Just to labour the point a little...I shall mischievously perpetuate the
trans-Pacific tree wars...and I do promise to re-emerge from the gloom
sometime to post on photographic matters.
Mark wrote that the biggest trees around his area (USA or Canada?) were
Douglas Firs at up to 125m (410ft). This is interesting and goes in my store
of tree lore. I now discover an unverified claim of 127m (417ft) from a
Douglas Fir from British Columbia. However, ?unofficial? histories still
have Mountain Ash as supreme.
There are records/claims of them over 500ft (152m). One fallen tree was
measured at 132m (435ft) from its roots to where it had broken off in the
fall. The trunk was still 91cm through at the top, so 150m was likely given
the depth of the crown. The ?Baron Tree? was measured at 141m (464ft) in
1868.
However, these are unofficial. The tallest ?officially? measured by a
Government surveyor was only 114m tall (but still taller than extant
redwoods, I think). All these were in Victoria and the rich valleys were
decimated by axe and fire (but grow good potatoes). The biggest remaining
are in Tasmania. Tallest known was 96m, but it lost a bit from the top.
There are others >90m.
There are about 4 Eucalypt species with the potential to touch 90m. Two
more have been measured to 87m. A couple more can touch 80m and so on. There
are a HEAP that can exceed 50m, albeit many in exceptional circumstances
only.
I won?t get going on the oldest trees, although they are in Australia too!
Nick
PS Mark, I like your email address. No industrial logging in the watershed I
hope. The most valuable product from forests near cities is water!
________________________________________________
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|