European beech at Trollskog in Torna Hšllestad, Dalby, Sweden
A technical point: as these trees are seed-grown (self-sown), they are Fagus sylvatica f. tortuosa, and not the cultivar 'Suenteliensis', which to be true to name can only be propagated clonally by grafting.
Thanks for this. You are absolutely right; this is the naturaly occuring forma tortuosa. I had the same type of discussion with Fagus sylvatica 'Asplenifolia'.or 'Laciniata'. This leafform also occurs naturaly and has been grafted under a few different names.
Thanks, that's true, it's not a clone. I changed name. New problem: I cannot get a small "f" before tortuosa. The system automatically generates a capital F. Will ask Tim to change it. But what must we think about the oak, MT nr. 18706? :)
I changed the cultivar 'Tortuosa' in subsp. tortuosa, and registered this tree as such.
I also made it so that cultivars/varieties always get a capital letter (as was the case), but subspecies don't.
Thanks! A bit of clarification though, re "I also made it so that cultivars/varieties always get a capital letter (as was the case), but subspecies don't".
The ranks of subspecies, variety and forma are botanical, and governed by the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature; they are always in italics and begin with a lower case letter, and must always show an indication of which rank is being used (the rank NOT in italics!):
Pinus nigra subsp. salzmannii
Pinus sylvestris var. hamata
Fagus sylvatica f. tortuosa
Cultivars, and cultivar groups, are governed by the International Code for Nomenclature of Cultivated Plants; they are not in italics, and begin with a capital; individual cultivars are in single quotes, groups of similar cultivars not in quotes:
Acer platanoides 'Crimson King'
Acer palmatum Dissectum Group
Hope this helps!
as you probably all noticed the site got slower to even unreachable the last days.
I found the cause and have a solution in mind that I will try to implement today. This should cause the site (especially the image overview pages) to be faster than before, but in the meantime the overview pages per country/province/municipality will not list any images. The image pages as such (not the overview pages) will remain accessible and you can continue to use the site without restrictions.
Just so you know these empty image overview pages are intentional and temporary.
everything should now be relatively fast again and working.
One other cause of slowdown - the flickering numbers on the home page (number of registered trees, etc.) slow loading down quite a lot. I have also read that flickering images like this can be dangerous for people with epilepsy (they can trigger an epileptic fit). Maybe make the numbers appear in the final totals from the start, without the 'counting up'?
I have to disappoint you but these moving counters don't slow down the site.
The actual numbers they stop on after moving are already known as soon as you see the page, and getting these numbers is much less than a fraction of a millisecond as it doesn't involve any actual counting. The moving numbers that you see then is just a simple animation that is done at the client's side to make that main page appear more dynamic (like see, the database is ever growing).
I made the color of the counters somewhat less black to soften the contrast.
sorry for taking your time, but I added more or less in 10th August a few great trees, generally oaks. Then, 2 weeks later, I went to this place to measure and make photos of the Giants. But it turned out that an image of the localization and respective specimens was very different (than I have read on the Net and in forestry, data was from about 1990) so I DELETED earlier-added trees and I once again added trees from this place, but with completely new localization (it is here - manor house and in vicinity of this place )
The problem is that I can see in statictics-site, for instance the largest in Łůdź voivodeship) old records, data before deletion.
I have a lesson for future to firstly measure and then post the trees but can you repair it or nothing is to do with this thing
welcome at the site. Great to see you registering these Polish trees.
Actually I have been in Łůdź a couple of times! If there is anything you need help with, don't hesitate to ask.
Hi Tim, I just discovered possibilities for discussion. I strive for registering trees regularly, but probably from September to June I have to focus on studying at the University, hopefully I will find some moments to send photos of great trees. All in all, I would like to say that in Poland about 1/3 of great plants grows on private ownerships, usually old manor houses and it is really hard to talk to the owners and measure the trees, because You discern only tall fence and hear a vicious dog. Apart from difficulties tree chasing is a great, magnificent form of leisure.
However I am fully happy that around the world I can see people who love trees so much, thanks for these facilities.
Sommer-Linde auf dem Friedhof in Kirchscheidungen in Kirchscheidungen
Meines Wissens wurde erst 1540 vor der Kirche eine Reformationslinde gepflanzt, da der Ort erst in diesem Jahr evangelisch wurde.
Sollten Sie Belege Łber dieses frŁhe Datum haben, wŁrde ich mich Łber eine Mitteilung freuen!
Mit besten GrŁŖen
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,
Paul C. Luttik
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 ŗ 6 geleden verschenen zijn.
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.
VariŽrende 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.
Paul C. Luttik
Bijzondere Boomwerken ( idem FB )
Please can I suggest that a rule now be implemented, imposed on this site, no tree posted without accompanying at least one photo and preferably from several aspects for record trees. Just posting trees with no accompanying photographs is not a proper record for each tree, the photograph is a/the visual of the tree which will be kept on this site as a long lasting record. I am still waiting to see a photograph of the 35.8 metre Sweet Chestnut which I have requested several times now, new record trees have been measured in Ireland and photographs still not added yet? Please, if you are recording trees please do it fully and properly, take photographs of the tree and post them with the tree when you add it. The record of each tree is not complete in my opinion without accompanying photographs, they are as important as the measuring, a a visual record.
Of course photographs give extra information and are valuable. For part of our members they are the most important aspect of this website. For most of them the photographs have an esthetic value or are meant to document the esthetic quality of trees. For me this also is important. For others the website is important as a database with species and measurements. For them photographs have a value as a document underlining the determinations or the measurements.
Both aspects I support strongly. Still, when you don't have good photographs of a tree it can be interesting to document its existance somewhere as well as its measurements. I have added rather many tall common oaks in the Netherlands: of the 38 locations at MT with Quercus robur of 35 m and taller 17 locations are in the Netherlands (in stead of 6 in Germany, 5 in the UK, 3 in Poland, only 1 in France, etc.), not because we have taller oaks, but because I measured and documented many locations.
I did it just to document the many places where there are oaks above this height. I added photos of several of them but I don't think it is necessary to have photos of all of them as they often are tight grown forest specimen wich look alike a lot and are difficult to photograph.
My conclusion: very nice when there are photographs of a tree but also measurement information without photos can be valuable.
Tim has given all these possibilities and I hope these will be there in future.
About Ireland: Leo wrote it was raining a lot so photographing was not always possible. Also, adding photos is time consuming wich not everybody has in the same measure.
And there are times where publishing photos - and accurate locations - is not advisable for security reasons. Pinus longaeva "Methuselah" and Sequoia sempervirens "Hyperion" spring to mind.
What I would personally like, is that if a photo is added, that a small caption is added too.
Now this functionality is used rarely, and it would be good if photos would be annotated with a caption that contains some info of the specific content of the photo. After uploading I might redirect to the 'add caption page' instead of the uploaded image, to stimulate captions.
Hello Jeroen, the Netherlands were extremely impressive in thrashing Spain the other night by the way, I don't think that the raining argument can be used as a real excuse, it was hammering down when I visited Cragside last year for example but I still managed to take some decent photos.
Will gladly add captions to photos if required, will figure out how to do it as Owen is already doing it.
You are probably right Conifers with exceptional trees like Hyperion and the fear of over visiting and damage. The article that I read recently somewhere (think it was on here) about gangs going about in California cutting burls off living Coast Redwoods to sell and leading to the trees being damaged and some dying was appalling. Over here there doesn't seem to be the interest in trees apart from some of us enthusiasts, for example I don't think anyone in Betws Y Coed gives a stuff about the huge trees growing there, certainly not the proprietors of the B&B where I stayed and who asked me why I was visiting.
RedRob and Jeroen are right in their own point of view. I support them both. On the other hand I did have some problems with the fact that people have registered trees without pictures. I met the trees and had quite some problems in assigning the right measurements to the tree I saw.
Sometimes I meet trees, I measure them and make pictures. (I Always make pictures), but when I want to register I see someone has registered a kind of vague tree on approximately the same place. Where do I post my trees??? A new one?, or an existing one??
I have met this problem more than once. Today I met the problem with some trees in Limburg, Netherlands.
I will solve the issue, but it makes one think if we make registering as profitable as we can.
In rethinking the issue I support Redrob's view.
Let's put an example. I could easily post the magnificent Baobabs on Madagascar. I can locate the trees quite exact and add a lot of information. Some people would do that to have a result on their name. (Some people here have done this)
What are the consequences? Will there anybody be triggered to meet the trees and make pictures and measure them? If it is that easy to do it from their lazy chair?
In spite of this thinking, I will go there and make pictures and measure them, but it is not fair, that people have the opportunity to post without actually having seen the tree,
Contributions to this site without foto's has, in my opinion, little value.
Lists with only figures can be valuable for scientist if the figures are produced accoording to sientific rules. On this site this is not the case.
The monumentality of a tree (whatever definition you use) is the reason that someone is impressed and like to show the tree he likes. Without picure this is not possible.
Let's suppose the following scenario: A tall tree lover from Australia visits his relatives in France. Besides his family activities he also wants to visit a tall tree. He makes an Internet search with 'tallest tree of france'. The corresponding MT page is first in the search results. Now he finds the 66.44-metre Douglas-fir. There is no photo but there are coordinates and he can visit the tree. If there was a rule "don't add any tree if you don't have a photo", he would think there are no that tall trees in France.
Conclusion: Additions of remarkable tall, thick and old trees even without a photo has a value. But I am ready to support the view that rather ordinary-sized trees should not be added without a photo. Actually I wonder why members add such trees at all (there are lots of such trees on MT).
From my own experience in trying to relocate many trees to re-measure, the value of a photograph as really been apparent, if there had been a photograph then you could study it and note it's shape, form and position when going searching for it. Even with GPS co-ordinates it is quite difficult to re-locate trees precisely, I don't have a GPS mobile so for me I cannot use GPS anyway but rely on directions. I think many people with just a passing interest in trees might not use or know about GPS either. I think someone coming from Australia would find a tree much, much easier to locate having seen a photograph or photographs for reference. As it says on registering a tree on here, it is also proof that the tree exists.
Of course, it is much better if also photos are added, but my point was that adding a tree without photos should not be banned.
Is there really abuse? Are there people who post trees who don't exist? I always try to post pictures, but i agree with KoutaR! Even measurements without pictures can be valuable and guid us to a 'tre(e)asures' :-).
I don't think anyone has added Yggdrasil
yet . . . but maybe?? ;-)
I have never heard that anyone would have reported a non-existing tree in any tree-related forum. Some "almost-accidental" over-measuring may happen. Apparently there are honest people here.
About Yggdrasil... Seriously, the trees of mytology could be a new area for MT in the far future. I am not a fan but I think that many laymen and particularly laywomen at least in Germany are much more interested in tree mythos than measurements.
Aha, there is a new Yggdrasil. It is alrerady on this site.
es (Fraxinus excelsior) '4279'
This tree is called Yggdrasil (see the book Monumentale Bomen in Europa by Jeroen Pater).
Hello tree friends,
that's my opinion on this topic:
A registered tree must be clearly identified on site for review. This is best achieved with a photo. The quality of the photo is not important for this purpose. Also a photo by mobile phone from the base of the trunk accomplishes this purpose and is always possible, even in rain. I do not understand why that's a problem for some users.
Solely on the specified coordinates the reliable identification of the tree is often not possible, especially in the woods with many trees of the same species. Unfortunately coordinates can not be entered and documented as a measured value like girth or height. Positioning the tree by clicking the Google satellite map is often a gamble and everyone is allowed to try his luck. You can not find out who has set or moved the coordinates, and when he did so. In such circumstances, the exact calibration of the coordinates via GPS device does not make much sense; on the accuracy of the coordinates it is better not to rely.
I would never register a tree without photographic evidence. A mandatory field for photo, height, girth and coordinates would improve the quality of our database.
I am looking for the highest Douglas Fir of Europe. I have to review and remeasure the highest 66.44 and 66.40 meter Douglas Firs in France and Scotland. From the French tree there is no photo on MT, as Kouta already stated. From the Scottish tree there is only a photo with a group of trees. Should I risk the costly trips for an only incompletely registered tree which on site I possibly can not identify exactly?
Hi Jeroen and Wim
I think these two examples in Forstgarten Kleve make clear why I think a photograph for identification of the tree is essential and should be a required field:
1) gewone plataan (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) tamme kastanje (Castanea sativa) '16908' A sweet chestnut in a dense park area, no photo, girth and height both unknown.
In the case of tamme kastanje (Castanea sativa) '16908' I decided not to post pictures because I couldn't make up which pictures belonged to which tree. I had two meaurements of two nearbye trees, 3,65 en 3,95. I couldn't assign the meaurements to either the sequoia or the chestnut. Furthermore I was there in a period when there were no leaves on the trees. I must have thought I will find it later.
But in essence I agree with you that pictures are essential. This is one of the rare moments I haven't posted one. I will post a pic of the tree now. I have found the right picture.
kind regards WIm
in reference to the two chestnuts in Forstgarten Kleve I can say the following:
The coordinates of both trees are faulty. Tree '16908' could not be identified with the original sparse information. Looking at your photo, the plate hangs at the left chestnut. The right chestnut has no plate and I have not measured it. You used this plate for the description of the tree '16909', but you uploaded now its photo at tree '16908'. I suggest you delete the photo of the plate at '16908' and upload it at '16909'. The chestnut '16909' with the plate is pretty much at this position: N51.79845 E6.12768. The specified value for girth is suitable.
At the current Google satellite maps from Forstgarten Kleve reliable positioning of trees is hardly possible, that's my opinion. Each sets the position elsewhere. The trees are tumbling wildly. A GPS device is more suitable. But also on the German base map (Deutsche Grundkarte, DGK5) you can determine the locations more accurately. In this map all parkways are located. For NRW you will find it here: http://www.tim-online.nrw.de (or herehttp://www.geoserver.nrw.de).