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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
I've just uploaded the Laburnum, as we've discussed it. It has a monumental quality to it - for a Laburnum.
Direction of development MT
As this database is developing more and more into a podium where you can find all kinds of answers relating to pictures, growth, size and dispersion of all kinds of trees, in my opnion, there is a moment of realizing what we are doing and what our aims are.
Please don’t take it as an attack or offense. I saw that Karlheinz is very sincerely and thoroughly describing what we can see in the Kleve gardens in Germany. Karlheinz has an attitude inwhich he wants to be scientific and thorough.
I am wondering if that is what we should do here. If I take in account the detailed contributions of the Kleve gardens I soon stop scrollin
g the pictures. Off course that’s not a problem, but it poses the essential question of our focus or aim. What do we want? Scientific registration and documentation or something else?. Nice pics of trees that matter?. And do we want to influence laymen or other potentially interested people?.
I start thinking about a website where we can see the nice pictures or (on another place) view the scientific correct database about trees, what they are and where they are to be seen.
To be honest I would like to see both.
I would appreciate a site where you can see the champions per country, city or region. And in connection with that, I would like to go deeper and learn more about the characteristics of a special tree.
Is this a positive contribution? I hope so. It is intented so. I value the work of Tim. Next to that I think we have to help Tim in finding his way in accordance with the users and contributors of the site.
Crack your minds please and have a nice day.
Simple answer for me, scientific registration and documentation for me, I come on here to view and see champion trees, my priority interest I admit is height but I also appreciate girth. I could upload pictures and register thousands of trees but I only register those of significant height either for species or location. The artistic photo thing does not bother me, I just want to see the trees whatever they look like. In truth the artistic element can be irritating as all it ever does is cause handbags at dawn with people upset at ratings of photographs. I would delete the rating system from this site if it was mine to end this dispute for good.
My commitment in this discussion is not the rating. Nevertheless thank you very much for this opnion. We need that.
That's a good point, Wim. If the site were to feature every 'monumental tree' in the world there would be many millions and Tim would have to work even harder to keep the software running smoothly (and pay even more for bandwidth)! But many countries already have extensive, even near-comprehensive, databases of their notable trees. In Britain and Ireland, we have the Tree Register (with 215,000 trees) and the Ancient Tree Hunt (with 150,000 trees), and I've only transferred a very few of our best trees onto Monumental Trees, which I would like to see as a showcase for really special trees which can stimulate interest in a wider public (and act as a cross-borders forum for the initiated).
If anyone wants to find out about the rest of our UK and Irish trees, I hope that they would be sufficiently interested to join the Tree Register and consult its online database. The same applies for the USA, New Zealand and several European countries. Conversely, if anyone has an interest in updating and adding to the data on the Tree Register, I would hope that they would liaise directly with myself as Registrar. (A few trees have gone onto Monumental Trees instead and I have to search this site to find them and transfer them onto the Register. So long as it's only a few, this is a comment, not a complaint!)
Perhaps the links to individual countries' national tree database could be displayed more prominently on the main page of Monumental Trees, so that people with special interests are redirected to these sites. If Monumental Trees is to act as a large-scale database in its own right, I think some redesigning would be needed, so that it's quicker to draw up lists of, for example, particular species in particular provinces or counties, and to order these in different ways.
I have stated my opinion on the goal of this website before. It is not my intention to copy or compete with national registries, it is merely about offering anyone the possibility to document loosely defined "trees of interest", so there is room for everybody: those that find pleasure in comprehensively documenting trees in an area, those that like to have a relaxing browse through photographs of interesting trees during some spare time in the evening, those that are merely interested what is to be seen in their neighborhood, those that have a scientific interest in how trees of a specific kind in this or that area compare to anywhere else in the world, to promote tree hunting, to offer statistics for the record hunters, to offer a possibility for photographers to share and persist their photo collection, ... , and yes, because I also like the technical aspect of it and for me it is rewarding to see that what I made as a hobby is actually being used by people and visited by many more. There is still a lot of potential towards the future, e.g. growth curves using historic measurements and - related - automatic age estimations.
That said, indeed, Owen, the "link" section http://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/content/links/ definately needs some updating (after which I could make it more prominent). I'm not sure who has edit rights there, but that page is editable, so feel free to add links to "official" tree registrers or databases anywhere in the world.
wir haben unterschiedliche Meinungen, welches Maß an Sorgfalt wir aufbringen sollten bei der Registrierung von Bäumen. Nach meiner Vorstellung soll die Baumdatenbank von MT nicht nur eine Plattform zur Präsentation eigener schöner Baumfotos sein, sondern wir wollen auch der Allgemeinheit eine verläßliche Informationsquelle bieten.
Wenn sich etwas als offensichtlich falsch herausstellt, sollte es erlaubt sein, das Problem anzusprechen und um Korrektur zu bitten. Ein Beispiel aus dem von dir angesprochenen Park in Kleve verdeutlicht, was ich meine:
coast Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) '16910'
Die Douglasie auf dem Foto hat nicht die Höhe und den Umfang des hier registrierten Baumes (ich habe gemessen: Umfang 3,04 m und Höhe 30,1 m), es muß also eine Verwechslung vorliegen. Das Baumschild auf dem zweiten Foto hängt nicht an diesem Baum, sondern an einer anderen Douglasie. In der Umgebung stehen mehrere Douglasien, einige auch erheblich höher (bis 38,80 m). Die registrierten Koordinaten sind ungenau und lassen eine Identifizierung des Baumes nicht zu. Bei solchen Ungereimtheiten macht es für nachfolgende User keine Freude, hier weitere Douglasien zu registrieren.
my English translation:
we have different opinions, what level of care we should apply for the registration of trees. In my idea the tree database of MT should not only be a platform to showcase our own beautiful tree photos, but we want to offer the public a reliable source of information.
If something obviously is found to be wrong, it should be allowed to address the issue and ask for correction. An example from the Kleve gardens, named by you, illustrates what I mean:
coast Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) '16910'
The Douglas fir in the photo does not have the height and the girth of the here registered tree (I measured girth 3.04 m and heigt 30.1 m), so there must be a confusion. The board on the second photo does not hang at this tree, but at another Douglas fir. In the surroundings there are several Douglas firs, some significantly higher (up to 38.80 m). The registered coordinates are inaccurate and do not allow an identification of the tree. With such inconsistencies it makes for following users no joy, to register more Douglas firs here.
I don't have any problem if you correct me. Be my guest if necessary, I also would like it if the information, of whatever kind, is correct.
Am I one of the guilty ones Owen, thought that you might be getting sick of emails and that you might pick them up on here but so many trees registered it is hard to keep up if you are away for a few days I admit.
Could the site be split, one part for scientific measurement, precise recording of location, photographing and ranking of significant trees (which also acts as a full record for these trees if they later happen to be lost or are felled) the other half for architectural trees for those who enjoy looking at the photographs and voting on composition. The two groups could then be happy.
I read you apparently register trees with an inaccurate location and assign pictures of other trees to it, likely just to have that particular photo or photos uploaded.
That of course is not what should be done. Instead of expecting others to correct it for you, it would be much better not to enter incorrect data, and to refrain yourself from uploading pictures if you don't remember exactly of which tree it was. I for example have quite a few photos of great trees (e.g. chestnut trees in Corsica, or baobab trees in Zambia) from my travels which I did not upload, because I cannot find back the exact location.
I'm sorry if my contribution makes people believe that I am starting a controversy or antagonism. Please disregard my remarks. i will refrain from this kind of discussions. Apparently it is not appreciated.
Hi Tim, Your conclusion is inaccurate. I uploaded pictures with the correct coördinates. My exif data will prove that. Please don't jump to conclusions on an incorrect comment of Karlheinz.
A replenishment to my earlier reaction. I have spoken to you earlier about the fact that I didn't upload some beautiful trees in Mexico, because I didn't have the right coördinates. Since a few years nobody can accuse me of not posing the right coördinates. I have had about 4 camera's with gps function. So please ferfrain of accusations please. That's pissing me off.
The Tree Register or something similar, where large trees are documented, there is not in Germany. Who wants to document large trees with measured values is dependent on Monumental Trees. In Germany there is still the Championtree list, where trees with thick trunks are recorded, but tree heights are rarely measured.
Also my camera can store GPS locations in the Exif data area. But more exact coordinates I achieve with both my Garmin GPSMap 60csx and my modern smartphone Galaxy S5 with a suitable app. The accuracy is always dependent on the local situation and the care of my measurement. In special cases, I also measure by rangefinder the distances to striking objects in the terrain. Because a direct coordinate input in MT is not yet possible (hello Tim!), I set this measured position by the method "trial and error" in the map (satellite or map view). Then I check this position in the map for plausibility and correct if necessary.
In my experience the Exif coordinates in the photos of cameras and smart phones are a great help, it avoids rough error of positioning, you always will hit the right park. But for the exact positioning of the tree within the park, it is not enough in most cases. Of course there are differences in quality of the GPS features of cameras and and also your handling is crucial.
A few more thoughts (Tim and Karlheinz). A record of a monumental tree is interesting straightaway, of course, but after 50 years or 100 years it will be even more valuable, because the tree will probably still be there but people might not know about it until the find the old record. (And we won't be there for them to ask.) The change in girth will then help people to estimate the ages of trees in more situations, without having to count the rings.
This means that it is worth thinking how the data on a site like Monumentaltrees might be curated and kept safe and available into the future. A paper record is easily curated, and a robust database can probably be kept up-to-date as technologies change. But I suspect that digital image files might not be decipherable in 50 years time, and a pin on a Google map certainly won't be! I've been able to relocate nearly all the trees recorded in Britain 50 or 100 years ago, even though at that time they didn't have GPS, or camera phones, or even map grid references, so I don't think that putting the icon on exactly the right spot on a map is necessarily essential.
If recorders want to adopt Monumentaltrees as the place to store their records of German trees, you might in the longer term even have to think about creating a charitable Trust to curate the site's information.
That's right Owen. I also often think about that. As the data (measurements, locations, coordinates, image files) are all digital, they can in fact be stored and maintained indefinitely. All physical digital data carriers like e.g. dvds or hard disks eventually become unreadable, but as long as the data (which is just of sequence of 0's and 1's) is copied over once in a while, the data can live forever.
As I'm a still a young man (currently 32 years old) I plan to be around for many decades to come. The site's content is kept safe not only by the site's hosting company, but I also often make backups on dvds.
If I would be run over by a truck tomorrow, the site would probably stay alive and be accessible for a long time, as long as my automatic yearly payments are done. The data on the dvds would still available for anyone interested. Anyone with an even limited IT background would be able to get the info back. But indeed, in the long term, I would have to think how to share with others. Maybe even make the entire content downloadable by other registers or something.
Owen, if all other details are contradictory, the coordinates would help you!
One reason for Owen to be able to find many of the trees from descriptions of 50 to 100 years old is probably that these are mostly really big trees (often open grown) or very special species and specimens. Karlheinz often looks for very tall (but not especially fat) trees in forests, wich is more difficult.
But Karlheinz has the most exact methods of all members of MT. We cannot expect from all members to work as exact as he does, while MT is not an Academic research institute with professional scientifical goals.
I do not claim for myself, to work using scientific methods and I do not expect that from other members. I will not make MT to an Academic research institute or something similar, I do not know who has put such thoughts into circulation. I am not saying that my measurements and records are error-free or that it would be the most accurate of all. I know and take into account the tolerances and limits of my own and by others commonly used measuring instruments and methods.
The point here is that a certain level of accuracy should be aimed and that there is the willingness to correct obvious errors. The stored data here must be traceable and verifiable for others. It must be allowed in MT, to report errors and to call for corrections, without one immediately be treated with subliminal hostility. A preservation of the status quo for the first registrator, or something as the right to sole ownership must not exist. An attitude "this is my tree, I have registered, keep out there!", I will not support. I have in mind that not only new trees are added, but also the database of the already registered trees will be maintained and updated (example: Wikipedia). If so I make unpopular myself with some members, I must live with. Should I have to recognize that MT developes in another direction, I see no future for me in MT.