Tree Register. However giving precise location details to the UK public and media can be a potential risk to them, mainly too many people can visit and cause damage mainly accidental, caused by soil compaction. As you can see here someone has climbed the tree using bad techniques which have caused damage, we need to prevent this from happening where ever possible.

The location for some of the tallest Coast Redwoods in California are kept secret and only a few know where exactly they are.

There are many trees in the UK where people can visit tall trees now in private grounds or in state forests and be educated which I strongly recommend, but some of the tallest are in very fragile locations and having potentially thousands of people visiting them I feel would damage their health.

I hope to purchase a trupulse 200x soon as I am entirely scientific and dislike inaccuracy.

All the best


RedRob, at 2014-10-23 16:27:27, said:
Half of my registered trees are probably incorrect on the map because of a problem that I had with the said map (if people go looking for some of them they will end up in the Irish Sea for some of them) Would it be advisable to change the location for the Waterloo Grove trees for one? On my visit in September there was hardly a soul to be seen other than passing cars which use the road. I wanted some pedestrians to get some good photos in context but the only person who went past was a jogger who was away before I could get the camera in to position.

RedRob, at 2014-10-23 16:35:58, said:
It has been suggested that it was probably the person who roped up for the presenter who caused this spur damage so does all this need to be put in perspective? Is this just a one off either inadvertant or through lack of knowledge rather than amateurs? Did amateurs attempt to climb the Vyrnwy tree, the Hermitage tree, Dughall Mor or the Stronardron tree causing spur damage when claims were made and reported for them being the tallest? These trees are also in public areas as well aren't they rather then being in closed collections like Ardkinglas?

RedRob, at 2014-10-23 16:40:55, said:
Stephen, I hope that you decide to tell all about all your finds as they sound fascinating. If you don't want to disclose on here, could I request being included in any emails that you submit of your finds to the Register. I am suspecting that Coed Y Brenin will be one of the places that you have been in your 1,326 miles, it would be nice to see some of the trees at this location.

Stephen Verge, at 2014-10-25 12:20:58, said:
Hi Rob

Have no problem posting the trees to MT or Tree Register, but keeping the location vague to the 'general public' I think is the best way to keep them safe. Sadly what man creates often destroys! As I have said before there are enough tall trees to educate the public now around the UK.

With Giant Sequoia, bark is either punched or picked off and sadly the FC is ignorant by allowing a path to the trees and then soil compaction results. Trees are not adapted to having hundreds if not thousands of people trampling around their root zone.

Coed Y Brenin:-

Sadly Rob, Dothistroma is having a big impact on these trees. There is a whole valley of 1928 50-60m Douglas with some of the trees have lost 50% of their foliage. 3 years ago these trees were growing 0.5m a year (perfect health) and in 2013 0.2m and now 0.1m due to defoliation. Trying not to get too upset as some trees appear completely resistant but it is a real worry. There are so many diseases entering that most of the UK forest stock is at risk from something.

This stand was on course to become the tallest stand of trees in Europe, but now I am not too sure? Lets hope it is a passing phase and they will become resistant!

The planted 1931 Grand Fir here could be as tall as 63m (tangent) measured it very carefully last year, very likely fastest growing tree anywhere in the world north of 52 degrees! It appears Dothistroma is affecting Grand Fir as well.

Coast Redwood is bomb proof and this tree I feel will have a great future in the warming U.K. climate in the west.

Out with the natives!


RedRob, at 2014-10-25 16:45:27, said:
Are some of these diseases coming over in wood and plants imported in from mainland Europe like Ash Die Back? According to experts, Britain imports vast amounts of young trees and seedlings from Europe with which it is suspected Ash Die Back may have come in with. Why do we have to do this, I know the answer-economic, cheaper- but why can't all this business be given to British growers! I know the answer to this, EU need I say more, but all the growers and business it could provide over here also helping to cut down on imported diseases.

RedRob, at 2014-10-25 16:46:59, said:
Looking forward to seeing forests of Coast Redwoods, probably have kicked the bucket by the time and will be a ghost, but will be a nice sight.

RedRob, at 2014-10-25 16:50:14, said:
Forgot to say, Stephen, hope that you register and post some photos of the Coed Y Brenin trees (how tall now is the 50 metre Sitka Spruce?) Stick the locations in the Irish Sea, drown anyone trying to find them to damage them (laughs)

(Probably shouldn't have made that joke given the modern PC ridden world)

Stephen Verge, at 2014-10-26 11:59:22, said:

Yes would be nice to see forests of Redwoods. But now forestry has changed.

At Coed Y Brenin its all about restoring 'ancient broadleaved woodland' and throughout the UK. This is significant as where redwood would grow on low altitude sheltered fertile sites, mature conifer is being felled to replaced with scrub! This makes my blood BOIL! I am fed up with these 'native only tree fascists'. Don't get me wrong, I like broadleaves and I am environmentally conscious, but this country spent the last 95 years building up a strategic reserve of timber and now squandered! If the political world changed then the UK would be vulnerable to a gross shortage of timber.

The Douglas at Coed y Brenin are safe I hope! but the upper slopes are being felled for broadleaves, mainly rubbish like weedy birch and oak bonsai. This also removes shelter to the tall trees, as tall trees above the Douglas increase topography and therefore shelters the Douglas.

They have been ring barking the naturally growing Western Hemlock to prevent their spread, as they can be slightly invasive, but the stupid thing is they are removing the very tree that is immune to Dothistroma!

They felled a large area of Sitka at over 400-500m so they could grow broadleaves. The planted broadleaves failed and guess what grew back SITKA!

Things will change I hope, so don't despair you may see redwood forests they do grow very fast!

Amazing Red Cedars at Coed y Brenin planted 1931 and already over 40m! Will be champs soon!


Stephen Verge, at 2014-10-26 12:05:56, said:

There maybe Sitka 48m here but not any taller I think. My 50m tree has died back but this maybe due to Honey Fungus damaging the roots. There is something strange about the climate of Wales that prevents Sitka growing to giants like in Scotland. The rainfall is sufficient, but it maybe the temperature is too high, as it likes to be very cool. I have been puzzled by this. Sitka grows well in Cumbria.


RedRob, at 2014-10-26 16:45:59, said:
I think that I have found a long lost twin brother, falling down the same holes, the views expressed above, we must have been separated at birth!

I agree totally with your views on the purists, zealots I call them. There is a valley near to where I live, the Nidd Gorge valley which contains some nice conifers, 40 metre Sitka, Douglas, 31 metre Norway Spruce, 30 metre Larch, from the photos now on here a group of Bhutan Pines possibly(?) but they all have red marks on the trunk, many have already been felled at the request of the Bilton Conservation group. It makes my blood boil as these trees add diversity and interest but these lot zealously want the woods to be pure. Up here in Yorkshire there are vast areas of barren land, moorland and field where natural woods could be planted without felling any conifers which many people love. The moorlands and fields are referred to as Yorkshire's natural beauty but they are no such thing, man cleared this land, it is all man made.

Low Dalby meadow

The west Wales Sitka thing, the winter at this location, Dalby is going to be colder (and not as wet) but the summer temperatures are going to be signifcicantly higher and again less wet (local weather foreccasts, Vale of Pickering of which Staindale is a side valley and will be a sheltered south facing one as well), is nearly always the sunniest and warmest part of this area) and yet Sitkas are seemingly thriving and superb specimans?

Stephen Verge, at 2014-10-27 09:06:13, said:
Morning Rob

Yes conservation groups with their open toed sandals and butterfly nets skipping through the long grass!! Perhaps you could try to educate them, I am always doing this! They are blind! Rub off the red marks on the best of them!

I see no difference in a tree coming to this country either naturally or having been introduced by man. Sweet Chestnut and sycamore long naturalised are we gong to fell them all? Perhaps Beech North of S. England? With that awful totally biased Coun*** Fi** program pulling up Hemlock. When was the last time there was anything about forestry other than planting Squirrel fodder! I'm afraid there is so much propaganda and B*** SH** in this world!

Yes Yorkshire Moorland a barren biological desert created by man caused by sheep grazing, plenty of room for Conifers and Broadleaves, but as usual they like to think this is natural. It is not!

Fed up with the Lake District and their anti conifer mentality, all thanks to Wainright and his romantic thoughts of man made open desert moorland!They think that open mountainside is 'normal'. They soon complain about windfarms but want cheap green energy!

A totally independent report on planted coniferous forest showed that it was not detrimental to wildlife and birdlife.

Stephen Verge, at 2014-10-27 09:12:44, said:

Yes strange about Sitka, perhaps because Sitka is planted only at high altitude and therefore would never grow to large size due to soil conditions. If planted on fertile low altitude sites would grow to giants but species selected often Douglas and Larch here.

Interesting Yorkshire Sitka, Have been to Hammsterley Forest further North and been to Dalby long ago.

MoritzNagel, at 2014-10-26 16:44:44, said:
Hallo Fred84,

kann es sein, dass Sie hier Steineiche und Stieleiche durcheinander gebracht oder auf den falschen Namen geklickt haben? Die Steineiche ist bei uns in der Regel eher nicht winterhart.

Fred84, at 2014-10-26 17:31:16, said:
Hallo Herr Nagel,

ja, habe tatsächlich beim durchscrollen nicht genau genug

hingeschaut! Vielen Dank für den Hinweis!!

RedRob, at 2014-10-26 16:55:13, said:
Fine trees John, how tall do you estimate them as being?

RedRob, at 2014-10-26 16:57:10, said:
John demercleden, nice name, like an old Norman name 'of' mercleden'. Is it a Channel Island name, do you originate from there?

demercleden, at 2014-10-26 14:38:51, said:
This shows measurement system employed (good for single operative):

1) Wool stretched around trunk and tied at desired height (the stretch ensures the 'relaxed' reading will always be 'conservative')

2) cut, bag in envelope and mark

3) 'halve' length of wool as many times as suitable (1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16 etc) till divided length is easy to measure against a rule

4) Slightly tension multiple stranded wool and take a reading ... 5) multiply be division factor ...

... so for this tree it was 0.60m x 8 = 4.8m

Gemini 1. beech was 0.65m x8 = 5.2m

demercleden, at 2014-10-26 14:22:47, said:
Gemini 1 with girth of approx 5.2m is on left .. Gemini 2 with girth of approx 4.24m is on right. Als in line withmany other multiple trunk trees of similar age from ancient beech hedge?

demercleden, at 2014-10-26 14:12:33, said:
Sorry i keep chopping off the tops .. this one goes high ... (and look at other trees all around too !)

RedRob, at 2014-10-23 15:58:33, said:
Stephen, did you take a look at this stand of Larch when you visited? This must be the largest stand of Larch by wood volume of any in the UK possibly? I could only get a view of bases and tips of a few trees at the bottom but I can clearly see on my photographs that I have almost certainly or have certainly not measured the tallest in this stand. There are emergents further up with their tips clear of the rest by metres and even accounting for slope I estimate that they will be 43 perhaps even as much as 45 metres. This stand is also growing on the southern slope of the lake facing north east so it has mountain shelter, certainly much more than the 64 metre Douglas Fir stand will have at the other side of the lake. What sort of growth rate can we expect for Larch trees in a tight stand like this and in this location? How long before some of these trees might be challenging the 48 metre tree at Reelig Glen?

RedRob, at 2014-10-25 16:54:44, said:
Hello Stephen, interested in your assessment of this stand, did you notice them?

Stephen Verge, at 2014-10-26 12:13:09, said:

Sadly missed these! I had Douglas in my brain at the time! Will look again when next visit. They look great.

demercleden, at 2014-10-20 12:23:25, said:
One of a number of remarkable silver biches on Gray Hill
TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-10-21 18:12:56, said:
Probably Betula pubescens, rather than B. pendula - the commoner of the two native 'Silver Birches' in the UK. Leaves of B. pendula are more triangular, the finer branches hang down, and the bark is usually crisply divided into smooth pure white bits and very rugged black bits (not visible in this case because of the moss).
demercleden, at 2014-10-21 18:43:39, said:
Thank you, I hadn't worked out the differences. There are a lot of ancient birches and other tree species on Gray hill ... Mixed in with as many Neolithic and Bronze Age stone workings, enclosures, circles banks, cairns and walls
RedRob, at 2014-10-23 16:13:49, said:
Hello demercleden, welcome. Are you a South Wales resident or from somewhere near this area? If so it would be great to have someone in that area with an interest in trees, there must be some tall trees down this way. Would you have the time or inclination to photograph a few if nothing else? There is a 43 metre Beech at Lydney Park not far from these trees and big Douglas Firs in the Forest of Dean. There also look to be some fair sized conifers in the Vale of Neath. I for one would love to see some photographs of the trees in Longleat Forest, specifically the 54 metre Coast Redwood (where it is?)
demercleden, at 2014-10-24 10:59:17, said:
Hi Rob,

I currently live in Caldicot (near Chepstow) S. Wales.

Until 6 months ago used to live near Lydney, Forest of Dean,.. so lots of trees yes .. took them a little bit for granted.

May be able to photograph some for you ...

Have been to Longleat (Center Parks) where there is a stand of Redwoods.

My main 'tree-focus' is Gray hill because the usage of that hill has note changed much for past ... 5000 years ? Actually I am primiraly ivestigating the 'stones' and Neolithic/Bronze age stuff.

It seems you like the great 'heights' of trees? There are plent like that in the forest of dean (FoD) as they were grown mainly for shipbuilding purposes 2-4 hundred years ago ..

I will keep an eye out for you .. but easier to use a separate email address ... (or can I post pictures here, unattached to actually registered trees ?.. I have quite a few good ones already!)

Cheers John

RedRob, at 2014-10-24 16:21:19, edited at 2014-10-24 16:23:01, said:
Hello John, thank you for the offer of photographing some of the trees, very much appreciated. Forest of Dean and Longleat are two places that I would love to visit. I have also been searching on Google Maps for trees in the South Wales valleys and am amazed at what nice country it is down there now. You always envisage a pretty bleak area with all the pits and slag heaps but the scars have now greened over with forests and it looks lovely (cannot think of another word that describes it), green forested hills and great drives, definitely another area that I would love to visit before the bucket is kicked.

Centre Parcs

These are the Redwoods which you will have found at Centre Parcs as I ended up at them myself on a visit a few years ago. It is the location of the Britain and Ireland and European height champion Coast Redwood (also registered on page on link)which seems to be more elusive to find than Lord Lucan.

RedRob, at 2014-10-24 17:08:31, said:
Hello John, should have added this European beech (Fagus sylvatica) '15129'

This Beech at Lydney is the Britain and Ireland Champion for height. Probably not much point visiting this year as the leaves will have just about gone now.

demercleden, at 2014-10-24 21:07:20, said:
Hi Rob,

Yes that is a huge tree at Lydney Park. (Haven't seen it myself yet).

I walked over the back of Gray hill down to Wentwood this evening and found three MASSIVE beeches casually holding up a field fence there. Maybe not challenging the Lydney Park tree but not far off ... And three of them, just unassumingly sitting in the edge of the wood.

I shall go back tomorrow to measure and register them .... But there are so many great trees in the area that I am spoilt for choice to record them ... Such as another downy birch In a field of horses that would undoubtedly be a near-champion, if it's trunk remains 'single' for high enough....

Cheers John

RedRob, at 2014-10-25 16:53:25, said:
Dear John ( punning the old sitcom from years ago) look forward to seeing your trees.
demercleden, at 2014-10-25 20:38:56, said:
I shall add 4 beeches with girths between 4.8m to 5.2m and add pics tomorrow when I get properly online

Cheers John deMercleden

Stephen Verge, at 2014-10-18 11:39:03, said:
Hi Rob

Yes saw this tree on my visit last month.

I saw this tree way back in the early nineties, it was flat topped. Yes very luxuriant and healthy. Judging by the fresh fissures in the bark I would say it is still growing rapidly in girth. The trunk also has very little taper and I would not be surprised if it contained 60m3 of wood. It may reach 55-60m eventually but may take another 30 years?

A species which has not reached its full potential in the UK and with climate change, could well excel in the west. It is virtually bombproof with only man/wind/lightning the real hazard. With Giant sequoia Honey fungus and other decay fungi can attack these trees but not Coast Redwood.


RedRob, at 2014-10-23 15:50:30, said:
Stephen, were the footpaths open on the south west bank of the river through the Dell? I really wanted to have a go at measuring the Corsican Pines which were planted as a shelterbelt and which Owen recorded as 43 metres in 2005 but the whole area was fenced off with 'no admittance' the day that I visited. I could see them but couldn't get any view of any bases? Don't know what was going on that day? I could also see the Nordmann Fir but not the base? 45 metres is the B&I record for Corsican Pine and these had probably or possibly overtaken that? Did you photograph them or attempt a measurement?

Conifers, at 2014-10-23 15:56:19, said:
The 'no admittance' signs are just for the general public - if you ask at reception, they'll (usually) give you permission to go over them once they know why you're there if it's a special reason like measuring trees. At least that's how it used to be. All they'd likely ask of you is to give them a copy of the measurements afterward.

RedRob, at 2014-10-23 16:17:16, said:
Hello Conifers, you may be right. The paths up the hillside were blocked off with pink ribbon which I thought unusual and that something may have happened further up, perhaps unsafe paths or a landslide?

TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-10-24 12:59:27, said:
I've just added some historic measurements for this tree. It's growing remarkably steadily! (Tim, one feature that could be added is a calculation of annual growth-rate between the planting date and the first measurement for trees with known planting dates?)

Rob, the Corsican Pine was very difficult to measure tangent-fashion, as they generally are, and it could have been more than 43m. But probably also hard to see the highest shoots with laser. As it's part of the official 'shelterbelt' it may not have added more height. Much of the garden was also shut to the public on my visit in 2005 - is this a permanent condition? I know that recently Bodnant has been undergoing 'restoration' at the urging of various influentual landscape gardeners. This is a word that always fills me with dread as it generally means cutting down the existing 100-year-old trees and planting new ones to 'recreate the spirit in which the garden was originally conceived' or words to that effect. At least they've spared this one.

RedRob, at 2014-10-24 16:08:16, said:
Hello Owen, perhaps we need a petition from someone, the Tree Register members perhaps amongts others to protect these older trees, it would be tragic if any of the tall conifers and others were felled just for the sake of it, they are irreplaceable.

This Coastie doesn't grow very fast does it, I measured 51 metres for it MT standard reading (centre of base on slope), Tree Register standard it will be about 50.4 metres I estimate, the girth probably now 6 metres perhaps taking into account Stephen's comments. It looks glaucousy as you described so will it be some sort of variant and hence have a lower growth rate?

Stephen Verge, at 2014-10-25 11:49:35, said:
Rob and All

Areas are being developed and should be open next spring, apparently they take parties of people round on certain days. I did not see any felling, but I was saddened to see the big Western Hemlock had been felled.

The Corsican I did not see, but it appears the dreaded Dothistroma which Corsican is very susceptible has just started to infect trees.

Coast Redwood is superb. Still growing rapidly judging by the new fresh fissures in the bark at the base. Difficult tree to measure due to the stream! Possibly within the top 5 for size in the Northern Hemisphere outside California?


Stephen Verge, at 2014-10-25 12:26:27, said:

The Corsican at Puck Pitts in the New Forest. Have found a tree which could be taller than 45m, I know you have measured some of them but this tree is tucked away from the footpath.


Rkrause, at 2014-10-16 17:41:18, said:
Würde gern noch eine zweite Messung von einem anderen Standort durchführen. Benötigte dazu aber Unterstützung.



Rainer Lippert, at 2014-10-16 17:48:30, said:
Hallo Rkrause,

meinst du eine weitere Höhenmessung, von einem anderen Standpunkt aus? Das geht unter "Neuer Messung hinzufügen" nicht. Zumindest nicht, wenn beide Messungen vom gleichen Jahr stammen. Du kannst aber unter "Bearbeiten Sie die Daten von diesem Baum" einen Kommentar abgeben. Wie in diesem Fall den Hinweis mit einer weiteren Messung.

Viele Grüße,


Rkrause, at 2014-10-16 18:29:26, said:
Hallo Rainer,

ja ich meine eine zweite Höhenmessung (wegen des Geländes) und dachte, es gibt die Möglichkeit, das mich hierbei von euch jemand unterstützen kann, egal wann.

Wenn aber niemand in der Nähe des Standortes der Fichte angesiedelt ist, werde ich das mit Heimatfreunden hin bekommen.

beste Grüße


Rainer Lippert, at 2014-10-16 19:52:10, said:
Hallo Rkrause,

jetzt verstehe ich dich erst. Ich dachte, du hättest bereits einen weiteren Messwert, und du weißt nicht, wie du den hier in die Datenbank eintragen sollst. Du möchtest aber vor Ort eine weitere, genauere Messung durchführen. Ok, also ich wohne etwa 120 km weg, ist also ohne weiteres für mich machbar. Welches Messinstrument hast du denn? Eingetragen hast du die Tangentenmethode, also eine reine Winkelmessung zur Spitze. Wenn der Baum schräg steht, ist das Fehlerbehaftet. Auch, wenn das Gelände geneigt ist, ist es damit Problematisch. Ich hätte ein Nikon-Entfernungsmesser. Damit kann ich eine Winkel- und Entfernungsmessung zur Spitze und zur Basis machen, was genauer ist, als eine reine Winkelmessung zur Spitze. Also ich hätte durchaus Interesse an eine Messung mit dir zusammen vor Ort. Bei mir geht es aber nur an Wochenenden.

Viele Grüße,


Rkrause, at 2014-10-17 17:10:47, said:
Hallo Rainer,

bei der ersten Messung habe ich die Basis mit einem Stahlbandmaß gemessen, den Winkel mit einem Klinometer von Suunto.

Über die tan Funktion dann die Gegenkathede, also die Höhe berechnet.

Es wäre prima, wenn wir eine weitere Messung durchführen könnten. Wochenende ist ok, nur das Kommende geht nicht, sonst könnte ich mich bestimmt deinem Terminvorschlag anpassen.

beste Grüße


Rainer Lippert, at 2014-10-17 17:29:25, said:
Hallo Rkrause,

also wie vermutet, nur eine Winkelmessung zur Spitze. Wenn der Standort dann noch höher oder tiefer als die Stammbasis ist, und der Baum an sich nicht genau senkrecht steht, summieren sich da Fehler auf. Ich messe deshalb mit einem Nikon-Entfernungsmesser, diesem hier:

Da wird auch die Entfernung zusätzlich zu den Winkeln gemessen, um einen Schrägstand des Baumes auszugleichen. Ist auch einfacher zu messen, da kein Bandmaß benötigt wird.

An diesem Wochenende kann ich auch nicht. Das darauffolgende Wochenende muss ich am Samstag arbeiten, am Sonntag, den 26. Oktober könnte es bei mir gehen. Wie viel Zeit wird der Baum in Anspruch nehmen? Ich meine, wie weit muss man vom Auto aus zum Baum laufen?

Viele Grüße,


Rkrause, at 2014-10-17 17:38:52, said:
Prima, den 26. Oktober merke ich mir vor. Es sind ca 25 Min Fußweg vom Parkplatz bis zur Fichte. Stiefel sind nötig, weil der Jüchnitzbach durchquert werden muß, grobes unwegsames Gelände auf den letzten 60 Metern!

beste Grüße


Rainer Lippert, at 2014-10-17 17:59:36, said:
Ok, bleiben wir beim 26. Oktober. Trockenen Fußes kommt man da nicht hin? Ist das ein breiter Bach, oder kommt man da auch über Steine irgendwie auf die andere Seite? Treffpunkt ist dann beim Parkplatz vom Schullandheim Geraberg? Also hier:,10.817295&num=1&t=h&z=18

Viele Grüße,


Rkrause, at 2014-10-18 10:17:00, said:
Hallo Rainer,

Je nach Geländegängigkeit deiner unteren Gliedmaße ist alles möglich, kann aber auch noch ein Stiefelpaar mitbringen.

Treffpunkt wie vorgeschlagen.

schönes Wochenende


Rainer Lippert, at 2014-10-18 14:44:14, said:
Hallo Rkrause,

also 8 m kann ich nicht weit springen, wenn du das meinst ;-) Ich will es so versuchen, aber es wäre schön, wenn du noch ein Stiefelpaar mitbringen würdest.

Dir auch ein schönes Wochenende,


Rkrause, at 2014-10-18 15:33:27, said:
alles klar - Ankunftszeit sagst mir dann noch !

Rainer Lippert, at 2014-10-18 15:36:27, said:
Ich dachte an 12:00 Uhr. Da bleibt genug Zeit zum messen.

Bis dann,


Rkrause, at 2014-10-24 15:32:04, said:
Hallo Rainer,

das Wetter scheint für unser Vorhaben passend zu werden. So erwarte ich dich wie abgesprochen am Sonntag 12 Uhr beim Parkplatz Schullandheim.

Bis dahin beste Grüße und gute Anfahrt


Rainer Lippert, at 2014-10-24 17:19:06, said:
Hallo RKrause,

das Wetter hat die Tage für Sonntag schonmal besser ausgeschaut, geht aber noch. Zumindest soll es mittags trocken bleiben. Bis Sonntag 12 Uhr dann.

Viele Grüße,


Tall trees at Conwy
Visible for everyone · permalink · en
RedRob, at 2014-10-23 16:48:16, said:
Forestry Commission plantations of Douglas Fir at Gwydyr, Conwy and Coed a Brenin are now hot on the heels of these older trees and David Alderman predicts the champion could change several times over the next few years, unless and other specimens such as the Lake Vyrnwy Giant could be found in a deep gorge somewhere breaking the 65m barrier.

Owen, reading back I came across this page. Conwy, which plantation at Conwy is this referring to? On Google Maps there are no plantations up around Conwy? Does this mean along the Vale of Conwy? I drove along the west escarpment of the Conwy valley (really all Gwyrdr Forest) and stopped and pointed the laser at quite a few but they were not on the scale of the Afon Lugwy and Waterloo trees.

TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-10-24 12:40:40, said:
It's 'Gwydyr [forest], Cowny [county]', not Conway the town. I was referring to the Waterloo Bridge trees.

RedRob, at 2014-10-24 16:12:00, said:
Hello Owen, thanks for clarifying, I was afraid that I had missed something near Conwy as I went down only as far as Bodnant Garden.

williBremen, at 2014-10-24 11:46:08, said:
Wonderful tree!
Wim Brinkerink, at 2014-10-24 13:12:42, said:
Yes very specoal one. ! Your pictures are much better. Mine are older and I'm not sure but I think I used an old analog camera and digitalized the photo by scanning.

Stephen Verge, at 2014-10-19 09:17:36, said:

I saw this tree and definitely Abies grandis. Possibly from the Cascades or just east of the crest. Foliage there typically has upturned foliage at the end of branch tips, where as trees from the Pacific coast have needles which lie flat on the shoot.

Growing well maybe 40cm per year.


RedRob, at 2014-10-23 15:52:03, said:
Hello Stephen, 'Idahoensis' then? They definitely didn't look quite right for conventional, the coast Grand Fir.

Second largest Douglas Fir in Canada discovered
Visible for everyone · permalink · en
Stephen Verge, at 2014-10-18 12:00:01, said:
Hi All

Thought you might have seen this, but if not look below.

This appalling Forestry practice continues! This would not happen in the UK!

The tree is sadly doomed and will blow over in the next Pacific gale.

Trees such as these need the whole valley side to protect them.

Very sad!


Stephen Verge, at 2014-10-18 12:03:51, said:
See 23/9/14 post to view it


Stephen Verge, at 2014-10-18 12:07:30, said:
Sorry meant 23/3/14 post not easy to find.


Conifers, at 2014-10-18 13:46:08, said:

KoutaR, at 2014-10-19 10:28:38, said:
More photos:

(Click the first photo for further photos.)

And a video:

Stephen Verge, at 2014-10-20 09:57:42, said:
Thanks Kouta

Great pictures/video.

How old 4-500 years?

This is not forestry and I thought the Amazon was bad!

Is there any hope for the Human Race!!


KoutaR, at 2014-10-20 15:57:50, said:
You can sign an online petition here:

Stephen Verge, at 2014-10-21 07:47:24, said:
Hello Kouta

Signed petition



Tim, at 2014-10-23 15:29:16, said:
A technical hint: it is possible to post Youtube videos on the discussion page.

To do that, on the Youtube page of the video, click on "Share" somewhere below the video and then on "Embed".

Just copy paste the text you see there in your comment.

Kind regards,


RedRob, at 2014-10-23 15:39:59, said:
The second photo down in Conifer's link (the man looking up the trunk), there is a horizontal line across the base of the trunk, is this a cut mark, have they had a bite at this tree?

jaknouse, at 2014-10-20 00:29:22, said:
Pinus strobus is universally called "white pine" throughout its natural range. I have never in my life heard it called Weymouth pine.

Conifers, at 2014-10-20 08:04:22, said:
More accurately, Eastern White Pine, so as to distinguish it from e.g. Pinus monticola (Western White Pine).

TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-10-21 18:16:42, said:
This is an interesting point, as we have English (country) names for trees on this site in the English language version rather than American ones, which would be more logical for trees with an American distribution. In this case 'Weymouth' commemorates Captain George Weymouth who first brought the tree to England in the early 17th century but has no relevance to American users of this site. I shan't offer to change the names to the American ones myself as I don't know all of them!

Conifers, at 2014-10-21 21:38:19, said:
I'd favour using native names (i.e., use Eastern White Pine for Pinus strobus), provided they are botanically accurate (thus use e.g. Lawson's Cypress for Chamaecyparis lawsoniana, and not call it a cedar Cedrus as many in the USA regrettably misidentify it).

jaknouse, at 2014-10-22 17:42:34, said:
That sounds reasonable.

Tim, at 2014-10-23 15:26:01, said:
I agree and have changed the English name of Pinus strobus to eastern white pine.

Kind regards,


Frank Gyssling, at 2014-10-23 08:53:37, said:
Ohh je, ist das wieder ein schlechtes Foto ;-)

Visible for everyone · permalink · nl
geertaa, at 2014-10-23 08:45:47, edited at 2014-10-23 08:51:57, said:

Ik heb een heel aantal jaren geleden een aantal mammoetbomen gezaaid en gekweekt. Velen zijn tijdens een strenge winter overleden. Gelukkig zijn er een paar die het hebben overleefd. Eentje is op het moment zeer hard aan het groeien in de volle grond (net toegevoegd aan jullie archief), de ander staat in kuip en is zo'n 2 meter hoog nu. Weet iemand hier of er partijen zijn die in deze boom geïnteresseerd zou zijn?

Vriendelijke groet,


Conifers, at 2014-10-22 22:18:54, said:
These are Quercus robur acorns ;-)
Han van Meegeren, at 2014-10-23 06:13:37, said:
Ofcourse. Too late in the evening I guess, :-))

TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-10-22 17:38:22, said:
Hello again Demercladen,

I don't know if you're aware of the site, which is designed to allow people to record details of veteran trees (ie trees which are important for their associated wildlife and intrinsic age) around the UK. I've just transferred your pollard sallow to this site (, as it's clearly ancient from your pictures and one of the most significant in Wales. (You'll see the record appearing under my user-name on that site. The details of where I transferred the record from are in the notes.) I hope I've got the location right. If you want to upload your photos (or other tree records) to the Ancient Tree Hunt site, this is quite easy, though the site doesn't have much professional support these days. It's working OK today anyway!

MColombari1, at 2014-10-21 16:01:07, said:
Russia no Ukraine
Conifers, at 2014-10-21 18:09:40, said:
Ukraine still, though currently under illegal Russian occupation.
MColombari1, at 2014-10-21 22:01:20, said:
illegal is the current Ukrainian government
Han van Meegeren, at 2014-10-22 05:06:40, said:
Curious: the first tree with a passport! Stop this please. A discussion for an other website.

demercleden, at 2014-10-18 15:18:14, said:
Is there another like this one? how old would she be? (at 3.6m girth, .. of the birch family)
Conifers, at 2014-10-18 15:46:39, said:
Quite old, but impossible to give a good estimate as it is looks like an old pollard.

PS Species now classified as Frangula alnus

PPS Frangula is hermaphrodite, so 'it', not 'she' ;-)

demercleden, at 2014-10-18 16:09:49, said:
Yes knew it was hermaphrodite, so preferred a 'she' or 'he' or 'he/she' as mood suggested. it is not a a rock!
TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-10-21 18:06:36, said:
I think this tree is Salix caprea (possibly the hybrid Salix x reichartii), rather than Alder Buckthorn. The leaves should be wrinkly above and very finely grey-woolly underneath - very smooth and quite shiny green in Frangula alnus. I'd love to see an Alder Buckthorn with a single trunk more than 30cm thick, but I doubt I ever will! 3.6m girth is also near the maximum size for Salix caprea, though it tends to grow bigger in relatively harsh upland climates like this.
TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-10-21 18:11:00, said:
By the way (Tim), two of the photos of this one appear on their side on the tree's webpage, but come the right way up when you click to view them. Any ideas why?
demercleden, at 2014-10-21 18:54:51, said:
Thank you again (I apologise for my inexperience) but have to start somewhere .. Yes I can see that you are right as I have checked the leaf against picture in Wikipoedia .. Can I change the classification?
Conifers, at 2014-10-21 21:39:59, edited at 2014-10-21 21:41:00, said:
I'll change it if you like! . . . . Done!

demercleden, at 2014-10-20 12:19:35, said:
because this tree is near the crown of a high hill it has divided low down, so taking a 1.5m girth measurement would appear to not have much meaning? (so have not yet)
Sisley, at 2014-10-21 16:18:57, said:
In this situation, we can take the girth of the largest trunk and this measure can be valid if we don't registre in the 'multi-trunks part'
demercleden, at 2014-10-21 16:27:46, said:
Thanks, I can do that. Probably won't be near any records but it is a splendid and notable tree nevertheless. I shall take a measurement of the largest trunk,(and for reference a measurement of the trunk below where the three join, and the height of this above the ground).

Conifers, at 2014-10-18 13:52:02, said:
Abies alba ;-)
Han van Meegeren, at 2014-10-20 22:05:04, said:
I knew there had to be something wrong. Thanks.

Martin Tijdgat, at 2014-05-06 18:23:53, said:
Hai Karin,

Is dit een 'gewone' gele treurwilg Salix x sepulcralis 'Chrysocoma'? Die de afgelopen weken hel-gele twijgen had. Of is het de veel zeldzamer groene treurwilg Salix babylonica, die altijd groene twijgen heeft?

karin5f, at 2014-05-07 14:36:01, said:
Hallo Martin,

Ik heb hem pas ontdekt op een nieuwe wandelroute, dus kan helaas noch bevestigen noch ontkennen. Ik gok dat het de gewone treurwilg is. Maar dat is nergens op gebaseerd....Ik kan alleen de volgende lente afwachten. Of kan ik het nog ergens anders aan zien? En ook veel dank voor je boeken tip.



Nardo Kaandorp, at 2014-06-17 19:04:25, said:
Hallo Karin,

Deze treurwilg stond er op MT (zonder foto) met een omtrek van 4,12m. Ik herkende hem gelijk vanwege de uitgebroken top. Als je op de kaart kijkt zie je het ook. Kun jij deze boom verwijderen en je foto toevoegen aan de boom die er al op stond. Thanks!

Overigens de dikke populier aan de overkant is toch echt een populier hoor en geen berk. De stam en bladeren laten geen twijfel.

Mooie wilg die je hebt ontdekt verderop.



karin5f, at 2014-10-17 22:54:56, said:
Hallo Narno, jammer genoeg weet ik niet waar de treurwilg mt staat die je bedoelde. Ook de reden waardoor ik dit zo lang uitstel...Ik heb net gezocht...maar zonder resultaat. Wil graag alles in orde maken. Kun je me helpen?vast bedankt karin

excuus dat het zo lang duurde.

Nardo Kaandorp, at 2014-10-20 18:52:35, said:
Hoi Karin,

Het was al geregeld hoor. Ik heb de treurwilg die ik erop had gezet verwijderd. Dat was eigenlijk een stuk handiger. Hij staat er nu dus maar 1 keer op.

Gr, Nardo

Upload photos ·
Visible for everyone · permalink · en
basehit47, at 2014-10-20 16:05:26, said:
my name is

Jacob Sanders

I live in Bamberg County SC

The Town of Denmark.

5462 Capernaum Road.

Cell 1-803-383-5517

I have a very old Oak Tree 21+inches around. I'm in my 60's My great Grand Mother

Said her mother said the tree was huge ever since she can remember.

How do I upload pictures to show you

My mail is

H. monticola
Visible for everyone · permalink · en
jaknouse, at 2014-10-20 00:12:02, said:
Mountain silverbells. This is often still called Halesia carolina (which is properly now called H. tetraptera), but it is a distinctly different species. H. tetraptera is a shrub, while this is a medium-size tree.

JJVR, at 2014-10-19 13:48:30, said:
Het betreft de voorste/middelste boom.

Een foto van de boom in het geheel moet ik nog een keer maken vanaf de andere kant van de beek.

RedRob, at 2014-09-24 16:56:44, said:
Very impressive Rainer, hate to ask but do you have a distance photo of the tree so we can appreciate it's size?

Rainer Lippert, at 2014-09-24 17:04:44, said:
Hallo RedRob,

leider habe ich kein Foto aus der Ferne. Der Baum steht mitten im Bestand, die Spitze ist nur schlecht einsehbar. Ich habe eine Position gefunden mit Sicht zur Spitze und zur Basis. Ich bin mir aber nicht sicher, ob es auch tatsächlich die höchste Spitze ist. Ich glaube nämlich, die Linde ist noch höher. In der Laubfreien Zeit möchte ich da nochmal hin, zwecks Messung.

Viele Grüße,


Rainer Lippert, at 2014-10-18 17:28:55, said:
Heute war ich nochmal dort. Von der anderen Seite aus, von außerhalb des Waldes, konnte ich den Baum nun komplett ablichten. Leider sieht man den Stamm nicht, der aber in beiden Bildern bis fast bis runter reicht. Ich denke inzwischen auch, dass die Linde eher an 42 m Höhe reicht. Aber ist das eine Sommerlinde? Die Blätter sind nicht so besonders groß. Oder ist das eher eine Holländische Linde (Tilia × europaea)?

Viele Grüße,


KoutaR, at 2014-10-19 07:55:43, said:
Hallo Rainer,

Du musst die Blattunterseiten anschauen. Bei Sommerlinde sind sie dicht behaart. Das kann man auch von gelben Blättern sehen, auch von gefallenen Blättern. Die Blattgröße ist kein zuverlässiges Merkmal.

Rainer Lippert, at 2014-10-19 07:58:07, said:
Hallo Kouta,

danke für den Hinweis. Beim nächsten Besuch achte ich da mal genauer drauf. In der laubfreien Zeit, wenn der Stamm dann besser sichtbar ist, möchte ich da nochmal hin, um eine genauere Messung hinzubekommen. Blätter am Boden wird es ja dann noch geben.

Viele Grüße,


Geroteerde foto.
Visible for everyone · permalink · nl
Wim Brinkerink, at 2014-10-17 18:28:05, said:

Ik snap er niets van. Ik heb jarenlang foto's geüpload in verticale stand. Ineens lukt het niet meer. Ik heb deze foto 3 a 4 keer geüpload. Steeds weer is hij gedraaid. Ik heb de foto ook vanuit 2 camera's genomen. Geen idee hoe dat komt, geen idee hoe het op te lossen. Ik heb Tim gemailed .



Wim Brinkerink, at 2014-10-18 16:04:45, said:
Ik snap het. Dit is een probleem voor mensen die overschakelen naar windows 8.1. Verkenner roteert de foto, maar dat wordt bij het uploaden waarschijnlijk niet gelezen.

demercleden, at 2014-10-18 15:21:45, said:
she hasn't many living branches left on top!

Second largest Douglas Fir in Canada discovered
Visible for everyone · permalink · en
Stephen Verge, at 2014-10-18 11:59:58, said:
Hi All

Thought you might have seen this, but if not look below.

This appalling Forestry practice continues! This would not happen in the UK!

The tree is sadly doomed and will blow over in the next Pacific gale.

Trees such as these need the whole valley side to protect them.

Very sad!


Scholem Alejchem, at 2013-11-03 08:40:59, said:
Castaneas everywhere united!
Baumfan1964, at 2014-10-16 21:21:56, said:
ein Traum!!!

Baumfan1964, at 2014-10-16 20:42:13, said:

Baumfan1964, at 2014-10-16 20:35:53, said:

Baumfan1964, at 2014-10-16 20:35:09, said:
herlich,wunderschöner Baum!!!

Tim, at 2014-05-17 17:32:01, said:
Very nice. This tree seems to come right out of a fairy tale.

Keep up the good work, Zeltins!

Kind regards,


Baumfan1964, at 2014-10-16 20:33:37, said:

apogeal, at 2011-05-31 01:59:11, said:
Prachtige zomereik geweldig!


Baumfan1964, at 2014-10-16 20:30:33, said:

Baumfan1964, at 2014-10-16 20:29:47, said:

Baumfan1964, at 2014-10-16 20:27:12, said:

Baumfan1964, at 2014-10-16 20:26:41, said:
ein Traum!!

MColombari1, at 2012-11-12 19:15:55, said:
Baumfan1964, at 2014-10-16 20:21:48, said:

MColombari1, at 2012-11-02 10:45:21, said:
Joel Skok, at 2012-11-10 19:16:46, said:
Must see this marvel of creation. But tell me, what is its condition? Live top? Much decay or dead wood?
Conifers, at 2012-11-10 20:58:51, said:
Plenty of pics available with a google search (it's a famous tree). From these two, it has a good dense healthy crown, though looks like it's lost its top at some stage:

KoutaR, at 2012-11-10 21:03:47, said:

The original top has snapped a long time ago, but the tree is still almost 60 m tall. Otherwise the tree is, as far as I remember, in a good shape.

Still more than this tree, I liked neighbouring Olympic National Park. One of the greatest park I have hiked. A primeval wilderness with giant Douglas-firs, Sitka spruces and western redcedars, wild rivers and snow-capped mountains.


KoutaR, at 2012-11-12 11:10:02, said:

So you have been there and I advertised the park needlessly!


Baumfan1964, at 2014-10-16 20:19:09, said:
wonderfull,I am deeply impressed

Scholem Alejchem, at 2014-10-16 12:39:56, said:
Frage an Conifers & andere Experten:

How could this tree have 2 different kind of leaves??

Wie kann dieser Baum 2 unterschiedliche Blätter haben???

lg Scholem

TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-10-16 17:49:30, said:
This is 'Aspleniifolia', which is a chimaera - a clone with two parts, which have different DNA, but have fused together. Normally, the fern-leaved part of the chimaera is at the surface and produces the cut leaves, but sometimes the ordinary-leaved beech which is underneath produces some sprouts.

Sorry no to be able to put this in German! In fact, someone else could probably put it more precisely in English, too.

Scholem Alejchem, at 2014-10-16 18:45:01, said:
Thanks, its Ok for me, I am better in reading english, as in writing....

davidwhite, at 2014-10-15 18:29:50, said:
This is the view into the canopy at ground level.

ALL the brances in view belong to the tree

TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-10-16 17:45:38, said:
Dear David,

Thanks for adding this tree. From your photos I can see it is actually a Turkey Oak, and I assume it is the tree which was last measured by the late Hatton Gardner in 1985, when he noted a spread of 26m. I've just updated the record with these details.

It's very unusual for oaks to layer (produce roots from branches touching the ground). In fact I've never seen a native oak doing this. The masses of sprouts along the branches of this tree are also unusual, and are presumably what has helped it to layer.

Owen · Register
Visible for everyone · permalink · en
gary1ozburn, at 2014-10-15 04:26:15, said:
I looked at this site to see the tallest tree in South America. This pulled up your list of greatest girth, tallest, and oldest trees of "South America". Unfortunately a number of the greatest girth and all of the tallest are listed as being in Costa Rica. Costa Rica is not part of South America. I still do not have an answer.

Jeroen Philippona, at 2014-10-15 19:57:57, edited at 2014-10-15 20:00:12, said:

Indeed officially Costa Rica is a part of Central America, not of South America. Webmaster Tim can change that.

The few trees I put at this website from Costa Rica have been reliable measured with laser technology by Bart Bouricius from the USA. He has measured many trees in Tropical Rainforests in Costa Rica, but also in Panama and Peru and probably some more Latin American countries. These three trees are the tallest of all trees and species he has measured till now in Latin America.

Regarding South America Bart Bouricius has measured trees of several species in Peru, he writes he as well as an other measurer have measured trees in that country up to 58 m (190 feet).

Of South America we know very few reliable measurements, in Chile recently Josh Kelly has measured Alerce, Fitzroya cupressoides up to 54.1 m (177 ft) (so less than often reported as above 60 m) and of southern beech, Nothofagus dombeyi up to 49.2 m. See at the NTS website:

and for the Central American reports.

We would like to have measurements at Monumental Trees of South American trees, but till now very few people have sent reports of trees they measured at this continent to this website.

KoutaR, at 2014-10-16 09:48:19, said:
"Josh Kelly has measured Alerce, Fitzroya cupressoides up to 54.1 m (177 ft) (so less than often reported as above 60 m)"

But note that Mr. Kelly writes: "I doubt this is where remnant alerce trees reach their maximum size. My guess is that, like Nothofagus dombeyi, they reach their largest size on deep volcanic soils with high precipitation" and then lists some promising sites. His report is here:

davidwhite, at 2014-10-15 18:23:18, said:
What looks like a small copse is in fact a single oak tree!

From the kids in front I estimate it to be c. 12.5m high (perhaps more from perspective), and c. 22m across.

The branches grow down into the ground and emerge back up again larger!

Conifers, at 2014-10-14 16:24:11, said:
Pinus nigra ;-)
Rainer Lippert, at 2014-10-14 17:52:42, said:
Hallo Conifers,

ich habe es gleich abgeändert. Danke für den Hinweis.

Viele Grüße,


Karlheinz, at 2014-09-29 14:43:03, said:
Die Art Carya illinoinensis wird falsch sein, ist es Carya cordiformis? Nüsse habe ich noch keine gefunden.

The species Carya illinoinensis will be wrong, it is Carya cordiformis? Nuts I have not found yet.



Conifers, at 2014-09-29 17:31:04, said:
Both the bark and the foliage are a good match for Carya cordiformis; compare e.g. here.
TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-09-29 18:47:56, said:
I agree, Carya cordiformis.
Karlheinz, at 2014-09-29 18:57:16, said:
thanks, I have changed to cordiformis.
KoutaR, at 2014-10-01 13:40:03, said:
I asked on the American NTS forum, what they think about the species identity. Follow the discussion here:
Conifers, at 2014-10-01 14:35:45, said:
Thanks Kouta, it'll be interesting to see the consensus there.

For clarification for anyone who doesn't understand bbeduhn's comment 'it is not one of the "true" hickories', the hickory genus Carya is divided into two subgenera, the pecans (Cc. illinoinensis, cordiformis, aquatica, myristiciformis), and the true hickories (Cc. ovata, laciniosa, tomentosa, glabra, etc.).

KoutaR, at 2014-10-01 18:12:06, said:
Conifers, thanks for the clarification. I did not understand that comment either.
Karlheinz, at 2014-10-03 08:36:56, said:
Gestern bin ich nochmal hingefahren. Bei intensiver Suche konnte ich doch noch Nüsse finden. In diesem Park gibt es keine weiteren Hickory-Bäume. Die Nüsse bestätigen die Art Bitternuss (Carya cordiformis).

I went there again yesterday. With an intensive search, I could still find nuts.

In this park there are no other hickory trees. The nuts confirm the species bitter nut (Carya cordiformis).

KoutaR, at 2014-10-12 20:10:02, said:
Now further messages on the topic on NTS-BBS:

Beuk aan de Hoofdstraat, Hoogeveen
Visible for everyone · permalink · nl
Martin Tijdgat, at 2014-10-12 08:23:38, said:
Hai Bianca,

Heb je de boom ook op de standaardhoogte 1.30 meter gemeten? De aantaster is een tonderzwam. Beuken kunnen daar lang mee leven. Maak me meer zorgen over geboorde gaten om de verwonding heen. Mooie vondst deze boom.

Groet, Martin

Alberto Cuervo Flores, at 2014-10-09 18:18:45, said:
Is it "tilia platyphyllos"?
Conifers, at 2014-10-09 21:42:49, said:
Either Tilia platyphyllos or T. × europaea. A close-up of the underside of a leaf would help decide which.
Alberto Cuervo Flores, at 2014-10-10 13:51:05, said:
Martin Tijdgat, at 2014-10-12 08:16:05, said:
Leaf-form and color of leafs and twigs show this is Tilia platyphyllos for me. · Register
Visible for everyone · permalink · en
jaknouse, at 2014-10-11 00:18:10, said:
There are two giant sequoias, Sequoiadendron gigantea, growing just southeast of Athens, Ohio, at a business, Companion Plants. I think they're 30-40 years old.

BiancaB, at 2014-10-10 16:52:29, said:
Tijdens de dag van de duurzaamheid konden kinderen onder deze boom naar het speciaal daarvoor geschreven boekje luisteren en de boom opmeten.

Gezaagdbladige eik
Visible for everyone · permalink · nl
Wim Brinkerink, at 2014-10-10 09:54:17, said:
Beste Leo,

Jij heb in het Haagse zuiderpark de gezaagdbladige eik opgevoerd sawtooth oak (Quercus acutissima) '9021'. Je hebt er geen foto bijgeplaatst. Ik heb een paar keer gekeken of ik hem kon vinden. Tot nu toe heb ik één boom gevonden die in de buurt komt en het zou kunnen zijn. Ik zal de foto's plaatsen. Kun jij kijken of je denkt dat het klopt. Zo niet dan gooi ik de foto's er weer af. Ik ga binnenkort nog wel een keer contact zoeken met de beheerder, maar als dit iets oplost lijkt me dat vast meegenomen.


Wim Brinkerink

Leo Goudzwaard, at 2014-10-10 11:08:41, said:
hallo Wim, dat is hem, aan je foto van de bladeren zijn de uitstekende tanden aan de bladranden goed te zien,


Wim Brinkerink, at 2014-10-10 12:09:06, said:
Dank je Leo, ik ga hem gelijk op de goede plaats zetten.



Frank Gyssling, at 2014-10-08 10:01:55, said:
Hallo Jeroen,

ich habe gerade die Eiche merfach neu vermessen und komme in 1,3 m Höhe auf einen Umfang von mindestens 7,90 m. Das korrespondiert aber leider nicht mit deiner letzten Messung in 2010. Wobei, wie öfter bei solchen Bäumen, Fußpunkt (wo?) und Maserknollen die Messung schwierig machten.

viele Grüße Frank

Jeroen Philippona, at 2014-10-08 22:32:49, edited at 2014-10-09 06:22:22, said:
Hello Frank,

I hope you can read English, in German I make a lot of faults with the "Fälle".

Kouta and I together measured this tree (see on the photo) and we did it at around 1.30 m above ground level, but this can be done above the high point or at the medium ground level. I don't remember how we did it in this case. Also, I try to get the smallest possible girth at or below 1.30 m, you can call it the "waist" = "taille". Since May 2010 five growing seasons have passed, for an open grown oak this could be 10 to 15 cm growth at breast hight. That means still 16 to 21 cm difference between our measurements. Sometimes a hollow tree seems to grow very fast because of "bulging out" (sagging) of the trunk. That seems to be the case with the biggest girthed oak of Kvill in Sweden. But in this case I would not expect this with this rather sound trunk. So compared to you probably Kouta and I measured at a higher point or less over burls.

Kind regards, Jeroen

KoutaR, at 2014-10-09 12:07:40, said:
Ich weiss nicht mehr, wie wir den Fusspunkt definiert haben. Aber ich erinnere mich, dass Jeroen versucht hat, allen möglichen Knollen auszuweichen. Das könnte den Unterschied machen.
Frank Gyssling, at 2014-10-09 13:50:32, said:
Hallo KoutaR,

ich werde ev. bei Gelegenheit noch mal hin fahren und erneut möglichst defensiv (optimal) und mit verschiedenen Fußpunkten messen. Die offene Frage ist, ob man trotz Maserknollen das Maßband noch mölichst wagerecht führt und im "Höhen-Zickzack-Kurs".

In einigen Quellen werden für diesen Baum Umfänge von > 8 m genannt.

viele Grüße Frank

KoutaR, at 2014-10-09 14:40:14, said:
"Die offene Frage ist, ob man trotz Maserknollen das Maßband noch mölichst wagerecht führt und im "Höhen-Zickzack-Kurs"."

Jeroen, könntest du auf dies antworten.

Jeroen Philippona, at 2014-10-09 19:37:53, said:
Hallo Frank und Kouta,

Wenn ich versuche die kleinst mögliche Umfang auf Brusthöhe zu bekommen, führ ich das Maßband zwischen Maserknollen eventuell etwas im "Höhen-Zickzack-Kurs". Das ist besser als horizontal über die Maserknollen, wenn es ein kleinere Umfang gibt.

Viele Grüße, Jeroen

Frank Gyssling, at 2014-10-07 13:34:15, said:
Help Tree Friends. Someone can give me determine the species?

Needles: 8-13 mm; Pin: ~ 18 mm

greeting frank

Conifers, at 2014-10-07 18:51:53, said:
Tsuga canadensis
Frank Gyssling, at 2014-10-08 09:07:21, said:
Yes it might be true. All features except a vote sawn edge of the needles. I could not find it. it is smooth.

greeting frank

Frank Gyssling, at 2014-10-09 11:04:10, said:
Hello conifers,

What exactly is the difference between Tsuga heterophylla and Tsuga canadensis?

greeting frank

Conifers, at 2014-10-09 15:01:27, said:
Hi Frank,

There are small, but reliable differences in the shape of the cones. Also T. canadensis has a more irregular crown shape, T. heterophylla is usually very strongly conical.

Above, T. canadensis; below, T. heterophylla

Direction of development MT
Visible for everyone · permalink · nl
Wim Brinkerink, at 2014-10-06 17:01:45, edited at 2014-10-06 17:50:09, said:
Hi all,

As this database is developing more and more into a podium where you can find all kinds of answers relating to pictures, growth, size and dispersion of all kinds of trees, in my opnion, there is a moment of realizing what we are doing and what our aims are.

Please don’t take it as an attack or offense. I saw that Karlheinz is very sincerely and thoroughly describing what we can see in the Kleve gardens in Germany. Karlheinz has an attitude inwhich he wants to be scientific and thorough.

I am wondering if that is what we should do here. If I take in account the detailed contributions of the Kleve gardens I soon stop scrollin

g the pictures. Off course that’s not a problem, but it poses the essential question of our focus or aim. What do we want? Scientific registration and documentation or something else?. Nice pics of trees that matter?. And do we want to influence laymen or other potentially interested people?.

I start thinking about a website where we can see the nice pictures or (on another place) view the scientific correct database about trees, what they are and where they are to be seen.

To be honest I would like to see both.

I would appreciate a site where you can see the champions per country, city or region. And in connection with that, I would like to go deeper and learn more about the characteristics of a special tree.

Is this a positive contribution? I hope so. It is intented so. I value the work of Tim. Next to that I think we have to help Tim in finding his way in accordance with the users and contributors of the site.

Crack your minds please and have a nice day.


RedRob, at 2014-10-06 17:19:57, edited at 2014-10-06 17:21:44, said:
Simple answer for me, scientific registration and documentation for me, I come on here to view and see champion trees, my priority interest I admit is height but I also appreciate girth. I could upload pictures and register thousands of trees but I only register those of significant height either for species or location. The artistic photo thing does not bother me, I just want to see the trees whatever they look like. In truth the artistic element can be irritating as all it ever does is cause handbags at dawn with people upset at ratings of photographs. I would delete the rating system from this site if it was mine to end this dispute for good.

Wim Brinkerink, at 2014-10-06 17:25:38, said:
My commitment in this discussion is not the rating. Nevertheless thank you very much for this opnion. We need that.

TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-10-06 18:24:21, said:
That's a good point, Wim. If the site were to feature every 'monumental tree' in the world there would be many millions and Tim would have to work even harder to keep the software running smoothly (and pay even more for bandwidth)! But many countries already have extensive, even near-comprehensive, databases of their notable trees. In Britain and Ireland, we have the Tree Register (with 215,000 trees) and the Ancient Tree Hunt (with 150,000 trees), and I've only transferred a very few of our best trees onto Monumental Trees, which I would like to see as a showcase for really special trees which can stimulate interest in a wider public (and act as a cross-borders forum for the initiated).

If anyone wants to find out about the rest of our UK and Irish trees, I hope that they would be sufficiently interested to join the Tree Register and consult its online database. The same applies for the USA, New Zealand and several European countries. Conversely, if anyone has an interest in updating and adding to the data on the Tree Register, I would hope that they would liaise directly with myself as Registrar. (A few trees have gone onto Monumental Trees instead and I have to search this site to find them and transfer them onto the Register. So long as it's only a few, this is a comment, not a complaint!)

Perhaps the links to individual countries' national tree database could be displayed more prominently on the main page of Monumental Trees, so that people with special interests are redirected to these sites. If Monumental Trees is to act as a large-scale database in its own right, I think some redesigning would be needed, so that it's quicker to draw up lists of, for example, particular species in particular provinces or counties, and to order these in different ways.

Tim, at 2014-10-06 19:15:17, said:
I have stated my opinion on the goal of this website before. It is not my intention to copy or compete with national registries, it is merely about offering anyone the possibility to document loosely defined "trees of interest", so there is room for everybody: those that find pleasure in comprehensively documenting trees in an area, those that like to have a relaxing browse through photographs of interesting trees during some spare time in the evening, those that are merely interested what is to be seen in their neighborhood, those that have a scientific interest in how trees of a specific kind in this or that area compare to anywhere else in the world, to promote tree hunting, to offer statistics for the record hunters, to offer a possibility for photographers to share and persist their photo collection, ... , and yes, because I also like the technical aspect of it and for me it is rewarding to see that what I made as a hobby is actually being used by people and visited by many more. There is still a lot of potential towards the future, e.g. growth curves using historic measurements and - related - automatic age estimations.

That said, indeed, Owen, the "link" section definately needs some updating (after which I could make it more prominent). I'm not sure who has edit rights there, but that page is editable, so feel free to add links to "official" tree registrers or databases anywhere in the world.

Kind regards,


Karlheinz, at 2014-10-06 23:55:22, said:
Hallo Wim,

wir haben unterschiedliche Meinungen, welches Maß an Sorgfalt wir aufbringen sollten bei der Registrierung von Bäumen. Nach meiner Vorstellung soll die Baumdatenbank von MT nicht nur eine Plattform zur Präsentation eigener schöner Baumfotos sein, sondern wir wollen auch der Allgemeinheit eine verläßliche Informationsquelle bieten.

Wenn sich etwas als offensichtlich falsch herausstellt, sollte es erlaubt sein, das Problem anzusprechen und um Korrektur zu bitten. Ein Beispiel aus dem von dir angesprochenen Park in Kleve verdeutlicht, was ich meine:

coast Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) '16910'

Die Douglasie auf dem Foto hat nicht die Höhe und den Umfang des hier registrierten Baumes (ich habe gemessen: Umfang 3,04 m und Höhe 30,1 m), es muß also eine Verwechslung vorliegen. Das Baumschild auf dem zweiten Foto hängt nicht an diesem Baum, sondern an einer anderen Douglasie. In der Umgebung stehen mehrere Douglasien, einige auch erheblich höher (bis 38,80 m). Die registrierten Koordinaten sind ungenau und lassen eine Identifizierung des Baumes nicht zu. Bei solchen Ungereimtheiten macht es für nachfolgende User keine Freude, hier weitere Douglasien zu registrieren.

Grüße, Karlheinz

my English translation:

Hello Wim,

we have different opinions, what level of care we should apply for the registration of trees. In my idea the tree database of MT should not only be a platform to showcase our own beautiful tree photos, but we want to offer the public a reliable source of information.

If something obviously is found to be wrong, it should be allowed to address the issue and ask for correction. An example from the Kleve gardens, named by you, illustrates what I mean:

coast Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) '16910'

The Douglas fir in the photo does not have the height and the girth of the here registered tree (I measured girth 3.04 m and heigt 30.1 m), so there must be a confusion. The board on the second photo does not hang at this tree, but at another Douglas fir. In the surroundings there are several Douglas firs, some significantly higher (up to 38.80 m). The registered coordinates are inaccurate and do not allow an identification of the tree. With such inconsistencies it makes for following users no joy, to register more Douglas firs here.

Greetings, Karlheinz

Wim Brinkerink, at 2014-10-07 14:26:39, said:
Hallo Karlheinz,

I don't have any problem if you correct me. Be my guest if necessary, I also would like it if the information, of whatever kind, is correct.

Kind regards


RedRob, at 2014-10-07 16:45:27, said:
Am I one of the guilty ones Owen, thought that you might be getting sick of emails and that you might pick them up on here but so many trees registered it is hard to keep up if you are away for a few days I admit.

Could the site be split, one part for scientific measurement, precise recording of location, photographing and ranking of significant trees (which also acts as a full record for these trees if they later happen to be lost or are felled) the other half for architectural trees for those who enjoy looking at the photographs and voting on composition. The two groups could then be happy.

Wim Brinkerink, at 2014-10-07 18:07:56, said:

Tim, at 2014-10-07 18:45:55, said:
Hi Wim,

I read you apparently register trees with an inaccurate location and assign pictures of other trees to it, likely just to have that particular photo or photos uploaded.

That of course is not what should be done. Instead of expecting others to correct it for you, it would be much better not to enter incorrect data, and to refrain yourself from uploading pictures if you don't remember exactly of which tree it was. I for example have quite a few photos of great trees (e.g. chestnut trees in Corsica, or baobab trees in Zambia) from my travels which I did not upload, because I cannot find back the exact location.

Kind regards,


Wim Brinkerink, at 2014-10-07 18:49:10, said:
Dear friends,

I'm sorry if my contribution makes people believe that I am starting a controversy or antagonism. Please disregard my remarks. i will refrain from this kind of discussions. Apparently it is not appreciated.


Wim Brinkerink, at 2014-10-07 19:06:00, said:
Hi Tim, Your conclusion is inaccurate. I uploaded pictures with the correct coördinates. My exif data will prove that. Please don't jump to conclusions on an incorrect comment of Karlheinz.


Wim Brinkerink, at 2014-10-07 19:19:03, said:
Hi Tim,

A replenishment to my earlier reaction. I have spoken to you earlier about the fact that I didn't upload some beautiful trees in Mexico, because I didn't have the right coördinates. Since a few years nobody can accuse me of not posing the right coördinates. I have had about 4 camera's with gps function. So please ferfrain of accusations please. That's pissing me off.


Karlheinz, at 2014-10-08 06:14:03, said:
The Tree Register or something similar, where large trees are documented, there is not in Germany. Who wants to document large trees with measured values ​​is dependent on Monumental Trees. In Germany there is still the Championtree list, where trees with thick trunks are recorded, but tree heights are rarely measured.


Karlheinz, at 2014-10-08 10:34:01, said:
Also my camera can store GPS locations in the Exif data area. But more exact coordinates I achieve with both my Garmin GPSMap 60csx and my modern smartphone Galaxy S5 with a suitable app. The accuracy is always dependent on the local situation and the care of my measurement. In special cases, I also measure by rangefinder the distances to striking objects in the terrain. Because a direct coordinate input in MT is not yet possible (hello Tim!), I set this measured position by the method "trial and error" in the map (satellite or map view). Then I check this position in the map for plausibility and correct if necessary.

In my experience the Exif coordinates in the photos of cameras and smart phones are a great help, it avoids rough error of positioning, you always will hit the right park. But for the exact positioning of the tree within the park, it is not enough in most cases. Of course there are differences in quality of the GPS features of cameras and and also your handling is crucial.


TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-10-08 17:55:34, said:
A few more thoughts (Tim and Karlheinz). A record of a monumental tree is interesting straightaway, of course, but after 50 years or 100 years it will be even more valuable, because the tree will probably still be there but people might not know about it until the find the old record. (And we won't be there for them to ask.) The change in girth will then help people to estimate the ages of trees in more situations, without having to count the rings.

This means that it is worth thinking how the data on a site like Monumentaltrees might be curated and kept safe and available into the future. A paper record is easily curated, and a robust database can probably be kept up-to-date as technologies change. But I suspect that digital image files might not be decipherable in 50 years time, and a pin on a Google map certainly won't be! I've been able to relocate nearly all the trees recorded in Britain 50 or 100 years ago, even though at that time they didn't have GPS, or camera phones, or even map grid references, so I don't think that putting the icon on exactly the right spot on a map is necessarily essential.

If recorders want to adopt Monumentaltrees as the place to store their records of German trees, you might in the longer term even have to think about creating a charitable Trust to curate the site's information.

Tim, at 2014-10-08 18:46:02, said:
That's right Owen. I also often think about that. As the data (measurements, locations, coordinates, image files) are all digital, they can in fact be stored and maintained indefinitely. All physical digital data carriers like e.g. dvds or hard disks eventually become unreadable, but as long as the data (which is just of sequence of 0's and 1's) is copied over once in a while, the data can live forever.

As I'm a still a young man (currently 32 years old) I plan to be around for many decades to come. The site's content is kept safe not only by the site's hosting company, but I also often make backups on dvds.

If I would be run over by a truck tomorrow, the site would probably stay alive and be accessible for a long time, as long as my automatic yearly payments are done. The data on the dvds would still available for anyone interested. Anyone with an even limited IT background would be able to get the info back. But indeed, in the long term, I would have to think how to share with others. Maybe even make the entire content downloadable by other registers or something.

Kind regards,


Karlheinz, at 2014-10-08 22:12:00, said:
Owen, if all other details are contradictory, the coordinates would help you!

Jeroen Philippona, at 2014-10-09 06:32:25, said:
One reason for Owen to be able to find many of the trees from descriptions of 50 to 100 years old is probably that these are mostly really big trees (often open grown) or very special species and specimens. Karlheinz often looks for very tall (but not especially fat) trees in forests, wich is more difficult.

But Karlheinz has the most exact methods of all members of MT. We cannot expect from all members to work as exact as he does, while MT is not an Academic research institute with professional scientifical goals.


Karlheinz, at 2014-10-09 12:59:12, said:

I do not claim for myself, to work using scientific methods and I do not expect that from other members. I will not make MT to an Academic research institute or something similar, I do not know who has put such thoughts into circulation. I am not saying that my measurements and records are error-free or that it would be the most accurate of all. I know and take into account the tolerances and limits of my own and by others commonly used measuring instruments and methods.

The point here is that a certain level of accuracy should be aimed and that there is the willingness to correct obvious errors. The stored data here must be traceable and verifiable for others. It must be allowed in MT, to report errors and to call for corrections, without one immediately be treated with subliminal hostility. A preservation of the status quo for the first registrator, or something as the right to sole ownership must not exist. An attitude "this is my tree, I have registered, keep out there!", I will not support. I have in mind that not only new trees are added, but also the database of the already registered trees will be maintained and updated (example: Wikipedia). If so I make unpopular myself with some members, I must live with. Should I have to recognize that MT developes in another direction, I see no future for me in MT.


Conifers, at 2014-10-08 15:06:39, said:
Not sure what the tree (green foliage) is, possibly Pyrus sp., but it is covered in a dense Parthenocissus quinquefolia vine (Virginia Creeper; red foliage).
TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-10-08 17:58:55, said:
It has some apples on it (edible-looking). I'm surprised how healthy the bits of the tree underneath look, despite being so overgrown.
Conifers, at 2014-10-08 19:55:54, said:
Yes, Malus domestica - I didn't look at the right part of the tree to see those apples!
Frank Gyssling, at 2014-10-08 20:25:36, said:
It's a fun picture puzzle, right? ;-)

thetreehunter, at 2014-10-06 20:26:30, said:
This tree has only recently been discovered by Charles Violet. It is not known of before this time. Please visit to see videos and info. on this great NEW ancient Oak. Pls enjoy. Rob
TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-10-08 17:39:22, said:
Thanks for uploading this tree, Rob! It's amazing how trees so enormous continue to pop up (like the 11m Sweet Chestnut at Cwmdu near Crickhowell which was first found by a Dutch contributor to this site and whose Ancient Tree Hunt record I was able to verify on the basis of his information here).

You may have noticed I cannibalised the ATH records last winter when I was uploading a selection of the best UK trees so that they showed on this site. They should appear with 'Ancient Tree Hunt...' for the recorder's name but some of them may have my name still. As they weren't all trees I'd seen myself, there may be the odd misinterpretation in the location details, etc, and if you do spot anything like that, feel free to correct it.


RedRob, at 2014-10-07 17:18:16, said:
Owen, did Chic Henderson and David photograph this tree on their visit to Benmore? I would like to see a photo of this one.

RedRob, at 2014-10-07 17:19:35, said:
Any news on the Ardverike trees? News about these trees is more elusive than the Yeti.

TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-10-08 17:30:05, said:
The Abies amabilis at Benmore is much hemmed in by other trees and I doubt if many people have noticed it, let alone tried to photograph it. It had also died back badly before my 2007 visit, though the bottom bit was healthy enough. (I've cheated here actually by recording to the point where the dead stem had broken, rather than to the live shoots in the lower crown - but at least this give some indication that it must at one stage have grown to a good height. But they're real drama queens in cultivation and seldom happy for long.

RedRob, at 2014-10-07 17:30:33, said:
16 metres the B&I record, determined to nab a tall one but so far failed with this being the tallest.

TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-10-08 17:26:10, said:
8 or 9m is usually the limit. The 16m one in Ireland has somehow grown up through a Yew, almost like a climber, from Aubrey's description, though I can't remember seeing pictures. They like really rich soils, so in Yorkshire you would need to go to the Carboniferous Limestone.

RedRob, at 2014-10-07 17:34:12, said:
Nice speciman Frank, have abit of a soft spot for Silver Fir as still don't think that I have seen one in the flesh. How tall do you reckon, 35 metre ish?

RedRob, at 2014-09-26 17:19:37, said:
Tantalisingly close to 30 metres but closely consistant 29.6 metres, Britain and Ireland Champion. There must be a 30 metre Birch somewhere in the British Isles surely!? There must be taller Birch trees?

I have downloaded Mozilla Firefox and what a difference on this particular site, I can now get the map to zoom in, it doesn't freeze. Recently downloaded Internet Explorer 9 but had more trouble than ever with it since I last had it and un-installed it to go back to IE 8. Firefix definitely more compatible with this site.

RedRob, at 2014-10-07 16:48:50, said:
Did you see this one Owen, slowly creeping towards 30 metres for a Birch.

RedRob, at 2014-10-05 17:07:31, said:
These are superb, what is the tallest Omorika ever recorded? What height ar they likely to be in the wild, will there by 50 metre specimans somewhere?

Conifers, at 2014-10-05 21:00:01, said:
The Gymnosperm Database reports a 50 metre maximum, but no citation of any measured specimens. Personally, I'd be surprised if there's any over about 40 metres, it isn't a particularly large or fast-growing species.

KoutaR, at 2014-10-06 04:34:35, edited at 2014-10-06 04:35:21, said:
Prof. Dr. Peter Schütt writes in Lexikon der Nadelbäume (ed. by Schütt et al., 2008): "Omorika-Fichten können im natürlichen Areal 53 m hoch werden und einen Stammdurchmesser (BHD) von 72 cm erreichen." = "Serbian spruces can become 53 m tall and reach a diameter (DBH) of 72 cm in the native area." The reference is: Plavšić, S. (1939): Die Standorte von Picea omorika im mittleren Drina-Gebiet. Mitt. Dt. Dendrol. Ges. 52, 76-83.

Conifers, at 2014-10-06 08:31:01, said:
Thanks! Tried to find Plavšić, but it doesn't appear to be available online; it isn't on the MDDG website here, and Biodiversity Heritage Library only have volumes up to 33 (1923).

KoutaR, at 2014-10-07 07:44:13, said:
That old volumes are not online. It can be found in some libraries, but not in my city. I could try to get it in the future when I visit a city with a good library.

RedRob, at 2014-10-05 16:41:37, edited at 2014-10-05 16:42:45, said:
Looking back through old photos I noticed the conifer on the left of the photo here, very narrow in shape and clothed right to the ground and also with distinctive brown cones at the top whilst the rest (Douglas Firs) have normal shape, no cones. I didn't go up to this tree as eye was too taken with taller emergent trees in this group but is this some variant form of Douglas Fir, is it Douglas Fir? Not come across one like this anywhere else? Should have noticed this tree when I visited last year.

Conifers, at 2014-10-06 16:12:03, said:
Possibly a Sitka Spruce, but the photo isn't sharp enough to tell for sure; it could equally be another Douglas-fir with denser foliage. Needs a re-visit and some close-up pics.

TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-10-06 18:25:24, said:
The well-clothed tree centre-left looks like a Douglas to me. It's probably responding to the extra light being on the plantation edge.

Oriental beech in Mtirala National Park, Georgia
Visible for everyone · permalink · en
KoutaR, at 2014-10-06 17:49:40, edited at 2014-10-07 08:02:01, said:
The tallest oriental beech (Fagus orientalis) I measured in Mtirala NP was 42 m tall (Oriental beech (Fagus orientalis) '19526'). The tree grows on a mountain ridge and I expected to find taller beeches in more protected locations. So I did not take any photos to save time. However, the rest of the time the forest was shrouded by such dense fog (actually cloud) that my laser could not penetrate it. I believe there are taller beeches in the park although this may not be the home of the height record beech. The following is my own speculations. I was told by the park administration that the high elevations are covered by cloud almost daily. The result is that the light is mainly diffuse, which may not be the best for growing trees very tall. The beech canopy is also strangely open, Alnus glutinosa ssp. barbata grows on ridges and slopes, and undergrowth is dense, all of which may partly be results of the diffuse light.

Wim Brinkerink, at 2014-10-06 17:14:57, said:
Seems a very nice tree.

RedRob, at 2014-10-06 17:06:45, said:
How about naming one of these trees 'The Alan Mitchell Tree' in honour and memory of Alan Mitchell.

papagan1950, at 2014-10-06 16:33:46, said:
mijn Tel .0642639067

papagan1950, at 2014-10-06 16:32:51, said:
beste Wim is de zwarte walnoot Junglans nigra op het Buitengoed Dorrepaal aan de Westvliet weg 115 te Liedschendam de zelfde soort als op begraafplaats Crooswijk in Rotterdam je kan die noten toch ook eten? wist niet dat er in Rotterdam een stond mijn oom is er vorig jaar op 18 mei 2013 daar begraven 90 jaar

papagan1950, at 2014-10-06 03:10:27, said:
erg mooie boom Wim
Wim Brinkerink, at 2014-10-06 10:04:35, said:
Eens. Ik zoek ze in allerlei jaargetijden op. De begraafplaats waar deze staan is zeer de moeite waard.

Stefan Panka, at 2014-10-05 18:35:42, said:
Blick v. Osten (Treppe der Oberförsterei Chorin).
Stefan Panka, at 2014-10-05 20:37:22, said:
Danke! Habe bereits korrigiert.

Stefan Panka, at 2014-10-05 18:49:13, said:
Blick v. Süden.
Stefan Panka, at 2014-10-05 20:36:53, said:
Danke! Habe bereits korrigiert.

Stefan Panka, at 2014-10-05 18:43:13, said:
Blick v. Süden (Zwiesel).
Stefan Panka, at 2014-10-05 20:35:58, said:
Danke! Habe bereits korrigiert.

Stefan Panka, at 2014-10-05 18:56:56, said:
Blick v. Osten - sichtbarer Totenastbesatz und lichte Kronenbereiche.
Scholem Alejchem, at 2014-10-05 19:26:40, said:
Kann das sein, daß Du die Bildunterschrift mit den Kommentaren verwechselst?
Stefan Panka, at 2014-10-05 20:33:05, said:
Danke! Habe bereits korrigiert.

Stefan Panka, at 2014-10-05 19:40:46, said:
Altersangaben Laut Tagungsband der Polnischen Dendrologischen Gesellschaft, Szczecin, 6.-8. September 2012: Międzynarodowy Zjazd Polskiego Towarzystwa Dendrologicznego, Drzewa i krzewy w krajobrazie i kulturze materialnej Pomorza Zachodniego i Brandenburgii, ISBN 978-83-7518-464-8: 84 Seiten. S. 77-78.

Visible for everyone · permalink · fr
bicri, at 2014-10-05 19:25:31, edited at 2014-10-06 10:35:41, said:
Question to conifers

Bonjour , 'y a t'il pas d'autres solutions pour sauver cet if planté entre l'an 1000 et 1200 ? il est encore capable de vivre plusieurs siècles mais les experts disent qu'il peut représenter un danger , il y certainement d'autres solutions (cerclage étais etc )

Conifers, at 2011-09-16 15:50:20, said:
Abies alba
Wim Brinkerink, at 2014-10-05 18:59:11, said:
Interessante boom. Foto is niet gelukt helaas. Dat is niet persoonlijk. Mooie foto's kun je vaak alleen maar maken bij de juiste omstandigheden.

start58now, at 2014-07-29 21:26:05, said:
So lucky are they.


Wim Brinkerink, at 2014-10-05 18:55:15, said:
Fantastische foto. !!

Trompetboom in de Stropstraat
Visible for everyone · permalink · nl
Tim, at 2014-08-26 08:11:29, said:
Hallo Bess,

ken jij deze boom?

Ik heb hem toegevoegd als:

Broeders van Liefde Stropstraat

Hoewel ik daar jarenlang vlakbij op kot zat, heb ik deze nog nooit gezien.



Bess, at 2014-10-05 18:47:34, said:
Dat Tim,

sorry voor het late antwoord. nu pas gezien in mijn mailbox.

Ik ken hem niet! maar ik zet het op mijn to do lijst!



Sisley, at 2014-10-04 08:17:51, said:
Very nice find !!

A big and old specimen of 'Elsbeere Baum'.

Do you make a little mistake in the name, Sorbus is good but you should change domestica by torminalis.

Rainer Lippert, at 2014-10-04 15:59:04, said:
Hallo Sisley,

vielen Dank für den Hinweis. Ich habe es gleich abgeändert. Beim auswählen hat man leider immer nur den lateinischen Namen zur Auswahl, nicht den deutschen.

Diese Elsbeere gehört zu den dicksten und ältesten in Deutschland.

Danke und viele Grüße,


MatzeOD, at 2014-10-03 14:15:33, said:
Moin moin,

bin durch Zufall auf Ihre Seite gestoßen.Ich möchte zur Libanon Zeder mitteilen, daß nach meinen Unterlagen, Fotos und Bemerkungen auf den Rückseiten mein Ur-Urgroßvater Hofgärtner Johann Wilhelm Merle (geb. 13.05.1812, gest. 9.02.1879) gepflanzt wurde.

Sollte Interesse an Fotos oder Hinweisen bestehen, schreiben Sie mich an.

Es grüßt

Mathias Merle

Tim, at 2014-10-03 19:53:46, said:
Hello Mathias,

welcome. Please feel free to add this information to the tree's page yourself.

If you would need any help with that, please let me or someone else know.

Kind regards,


RedRob, at 2014-10-02 17:17:42, said:
Kouta, your champion Abies Nordmanniana that you found recently is not appearing at the top of the list for height?

KoutaR, at 2014-10-03 09:01:50, said:
I see it in the first position here:

Or what do you mean?

RedRob, at 2014-10-03 15:46:04, said:

Hello Kouta, it wasn't and still isn't coming up for me on this page?

Tim, at 2014-10-03 19:30:12, said:
Oh, nice one. I apparently forgot to register "Georgia" as a country. No tree there would have appeared in the location lists, that is now solved (it was also the case for Denmark).

Thanks for letting me know.

Kind regards,


TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-10-02 17:59:45, said:
I assume this is X Cuprocyparis leylandii 'Leighton Green', planted in 1940. It should have had tag Y44.

Conifers, at 2014-10-02 20:09:28, said:
Cupressus × leylandii ;-)

Martin Tijdgat, at 2014-10-02 20:11:56, said:

Is this species now called Cupressus x leylandii 'Leighton Green'


Martin Tijdgat

Conifers, at 2014-10-02 20:15:39, said:
Hi Martin - yes; Leyland Cypress is no longer considered an intergeneric hybrid, since it has been shown that both its parents (Monterey Cypress and Nootka Cypress) are embedded in Cupressus. Excluding Nootka Cypress from Cupressus leaves the rest of the genus paraphyletic (which is not admissible in classifications).

RedRob, at 2014-10-03 15:56:57, said:
I couldn't see the label on the trunk despite walking around it several times. The base has quite a few dead lower branches and it was difficult to get near the trunk. Very impressive base though, most impressive Cypress base that I have observed myself.

RedRob, at 2014-10-03 15:59:40, said:
Do I stick this under Cupressus x Leylandii or add a cultivar with it in the category?

TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-10-03 17:15:22, said:
Yes, you can add 'Leighton Green' as the clonal (cultivar) name.

Most of the rest will be 'Haggerston Grey' which is the clone now sold everywhere as 'Leylandii'.

RedRob, at 2014-10-02 17:31:35, said:
Hello Owen, has this tree lost some of it's height, it's top?

TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-10-02 17:50:43, said:
I expect it's grown a bit. The climbed height is halfway between my laser estimates and those of David Alderman and Chic Henderson, so seems good to me. You can also add or subtract 40cm depending on where you decide 'ground-level' is among the leaflitter built up around the roots. Also, if you watch the BBC news item, Andy was pushing his pole up to the tip from a good few metres down and won't have been able to estimate when it was level with the true tip within a metre or so.

RedRob, at 2014-10-03 15:55:02, edited at 2014-10-03 16:20:24, said:
I was going to ask tonight whether there were any photos of the climb so will Google and try and find the BBC item.

This is another negative for the accuracy of climbs then, not being able to always see if you have the measure level with the apex tip of the tree.

RedRob, at 2014-10-03 16:26:57, said:

Don't know if these links work but found the climb of this tree on the BBC i player from Wednesday 1st October on 'The One Show'.

What a spectacular valley and stand of trees, Owen I hate to say it but your photographs have not done the place justice! To see the distance views, aerial views. Your 46 metre Lime is featured plus your Norway Spruce and Larch. I was hoping that the part where Mr Talbot stretched his measure to the top may been on so that we could see and try to judge if it was level with the tip but the footage cut off before that. The valley looks quite sheltered but visually to me there looked to be more exposure than at the Waterloo Grove at Betws which has a high wooded bank directly behind giving shelter to west, south west and north west.

Could there be a taller Douglas Fir at Reelig? What are the chances?

Must try and visit Reelig Glen before I kick the bucket, definitely a place I would like a walk in.

RedRob, at 2014-10-03 16:27:26, said:

RedRob, at 2014-10-03 16:29:56, said:
If you type in the address you can get to the page. 42 minutes and 2 seconds in to the programme you will find the Reelig Glen tree climb.

Meerstammig of niet
Visible for everyone · permalink · nl
Wim Brinkerink, at 2014-09-30 18:52:00, edited at 2014-09-30 18:54:53, said:
Hi Tim,

Ik heb vandaag een acer rubrum geregistreerd. red maple (Acer rubrum) '19478' met een afmeting van 2,78 m op 0,90 cm is het een respectabele boom. Als ik de lijst van Acer rubrums zie blijkt deze boom niet serieus genomen te worden. De door mij gedane meting komt niet tevoorschijn en de boom telt kennelijk niet mee. Dit verbaast me. Het is zeker geen meerstammige boom. Hij vertakt op 90 cm maar dat betekent niet dat hij meerstammig is, waarom verschijnt hij dan niet in de normale lijstjes.? Erg onbevredigend.

Kun je eea verhelderen.?


Jeroen Philippona, at 2014-09-30 19:09:10, said:
Hoi Wim,

Heeft Tim toch eerder uitgelegd: de bomen verschijnen pas na enige tijd in de lijstjes, waardoor het totale systeem minder traag is geworden. Jouw esdoorn zal binnen enkele dagen in de lijsten verschijnen.


Wim Brinkerink, at 2014-09-30 19:18:23, said:
Maar de boom verscheen al in het lijstje.....Alleen met een niet ingevulde meting..Dat had ik nog niet begrepen.

Ok..Ik wacht gewoon af.

Conifers, at 2014-09-30 20:22:02, said:
Maybe the non-standard measuring height of 0.9 m excludes it from the 'stoutest' table? Just like multiple stems affects the 'true' girth of a tree, so does measurement at other than 1.3-1.5 m. I am guessing those two low branches are the reason for the 0.9 m measurement. Did you also measure the girth above those branches?

Wim Brinkerink, at 2014-09-30 20:38:16, said:
I didn't. It didn't seem logical at the place. I will have another inspection to be sure.

TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-10-01 17:07:43, said:
On the Tree Register, we distinguish 'B' class trees, where the trunk can't be measured at the standard 1.5m but the measured girth is not significantly inflated by forks etc, from 'C' class trees, which do fork and where the measured girth can't be meaningfully compared with clean-boled trees. 'B' class trees can become girth-champions, while 'C' class trees only appear as alternative champions or as champions when the girth is very much bigger than any others.

On Monumental Trees, the distinction can also be made by answering yes/no to 'does the tree have multiple stems'. But I have noticed that some recorders (eg Red Rob) are answering 'yes' to this in the case of trees that fork higher up in their crown (and where the fork doesn't affect the girth, except that the crown will be broader and might power faster growth).

RedRob, at 2014-10-01 17:13:59, said:
Hello Owen, which ones have I done incorrectly, will correct unless someone else will.

TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-10-02 17:53:23, said:
I remember the tall Grecian Fir at Bodnant appearing as a 'multi-stemmed' tree, and there was one other Bodnant one. From memory, the fork was well above the measured height.

Conifers, at 2014-10-02 20:12:10, said:
I've unmultitrunked the Bodnant Greek Fir now

RedRob, at 2014-10-03 15:49:49, said:
Thanks Conifers. I have sometimes hit the wrong choice with those last three questions when resgistering trees so please correct any of the others as well.

The 2005 37 metre Abies Cephalonica the laser recorded as 39.6 metres but I didn't photograph that one as the other was taller.

Conifers, at 2014-10-03 09:41:25, said:
Quercus cerris
Rainer Lippert, at 2014-10-03 09:53:42, said:
Hallo Conifers,

vielen Dank für die schnelle Bestimmung.

Ich hätte mich also trauen sollen ;-) Das war auch mein Verdacht, war mir aber nicht sicher.

Viele Grüße,


Jeroen Philippona, at 2014-09-29 22:13:05, edited at 2014-09-29 22:13:56, said:
The Giant Sequoia of Nymans looks like an easy victim for lightening as it towers far above the surrounding trees. To the left also some Sequoia sempervirens.
TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-10-01 17:15:01, said:
When I first saw this tree in 1997, it had recently died back about 4 metres to 43m. This could have been lightning damage, though I suspect it was a consequence of the summer of 1995 which was exceptionally dry in Sussex and may have caused the small dieback I've noticed in a lot of Sequoiadendron (but not other species). At the time I wasn't expecting this tree to regrow very far, but I couldn't have been more wrong.

Though it's not clear in this photo, it grows in quite a steep, narrow valley, so that tree-crowns within 400m on almost all sides side rise above its tip. Once it's tip becomes exposed to the prevailing westerly wind, I suspect it will stop growing.

RedRob, at 2014-10-01 17:26:40, said:
Any chance someone could visit Haslemere and Polecat Copse and take some new measurements and photograph the trees? Great place to visit when I visited several years ago, a very thin Coast Redwood just above the 51 metre Sequoiadendron intrigued me, took some photos on an old 2mp camera phone but they didn't come out as would be expected.

Jeroen Philippona, at 2014-09-29 21:45:08, said:
Hi Rob,

Would be nice if you also measured the CBH of such trees, as it gives an impression of the growth just like the heightmeasurement as well as of the total woodvolume.


RedRob, at 2014-10-01 17:16:07, said:
Apologies Jeroen, didn't think that the girth would have altered too much in 4 years so didn't go across the stream to girth it.

TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-09-29 20:13:23, said:
The Hirnant valley is actually just into Gwynnedd, with the watershed to the south-east forming the boundary with Powys. But I don't think there's an easy way to change the county.

Tim, at 2014-09-30 10:14:37, said:
This would work (for those having the rights to change a tree's location):

  • On the "Add tree" page, add a location in Gwynnedd

    This is filling up the page until you can select "Add new location" and click 'Save' there.

    Don't proceed as this would add a tree there, which you don't want to do.

    After this, you have an empty location in Gwynnedd

  • Go the page of tree on the old location and move it.

    This is: going to "edit data of tree" and selecting your freshly created empty location.

    It should appear in that list of choices.

Everything will be updated and the old location (now empty) will be removed from the lists.

Kind regards,


TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-10-01 17:09:35, said:
Thanks Tim. I'll consider correcting all the errors of this kind which I can find for the UK, when I have more time! You may remember that 'City of London' and 'Greater London' appear as two counties, and that some sites such as Kew Gardens are duplicated under both 'counties' - this could do with rationalising.

RedRob, at 2014-10-01 17:11:56, said:
Sorry, my mistake, Vyrnwy is Powys and thought that this would be too.

RedRob, at 2014-10-01 17:09:47, said:
Hello Owen, Conifers. There is a small river between my position and the trees and I didn't think anymore about these, thought that they were just European Larch. I could see some bases and tips through the young trees just in front of the camera and measured several around 38, 39 metres in the line in view although one or two could be tadge taller possibly, 40 metres. Perhaps you can see more from Street View if you take a drive?

TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-09-29 19:46:59, said:
From their apparent youth, and location within a FC planted forest, I wonder if these are hybrids (Larix x marschlinsii), but I can't tell for certain from this photo. Larches are easily identified from the old cones which always lie underneath them - did you look?
Conifers, at 2014-09-30 17:43:17, said:
From the long, stout branches, I'd agree more likely Hybrid Larch, if not even Japanese Larch.
TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-10-01 17:02:38, said:
For Tree Register purposes, I shall plump for Hybrid Larch as I suspect that true Japanese Larch is rare in FC plantings (while the hybrids are often back-crosses and quite close to Japanese Larch). As such this will be another UK and Ireland height champion. At this rate you'll soon have a clean sweep, Rob.

Visible for everyone · permalink · nl
Tim, at 2014-09-30 09:54:44, said:
Hi WaldFotograf,

you're adding very fine photographs of trees, which is great to see!

Welcome, and don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions.

Kind regards,


WiPe, at 2014-09-26 19:54:41, edited at 2014-09-26 19:55:45, said:
Something we could never imagine has been written down in an article in the newspaper Ouest France of septembre 24th

A beautiful yewtree that is part of the remarkable repertoire of the Conseil General (C.A.U.E.), will disappear very soon. Before winter, from this yewtree, aged above a millennium, growing in the cemetery,there will nothing left but the memory and photos. The venerable tree has become dangerous.

A great disaster for the community. This yew, placed close to the tombstones, near to the church has seen many parishioners, year after year, strolling under its branches. What did happen to the tree? On august 19th, explains Pierre Pitrey, the mayor of Mongardon, a survey has been carried out by a company, specialized in arboriculture and city forestry. This yew tree shows very bad machanical defects on its stem and its rootcollar.

In simplified language: this yew tree is hollow and multiple cracks at and around the trunk threaten the direct environment of the tree. Verdict: He should be killed, for the security of people and property. The paperwork is being prepared for slaughter by professional pruners, as it will not be easy to cut this tree down. The veteran tree is located very close to the to the church and cemetery. This will be costly for the municipality, approximately € 3,500, between diagnosis and slaughter: and its beautiful foliage and trunk will end for disposal.

This is a tree with a circumference of more as 9 metres.

The yew , with and estimated age, between 1000 and 1200 he was honored in 2005 as a remarkable tree of Le Manche department, and listed as such by the C.A.U.E. Its circumference is 9 to 10 m, it has a height of 9 m and a crown of 11 m circumference. Its powerful trunk is leaning heavily, but seems stopped from falling by a tombstone, slipped under the bulge of the trunk, which seems to help keep the tree in balance.

The reaction of Les Tétars arboricols:

This millenium old yew tree would become dangerous?! And the only solution would be to cut it down ?! I am totally appalled at how we condemn this ancestor which, I quote, " its beautiful foliage and trunk will end for disposal " ...

Call the city hall to try to influence this absurd and expeditious decision: 02 33 46 04 65

Tim, at 2014-09-27 17:22:19, said:
It is indeed sad that during the course of many centuries, only one action of single human is necessary to end a tree's life.
WiPe, at 2014-09-27 17:56:12, said:
we are really not that far yet. I have the idea that people in France are ready to fighth for this tree.
Wim Brinkerink, at 2014-09-27 18:28:31, said:
So I have made my statement on the site where French people can read it. I think that's more productive than ststing opinions among us..
TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-09-29 19:11:00, said:
I shall forward this conversation to Tim Hills, who runs the website and who has years of experience in campaigning to protect ancient yews when they get condemned by ignorant consultants. He may want to offer his help to a campaign to save this tree, if he's not already aware of the threat to it.

Wim Brinkerink, at 2014-09-29 15:48:19, said:
Very nice picture

Conifers, at 2014-09-18 16:28:55, said:
Chamaecyparis pisifera, recognisable by the cone shape and size, and shoot structure.
Martin Tijdgat, at 2014-09-20 07:14:00, said:

This is not Ch. lawsoniana. I think Conifers is spot on right with Ch. pisifera. A Lawson's cipres is not so open and transparent.

Greeting, Martin

Frank Gyssling, at 2014-09-28 09:40:18, said:
A dendrologist has again checked. You are right. There is obviously a pisifera a Chamaecyparis.

greeting frank

New functionality: cultivars/varieties/subspecies/...
Visible for everyone · permalink · nl
Tim, at 2014-09-26 16:23:44, said:

today I added new functionality:

  • on the "all species" page and on the page of each separate species (example) there used to be non-clickable lists of its cultivars, varieties, subspecies, ... Now these links are clickable and counts are shown.

  • added rudimentary variety pages on which you see some information (photos, ...)

    - changed the display of subspecies, varieties, forma, cultivars, and cultivar groups per Conifer's suggestion

    - allowed seeing cultivar/variety/... photo lists ( of red beeches)

I hope this can already be helpful.

What still needs to be added:

  • adding the possibilty to filter down to cultivar/variety/... on the location lists and record pages

  • for some users: being able to edit the cultivar/variety/... information (e.g. change name, change type, remove, ...).

Kind regards,


Conifers, at 2014-09-26 20:27:54, said:
Excellent, thanks! I am starting on some nomenclatural tidying (e.g. Pinus nigra "var. austriaca" is an invalid synonym of Pinus nigra subsp. nigra).

Conifers, at 2014-09-26 20:33:04, said:
Addenum: the text on specimen pages still needs a bit of tidying, e.g. here it says "The tree is a specimen of the cultivar 'nigra'", whereas it should say "The tree is a specimen of the subspecies nigra".

Wim Brinkerink, at 2014-09-26 20:42:01, said:
Hi Tim,

Thanks a lot I'll explore it immediately. At first sight you made more possible than I could have hoped for. I even could select the Querus petrea mespilifolia. Great job. !


Tim, at 2014-09-27 17:19:39, said:

I will first add the possibility to rename the cultivars/..., change their type, and to delete them (it is already possible for a long time to create them, and to assign trees and reassign these trees).

Once the missing functionality is there, I will give the possibility to a restricted number of users to collaborate, agree on standards and to tidy up the cultivar list. I will post it here once the site's up to it.

Kind regards,


Overleg · Monumentale bomen
Visible for everyone · permalink · nl
Martin Tijdgat, at 2014-09-27 05:21:56, said:

Bedankt voor deze nieuwe verbeteringen. Zou graag werken aan wegpoetsen (tik)fouten in namen als je dat toestaat. Zie eerdere mail over fouten in naamgeving Ulmus.

Groet, Martin

Tim, at 2014-09-27 17:17:05, said:
Hallo Martin,

ik zal eerst zorgen dat het mogelijk is cultivars ed. te hernoemen, van type te wijzigen en te verwijderen.

Eens dat mogelijk is zal ik een beperkt aantal gebruikers rechten geven om deze functionaliteit te kunnen gebruiken en jij bent er één van gezien jouw Ulmusmail.

Ik laat iets weten wanneer ik zover ben.



Wim Brinkerink, at 2014-09-27 12:51:43, said:
Hi Leo,

Uit de veelheid van bomen heb ik er één gekozen om te meten. Op foto leek deze dezelfde als jij hebt opgemeten. Ik vond echter het verschil van 25 cm te veel en heb toen maar besloten een nieuwe op te voeren. Ik heb overigens de coördinaten aangepast. De strook bomen ligt ten noorden van de Ravensteinselaan en ze zijn op de kaart goed te onderscheiden omdat er twee paden doorheen lopen. Jij had ze ten zuiden van de Ravensteinselaan geplaatst.



RedRob, at 2014-09-24 16:59:11, said:
Doesn't look very healthy.

Conifers, at 2014-09-24 17:58:39, said:
If not already dead, it will be very soon. The pics on google earth (2011) show it as healthy just 3 years ago, so it is in very rapid decline.

RedRob, at 2014-09-26 17:20:39, said:
Agree Con, not long for this world.

kathryn, at 2014-09-24 19:15:27, said:
that is cool
luisindepels, at 2014-09-24 19:25:17, said:
its Eddy a friend....He did al the work...I put it here! it is him in the picture. I wasn't there!


Main page · Top of page · Share/Bookmark

© · disclaimer · also available in · Castellano · Deutsch · Français · Nederlands · translate?