# Talk:Old Tjikko

Regarding my use of the term "individual" in the introduction. I felt it was necessary to distinguish between clonal colonies and clonal individuals. Clonal colonies are many different individuals of the same DNA, which to the unknowing eye would appear to be more than one tree but are actually the same plant. Clonal "individuals" are a single plant which manages to survive due to an old root system sprouting new trunks every time the old one dies... such as in this case. I think the distinction is clear and necessary. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
|

I disagree. For one, it has been argued that a "clonal colony" such as the quaking aspen in Colorado is "one organism." Why should this cloning system be any different, if the criteria is matching DNA? Others have argued that the criteria for a "tree" should be based on the above-ground trunk. In any case, the Methuselah bristlecone pine has the highest tree-ring count. This one doesn't, 600 years isn't even close.Ryoung122 12:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
This clarification does not help the claim of OT being an "individual clonal tree". The process of layering will yield separate individuals once the trunk from which the branches emerged is dead. We don't know how many rooted branches have given rise to trunks or how many times pieces of OT have been separated by trunk fall. We don't even know if all the "living parts" of the current OT are contiguous - there may be several pieces in close proximity. All of this casts doubt on claiming that the branches, trunks and roots we can see today is a "clonal individual" or an individual at all. Clearly, the same original tree has lived on for ~9500 years through multiple trunks, and countless branches and roots. It is certainly the oldest known Picea abies - why does it need some other odd, confusing and unproven superlative like "oldest individual clonal tree"? Kimcmich (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification... I was a little confused by the combination, but hey, I am no expert in botany anyway :) Waldir talk 12:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
So Old Tjikko is not part of a clonal colony?  If not, we need to change the wikilink on the word "clonal" in the first sentence.  --Allen (talk) 20:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I just changed it to link to "cloning" which is less misleading. Although I'm not sure if Vegetative reproduction would be a more relevant link. Perhaps there is some way to incorporate both which I would do right now but I don't have time. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 09:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks.  It sounds like you have the knowledge to help out at Talk:Norway Spruce as well.  --Allen (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm unclear from the text of the article exactly what was radiocarbon-dated to provide the age estimate for this tree. The article states that parts of the root system were dated, but it also clearly states that the root system is the part of the tree that remains alive when each individual trunk dies. Living things cannot be radiocarbon dated.
None of the still-active English-language sources help with this question. Does the Swedish source explain? Are there dead fragments of root system that have been genetically identified with this tree, or something like that? TCSaint (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I've edited the article to match what the cited sources actually say: Radio carbon dating was performed on plant material (cones etc) collected from under the tree. The Uni press release says "everything displayed clear signs that they have the same genetic makeup as the trees above them" - whatever that means. I don't see any info about the root system being dated (to your no vivo point) and the layering mechanism means an ancient root system might not exist anyway. --Kimcmich (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Old Tjikko is not the oldest individual tree (as in trunk/canopy) and it is not the oldest clonal tree (as in root system). It is, however, the oldest living Norway Spruce. I have edited the intro for a more accurate statement of the status/rank of the tree. The attempt to salvage the "oldest tree" title by creating a strange category for what is basically "the oldest clonal tree with a single currently living trunk" is unnecessary when the tree is notable enough as the oldest living Norway Spruce.
The cited sources also do not say that the root system of the tree was carbon dated; rather, genetically matching dead fragments (cones, etc) from beneath the tree were dated.--Kimcmich (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)


### Old Tjikko
Article (edit | visual edit | history) ·  Article talk (edit | history) ·  Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 Result: Kept Identified issues have been fixed. AIRcorn (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
A couple of things:

This article was passed to GA status in 2009, information about "World's Oldest Trees" (clonal or not) have probably changed in the intervening 8 years, and the article probably needs to be updated (also because the tree was discovered in 2008). In any case, it seems to me that the article could use some fresh eyes.
Ref #7 has gone dead (though I did go over the present references, they seem ok but some refs erroneously state this tree is "the oldest tree".
It's at this location in the Telegraph archive. I've replaced it. The 'oldest tree' claim remains on the national parks of Sweden website. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
There is an unreferenced statement (under "Access") about the path & park rangers.
Removed, updated from national parks of Sweden site. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
"Previous researchers" not specifically borne out by cited reference.
Shearonink (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Removed. I must say I'm surprised an article is brought in for reassessment for such trivial reasons. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
It's not a Greal Big Article like some around here but I thought it deserved some attention and editing.  Perhaps I have a different view of GAR than some  - I see an article on the GAR list and think "Gee, it was written quite a while ago, the GA Review was several years back, I don't have time at the moment to fix everything, but maybe someone else around here does.  Let's see if we can work together to fix this up."  I don't see a GAR as a punishment but as an acknowledgment that maybe an article could do with some freshening up - that's all.  I'd like to point out that this article was on the "articles needing possible reassessment" list since 2014 and I thought it could maybe use some help.  Shearonink (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Shearonink, "couple" = 2 :-)  Just wanted you to know that I'd gotten your message, but I'm not clear why you notified me, since I'm not involved in any projects that pay attention to trees in Sweden.  Nyttend (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I know... It's because part of the instructions for starting a GAR (I'm trying to do things around here according to Hoyle & WP) says to notify WikiProjects and past editors and you were among the Top Ten contributors (yes, you only had 2 edits but you're still active and many of the other Top Ten have gone MIA/haven't edited in several/couple of years).  That's all. Thanks for checking in. Shearonink (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

There is not really a path leading to the tree, so it can usually only be found by using the guided tours.--Bk1 168 (talk) 22:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I hear WP:OR. Removed the claim. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)