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

Recent discussions


Only show discussions in English


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.


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.

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.

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?


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.



Main page · Top of page · Share/Bookmark

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