Talk:List of largest giant sequoias

There is no evidence that the Floyd Otter Tree Exists.

There is no evidence that the Floyd Otter Tree Exists. It has no height, no volume, no history and no mention...anywhere, ever!

I have checked the citations referenced in the article and they mention no such tree.

There is no mention of the Tree on the Sequoia National Park website. Nor does the Park Service include this Floyd Otter Tree in it's list of Largest Sequoias. I have been to park HQ at Ash Mountain and have reviewed all correspondence on large sequoias and seen all Surveys of all sequoias in all groves in the park. No such tree is mentioned or referred to.

The entire internet (google) repeats an unsubstantiated claim using the exact language of wikipedia to the effect that the Floyd Otter Tree - "This tree was measured in 2001-2002 and found to be the third largest" etc etc ...the exact language is repeated and repeated with no source....a simple cut and paste. Neither "To Find The Biggest Tree" nor "Forest Giants of the Pacific Coast" mentions such a tree...and trust me the authors searched this Grove and many others for close to 5 decades.

In 1974, The Park Service paid for a survey of every Sequoia in the Garfield Grove, in fact this was a decades long project to inventory every Sequoia in the park.. Below are the results of the survey. Note: No known tree on earth has a volume of 45,000 cu/ft with a dbh of less than 23 feet and no tree known has a volume of 40,000 cu/ft with a dbh of less than 21.9 feet. This is an expansive way of saying that there are very very few trees on earth that could even begin to qualify as a 40,000 cu/ft'er let alone a 45,000 cu/ft'er.

Only 5 trees in the list are 23' dbh or greater. 3 are the same tree (3 stems) and thus don't qualify. The remaining two were investigated by Flint and Law. One is the King Arthur Tree, the other did not clear 30,000 cu/ft and was not investigated further.

That leaves 1 tree with a 21' dbh and 3 others at 20'dbh as candidates for the alleged "Floyd Otter" tree. Be aware that no tree on earth clears 45,000 cu/ft or anywhere near that volume with such a narrow dbh measurement. In fact the "perfect" sequoia at 22' dbh would yield a mere 41,900 cu/ft measurement like the Franklin Tree....similarly the perfect 20.5 dbh tree comes in at 38,500 cu/ft. At 21' dbh or 20' dbh to yield 45,500 cu/ft the tree would have to be a "perfect" tree meaning it would have to retain its' thickness to a ridiculous height and also it would have to be among the tallest sequoias ever measured ...mathematically 300'+ ...yet the 4 trees listed at these diameters in 1974 all have high brakes or spike tops and thus there is no chance of them being 300'+ tall.

Frankly the math for the possibility of any one of the lower 4 trees on this list being a 45,000 cu/ft monster are not only improbable but really fall over into the impossible category, hence the reason no such tree has ever been found, measured, photographed or recorded in the last 150 years of people looking for exactly such a tree in exactly this grove.

GROVE ID K CLASS DIAM DIAM MSURED TRUNK FIRE TOP FOLIAGE GROUND SLOPE EXP. OTHER DATE DEAD MIN. DIAM

GARFIELD SE281830-F72 A 25 4.5 BURN 100' +CENTER SPIKE UPPER SIDE SLOPE VERY STEEP N F 63 7/74 ALIVE 14'

GARFIELD NW341830-N46 A 3 STEMS 23 4.5 OVAL BURN < 25' HIGH BRAKE LOWER SIDE SLOPE VERY STEEP S N 1 7/74 ALIVE 14'

GARFIELD NW341830-N46 A 3 STEMS 23 4.5 OVAL LOWER SIDE SLOPE VERY STEEP S N 1 7/74 ALIVE 14'

GARFIELD NW341830-N46 A 3 STEMS 23 4.5 OVAL HIGH BRAKE NAKED LOWER SIDE SLOPE VERY STEEP S N 1 7/74 ALIVE 14'

GARFIELD SE281830-F33 A 23 4.5 ABNORMALITY BURN 100' + HIGH BRAKE UPPER SIDE SLOPE VERY STEEP NE F 56 7/74 ALIVE 14'

GARFIELD SE281830-F73 A 21 4.5 SPIKE UPPER SIDE SLOPE VERY STEEP N F 64 7/74 ALIVE 14'

GARFIELD SE211830-J86 A 20 4.5 BURN 100' +CENTER HIGH BRAKE LOWER SIDE SLOPE MEDIUM SLOPE NE J 55 7/74 ALIVE 14'

GARFIELD SE281830-E16 A 20 4.5 BIG BUTT BURN 100' + SPIKE NAKED UPPER SIDE SLOPE VERY STEEP NW E 26 7/74 ALIVE 14'

GARFIELD SE281830-M21 A 20 4.5 BURN 100' + HIGH BRAKE UPPER SIDE SLOPE VERY STEEP N M 20 7/74 ALIVE 14'

In 2001 the park service acquired the nearby Dillonwood Grove and manages both Garfield and Dillonwood as a single entity. Parts of the Dillonwood Grove were surveyed in 1974, however the private holdings acquired in 2001 were not. It is possible that the Floyd Otter Tree could be here, but if that's the case the wrong Grove is listed. More importantly it would be exceedingly odd that the 3rd largest tree on Earth, if discovered in 2001 after 150 years of search and 27 years of intensive search for really large sequoias in both the Garfield and DIllonwood groves, that it would not be on any top 10 list of any Sequoia author, any Sequoia Hunter, nor on the Park Service's website, nor in the park service HQ archives, nor on any press release nor on any photo anywhere on the internet.

The Government and Tree hunters occasionally will keep key details of a tree's location from the public. But if you want to find Methuselah the world's oldest tree....pictures do exist and location data can be found by diligent researchers, same goes for the recently discovered tallest tree on earth, Hyperion, yet there are pictures, blog posts, forum discussions and enough info for the intrepid explorer to find this tree too. The Floyd Otter Tree would be the first important tree in history with no pictures, no measurements, no press release, no forum discussions, no written trail at the park service, no blog posts, nothing.

Hence, until verification, this tree should be removed from this list. AfterSeven (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a compelling argument to me. I was the one who added this tree to the list at 00:21, 14 August 2011, probably in a sleep-deprived state after many hours of editing. I don't know where I got the information, but it was not from a reliable source. Floyd Leslie Otter (1907 - 1984) was for decades a forest manager at Mountain Home State Demonstration Forest in Tulare County, eastern California. It seemed reasonable he might have a tree named for him. My guess is I had intended to follow up on finding as source and, never having found one, was hoping someone else would. Looks as if there really is no reliable source. Somewhat redfaced, I have taken the liberty of removing the apparently mythical Floyd Otter tree from the list.DiverDave (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess you can always argue about whether the tree should be called "the Floyd Otter Tree" but somebody went there and took photos of the tree. I don't think that it has been measured accurately by climbing, so it may not be the third largest, but it does seem like the tree exists: http://www.trailspace.com/forums/trip-reports/topics/127968.html That tree looks very wide. There are no photos of the upper trunk, so there's nothing conclusive about its overall size from the photos as it does seem to have a lot of flare at the bottom. It has that big burn scar similar to the Grant tree, which may explain the great width from the angle of the photo. But in any case, it does seem like this mythical tree does exist, after all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.48.0.18 (talk) 12:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

AfterSeven 06:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)I corresponded via other forums the individual who took photos last May and the gentleman who had measured it on prior trips. Apparently a new hypsometer was being used by people who dont use hypsometer's as a profession. A Criterion RD-1000 in the hands of a novice can be very accurate...a hypsometer...not so much. The Floyd Otter tree could be top 10, who knows, I'd want a confirmation from people who measure trees somewhat regularly using equipment they are familiar with. This would have been the first tree based on Diameter that Flint and Law would have measured when the Garfield surveys were released in 1974 before they measured the King Arthur...the fact that it does not appear anywhere in their writings is a red flag . For the time being it should remain off the list until we have confirm-able data and not rumor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AfterSeven (talk • contribs)

I am not sure what all the controversy and ranting is about. This tree does exist, and it does not take too much effort to unravel the "mystery." The only wrinkle is that the name "Floyd Otter Tree" is not yet widely accepted for this tree. However, this tree is clearly listed at number 12 on the National Park Service list of the 30 largest Giant Sequoias. The tree is listed as "unnamed" in the Garfield Grove with a volume of 39,562 cu. ft. There are numerous photos of this tree on the Internet that can be found by searching for "Floyd Otter Tree." I suggest an update to the list to include it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgw2010 (talk • contribs) 06:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Altering order of list based on Stephen Sillett measurements

As far as I can tell, Sillett is comparing the trunk volume of the General Grant tree to the trunk plus branches volume of the President tree. I have reverted the reordering of the list until we can learn more. Let us centralize the discussion at Talk:Sequoiadendron giganteum#Comparison of largest Giant Sequoia. Thanks! —hike395 (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The widely reprinted AP News story written by Tracie Cone of the Associated Press[1] makes the assertion that the ranking has changed, saying that National Geographic "reported" Stephen Sillet's "measurements". It says that the total volume is 45,000 sq ft for the trunk and 9,000 sq ft for the branches. The AP article has some direct quotes from Sillet, but it does not say that either Sillet or National Geographic are the source for the claim the President's ranking has changed to #2. National Geographic's story, in turn, does assert that the President replaces the President as the #2 tree and mentions both branches and trunk for General Sherman and the President, saying that the General Sherman has a bigger trunk but that the President has more wood in the canopy.[2] Conceivably both National Geographic and the AP got it wrong, but we'd have to find some contrary sources. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's the problem. The existing table follows multiple previous sources and compares all giant sequoia by trunk volume. Sillett has changed this comparison and is now comparing by total wood volume. We either have to put Sillett's measurements in a footnote, or throw out the entire table. It is not correct to put 54,000 cu ft into the table directly : it is apples and oranges.

Frankly, I don't consider either of these news reports to be reliable, because neither of them provides the data for General Grant in a quantitative way. We have no firm data on the amount of wood in General Grant. We really need to see a scientific report from Sillett before we should alter the table.

I am very skeptical of the Tracie Cone report. It says that General Grant is 15% smaller than the 54,000 cu ft of total wood of the President tree. This implies that General Grant has about 47,000 cu ft of total wood, which is very close to the reported trunk volume. This is further evidence of apples and oranges.

I will revert the change to the table, but leave the fact that the order has been swapped in a note. —hike395 (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I have corresponded with Professor Sillett on two occasions without a satisfactory answer. I was trying to find out how the Lost Titan gained ~7,000 cu/ft of volume in the space of 2 years. Bottom line, he is measuring both stems of a two stem tree ~35,000 cu/ft and ~7,000 cu/ft respectively and adding them together. Accordingly I removed the superflous language in this article re: the Lost Monarch being the largest non-sequoia (two stems) and larger than all but 5 sequoias (one stem)....which brings us to the apples and oranges issue. I see a pattern from Prof. Sillett in this regard. Maybe its media strategy? I find it interesting that he has a Masters of Science and a Doctorate in Philosophy, but no Doctorate in the Sciences/Forestry/Silvaculture. Whatever the case, I find media reports on the Lost Monarch and now The President to be misleading in a 'tree volume' context. With respect to General Sherman, General Grant & The President they are among 3 of the most measured trees on earth and since the 1930's the trunk volumes and growth rates have been consistent and well documented, that is especially true with respect to the last two decades in which trunk volumes have been pinpointed time and again.

Notwithstanding all this, it is only a matter of time before Prof. Sillett's measurement of total wood volume will be adopted en masse. This is so becuase of advances in air/ground based LIDAR and the ability to get millions of data points from a single tree faster and more efficiently than ever imagined....see for example this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blgN0s-GVIo at 57 seconds or the last few pages of this power point pdf http://classes.css.wsu.edu/soils374/ppt/lidar2.pdf ... I have seen the lidar on a single redwood with millions of data points...pretty impressive and far more accurate than anything known. Until the big trees are measured using these newer methods, trunk volume should be the accepted metric until a newer standard is accepted. AfterSeven 07:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Just navigated here after the President giant sequoia's page linked to this article. Was curious why it's page said it's 2nd largest, but this article had it as 3rd largest. Your conversation seems related. But I've got one question .. you wrote "Lost Titan gained". Was that one of the giant sequoias, or did you mean Lost Monarch (Titan)? Can't quite follow, because Lost Monarch is mentioned as a "non-sequoia" while it's genus is actually Sequoia. As for media reports. Nat Geo articles are probably accurate. But I've noted that other media can seem misleading where the text is the writer's own choice of words rather than direct quotes from a researcher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.163.157 (talk) 16:37, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Watch those anonymous links that do not qualify for references

Just had to do some cleanup of references. Apparently, one user Hike395 added an anonymous amateur site as reference to no less than 3 giant sequoias on the list. The website has no contact, name or nothing. Purely useless for a reference. I suggest people editing pay closer attention before adding sites that nothing is known about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.163.157 (talk) 07:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Apparently over the months, some other editor repeated a mistake of adding unverified anonymous links. Either they didn't read this talk page, or ignored wikipedia's criteria. But anonymous websites especially do not merit mention. A better alternative would be something like conifers.org where a site admin like Dr. Earle includes his name and contact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.163.157 (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Trees named after women

An IP tried to add that there are no trees named after women. I removed that but wanted to learn/add more. The Clara Barton Tree, near the beginning of the Big Trees Trail, honors this Civil War nurse, a teacher, and patent clerk and the founder of the American Red Cross, who lived from 1821 to 1912. It is one of only two trees named for women. The other, the Susan B. Anthony Tree, can be seen from this trail if you know where to look. Clara Barton's contemporary, Susan B. Anthony worked tirelessly to secure for women the right to vote. I left his for an editor, more familiar with the format of this page, to hopefully add in at least one of these. Ifnord (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Removing trees from list

In Feb 2020, I marked all of the entries at the bottom of the list with {{citation needed}}. Given that these entries have remained unsupported for more than a year, I have truncated the list. If any editor can find a reliable source that can support the rows, we can restore. — hike395 (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Later --- reliable sources report that King Arthur (tree) was destroyed in the Castle Fire. Should we remove it from the list? Or should we wait for more evidence and new measurements? — hike395 (talk) 11:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)