M.D. Vaden
vadenphotography.com
A post in the recreational climbing section reminded me of an interesting tidbit.
(In relation to this, arborists could appreciate the section of Robert Van Pelts book mentioned below, in regards to measuring trees. The diagram drawings are crystal clear, with plenty of explanation)
Regarding Atlas Grove, which Richard Preston on page 82 of 'The Wild Trees' says was discovered by Michael Taylor - I don't agree; and challenge.
From what I understand, if a person discovers a tree, it does not mean that they are the first to have seen it or found it. It means they realized the significance of the tree, and possibly were the first one to measure it. The protocol among botany folks seems to allow the discoverer to name the tree.
From that angle, as far as single individual trees in Atlas Grove, it's fair to consider Taylor (or Sillett) as a discoverer.
But regarding the entire grove of trees - assigning Taylor's name is probably not merited.
During my visits to "Atlas Grove", I found and photographed markings in the grove's interior dating back more than 50 years. This shows that someone else - over 5 decades ago - realized some significance of that grove, even if they did not take or record measurements. And the markings show someone recognized the significance of the area as a group, not just a tree or two.
It may be that the group of trees were recognized from the perspective of being "old growth", by a forester, amateur explorer, ranger, etc.. It's understandable that some people could recognize immensity, but not be wrapped-up in measurements and world records, etc..
The extra exploring from the past year, leads me to think that there may be the likelihood of as many as a dozen champions that amateur tree hunters may be able to locate on the west coast.
Maybe Douglas fir, Sitka spruce, Sugar pine and more.
In my copy of Robert Van Pelt's 'Forest Giants of the Pacific Coast', I noticed that Van Pelt said he wants to know about finds from other people. The way that he wrote it, sounded like an encouragement for people to find the trees, not just a request for info.
One record that could be fun to find, is "largest girth". Some of the largest by volume are in secluded locations protected from wind. But there may be very old trees - redwoods or other - among the hills, that kept breaking and regenerating height many times over. Trees like that could have immense trunk diameters - even extreme age. Maybe even housing some rare lichen or plant specimens.
(In relation to this, arborists could appreciate the section of Robert Van Pelts book mentioned below, in regards to measuring trees. The diagram drawings are crystal clear, with plenty of explanation)
Regarding Atlas Grove, which Richard Preston on page 82 of 'The Wild Trees' says was discovered by Michael Taylor - I don't agree; and challenge.
From what I understand, if a person discovers a tree, it does not mean that they are the first to have seen it or found it. It means they realized the significance of the tree, and possibly were the first one to measure it. The protocol among botany folks seems to allow the discoverer to name the tree.
From that angle, as far as single individual trees in Atlas Grove, it's fair to consider Taylor (or Sillett) as a discoverer.
But regarding the entire grove of trees - assigning Taylor's name is probably not merited.
During my visits to "Atlas Grove", I found and photographed markings in the grove's interior dating back more than 50 years. This shows that someone else - over 5 decades ago - realized some significance of that grove, even if they did not take or record measurements. And the markings show someone recognized the significance of the area as a group, not just a tree or two.
It may be that the group of trees were recognized from the perspective of being "old growth", by a forester, amateur explorer, ranger, etc.. It's understandable that some people could recognize immensity, but not be wrapped-up in measurements and world records, etc..
The extra exploring from the past year, leads me to think that there may be the likelihood of as many as a dozen champions that amateur tree hunters may be able to locate on the west coast.
Maybe Douglas fir, Sitka spruce, Sugar pine and more.
In my copy of Robert Van Pelt's 'Forest Giants of the Pacific Coast', I noticed that Van Pelt said he wants to know about finds from other people. The way that he wrote it, sounded like an encouragement for people to find the trees, not just a request for info.
One record that could be fun to find, is "largest girth". Some of the largest by volume are in secluded locations protected from wind. But there may be very old trees - redwoods or other - among the hills, that kept breaking and regenerating height many times over. Trees like that could have immense trunk diameters - even extreme age. Maybe even housing some rare lichen or plant specimens.
Last edited:
