Vous n'êtes pas connecté · connexion · régistrer
 
Ajoutez nouveau sujet

Discussions récentes

Plus...

Montrez seulement les discussions en français
Archives

Archives


chrishoh, à 2014-07-11 14:15:53, a dit:
Is this a Laurus?
Alberto Cuervo Flores, à 2014-07-11 15:01:27, a dit:
Magnificent tree!!, but I think not, the laurel has the shortest petiole.

M Wittenberg, à 2014-07-11 06:24:09, a dit:
Ein klasse Idee und eine schöne Ansicht,Danke !
Alberto Cuervo Flores, à 2014-07-11 09:28:25, a dit:
Dank M Wittenberg!!, der Stein ist kostenlos und reichlich. Dieser Baum ist wahrscheinlich Blick auf die Sterne seit 600 Jahren!!

M Wittenberg, à 2014-07-11 06:26:11, a dit:
Ein faszinierendes Bild,Danke !

Alberto Cuervo Flores, à 2014-07-10 18:25:06, a dit:
Es la de la derecha.

Is the right.


Alberto Cuervo Flores, à 2014-07-10 18:13:51, a dit:
La encina reportada es la de la derecha.

Reported the holm oak is right.


KoutaR, à 2014-07-10 09:18:02, a dit:
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!


KoutaR, à 2014-07-10 09:23:52, a dit:
Maarten, do you measure with Nikon Forestry 550/Pro or what?

Maarten Windemuller, à 2014-07-10 12:20:06, édité à 2014-07-10 12:22:12, a dit:
Hei Kouta,

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


Maarten Windemuller, à 2014-07-10 12:58:32, a dit:
Hei Kouta,

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


KoutaR, à 2014-07-10 14:02:04, a dit:
In my opinion, we could also accept P. x petrowskiana, 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. 'Petrowskiana', P. 'Rasumowskiana' and P. x berolinensis 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.


Maarten Windemuller, à 2014-07-10 14:21:10, édité à 2014-07-10 14:27:18, a dit:
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.



Conifers, à 2014-07-08 12:11:42, a dit:
Can you get some close-up photos of the foliage, please? The bark is completely wrong for Sorbus intermedia.
Frank Gyssling, à 2014-07-08 16:11:30, a dit:
That is fouls. It is a right fraxinus exelsior

geeting frank

Conifers, à 2014-07-08 18:01:14, a dit:
Danke!
Frank Gyssling, à 2014-07-10 12:10:48, a dit:

Conifers, à 2014-07-09 19:55:49, a dit:
A tamarisk Tamarix sp.
Han van Meegeren, à 2014-07-09 21:03:29, a dit:
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, à 2014-07-10 06:43:19, a dit:
sp. is not accepted at MT, it is probably T. gallica

M Wittenberg, à 2014-07-10 05:40:43, a dit:
Schon sehr beeindruckend,Danke !

TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, à 2013-11-15 19:19:03, a dit:
I think the photo may be of another of the several very tall Sequoiadendron in Diana's Grove, as the tallest was closely surrounded by even taller trees. The measurement was actually done with hypsometer, and not necessarily precise to the nearest half-metre.
Frank, à 2014-07-09 19:26:03, a dit:
Hello Treelovers,

I just found that this tree (no. 8457) has been removed from this site. Does this mean it doesn't exist anymore? Would be a real shame, since it seems to have sprung from seeds collected from the famous Grizzly Giant and belonged to the highest specimen in Europe. At least this is what I read here:http://www.treeblog.co.uk/viewtags.php?tag=Sequoiadendron_giganteum&p=1

Just curious to learn the reason for its removal...;-)

Best regards from Germany,

Frank


Maarten Windemuller, à 2014-07-09 17:03:47, a dit:
Surprise on a saturday afternoon. Did he welcome us or did he warn us?
Conifers, à 2014-07-09 17:19:59, a dit:
Kattuggla / Tawny Owl. Nice to see!

Maarten Windemuller, à 2014-07-09 17:06:10, a dit:
Taken from the south, a bit down the hill.

Maarten Windemuller, à 2014-07-09 17:05:12, a dit:
Hollow truck, you can look through.

Maarten Windemuller, à 2014-07-09 17:02:00, a dit:
The tree in it's environment.

Conifers, à 2014-07-09 14:02:38, a dit:
Ulmus glabra
Maarten Windemuller, à 2014-07-09 16:46:04, a dit:
Thank you.

Martin Tijdgat, à 2014-07-08 22:27:57, a dit:
Alberto,

Beautiful light in this picture.

But what is the reason for the ring of stones around the tree?

Martin

Alberto Cuervo Flores, à 2014-07-09 08:49:29, a dit:
Thank you very much again Martin.

I guess the ring of stones is a way of signaling or protect this pine. A tree is classified as singular in the autonomous community of Castile and Lion.

Greetings, Alberto.

Conifers, à 2014-07-09 11:04:02, a dit:
Nice tree! I edited the coordinates to place it on the tree (it was marked on a small shrub before! ;-))

Is the history of the tree known at all?

Alberto Cuervo Flores, à 2014-07-09 13:13:31, a dit:
ohh sorry, you have reason Conifers. The satellite view does not have much quality and I was confused because it marks a dirt road as unV, not know what that means. Is to the right of 3.3 km of road valdemaqueda AV-561 direction. The confusion was a few meters.

Thank you very much for flagging tree properly.

I dont know the history of this tree.

Gretings Alberto.


Sommer-Linde auf dem Friedhof in Kirchscheidungen in Kirchscheidungen
Visible pour tous · permalink · de
Tim, à 2014-07-09 07:27:04, a dit:
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

www.Rittergut-Kirchscheidungen.de



Conifers, à 2014-07-08 18:17:29, a dit:
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, à 2014-07-08 19:59:23, a dit:
I know this tree very well, it is Magnolia x soulangeana
Wim Brinkerink, à 2014-07-08 21:26:14, a dit:
Thank you both. I've changed it.

'Britain's oldest tree', article in Daily Mail.
Visible pour tous · permalink · en
Maarten Windemuller, à 2014-07-08 06:57:26, a dit:
On 7 july Daily Mail published an article about the 'oldest' tree of Brittain. http://goo.gl/zeRyhV

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


Conifers, à 2014-07-08 09:19:13, a dit:
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, à 2014-07-08 09:25:27, a dit:
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, à 2014-07-08 09:49:39, a dit:
Gentlemen,

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

Best wishes, Maarten


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

http://www.itv.com/news/wales/2014-07-07/is-a-powys-village-home-to-europes-oldest-tree/

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


Conifers, à 2014-07-08 18:00:37, a dit:
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 :-(


RedRob, à 2014-07-08 17:36:38, a dit:
This one slipped in under the radar, missed this one, superb tree Rainer.


RedRob, à 2014-07-08 17:29:27, a dit:
Unable to post a photo for this, posted the Lime photo ok then registered this tree and tried to upload a photo but none of the photo folders appear in the little window and I cannot get them to come up? Had this problem a few times recently, is it the site or some problem at my end?


KoutaR, à 2014-07-04 13:57:37, a dit:
Sisley,

Was this tree really climbed on 2013-06-20 and is 57,7 m really achieved by tape drop? If I recall correctly, the height was first over 58 m and you corrected it after we said the height must be measured to the average ground level, not to the lowest ground level.


Sisley, à 2014-07-04 19:12:04, a dit:
Yes he was achieved by tape drop by the team of climbers in june 2013.

My first measure was made by laser and she was wrong because the I taked the lowest point of the trunk base.


KoutaR, à 2014-07-04 19:28:08, a dit:
Thanks, Sisley!

I proposed in the case of the Oak of Ivenack (chêne pédonculé (Quercus robur) '1758') that if a tree has been measured by a reliable method (tape or laser), height measurements made by an unreliable method should not be added.

It is an equivalent case with this tree. Tape measurement has been universally considered as the most accurate and reliable method. I propose that a laser-measurement should not be added if a former tape measurement proves that the laser-measurement is inaccurate like in this case. Or is the top broken?


Rainer Lippert, à 2014-07-04 19:57:20, a dit:
Hallo Kouta und Sisley,

entscheidend bei Tape-Drop ist aber auch, wie genau der Nullpunkt unten gemessen wurde. Steht der Baum am Hang, kann das schon eine Differenz ausmachen, wenn man unten ohne genauem Messgerät den Nullpunkt bestimmt. Und auch oben können beim Tape-Drop noch Probleme auftreten, den tatsächlich höchsten Trieb zu erwischen. Karlheinz ist hier zweimal hochgeklettert:http://www.monumentaltrees.com/de/bericht/1027/

Beidemal hatten wir da die Probleme bei der Abtastung der Spitze. Also auch da kann es zu Fehlern kommen. Also nicht zwingend muss Tape-Drop die genaueste Messung darstellen. Das Equipment von Karlheinz, also TruPulse 200X auf Stativ zur Spitze und Basis, und Leica Disto D8 vom Stativ aus zur Nullpunktbestimmung, sehe ich schon als sehr genau an. Eventuell genauer als Tape-Drop, wo nicht bekannt ist, wie exakt der Nullpunkt unten bestimmt worden ist und wie sich oben die Spitzenabtastung gestaltete.

Viele Grüße,

Rainer


KoutaR, à 2014-07-04 20:21:16, édité à 2014-07-04 20:22:06, a dit:
Sisley, could you ask the measurers, how they defined the average ground level? Did they measure or estimate it? If estimated, that can really make an error, though likely not 1.4 m.

I believe it that Karlheinz had problems with measuring the top in tape measurement - one year ago he had no idea how to do that, until Michael Spraggon explained it to him.

The distance measuring of the 200X and Disto is undoubtely top-accurate, but the angle measurement not so. It may result in a ~50 cm error. We have already discussed this and the measurement gurus of NTS (Bob Leverett) have indirectly confirmed it.


Karlheinz, à 2014-07-04 20:52:39, a dit:
The sequoias in Ribeauvillé and Niederbronn I measured about one to two meters less in height than my predecessors. That surprises me a lot. I have no explanation. The measurement conditions especially at the trees '12175 'and '8217' were good. I had a clear view simultaneously to the tree top and to a marker nearby the base. The measurement was performed with TruPulse 200X on tripod.

greetings, Karlheinz


Karlheinz, à 2014-07-04 22:29:30, a dit:
Kouta, your statement about accuracy of angle measurement with TruPulse 200X and Leica Disto D8 I can not confirm. In my earlier tests both clinometers matched very accurate. The measurement accuracy of the TruPulse is rather limited by the width of the laser beam, which does not allow pinpoint accuracy aiming at small targets.

Sisley, where is your home location? Maybe we could once meet somewhere in the middle, and together measure a tall tree.

Karlheinz


KoutaR, à 2014-07-05 06:18:23, a dit:
http://www.ents-bbs.org/viewtopic.php?f=235&t=5517&start=20

Message #30 and onwards.


KoutaR, à 2014-07-05 06:33:59, a dit:
One possible explanation is that Pierron & Thomas have measured the tree to the lowest ground level like Sisley did at the beginning. Sisley, what do you think about this? Is it a usual way in France to measure trees to the lowest ground level = "low slope point"?

Sisley, à 2014-07-05 19:38:55, a dit:
Hi, all poeple !

I know that the climbers measure from the top to the middle slop point.

L.Pierron said me his method, and my first measure of the sequoia of Ribeauvillé was 58,10 m at the low trunk point.

If I subtract approximately 0,75 m to join the middle slop point we find 57,35 m.

For the mapple tree it maybe possible that the real tope was not targeted ? I know, it was not obvious to found him without the leaves, therefore with the top is more hidden.

The tallest Douglas of Ribeauvillé was measured by tape of drop, 60,5 m, I found 62 m(measure not changed in page)and I see, Karlheinz found 61,5 m. The difference is not very important.

And for the trees near Niederbronn, my results were not so good, it was the first measures with laser and I did'nt have take the middle slop point.

The more important point that I see for the mistakes, is that I don't have pattern surveyor to set against the trunk.

In many situations this object would have helped me.


Karlheinz, à 2014-07-05 22:13:50, a dit:
Last year I was in Ribeauvillé just on the go with Nikon. I had no other measurement equipment here. I did not think the readings for accurate enough to be entered into the data field for measurement. Only at the tallest Douglas of Ribeauvillé I brought a height value in the caption of the photo.

This year, I've come back, have brought my entire equipment and have done my best in the measurement. For base-determination on the slope ground I used the Leica Disto D8. As difference between low and high slope point at the sequoia of Ribeauvillé I determined 1.40 m, not much different from Sisley.


KoutaR, à 2014-07-06 08:30:53, a dit:
Without seeing the tree, I guess the difference is partly a consequence of different interpretations of the highest and lowest ground levels. On a steep slope it can make a big difference. And it is largely not up to used device but just interpretation.

In addition, the clinometer error of the 200X (max. +/-0.2° according to the user manual) may explain a part of the difference. Note that even if the device gives repeated the same angle, it does not mean the angle is correct. If my "one metre long" tape measure is too long, it gives repeated the same result but it is not correct.


Karlheinz, à 2014-07-06 10:51:02, a dit:
Kouta, I know that you think your Nikon 550 for the best instrument in the world! And I guess, Sisley also measures with Nikon, is that right? In the manual of my Nikon 550 I find no specification for clinometer error. Do you really think a manufacturer that conceals the error tolerance of his unit, has the higher quality sensor? The readings with Nikon have a greater range of variation compared to Leica and TruPulse and they are more dependent on interpretation by the measurer.

The Nikon is for our purposes certainly a recommendable device. But we should not expect any accuracy that can not give the unit. The competition between European record trees which are only a few decimeters apart is hardly to decide with Nikon.


KoutaR, à 2014-07-06 15:06:54, édité à 2014-07-06 15:08:41, a dit:
It is very clear that all the TruPulses are more accurate than Nikon. I have never denied it. But here we were comparing 200X vs. tape. Everybody can do a bit trigonometry and calculate how big height error can -0.2° error at the base and a +0.2° error at the top (the worst case) make. One could think that if the distance measurement is centimetre precise, height measuring is centimetre precise, too. I also believed so at first - for example, I wrote "Disto gives accurate distances to the nearest centimetre, so using a reference point did not decrease the accuracy" in my report about the tallest beech (http://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/report/772/). But the clinometers of these devices are simply not accurate enough for that accuracy. Karlheinz, could it be time to accept that. In Finland much cited is a statement of a former president: "the beginning of all the wisdom is the confession of the facts". And I am not speaking for Nikon, which is, of course, less accurate and less reliable. I would buy 200X, too, if it was much less than 1000€. I am ready to give 2000€ for a good camera but measuring is simply not important enough for me and has recently become still less important due to this like disputes.

Karlheinz, à 2014-07-07 09:25:34, a dit:
Tape drop as well as instrument measurements, both can be accurate or inaccurate. That depends very much on the care is measured by, how favorable are the measuring conditions in the individual case, and how accurate are the measuring devices. I can not say from the outset that a particular measurement method always results in the most accurate value. If all conditions are optimal, I would prefer the tape-drop measurement result to a Trupulse 200X measurement, presumed when tape drop it is possible to determine the residual height to treetop safely.

For Koutas presumption of an influential inaccuracy of the 200X tilt sensor there is no confirmation, not even in the forums of the NTS (ent-bbs.org). In my estimation, the fault tolerance of the TruPulse 200X is not based on the tilt sensor, but on the wide laser beam when it impinges on inclined or uneven surfaces. Who wants to know more about how I judge the accuracy of my instruments, can read about it in my article in the Bulletin of ENTS, Volume 9, 2014 "Testing Three Different Range Finder With Built in inclinometer": http://www.nativetreesociety.org/bulletin/b9_1-2/B_ENTS_v09_01&02.pdf


KoutaR, à 2014-07-07 11:50:59, a dit:
The source or "confirmation" for the tilt sensor accuracy/inaccuracy was the user manual. You once gave me this info yourself. Why I referred to the NTS forum was that you first claimed the tilt sensor error is always the same, thus the error at the treetop would counteract the error at the base. Then Bob said it implies to the mechanical clinometers only, and after that you stopped to claim that. Disto's tilt sensor accuracy is actually lower than that of 200X: -0.2°/+0.3° outside the room temperature, according to the user manual. You have not tested the tilt sensors yourself.

A wide beam is a further error source, indeed. (Yes, applies to Nikon, too.)

200X and Disto are great instruments without doubt, but they also have their limits. You once said the other measurers will hate you because you have better instruments. I don't think that is true. It is great that you have them and make accurate measurements. But it is strange that you sometimes make statements that are based on nothing being essentially "religious".


KoutaR, à 2014-07-08 07:44:11, a dit:
I found the old email of Karlheinz. The tilt sensor error of 200X is +/- 0.1 degrees "typical". Only Leica's user manual tolds how much adds low or high temperature. So this was my mistake.

RedRob, à 2014-07-08 17:09:19, a dit:
I thought that a 58 metre Sequoiadendron had been reported on here, a Scottish tree measurer called Chic Henderson recently measured the Sequoiadendron at Benmore as 56.4 metres which looked like the second tallest in Europe which I just couldn't re-find on here?


Arbre passion, à 2014-07-07 18:18:50, a dit:
you're sure it is not a Liriodendron chinense

Sisley, à 2014-07-07 18:35:14, a dit:
Maybe it's a grefted specimen at the low trunk point. A Liriodendron tulipidera on a Liriodendron chinensis ?..

Rainer Lippert, à 2014-07-07 19:51:05, a dit:
Hallo,

laut Parkbeschreibung soll es sich um Liriodendron tulipifera handeln. Steht auch so auf dem Schild am Stamm. Im Internet gibt es auch zahlreiche Hinweise dazu. Hier eine Beschreibung vom Park. Auf Seite 2 die Nummer 1: https://www.uni-hohenheim.de/fileadmin/uni_hohenheim/Intranet_MA/Zentrales_Marketing/Broschueren/Hohenheimer_Gaerten/Baumveteranen_Schmuckgehoelze_2013.pdf

Die Blätter sind tatsächlich sehr tief gelappt, was eher für Liriodendron chinense sprechen würde. Ich Frage mal Conifers, was er dazu meint.

Viele Grüße,

Rainer


Conifers, à 2014-07-07 20:22:00, a dit:
Hallo Rainer,

Thanks for the query! Unfortunately, leaf shape is not a reliable distinction between the two; both species are variable, with extensive overlap in shape. The only reliable difference is in the flowers, green with an orange spot on each tepal in L. tulipifera and all-green in L. chinense.

However, there is one other important point with this tree that gives us a safe conclusion: the planting date of 1779. L. chinense was only introduced to the West in 1901, so therefore this tree has to be L. tulipifera.


Rainer Lippert, à 2014-07-08 16:46:38, a dit:
Hallo Conifers,

danke für die Antwort. Das mit dem Alter ist ein gutes Argument. Demnach handelt es sich zweifelsfrei um Liriodendron tulipifera.

Danke und viele Grüße,

Rainer



Zelf mammoetbomen kweken
Visible pour tous · permalink · nl
Thorgal, à 2014-07-08 11:11:47, a dit:
Ik heb zelf een drietal giganteums opgekweekt uit zaad vorig jaar. In augustus zijn ze opgekomen.

Ze moeten alle drie een plek krijgen in mijn tuin dus wil er alles aan doen om ze te laten overleven. Ik was al heel erg blij dat de miniscule plantjes de winter zijn doorgekomen. De grootste is nu 21 cm. Hij groeit erg hard. Ik heb ze ook alle in volle zon staan. De zon heeft de afgelopen maanden relatief veel geschenen, ze kunnen er dus prima tegen lijkt het.

Ik zit met de vraag wanneer deze nu het beste definitief de grond in kan. Zou dat eind van deze zomer al kunnen of moet ik nog 1 of meerdere zomers wachten? Kan een winter nu funest zijn voor een 1 jaar oude boom?

Ik had ook al begrepen dat slakken er niert vies van zijn. Klopt dat, zijn deze een gevaar als de boompjes jong zijn. Vraag is dus wanneer ze definitief en veilig naar buiten kunnen. Wat is je advies?



Conifers, à 2014-07-07 15:48:03, a dit:
Looks like it may be dying, perhaps from blister rust Cronartium ribicola.

Frank Gyssling, à 2014-07-07 09:21:34, a dit:
Abwertung

Er hat wieder schnell reagiert – Wertung vermutlich < 1. Im Besonderen, aber nicht ausschließlich, die Blutbuchen haben es ihm angetan ;-). Dabei sind sie schon seit dem 15. Jahrhundert bekannt, ursprünglich unter dem Namen Fagus sylvatica f. atro-punicea (s. Wekipedia), und vermutlich damals eine natürliche Mutation. Heute zieren Blut-Buchen zahlreiche Landschaftsgärten in Europa, oft als herrliche Solitär-Bäume und „point de vue“. Warum hasst dieser Mensch diese Bäume so und scheut den Diskurs darüber?

Viele Grüße Frank

Devaluation

He again responded quickly - Evaluation probably <1 In particular, but not exclusively, the copper beeches have it done to him;-). They are already known since the 15th century, originally under the name Fagus sylvatica f atro-punicea (see Wekipedia), and probably at that time a natural mutation. Today beeches adorn numerous landscape gardens in Europe, often as beautiful solitaire trees and "point de vue". Why this man hates these trees so afraid and the discourse about it?

Greetings Frank


Martin Tijdgat, à 2014-07-06 10:03:31, a dit:
Maarten,

Wat heb je de sfeer van deze boom mooi gevat. Dank je wel voor deze foto!

Maarten Windemuller, à 2014-07-06 15:55:50, édité à 2014-07-06 15:58:49, a dit:
Hei Martin,

Dank je. Fototechnisch gezien zijn dit lastige bomen. Weinig licht en ruimte, daarbij regende het ook. Met een FL van 24 mm en cropfactor 1.6 had ik hier 8 foto's nodig. Er staat nog een andere 'trollenbeuk' op dit terrein. Daar kan ik nog geen bruikbare foto van selecteren. Ten oosten van Lund is een Trollenbos, waar dit soort trollenbeuken van nature voorkomen. Die in dat bos zijn hoger en bij zonnig weer zijn de lichtomstandigheden beter. Zie ook http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%BCntel-Buche

Groet, Maarten


Conifers, à 2014-07-05 22:49:04, a dit:
Gleditsia triacanthos

Gymnocladus has much larger, broader leaflets

Martin Tijdgat, à 2014-07-06 09:45:07, a dit:
Wim,

I agree with Conifers. I planted gymnoclades in the "Rozenhof" in Kortenhoef a few years ago. It has thicker and longer twigs and different leafs.

Wim Brinkerink, à 2014-07-06 11:51:35, a dit:
Thank you both, I will change it.

Martin Tijdgat, à 2014-07-06 09:52:45, a dit:
Bess,

Ik bezocht Willemstad lang geleden. Toen stonden er onderaan de grondwallen langs de vestinggracht enorme Robinia's. Heb je die niet meer aangetroffen of ben je daar niet geweest? Ik ben al tijden van plan die vestingwerken nog eens te bezoeken, vandaar dat ik het je vraag.

Bess, à 2014-07-06 11:07:23, a dit:
Dag Martin,

Ik zal er nog eens opnieuw naartoe moeten varen dan! Ik ben er ofwel voorbijgewandeld, ofwel heb ik toch niet heel de wal afgewandeld. Mijn oog voor Carpinus is wel iets scherper dan dat voor Robinia. Heel mooi bomen stadje. Ook heel wat typische linde laantjes en de berceau naar de kerk toe… .

Groeten!


Rainer Lippert, à 2014-07-05 14:32:30, a dit:
Hallo,

handelt es sich hier vielleicht um Acer cappadocicum?

Viele Grüße,

Rainer

Conifers, à 2014-07-05 17:57:41, a dit:
Yes, Acer cappadocicum.
Rainer Lippert, à 2014-07-06 07:02:04, a dit:
Danke für die Bestätigung.

Viele Grüße,

Rainer


Rainer Lippert, à 2014-07-03 17:11:16, a dit:
Hallo,

könnte es sich hier um Catalpa ovata handeln?

Viele Grüße,

Rainer

Conifers, à 2014-07-05 18:09:17, édité à 2014-07-05 18:10:46, a dit:
Leaf shape looks to fit Catalpa × erubescens (C. ovata × C. bignonioides) better; C. ovata has more deeply lobed leaves.

Edit: Can you get photos of the flowers?

Rainer Lippert, à 2014-07-06 07:01:36, a dit:
Hallo Conifers,

weitere Detailbilder habe ich leider nicht. Ich habe es jetzt mal in Catalpa × erubescens abgeändert.

Danke und viele Grüße,

Rainer


imarixus, à 2014-07-05 19:14:12, a dit:
Who's that girl?

Bess, à 2014-07-04 14:08:58, a dit:
Is there a clear difference between 'Atropunicea' and 'Purpurea'… I added them as 'Atropunicea' cause it seems more common… . That might be wrong!
Maarten Windemuller, à 2014-07-04 20:57:55, édité à 2014-07-05 09:53:19, a dit:
Dendrologie van de Lage Landen, 1e druk (= 14e druk van 'Nederlandse Dendrologie', dr. K.B. Boom), uitgave 2009 zegt hierover: 'Atropunicea'(F.s. atropurpurea [Kirchn]., F.s. purpurea [Aiton]), verzamelnaam voor alle bruine beuken; afzonderlijke klonen hieruit zijn .... etc..

Purpurea wordt niet meer genoemd.

Bess, à 2014-07-05 18:04:39, a dit:
Thanks!

Frank Gyssling, à 2014-07-05 16:23:32, a dit:
Abwertung

Er hat wieder schnell reagiert – Wertung vermutlich < 1. Im Besonderen, aber nicht ausschließlich, die Blutbuchen haben es ihm angetan ;-). Dabei sind sie schon seit dem 15. Jahrhundert bekannt, ursprünglich unter dem Namen Fagus sylvatica f. atro-punicea (s. Wekipedia), und vermutlich damals eine natürliche Mutation. Heute zieren Blut-Buchen zahlreiche Landschaftsgärten in Europa, oft als herrliche Solitär-Bäume und „point de vue“. Warum hasst dieser Mensch diese Bäume so und scheut den Diskurs darüber?

Viele Grüße Frank

Devaluation

He again responded quickly - Evaluation probably <1 In particular, but not exclusively, the copper beeches have it done to him;-). They are already known since the 15th century, originally under the name Fagus sylvatica f atro-punicea (see Wekipedia), and probably at that time a natural mutation. Today beeches adorn numerous landscape gardens in Europe, often as beautiful solitaire trees and "point de vue". Why this man hates these trees so afraid and the discourse about it?

Greetings Frank


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

Conifers, à 2014-06-08 12:31:56, a dit:
I'd agree with that.

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

Rainer Lippert, à 2014-06-08 19:59:57, a dit:
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,

Rainer


Martin Tijdgat, à 2014-06-11 17:51:09, a dit:
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, à 2014-06-11 19:54:32, a dit:
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,

Rainer


KoutaR, à 2014-06-12 07:25:42, a dit:
Hallo,

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, à 2014-06-12 10:03:11, a dit:
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, à 2014-06-12 17:47:25, a dit:
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,

Rainer


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

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

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

Rainer Lippert, à 2014-07-05 15:56:35, a dit:
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,

Rainer



MonumentalTrees.com · Register
Visible pour tous · permalink · en
ulmusenthu2, à 2014-07-02 20:15:04, a dit:
Dear Sir,

I have loads of records of elm, not just in UK, but also in Australia, USA and Canada. I would like to share some of the details with you and indeed some of the pictures that go with them. Let me know if you are interested. Peter Bourne


Wim Brinkerink, à 2014-07-02 20:52:09, a dit:
Hi.. On this site there are a lot of interested people. They all share a love for trees. Some call it treehuggers. Feel free to upload what you have... You're welcome.

I am curious to see what you have.

Kind regards

Wim


Jeroen Philippona, à 2014-07-04 22:26:16, édité à 2014-07-04 22:28:57, a dit:
Hello Peter,

It would be very nice if you upload record elms of several species and cultivars, especially if you measured and photographed them yourself.

Do you have record elms from the UK wich have not been registrated by the Tree Register of the British Isles?

Regards,

Jeroen Philippona



Wim Brinkerink, à 2014-07-04 12:56:33, a dit:
Juli 2014

Bess, à 2014-07-04 12:33:28, a dit:
Zomer 2014. Men bouwt vlakbij de boom een nieuwe vleugel van het rusthuis. Hopelijk hoeft de boom er niet onder te lijden.

Alberto Cuervo Flores, à 2014-07-03 06:00:33, a dit:
¿ No hay arboles en tu pais ?
Jeroen Philippona, à 2014-07-03 21:17:47, édité à 2014-07-03 21:20:06, a dit:
Hi Alberto,

Quercus pyrenaica is not native in the Netherlands and Belgium, but perhaps there are a few trees of this species in special arboreta.

Quercus pyrenaica no es nativo de los Países Bajos y Bélgica, pero tal vez hay algunos árboles de esta especie en arboretos especial.

Jeroen

Alberto Cuervo Flores, à 2014-07-03 22:41:23, a dit:
Hi Jeroen,

Thank you very much for translating to the Spanish.

Yes, I think what the difference with Quercus robur is that pyrenaica needs dry season to develop correctly. In my house, in Galicia (Atlantic climate) I planted, Quercus ilex, faginea and pyrenaica, and i do not know if will grow well. (Although also influence soil) such faginea prefers calcareous soils. And in Galicia predominate siliceous soils.

Thanks and sorry for my english.

Alberto.


RedRob, à 2014-07-01 16:34:44, a dit:
Superb trees Karlheinz and Rainer, the Sycamore has a great profile, upright growth form (to my taste anway), so does the 33.5 metre Sweet Chestnut. It looks a very good area for tall trees, expecting to find any taller here, Sweet Chestnuts or Sycamores?

Rainer Lippert, à 2014-07-01 17:19:19, a dit:
Hallo RedRob,

dort gibt es ausergewöhnlich viele hohe Bäume. Im Arboretum dort gibt es über 1.000 verschiedene Baumarten. Da gibt es bestimmt noch so einige Rekorde, die wir aber nicht alle gefunden haben. Alleine an Douglasien schätze ich dort bestimmt mehr als 50 Bäume mit mehr als 60 m Höhe. Eigentlich der gesamte Bestand um die Waldtraut ist über 60 m hoch. Das ist einmalig in Deutschland.

Viele Grüße,

Rainer


RedRob, à 2014-07-03 16:41:46, édité à 2014-07-03 16:42:52, a dit:
Quote Rainer 'there are ausergewöhnlich many tall trees. In the Arboretum there are over 1,000 different species of trees. There are certainly quite a few records, but we did not all have been found. Alone at Douglas I guess there certainly more than 50 trees over 60 m in height. Actually, the entire contents to the Waldtraut is about 60 m high. This is unique in Germany'

RedRob-Sounds a very impressive collection and one to visit in Germany.

Kouta seems to be quiet at the moment, must be on a measuring expedition somewhere or other?


Rainer Lippert, à 2014-07-03 16:51:11, a dit:
Hallo RedRob,

ja, speziell was es Douglasien angeht, ist der Ort für Deutschland außergewöhnlich. Karlheinz und ich waren schon in Emmendingen und Ebersbach, wo bis vor zehn Jahren noch der jeweils höchste Baum Deutschlands hergekommen ist, bevor es die Waldtraut in Freiburg wurde. Dort stehen nur einzelne Douglasien, und die kommen nur knapp über die 60 m. Und in Freiburg hat der komplette Bestand mehr als 60 m. Im März und auch dieses mal haben wir wohl noch so zehn Douglasien mit 62 oder 63 m gemessen gehabt. Aber die haben uns nicht weiter interessiert.

Ob Kouta derzeit unterwegs ist weiß ich nicht.

Viele Grüße,

Rainer



RedRob, à 2014-07-03 16:33:46, a dit:
Britain and Ireland champion and current tallest measured in Europe. Has this one been under suspicion Owen of being the tallest and simply needed re-measuring or is this a completely new find for you?


RedRob, à 2014-07-03 16:28:17, a dit:
Hello Andre, thank you for posting these photographs, excellent photos, really gives an impression of the size of the trees and also the setting. The man climbing the tree looks very small indeed.


Alberto Cuervo Flores, à 2014-07-03 15:33:11, a dit:
Great fhoto! I like it !!

Leo Goudzwaard, à 2014-07-03 09:05:45, a dit:
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+


ulmusenthu2, à 2014-07-02 20:20:44, a dit:
Dear Sir,

The largest of any Ulmus x hollandica 'Vegeta' is in Prospect Park, Brooklyn, New York, USA. It is bigger than any I have seen on the net, in the field or any historical text. I do believe the NY Parks have measured it, but as yet I still haven't got the statistics. It can be seen on Streetview along with some very fine Ulmus hybrids from east Anglia and possible Ulmus plotii too. Incidently Ulmus plotii is planted in Australia around Tumut and Gundagai Shires.


Martin Tijdgat, à 2014-07-03 00:01:07, a dit:
There is a big example of the Huntingdon elm in the Netherlands at Breda, Wilhelminapark. Bigger ones are measured by Owen Johnstone at Queen's college, Cambridge, U.K.


ulmusenthu2, à 2014-07-02 20:51:41, a dit:
Ulmus wallichiana was planted in Brighton in the 1960's. Collected from the Himalayas by Prof's Hans Heybroek and Robert Melville the tree was cloned in Holland and sent to England where some of the trees were again transported to brighton. Hundreds were planted but only 60 survive today. The largest are at Longhill School, Rottingdean, Brighton. Elsewhere I only know of one tree in Kew RBG, Greater London.

Martin Tijdgat, à 2014-07-02 23:34:25, a dit:
A direct descendent of the first U. wallichiana trees of Hans Heijbroek is growing in the Beemster Arboretum just north of Amsterdam in The Netherlands. You can find it as number 17669 on MT. I am growing some seedlings from this tree


U. cultivar
Visible pour tous · permalink · en
ulmusenthu2, à 2014-07-02 20:48:35, a dit:
Ulmus 'Lobel, 'Dodoens' and Plantijn' are widely planted now. Australia, New Zealand and even Eastern Europe sell the tree readily. I have seen examples all over the UK and Ireland. Ulmus 'Lobel' was first planted in Brighton and Hove as Ulmus '454' I do believe and some of these trees are still growing in parks and streets of central Brighton and Hove. There are examples all over Greater London and also in Hampshire.


ulmusenthu2, à 2014-07-02 20:40:51, a dit:
Ulmus minor ssp angustifolia is becoming scarce now in the UK. A few lucky trees still survive in South west Cornwall. In East Sussex there are around 30-40 trees in Brighton and Hove; and a smaller population in East Sussex. There are trees in lines in Bright (Victoria, Australia); an avenue north of the City Cemetery in Melbourne (all of one clone) and some in other towns dotted around Australia. It seems to be abscent from New Zealand; but a few trees survive in North-west USA and possibly British Colombia, Canada. There are one or two in Edinburgh, Scotland also.


American elm
Visible pour tous · permalink · en
ulmusenthu2, à 2014-07-02 20:34:18, a dit:
Ulmus americana cultivars are still frequent in the North-east of the USA in Oregon and Washington States. There are many conical Dutch elm cultivars there too (namely in Portland, Oregon). Ulmus americana 'Beeb's Weeping' is still in some gardens and other much rarer trees including the golden leaved 'Aurea'. Ulmus americana also appears in Traralogan, Victoria, Australia and a huge tree can be found in Harrietville, NSW which may be Australia's largest. Generally however Ulmus americana is rare in Australia. There are several small trees in Canterbury County in New Zealand and in Canada some big trees can still be found in Winnipeg. Avenues are found in Quebec and Ontario although DED is making its to them slowly but surely.


ulmusenthu2, à 2014-07-02 20:28:11, a dit:
Ulmus procera is still common in Australia where there are some huge trees awaiting the tape in Bright (Victoria), Gundagai (NSW) and Tumut (NSW). It is widely seen in Melbourne and very tall in the south of Australia in Victoria state. There is an Ulmus procera in Lewes Road Brighton which is bigger than the Royal Pavilion Gardens tree and one other in Gundagai (NSW, Australia) which comes a very close second as the world's largest. A tree at the village of Norton, near Seaford, East Sussex recently died of old age with a girth of 170cm in diameter; it's shell can be seen behind Rose Cottage. There are trees in Scotland, the tallest known is there. There are also trees in New Zealand, New York State, Colorado, Australia and Malta to name but a few. I also have a photograph of the Crawley elm which was the largest ever recorded, taken a decade or two before it fell apart due to decay in the 1930's. The Crawley elm was over 40 feet round at the end of its life.


Dutch elm
Visible pour tous · permalink · en
ulmusenthu2, à 2014-07-02 20:17:19, a dit:
Dear Sir,

Largest of all Dutch elm (Ulmus x hollandica 'Major' is in Ballarat Sports Ground, Victoria, Australia. It is much bigger than anything else to date. Pictures can be found on the Australian Tree Register website along with measurement details.

Peter Bourne



RedRob, à 2014-07-01 17:27:52, a dit:
Abit of a funny experience on my visit here, just around the right bend in the photo there were Police vans parked and Police with sniffer dogs all over the place. Any idea Conifers what might have been going on Wed 11th June, anything on local news? I didn't get a chance to measure around there but measured a number of trees at this end of the avenue, 35 metres was the tallest that I recorded. They all looked pretty even in height, there may have been some taller than 35 metres further up but not by very much I would say if any.

RedRob, à 2014-07-02 17:22:22, a dit:
Thanks Conifers, just moved the marker to the exact spot. Judging from the shadows I measured at the area where the trees were tallest, the end down from where all the coppers were.


RedRob, à 2014-07-02 17:15:06, édité à 2014-07-02 17:15:56, a dit:
Hello Aubrey, is this Cedar on here anywhere?

http://www.treecouncil.ie/heritagetrees/aaspecies.htm

Would like to see a photograph of this one at Powerscourt. (and many more)



RedRob, à 2014-07-01 17:14:50, a dit:
Hello Owen, definitely worth visiting Loch Ken to measure these trees, they looked quite impressive in the Geograph photos but are more impressive in reality. The line with the 56 metre are along the road on the Loch side which makes them look even more impressive. Quite a tight angle to measure up as little room to get back so I may not have it that top and some of the trees could be abit taller still but I don't think any will be 60 metres yet.


GPS Daten korrigieren
Visible pour tous · permalink · de
baumlaeufer, à 2014-06-30 23:30:37, a dit:
Hallo zusammen

habe bislang nur als Nutzer die Daten abgegriffen, um Bäume zu besuchen. Bei meinem Spanienurlaub habe ich versucht diesen Baum ... siehe unten ...zu finden, er stand aber definitiv nicht dort.

nur leider kann ich die GPS daten nicht ändern, muß man sich hier erst gewisse Rechte durch Beiträge erarbeiten ?

Stieleiche '13378' auf dem monte rio los vados, Ucieda

Baumlaeufer


Martin Tijdgat, à 2014-07-01 00:43:20, a dit:
Could not find this tree on the map. Also could not find the name of "rio los vados" near that village. Maybe wrong data?

Did find via google a big tree with a similar name "Roble gordo de montemediano"


baumlaeufer, à 2014-07-01 10:49:19, a dit:
"Roble gordo de montemediano" is definitly somewhere in an other region

Baumlaeufer



Martin Tijdgat, à 2014-06-30 18:07:16, a dit:
Wauw, what a beautiful light in this picture, great colors!
Frank Gyssling, à 2014-07-01 08:43:36, a dit:
Tank you for your friendly compliment. I take this foto ever then 2013. Is was by the evening light.

best wishes frank


Martin Tijdgat, à 2014-07-01 00:05:14, a dit:
Alberto, what a fine tree!
Alberto Cuervo Flores, à 2014-07-01 07:21:52, a dit:
Thanks Martin!!

Leo Goudzwaard, à 2014-06-24 07:14:28, a dit:
Acer saccharinum

Conifers, à 2014-06-24 15:58:46, a dit:
Ditto to Acer saccharinum

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


Viele Grüße,

Rainer


Martin Tijdgat, à 2014-06-25 05:28:31, a dit:
Rainer,

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


Conifers, à 2014-06-25 09:15:17, a dit:
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, à 2014-06-25 09:46:32, a dit:
Conifers,

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

Conifers, à 2014-06-25 10:40:23, édité à 2014-06-25 10:43:33, a dit:
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, à 2014-06-25 16:28:34, a dit:
Hallo zusammen!

Ich habe es entsprechend abgeändert.

Danke und viele Grüße,

Rainer


Conifers, à 2014-06-27 21:02:44, a dit:
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, à 2014-06-29 19:12:20, a dit:
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,

Rainer


Conifers, à 2014-06-30 17:50:32, a dit:
Danke!


youen, à 2014-06-29 21:09:30, a dit:
le nom est kauri (Agathis australis)et pas kaori

Conifers, à 2014-06-29 22:23:25, a dit:
Picked up from French Wikipedia, I guess. Maybe it should be corrected there too?


Rayn, à 2014-06-29 11:01:54, a dit:
Such a beautiful photo!
Wim Brinkerink, à 2014-06-29 16:01:22, a dit:
Thank. I myself was amazed that I have shot this.

Rayn, à 2014-06-29 10:58:51, a dit:
Blurry and mist on the lens due to rain :(

Rayn, à 2014-06-29 10:50:44, a dit:
Rain gave very blurry photos :(

Martin Tijdgat, à 2014-06-29 06:22:27, a dit:
Er is een hele groep Liriodendrons aanwezig. Enkelen zijn, wellicht door bliksem getroffen of door stormen beschadigd, gereduceerd tot levende stompen van een meter of 4 hoog. In de directe omgeving vormt zich een heel bosje met zaailingen van diverse leeftijden. Deze zijn de natuurlijke verjonging voor de oude verdwijnende exemplaren.


Michel Riepen, à 2014-06-28 16:02:40, a dit:
test,

Michel



Michel Riepen, à 2014-06-28 15:34:15, a dit:
Hallo Hans,

We hebben deze boom ook staan bewonderen. Maar weet je zeker dat dit een Amerikaanse eik is, de blaadjes leken me nogal klein. Zou het ook een moeraseik kunnen zijn?

Groeten,

Michel Riepen



RedRob, à 2014-06-27 15:44:48, a dit:
A break from Glenlee. Couldn't get near enough to 100% identify this group but could clearly see the base of the tallest with the laser. This is group is the tallest group that I saw driving all around Kielder, a forestry worker I met earlier said that trees are only left to grow to this size in public areas like this so these are almost certainly the tallest in Kielder I would say and he thought. The massive majority of trees in Kielder are Sitka, measured many as I went around. I took these as older, rounder headed Sitka Spruce, the base that I could see did look Sitkaish but I am not sure enough. An ident is needed?

Conifers, à 2014-06-27 21:04:54, a dit:
Hi Rob,

Which tree do you mean? I'm seeing Picea sitchensis, Picea abies, and Pseudotsuga menziesii, all mixed in these photos.


Conifers, à 2014-06-27 21:07:32, a dit:
Addenum: I've also moved the map marker from the open moor to where I think you mean, but I'm not certain I've got exactly the right place.

RedRob, à 2014-06-28 09:13:44, a dit:
Hello Conifers, absolutely spot on with the location marker, exact tree, excellent judgement. They are Douglas Fir, wasn't 100% sure as everything was Sitka and didn't see another Douglas stand anywhere in the forest. Thought that they might be mature flatter topped Sitka but Douglas they are. The 41 metre Sitka looks like the County Champion for Northumberland, didn't see or measure any taller from a huge choice.

RedRob, à 2014-06-28 09:14:03, a dit:
Hello Conifers, absolutely spot on with the location marker, exact tree, excellent judgement. They are Douglas Fir, wasn't 100% sure as everything was Sitka and didn't see another Douglas stand anywhere in the forest. Thought that they might be mature flatter topped Sitka but Douglas they are. The 41 metre Sitka looks like the County Champion for Northumberland, didn't see or measure any taller from a huge choice.

RedRob, à 2014-06-28 09:14:04, a dit:
Hello Conifers, absolutely spot on with the location marker, exact tree, excellent judgement. They are Douglas Fir, wasn't 100% sure as everything was Sitka and didn't see another Douglas stand anywhere in the forest. Thought that they might be mature flatter topped Sitka but Douglas they are. The 41 metre Sitka looks like the County Champion for Northumberland, didn't see or measure any taller from a huge choice.

Conifers, à 2014-06-28 11:22:14, a dit:
I went for the longest shadow I could find ;-)

There are - or maybe were - some taller Sitka Spruce in Kyloe, 45-50+ metres tall, but I fear the tallest were cut a couple of years ago.



Martin Tijdgat, à 2014-06-27 11:39:50, a dit:
Scholem,

?????????


Rayn, à 2014-06-27 13:42:24, a dit:
Did you bring a laser or climbing equipment so you could measure the height? ;)

Han van Meegeren, à 2014-06-27 22:56:15, a dit:
That's incredible Scholem. 1.000 meters under the ground. How strong are plants????

Greetings.


Rayn, à 2014-06-28 07:09:34, a dit:
Ah so this 1000 meter underground and they never see the sun, is the lamp the only source of light?

Scholem Alejchem, à 2014-06-28 08:19:02, a dit:
Hello all

Yes it is growing in absolutely darkness, by a constantly high humidity and temperatur of 10° C (365 days the Year). Only when groups of people come this way, the electriic light goes on for that time, til the last one is 20 meter away. There are no insects inside the cave only bats who brought the seeds inside.

I think, in that way it need thousends of years to become a real big tree, but it is now also a rare monument of a different kind.

Scholem


Martin Tijdgat, à 2014-06-28 08:30:20, a dit:
Aaccchhhh, it is not a monumental tree, but a miracle tree. Scholem, this is a new category on this site! Thank you very much.


Martin Tijdgat, à 2014-06-27 11:39:40, a dit:
Scholem,

?????????



Bess, à 2014-06-19 06:24:40, a dit:
Ik denk dat de boom nu wel makkelijker meet… Ik denk dat de 'takjes' iets te dicht bij het poortje kwamen… .
WiPe, à 2014-06-27 06:52:57, a dit:
Ik begrijp niet goed waarom dat snoeien eigenlijk nodig was. Als het om het poortje ging, zou je dat toch gewoon kunnen scheren? Taxus laat zich met name zeer goed in vorm scheren.

Rainer Lippert, à 2014-06-22 07:32:58, édité à 2014-06-22 07:56:13, a dit:
Hallo,

es soll sich laut Naturschutzbehörde http://www.regierung.oberfranken.bayern.de/nat/8Baeume1/8-02-Bild-2.pdf) um eine der ältesten Steineiche Deutschlands halten. Ich denke aber, es handelt sich um Stieleiche.

Viele Grüße,

Rainer

Conifers, à 2014-06-22 07:42:11, a dit:
It must be a typographical error in the report, 'stein' for 'stiel'. I cannot believe it is an error of identification!

There is also a typo ("=") in the link, here it is corrected ;-) http://www.regierung.oberfranken.bayern.de/nat/8Baeume1/8-02-Bild-2.pdf

Rainer Lippert, à 2014-06-22 07:57:24, a dit:
Danke für die Bestätigung, dass es sich um Stieleiche handelt. Meinen Link habe ich oben auch korrigiert.

Bei beiden handelte es sich wohl um Tippfehler ;-)

Viele Grüße,

Rainer

Rainer Lippert, à 2014-06-22 17:44:29, a dit:
Auch die Informationstafel vor Ort spricht von Steineiche, siehe hier:


Jeroen Philippona, à 2014-06-24 20:39:58, a dit:
It looks indeed like a Quercus robur, but Quercus petraea = "oak of the rocks" could also be translated as "Steineiche". The leaves indeed look like those of a Pedunculate Oak = Stieleiche and do not look at all as a Sessile Oak - Traubeneiche, but perhaps you have made a photo of them, Rainer?

Regards, Jeroen

Rainer Lippert, à 2014-06-24 20:57:44, a dit:
Hallo Jeroen,

ich habe jetzt noch drei weitere Bilder hochgeladen. So richtige Detailaufnahmen von Blätter habe ich leider nicht. Bei einigen Blätter sehe ich aber sogenannte "Öhrchen", was auch für Quercus robur spricht.

Viele Grüße,

Rainer

Jeroen Philippona, à 2014-06-24 21:16:24, a dit:
Ja, dies ist typisch Quercus robur, nicht petraea.

Grüße,

Jeroen

Rainer Lippert, à 2014-06-25 17:00:12, a dit:
Hallo Jeroen,

dann lasse ich es bei Quercus robur.

Danke und viele Grüße,

Rainer


Martin Tijdgat, à 2014-06-25 05:45:50, a dit:
Rainer,

Danke fur diese photos!

Grusse Martin

Rainer Lippert, à 2014-06-25 16:20:11, a dit:
Hallo Martin,

gern geschehen.

Viele Grüße,

Rainer


Martin Tijdgat, à 2014-06-25 05:53:27, a dit:
Beautiful lines and colors!
Alberto Cuervo Flores, à 2014-06-25 08:41:00, a dit:
Thank you very much Martin, are cornfield.
Conifers, à 2014-06-25 09:06:25, a dit:
The tree in this photo is Pinus halepensis - did you click on the wrong pic when uploading??
Martin Tijdgat, à 2014-06-25 09:21:35, a dit:
Conifers,

If you look at the other pictures of this oak tree you will see that it is the tree in the back. But the lines and colors of this picture took me in as a beautiful photograph

Alberto Cuervo Flores, à 2014-06-25 09:38:19, a dit:
The oak is at the bottom of the photograph, sorry if poorly done, as I do in this case? upload the picture as a group of trees? I liked the photo and oak leaves as they carried her to the bottom. The pine is pinus pinaster think.
Conifers, à 2014-06-25 10:32:41, a dit:
Thanks! One option would be to register the pine as a MT specimen as well, and transfer this photo to that.

I wondered about P. pinaster, as the foliage looks OK for it, but the bark (fairly smooth, not deeply fissured and plated) is more like P. halepensis. Can you get a close-up of the foliage and cones?

Alberto Cuervo Flores, à 2014-06-25 11:10:21, a dit:
Thanks Conifers, another day that passes there will try to take pictures of the foreground. But I think that pine is not very big.

Here are many naturalized pinaster pine centuries. Radiata there are also many more recent afforestation for its fast growth and good wood for paper and chipboard. The Aleppo pine I think he likes more heat and dry weather. In the UK there halepensis naturalized?


Rainer Lippert, à 2014-06-23 20:31:26, a dit:
Hallo,

ich denke, es handelt sich hier um Acer saccharinum. Oder was meint ihr?

Viele Grüße,

Rainer

Martin Tijdgat, à 2014-06-25 05:19:28, a dit:
Rainer,

Correct, but this is the cultivar A. s. 'Laciniatum Wieri'.


Profiel van Tim
Visible pour tous · permalink · nl
silentoak, à 2014-06-16 12:15:56, a dit:
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

contact@boomverzorging.be


Tim, à 2014-06-17 11:46:34, a dit:
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.

Groeten,

Tim


silentoak, à 2014-06-25 05:00:26, a dit:
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.

Mvg

Paul C. Luttik

Boomtechnisch consulent

Bijzondere Boomwerken ( idem FB )

www.boomverzorging.be



Sisley, à 2014-06-24 17:08:55, a dit:
Acer saccharinum.
Rainer Lippert, à 2014-06-24 17:11:17, a dit:
Hallo Sisley,

danke für die Bestimmung. Habe es inzwischen abgeändert, siehe auch hier:http://www.monumentaltrees.com/de/diskussion/1519/

Viele Grüße,

Rainer


Jose Angel Manzanares Elias, à 2014-06-24 15:27:09, a dit:
En la zona existen multitud de pinos de similares características y edad.

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

viele Grüße Frank

Leo Goudzwaard, à 2014-06-24 07:12:54, a dit:
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.

Rayn, à 2014-06-20 09:45:52, a dit:
Too bad there is no photo of this tree, a 6 meter Pinus sylvestris is truly amazing.

TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, à 2014-06-23 18:45:10, édité à 2014-06-23 18:46:28, a dit:
You can see a picture of this tree at:http://www.ancient-tree-hunt.org.uk/WoodlandTrust/ImageServer.aspx?imageType=entityImageBySize&entityImageID=1c7e589e-7a13-49cf-8f3f-f998bbea398f&imageSizeID=2390. I don't own the copyright so can't import it to Monumental Trees.

If that link doesn't work, try:http://www.ancient-tree-hunt.org.uk/recording/tree.htm?tree=589b5c00-c0a4-47d3-bf54-1c2d00587bbd, the home-page for that tree at the Ancient Tree Hunt.


Rayn, à 2014-06-23 19:27:04, a dit:
Thank you for showing me this, I appreciate your help.

It indeed looks like a king of the pines!

It adresses a though I had for a while though, is there a difference between conifers and leaftrees when it comes to multistemmed? When leaftrees split into several stems at 2-3 metres I personally often look at them as trees with a single bole, but when it comes to conifers that often have a very straight growth I tend to more often view similar trees as multistemmed?

Is there a difference here or am I just being unknowing and unexperienced? I hope some of you experienced people here can enlighten me on this matter.


TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, à 2014-06-23 20:16:18, a dit:
If a Pine Family tree has several steeply-rising trunks like this one, this means that it was broken or damaged when it was small and responding by growing competing leading shoots. Growth like this will always tend to exaggerate the girth, hence the 'multi-stem' category. A young Abies, by contrast, is more likely to respond to damage to the top by curving its horizontal side-branches to the vertical. The trunk below this point remains rounded and single. The European girth champion at Ardkinglas is like this. However, conifers tend to produce extra wood when the timber is under compression (that is, underneath a branch-fork) whereas broadleaves usually grow extra wood when the timber is under tension (on top of the branch fork). So the trunks of heavily-branched conifers such as Cedrus libani or Cupressus macrocarpa become swollen with buttresses supporting each branch. This also exaggerates the measured girth of the trunk.


RedRob, à 2014-06-23 17:13:59, a dit:
Anyone ever seen Sycamore do this? Never seen anything like this before, covered a wide area and several trees and on a flat area, not an eroded slope.

TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, à 2014-06-23 18:49:18, a dit:
I think what has happened here is that an area of Rhododendron ponticum invasion was cut down and then stump-treated to kill it off, but the stumps and the layering branches were left in situ and have been covered with moss. Lucky for you, as recording trees in the middle of a rhododendron thicket is not easy!


RedRob, à 2014-06-23 17:05:01, a dit:
Foiled again, tried to zoom in on Google Maps to the road to see this tree but 'No Imagery Available'! Sisley, you need a nice holiday surely (winks), any chance that you can take detailed photos at some point? I would like to see it from a long range view from across the water.


Photographs.
Visible pour tous · permalink · en
RedRob, à 2014-06-16 17:02:51, édité à 2014-06-16 17:03:39, a dit:
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, à 2014-06-16 19:19:42, édité à 2014-06-16 21:18:33, a dit:
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.

Jeroen


Conifers, à 2014-06-16 20:39:37, a dit:
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, à 2014-06-17 11:43:41, a dit:
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,

Tim


RedRob, à 2014-06-17 16:01:54, édité à 2014-06-17 16:12:21, a dit:
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, à 2014-06-17 16:08:07, a dit:
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, à 2014-06-17 20:18:05, a dit:
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


Wim Brinkerink, à 2014-06-17 20:37:57, a dit:
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,

Wim


Maarten Windemuller, à 2014-06-18 20:14:15, a dit:
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, à 2014-06-19 07:34:09, a dit:
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, à 2014-06-19 16:46:44, a dit:
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, à 2014-06-19 18:01:18, a dit:
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, à 2014-06-19 19:06:30, a dit:
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, à 2014-06-19 19:32:39, a dit:
I don't think anyone has added Yggdrasil yet . . . but maybe?? ;-)

KoutaR, à 2014-06-19 20:04:17, a dit:
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, à 2014-06-19 20:19:54, édité à 2014-06-19 20:23:20, a dit:
Aha, there is a new Yggdrasil. It is alrerady on this site.

frêne élevé (Fraxinus excelsior) '4279'

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


Karlheinz, à 2014-06-21 02:20:51, a dit:
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, à 2014-06-21 10:07:18, a dit:
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, à 2014-06-22 07:03:50, a dit:
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) platane (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) châtaignier européen (Castanea sativa) '16908' A sweet chestnut in a dense park area, no photo, girth and height both unknown.

Regards, Karlheinz


Wim Brinkerink, à 2014-06-22 09:26:59, a dit:
Hi Karlheinz,

In the case of châtaignier européen (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, à 2014-06-23 14:42:24, a dit:
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: http://www.tim-online.nrw.de (or herehttp://www.geoserver.nrw.de).

Greetings, Karlheinz



Geographical differences
Visible pour tous · permalink · nl
Wim Brinkerink, à 2014-06-22 17:58:02, a dit:
I am a sort of layman in respect of scientific knowledge of trees. Nevertheless I have a scientific way of thinking. It's astonishing to see how geographical preferances and/or possibilities influence the choice of trees. In Limburg I see a lot of Castanea Sativa. In Holland i see mainly Quercus and Fagus. On the Veluwe pines are predominant.

Interesting stuff, but common knowledge for the educated in this area

.



Another must visit in the future
Visible pour tous · permalink · en
Rayn, à 2014-06-20 11:32:02, édité à 2014-06-20 11:34:26, a dit:
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...

Photo:http://oi61.tinypic.com/11me3jq.jpg

Lars G Anderssons coordinates: https://www.google.se/maps/place/56%C2%B055'03.8%22N+12%C2%B054'13.7%22E/@56.9177737,12.9037396,195m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x0

Can be found athttp://www.tradportalen.se/Observations.aspx#


Maarten Windemuller, à 2014-06-21 10:35:32, édité à 2014-06-22 13:14:57, a dit:
Hei Rayn,

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


Rayn, à 2014-06-22 12:40:00, a dit:
Did you register the Suntelbuche/vresbok here?

Good luck in finding interesting trees on your journeys!

Best regards

Rayn


Maarten Windemuller, à 2014-06-22 13:19:48, édité à 2014-06-22 18:39:17, a dit:
Hei Rayn,

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



Conifers, à 2014-06-21 17:42:01, a dit:
Quercus cerris.

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

Leo Goudzwaard, à 2014-06-22 07:10:34, a dit:
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, à 2014-06-22 09:32:26, a dit:
Thanks. I have changed it.

M Wittenberg, à 2014-06-20 20:35:00, a dit:
Imposant,Ich möchte auch mal einen sehen !
Rainer Lippert, à 2014-06-20 20:40:40, a dit:
Du hast noch keinen Mammutbaum gesehen? Das hier ist ein noch recht kleiner.

Viele Grüße,

Rainer

M Wittenberg, à 2014-06-20 20:43:31, a dit:
Leider nicht,Ich wüsste auch nicht wo hier in der Nähe einer steht !
Rainer Lippert, à 2014-06-20 20:44:28, a dit:
Wo genau kommst du her, wenn ich Fragen darf?
M Wittenberg, à 2014-06-20 20:47:32, a dit:
Aus den Unstruttal Rainer,

schau mal hier rein : http://www.mwfotonebra.de/

Rainer Lippert, à 2014-06-20 20:55:46, a dit:
In der Gegend gibt es tatsächlich nicht so viele Mammutbäume. Der nächste große Mammutbaum ist nördlich von dir, bei Allrode, etwa 100 km entfernt. Hier ein Bild vom Stamm:http://www.panoramio.com/photo/57009816

Das wäre aber ein lohnendes Ziel, ist aber ein Stück weg.

Viele Grüße,

Rainer

M Wittenberg, à 2014-06-20 20:59:54, a dit:
Danke für den Link,vielleicht klappt es ja mal !
Rainer Lippert, à 2014-06-20 21:07:16, a dit:
Gern geschehen. In der Mammutbaumcommunity, wo ich auch aktiv bin, sind derzeit etwa 17.000 Mammutbaumstandorte von Deutschland erfasst, für deine Region sind es aber noch recht wenige, siehe hier:http://mbreg.de/maps/gmaps/gmaps_de_search.html
M Wittenberg, à 2014-06-21 07:14:41, a dit:
Danke für die Mammutbaumsuchmaschine,ist schon gespeichert !

Sag mir bitte mal,wie kann man einen Baum als "Naturdenkmal" eintragen lassen,Ich bin bis jetzt immer nur weitergeleitet wurden ohne auch nur ein Formular zu bekommen und habe aufgegeben ?

Conifers, à 2014-06-21 07:36:42, a dit:
Errmm . . . . how can a Sequoiadendron in Germany be called a "Naturdenkmal"?? It is not, it is a "Kulturdenkmal", surely!! It can only be a "Naturdenkmal" in the Sierra Nevada in California!
Rainer Lippert, à 2014-06-21 07:45:30, édité à 2014-06-21 07:46:21, a dit:
Hallo Conifers.

ich denke mal, Manfred meint das mit Naturdenkmal eher allgemein. Aber es gibt auch einige Mammutbäume in Deutschland die als Naturdenkmal eingetragen sind. Vor allem aber alte Mammutbäume, meistens welche aus der Wilhelma-Saat. Das sind ja die ältesten in Deutschland, um 1864 gepflanzt.

Hallo Manfred,

selber habe ich noch keinen Baum als Naturdenkmal eintragenlassen. Ich denke aber mal, die Untere Naturschutzbehörde deines Landkreises, die ja für die Naturdenkmale zuständig sind, ist dafür zuständig. Das dürfte also hier sein:http://www.burgenlandkreis.de/de/amt-fuer-natur-und-gewaesserschutz.html

Dir dürfte aber klar sein, dass du die Kosten für die Aufnahme eines Baumes als Naturdenkmal selbst übernehmen musst. Wie hoch die aber sind, kann ich nicht sagen.

Viele Grüße,

Rainer

M Wittenberg, à 2014-06-21 07:47:55, a dit:
Da war ich auch schon,leider ohne Erfolg !
Rainer Lippert, à 2014-06-21 07:49:49, a dit:
Was haben die denn zu dir gesagt? Wenn du die Kosten selbst trägst, was sollten die da dagegen haben?
M Wittenberg, à 2014-06-21 20:40:32, a dit:
Per E-Mail war ich da und bis jetzt hat sich leider noch keiner gemeldet !
Rainer Lippert, à 2014-06-21 20:57:54, a dit:
Vielleicht solltest du da mal persönlich hin? Wäre es denn ein schutzwürdiger Baum?
M Wittenberg, à 2014-06-21 21:03:37, a dit:
des Glockenmuseums in Laucha /Unstrut

Ich dachte eigentlich das er es ist,

aber es besteht wohl keine Interesse denn dann müssen Sie ihn auch pflegen und das kostet ja Geld !

Rainer Lippert, à 2014-06-21 21:12:01, a dit:
Das ist ja das ja was ich meinte. Gespart wird überall. Wenn du aber jetzt der Eigentümer des Baumes wärst und sämtliche Kosten übernimmst, wie Gutachter, Pflegearbeiten, jährliche Kontrollen und so, dann würden sie den Baum wohl als Naturdenkmal ausweisen.

Frank Gyssling, à 2014-06-19 11:18:11, a dit:
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, à 2014-06-19 11:51:44, a dit:
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,

Tim

KoutaR, à 2014-06-20 08:07:16, a dit:
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 www.fotocommunity.de kriegt man keine numerische Bewertung aber viele positivische Kommentare von künstlerischen Qualitäten.

Gruß,

Kouta

Rayn, à 2014-06-20 10:33:09, a dit:
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, à 2014-06-20 11:14:17, a dit:
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 MT.com has become a real treasure with many beautiful photos of trees of all kinds and sorts (tall, wide, common, remarkable, ...).

Kind regards,

Tim

KoutaR, à 2014-06-20 18:05:20, a dit:
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, à 2014-06-21 12:12:22, a dit:
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? chêne pédonculé (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, à 2014-06-21 16:08:11, a dit:
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,

Frank


Rainer Lippert, à 2014-06-21 08:43:59, a dit:
Hallo,

handelt es sich hier um Juglans Nigra?

Viele Grüße,

Rainer

Martin Tijdgat, à 2014-06-21 09:27:25, édité à 2014-06-21 09:30:59, a dit:
Rainer,

I think you are right with Juglans nigra. The middle leaflets are bigger than the top and bottom ones.

But what strikes me more is the amount of the beautiful evergreen Viscum album in this tree. I try to raise a few on the Japanese appel M. toringo in my back-garden.

Rainer Lippert, à 2014-06-21 15:17:10, a dit:
Hallo Martin,

danke für die Bestätigung. Ich ändere es dann gleich ab.

Viele Grüße,

Rainer


Conifers, à 2014-06-21 13:05:10, a dit:
Juglans nigra
Rainer Lippert, à 2014-06-21 15:16:31, a dit:
Danke und viele Grüße,

Rainer


Jeroen Philippona, à 2014-06-21 13:39:31, a dit:
Huis Voorstonden in april 2014 met links de plataan en rechts de dikke rode beuk nadat deze fors is gesnoeid.
Maarten Windemuller, à 2014-06-21 14:14:18, a dit:
Hei Jeroen,

Mooi object. De zwam op de beuk is zorgelijk. Weet je in welk jaar de beuk gesnoeid is? Mooi dat je de foto met plataan en beuk van verschillende jaren hebt. Hoop dat debeuk er op de volgende foto nog staat.

Jeroen Philippona, à 2014-06-21 14:18:32, a dit:
Ha Maarten,

De zwam zit al jaren op de beuk, nadat een zware tak was afgebroken (ik denk rond 2009) is de kroon rond 2010 ingenomen. De eigenaren zijn zeer betrokken, onderhoud is door een deskundig, terughoudend boomverzorger.


Martin Tijdgat, à 2014-06-19 17:12:17, a dit:
Hai Maarten,

Wat een apart gevormde boom.

KoutaR, à 2014-06-20 07:39:32, a dit:
Sure this is B. pubescens?
Maarten Windemuller, à 2014-06-21 08:48:21, édité à 2014-06-21 14:15:38, a dit:
Hei Kouta,

Well, I'm sure I made mistake. This is B. pendula. Thank you for your attention.

Kind regards, Maarten


Conifers, à 2014-06-20 20:24:51, a dit:
This is just an example of natural variation in typical Fagus sylvatica, not the named cultivar 'Pendula' (which shows much less upright trunk development).
Bess, à 2014-06-20 21:01:40, a dit:
o, thanks for correcting! very strange, he has really a lot of 'hanging' branches so i didn't 'examined' much further… . I might have been certain, cause the name of the street is 'oak' 'pleureur'… . :-)

M Wittenberg, à 2014-06-19 18:11:11, a dit:
Fotografiert und vermessen von Roland Horn,Danke !
Rainer Lippert, à 2014-06-19 19:33:42, a dit:
Hallo Manfred,

eine schöne Platane. Aber sie ist bereits auf Monumentaltrees registriert, siehe hier: Wasserstadt

Dort solltest du die Bilder hochladen und dann diesen Standort hier löschen. Die Umfangsdaten hast du ja dort schon eingetragen.

Viele Grüße,

Rainer

M Wittenberg, à 2014-06-20 06:02:10, a dit:
Guten Morgen Rainer,

Du meinst bestimmt die hier:

Straße Wasserstadt

Ahornblättrige Platane in der Stadt in Dessau

der Standort ist mir zu allgemein eingetragen,kann man das nachträglich ändern,wenn ja da kann Ich ja die Bilder da hochladen !

VG Manfred

Rainer Lippert, à 2014-06-20 18:05:43, a dit:
Guten Abend Manfred,

wenn du dort auf "Bearbeiten Sie die Daten von diesem Standort" gehst, kannst du dann die Standortangaben verändern.

Viele Grüße,

Rainer


Pentecost weekend
Visible pour tous · permalink · nl
Wim Brinkerink, à 2014-06-20 17:55:04, a dit:
In the Pentecost weekend there raged a storm over the south of Germany. Today I visited again the Insel of Hombroich near Düsseldorf. It is a fantastic place where culture meets nature. I found some new interesting trees. Parts of the terrain were closed because of the rage of the pentecost weekend in 2014. There were lots of broken branches aso, but happily the monumental trees are not hurt too much. Parts of the territory were shut, so I couldn't inspect all trees. Nevertheless I experienced some surprises.


RedRob, à 2014-06-20 17:20:03, a dit:
Have had a problem posting a photo for this, the photo isn't accepted for some reason? had the same problem las night and then it triple uploaded in the end. Will upload a photo when I can get it to do it.


Conifers, à 2014-06-19 19:45:02, a dit:
Not sure which one the tree "18380" is, but left to right:

Cedrus sp. probably C. atlantica

Abies sp., probably A. nordmanniana

Larix decidua

Abies procera

Pinus sylvestris

RedRob, à 2014-06-20 16:47:46, a dit:
Thanks Conifers, 35 metre Abies Nordmanniana recorded in 1979 at the 'sawmill', couldn't see any sawmill now but must be the same tree as a 33 metre Abies Procera also recorded at the 'sawmill'. Couldn't see the base of the Procera to measure but I estimate 38, 39 metres by comparing to the Nordmanniana.

The porjus pine
Visible pour tous · permalink · en
Rayn, à 2014-06-20 09:39:27, édité à 2014-06-20 11:37:50, a dit:
Some day I'd like to visit this tree, but it's a bit far... http://www.panoramio.com/photo/7545843

Another photo from some bloghttp://4.bp.blogspot.com/-YpFLHWKXYS4/Uftc0bIK8II/AAAAAAAAOxs/fYpUBk6KZLg/s1600/Porjustallen+juli+2013.jpg

It would be by far the northernmost registered monumental tree.



Maarten Windemuller, à 2014-06-20 07:36:33, a dit:
At some place on this site I saw something about "own pitures" . Is it possible you can replace the GoogleEarth -Streetview picture by a real picture?

Martin Tijdgat, à 2014-06-08 13:12:07, a dit:
Saw that the age of this tree. Is this right? Quercus x turneri (Willd.) originated in 1783 at Turner's nursery and first planted in Kew in 1789. Scientifically first noted in 1809. Real propagation started around 1899.

Conifers, à 2014-06-08 14:01:02, a dit:
From the girth, I'd estimate it is unlikely to be much over 100 years old, so I'd agree with Martin's query.

TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, à 2014-06-13 16:49:06, a dit:
This tree is an example of a now very rare clone of this hybrid called 'Spencer Turner' which is assumed to be the original form of the cross. The '1783' date for its origination actually refers to the date of Lamarck's description of a plant growing in the Trianon garden in France - we don't know how much earlier than this Mr Turner first noticed the hybrid and started grafting it and selling the grafts around Europe. So it is possible that this example dates from before 1783, though it does look younger. 150 years is quite likely as 'Spencer Turner' is a weaker, slower-growing clone than 'Pseudoturneri', a back-cross with Quercus ilex which has long replaced it as the 'usual' form of Q. x turneri. (The Kew tree, probably planted in 1789, is 'Pseudoturneri', so the original 'Spencer Turner' was mature enough to have back-crossed some time before this.)

Martin Tijdgat, à 2014-06-13 22:35:08, a dit:
Owen,

Thank you very much for this for me new information for me! I learn every week from all these tree-loving people.

Is it possible, together with Gary, to change to tree-specie to the right cv-name? Do you know watt' is the growing rate of this type of Turner's oak?


TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, à 2014-06-14 17:01:50, a dit:
I have added 'Spencer Turner' as a new cultivar name and added this name to the details for this tree.

I was over-simplifying when I said this form grows slowly, as I remember there is a big one on good soil in Herefordshire which must have grown at the 'normal' rate for most trees, that is 2 or 3cm in girth each year. The old ones in London, which have grown slower than this, perhaps just share unfortunate planting sites or a history of bad health.


Martin Tijdgat, à 2014-06-15 06:27:43, a dit:
Gary, Owen and Conifers,

Thanks for the additional information. But even with a slow growing rate of 2 cm/year this tree can't be much older than 140 years. If there is no additional information about the planting date of this Quercus x turneri 'Spencer Turner', I would recommend to set the date as 1874 +/- 20 year. Is that agreeable?


TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, à 2014-06-19 20:20:40, a dit:
It might be better to choose 'the age of this tree is not known' as it could be deceptively old.

Martin Tijdgat, à 2014-06-19 23:37:06, a dit:
Owen,

I agree, but what is Gary thinking?



Bess, à 2014-06-19 20:37:58, a dit:
the red door really makes the picture perfect! :-)

RedRob, à 2014-06-17 16:14:43, a dit:
Superb speciman, never seen one and not likely to from your comments Owen. Is it too wet a climate in Britain for this species, without having to check doesn't it come from the more continental areas of the US, the central Rockies?

TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, à 2014-06-19 20:16:16, a dit:
Engelmann Spruce grows quite happily in various UK collection, but this one (at nearly 300m in one of the coldest places in Britain) is twice the size of any of the others. Probably, it needs cool summers (to avoid water-loss) and cold winters (to kill of fungi and insects). It might do well in Scandinavia or high in the continental mountains.

Conifers, à 2014-06-19 20:32:07, a dit:
Provenance is probably also very important - I would expect trees grown from Cascades seed to grow better in Britain than trees from the Rocky Mountains; and trees from the small population on the northeast slopes of the Olympic Mountains even better (the World's largest Picea engelmannii is also in this last population). And within the Rocky Mts., better from the south of the range (Arizona etc.) than the north (British Columbia, etc.).

I have also seen good healthy Picea engelmannii (though not particularly large; still fairly young) in parks in Denmark.



Conifers, à 2014-06-19 19:47:44, a dit:
He looks like he is enjoying an unconventional tree!

M Wittenberg, à 2014-06-19 18:25:00, a dit:
Foto von Roland Horn am 17.6.2014 !

Martin Tijdgat, à 2014-06-19 17:46:15, a dit:
Ongelofelijk wat kan haagbeuk mooi hout vormen!

Martin Tijdgat, à 2014-06-19 17:41:12, a dit:
Wat een mooie spierbundels. En een geweldige bastkleur

Martin Tijdgat, à 2014-06-19 17:30:25, a dit:
Prachtige kleuren, typisch U. glabra. Heel mooi vraatpatroon

RedRob, à 2014-06-19 17:24:03, a dit:
Managed to photograph some green cones on the highest branches if this is any help in identifying this?

RedRob, à 2014-06-19 17:25:57, a dit:
Sorry about that, the upload was rejected of the first photo and I kept trying and it then must have uploaded twice? Perhaps one duplicate image could be removed?


Frank Gyssling, à 2014-06-18 12:10:28, a dit:
Hallo Christopher,

Ist der Umfang dieser starken Pappel auch nur geschätzt, ohne Messung? Ist es auch sicher eine Schwarzpappel?

freundliche Grüße aus Potsdam

Frank


Christopher, à 2014-06-18 20:38:15, a dit:
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.


Frank Gyssling, à 2014-06-19 11:51:40, a dit:
Hallo Christopher,

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


Maarten Windemuller, à 2014-06-19 12:56:28, a dit:
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?

Frank Gyssling, à 2014-06-19 15:07:41, a dit:
Dein Kommentar bezieht sich wohl auf die Angaben Christophers siehe Gustav-Holzmann-Str

viele grüße frank


Maarten Windemuller, à 2014-06-19 15:46:50, a dit:
Genau, jetzt steht dort 'ungefähr 7.00 meter' und nicht mehr '7.10 meter'.


Bess, à 2014-06-19 06:27:31, a dit:
Hij is behoorlijk ongelukkig … zie rechtse deel van de kroon hier op de foto… .

Bess, à 2014-06-19 06:12:47, a dit:
De bomen worden niet bepaald gelukkig van de trappelende, bijtende en schurende koeien, maar het is wel mooi hoe de boom wordt opgeblonken… .

Bess, à 2014-06-19 06:06:58, a dit:
Ik denk dat dit een foto is van '6337' De eerste boom in de rij van 3. Ik ben nu voortgegaan op de locatie van de punten en niet op de foto's omdat er toch nog geen metingen bijstonden. Sorry als ik voor verwarring zorg.

Frank Gyssling, à 2014-06-18 12:25:05, édité à 2014-06-23 10:32:36, a dit:
Im Vergleich zur nahe stehenden "Dicken Marie" und ensprechend dem Umfang der Humboldteiche von ca. 7,68 m könnte m. E. dieser der älteste Baum in Berlin sein, nicht die "Dicke Marie" (U = 5,98 in 1,5 m Höhe, oberhalb der Maserknollen), wie es in viele Medien dargestellt wird.

Alberto Cuervo Flores, à 2014-06-18 11:28:13, a dit:
El dueño de la finca no me dejo acercarme, y el fue quien me dijo que era un aveneiro (Aliso)

Bess, à 2014-06-18 08:12:24, a dit:
Fijn! En welkom op de website!

Conifers, à 2014-06-17 22:35:26, a dit:
Cedrus deodara
Alberto Cuervo Flores, à 2014-06-18 07:53:20, a dit:
Ok Conifers, thank you very much

ETT2009, à 2014-06-18 07:36:34, a dit:
Betreffende kapel wordt aan weerszijden geflankeerd door 2 grote zomerlinden. De bomen staan strak tegen de kapel aan. De boom aan de noordzijde is duidelijk forser van afmeting.

Plus...
 

Page d'accueil · Retour haut de page · Partager/Enregistrer

© MonumentalTrees.com · avertissement · aussi disponible en · Castellano · Deutsch · English · Nederlands · traduire?