You aren't signed in · sign in · register

Discussion page of bomenkennis

Add new topic

Recent discussions


Only show discussions in English


Foto's van monumentale bomen
Visible for everyone · permalink · nl
loonen48, at 2014-05-16 18:37:28, said:
Als ik een foto wil gebruiken voor een publicatie, hoe zit het dan met de licentie?


Leo Goudzwaard, at 2014-05-17 15:35:23, said:
De foto's op MT zijn en blijven eigendom van de fotograaf. Je moet dus altijd eerst toestemming aan de eigenaar van de foto vragen, Leo

loonen48, at 2014-07-24 19:24:31, said:
Streekmuseum Lingewaard gaat een boekje uitgeven over de 1000-jarige eik bij kasteel de Doornenburg. Het boekje is geschreven door Denis Schils. In het boekje worden o.a. vergelijkingen gemaakt met andere oude eiken waaronder de kroezeboom in Ruurlo. Wij zouden als illustratie graag de foto gebruiken van Leo Goudzwaard. Streekmuseum Lingewaard is een stichting die geen structurele subsidie ontvangt. Wij vragen projectsubsidies aan als wij iets willen uitgeven. We maken ook geen winst. Het zou dan ook geweldig zijn als u, Leo Goudzwaard, de foto gratis ter beschikking zou willen stellen. Nog mooier zou zijn als u daarvan een groter bestand zou kunnen leveren dan zo van internet te halen is.

Ik wacht uw antwoord af,

Met vriendelijke groet, Maria Loonen, streekmuseum Lingewaard.

loonen48, at 2014-07-24 19:25:46, said:
Ter aanvulling: mijn mailadres is:

Conifers, at 2014-07-09 19:55:49, said:
A tamarisk Tamarix sp.
Han van Meegeren, at 2014-07-09 21:03:29, said:
Thanks Conifers

I've tried to put the name Tamarix sp. on the site, but it is not excepted.

Do you have a solution?

Greets from Han

Leo Goudzwaard, at 2014-07-10 06:43:19, said:
sp. is not accepted at MT, it is probably T. gallica

Conifers, at 2014-07-08 18:17:29, said:
Not Magnolia acuminata, that has pale yellow-green flowers (pic); likely M. × soulangeana with a second flowering (most of the flowers of this hybrid are produced before the leaves in early spring, but there is often a small second flowering around now).
Leo Goudzwaard, at 2014-07-08 19:59:23, said:
I know this tree very well, it is Magnolia x soulangeana
Wim Brinkerink, at 2014-07-08 21:26:14, said:
Thank you both. I've changed it.

'Britain's oldest tree', article in Daily Mail.
Visible for everyone · permalink · en
Maarten Windemuller, at 2014-07-08 06:57:26, said:
On 7 july Daily Mail published an article about the 'oldest' tree of Brittain.

I cannot (yet) find the tree on MT. Do I look good?

Conifers, at 2014-07-08 09:19:13, said:
Don't believe anything you read in the Daily Fail - one of Britain's most notoriously inaccurate newspapers ;-)

Certainly an interesting tree, but 5,000 years is fanciful. It fails to take account of the simple point that growth rings become narrower as the tree ages.

For more info on the ages of old yews, see:

Harte, J. (1996). How old is that old yew? At the Edge 4: 1–9 Online.

Kinmonth, F. (2006). Ageing the yew – no core, no curve? International Dendrology Society Yearbook 2005: 41–46 Online.

Leo Goudzwaard, at 2014-07-08 09:25:27, said:
Is there any scientific proof? an article rather than a newspaper story?

according to the newspaper it is believed to be 5000 years (ja zo lust ik er nog wel een!)

A ring count of 120 per inch is hard to believe. Where is the picture of this? BTW: ringdating and dendrochronology is something completely different than ring counting. Waiting for proof....

Maarten Windemuller, at 2014-07-08 09:49:39, said:

Thank you for the reactions. This brings us further than Facebook where I found this 'news'.

Best wishes, Maarten

RedRob, at 2014-07-08 17:05:10, said:
Maarten beat me to this with his post. This tree has been all over the news as well

Conifers, can you explain your point about growth rings becoming narrower not being taken into account?

Conifers, at 2014-07-08 18:00:37, said:
Quote from the Daily Fail article: "and its ring count is 120 per inch which makes it [more than] 5,000 years old" - i.e., they've taken the outermost ring count and assumed it continued at that rate for the whole life of the tree. Typical muddle-headed journalists :-(

Martin Tijdgat, at 2014-06-08 06:38:37, said:
This looks a lot like a Quercus petraea 'Mespilifolia'.

Conifers, at 2014-06-08 12:31:56, said:
I'd agree with that.

Leo Goudzwaard, at 2014-06-08 18:21:41, said:
Q. p. 'Mespilifolia' is not correct, the leaves are different, inbetween Q. robur and Q. petraea, likely Q. x rosaceae.

Rainer Lippert, at 2014-06-08 19:59:57, said:
Hallo Martin, Conifers und Leo,

ihr denkt also eher in Richtung Quercus Petraea? Hier hatte ich schon etwas darüber geschrieben:

Ich meine auch Weidenähnliche Blätter auszumachen. Bin mir aber nicht sicher. Im Park gibt es aber auch eine Quercus imbricaria, zumindest laut Schild am Stamm. Diese Eiche hat leider kein Schild.

Danke und viele Grüße,


Martin Tijdgat, at 2014-06-11 17:51:09, said:
Dear friends,

I've looked at different images of Quercus petreae 'Mespilifolia' and Q. rosacae, but I still think this is a 'Mespilifolia' due to the forms of leaf at the base; drooping along the leafstalk.

Rainer Lippert, at 2014-06-11 19:54:32, said:
Hallo Martin,

ich habe mir jetzt im Internet auch Bilder zu Quercus petreae 'Mespilifolia' angeschaut. Ja, ich denke nun auch, dass es sich darum handelt. Die Blätter haben starke Ähnlichkeiten. Ich werde es entsprechend abändern.

Danke und viele Grüße,


KoutaR, at 2014-06-12 07:25:42, said:

Das ist nicht die 'Mespilifolia'. Die echte 'Mespilifolia' hat fast alle Blätter ungelappt, aber viele Blätter dieses Baumes haben völlig normale Traubeneichenähnliche Form. NB: im Foto '32927' sind einige gelappte Blätter gefressen oder sonst in schlechtem Zustand und sehen deswegen ungelappt aus. Ich weiss nicht, ob es die Zurückkreuzung zwischen der 'Mespilifolia' und der normalen Traubeneiche gibt - ein Bisschen sowas sieht dieser Baum aus.

Martin Tijdgat, at 2014-06-12 10:03:11, said:
Dear friends,

Can it be that this is in fact a Quercus petraea cv. 'Mespilifolia', but with a lot of backlash to the original Q. petraea. I can't make out the distribution of mespilifolia-type leafs in comparison with the other leafs. We see this in more trees like Ulmus x hollandica 'Wredei' to 'Dampieri'.

Rainer Lippert, at 2014-06-12 17:47:25, said:
Hallo Kouta und Martin,

heute habe ich zufällig in einem Park eine Quercus petraea 'Mespilifolia' mit 3 m Umfang gesehen. Zumindest laut Schild. Also die Blätter haben schon starke Ähnlichkeiten zu diesem Baum hier gezeigt. Der Stamm war aber völlig anders, eigentlich untypisch für eine Traubeneiche. Passt denn der Stamm hier für eine 'Mespilifolia'?

Viele Grüße,


Leo Goudzwaard, at 2014-06-12 18:07:31, edited at 2014-06-12 18:07:57, said:
I agree with Kouta: it is not a 'Mespilifolia', but Q. x rosaceae

KoutaR, at 2014-06-12 18:55:03, said:
Der Stamm von der 'Mespilifolia' ist identisch mit dem von der normalen Traubeneiche. Nur die Blätter sind anders.

Martin Tijdgat, at 2014-06-12 22:35:04, said:
Found good pictures of leafs etc. of Quercus x rosacea at Agree this tree is a hybrid oak. (quercus_x_rosacea_hybrid_oak_tree_05-10-06_2.jpg 640x480 pixels)

Rainer Lippert, at 2014-07-05 15:56:35, said:
Hallo zusammen,

ich habe es jetzt in Quercus × rosacea abgeändert, mit dem Vermerk, dass es sich auch um Quercus petraea 'Mespilifolia' handeln kann. Ich denke, so dürfte es jetzt passen, nach den bisherigen Stimmen hier.

Danke und viele Grüße,


Leo Goudzwaard, at 2014-07-03 09:05:45, said:
prachtige vondst, een soort die erg zeldzaam is in NL en dan ook nog 3+. Er staat er een in het G.Hornemannplantsoen in Eindhoven van 2+

Leo Goudzwaard, at 2014-06-24 07:14:28, said:
Acer saccharinum

Conifers, at 2014-06-24 15:58:46, said:
Ditto to Acer saccharinum

Rainer Lippert, at 2014-06-24 17:09:05, said:
Danke für die Bestätigung. Hatte ich hier schon selbst vermutet:

Viele Grüße,


Martin Tijdgat, at 2014-06-25 05:28:31, said:

From your leaffotographs it is the cultivar 'Laciniatum Wieri'.

Conifers, at 2014-06-25 09:15:17, said:
I'd doubt it is 'Laciniatum Wieri' - the leaves are within the normal range of variation in the species, and this is not a grafted specimen (no graft line visible in the trunk photo), so it is unlikely to be a named cultivar.

Additionally, according to W J Bean, 'Wieri' (so named there, not 'Laciniatum Wieri') has pendulous branches (I'm not certain if this could be a different cultivar to 'Laciniatum Wieri' though).

Martin Tijdgat, at 2014-06-25 09:46:32, said:

Wieri is a synonym of Laciniatum Wieri. Acer sacch. and the cultivar form both big trees with wide spreading branches. The leafs of the cultivar are more stretched out and finer lobbed, that is why I came to this determination. I have both trees in my care as local tree officer.

Leo Goudzwaard, at 2014-06-25 10:17:55, said:
Hi Martin, you can find description and leaf photo's in my book Loofbomen, groet, Leo

Conifers, at 2014-06-25 10:40:23, edited at 2014-06-25 10:43:33, said:
Thanks! I checked a couple of other books (Rushforth Trees of Britain and Europe, and the New RHS Dictionary of Gardening), and both give 'Wieri' as the cultivar name; Rushforth cites it as a cultivar within the botanical forma laciniatum. Both again emphasized the pendulous branches as a key character of 'Wieri', which this tree does not show.

Rainer Lippert, at 2014-06-25 16:28:34, said:
Hallo zusammen!

Ich habe es entsprechend abgeändert.

Danke und viele Grüße,


Conifers, at 2014-06-27 21:02:44, said:
Hallo Rainer,

As I mentioned above, this isn't 'Wieri'; it is just a normal Acer saccharinum, with no cultivar name to be applied. It is not a grafted tree, as there is no graft line; maple cultivars are always grafted as they can't be rooted from cuttings.

Rainer Lippert, at 2014-06-29 19:12:20, said:
Hallo Conifers,

dass du dir so sicher warst, hatte ich das letzte mal nicht den Eindruck. Mir bereitet das übersetzen vom Englischen ins Deutsche Probleme. Ich änder es dann gleich wieder ab.

Danke und viele Grüße,


Conifers, at 2014-06-30 17:50:32, said:

Frank Gyssling, at 2014-06-23 10:43:23, said:
Hallo Leo, gutes Foto. Ich würde die Schatten noch etwas aufhellen und die Perspektive entzerren.

viele Grüße Frank

Leo Goudzwaard, at 2014-06-24 07:12:54, said:
Thanks Frank, my pictures are always pure, no photoshopping. It is the hard light in summer at 16pm, I like it when you can see the natural circumstances in a photo. The light would have been much more colourful at 18pm but not enough time to stay and wait. I also need someone at the stairs behind the tree, now it is too empty. I would encourage everyone to photograph people next to the trees.

Conifers, at 2014-06-21 17:42:01, said:
Quercus cerris.

Q. bicolor does not have those dense bristles on the acorn cup.

Leo Goudzwaard, at 2014-06-22 07:10:34, said:
This cannot be Q, bicolor, its acorns are without bristles.

It is a Q. cerris. Leaves are very variable in form. Leaf underside greyish and pubescent.

Wim Brinkerink, at 2014-06-22 09:32:26, said:
Thanks. I have changed it.

Rainer Lippert, at 2014-06-02 21:04:59, said:

um welchen Baum handelt es sich hier wohl? Um Ulmus laevis, oder irgendeiner anderen Ulmenart?

Viele Grüße,


Conifers, at 2014-06-02 21:08:13, said:
Agree with Ulmus, but the bark and trunk shape does not look right for U. laevis. I would guess probably Ulmus minor, but elms are tricky to identify to species (particularly as there are so many hybrids, too!).
Martin Tijdgat, at 2014-06-03 00:29:46, said:

To identify this elm is possible from the seeds. Have you found any seeds? Or a picture with seeds on it?

I agree with Conifers it is not a U. laevis. It looks a lot like Ulmus glabra, but the shape of the tree is not broad enough.

Rainer Lippert, at 2014-06-03 17:41:24, said:
Hallo Conifers und Martin,

vielen Dank für eure Einschätzungen. Bilder von Samen habe ich leider keine. Leider kann man ja nicht einfach Ulmus angeben, sondern muss sich konkret auf eine Art festlegen. Ihr meint jetzt aber verschiedene Arten. Wie jetzt vorgehen?

Ich habe mich jetzt auch noch etwas in den Fachbüchern umgeschaut. Da würde ich jetzt langsam zu Ulmus × hollandica tendieren. Was meint ihr dazu?

Viele Grüße,


Conifers, at 2014-06-03 20:25:20, said:
The leaf shape (short, broad) points me to Ulmus minor, particularly perhaps one of the clones formerly separated as "Ulmus procera" or the clone 'Sarniensis'. Unfortunately the crown shape of the whole tree is too irregular to see any of the crown shape characteristic of younger specimens of either of these clones.
Martin Tijdgat, at 2014-06-03 21:07:59, said:

The tree shows caractiristics of both U. minor and of U. glabra in the barkstructure, leafs and twigcolouration. I support you if you put it in as Ulmus x hollandica. Maybe that Leo Goudzwaard can give his opinion. He knows more about the different elms in Europa. If you visit the tree again look for the seeds, they give the best look into the species or hybrides.

Rainer Lippert, at 2014-06-04 17:20:59, said:
Hallo ihr zwei!

Vielen Dank für eure Einschätzungen. Wenn ich dort nochmal hinkomme, will ich mal nach Samen ausschau halten. Ich Frage jetzt auch mal Leo, was er dazu meint. Ansonsten ändere ich es in Ulmus × hollandica, mit dem Hinweis, dass es auch eine andere Ulmenart sein könnte.

Viele Grüße,


TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, at 2014-06-13 16:54:52, said:
The leaf is actually right for Ulmus laevis. U. glabra and U. minor show a proportion of the secondary veins branching half-way up, and I can only see one vein on one leaf in the pictures of this tree which does branch like that. The very elaborate hooked toothing around the upper leaf is also a feature of U. laevis. But I agree that flowers/fruit (March/April) would be needed for complete confidence.
Rainer Lippert, at 2014-06-13 18:04:52, said:
Hallo Owen,

vielen Dank für den Kommentar. Ich habe es jetzt mal in der Beschreibung vermerkt, dass die Art nicht sicher ist.

Viele Grüße,


Jeroen Philippona, at 2014-06-14 11:23:58, edited at 2014-06-14 11:24:37, said:
Recently I have seen again a lot of Ulmus laevis trees along the river Elbe in Germany. Their leaves are more a-symetric than these wich Rainer photographed. So I don't agree with Owen. I think Ulmus x hollandica or U. minor is more probable. I will ask Leo and Hans Kaljee, elm-expert from Amsterdam.
Rainer Lippert, at 2014-06-14 12:25:33, said:
Hallo Jeroen,

ich selbst tendiere Anhand meiner Literatur zu Ulmus x hollandica. Leo hatte ich vor einigen Tagen schonmal kontaktiert, aber ohne Antwort. Vielleicht hat er meine Anfrage auch einfach nicht bemerkt. Mal abwarten, was die beiden dann dazu meinen.

Danke und viele Grüße,


Leo Goudzwaard, at 2014-06-14 15:37:35, said:
In my opinion it is U. minor. Certainly not glaba or laevis, cheers Leo
Jeroen Philippona, at 2014-06-15 12:26:37, edited at 2014-06-15 12:29:27, said:
Hans Kaljee (tree-consultant of the municipality of Amsterdam and elm expert), thinks based on the trunk structure it is Ulmus minor. He writes Ulmus minor is quite variable and often the leaves on he lowest branches are larger than the leaves higher up. Those are best to use for determination.

Best regards, Jeroen

Rainer Lippert, at 2014-06-15 19:55:39, said:
Hallo Jeroen, Hallo Leo,

danke für eure Beiträge. Dann passt ja jetzt die Zuordnung mit Ulmus minor.

Danke und viele Grüße,



Main page · Top of page · Share/Bookmark

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