Vous n'êtes pas connecté · connexion · régistrer
 

Page de discussion de JeroenZutphen14

Ajoutez nouveau sujet

Discussions récentes

Plus...

Montrez seulement les discussions en français
Archives

Archives


TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, à 2013-11-15 17:55:00, a dit:
The historic heights for this tree seem to show the limitations of both hypsometers and lasers. 33m is optimistic, aiming at branches which are arching slightly towards the observer. 27m is much too low, due to the laser hitting low twigs on the near side (the top of a tree with a crown as rounded as this is completely hidden, even from a distance, in summer. Having measured it several times (with hypsometer) before it leafs out, I'm going to plump for 30.8m - though I can't really claim that degree of accuracy.
Jeroen Philippona, à 2013-11-16 00:43:03, édité à 2013-11-16 00:46:48, a dit:
Yes, I think with 31 m you are near the true height of this tree. My 33 m measurement in 2007 with Suunto clinometer was not very accurate. Owen, you should add your 30.8 m measurement also in the system with the right date.

When you visit Kew next time you could measure it again with laser. I also think Wim B. did not hit the tallest branches.

Wim Brinkerink, à 2013-11-16 15:02:11, a dit:
What both of you are saying might well be true. It's not always easy to find the highest one and a mistake is easily made.
krossdal1, à 2014-03-30 10:43:24, a dit:
great tree
RedRob, à 2014-04-17 16:07:40, a dit:
Wouldn't an answer for this tree be to email Kew and ask them to meet you with one of those hydraulic extendable things which men stand in to get up to the crowns of trees to prune? It would give you a view over the top of the crown more and down to the base, that said some of the branches look low and could obscure the view of the laser from some windows.
Conifers, à 2014-04-17 19:14:24, a dit:
That sounds a good idea, offer them £1000 for the costs of using it, and I'm sure they'd do it ;-))
Wim Brinkerink, à 2014-04-17 19:17:58, a dit:
One mistake I made before 2014 is that I didn't add my own length to the measurement. So my measurement must at least be heightened with 1.80 meters.
RedRob, à 2014-04-18 16:30:00, a dit:
I regularly enjoy a walk around the Fountains Abbey estate and the National Trust often have their hydraulic container mounted on the back of a Land Rover out and pruning trees, I imagine that Kew will have something similar. Shouldn't be a difficult job to email them to ask when they might be doing some pruning in that area. If it is to confirm a champion tree they possibly would be quite obliging.
Jeroen Philippona, à 2014-04-18 20:57:31, a dit:
I am sure that it is not that difficult to measure the height of this tree, you just have to get far enough to see the real top: from the north there is an open view from over 100 m to the tree, the top can be seen easily from there.

RedRob, à 2014-04-17 17:27:29, a dit:
Hope to have abit of help with 100% verification for this tree. Emailed Duncombe to ask them to confirm but no reply.

Photo 4, a 32 metre Beech had fallen over winter plus a smaller Sycamore and opened up a window to see this tree. Photo 1, the three tall trees in the centre, the one on the right was definitely Oak when I measured it at 34.6 metres last year. I couldn't see the bases of the other two to hit them with the laser. I think that they were Oak, took photos of the ground underneath and Oak and Beech leaves but I amjust not 100% sure as the Oak and Ash bark patterns on trees on this estate are quite if very similar. I stood 48.2 metres below the right branch tip of this tree doing a horizontal measurement. The laser measured 40.8-41.2 metres for the vertical separation between the tree base and tip. I did over 30 measurements to just make sure that I was not getting deflection, mis-readings from any stray closer twigs between the laser and tree base but got measurements in this range consistantly. No leaves on trees and difficult to get a hit on the tallest twig, right one which was the highest, so if anything it may be abit more than 41.2 metres but I will go with 41 metres.

Are these photos good enough to confirm 100% that this is Oak, the twigs were so high up?

The 32 metre fallen Beech in the photo, the tree just above it is the 36.2 metre Ash, the two Beeches just up to it's right, the front one in 40 metres, very lucky that some of these didn't fall. It is very sheltered from the SW wind at the bottom of this escarpment, surprising that this has fallen (and several other Beeches and what looks like a big Sycamore on the escarpment), there must have been a whirlwind or vortex or something?


Jeroen Philippona, à 2014-04-17 22:04:20, a dit:
Hi Rob,

Better buy a looking glass for identification of high branches. Soon there will be leaves, so identification will be easy. Branch pattern of common oak and ash is very different, so should not be a problem.

A height of 41 m is not amazing for an oak at such a sheltered location, but oak, beech, ash and lime all four can grow to such heights. In Bialowieza there are many pedunculate oaks of 40 to 41 m and some of around 42 m with one over 43 m as heighest measured. This is at a site with rather dry climate and cold winters. There is of cours much less wind in such a far inland location compared to Yorkshire. The very tall sessile oaks in some forests in France are on very favorable sites but perhaps these trees also are genetically of a special quality.

Jeroen


RedRob, à 2014-04-18 16:25:51, a dit:
Hello Jeroen, I corrected the map co-ordinates on Google and that of the 36 metre Ash near it, the crowns on the two trees do not look the same and this tree looks the same as the definite 34.6 metre Oak in front of it, I am 99% sure it is Oak. Even through the laser rangefinder I was still not 100% sure but the leaves on the floor below were Oak and Beech. Oak, Quercus Robur or Ash, it is a Britain and Ireland champion for height.


Jeroen Philippona, à 2014-04-03 20:06:36, a dit:
Hi Owen,

Nice you confirmed it to be 41 m! I visited Knole with Tim Bekaert in April 2007 and was a bit frustrated I did not know where this tree stood so that I did not find it.

Did you remeasure the girth also?

Regards, Jeroen


Tim B, à 2014-04-04 06:58:54, a dit:
Yes indeed, I remember very well. I looked on the map where the tree stands, and reconstructed our walk in 2007: luckily for us now, Jeroen, we did not walk very close to the tree and missed it.

Kind regards,

Tim


TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, à 2014-04-06 16:37:10, a dit:
I've now heard that the tree was climbed by Waldo Etherington last year at 38.7m, which is much closer to my hypsometer estimates, so this time the laser height is probably not accurate. I could only record 41m from one direction - the rest of the time I was getting around 39m but felt I was only hitting near shoots on the side of the crown. It is a difficult tree to record because of the broad, even dome, and I doubt if Waldo's team got to the very highest shoots.

RedRob, à 2014-04-17 15:56:41, a dit:
This is a superb tree, is there any visible wind shear on it Owen, was the higher reading looking at the tree from the north east side? With a big crown like this, it must be a real decision for a climber to decide which is the tallest shoot sticking up, how would they have decided which one to choose?

RedRob, à 2014-04-17 15:56:57, a dit:
This is a superb tree, is there any visible wind shear on it Owen, was the higher reading looking at the tree from the north east side? With a big crown like this, it must be a real decision for a climber to decide which is the tallest shoot sticking up, how would they have decided which one to choose?


Winter storm damage.
Visible pour tous · permalink · en
RedRob, à 2014-04-15 17:17:30, a dit:
How has everyone faired with damage from the winter storms? Quite alot of my own to report, alot of damage, fallen and shattered trees up here.

Jeroen Philippona, à 2014-04-15 21:21:32, a dit:
In the NW of the Netherlands there was a lot of storm damage in November and December, in Amsterdam a lot of trees in the old city fell over. In the region where I live in the east there was little storm damage this winter. The winter here was a lot dryer and with less wind compared to most of the UK. January to March were very warm and dry.

Jeroen


Martin Tijdgat, à 2014-04-16 00:57:40, a dit:
RedRob and Jeroen,

From the 10.000 trees I take care off in my area (Wijdemeren next to Hilversum) there were 45 storm victims after october 28 2013. 10 birch in one street, 7 young Liquidambar, 5 young Pterocarya stenoptera, and only a few 60 year old trees as oak, Groeneveld-iep, aspen, London plane, willow and lime.

We have already replanted 19 trees like 4 Ostrya carpinifolia, Ulmus 'Frontier', 3-stemmed Parrotia persica, Ginkgo biloba 'Saratoga', Acer platanoides 'Eurostar' Acer rubrum 'Karpick', Ulmus 'Dodoens'. I have to find room for 11 other trees to keep in line with our 60% replant in the local tree policy paper.

Martin


RedRob, à 2014-04-17 15:51:19, a dit:
When you watch the BBC weather forecasts, a great deal of the time with the depressions you can see the tight isobars over us even down to the channel and then open isobars sometimes none over France, Germany, even the low countries as you say, amazing what a few miles difference makes southern England over to the continent.


Beuk op de Burcht in Leiden
Visible pour tous · permalink · nl
Jeroen Philippona, à 2014-04-06 20:16:29, édité à 2014-04-08 19:44:49, a dit:
Hoi Wim,

Kun je de leeftijd van deze beuk onderbouwen? Volgens jouw melding de oudste beuk in Nederland die op MT is vermeld en ouder dan de oudste beuk die we in het boek Bijzondere bomen in Nederland hebben gemeld, die uit Haastrecht van 1694.

Dat het park in 1651 is aangelegd zegt weinig over het plantjaar van de beuk, wellicht heb je meer specifieke informatie.

Zo ook is de leeftijd van ± 314 jaar van de beuk van Oegstgeest bepaald niet zeker. Van de beuk in Haastrecht zijn er in ieder geval documenten betreffende de aanplant ter gelegenheid van de geboorte van een kind van de toenmalige eigenaar, zie het artikel in Bijzondere Bomen.

Frank Moens meldt in dat boek voor de beuk in Oegstgeest 1860 - 1870 als plantperiode, ook dat onderbouwt hij niet, maar het vermoeden van de eigenaar van 300 jaar moet op meer gebaseerd zijn om het als feit te accepteren.

Groeten, Jeroen


Wim Brinkerink, à 2014-04-07 07:34:18, a dit:
Hallo Jeroen,

Ik zal uitzoeken op grond waarvan ik die leeftijd heb toegevoegd. .

Tussendoor een vraag. Normaal krijg vragen ook via mijn mail door. Deze vraag kwam ik toevallig tegen omdat ik op de hoofdpagina langs de nieuwe posts scrolde en jouw vraag tegenkwam. Snap jij het, weet je er iets meer van?.

NB. De eerste keer ( 5 minuten geleden) dat ik deze vraag probeerde te beantwoorden kreeg ik de melding dat er geen verbinding met monumentaltrees.com gemaakt kon worden. Nou gebeurt dit laatste wel vaker, maar in dit geval waard om bij stil te staan, terwijl ook mijn tekst verdwenen was.

Groet

Wim


Wim Brinkerink, à 2014-04-07 09:19:47, a dit:
Hallo Jeroen,

Ik heb me gebaseerd op het feit dat de Burcht in 1150 is aangelegd en dat het stadsbestuur hem heeft aangekocht en er in 1651 een stadspark van heeft gemaakt. Gezien de plek van de boom en het feit dat deze zo hoog boven het maaiveld stond, vond ik het niet onlogisch dat de boom er al vanaf het begin heeft gestaan. De vertakking van de wortels lijkt daar ook op te duiden. Jij vindt dat dus niet aannemelijk?

Groet

Wim


Conifers, à 2014-04-07 11:30:56, édité à 2014-04-07 12:04:23, a dit:
I agree with Jeroen, this tree is not so old. First, Fagus sylvatica is not a long-lived tree; specimens over 250 years old are very exceptional (and usually only found at high altitude where growth is slower), and even trees >200 years are rare. Second, the cultivar 'Atropunicea' was only described in 1770; there are no records of any purple-leaf Fagus sylvatica cultivars until 1680 (when one was reported at Buchs, Zurich, Switzerland).

It should be possible to find historical evidence for planting dates, or old illustrations with useful information. In a quick look, I found this 1742 drawing showing newly planted trees where this tree is now, but whether it is one of these is not certain (if it is, it would be the middle right tree in the set of nine). However, I suspect even ~1740 is too old for this tree; my guess for its planting date would be around 1800. Can anyone estimate a date for this undated drawing, where the tree is not present?

Edit: I asked someone with experience of historical clothing fashions; he dated the undated drawing as later 18th century, 1750-1800, and definitely later than the 1742 drawing. So the young trees in the 1742 drawing had been removed and replaced with a parterre garden, and cannot include the beech in question.


Wim Brinkerink, à 2014-04-07 15:43:27, a dit:
Hi Conifers,

A

I started to try and find an answer to your question about the age of the drawing. It's not that simple. I think I'll go to the archives this week. And thanks for your research.

Greetings

WIm


KoutaR, à 2014-04-08 10:28:33, a dit:
Fagus sylvatica is not a long-lived tree; specimens over 250 years old are very exceptional (and usually only found at high altitude where growth is slower), and even trees >200 years are rare.

Hi Conifers,

I guess you slightly under-estimate the longevity of beech. At least in Central Europe, it regularly reaches 300 years in the few remaining old-growth forest remnants, also at low elevations. Or maybe you mean that specimens over 250 years are very exceptional because there is so little old forest left?

Kouta


Conifers, à 2014-04-08 18:15:41, a dit:
Hi Kouta,

Thanks for the extra details! Although I had not known about these older trees in natural forest conditions, it does not surprise me, as they will spend a long period growing slowly in the understorey before reaching maturity (same applies to e.g. Abies, which I did know about). That won't apply in the present case of a planted tree, of course.


Rayn, à 2014-04-08 18:57:58, a dit:
I know of one beech in that grew naturally to over 400 years:http://www.dendrochronology.se/res/pdf_s/niklassonfritz2003.pdf

Girth was only 232 cm.

"In 2001 an extraordinary old (Fagus Sylvatica) was found in a beech forest at the Mårås nature reserve. The tree died in 2002. A sample from about 50 cm off the ground contained 397 annual rings. Normally the beech in that area needs between three and ten years to reach that height. The tree was therefore at least 400 years and is the oldest dated individual so far in Northern Europe. Slow growth during most of it's life is like to have contributed to it's high age by keeping it's dimensions down. The tree showed no signs of having been pollarded"

There is one heavily trimmed beech in Epping Forest in England mentioned in that pdf that is said to be between 500 to 1000 years, is that tree on this site?



Frank Gyssling, à 2014-04-03 09:21:51, a dit:
Hier hat sich wieder mein "Abwerter" gemeldet.

Das ist ein historisch bedeutsamer Baum an historischer Stääte, gepflanzt anlässlich der Vereinigung Deutschlands! (siehe Kommentar zum Herbst-Foto).

Frank Gyssling, à 2014-04-03 09:33:06, a dit:
Ich bin gespannt ob sich der Erstbewerter einmal meldet und seine Note kommentiert.
Wim Brinkerink, à 2014-04-03 12:04:05, édité à 2014-04-03 12:47:20, a dit:
Hi Frank, This time I agree with the rating, allthough I myself will not rate it. My preference is nice and beautiful trees of some monumentality.For me the picture is the most important and not the height of a tree or whatever record might be broken.

I like your picture but I think the composition could be better. In my opinion the tree should be dominant and to be seen completely. This composition gives too much weight to the bridge as if that is the object of intrest. I like the idea of the bridge in the background, but it should be less dominant. So I wouldnt rate above 3 and than I do not rate it, Unless it has an average score of above 4,25.

Wim Brinkerink

Frank Gyssling, à 2014-04-03 15:01:02, a dit:
Tank you for your friendly opinion.

best wishes frank

Martin Tijdgat, à 2014-04-03 23:47:12, a dit:
Hai Frank,

I did rate this picture first. My comment is almost the same as Wim wrote as a comment. I think the tree should be more dominant in this picture and more complete to rate it higher than I did. I do rate a lot of pictures in MT in this way. I also try to rate the photo's for their technical skils

Greetings, Martin Tijdgat

KoutaR, à 2014-04-04 12:20:08, a dit:
Hello Frank,

Die Komposition ist super, wie in deinen Fotos immer, aber da MT eine Baumseite ist, könnte der Baum wirklich ein Bisschen mehr Gewicht haben.

Frank Gyssling, à 2014-04-04 17:09:21, a dit:
Ja, da hast du prizipiell recht. Aber ich wollte der weltbekannten Glienicker Brücke, welche als Pflanzort hier bewust anlässlich des Falls des "Eisernen Vorhangs" gewählt wurde etwas Raum geben. Das können naturgemäß wir Deutsche besonders gut verstehen. Ich bin direkt an dieser furchbaren Grenze aufgewachsen. Insbesondere dieser Baum hat für uns einen hohen symbolischen Wert und ich hoffe sehr, er wird reletiv alt und mahnt uns immer Diktaturen ernergisch zu begegnen.

Vergleichbar wäre ev. dieser noch so junge Baum mit den vielen "Kaiser- od. Königs-Eichen bzw. -Linden die wir nicht nur in Deutschland kennen.

viele Grüße Frank

Conifers, à 2014-04-04 21:44:53, a dit:
What I find odd with this tree is the choice of species, a very short-lived one, to commemorate such a momentous event of history. Sadly, the tree will likely be dead while there are still people alive who remember the event. I saw it was a gift from Japan, maybe a long-lived species like Sugi (Cryptomeria japonica) or Keaki (Zelkova serrata) would have been a better choice?

The photo composition (unless truly dreadful!) doesn't matter to me in giving a rating, this is after all a site about monumental trees, not monumental photographs. It is a nice pic for balance of subjects (though a bit over-saturated*), but what matters to me in rating is the monumentality of the tree itself.

* (something I've noticed with many of Frank's photos, perhaps the camera settings need adjusting slightly so as to reflect actual colours better?)

KoutaR, à 2014-04-05 11:18:46, a dit:
About the saturations: I think it's only that tastes differ. What someone regards as over-saturated, is a stunning photo to another. And what is natural for the first person, is boring to the second.
Frank Gyssling, à 2014-04-05 13:01:06, a dit:
KautaR,

I wish a little more tolerance of conifers to other opininons and a correspeonding rating. He always finds something to criticize. He should better more owne trees present of MT.

Greetings Frank

Jeroen Philippona, à 2014-04-05 23:40:51, édité à 2014-04-06 12:19:20, a dit:
It seems that several of the frequent users of this website still have completely different opinions about what is important at the website, what are beautiful or important trees and what are beautiful or good photographs.

The same discussions can be seen many times again but there seems to be little understanding of each other.

I like to repeat that Tim Bekaert did start the photo-rating system to rate the quality of the photos, just to get a good order in the photos of one tree so that the heighest rated photos would be on top and seen first.

Alas mr. Conifers has never understood this and still likes to give ratings of the monumentality of the trees themselves, wich never was the meaning of the system. The monumentality, importance or beauty of a tree is rather subjective and I don't like to make ratings of them. Everybody can have his own preference and it is clear that those differ a lot among the users.

Concerning the photograph by Frank of the Sargentkerselaar at Glienicker Brücke: to my opinion it is a very beautiful photo of an important subject. Indeed also a photo of the whole tree would be nice.

Regards,

Jeroen Philippona


oprus, à 2014-04-01 16:00:11, a dit:
How old is this tree?
Conifers, à 2014-04-01 16:58:01, a dit:
According to Alan Mitchell (1972, Conifers in the British Isles), it was planted in 1861.

Previous measurements: 30 m tall, 3.45 m girth, in 1931; and 40 m tall, 4.50 m girth in 1970.


Jeroen Philippona, à 2014-03-30 21:19:58, a dit:
Hallo Henk,

Deze beuk is dezelfde als nr 1894, die Leo Goudzwaard eerder op MT zette. Het beste kun je jouw foto's toevoegen aan zijn pagina.

Groeten, Jeroen



Kabouterboom in Beek
Visible pour tous · permalink · nl
Wim Brinkerink, à 2014-03-11 19:33:27, a dit:
Hi. Ik was op 10-3-2014 in Beek. Ik heb erg veel moeite gedaan om de kabouterboom te vinden en te meten. Ik heb in ieder geval geconstateerd dat hij het laatste jaar in de fik is gestoken. Wat meting betreft, heb ik erg veel moeite gedaan om vanuit een halve talud te meten op 1.30 meter. Ik heb nog niet alle foto's, maar ik kon het lint flink strak trekken op die hoogte. Helaas bleek ik 8.33 meter te meten. Bij thuiskomst zag ik dat Nardo Kaandorp in voorgaande jaren 8.33 had gemeten en dat Leo Goudzwaard inmiddels op 8,35 was aangeland in 2012. Ik heb me aangepast en mijn meting op 8.35 gezet, maar eigenlijk geloof ik dat 8,33 reëler is. Ben benieuwd wat volgende meters constateren.

Wim Brinkerink


Leo Goudzwaard, à 2014-03-11 20:31:06, a dit:
hallo Wim, als jij 833 hebt gemeten, kun je dat het beste ook registreren. Dat verschil is zo klein dat het al kan optreden bij een cm hoger of lager op de stam te meten, Leo

Jeroen Philippona, à 2014-03-11 21:55:44, édité à 2014-03-11 21:56:05, a dit:
Ik heb nooit gehoord van een nieuwe brand. De brand is alweer een aantal jaren geleden geweest, op 11 januari 2005 en is uitvoerig in de pers geweest. Zie mijn oude website:http://www.bomeninfo.nl/kabouterboom.htm.

Ook in de jaren 70 is de boom in de fik gestoken. Gelukkig heeft hij het tot nu toe overleeft, in tegenstelling tot de dikste eik van Polen, die het na de 2e brand begaf een aantal jaren geleden.

Jeroen


Wim Brinkerink, à 2014-03-11 22:17:15, a dit:
Hi Jeroen ik ga het uitzoeken. Ik sprak wat mensen in de omgeving en die beaamden de fik vorig jaar...Even chequen of ik beeld en reacties heb verrommeld. Kom er op terug.

Wim Brinkerink, à 2014-03-13 13:58:43, a dit:
Hallo Jeroen,

Dit was duidelijk een gevalletje van klok en klepel. Ik vroeg aan een voorbijganger naar de boom. Hij meldde me toen dat die boom volgens hem er niet meer was, want hij was pas in brand gestoken. Er ging wel een lampje branden dat jij er een keer iets over had gemeld, maar ik zag het licht niet. Ik trok de verkeerde conclusie toen ik de boom zag. Voor zover ik kan overzien is de boom niet opnieuw in brand gestoken. Van binnen was hij wel zwart, maar ja dat zal van de oude brand zin.

Groet

Wim



The Mainland of Greece
Visible pour tous · permalink · nl
Han van Meegeren, à 2014-02-16 20:47:05, édité à 2014-02-16 22:08:41, a dit:
Tree-lovers

At easter I go for 4 weeks to the Mainland of Greece. From the border of Albania till Athens. One of my goals is to measure and photograph the big platanus in the region of Pilios, Volos. Do one of you have interesting tips to visit in the north of Greece. There's not much to find on the internet and I don 't have books about trees in Greece. The only thing I've got is a little part of Jeroen Pater's book of monumental trees in Europe wich descrips some of the platanus in Pilios.

All tips are welcome.

Greetings from Han van Meegeren


Conifers, à 2014-02-16 22:00:10, édité à 2014-02-16 22:03:46, a dit:
Try to get some photos of Aesculus hippocastanum in its native localities - that would be a great target to achieve, there are almost no photos of this anywhere, and none here. Details of the locations here:

http://www.bio.bas.bg/~phytolbalcan/PDF/13_2/13_2_06_Avtzis_&_al.pdf

(pdf file)

Even better, if you can get some photos, if you would be willing to release some under a cc-by-ca license so they can be added to Wiki Commons (they have no natural Aesculus hippocastanum photos either).

Good luck!

Edit: oh, and some measurements too, of course!


Han van Meegeren, à 2014-02-16 22:07:49, a dit:
Hi Conifers

Thanks for the info. This is very interesting. I didn't know that the horse-chessnut came originally from that region.

The coming week I will translate the article you've send and I will make a plan to visit some of the locations. A nice goal for my hollidays.

Greetings from Holland, Han


Jeroen Philippona, à 2014-02-16 22:59:28, a dit:
Interesting article. It will not be easy to find these locations. In Greece there are many very big and old Platanus orientalis. Often these are at village squares, but also they can be found along streams in the country.

Beside Plane trees there are also old Olive trees in Greece, but I don't know were to go for very special specimen trees. Probably there will be some old sweet chestnuts and oaks in some regions in Greece, but I don't know anything of their location.

There are few old forests left in Greece. I remember some old trees on the slopes of Mount Olympus when I climbed it in 1979. Although I visited the Pindus mountains that year I did not look for these Horse chestnuts and did not see them.

Perhaps Jeroen Pater can give you more locations, I think you have his e-mail address.

Jeroen


Conifers, à 2014-02-16 23:19:07, a dit:
Hi Jeroen - "It will not be easy to find these locations" - it should be fairly easy, Table 1 gives GPS latitude / longitude figures detailed down to below .01 seconds, which is less than a metre (so I suspect there is some spurious accuracy in those figures, but that won't affect ease of finding the locations).

fildu, à 2014-02-22 07:45:15, a dit:
Hi Han,

I am very interested in contacting you about your registry of E. globulus in Spain. Could you email me please on fildurh2@bigpond.com I am in Sydney, Australia. Regards. Philip.



Plus...

 

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

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