Prachtig plaatje Maarten! dikke 5
Heb dank, het was een ook feest om de boom te vinden. Wat een beauty.
Kan het zijn dat dit de cv. Serotina de Selys is? Het opgaande karakter lijkt sterk op de Selysen die in Amstelveen staan op de Lindenlaan (Montesorrischoolplein)
Dat zou goed kunnen. Er staat ook een groot exemplaar van op de parkeerplaats van Arboretum Kalmthout, zie foto en beschrijving van deze cv in mijn boek Loofbomen in NL en VL. De bladvorm op de foto van Maarten klopt ook.
Leo, Martin; thanks for suggestion. I uploaded another foto with detail of twig and leave. I will change the name if you are sure. What I found on Internet pictures it is the form that is making the clear difference between this subspecies and other subspecies of x canadensis. Are there other differences?
Je zegt het; de vorm is zo duidelijk afwijkend en kenmerkend voor Serotina de Selys. Jongere exemplaren kunnen oppervlakkig worden verward met Italiaanse populieren. Maar ronde wortelaanzetten, ronde stammen en takken en de bast zijn zo afwijkend. Zie boek Leo voor detailkenmerken twijg en blad.
Martin, ik heb wat oude foto's en ansichtkaarten opgezocht uit die omgeving, stuur ik je strks per mail toe.
Schitterende boom, maar ik ben niet overtuigd dat het een Serotina de Selys is. Deze boom lijkt niet op de boom die ik vorig jaar in Maastricht ontdekte. Zie Canadian poplar (Populus × canadensis) '13617'
(blijft jammer dat je niet op cultivars kunt zoeken op MT)
De stam van de boom in Maastricht is helemaal rond met diepe schorsplaten. De eerste takken beginnen pas hoog aan de stam. Misschien dat ik nog een foto heb van het blad.
Nardo en andere MT-ers,
Zal de foto's van de Selysen van de Montesorri-school aan de Lindenlaan in Amstelveen nog in MT zetten. Dan zie je duidelijk meer overeenkomsten met deze Zweedse boom.. Daar langs de Lindenlaan staan meer bijzondere populierenklonen uit ongeveer 1960, waaronder ook de cv Serotina. Verschillen in schorspatronen willen in andere klimaten of op andere grondsoorten nog wel eens variëren.
Information of the community Stängnäs: The tree was planted in 1938. There is not registered any subspecies of P.x canadensis.
Ik heb nog een paar (onscherpe) foto's van het blad gevonden van de boom in Maastricht. Toch wel een paar verschillen te zien. De onderkant van het blad is rechter en het blad loopt niet uit in een puntje. Ik ben benieuwd naar die bomen in Amstelveen.
This isn't Malus sieversii
- that is the direct ancestor of orchard apples, and has much larger fruit (see e.g. here
Could be a Malus × purpurea cultivar. Maybe a case of labels swapped by vandals?
Without knowledge about cultivars, but I bet it's hard to find larger fruit in june in Sweden... Maybe in august/september?
Maarten, Conifers and Rayn,
This Malus-cultivar looks to be M. 'Hopa', if I compare the color and shape of the fruits.
Thanks for the comments. The shield at the tree might be a 'student joke' or some mistake which has not yet been noted. I'll contact the management of the garden if they are sure about the name.
Hi Maarten - thanks for the extra info on this! Interestingly (for my comment above) Malus
'Niedzwetzkyana' is one of the parents of Malus × purpurea
(so I wasn't so far out, either! ;-)
According to W J Bean, 'Niedzwetzkyana' is not much grown now due to its susceptibility to apple scab disease.
Hei Conifers, Thank you too, pleasure to find out things, LifeLongLearning.
Hi Maarten - I've just noticed that MT already has an entry
for Malus niedzwetskyana
(as a species). I'd guess best transfer this tree there, until Tim can sort out the name fully.
Conifers, Thanks, I changed it.
European beech at Trollskog in Torna Hällestad, Dalby, Sweden
A technical point: as these trees are seed-grown (self-sown), they are Fagus sylvatica f. tortuosa, and not the cultivar 'Suenteliensis', which to be true to name can only be propagated clonally by grafting.
Thanks for this. You are absolutely right; this is the naturaly occuring forma tortuosa. I had the same type of discussion with Fagus sylvatica 'Asplenifolia'.or 'Laciniata'. This leafform also occurs naturaly and has been grafted under a few different names.
Thanks, that's true, it's not a clone. I changed name. New problem: I cannot get a small "f" before tortuosa. The system automatically generates a capital F. Will ask Tim to change it. But what must we think about the oak, MT nr. 18706? :)
Nieuws over deze boom. Ik weet niet of dit tot tevredenheid moet stemmen, maar....
Ik las het artikel vanmiddag en vroeg me af of het dezelfde boom was waar jij enige tijd geleden melding van maakte ihk van dijkverzwaring & bomen. Gezien de foto bij het artikel leek het me een heel andere boom.
In eerste instantie dacht ik het zelfde, maar ik ben de rivier op die plek een flink stuk langs gefietst. Er staat geen andere monumentale boom, dus hij moet het wel zijn. (Ik kan het artikel overigens niet meer terugvinden)
Ik kon het artikel weer vinden. Volgens mij is er een foute (wellicht willekeurige) foto gebruikt.
Aan het huisnummer te zien wel dezelfde boom:http://goo.gl/Lh6V06.
Slordig van de redactie van het gisteren aangehaalde artikel om daar een willekeurige foto bij te zetten. Zijn we op deze site niet gewend.
The scientific name should be: Populus
'Petrowskiana'. It is a clone, probably hybrid between Populus deltoides
and Populus laurifolia
Anyway, good that you measured it!
Maarten, do you measure with Nikon Forestry 550/Pro or what?
You mihgt be right. When I search the books and the Internet (f.i. USDA, Wiki sites orhttp://scholar.google.com) I see three variants: P. x petrowskiana, P. petrowskiana and P. "Petrowskiana" No doubt there will come more comments so we find the correct spelling. Then we ask Tim to change it, I cannot do it myself.
Yes, I use the Nikon 550 AS. This tree I measured from south-east side (A) and north side (B). Results A 31.60 + 1.40 =33.00 and B 32,40 + 1,80 = 34.20. Avarage = 33,60. A and B are the results of scanning the top a few times, not point & shoot, and more times pointing the foot of the tree.
Best Wishes, Maarten
About the picture from 1990: I removed it and asked a member of the board of the Dendrologian Seura (DS) to discuss my question to use that foto here. I think you know DS is updating the register of giants for a new publication.
Best wishes, Maarten
In my opinion, we could also accept P.
, but P. petrowskiana
is clearly wrong as it is not a species. A reason for the name confusion is that Finnish/Russian 'Petrowskiana' and North American petrowskiana seem to be different taxa. Canadian studies have shown that taxa called P.
'Rasumowskiana' and P.
have the same genetic composition and thus are synonyms; consequently they are not believed to be clones. However, these taxa in Finland are very distinct; even I can differentiate them. The Canadian studies have used Canadian material. Apparently the material has mixed when transported from Europe, maybe by early colonizers, who know. Finnish specialists have this opinion (Pentti Alanko said something like "when you see these taxa in other countries, you immediately see something is wrong"). In Finnland they are single clones, so 'Petrowskiana' would be the best in this case.
Good that you asked DS about the image. With who are you communicating? They recently visited the Netherlands and Belgium, did you meet them there?
Yes, I know they are updating the list.
Interesting facts about this tree and the differences on worldscale. I think we should follow Pentti Alanko's vision.
DS: Juha R., tree specialist at Helsinki Kaupunki. He is also in the board of DS.
'Britain's oldest tree', article in Daily Mail.
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?
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.
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....
Thank you for the reactions. This brings us further than Facebook where I found this 'news'.
Best wishes, Maarten
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?
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 :-(
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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,
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.
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).
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.
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.
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' :-).
I don't think anyone has added Yggdrasil
yet . . . but maybe?? ;-)
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
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
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: http://www.tim-online.nrw.de (or herehttp://www.geoserver.nrw.de).
Another must visit in the future
There is a majestic elm at Övraböke, Halmstad, Sweden, as reported by Lars G Andersson in 2011. He believes it to be a pollarded tree, now abandoned, with an impressive girth of 10,6 metres. Looks multistemmed but still quite a monumental specimen.
I hope to visit this location some day but it's a long trip for me so it's unknown when I get the opportunity. I thought I might share it with you if someone are in the neighbourhood for some reason...
Lars G Anderssons coordinates: https://www.google.se/maps/place/56%C2%B055'03.8%22N+12%C2%B054'13.7%22Efirstname.lastname@example.org,12.9037396,195m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0
Can be found athttp://www.tradportalen.se/Observations.aspx#
Good suggestion, thank you.
Few weeks ago on the way north, we were in Båstad for the "Suntelbuche" (Vresbok) in the Norrvikens trädgård. We passed Halmstad and the area were Övraböke is.
I found three Ulmus > 10 m girth on Trädportalen. One between Rumskilla and Bodnaryd which are both on my list for next week. It looks that the one near Eksjö is on private ground (Google Earth).
Don't know if I succeed in adding more trees om my list now, depends on more than my own intention. Let's see what happens. At least good to know so I can put them on my list anyway for future visits.
Kind regards, Maarten
Did you register the Suntelbuche/vresbok here?
Good luck in finding interesting trees on your journeys!
Not yet, coming soon. 2013 we visited two in Northern Ireland and 2009 one in Germany (MT 13135). Hannover (MT 3409) is on the list. See also Suntelbuche on de.wikipedia site.
Best whishes, Maarten
Ist der Umfang dieser starken Pappel auch nur geschätzt, ohne Messung? Ist es auch sicher eine Schwarzpappel?
freundliche Grüße aus Potsdam
Ich bin mir eigentlich ziemlich sicher das es eine Schwarzpappel ist, ich habe jetzt auch einige Bilder hochgeladen. Bei diesem Baum wurde von mir
ebenfalls nur geschätzt.
falls deine Umfangs-Schätzung, wie bei der Humboldteiche, auch hier über dem wirklichen Maß liegen sollte, ist deren Korrektur leider nur mit Hilfe des Administrators möglich. Besser wäre für die Zukunft du benutzt ein entsprechendes Bandmaß. Für eine Einschätzung der Pappel-Art sind die Fotos leider etwas unscharf und nicht sehr aussagekräftig.
Wenn deine Einschätzungen stimmen, wäre das die dickste S-Pappel in Berlin und Umgebung.
Trotzdem, laß dich durch meine kritischen Fragen nicht entmutigen. Dass du mich bitte nicht falsch verstehst.
viele Grüße Frank
Einschätzung bis zu hele oder halbe Meter kann ich mich noch denken. Einschätzung bis auf 10 cm kommt mir fremd vor. Wie machen Sie dass?
Dein Kommentar bezieht sich wohl auf die Angaben Christophers siehe Gustav-Holzmann-Str
viele grüße frank
Genau, jetzt steht dort 'ungefähr 7.00 meter' und nicht mehr '7.10 meter'.