Talk:Eucalyptus regnans

Leadbeater's possum
The link to Leadbeater's possum leads to the generic possum page at present. This is just a reminder to update it if and when a Leadbeater's possum page is created. Tannin

More than one type of Mountain Ash
Should this page not identify Mountain Ash as the common name for trees of the (insert taxon) Sorbus? Eucalyptus Regnans (the Australian Mountain Ash) is not a Sorbus, it merely has a resemblance to one. Source David Attenborough's The Private Life of Plants. -- Alan Peakall 16:02 30 May 2003 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, Alan, there are three different trees called "Mountain Ash", and two of them are not Sorbus species. Common names of trees are bloody hopeless, they conflict all over the place. It's a silly name anyway - they don't look remotely like any sort of (Sorbus) ash I ever saw, and even the timber they produce is only very vaguely ash-like. But there you go - everyone calls them "Mountain Ash" and I dare say they always will. Tannin 16:16 30 May 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response, Tannin. Once I took a closer look, I saw that you had been around the block already on this one.  The resemblance may well be imaginary as opposed to a case of convergent evolution.  I see that you are returning to Plan A as I write.  Excellent work on Race, by the way.  It precisely answers the question that I posed to SLR before subspecies was brought into existence. -- Alan Peakall 16:50 30 May 2003 (UTC)

Can anyone remember which is the third "Mountain Ash" tree? There is a third one, I recall. Or should I hit Google for it? Tannin 07:25 4 Jun 2003 (UTC) Do you perhaps mean Fraxinus excelsior? The European Ash that has a similar timber.

Isn't this also marketed as Tasmanian Oak? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.30.13.201 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 5 February 2006   (UTC+11 hours )

Tasmanian Oak and Victorian Ash are marketing names for a group of very similar species, including Alpine Ash, Messmate, and Mountain Ash. MarkAnthonyBoyle 06:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Tallest living Mountain Ash etc
Seen in The Observer, 1 June 2003: tallest living mountain ash, 79m accidentally damaged: http://observer.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,968101,00.html

Interesting link, Tarquin, thankyou. It should have been dated April 1st, though. Mountain Ash is not the world's tallest tree and never has been (unless you believe some rather questionable old stories from the 19th century in Victoria, and don't believe stories of the same age and type about Douglas Fir from Canada). A fair number of Coast Redwoods are comfortably bigger than the largest known Mountain Ash. And, in any case, 79 metres is only a tiddler: 90 metres is a big one. There are thousands of Mountain Ash taller than 79 metres, and indeed a good many other tall Eucalptus species: Alpine Ash, Messmate Stringybark and Mana Gum. By the way, they reach their maximum height, if my memory is to be trusted, at 100 to 200 years, and are normally considerably smaller by the time they reach 300 or 350. I presume that there is some truth to the story somewhere, but the Observer ought to be able to do better than that. They could start by covering the Tasmanian government's recent decision to allow logging to a tract of very rare old growth broadleaf rainforest. Tannin 22:01 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)
 * This tree reported in the news was not the tallest, but was probably one of the oldest and largest in trunk diameter; in that sense it was likely due for a natural fire anyway. But still an individual tragedy in the loss of an old-growth tree. Agreed about the questionability of the old 19th century claims; the 100-130m trees belong in the realm of the drop bear. - MPF 14:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I would strongly dispute your broadbrush claims. It is a sad fact that none of our native flora and fauna were studied properly in the 1800s - before they, or at least the best specimens - were trashed one way or another.  I think there are sufficient credible records, including from State Surveyors - who earned a living measuring things accurately - that we can say Mountain Ash were indeed the tallest trees in the world until excessive logging and fires by European settlers trashed all the largest specimens.  Codman 08:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No. The tree wasn't "due for a natural fire anyway". The tree, known as "El Grande" stood in a region of lush, wet forest. These forests of southern Tasmania are naturally damp and perpetually misty. At least they were, until recent years.

The tree died because all the other large trees around it were clear-felled. In the process of clear-felling of these huge trees, there is an enormous amount of waste. Unless you have see the way it is done, one would presume that the process was as follows-
 * trees are cut down.
 * Long straight trunks are shipped out to timber yards and sawn into planks,
 * branches, knotty bits, roots and stumps are chipped.

Nuh! That's not the way it operates.


 * The trucks are only designed to cart out long straight tree trunks. They must be the same length because the trucks consist of a prime mover and bogie wheels only. The logs are suspended between the two.
 * This process leaves the entire top of a tall tree, all the thicker part at the bottom, the branches, the stump and the roots on the ground.
 * This wood is not chipped. It is bulldozed into heaps ten or fifteen feet high and burnt. This "waste" is burnt day after day where-ever logging is carried out, all over Tasmania.
 * Older trees are often hollow. The hollow parts are not useful for sawlogs. 300 year old, 70 metre high trees are routinely chipped.
 * The area of clearfelling is bulldozed. The "vermin" is poisoned.

Tasmania has (had) some of the most notable wetland environments in Australia, in particular spagnum bogs, which (naturally) are very rare in Australia. But the high wetlands are drying up rapidly. They were already drying up rapidly before the disastrous drought which overtook Australia. In Jan 2001 I visited Tasmania and observed that a pall of smoke hung over the island the whole time I was there. It was not coming from natural bushfires. See Global warming.

If you look at photos of the "El Grande" tree, you can see huge stumps in the foreground of trees that have been felled. The felling of these trees had left this tall tree isolated.

There is little doubt that if it had not caught fire during the process of burning off the huge heaps of debris which had been piled near it, then it was inevitable that in its isolated state it would be struck by lightening.

Had it been left surrounded by its naturally damp environment, it may have survived long enough for some of the nearby trees that, judging by the stumps, must have been in the vicinity of 70 metres tall, to have overtopped it. At that time, 2001, the loggers could legally take any tree of less than 80 metres. Think about it. It meant that when such a tree was earmarked, it them became isolated as "El Grande" did. Only about ten trees exist that are over 80 metres tall.

I have never in my life seen any living thing more spectacularly beautiful or awe-inspiring than that tree. I wept when I heard what had happened to it. It is now commemorated at the head of the article.

--Amandajm 12:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC) It's clear fom your tone that you are anti-logging and pro forest conservation. It is certainly true that forestry needs to be carefully managed, and Tasmania in particular, needs someone to keep an eye on their operations. That is fine, but you need to consider a couple of things here. 1. People need to make their houses and furniture out of something. Timber is a sustainable resource, if properly managed, and for that reason alone it is a better choice than plastic or metal. 2. Timber has to come from somewhere, nothing grows in a pine plantation, so regrowth native forests are the best hope for maintaining our native ecology. 3. Australian forests are fire reliant. This is particularly true of Mountain Ash forests. Mountain Ash will not regenerate with selective logging. It needs open sky, an ash layer on the ground, and it will not release its seeds without fire. Clear-felling is the best mimic of the natural conditions required for regeneration. You might not like it, but that's just the way it is. --MarkAnthonyBoyle 06:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is proven crap, MarkAnthonyBoyle. Please save your forest lies for another forum.

This is not proven crap, and such comments rebound more on the commenter. 124.179.248.73 (talk) 20:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Tallest specimen
I'm very dubious about the 96m measure cited by the ISA and tallest trees articles; the same tree, readily recognisable in the photos, is measured by Forestry Tasmania as 89m (who also say that this tree was claimed to be 98m in 1962). Forestry Tasmania give more detailed information on their measurement methods, which is far more scientifically documented than anything in the other articles. Tree height measurement is a very difficult subject, readily prone to errors, and we should be very wary of accepting any details not supported by thorough documentation of methodology. It is interesting that the other articles don't mention the 92m specimen nearby that the Forestry Tasmania authors discovered while measuring the 89m tree (one wonders what height the other groups would claim for it!). - MPF 12:40, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Questionability of the old 19th century claims

 * I support Codman's comments above. Yes, I am Australian but I have no particular gripe one way or other about records - more than happy if the world's largest tree was in New Zealand, Russia, Morocco, or even the US.  Surveyors, even nineteenth century surveyors in Australia, were very competent at measuring and I woud believe their testimony as being impartially given and credible, as well as accurate enough.  Such claims are not within the realms of the drop bear or any other myth.--A  Y  Arktos 10:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * On a note to Ferguson who "found it to be 435 ft from its root to the top of its trunk": Measuring the height of a standing tree, or the length of a fallen log, are differernt things. It's very difficult to find the actual height on ground, walking by feet like through brushes, with a tree who was standing not exactly upright, or having bent trunk, or the highest branch is on the outskirt of crown. It's quite possible Ferguson was several meters off. --rosetta

The reasons why the "Big Tree" in the big tree reserve is no longer 98 metres high are


 * Members of the Wilderness Society who have been monitoring the trees in this area for some years say that it lost several metres of its top in a high wind.
 * Forestry Tasmania explains in the article that trees, like elderly people "senesce". They shrink as they age.
 * That tree is over 400 years old. These trees are not particularly long lived. They are not like oaks that are said to be young for 300 years, mature for 300 years and take 300 years to die.

Forestry Tasmania permits the logging of trees up to 80 metres, but unless some of the younger (still actively growing) tall trees that are around the 80 metere mark are allowed to remain, then in a relatively short time, none of the trees will be over 90 metres and very few will be over 80 m. Take a look at the tree called "Gandalf's staff" on the tall tree site. It is a miracle it is alive. One cannot imagine that it will escape from winds and lightening for very much longer. It only exists now because of a legal technicality.

--Amandajm 11:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

99.39 m for the tallest ever recorded?
In many places, like this, I had seen 326 ft (99.4 m) given as the tallest verified height, but nothing more precise. But now I've found this footnote on this excerpt from American Journal of Botany, Vol. 10, No. 4 (Apr., 1923):
 * Maiden, in his sketch of the Australian flora (Federal Handbook, p. 204) states that the "official size" of the tallest Gippsland tree was 326 feet 1 inch [99.39 m] height, and girth 25 feet 8 inches [7.82 m], six feet [1.8 m] from the ground.

Note that this means debunking the Thorpdale Tree, as it too was in the Gippsland area. Also, based on this text, it seems unlikely to find taller specimens in other areas:
 * In these well-watered regions, especially in the mountainous parts of Gippsland, there is a heavy forest, mainly Eucalyptus. It is in the Gippsland forest that the giant among Australian trees is found. This is Eucalyptus regnans, which is a close rival in height of the Californian Sequoias.

This is stating the obvious, but since reliable statistical data seems to put the maximum height at around 90–100 m (296–328 ft), 114.3 m (375 ft) is a truly outlandish claim. Note that the Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens, for which tere is good statistical data, has a maximum height of 115.55 m (379.1 ft), with 15 specimens over 110 m (361 ft), and 47 over 105 m (344 ft). In other words: there's very little variance among the tallest specimens. For a species with a reliable record of 99.39 m, over 100 m is perfectly plausible, but over 110 m highly unlikely – yet alone 114.3 m.

As for more recent claims, the 1981 edition of Guinness put the height of the tallest living E. regnans at 103 m (338 ft). But there was no more precise location than "Western Australia" given, or a date of measurement. With all the misinformation even in recent years, I'd advice against giving this claim too much credit.

--Anshelm &#39;77 16:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have heavily edited the text concerning the tallest regnans in historic times, largely based on a thorough reading of Professor Al Carder's scholarly and persuasive 1995 book Forest Giants of the World: past and present. Carder, a Canadian plant scientist, spent 20 years in retirement tracking down and testing claims and counter-claims. Carder devotes 12 out of 165 pages of text to regnans alone, and delves thoroughly into the various claims. His scholarly research is strong, balanced, painstaking and methodical. In short, he concludes that regnans is "the tallest form of vegetation known", with Douglas fir second and coast redwood third.

The first-hand documentary evidence by William Ferguson, an Inspector of State Forests, is indisputable: his official report records that he personally measured a fallen regnans tree by tape at Watts River as being 132.5 metres from its root to the top of its trunk, which had broken and was at that point still almost a metre in diameter. Such powerful evidence cannot be ignored or discounted.

Carder mentions Maiden's scepticism (in 1907) of other tall-tree claims, pointing out that Maiden refused to accept them or denounced them as unreliable, but gave no counter-evidence or explanation why. Close inspection of early records does reveal some discrepancies, especially by von Mueller, who at times wrote from memory, not data. But Maiden and other critics at the time appeared not to know about, or ignored, many other perfectly reliable measurements by surveyors, foresters, and assiduous amateurs. Scientific politics played its part: even von Mueller, (a true bigger-is-better tree man) did not mention Ferguson's find in his own accounts, despite being aware of it. Ferguson had largely been responsible for von Mueller losing his grip on his beloved Mebourne botanic gardens - we can reasonably guess that he considered ignoring Ferguson's stunning discovery, the tallest known tree in history, as fair payback.

In any case, the fact that many claims of great height were made cannot be simply discounted - the claims themselves are real and should be recorded here: whether you agree with them or not they are part of the story. Chudditch (talk) 06:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I also support the inclusion of Dr. Al Carder's recollection of these late 19th century claims. There are actually a great many more records which have been discovered in recent years which give strong evidence to trees exceeding well beyond 110 meters. The skeptic who discounts all recorded heights truly has to be closed minded, and non objective in the end. The body of data certainly indicates the tree measured by George Cornthwaite is a legitimate contender, as this tree was measured at a standing height with clinometer, and measured on the ground with a surveyor's chain after it was felled--satisfying credibility. His reading was 370 feet standing, and 375 feet felled length. This tree was a "Black butt" or Regnans, and was 9 feet in diameter and 240 feet to the first branch. Trees over 350 feet have been described in that same area, and one claimed at 410 feet was reported in the South Yarragon Range about the same time period, c. 1885. --75.175.72.2 (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

More on tree names.
It may be best to refer to it throughout this article by the scientific name. It isn't an ash, and there are other common names than Mountain Ash. I've seen reference to it as "swamp gum" and "tassie oak". All the common names could be mentioned in one or two lines and then not used again. 209.216.176.35 18:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd agree - MPF 23:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Mountain Ash is the accepted common name for Eucalyptus regnans, as much as any common name is "accepted". "tas oak" is a marketing term, as is "vic ash", and they refer to a number of similar species. (see above). Most people who have any knowledge of timber or trees in Australia know what a Mountain Ash is. If anybody knows of any other names they are welcome to add them, but they are probably not as widely known as MA.--MarkAnthonyBoyle 06:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Photos?
I think it would be nice if we had a picture of a live tree here instead of just stacks of lumber. - amRadioHed 08:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This situation has been fixed. --Amandajm 13:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Awfully tall trees
"The tallest measured specimen is officially taken as 114,3 metres." "The tree was about 1 metre shorter than the world's current tallest living tree, a Coast Redwood, 115,55 metres."

Over a kilometre high? Is there meant to be a decimal point in these numbers instead of a comma? Gemfyre 02:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"Gone"
""In Tasmania, over 85% of old growth regnans forests are gone. The trees continue to be clearfell logged by Gunns.""

Gone as in gone, or gone as in "no longer old growth"? One much be careful on this topic, as nearly every publication is biased one way or another. Conservation activists like to cultivate the myth that clearfelled forest is permanently alienated; i.e. it is cleared and turned into agricultural land. The reality is it is almost invariably burned over, then allowed to regenerate, and within twenty years you've got something that looks and feels like a forest again. This process almost certainly has negative effects on undergrowth and fauna; for example, trees never get a chance to get old enough to develop the holes that many forest animals need to nest. But to associate clearfelling with forest loss is simply false. Furthermore, the merits of clearfelling versus selective logging are debatable, so using "clearfelled" as a pejorative term sin't really appropriate. Hesperian 05:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Thanks for pointing that out. Changed to "forests have been logged".MarkAnthonyBoyle 02:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC) removed the line "These standard claims regarding regeneration requirements are a convenient justification for relatively destructive logging practices." as not NPOVMarkAnthonyBoyle 14:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Cut
I removed the paragraphs below to allow the information to be reincorporated appropriately. Cygnis insignis 18:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC) The clearfell, burn and sow (CBS) technique was developed in the early 1960s, based largely on the pioneering work of Dr Max Gilbert in Tasmania and Dr Murray Cunningham in Victoria. It involves clearing of all the trees in coupes usually ranging from 10 to 100 ha, burning of the harvest residues to create a seedbed and artificial sowing of eucalypt seed of species that came from the coupe. The technique was developed, as a means of achieving reliable regeneration in tall wet forests with dense understoreys. Prior to its introduction, cut-over wet eucalypt forest lacked regeneration except where stand-replacing wildfires had initiated regrowth. In drier forests, with sparse understoreys, eucalypt regeneration can occur in canopy gaps and partial harvest systems are used. Seed is supplied naturally from retained trees. Some 55% of the annual harvest in public native forests is now by partial harvesting.

Clearfelling attracts public concern, particularly when applied to tall oldgrowth forests, because of its high initial impact, the smoke nuisance posed by burning, a reduction in rainforest species, rotting logs and hollow-dependent birds and mammals and a reduction in special species timbers and leatherwood nectar. However, clearfelling is used in tall wet eucalypt forests because it’s the safest for forest workers, it gives the highest return to the forest owner (the Tasmanian public), burning creates seedbed, maximises eucalypt growth and reduces the subsequent wildfire risk. The CBS system has some congruence with natural regeneration processes after stand-replacing wildfires (although wildfires leave more structure behind). Clearfelling also results in the least disturbance to the forest, in total, for a given level of wood supply. Recent research indicates that plant and beetle species composition is similar in logged regrowth and wildfire regrowth of the same age. This suggests that a single application of CBS in tall oldgrowth forests allows a modest ‘legacy’ of oldgrowth species (e.g. myrtle) and structures (e.g. large stumps and logs) to be passed onto the new stand. However, it has been predicted that a reduced legacy will be passed on if the regrowth is re-logged on the planned 90-year rotation cycle. Alternatives to clearfell silviculture in oldgrowth forests John Hickey, Division of Research and Development, Forestry Tasmania

Eucalyptus Regnans once grew over 400 feet?
How do we make sense of multiple Pre-20th century claims of Eucalyptus trees growing over 350, and even 400 feet?

Such as: Mr. G. Klein on Black Spur, near Healesville, estimating a tree 480 ft in. Mr G.W. Robinson, Surveyor, estimating a tree at the foot of Mount Baw-Baw, 471 feet. Mr William Ferguson, Surveyor, measuring by tape line a fallen tree near Watts river, 435 feet, from roots to broken top. Reporting to Victorian State Forest Assistant Commissioner, Clement Hodgkinson, 1872. Mr. D. Boyle, Surveyor, measuring a fallen Eucalyptus at Dandenong, 390 ft to broken top, in 1862. Mr. E. B. Heyne measuring a felled tree at Dandenong, 365 ft to 3ft diam broken top. Mr. J Rollo of Yarragon estimating a tree at 410 ft. Mr. Pemberton Walcott estimating a Karri Eucalyptus at 400 feet. Prof. Wilson and Colonel Ellery measuring a felled tree at Mount Sabine, 380 ft long, 21'8" diam.

Other notables:

The Thorpdale tree in South Gippsland, felled and measured at 375 feet in 1880. A Menzies Creek Mountain Ash measured after felling at nearly 400 feet in 1888. A tree in the Cape Otway-ranges felled and found to be 415 feet high and 15 feet in diameter.

Can Surveyors and Foresters truly be off by, 100, or even 50 feet? And how does a Surveyor, such as Ferguson, fudge a measurement of a fallen tree, using a tape line? These Surveyors couldn't have been that bad, because the Thorpdale tree was originally estimated by certified surveyor, George Cornthwaite, at 370 feet, and after being felled, a year or so later, it's true length was found to be 375 feet, hence a 5 foot variance--but not 50 feet. --71.222.40.209 02:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE- - The Eucalyptus Reg. has been verified at heights above 350 feet, and probably over 400. The forest at Thorpdale contained trees up to 375 feet -- Rare Photograph from Thorpdale, 1890 shows many trees 365 ft high: -- 75.175.79.174 (talk) 03:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What you are citing doesn't show the tree and just repeats unverifiable stories. Moreso, the height given is a meter shorter than the current tallest coastal redwood.  Additionally, there are many equally plausible stories from the 1800's of taller redwoods and douglas firs. Jmcnamera (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Heavily biased towards clearfelling
This article has become heavily biased towards clearfelling of mountain ash, mainly for woodchips. This is disgraceful. There is massive community opposition to this, published scientific research showing the negative impacts this has on wildlife and water yields, and published scientific research showing arguments that mountain ash forests "need" clearfelling and burning to regenerate are rubbish. I don't have the time, but I hope sometimes removes the biased argument in favour of what is undeniably a disgraceful practice, and a source of shame and distress for all Australians. Sure, my comments here are heated, but all I can say is, forget the emotions and look at the published science -- it indicates it is a practice that is damaging and should not continue.


 * Thanks for the feedback. I haven't looked at this article in a long time. Will take a look a bit later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

B rated article - I don't think so!
A brief perusal of the article picked up a number of obvious typos and rambling sentences that make little sense. There are also some peculiar "facts" such as:

- the reference to the E. regnans plantations (I must have missed them!)

- the statement that E regnans doesn't need clearfelling because the aborigines did mosaic burns which doesn't sit well with the assertion that there have been 7 fires since 1400!

- the reference to frequent fires since European settlement - fair enough, but somehow these fires have not been a major source of destruction of old growth forests - it has only been logging. What about the millions of hectares burnt in Victoria in 1939?

114.76.27.122 (talk) 10:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore to 114.76.27.122 - The conservation section needs drastic revision. It uses poor references, is highly emotive and presents biased, contrary and sometimes irrelevant propaganda. The section needs to be renamed "controversy", or have a severe review of the tone.

For the cause of conservation, this doesn't help us at all... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.101.45 (talk) 13:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

--184.100.154.17 (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

"Native Forest is not part of our future"


says Gunns' CEO Greg L'Estrange.

Now before you get in a twist, understand when he says "our future", Greg is not referring to "life on Earth" or even "the human race". It is a great relief to discover that he is referring exclusively and most specifically to the near future of the company, Gunns, which is the sole logger of the Tasmanian wilderness. Greg indicates that the reason why logging of old growth forests is ceasing is in response to "public opinion". The cynical opinion is that since they have been clear-felling Tasmania for fully thirty years, enough of the regrowth has reached sufficient height that it is ready for viable commercial harvesting, and Gunns no longer finds it financially more profitable to log and process oldgrowth.

Every interested person can look at southern Tasmania on Google salletite view. Pretty green, and lots of it. Look hard and one can see a few remaining areas where the 250-300 foot (80 metre) Regnans rise up above the canopy. These are the only areas of old growth Eucalyptus that remain, and there are very few of them. Most of the green you will see, if you zoom, is nice, tidy, single variety plantations of the same species (because it grows fast and tall) minus the natural undergrowth of myrtle and tee ferns, and where wildlife (wallabies, potoroos, lyre birds, wombats, wedge tailed eagles) are classed as vermin. There are also the dark stands of regimented Pinus radiata plantation, which does not sustain Australian wildlife.

Amandajm (talk) 08:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

In a hundred years, a 300 foot Eucalyptus will probably be considered mythical and classed with the other "unverified" stories of giant trees. That's why I believe it is important for this article to include the historically verified and first hand accounts of fallen trees measured by surveyors and State foresters such as Cornthwaite and Ferguson, no matter how unbelievable they might seem today (after 140 years of logging and fires). These measurements are invaluable. The same can be said about old measurements of Douglas fir, Sitka Spruce and Coast Redwood. --184.100.154.17 (talk) 21:00, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eucalyptus regnans. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111229074011/http://www.humboldt.edu/redwoods/photos/eucalyptus.php to http://www.humboldt.edu/redwoods/photos/eucalyptus.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Cape Otway Tree height
An IP keep changing the height of the tree at Cape Otway. Discuss?---- Work permit (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I have asked them to provide a source or to discuss with no response. If a source is provided then of course I'd be happy with the change but otherwise it's not on. - Nick Thorne talk  00:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

climate?
what's the typical climate in an eucalyptus-regnans-forest, please? temperature-ranges (seasonal, daily), rain (ok > 1.200 mm), air humidity, sun-shine-times? may be a section/passage about that in the article? thanks! HilmarHansWerner (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Most of these properties (humidity etc.) are too variable over the range of E.regnans to describe here. Probably easiest to study the distribution of the species here then consult climate data such as here. Gderrin (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

GA Process
This article is of a very high quality and could easily go through the WP:GA process if anyone's interested. Thanks,  Draco phyllum  01:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Corrections September 2022
Hello and 178.255.168.35: Some of these changes do appear correct per the sources however discussion is necessary. I am unable to verify some of these changes. 178.255.168.35 please explain. Invasive Spices (talk) 1 September 2022 (UTC)