Don't have the faintest idea why this should be a champion. But Savill gardens says so.
It's the largest UK specimen of the cultivar 'Greenspire', not of the species as a whole!
There should be about 140 of these champion tree labels in the Valley and Savill Gardens! (This one is a bit of a cheat, as 'Greenspire' is not a very easy cultivar to recognise so it is only the excellent record-keeping of the Royal Gardens that confirms it was planted as the form. Nevertheless, if nurseries recommend this form for small spaces, as they do, it's a useful statistic that it actually grows 18m tall after about 50 years.)
Hi all. If you visit this site, your interests are apparently in coördinance with the aim of this site. Nevertheless, you can handle the site from a very different perspective. My vieuw is mainly the monumentality of the trees and not the arithmethic properties. If a tree is 45 metres high or 50 metres is of no intrest for me. The girth is more interesting because it stands for age. If a tree has lived in the time of Jesus or Napoleon does make a differnce for me. I would very much like it if you value trees from the view. Is 48 or 50 or 52 relevant?
Both are of value to me ;-) The ancient tree that has outlasted the years, but also the tree that towers so high above you that you feel insignificant. And also a third important component, trees that are there by their own doing, with nothing of the hand of man in their history: the wild wood, where you never know just what might be round the next corner . . .
For me, one of the great things on MT is that it can accommodate diverse types of tree lovers. Some of us loves tall trees, others fat trees or old trees, some prefer trees in cultural, others in natural setting. For me personally, girth and age are only of a limited interst, the main reason being that in my opinion trees are not individuals. We human beings have a tendency to judge all the natural objects like they would be like us and other animals. However, plants can be divided and they regenerate vegetatively. If you divide a shrub, which one of the halves continues to be the old individual? Or does the old individual die although its cells continue to live? Or does it continue to live in two separate parts? Many people seem to answer yes to the last question as they claim Pando is one organism although it is unlikely that all of its original root contacts still remain. Or are later root grafts also counted? Then we also have huge organisms in our countries as trees very often make root grafts. If you imagine trees are individuals as we are and think a bit further you will very soon notice you are in a dead end. Ultimately, a plant is a mass of cells that sophisticatedly co-operate. You can divide that mass and the cells will re-organize. Or the mass may make contact, co-operate and fuse with another mass of cells.
I am not a car enthusiast but nevertheless use a car parable. Maybe I exaggerate a bit but for me, a tree like this (am Dorfanger) is like a Toyota HiAce 1970 model that has withstanded a collision and barely functions. I don't want to offend anybody and I appreciate all the other views what makes a tree interesting. Instead, trees like these (European beech (Fagus sylvatica) '12481', Norway spruce (Picea abies) '4928') are for me like modern Ferrari sports cars. How high they can lift their leaves! Like Conifers, I prefer trees in wild settings. Particularly in Central Europe, many people see the trees as cultural objects (interesting is the HISTORY involved with trees: which duke planted the tree for who etc.) and I also appreciate that view.
Anyway, I think there is enough room for all the perspectives and views on MT.
I tried to link three trees with the [txxxx]-syntax but the system placed links to wrong trees. I now edited the post and placed there full URLs.
I can offer some objective comments on the value of maintaining records of individual trees, based on my experience in curating the Tree Register, which is a database in a later stage of development than Monumental Trees and now has 200,000 trees on it. I think that the biggest value of a resource like this is for conservation purposes. It is very useful to know the precise whereabouts and numbers of trees that are endangered - both the wild examples, and cultivated examples of species which are at risk in their native habitats. (In Europe, the great majority will fall into the latter category.) Trees in the last stages of their life-cycles will be likely to support endangered fungi, insects, etc, and their whereabouts will be of interest to scientists studying these organisms. (It has been suggested that the biggest contribution we in Britain can make to international nature conservation is to catalogue and protect our rich heritage of Ancient Trees.) Recording a tree is also a step towards protecting it - particularly if the owner is inspired by learning it is the biggest of its kind in the local area.
Another benefit in recording trees is to try to educate the wider public. It is easy to take trees for granted, and to ignore the threats facing them. Photos in particular of remarkable trees can interest and inspire people in general. As the most remarkable thing about trees is often their size, lists of 'champion' specimens can also bring welcome publicity.
As trees tend to live longer than people, it is particularly important to try to curate the information about them over long periods of time. A community-based initiative like this one, so long as it keeps pace with changing technologies, provides the best chance that a measurement I make of a tree today will still be accessible for somebody looking for it again in a hundred years time.
I do find that these considerations have altered the kinds of trees I record. When I started measuring trees, a Giant Sequoia 7 metres in girth would impress me and I would record it. But the Tree Register has several thousand Giant Sequoias over 7m in girth already, so the details of yet another one, however much it may impress people, are objectively of 'low value'. A Nothotsuga longibracteata 3m tall, by contrast, would probably be ignored by 99 tree-lovers out of a hundred, but a record of it would be of 'high value' because the species is a threatened one and we have very little information, yet, about how it is going to behave in cultivation. Similarly, I would be more likely to record a Quercus robur 4m in girth, with some interesting rot-holes and dieback, than a healthy and vigorous one 6m in girth.
I tend to agree with Kouta overall although I do treat trees as individuals somewhat and enjoy saying hello to old friends when I go to see them, thankful that they are still there. I am more interested in height than girth, I am now much better (with height measuring experience) at estimating height than girth. I am also very interested in reading and learning about what height proportions trees can attain in various regions, counties over here specifically. I do enjoy it when I find something that defies what should be the normal size and as exceeded that normality even if it isn't a national champion. With Owen's amazing input now for the UK along with the continental compilers, this site is becoming an amazing database of information. Not so fond of all the squabbling and sulking when people post photos and get upset when people rate them, beats me, the trees are the important things. Monumental to me signifies trees of noted girth or height. What I like is a photo to show me the full tree, ideally with a person or something for size context, plus ideally some more photos from wider angles to show where and how it stands.
I like more, when people who registred trees also are the people who find a tree. What I am not like are trees without any pictures or description beside, reduced only to numbers of girth and height.
We have now 3 countries (UK, Poland & Hungary) with very much trees, but very less pics and for some of them nobody knows, if the trees are really existing or only in the brain of the registrymaniacs!
But for the real treefinders and treelovers for me is everything allowed and fascinating, girth, height, climbing, finding, or whatever....
Forgot to say, I don't like regimented trees in lines but I do like (don't mind) trees is pseudo wild settings, like Studley gardens for example. I have visited the Wellingtonia avenue in Berkshire and much prefer the wild setting of the Sequoiadendrons at Hebden Wood. Not that fond of the avenue of Sequoiadendron at Benmore, if I had planted that garden last century I would have wanted the pseudo wild setting, redwoods planted hap hazzardly.
"If you divide a shrub, which one of the halves continues to be the old individual? Or does the old individual die although its cells continue to live? Or does it continue to live in two separate parts? Many people seem to answer yes to the last question as they claim Pando is one organism although it is unlikely that all of its original root contacts still remain
On this basis, the largest tree in Britain is Cupressus × leylandii 'Haggerston Grey', divided into its 50 million constituent parts . . . uggh, what a horrible thought! ;-)
"What I am not like are trees without any pictures or description beside, reduced only to numbers of girth and height."
I agree if the tree is nothing special ("VW Passat"). But as this site is also meant to be a register of the tallest & fattest trees it is important to get the record and near-record trees here even if no photo is available. Again, I believe there is enough room for trees with and without photos.
Conifers, how do you change text colour?
Hi Kouta - with HTML text formatting; you can have a wide range of colours.
Change the square brackets [ ] into triangular ones < > to get the desired colour:
[font color=green]green text[/font] makes green text
[font color=red]red text[/font] makes red text
[font color=darkred]dark red text[/font] makes dark red text
[font color=blue]blue text[/font] = blue text
Note the need to use the american spelling 'color'; 'colour' won't work.
I made my special experieces with another "tree-register", I meet yesterday the fourth tree which is only existing in that register, but not in life! Ok, I can help to bring this in the right way, but people, who are only interested in visiting trees will say after the fourth failure: This page is unseirious, you should not believe it.
If some would make holydays in the UK or Poland and maybe also looking to some "Record trees", but cannot find them because also the registring man or woman dont know really about the existing of that trees, to whom they would send the "damages suit"?
Nobody will say: "The user xyz is not serious", people would say "Monumental trees is not serious" and with this, all of us, who are interested in real trees will get also "unserious".
I hope some understand, what I mean.
A good point, Scholem. Our work is based on honesty and trust. If someone wants to make a reputation for himself as a tree hunter by dishonest means it is easy to register exaggerated numbers even with photos, by choosing a photo perspective that does not reveal the real dimensions. Proving honesty largely funktions by revealing the location: If more than one measurement will be proved to be much too high by another measurer, the tree hunter quickly make a reputation for himself as a bad or dishonest tree hunter. Scholem, I get one idea from your message: if a member registers a tree (measured by another measurer) whose exact location he does not know, he should note that in the description. Then nobody tries to go to the marked approximate location and say, the database is unreliable.
BTW, as I wrote "he" above I realized that we all really seem to be males! Is there one single lady on MT?
Regards / LG,
There are some women active on MT. There was a Japanese girl who put some trees on it and yet there's a Belgium girl active on this site. But you are right that it's a site where not many women are active. It' s a pitty.
Greetings from Han
"there's a Belgium girl active on this site"
You know her.
greetings from Han
It think Scholem and KoutaR added an interesting topic. Registered trees without pictures. I think we have to restrain that to an absolute minimum. But I am not dogmatic. I really appreciate that Owen adds so much English and Irish trees. Nevertheless there is some risks in that. I myself am alway triggered to read in a book that at some place there is one or more nice trees. I will also search it if it is one this site. But it is a more challenging tree if it is not registered here. Let's call it a sound ambition. I have used Owen's book before to search for trees. In the mean time I met other trees. I hope that once all his trees are on the site (without pictures), I will still chase them. Think so, but I am not sure and some incentive is gone.
Let me give you an example. For years now, I am planning a trip to Madagaskar. I am quite determined to go there, but I would really feel embarrased if someone registers the fantastic baobab-lane just from a book.....I think that wouldn't work out good in the long run.
correct... Bess is completely female.... ;-) Didn't knew it was that rare on this website... .
Should i give my opinion as well on the subject now?
Well... i'll post trees who are 'monumental' Or, for me, Should get the chance to get old, cause the're already special... (cause of age, history, location, species,... ) To get a list (without pictures of 'species' and young trees) i can usehttp://www.dendrologie.be/ for Belgium... But i have no problem that people post trees without pictures...
And i like to post them with pictures, cause it's nice to see there evolution... on the other hand... It's so great to go and search for a tree, with only the picture of chalon or Kerville... and then see them first 'in real life' or discover there not longer there (like
) .. . So it spoils a bit the 'surprise' if the pictures are on the internet... . It already gets chaotic this explanation... . I was wandering if there ever are 'gatherings' for the members of this website, to talk in real life... :-p? Would be productive as well i guess... .
Know this website for a while, but finally took time to start 'adding' stuff... . Very happy i finally did. So: nice to meet you all!
In reality, You are not alone. Many of that trees, I registrate in the last year were found by my wife Elfie, not me. Especially she had often the better nose where to search.
Her real portfolio: The Dragon London plane (Platanus × hispanica) '9706'
the big giant redwoods at Herrmanswörth: Preinrotte
and many other big trees. Also we had some expeditions based to her ideas: Gschaider Sattel
and in den Donauauen
But the very best is, she knows very much what to do with the tree fruits: jam, juice or aromas.....
I never come to the idea to sample the broken red twigs of Taxodium disticum and bring them home as spender of a very nice aroma, which makes our appartment much comfortable.
So I think women has the much better nose to do as only to registrymania and measuremania.
liebe Grüße aus Wien
"I was wandering if there ever are 'gatherings' for the members of this website, to talk in real life... :-p? Would be productive as well i guess..."
Hello Bess and welcome!
I proposed a gathering once, perhaps about one year ago, but nobody was interested. Perhpas there would be more interest now as a girl has joined us...
Long distances and the language issue are naturally problems. A more local gathering (like Belgium+Netherlands) would be more easy to organize.
Hi Owen, I think you need to change the location of this tree. I have posted some trees with pictures next to it. On one picture I added, you can see the taxodium, Sequoiadendron and the Turner's Oak. I think your coördinates refer to the Turner's oak. Ik you want to I'll change it for you.
Thanks Wim. I couldn't remember which side of the Sackler Crossing (bendy bridge) it was. According to the map I also seem to have recorded it twice, as tree 15375 and 15377?
I am trying to find 15375. Cannot find it instantly. I have a look. But the trees Taxodium, sequoiadendron and Turners oak are on the north site. The lime tree is south.
I'll be back to you
I think that for a start and to make things less complicated I will change the coördinates of the Montezuma cipres?
Yes, go ahead, thanks. Perhaps 15..5' is a 'ghost' of a duplicate I created and then deleted, still appearing for some reason on the map?
(And thanks Owen) I juststumbled on this tree while surfing the site. I have once posted it as an oriental plane. apparantly it is not. Owen says it is a Hybrid and it shows a lot of characteristics of an oriental plane. I do not have any problem with the fact that someone who is morre capable of determinating the right species does so. But isn't there a way that I would be informed when somebody changes my contribution??.
We actually have a rule (originating from Tim, I think) that the original registrar should be asked before changing species.
You will find I added comments, measurements etc. to a lot of the UK trees which had already been added to Monumental Trees, while I was looking through all these records. I expect all these actions are still listed in the 'recent history'.
www.ancient-tree-hunt.org.uk, which is an interactive database like this one, includes a useful function called 'My Trees', which allows each participant to view all the trees they have registered on the site. The trees that have been edited most recently appear at the top of the list, so that you can see who has remeasured, added photos to, or commented on trees which you were the first to record.
Hi Owen, thank you for your reaction. It doesn't really answer to my worries. Like Kouta said, one should be informed if a registration one makes is changed by somebody else. I would like Tim to clear this item. I have no problem with your better knowledge, but I would like to be informed.
a function very similar to "My Trees" has been on my wish list for a long time (albeit an extended version not restricted to trees registered, but also trees of which measurements etc were added), but as I'm having a full time job, hobbies, friends and a family, I simply did not have the time yet to add this to the site. But it will come, as I designed the structure of the code behind the scenes with this in mind.
IK heb de hoogte van linde van Zegenwerp in Sint Michielsgestel 3 x gemeten met de Nikon Forestry 550. Uitkomsten 22,80, 19,8 meter en 21,4 meter. Dat waren dus 3 verschillende meetpunten. Ik kan het verschil met de meting van Nardo Kaandorp 28,8 meter niet verklaren.
Hoi Wim en Nardo,
Het lijkt me zinvol dat jullie een keer samen op pad gaan om te kijken of jullie lasers vergelijkbaar werken of dat het ligt aan jullie meetmethoden.
Gisteren zijn Maarten Windemuller, Leo Goudzwaard en ik samen op pad geweest om mooie bomen te bezoeken, fotograferen en meten.
Leo en ik hadden al veel samen gemeten en hebben meestal zeer vergelijkbare resultaten. Ook met Nardo hebben we vaak gezamenlijk gemeten en hadden we bij gezamenlijke meet-sessies goed overeenkomende resultaten.
Maarten had eerder afwijkende resultaten. Dat bleek aan zijn methode te liggen. In elk geval is het belangrijk dat je de hele kroon af-scant met de laser op zoek naar de hoogste toppen. Bovendien moet je het hoogteverschil tussen laser- / ooghoogte en hoogte stamvoet nog optellen bij de hoogte van de hoogste boomtop boven je ooghoogte.
Maar wellicht is er iets anders aan de hand, bijv. een minder goedwerkende laser. Ook dat is bij het tegelijk gebruiken van verschillende lasers te ontdekken.
Lijkt me wel een goed idee, want ik ga twijfelen. Ik meet meestal zeer nauwkeurig en vooral bij twijfel meet ik meerdere malen. Als Nardo er ook voor voelt maak ik een afspraak met hem.
Goede suggestie van Jeroen, drie vliegen in een klap: slimmer en beter meten, dendrologisch leerzaam en nog een leuke dag ook.
Als je het leuk vindt, lijkt het me dat je kan aansluiten als Nardo daar ook mee instemt.
Dank voor het aanbod Wim, afgelopen zondag heb ik flink geoefend zoals je hierboven kunt lezen. Komende maanden zijn de weekenden al deels gevuld. Voorjaar meer kansen. Spreek rustig zelf wat af met iemand zonder mij.