Talk:Sequoia sempervirens/Archive 2

New large coast redwood and change to order of largest list in table
In 2014, several new giant coast redwoods were found. The information has been appearing online on various sites including the ENTS / Eastern Native Tree Society forums. Not all have been disclosed, but M. D. Vaden, a Certified Arborist from Oregon, updated this page with a previously unknown and now 3rd largest S. sempervirens ... Year of Discovery / 3rd largest Coast Redwood ... Vaden and Atkins were employed measuring redwoods in the parks, and with Hildebrant mentioned on the page, all 3 have expertise. Taylor, a 4th redwood expert is mentioned pertaining to this redwood and its volume measurement. Given that, I plan to add it to the table of largest to update accuracy. That will also change number / ranking 3 through 10. The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 04:33, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * When you check the link referred to, anyone very familiar with the largest coast redwoods will see an image of an exceptionally large tree not seen or published pre-2014. The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Bookmark
Go here and look at entry to expand article.....bookmark for self later.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Good...we can examine used and unused refs and commence working on getting this article to GA or FA over time.--MONGO 18:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Tallest redwoods list and data may is becoming anonymous and historical
It is apparent from a couple of websites like Dr. Sillett's HSU / Humboldt State University and mdvaden's hyperion page, plus talking to rangers in the Redwood National and State Parks, that changes already happened with tallest redwoods and data. A new trend or policy is already in motion, where names of trees are being de-emphasized. And new height measurements, if any are published at all in scientific reports, will be anonymous. Since tallest redwoods grow at different rates and change height each year, any data pre-2011 may become a matter of history. This means that the general public may not know what redwood is the tallest in the future. This also means its virtually impossible to know now. I added a brief sentence or two near the tallest trees list to convey this so readers do not assume it is documentation for the current year. Apparently the largest by volume list for coast redwoods will also become historical. But both lists seem valuable to the article because even though they are already outdated, it gives readers a sense of size in general. The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 20:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * landmarktrees.net by the redwood expert and engineer M. Taylor, was one of the best sources for real-time updates. But many of the sites pages were pulled, including coast redwoods. The site has no announcement for whether the content will return or be updated.The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: Root structure, horticultural care
...I recently had to take a section out since it was plagiarism but if anyone could come up with some good references, it would be really awesome. I love caring for these trees, and what I know about them probably could be a book, but that's neither authoritative more a citation! Anyone know some good sources on the subject? 76.21.107.77 (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Poor accuracy of lengths conversions
The accuracy of many of the conversions from feet to meters in this article needs to be approved. For example, just until my last edit, 350 feet and 360 feet both equaled to 110 meters according to the article. By adding an extra accuracy parameter to the template telling the number of decimals to be used in the rounding (hence writing it on the form ), I could change this to 106.7 meters for 350 feet and 109.7 meters for 360 feet instead, but there are still a lot of places where the accuracy should be increased. —Kri (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Several of these errors are in the source material. Make sure to check sources before editing their number quotes. 76.21.107.77 (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Albino conifers
Article claims that no other coniferous species survive to maturity with "similar mutations". What of the Golden Spruce? Even if we're talking leucism vs. albinism, it would seem to be worthy of mention... especially since they're clearly "similar" mutations in that they both affect coloration. -Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:03, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not similar: albino lacks clorophyll, cannot photosynthesize. Krasanen (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Superlatives - get the facts right about biggest
Recently, somebody stuffed a redwood name "Jupiter" in the list of largest redwoods as being the largest by volume. They listed a reference referring to it's diameter. Jupiter had the largest diameter at one point, but the article stated nothing about being the largest. IN fact, the discoverer in the article wrote on the Eastern Native Tree society forums about Jupiter, that its volume was in the 28,000 cu. ft. range, which is far short of the 40,000 or greater threshhold needed for a top volume coast redwood.

Keep in mind, there are at least 3 ways that redwoods and other trees can be considered big. And each measurement refers to a different aspect.

1. Height 2. Diameter 3. Volume 4. Widest

Diameter is usually done by wrapping circumference and dividing by 3.14 to get the average diameter in case a trunk is elliptical. Sometimes people may refer to a "widest" trunk in regards to the widest point from side to side, but its average diameter may be different. Height and wood volume are not dependent on girth or diameter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Real Luke Skywalker (talk • contribs) 16:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

New Section for Research ?
What do others think of adding a section to the page under a heading or sub-heading "Research" and highlighting some aspects of study being done with coast redwoods? It's not my long-suit to describe from scratch, but maybe someone else can try. There's at least studies on albino redwoods, fog and sap flow, carbon storage and growth rates. But there's probably ample references online like articles and research reports to add this as a separate item on the page. Thoughts? The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

"The trees produce flowers in the winter . . ."
Gynmosperms aren't they? With flowers? Surely that isn't the right term. I don't know enough to correct it though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.210.230 (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm the one who first "complained" about the word "flowers" here in Talk, and eventually changed the offending sentence after I studied the subject enough. Since then, the section was "tightened" to remove my statement that the word was widely, if incorrectly used to indicate immature cones. Mea culpa. I should have made clear that the misusage was not just that of the ignorant, but was a casual usage, you might even say "slang", among people professionally involved with redwoods. For that reason, you'll find it used that way even on National Park Service websites. So, even if the science-geek/word-pedant in me insists it shouldn't be used that way, it seems a good idea to acknowledge that it IS used that way, in a casual manner even by some who know their botany. If this isn't acknowledged, somebody less botanically educated is going to come along and "correct" it back to just calling cones flowers, citing the NPS as authority. So, yeah, my original correction didn't make it clear why I bothered to acknowledge a usage, that I noted was incorrect. I've corrected that. But if my "tightening" friend still feels strongly that I'm too prolix, I won't fight about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.210.230 (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete Multiple Trees in the table of LARGEST ??
Someone attmpted to delete "Grogan's Fault" coast redwood from the table of largest, but maybe should have discussed it first here in talk. Reason I say this, boils down to a question. Why didn't they remove a bunch of trees from the table of largest? If they felt one tree did not have enough reference, then a bunch of them may lack reference. Maybe it's worth culling a bunch of the trees from the table, or even just removing the table altogether. As for Grogan's Fault, it's etched in stone on Conifers.org website on the Sequoia or Coast Redwood page. http://www.conifers.org/cu/Sequoia.php ... Dr. Earle is pretty much "THE" authority on conifers when it comes to website resources or an expert, and anything he adds to his website means it's a matter of fact. Anyhow, care to add or remove moreThe Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * To clarify more, the tree someone deleted, that I reverted for the purpose of this talk first, was the huge redwood seen in this page >> http://www.mdvaden.com/redwood_grogans_fault.shtml ... that's the tree referred to on conifers.org. If Dr. Earle at conifers.org says it's for real, then Earle's site should suffice alone. But there's other trees like Howland Hill Giant, Bull Creek Giant and a few other that may not have what others want for reference. Iluvatar was in National Geographic, but they didn't name it. Someone pointed to a Wikipedia standard page this week that in other words, said connect-the-dots references may not suffice. So maybe Iluvatar needs to be scratched also. See how many real references you can find for each tree, and bring them back here to see what needs to go on the chopping block. Thanks. The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Earle is an academic, so he carefully points out on his website that he is using an email to add this information. He notes this to prevent exactly what you are trying to do, use a personal communication as a reference. Look it up.
 * If you feel any of the other sources are as unreliable as the Grogan's fault source, please remove those trees immediately. --2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:5C (talk) 01:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What is unclear about WP:Secondary and why Earle's site fails it?-- Kev min  § 02:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Grogan's Fault Verified
Someone tried to undo the addition of Grogan's Fault from the table of largest, mistakenly claiming "controversial". Apparently the Grogan's Fault page, which will need some fine tuning, has been resolved with verifiable references. One being conifers.org and Dr. Chris Earle, and expert an author on conifers. That would be sufficient, but there's more related. So Grogan's Fault will be added back to the table. Also, the expert certified arborist Vaden, verified through the International Society of Arboriculture, documented letters for scientific research permits, and Grogan's Fault was included on the year-end reports submitted to the Redwood National and State Parks. So paperwork exists for this tree, and the discoverers and experts all expert-level professionals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.163.157 (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Grogan's Fault has been expertly measured and verified, and needs no further verification. Nomination as a champion tree would be irrelevant because American Forests point system is a competition that doesn't change stats and measurements already on the record. And Grogan's Fault is already recorded accurately among the park service and several expert resources.
 * It's worth adding, that whoever tried to delete Grogan's Fault made a practically ludicrous claim by saying it's "controversial". The expert Dr. Earle, at conifers.org, stated "Based on multiple measurements by highly credible observers including Chris Atkins, Michael Taylor, and Ron Hildebrandt" --- that's the same men who basically discovered and measured every other coast redwood in the table of largest coast redwood. Either those redwoods are all controversial then, or none of them. The answer is none. All have been measured and documented. Honestly, only the editor was controversial in light of this much fact at our disposal.
 * Let us come to a single consensus at Talk:Grogan's Fault, instead of spreading the discussion to multiple pages. —hike395 (talk) 08:22, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Suggest Omitting Tallest Redwoods Table
Unless somebody else can provide a bona fide reference for current heights of coast redwoods with both names and heights mentioned together, I plan to omit the table for tallest redwoods. That would be an expert, scientist or park's web page that is credible and verifiable. Presently, the list does not meet Wikipedia's standards in any real fashion and it's becoming more speculation every month. In the past, about the only reference to back up height claims was a landmarktrees.net by the redwood expert Michael Taylor, and he removed his website entirely. Scientists no longer use tree names. Unlike the table for largest coast redwood that does have a couple references, the height table has virtually nothing. One other option, is to change the table to match what conifers.org lists on the Sequoia sempervirens page. That site is an expert resource, but it's updates are not recent. The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Rather than remove, I changed the height table to match Dr. Chris Earle's conifers.org site. It appears to be the only credible "list" available. The heights and changes are still a good representation of the species. The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Agree with this. I updated the height table from the latest data from Earle, and I dropped the volume table. —hike395 (talk) 14:13, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Table of tree volume
I deleted the table of tree volumes, and replaced it with in-text mentions of three specimens: Grogan's Fault, Iluvatar, and Lost Monarch, each of which has a main trunk volume that is supported by a reliable source. I deleted the table for three reasons: —hike395 (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) The table's original source seems to be landmarktrees, which is now defunct and is not available as an archive. Thus, the table fails verification.
 * 2) Landmarktrees did not appear to be a reliable source, and now that it has disappeared, it's even more difficult to determine its reliability.
 * 3) Not all of the trees had main trunk wood volumes, which is the customary way to rank tree volume. I kept the three main trunk volumes in the text.
 * From a different angle of discussion and visual standpoint, that improvement makes the page more streamlined for reading. Did it cross your thought to also remove the big table of tallest coast redwoods, and likewise pick a few of the tallest for text mentions too? Your edit follows a good point of logic that was used at the giant sequoia end, where the table of largest is not present in the species' main page. Good idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.163.157 (talk) 14:25, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Apparently we were editing simultaneous. Some trees in the table have reference in Forest Giants of the Pacific Coast by Dr. Robert Van Pelt, the same scientist who works presently with Dr. Sillett of HSU. In his book, Dr. Van Pelt covers volume for Lost Monarch, Del Norte Titan and Iluvatar. I've got a copy and can dig up numbers. The same team basically communicates and networks in tandem with Dr. Chris Earle of conifers.org. So anything on conifers.org or Van Pelt's book handle a few of the trees. Van Pelt's book deals with none of the tallest for heights though. But Richard Preston's book "The Wild Trees" and Save the Redwoods League may suffice for reference for tallest. At least for 2006 height. National Geographic did a video on Hyperion, filming Taylor, Atkins and Sillett for Hyperion. That video may even exist at their website now. Taylor is the one who had landmarktrees, and the site is gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.163.157 (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Back in March, proposed dropping the height/diameter table, also (see above). I would be ok with dropping that table if other editors agree. —hike395 (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * For anyone who cares to tweak a largest tree edit, just opened my book Forest Giants of the Pacific Coast, 2001, by Robert Van Pelt. Although several coast redwoods all have a page, Van Pelt opened with drawings and volumes for 10 coast redwoods that spans pages 16 and 17. The data is old, but is near-enough for a few to be of use if no more recent thing exists. On page 16 are Del Norte Titan 36,890 cu. ft. and Iluvatar 36,470 cu. ft.. Then page 17 are Lost Monarch 34,910, Howland Hill Giant 33,580. Richard Preson's book The Wild Trees has Lost Monarch, but Van Pelt's 2001 data is better because Val Pelt lists only the real main stem of that one. The most up to date used to be Michael Taylor's landmark trees, but he removed the website for some unknown reason.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.163.157 (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sequoia sempervirens. 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://www.webcitation.org/6VqJ46atN?url=http://www.bsbi.org.uk/BSBIList2007.xls to http://www.bsbi.org.uk/BSBIList2007.xls
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060824083158/http://www.ictinternational.com.au/TallTreesGallery.htm to http://www.ictinternational.com.au/TallTreesGallery.htm

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) 03:56, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Albino Redwoods
The albino redwood count on the page may be worth fine tuning regarding how many exist naturally vs. how many exist anywhere. More than 230 exist. I recall reading one or two articles about more than 250 now. Apparently the number keeps rising.

Hyperion was already dethroned some 3-odd years ago. According to M.D. Vaden, reliable authority on the Redwoods.
I added additional text to the woefully outdated section on the tallest specimens. As one in the Talk section already noted above, data of tallest trees since 2011 is largely becoming historic and, I would add, at this point primarily (outside of about twenty experts,and academics in the know) anecdotal in nature. According to M.D. Vaden, certified arborist and a known reliable authority on giant trees, new height records have already been made, one or some even exceeding that of Hyperion, and by 2014 Redwood National Park no longer contained the three tallest specimen of Redwood trees / or, frankly, tallest trees in the known world: http://www.mdvaden.com/redwood_hyperion.shtml. More recent updates on M.D. Vaden's informative site have even hinted, or given allusion to the height range of coast redwood as high as 390, or 396 ft. i.e. "The tallest coast redwood reaches 380 to 396 ft." : http://mdvaden.com/photoblog/2016/09/14/muir-woods-a-pygmy-forest-with-purpose/ and also, "one photo is the top of a coast redwood in the 350 – 390 ft. class" : http://mdvaden.com/photoblog/2016/05/05/measuring-heights-1-millimeter-accuracy/ and

These isolated quotations mean little without solid statements, context, and quantifiable data, but the enigma of world's tallest certainly peaks one's curiosity since the reporting of new champions seems to have ceased among top discoverers for several years. At the end of the day, each scientist and professional tree discoverer may have his/her own valid reasons for non-disclosure policy regarding these rare and amazing trees, which I respect. The flip-side being 400 foot high trees may already have been found, and remain unknown to the majority of scientists and the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.34.140.204 (talk) 07:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Beyond your edit, I modified it further, because technically, what's actually tallest remains slightly speculative. What you wrote is partially true, but there's a hint of grey area reading between the lines. So it made more sense to change the tallest trees table instead, using Dr. Earle's list at conifers.org. He listed one more recent height for Hyperion slightly over 380 ft.. That way the table doesn't claim Hyperion is the tallest now, but that the height listed is the tallest provided along with it's name, up to a certain point in time. Also, not sure if it was your add, but someone added an anonymous reference with no verifiable contact or credentials. It's a link people keep adding to various pages, but apparently miss that it is purely anonymous. What you wrote about 400 ft. tall trees may be possible, and if you find a research report, etc., definitely add it here. If Michael Taylor ever confirms something new on the ENTS eastern native tree society site of forums, that may be solid enough to bend guidelines for a reference. The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This Heading is worth review for more than just Hyperion. The M. D. Vaden Coast Redwood pages are probably worth adding back to this article. Why someone removed a couple reference links is virtually illogical. Why is it that Wikipedia should be less informative than M. D. Vaden? Why not include the reference to keep Wikipedia up to speed. Vaden was the first to announce and document the world's tallest hemlock and maple discoveries, and new largest redwood discoveries. Why should Vaden be taking the lead, and Wikipedia lagging? Seeing Vaden is covered in no less than 4 news articles, and was (or is) a Certified Arborist, why shouldn't his business documentary pages fulfil the standard for reference links? It would add credibility to Wikipedia, not vice versa. Likewise, I would say the same about Michael Taylor's pages, but he removed them. For any out there keeping an eye on internet resources, if you ever find a revival of Michael Taylor's tree and redwood information on the internet, could you please note the find here for discussion. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.163.157 (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if Wikipedia could be updated in real-time, but even if a 2006 discovery is what the article references, at least it gives a good general idea of the species' height potential. Recently, a tree named "Titanium" appeared on the radar, but it's not in any formal reports or studies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.163.157 (talk) 16:58, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Article
Completely wrong on southernmost grove. Wow.

LeVeillé (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons you might want to). —hike395 (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistent units

 * Coast redwoods occupy a narrow strip of land approximately 750 km in length and 5 – in width along the Pacific coast of North America

I imagine both length and width should give preference to miles, since it's an American tree. I don't have access to the source material so I don't want to make assumptions about the accuracy of the numbers and try a 470 mi (since it's demonstrably not the same as what we have already). ~ Maltrópa loquace 00:28, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Trunk volume of Illuvatar
An IP editor replaced the previous trunk volume of Iluvatar (36470 cuft) with 33000 cuft, citing Van Pelt, 2000. The larger figure was also from a source by Van Pelt, in 2001. . The smaller figure was from Van Pelt, 2000; while the larger figure was from Van Pelt, 2001. I reverted, because I thought that the later figure is more reliable.

I just checked -- the abstract of Van Pelt, 2000 lists the volume as 1,032.8 m3. This means that the two sources actually agree on the volume: I'm not sure where the 33000 cuft figure is coming from. This strengthens my belief that I reverted correctly. —hike395 (talk) 21:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Propose removing Largest tree table
The tallest tree table probably serves no big purpose either, but at least there's one reputable resource to cite for everything in it. It may be a good idea to remove the largest tree list table, because there is no one or easy resource to cite. A book called The Wild Trees named a few, but present stats likely changed. Conifers.org, a legit website, does note one or two largest by name. It would make sense to remove the table, write the one or two trees in a single sentence, and cite conifers.org's coast redwood page link. This would also clean up the overall appearance of the article. The same could be done for the tallest tree (s), but there is a legit reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.163.157 (talk) 19:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

average measurements?
what's the average (!) height of sequoia semperirens forests and what's the span of the roots with an average high tree? thanks!HilmarHansWerner (talk) 20:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * this sounds like an impractical aspect to weave into the article. but I don't recall seeing anything along these lines explained in magazines, save the redwoods site, or the humboldt university researchers. if you are mainly just curious, there's an eastern native tree society forum where more obscure questions and answers may be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.163.157 (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Propose removing the calculating volume section or changing
It may be worth removing the volume calculating stuff. But the paragraph as it reads today has some problems. It talks about calculating the volume of a cone, and that is wrong. Some trees taper, some have trunks with parallel sides, and some swell wider or the opposite of tapering. Is there an article about tree measuring that can be linked to? Otherwise, the paragraph needs an overhaul, or maybe removing. It's not essential. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.163.157 (talk) 07:22, 9 February 2020 (UTC)