Talk:Eucalyptus regnans

message: 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? —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)
thread_title:  More than one type of Mountain Ash 

message: 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)
thread_title: Tallest specimen

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Questionability of the old 19th century claims 

message: 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 '77 16:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 99.39 m for the tallest ever recorded?

message: 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)
replies: text: I'd agree - MPF 23:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on tree names. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Photos? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Awfully tall trees 

message: 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)
thread_title: "Gone"

message: I removed the paragraphs below to allow the information to be reincorporated appropriately. Cygnis insignis 18:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Eucalyptus Regnans once grew over 400 feet? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Heavily biased towards clearfelling 

message: 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)
thread_title:  B rated article - I don't think so! 

message: 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)
thread_title: "Native Forest is not part of our future"

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  climate? 

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