You aren't signed in · sign in · register

Discussion page of admin

Add new topic

Recent discussions


Only show discussions in English


Uploading images
Visible for everyone · permalink · nl
Tim, at 2014-07-27 10:46:37, said:
Hello Rumpala,

thanks for uploading so many great pictures of great trees!

Most of the images however are not linked to the specific tree that is shown in the image, so the species is not shown on the image pages. This is probably because you did not select the option "Specific tree", but selected "Certain location without a specific tree visible".

Would it be possible to select "Specific tree" when uploading future images?

Keep up the good work :)

Kind regards and thanks,


Visible for everyone · permalink · nl
Tim, at 2014-07-27 10:21:05, said:

it is now also possible to add trees in Norway.

For all those who sent me a mail or mails, I just came back from holidays and will need some time to work through these, so please be patient.

Kind regards,


Sommer-Linde auf dem Friedhof in Kirchscheidungen in Kirchscheidungen
Visible for everyone · permalink · de
Tim, at 2014-07-09 07:27:04, said:
Meines Wissens wurde erst 1540 vor der Kirche eine Reformationslinde gepflanzt, da der Ort erst in diesem Jahr evangelisch wurde.

Sollten Sie Belege über dieses frühe Datum haben, würde ich mich über eine Mitteilung freuen!

Mit besten Grüßen

Rüdiger Bier

Profiel van Tim
Visible for everyone · permalink · nl
silentoak, at 2014-06-16 12:15:56, said:
Dag Tim,

Ik las dat je de leeftijd van de plataan po het Prudens Van Duyseplein in Gent, wist te determineren op 314 jaar. Mag ik vragen wat jouw bron is voor die info ?

Ik ken die boom al sinds lang, en ben daar, omwille van een verhaal, wat research naar aan het doen.

Het zou handig zijn mocht je zin hebben daar wat feedback rond te geven ?

Alvast mijn beste dank,

vriendelijke groet

Paul C. Luttik

Tim, at 2014-06-17 11:46:34, said:
Hallo Paul,

ik heb het plantjaar eens gelezen in een artikel over deze boom in "Het Civielke", het regelmatig verschijnend ledenboekje van VTK, de studentenvereniging van de burgerlijk ingenieurs te Gent, alwaar ik zelf ook gestudeerd heb.

Geen idee wat hun bron was. Het boekje moet zo'n jaar of 5 à 6 geleden verschenen zijn.



silentoak, at 2014-06-25 05:00:26, said:
Dag Tim,

Ik ben gisteren de boom nog eens gaan opmeten ( plataan Prudens van Duyseplein ).

Een diameter van 130 ( W/O) en 150 (N/Z). Omtrek 417cm.

Indien we de minder betrouwbare methode nemen van de regel in diktegroei, denk ik dat voor deze plataan 1cm per jaar

( zanderige ondergrond, op een heuvel en in de stad ) niet zo fout is.

Dit is wat ik vond op onroerend erfgoed:

"Het vroegere zogenaamde gebied "Eekhout" dat sedert de 19e eeuw een concentratie van arbeiderswoningen kende, werd gesaneerd in de jaren 1880, na de afbraak van de Bataviawijk.

In 1883 wordt het Prudens Van Duyseplein aangelegd in een interessant stedenbouwkundig geheel op radiaalstructuur: de talrijke gelijktijdig getrokken straten convergeren in het licht glooiende pleintje, ingeplant op een helling, met in het midden een rond grasperk met een plataan. Interessante oplossing voor de omzomende huizen met cirkelvormige inplanting.

Variërende huizentypes uit het laatste kwart van de 19de eeuw met verschillende materialen en verhoudingen. Tot onlangs ten zuiden homogene huizenrij, voornamelijk hoekhuizen, met bepleisterde en beschilderde lijstgevels van drie bouwlagen. Verder vrij gewone baksteenarchitectuur uit eind 19de eeuw, afgewisseld met eenvoudige lijstgeveltjes van het doorsneetype."

Ik zocht ook nog op oude kaarten, uit 1700 en vond er wel bomen op die plek op terug. maar vermoed dat dat fruitbomen zullen geweest zijn.

Ik hoop u hiermee geholpen te hebben.


Paul C. Luttik

Boomtechnisch consulent

Bijzondere Boomwerken ( idem FB )

Visible for everyone · permalink · en
RedRob, at 2014-06-16 17:02:51, edited at 2014-06-16 17:03:39, said:
Please can I suggest that a rule now be implemented, imposed on this site, no tree posted without accompanying at least one photo and preferably from several aspects for record trees. Just posting trees with no accompanying photographs is not a proper record for each tree, the photograph is a/the visual of the tree which will be kept on this site as a long lasting record. I am still waiting to see a photograph of the 35.8 metre Sweet Chestnut which I have requested several times now, new record trees have been measured in Ireland and photographs still not added yet? Please, if you are recording trees please do it fully and properly, take photographs of the tree and post them with the tree when you add it. The record of each tree is not complete in my opinion without accompanying photographs, they are as important as the measuring, a a visual record.

Jeroen Philippona, at 2014-06-16 19:19:42, edited at 2014-06-16 21:18:33, said:
Of course photographs give extra information and are valuable. For part of our members they are the most important aspect of this website. For most of them the photographs have an esthetic value or are meant to document the esthetic quality of trees. For me this also is important. For others the website is important as a database with species and measurements. For them photographs have a value as a document underlining the determinations or the measurements.

Both aspects I support strongly. Still, when you don't have good photographs of a tree it can be interesting to document its existance somewhere as well as its measurements. I have added rather many tall common oaks in the Netherlands: of the 38 locations at MT with Quercus robur of 35 m and taller 17 locations are in the Netherlands (in stead of 6 in Germany, 5 in the UK, 3 in Poland, only 1 in France, etc.), not because we have taller oaks, but because I measured and documented many locations.

I did it just to document the many places where there are oaks above this height. I added photos of several of them but I don't think it is necessary to have photos of all of them as they often are tight grown forest specimen wich look alike a lot and are difficult to photograph.

My conclusion: very nice when there are photographs of a tree but also measurement information without photos can be valuable.

Tim has given all these possibilities and I hope these will be there in future.

About Ireland: Leo wrote it was raining a lot so photographing was not always possible. Also, adding photos is time consuming wich not everybody has in the same measure.


Conifers, at 2014-06-16 20:39:37, said:
And there are times where publishing photos - and accurate locations - is not advisable for security reasons. Pinus longaeva "Methuselah" and Sequoia sempervirens "Hyperion" spring to mind.

Tim, at 2014-06-17 11:43:41, said:
What I would personally like, is that if a photo is added, that a small caption is added too.

Now this functionality is used rarely, and it would be good if photos would be annotated with a caption that contains some info of the specific content of the photo. After uploading I might redirect to the 'add caption page' instead of the uploaded image, to stimulate captions.

Kind regards,


RedRob, at 2014-06-17 16:01:54, edited at 2014-06-17 16:12:21, said:
Hello Jeroen, the Netherlands were extremely impressive in thrashing Spain the other night by the way, I don't think that the raining argument can be used as a real excuse, it was hammering down when I visited Cragside last year for example but I still managed to take some decent photos.

RedRob, at 2014-06-17 16:08:07, said:
Will gladly add captions to photos if required, will figure out how to do it as Owen is already doing it.

You are probably right Conifers with exceptional trees like Hyperion and the fear of over visiting and damage. The article that I read recently somewhere (think it was on here) about gangs going about in California cutting burls off living Coast Redwoods to sell and leading to the trees being damaged and some dying was appalling. Over here there doesn't seem to be the interest in trees apart from some of us enthusiasts, for example I don't think anyone in Betws Y Coed gives a stuff about the huge trees growing there, certainly not the proprietors of the B&B where I stayed and who asked me why I was visiting.

Wim Brinkerink, at 2014-06-17 20:18:05, said:
RedRob and Jeroen are right in their own point of view. I support them both. On the other hand I did have some problems with the fact that people have registered trees without pictures. I met the trees and had quite some problems in assigning the right measurements to the tree I saw.

Sometimes I meet trees, I measure them and make pictures. (I Always make pictures), but when I want to register I see someone has registered a kind of vague tree on approximately the same place. Where do I post my trees??? A new one?, or an existing one??

I have met this problem more than once. Today I met the problem with some trees in Limburg, Netherlands.

I will solve the issue, but it makes one think if we make registering as profitable as we can.


Wim Brinkerink, at 2014-06-17 20:37:57, said:
In rethinking the issue I support Redrob's view.

Let's put an example. I could easily post the magnificent Baobabs on Madagascar. I can locate the trees quite exact and add a lot of information. Some people would do that to have a result on their name. (Some people here have done this)

What are the consequences? Will there anybody be triggered to meet the trees and make pictures and measure them? If it is that easy to do it from their lazy chair?

In spite of this thinking, I will go there and make pictures and measure them, but it is not fair, that people have the opportunity to post without actually having seen the tree,


Maarten Windemuller, at 2014-06-18 20:14:15, said:
Contributions to this site without foto's has, in my opinion, little value.

Lists with only figures can be valuable for scientist if the figures are produced accoording to sientific rules. On this site this is not the case.

The monumentality of a tree (whatever definition you use) is the reason that someone is impressed and like to show the tree he likes. Without picure this is not possible.

KoutaR, at 2014-06-19 07:34:09, said:
Let's suppose the following scenario: A tall tree lover from Australia visits his relatives in France. Besides his family activities he also wants to visit a tall tree. He makes an Internet search with 'tallest tree of france'. The corresponding MT page is first in the search results. Now he finds the 66.44-metre Douglas-fir. There is no photo but there are coordinates and he can visit the tree. If there was a rule "don't add any tree if you don't have a photo", he would think there are no that tall trees in France.

Conclusion: Additions of remarkable tall, thick and old trees even without a photo has a value. But I am ready to support the view that rather ordinary-sized trees should not be added without a photo. Actually I wonder why members add such trees at all (there are lots of such trees on MT).

RedRob, at 2014-06-19 16:46:44, said:
From my own experience in trying to relocate many trees to re-measure, the value of a photograph as really been apparent, if there had been a photograph then you could study it and note it's shape, form and position when going searching for it. Even with GPS co-ordinates it is quite difficult to re-locate trees precisely, I don't have a GPS mobile so for me I cannot use GPS anyway but rely on directions. I think many people with just a passing interest in trees might not use or know about GPS either. I think someone coming from Australia would find a tree much, much easier to locate having seen a photograph or photographs for reference. As it says on registering a tree on here, it is also proof that the tree exists.

KoutaR, at 2014-06-19 18:01:18, said:
Of course, it is much better if also photos are added, but my point was that adding a tree without photos should not be banned.

Bess, at 2014-06-19 19:06:30, said:
Is there really abuse? Are there people who post trees who don't exist? I always try to post pictures, but i agree with KoutaR! Even measurements without pictures can be valuable and guid us to a 'tre(e)asures' :-).

Conifers, at 2014-06-19 19:32:39, said:
I don't think anyone has added Yggdrasil yet . . . but maybe?? ;-)

KoutaR, at 2014-06-19 20:04:17, said:
I have never heard that anyone would have reported a non-existing tree in any tree-related forum. Some "almost-accidental" over-measuring may happen. Apparently there are honest people here.

About Yggdrasil... Seriously, the trees of mytology could be a new area for MT in the far future. I am not a fan but I think that many laymen and particularly laywomen at least in Germany are much more interested in tree mythos than measurements.

Maarten Windemuller, at 2014-06-19 20:19:54, edited at 2014-06-19 20:23:20, said:
Aha, there is a new Yggdrasil. It is alrerady on this site.

common ash (Fraxinus excelsior) '4279'

This tree is called Yggdrasil (see the book Monumentale Bomen in Europa by Jeroen Pater).

Karlheinz, at 2014-06-21 02:20:51, said:
Hello tree friends,

that's my opinion on this topic:

A registered tree must be clearly identified on site for review. This is best achieved with a photo. The quality of the photo is not important for this purpose. Also a photo by mobile phone from the base of the trunk accomplishes this purpose and is always possible, even in rain. I do not understand why that's a problem for some users.

Solely on the specified coordinates the reliable identification of the tree is often not possible, especially in the woods with many trees of the same species. Unfortunately coordinates can not be entered and documented as a measured value like girth or height. Positioning the tree by clicking the Google satellite map is often a gamble and everyone is allowed to try his luck. You can not find out who has set or moved the coordinates, and when he did so. In such circumstances, the exact calibration of the coordinates via GPS device does not make much sense; on the accuracy of the coordinates it is better not to rely.

I would never register a tree without photographic evidence. A mandatory field for photo, height, girth and coordinates would improve the quality of our database.

Greetings, Karlheinz

Karlheinz, at 2014-06-21 10:07:18, said:
An example:

I am looking for the highest Douglas Fir of Europe. I have to review and remeasure the highest 66.44 and 66.40 meter Douglas Firs in France and Scotland. From the French tree there is no photo on MT, as Kouta already stated. From the Scottish tree there is only a photo with a group of trees. Should I risk the costly trips for an only incompletely registered tree which on site I possibly can not identify exactly?

Karlheinz, at 2014-06-22 07:03:50, said:
Hi Jeroen and Wim

I think these two examples in Forstgarten Kleve make clear why I think a photograph for identification of the tree is essential and should be a required field:

1) London plane (Platanus × hispanica) '4461' This is an avenue of plane trees, on the left and right side of the street at small intervals there are old plane trees, no photo.

2) sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa) '16908' A sweet chestnut in a dense park area, no photo, girth and height both unknown.

Regards, Karlheinz

Wim Brinkerink, at 2014-06-22 09:26:59, said:
Hi Karlheinz,

In the case of sweet chestnut (Castanea sativa) '16908' I decided not to post pictures because I couldn't make up which pictures belonged to which tree. I had two meaurements of two nearbye trees, 3,65 en 3,95. I couldn't assign the meaurements to either the sequoia or the chestnut. Furthermore I was there in a period when there were no leaves on the trees. I must have thought I will find it later.

But in essence I agree with you that pictures are essential. This is one of the rare moments I haven't posted one. I will post a pic of the tree now. I have found the right picture.

kind regards WIm

Karlheinz, at 2014-06-23 14:42:24, said:
Hi Wim,

in reference to the two chestnuts in Forstgarten Kleve I can say the following:

The coordinates of both trees are faulty. Tree '16908' could not be identified with the original sparse information. Looking at your photo, the plate hangs at the left chestnut. The right chestnut has no plate and I have not measured it. You used this plate for the description of the tree '16909', but you uploaded now its photo at tree '16908'. I suggest you delete the photo of the plate at '16908' and upload it at '16909'. The chestnut '16909' with the plate is pretty much at this position: N51.79845 E6.12768. The specified value for girth is suitable.

At the current Google satellite maps from Forstgarten Kleve reliable positioning of trees is hardly possible, that's my opinion. Each sets the position elsewhere. The trees are tumbling wildly. A GPS device is more suitable. But also on the German base map (Deutsche Grundkarte, DGK5) you can determine the locations more accurately. In this map all parkways are located. For NRW you will find it here: (or here

Greetings, Karlheinz

Frank Gyssling, at 2014-06-19 11:18:11, said:
Hurra! Nun sind die beiden "Abwerter" wieder da ;-)(2 Stimmen = 2,13; ev. ist es nur einer mit zwei Anmeldungen bei MT).

In diesem Schloss und Garten haben die berühmten Brüder Humbodt ihre Kindheit verlebt.

Ihr Vater, Alexander Georg von Huboldt ließ viele Bäume im Schloßpark pflanzen.

Unterstützt wurde er dabei vom Erzieher der Humboldtbrüder Christian Kunth, der als Pflanzenliebhaber und Gärtner Anregungen gab und selbst manchen Baum im Park pflanzte.

Diese besondere Liebe der Humboldts zu alten Baumbeständen und seltenen Pflanzen und die Tatsache, daß die Söhne Alexander und Wilhelm von Humboldt im Schloßpark ihre Kindheit verbrachten, kann als Grundlage für den weltweit anerkannten Ruf des Naturforschers Alexander Georg von Huboldt angesehen werden. Ohne seine Forschungen wäre vielleicht auch so manche Baumart bis heute unentdeckt geblieben. Insofern meine ich, ist dieses Foto auch für MT-Nutzer von Interesse.

Ich bin gespannt auf die Meinung der Bewerter.

viele Grüße Frank

Tim, at 2014-06-19 11:51:44, said:
Hi Frank,

as the system logs all votes I can see who votes (and do not plan to make that public as this would trigger endless recurring discussions, and I also do not plan to check who votes regularly). I will react here once, because I would want to let you know there is no such thing as 'the abwerter'. It is rarely the same person or persons, and it is not or not always who you would expect or not always anybody from the very active group of users.

What could be the reason for the second vote (a 0.25 on 5 vote), I can only guess, but an obvious reason would be: "there is not a monumental tree or a tree on the picture". Sad, because people should vote on the photographic qualities of the photo, as I have said before, and for me, this is clearly a very good photograph. And it adds value, as it is a single photograph showing a very recognizable landmark of that location.

Kind regards,


KoutaR, at 2014-06-20 08:07:16, said:
Hallo Frank,

Ich mag deine Fotos sehr und möchte gern manche von ihn bei den bestbewerteten Fotos sehen. Du bist wahrscheinlich der einzige Fotograf bei MT, dessen Fotos richtige KOMPOSITIONE sind. Doch schätzen viele Mitglieder solche Attribute gar nicht. Es geht nur um die Baumqualitäten. Das ist die Realität. Deswegen schlag ich vor, dass du ein anderes Forum für deine Fotos suchst. Ich wünsche es keinenfalls und ich meine auch nicht, dass du deine Fotos aus MT wegnehmen solltest, aber in einem anderen Forum würden deine Fotos die Bewertung kriegen, die sie verdienen. Z.B. bei kriegt man keine numerische Bewertung aber viele positivische Kommentare von künstlerischen Qualitäten.



Rayn, at 2014-06-20 10:33:09, said:
I am new here but I must say that I hope you continue post photos here, your almost daily updates are very appreciated by me and surely many others.

I also have to confess that I was an accidental "Abwerter" some weeks(?) ago. I accidentaly hit vote before I had chosen any points and then gave the same low rating as the voter before me, even though my intention was to try to raise the average points for that very photo. If I recall correcly it was one of theese red beeches, which I actually like, they are very "photogenic".

Tim, at 2014-06-20 11:14:17, said:
Hi Frank,

I disagree with Kouta's statements on looking for another forum. That should not be a "solution" to the issue that an appreciably large part of the voters mis-use the voting and only vote for the trees dimensions (which is not the purpose). Rather the voting as such and what is done with it could be revised. I plan to rework this in the future, and already have ideas about this, bbut now I don't have time for it. Please keep posting Frank, it is appreciated at least by me, and I'm sure by many others!

I also disagree with Kouta's remark on the lack of composition of the other photographers. While of course not all photos are National Geographic Photography Award winners, it think the photo collection on has become a real treasure with many beautiful photos of trees of all kinds and sorts (tall, wide, common, remarkable, ...).

Kind regards,


KoutaR, at 2014-06-20 18:05:20, said:
As I wrote, I wish that Frank stays with us. I made my suggestion because I see that Frank is clearly frustrated with poor ratings to his superb photos.

One possibility to improve the rating system would be that (I have already proposed this sometimes) there would be two ratings: one for the tree and environment (without taking into account the artistic qualities) and another for the artistic qualities of the photo (without taking into account the tree characteristics). Though it is possible that some members nevertheless give top ratings to their favourite trees in the second category, too.

That only Frank's photos are compositions was an exaggeration, of course. Actually almost every photo is an intentional composition. And many other members have fine photos and fine compositions. But in my opinion, Frank has an exceptional talent to build compositions. Tree and surroundings are always in fine balance.

Frank Gyssling, at 2014-06-21 12:12:22, said:
Hallo Tim,

vielen, vielen Dank für deine erklärenden Worte und auch für deine Bemühungen und die fleißige Arbeit als Administrator von MT. Ich habe verstanden und werde die manchmal niedrigen Wertungen nicht so ernst nehmen (manchmal bekomme ich auch für eher schlechte Fotos viel zu hohe Bewertungen). Mit der Bezeichnung „Abwerter“ wollte ich lediglich die entsprechenden Bewerter etwas aus der Anonymität locken, welches mir leider bisher nicht gelungen ist.

Aber wie wir sehen können ist die Diskussion zu diesem Thema doch für einige aktiven Mitglieder interessant und trägt vielleicht etwas zur Aufklärung bei. Vielleich dient sie auch zu einem offenen und fairen Online-Dialog. Ich werde also MT treu bleiben und mich weiterhin mit Bandmaß, Stativ und Fotoapparat in die „Wildniss“ der europäischen Kulturlandschaft begeben um nach attraktiven Bäumen zu fahnden.

Hier noch eine Bitte: Kannst du bitte für den stärksten Baum in Berlin den richtigen Umfang von 7,68 m eintragen? pedunculate oak (Quercus robur) '17184' Ich habe ihn vor kurzem (mehrfach) Vermessen und es gibt auch Einigkeit mit Christopher dazu, welcher den Umfang lediglich ohne Bandmaß auf 8,20 m geschätzt hatte. Meine Versuche zur Korrektur sind leider nur in der Listen-Ansicht zu sehen. Auch gehört meines Erachtens hinter den Baum-Namen nicht der Link auf Christophers Seite.

Viele Grüße aus Potsdam, Frank

Frank Gyssling, at 2014-06-21 16:08:11, said:
Hallo KoutaR, hallo Rayn,

vielen Dank für eure freundlichen und anregenden Kommentare. Ich glaube alle Bewerter sollten einfach nur die von Tim auf der Hauptseite genannten Grundsätze unter „Worum geht es hier?“ befolgen. Bei der Bewertung von Fotos anderer Mitglieder und deren Auffassungen sollte etwas mehr Respekt und Toleranz vorherrschen, dann brauchen wir auch keine zweite Bewertung.

Warum sollte zum Beispiel ein Foto von einem Baum mit ungewöhnlichem Wuchs, bei stimmungsvoller Beleuchtung und eventuell an einem nicht alltäglichen Ort stehend, oder auch eine seltene Art oder eine interessante Varietät in einem alten Park die keine Rekord-Maße hat schlechter bewertet werden als Urwaldbaum mit Rekord-Maßen? Ich kann es nicht verstehen! Wir leben doch nun mal zu 99 % in einer (oft wunderschönen) Kulturlandschaft. Und auch unsere Möglichkeiten in die letzten Urwälder dieser Welt zu reisen um nach Rekordbäumen zu suchen sind doch in der Regel sehr begrenzt. Unser größter Wirkungskreis ist doch die eingene Region (Land).

Zudem halte ich die Veröffentlichung von Fotos von Bäumen die jeder Interessierte auch selbst ohne großen Aufwand aufsuchen kann für weit wichtiger und wirksamer für ein breites Publikum.

Viele Grüße aus Potsdam,


TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-06-13 17:07:24, said:
Tim, when a tree dies, is it best to click 'Remove' on the record or is there another way of keeping it for historic interest but indicating clearly that it's no longer there?

KoutaR, at 2014-06-14 09:08:11, said:
1. Click "Edit data of this tree" (below the measurements).

2. Change "Has the tree been cut down or did the tree die?" (third from bottom) from "No" to "Yes".

3. Click "Save" (bottom left).

Tim, at 2014-06-14 11:10:25, said:
Thanks for replying Kouta.

Indeed, it would make no sense to remove all info on a tree after it ceased to exist, so currently these trees can be marked as "does not longer exist". In the future I plan to create historic lists and record lists including dead trees, but currently these trees are still rare on the site, so there's no hurry.

Kind regards,


TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-06-14 17:03:33, said:
Thanks - done!


New functionality: showing tall and wide trees
Visible for everyone · permalink · en
Tim, at 2014-05-17 10:51:40, said:

since today it is possible to show the tallest trees and largest girth trees first on the photo page:

For the tall trees I have only taken exactly measured trees into account.

I hope you think this is an improvement.

Kind regards,


Leo Goudzwaard, at 2014-05-17 15:36:24, said:
Hi Tim, I like this new possibility. Thanks again for this great website.

Conifers, at 2014-05-18 07:50:24, said:
Good addition, thanks! Only one problem, the stoutest trees listing is (unlike the other stoutest trees listings under each species) dominated by multistemmed trees which have girths not matching their true cross-sectional size.

KoutaR, at 2014-05-18 10:31:35, said:
Good addition indeed! Perhaps those users, who rate photos by tree dimensions only, are now ready to change their rating strategy.

Tim, at 2014-05-24 06:39:13, said:

as you probably noticed I have split up the "show wide trees first" link on the photo pages into "show single trunk trees " and "all trees", so you can choose yourself wether or not you want to see multistemmed trees.

This will however likely trigger more discussions in the future on "single trunk vs. multiple trunks", which can not be determined with certainty for some cases and will always be prone to the personal opinion of the person who registered the tree first.

Kind regards,


Conifers, at 2014-05-28 17:26:36, said:
Excellent! As well as the two sortings for girth, would it be possible to have two sortings for height please, showing all heights, and accurately measured heights? At the moment, it only shows accurate (laser- or tape-drop-measured) heights.

Tim, at 2014-06-01 10:44:21, said:
I thought about adding a sorting option that includes all height estimations too but did not do it as some are rough guesses at best, dito for age estimations. As there appears to be a demand for this, I have added these options to the general image overiew pages.

The same options were also added to the user image overview pages.

Kind regards,


Tim, at 2014-05-31 20:20:59, said:
Amazing. This looks a lot like one of the extinct other species of ginkgo.

Kind regards,


Conifers, at 2014-06-01 09:37:36, said:
Yep! Ginkgo biloba leaves can be very variable, particularly on vigorous sprout shoots like this.

Visible for everyone · permalink · nl
Tim, at 2014-05-31 13:50:17, said:
Hello Cecilia,

thanks for uploading! Welcome at the site.

If there is anything I can help you with, don't hesitate to ask.

Kind regards,



Main page · Top of page · Share/Bookmark

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