Talk:List of tallest trees

Tallest tree contradiction
The extra material newly added by contradicts the table: there are trees in the new material that should be in the table, if the table were complete.

Are the new tree heights only estimates? In other articles (e.g., List of oldest trees), we have two separate tables for verified data and estimated data. That would resolve the contradiction, but I'm not sure that is true. — hike395 (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I support separating out verified from estimated/reported heights. I'd also support separating out "tallest historical individual" record claims (which tend to be less reliably sourced) into a separate table, rather than tacking a column onto the main table like we do now. I think the goal should be to make the main list as clean and well-vetted as possible, while still making room for less well verified claims within the article. J-Mo 22:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Tallest tree in Bhutan
Greetings,

The claimed height of 94.6 meters for the tallest Kashmir Cypress appears to be an inflated claim. Clicking on the link shows the tree to be standing alone. It's extremely unlikely that a tree 90+ meters in height would be in existence so unprotected from the wind. Looking at the citation links, one of the citation links notes that the highest confirmed Kashmir cypress was around 60 meters. I suggest that, at very least, add a ? mark to the "94.6 meter" claim. There's a tree there, but is it the height claimed? Unlikely. Ryoung 122 04:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The height of 94.6 m cannot be true for that tree. In addition to the fact that it is growing alone, I can see its top is broken. One of the foremost Bhutanese scientists, DB Gurung, mailed me "It appears that the confirmed measurement of Tsenden [=Cupressus cashmeriana] besides road in plantation in Lhuntse, eastern Bhutan is reported to be 81 m." But also for this, I am not sure about the measurement method. Krasanen (talk) 10:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I cleaned up the citations on this one a bit and put a "better source needed" template in. From the few pictures available online (example), and the much lower heights of other trees in listed in the main source for the record height (PDF), I agree that 95 meters is implausible. It's a cool tree, but I don't believe it's 300 feet tall! If we decide to go forward with a refactor of the article to separate the verified Top 10 from other reported champions, I think we should demote this one. Unless someone finds a better source. J-Mo 22:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

No list of absolute tallest trees?
Why is there only a list "by species" shouldn't there be a list that doesn't limit 1 tree listed per species? 73.61.44.66 (talk) 19:57, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If we did that, the first 100+ rows in the table would all be Sequoia Sempervirens ;) J-Mo 22:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

And that's a problem because? 73.61.44.66 (talk) 07:44, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Eucalyptus viminalis
The reference does not show any 92-metre E. viminalis. It also doesn't appear here: https://tasmaniasgianttrees.weebly.com/giant-tree-stats.html The old record list (reference #25) says 89m. Krasanen (talk) 10:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I noticed that too, but I was able to verify the 92 meter measurement for White Knight in the "Height" PDF here. Citation updated. J-Mo 22:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the sources for this tree being 91.3 meters are reliable enough.

https://www.wondermondo.com/white-knight-the-tallest-manna-gum/

That said, I think in the LONG RUN this article would do better to perhaps use a colorized list or chart and a source of the height measurement, and when last verified. We know that this data is subject to change. Some trees are growing taller, and some are declining due to breakage in storms, old age, or drought. Ryoung 122 00:50, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed refactor of this page
The article is a bit of a mess right now. The sourcing in particular is fairly sketchy in some places. On one hand, I think there is value in keeping reports of living or historical trees with superlative heights, even if we don't know how reliably they were measured. On the other hand, the main list should really only contain a) living trees and b) trees for which we can be relatively certain of the claimed heights.

I propose we make the following changes:
 * 1) the main list should be restricted to individuals for which there are verified measurements in scientific publications or official big tree registries. Media articles and conifers.org can be used as supporting citations, but shouldn't be the only source for a tree in the primary list. This will make it much easier to keep this list reliable and stable, and also make it easier to keep it in sync with the top 10 list in the superlative trees article.
 * 2) officially set a lower threshold for the main list. Maybe 80 meters, since that seems to keep the list from getting too long.
 * 3) remove the "tallest ever recorded" column from the main list. These are often exaggerated historical claims (400+ foot Douglas Firs, Eucalypts, and Redwoods). We should keep these records in the article if they're plausible, just not the main list.
 * 4) create a second list. Call it "Species reported to exceed 80 meters" or something, to suggest that we're less certain about the provenance of these measurements. Any species with specimens that are claimed to exceed 80 meters (whether currently living or not), but don't have scientific papers or registry entries to back up those claims, can go here. Basic Wikipedia reliable sources criteria apply.
 * 5) perhaps, create a third list for "Historical claims of superlative heights". Here's where those hundred year old news articles about 400 footers can go.
 * 6) Add a "measurement method" column to the main list—tape drop, laser, lidar, etc. Or "unknown" if necessary. Helps keep us honest. Maybe a "last measurement date" too, if we feel ambitious (case in point, Centurion recently crossed the 100 meter mark and I had to update the citations).
 * Oh, and we should add some pictures for each tree if they're available on Commons.

What do you say? J-Mo 23:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

...and, what about changing the name of the article to "List of tallest tree species?". Makes more sense than the current title. As I pointed out in the thread above, any list of tallest reliably-measured individual trees would just be redwood after redwood. J-Mo 23:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)


 * ,, do you have thoughts or opinions on the proposal above? J-Mo 15:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * J-Mo 20:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I generally support the proposed plan: it makes the page more verifiable and reliable. Many of the same considerations went into the structure of List of oldest trees. I would recommend not making a third list for historical claims, because those will attract junk. I don't think you need to rename the page, but I do like concise titles. — hike395 (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks . I went ahead and started the refactor. I'll probably go through and prune the "speculative" candidates in the bottom section at some point soon, if no one else does. I'm okay with keeping some of these around, but there's a bit of duplication right now, as well as a few especially poor sources. See edit comments for summaries of my work so far. Cheers, J-Mo 22:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I do see a use in a list of tallest trees that is "all-redwood" (to clarify, I appreciate the "list by species" as that covers an area often overlooked, but this is not an either/or, the article can support both lists): it would have a few benefits: A. less focus on just one datapoint, and more understanding of population group prevalence. B. It would emphasize just how dominant the coast redwood species is. C. It would answer the question "what is the second-tallest tree", etc. A list such as this, which I believe existed earlier, could be restored as, say, a top-10 or top-25 list. Notable, also, such lists can help make the readers aware of such things as the clustering of maximum-height data. We get a sense that "Hyperion" is a bit of an "outlier", but "350+ feet" is a height reached by coast redwoods in significant numbers.

Finally, it is important, also, to notate past (valid) maximum tree heights. If we understand that the trees alive today don't match up to the historical records, we can then be open to asking why: is it the destruction of the environment? Yes. Douglas Fir, in particular, have been massively reduced in maximum height through over-logging. But we also see forest giants such as the Mother of the Forest remind us of what once was, and its destruction.20:18, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Just going to respond to some ideas here. I. I agree that this article, in its current iteration, would be better-named as "List of Tallest Tree Species" since it's definitely NOT a "List of Tallest Trees". 2. Past historical heights are important, if properly documented. The Doerner Fir currently stands at 99.7 meters high but was definitely taller in the past. The 1988 measurement of 100.28 meters to a LIVE top, whereas now the top is dead. I think it's clear that dead-topped trees gradually lose height through dieback and breakage. I would even suggest that we have a FIRST list with HISTORICAL tallest, and then a second list with currently-living tallest. 3. While ALL the tallest may currently be redwoods, before logging wiped out nearly the ENTIRE Douglas Fir forest, there is enough evidence that the Douglas Fir DEFINITELY was once taller. Whereas experts may not agree on past heights for Eucalytus, some of the heights for Douglas Fir are relatively recent (for example, 119.79 meters for the Mineral Fir which fell over in a storm in 1930). Remember, this is an encyclopedia, NOT a fan page. The most important message for the reader is that they become aware of just how much "Tallest Trees" are limited by several main factors, including hydraulic (pumping water/nutrients to the top); wind shear; and human deforestation (logging). I think it's clear that, just as the "largest trees" are currently giant sequoia, evidence is strong that before logging, some coast redwoods were actually the largest trees ever. Ironically, the coast redwood, the current tallest tree, almost certainly was NOT the tallest ever. Even in factoring in for relative reliability of reports, there just aren't many or any claims of coast redwoods being historically as tall as Douglas Fir. And another point to make: nearly ALL the tallest Douglas Fir currently standing are MUCH SMALLER IN DIAMETER than the historical champions. Some Douglas Fir were 14-17 feet in diameter at the base, whereas most of the tallest now are under 10 feet in diameter. In short, a strong case can be made that the maximum heights have been re-arranged due to logging (tallest Douglas Fir tended to grow in valleys that were easier to log, for one reason).

I would also appreciate that, IF this article is to remain "List of Tallest Trees", then there should be a list of tallest redwoods, then a list of tallest other. This is the best way to do it. Obviously, the second-tallest tree currently standing is a coast redwood...in fact, probably the top 50, top 100 would ALL be coast redwood. Historically, there are NONE left of the historical Douglas Fir and Eucalyptus that would rank in a Top 50 or even Top 100 list.

A battle for current tallest non-redwood is a virtual tie between Centurion (tallest eucalyptus), tallest spruce, and tallest Douglas Fir...but none of them are even 101 meters currently, everyone agrees on that. Ryoung 122 00:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps this Comment section should be broken up into smaller sections? Firstly I propose that if we are going to keep an 80 meter minimum, then let's soft-strike-out the above references that are under 80 meters. A growing body of evidence shows that 80 meters is reached in not just North America, Australia, and Asia but also South America and Africa have trees 80+ meters in height. Perhaps only Europe...due to the past history of deforestation...lacks any trees in this category? (Note that the reconstruction of Notre Dame noted that the trees from several centuries ago were difficult to replicate).

In regards to "Tallest Trees" ever...before I go further I would like to mention that I am one of the foremost experts on human longevity and I understand better than most that there is a range of 'believability' that occurs with "maximum tree height". Just as with humans, there are age claims that far exceed statistical possibility, some of the claims for "Tallest Trees Ever" do extend into the realm of myth, legend, and fantasy. That said, there is range between "maximum proven" and "scientifically impossible". Most experts today agree that the oldest human on record is Jeanne Calment at 122.45 years. Extreme Value Theory posits a maximum hypothetical possible age around 125-128 (mathematical estimate) or 135 (biological estimate). Thus, we have a category called "longevity claims" for claims in the grey area...above definitely proven, but not impossible. I suggest that this article has a NEED to have this kind of explainer, and it would be HELPFUL to list past claims that, at minimum, have a third-party source that includes sufficient detail such as where it came from.

Also, let's ditch the word "Superlative" which is an opinion. The WORST thing we can do to this article is just make it a list of trees that attracted media attention, because that is selection bias. Instead, the best thing to do is to have the article neutrally and objectively cite sources and display the data in a manner that is non-biased, logical, and presents the data this is measurable and comparable. Having a list of documented, verified "Tallest tree by species" for 80+ meters is a good starting point...going any lower is risking getting "lost in the weeds" of selection bias. We already know that the world's tallest planted tree, in South Africa, is 83.7 meters high...so if we are trying to show how tall trees get in their native habitat, I do think we could still include planted trees, but make a note for it.

Getting back to Wikipedia and NPOV: recent scientific sources have offered sufficient support, in my view, that the Cornthwaite Mountain Ash reading of 375 feet (114 meters) in 1880 is reliable, and that Douglas Fir readings up to 126 meters are both reliable and within the hypothetical maximum tree height. It should be noted that the article on maximum tree height limited by hydraulics to 122-130 meters actually UNDERSTATES the maximum quite a bit, as recent research shows that coast redwoods, for example, get 40% of their moisture from the atmosphere directly (rain, fog) rather than the roots. Another study has suggested that maximum hypothetical tree height is close to 452 feet (138 meters) based on hydraulics, although the real actual heights are partly limited by wind shear https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/btp.12850

While not presenting a firm figure, the study did find that wind shear is more likely to limit tree height than hydraulics. In other words, it may be possible for a tree to reach 452 feet if wind shear were not factored in, but after factoring in wind shear I think an estimate closer to 425 feet seems reasonable.

Finally, one the world's leading tree experts has claimed that recent undisclosed discoveries of coast redwoods have exceeded 390 feet in height. Here's a clue: https://www.mdvaden.com/redwood_hyperion.shtml Michael Vaden is very reliable, but also secretive, but he has many photos and historical connections to justify that when he says he knows of taller trees, he knows of taller trees...RIGHT NOW. In short, Hyperion at 380 feet is the LOWEST possible number for "tallest tree ever", and a range of other evidence suggests a maximum historical height between 390 and 430 feet or so. Remember, the hydraulic study suggestion of 122-130 meters (130 meters is 426.5 feet) doesn't account for extra height allowable due to water sourced from the air. So, I think the jury is out on what the "real" tallest tree ever is. It's Wikipedia's task to present the research neutrally. Ryoung 122 01:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * That was a long comment, Ryoung. Could you summarize the changes you are proposing to the article, in a series of short bullet points? — hike395 (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Basically, this article is NOT a "list of tallest trees" but a list of "tallest tree species". Either the title needs to change, or the article needs to change. Second, the list is only for currently-standing trees recently measured, and doesn't include maximum heights for trees that once existed (but were cut down) or had their tops broken off (which happens in storms, fires, dieback, etc.). Third, I think we should stay with actual metrics such as actual measurements; if we get into opinions of which trees are 'superlative' that quickly becomes POV bias. In short, this article is a good start but needs work on both definitional coverage and on content coverage. Ryoung 122 17:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Unsorted list of tallest tree specimens/species from article
I removed this laundry list of potential record-holding species from the end of the article. I've looked through some of the supporting citations, and it seems clear that at least some of these candidates are tall and well-sourced enough that they could be added to the main list. However, there's a lot of work that needs to be done to separate the reliable claims from the unreliable ones. So in the service of keeping the article as clean and accurate as possible, I'm storing these here for now.

The heights presented in the list below should be considered speculative or provisional until we know otherwise. Feel free to move any of these individual items to the main list of you can find one or more scientific sources (peer reviewed publications, "big tree" registry entries) or mainstream journalism that provide a) specific heights of individual specimens and b) supporting information like the names and affiliations of the researchers who performed the measurement, the date of the measurement or the location of the specimen, and ideally the method used to measure the specimen.


 * Kashmir Cypress; there are reports of a 94.6 m tree on the road leading to Kathok Yoesel Samtenling Monastery, Kazhi Gewog, Wangdue Phodrang District, Bhutan.
 * Corymbia maculata; there is an old reference to a 91.5 m tall tree. Flowering plant is native to eastern Australia.
 * Klinki (Araucaria hunsteinii); 88.9 m tall tree was measured in Papua New Guinea, New Guinea island, 1941. Conifer tree native to northeastern continent of Australia.
 * Eucalyptus pilularis; Blackbutt tree, height 85.3 m, girth 17.9 m. Flowering plant is native to eastern Australia.
 * Abies nordmanniana; growing up to 80 m in height. In the Western Caucasus Reserve, some specimens have been reported to be 78 m and even 85 m tall, making them the tallest trees in Europe. Conifer is native to Southeastern Europe and Western Asia.
 * Allantospermum borneense; tree, to 90 m tall. Flowering plant native to Southeastern Asia.
 * Alstonia pneumatophora; the tallest specimen reported (2012) measures 85 m. Flowering plant native to Southeastern Asia.
 * Dryobalanops lanceolata; to 80 m tall emergent tree. Flowering plant native to Southeastern Asia.
 * Eucalyptus denticulata; sometimes to 90 m high. Flowering plant native to Southeastern Australia.
 * Parashorea chinensis; tree up to 80 m tall. Flowering plant native to Eastern Asia.
 * Shorea mujongensis; emergent tree up to 82 m tall. Flowering plant native to Southeastern Asia.
 * Mexican elm (Ulmus mexicana); it commonly grows from 20 to 40 m height and trunks 1 to 2.5 m in diameter at chest height. But in the rainforests of Nature reserve El Triunfo, Chiapas, southern Mexico, have report a tree 90 m high, by other multiple sourses - trees up to 84 m, or 87 m high with stems up to 6 m in diameter.   Flowering plant native to Southern North America (including Central America).
 * Taiwania cryptomerioides; reported to heights of up to 90 m tall and with a trunk up to 4 m diameter above buttressed base. Conifer native to Eastern Asia.
 * Ribbon Gum (Eucalyptus nobilis); 79.9 m. Flowering plant native to Southeastern Australia.
 * Eucalyptus deglupta; tallest known living tree 78 m. Flowering plant native to Southeastern Asia.
 * Abies magnifica; 76.8 m . Conifer native to Western North America.
 * Dyera costulata; tallest known living tree 76.2 m. Flowering plant native to Southeastern Asia.
 * Dryobalanops aromatica; tallest known living tree 76.2 m. Flowering plant native to Southeastern Asia.
 * Flooded gum (Eucalyptus grandis); 76 m. Flowering plant native to Eastern Australia.

Also, I'd prefer to keep a lower threshold of 80m for inclusion in the main list, which would disqualify some of these trees even if they're well-sourced. But I'm not opposed to dropping the threshold to 70 or 75m; it would just mean a much longer list! Cheers, J-Mo 20:40, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Sorry for late response. I like the re-organization of the list by J-Mo. Good work! I still propose a few changes:

I changed Menara's height to 97.58 m. Krasanen (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Shorea faguetiana. The height of 100.8 m is very misleading. They reported "100.8 m (distance to lowest part of the buttress; distance to lowest part of bole is 98.90 m, distance to highest base point of bole 96.26 m)". See: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2019.00032/full. Thus, the height of 100.8 is to the ROOTS of the tree BELOW the base! In that way they were able to inflate the heigth that it exceeded the 100 m mark. Centurion and the other record trees are ALWAYS measured to the mean ground-level point. The correct height of the S. faguetiana is 97.58 m (the average between the distance to the lowest part of bole and the distance to the highest part of bole). I changed the measurement to the species page long ago. The height on this list is still to be changed.
 * Taiwania cryptomerioides. Interesting video and gorgeous forest, but highly unlikely that the tree really is 95 m tall. No information on the measuring method. Similarly there is a claim of 100 m tall signposted Pentace tree in Taman Negara whereas the tallest confirmed heights are only about 70 m. However, there is a 79.1-meter climbed Taiwania in Taiwan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfk5IHuMgDg&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR3O6eL1-eEDo8N9EptduQjJF2JmcVuBpBlSscAN468lGS4GVSRYAFs3sNo
 * Abies procera. The tallest specimen is dead. Bob Van Pelt reported it at least on this forum: http://www.ents-bbs.org/viewtopic.php?f=235&t=5220. The publication date of the source "Champion Trees of Washington State" is wrong. It should be 1996. https://www.amazon.com/Champion-Trees-Washington-State-Robert/dp/0295975636/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Champion+trees+of+washington+state&qid=1606142706&s=books&sr=1-1
 * Below the table: "the tallest reliably-measured tree, a 126 meter Douglas Fir". This should be removed. Al Carder has accepted all the speculative super-heights in his book. Like 130-meter Eucalyptus regnans and over 100-meter tall Sequoiadendron. Krasanen (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks ! Couple responses below...
 * Shorea height: I agree. I'm happy to change the height here, and put a clarifying note in the table.
 * Taiwania provenance: I agree here too, particularly because the second citation is from China Daily (which does not have a reputation as a reliable source), and the first citation merely notes that 90 meter specimens have been recorded; it doesn't say anything about this specimen (at least, per Google Translate. I don't read Chinese). I'm going to remove this entry from the list.
 * Abies death: I mentioned something about this in another thread above... I don't think it makes sense to de-list trees that have died after being reliably measured. Old trees die. The list will be a lot harder to maintain if we need to pull record-holders off when they die. Plus, using this criterion penalizes the most reliably-measured trees, since those are also the ones for which death notices are most likely to be noticed and published.
 * Tallest reliably measured: The 127 meter Douglas Fir is mentioned as the tallest reliably measured specimen in two highly cited scientific articles about tree height, in Nature and PNAS. And it's height is consistent with two separate water transport limit models developed independently by two different research teams. That's good enough for me. I agree Carder may not be a universally trustworthy source about tree height, but the scientific establishment seems to trust him on this one. Cheers, J-Mo 23:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the papers of Nature and PNAS mention 126m as the tallest Doug-fir in the history and perhaps it must be accepted on Wikipedia as the Wikipedia editors are not expected to thing independently. However, the both papers use Carder as their sole reference. Carder does not tell how the tree was measured, probably it was measured lying on ground. Many other examples show that historical measurements of trees lying on ground may be hugely exaggerated. Carder says 132 m for the Ferguson Tree (Eucalyptus regnans) was an "authentic measurement". There were early measurements of giant sequoias (measured lying on ground) up to 450 ft. Is it not simple to measure a tree on ground with a tape? No! One reason is that even a medium-sized tree often breaks when it falls. It is not easy to puzzle the parts together. They may also have measured simply by steps, which easily overestimates the lenght in difficult terrain. So if the Lynn Valley Tree (the 126-meter Doug-fir) is accepted, why the Ferguson Tree not? The thing is that there ARE still Doug-fir groves at its prime growing conditions and the difference between the Lynn Valley Tree and today's laser-measured trees is simply too large. I think we should at least write something like "some experts think 126m could have been a reliable measurement". However, consider mentioning the 88.9-meter Araucaria hunsteinii. It was measured with a tape according to Gray (1975): "... the recorded maximum (88.9 m) which was measured in 1941 by a climber carrying a steel tape to the top (L. G. Cavanaugh, personal communication, 1974)." Krasanen (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I've been busy with other things, but I disagree SIGNIFICANTLY with listing Menara as 'just' 97.58 meters. If you understand the typcial way a coast redwood is measured, for example, they average the distance between the highest and lowest point, and the center figure is the starting point of measure.

While 100.8 meters may be too much, taking a look at the actual photos of Menara's base and understanding the terminology:

https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/462908/ffgc-02-00032-HTML/image_m/ffgc-02-00032-g002.jpg

97.58 meters is just the average point where the buttressing stops. But in reality the buttressing goes well above the ground level.

World-reknowned tall-tree expert Michael Taylor estimates that Menara is at least 99 meters, if not more:

http://www.ents-bbs.org/viewtopic.php?p=45431

3) Shorea faguetiana. Menara. 99m+. From the field report issued by the survey team describe it is 97.58m to bole height above it's root flare averaged from high and low side. The tree's top is 100.8m above the lowest point of root flare. Height above average ground level has not been determined as far as I know but I can say judging by photographs of the tree's base it, the top appears to be at least 99m above the averaged ground level. See report here: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2019.00032/full

Since this is an issue of definitional consistency, I suggest we use 99+ meters and cite Michael Taylor. The above photos make it abundantly clear that the buttressing ends well above ground height, so the 97.58 meters is only comparing the distance from the end of the buttresses to the top, rather than from average ground height to the top. Ryoung 122 00:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Mesozoic trees?
Well, Molina Perez and Larramendi wrote about three mesozoic trees with height over 100 m: Sequoiadendron tchucoticum - 80 m tall without root, 105 m tall with root

Araucaria lefipanensis - 89 m tall without root, 119 m tall with root

Araucaria sp. - 116 - 120 m tall without root?, 140 - 160 m tall with root? (not published formally, unconfirmed) Ysku (talk) 09:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)