Talk:Defynnog

Uncertain age of the Defynnog Yew
Two differing estimates have been published for the age of the Defynnog Yew, and both estimates were commented on in Wikipedia-suitable sources in 2014, so the article ought to give equal weight to both. One estimate is that the tree is 1300–3000 years old, while the other estimate is that it is more than 5000 years old.

Primary sources are used sparingly (if at all) in Wikipedia, but they can be given here in the Talk page to assist other editors. The primary source for the younger estimate seems to be the study alluded to in…

…and the primary source for the older estimate seems to be…

The secondary source for the younger estimate is Toby Hindson's 2014 critique of the above two primary sources, in which he argues that the the younger estimate is more likely:

There are several secondary sources for the older estimate, most of them 2014 newspaper articles that are more journalistic and less scholarly than Mr Hindson's paper; though in fairness to the profession of journalism, at least one of the newspaper articles acknowledges the difficulty of finding the ages of ancient trees, and treats the older estimate with caution:

79.72.152.93 (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

There is no scientific evidence for the older age - I understand from local sources that the older age came to the author 'in a dream'. That of course doesn't trouble the tabloids. cheers Geopersona (talk) 05:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you Geopersona. I'm not an expert in Wikipedia sourcing rules, but for the purpose of this comment, I will assume that Mr Hindson's 2014 document is the kind of thing that Wikipedia likes. It qualifies as a secondary source since it's a commentary on other people's studies/conjectures, and it seems to be published by a research association, the Ancient Yew Group, and it does discuss both the younger and the older claims. Meanwhile, the sources that are “too primary” for Wikipedia seem to be (i) Forest Research's reports of their DNA analyses, and (ii) both primary reports of girth measurements. I therefore suggest replacing the age-of-the-yew sentence with:


 * “The churchyard contains several yew trees, of which the largest has a girth large enough for it to be 1300–3000 years old. An adjacent yew was reported in 2014 to be genetically identical to the largest, leading to conjecture in the popular press that the two trees were remnants of a single 5000-year-old tree (citation, Aslet 2014); but this conjecture has been disputed on the grounds that Layering is more plausible origin for the adjacent tree” (citation, Hindson 2014).


 * I welcome any suggestions for improvements to the above two sentences. 79.72.153.137 (talk) 14:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems to me to be a reasonable approach to the matter - it accords with my take on it. cheers Geopersona (talk)