Talk:List of oldest trees/Archive 1

Archive 1

Old comments

If anyone is interested in the oldest trees in Russia, some larches in Yakutia are known to have been 919 years old.[1] --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Montenegro claims to possess the oldest (olive) tree in Europe (ca. 2000 years).[2] --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Norway spruces

Here is an article about an ancient Swedish cluster of Norway spruces. The oldest is carbon-dated to be 8000 years old. Two spruces elsewhere in Sweden were dated to be around 5000 years old. The article states, "Although a single tree trunk can become at most about 600 years old, the spruces had survived by pushing out another trunk as soon as the old one died," which I do not understand. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080411/sc_nm/sweden_tree_dc;_ylt=AuWoMEubcHYw_w.1mNlwsSyzvtEF 216.137.71.118 (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The root system is the oldest part. New trunks sprout as required.--Michael C. Price ^talk 10:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

"But in the case of the Norway spruce, ancient remnants of its roots were radiocarbon dated."

It is beyond me how you can claim to have carbon dated a living tree. It is possible to find that there was a tree at the same spot 8,000 years ago, but how are they going to substantiate the claim that it was the same individual? dab (𒁳) 19:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

They say by genetic matching. See link just added. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

being genetically identical doesn't make you an identical individual, just a clone. The line between clone and identity is, of course, a bit blurred with plants, but by "oldest tree" I suggest we understand a tree that was standing there for such and such an extent of time, not some root cluster lurking away and producing a sprout now and again. I have my doubts this belongs in this list at all. List of long-living organisms may be a different issue. A root cluster may be an "organism" even if it isn't "a tree" proper.dab (𒁳) 12:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I find the term is clonal colony. By genetic matching, you can establish the clonal colony has such and such an age, but it doesn't establish an individual organism has existed throughout the period. If we list clonal colonies, Pando (tree) beats the Norway spruces by a factor of ten. dab (𒁳) 12:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

All three sources describe it as a "tree". So that is how we report it.--Michael C. Price ^talk 14:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not saying we should not report it, I am saying we should distinguish clonal colonies from individuals. The Norway spruces would then be listed alongside Pando (tree) as a clonal colony, and there will be a separate section on individual trees. Pando is "a tree" that is "made up of 47,000 tree trunks, each with an ordinary tree’s usual complement of leaves and branches"[3] -- sure, it's a "tree" botanically, but it may not be superfluous that it isn't what we usually envisage when we say "tree". dab (𒁳) 15:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It depends on whether the pando tree has been carbon dated in the same way as the Swedish tree. If the root of the Norway spruce tree is 8000 years old, it is not the same thing as a clonal colony where the individual roots may not be older than an ordinary aspen.--Berig (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Clonal section

I don't believe there is a hard and fast distinction between clonal plants and individual organisms. The Norway spruce, for instance, is not clearly not a single organism. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

We're talking about trees here, which by their nature are polyphyletic, and so do not behave in a simple, unified way. That aside, the categories are simple; plants that reproduce vegetatively have stems that are all connected. Their individual stems can die, but the organism itself does not die with them, allowing it to live many thousands of years. Where are you having trouble distinguishing? And yes, the Swedish Norway spruce is a clonal organism, that's why it was in the clonal organism section before you reverted my edits — 82.18.44.72 (talk) 21:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

As I said. the sources report it as a tree, not a clonal organism. You claim it is not just a tree. Show me the source that says the Norway spruce is not a tree. And note the discussion at [4], which also disagrees with your simplistic viewpoint. --Michael C. Price ^talk 04:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't fully understand what you mean by "tree". Yes, the Norway Spruce is certainly of a species commonly considered to be trees, and it is larger than the minimum size to be considered a tree. What I am saying is that the current stem above ground is not 10,000 years old; the spruce is 10,000 years old because its root system has lived for that long by sending fickle shoots above ground. The claimant plant is clearly therefore a clonal organism. Quoting Umeå University, as reported by the BBC "The visible portion of the spruce was comparatively new, but analysis of four 'generations' of remains - cones and wood - found underneath its crown showed its root system had been growing for 9,550 years."

You may wish to note that each and every clonal organism can, in itself, be considered an individual organism - some are just a really really big individual organism. Also, the term "clonal organism" implies that there is more than one visible stem (as in cloning, here multiple daughters are produced), but that need not be the case; the root system may only send up one stem at a time, replacing the last limb only after it has died.

So ner :P 82.18.44.72 (talk) 05:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see that just because the above-ground stems are renewed (which it not in dispute for the Norway Spruce) that this necessarily means that we are not dealing with a single organism. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

the notion of "tree" in common usage.

we are dealing with a "single organism". However, this is "oldest trees", not "oldest living organisms" or "oldest clonal colonies". Sheesh. Of course the Norway spruce is a "species of tree". But can you please appreciate that the term "old tree" is commonly taken to refer to a "tree" as in "a woody plant that has secondary branches supported clear of the ground on a single main stem or trunk with clear apical dominance"? dab (𒁳) 10:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh indeed. The argument is not about whether the Norway Spruce is a species of tree or not. Stop clouding the issues here. As for your final sentence, see Berig's comment in the preceding section. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry Michael, why is this so difficult? What am I missing? You seem to be playing WP:IDHT. Can we please invest some mutual good faith into clearing this up? Nobody wants to remove the spruce reference. All we need is to point out that it falls in a different category than the other examples listed. So can we have some suggestion that you would find acceptable instead of making this any more hostile? --dab (𒁳) 13:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You were the one who said that Of course the Norway spruce is a "species of tree"., as if that was an issue (which is isn't). And you were the first to assume bad faith / idioticy with the sheesh comment. Just stick to the issues and address Berig's point. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll be more than happy to work with Berig on this, if you could give it a rest for a moment. dab (𒁳) 15:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's start with this simile: roots are like hypha or mycelium (pick one) while a stem is like a mushroom in that roots and mycelia live through mulitiple growths of stems and mushrooms. A fungus is a type of organism; I assume everyone finds that agreeable.

dab: Is the following a fair description of your position? According to the lay definition, a plant has roots and one or more stems. A tree is a pithy type of plant with branches. Where the simile above breaks down is plants and trees are dissimilar to fungi in that when a mushroom is gone, what remains is still a fungus; when a plant's stem is destroyed, there is no longer something you could call a plant, though the organism lives. A stump, alive or dead, is not a tree. To inject a bit of general semantics (and depart from the lay definitions of "plant" and "tree"), "plant" is distinct from "organism", but the parts and form of a plant also are parts of and form of a type of organism. I say this because if I said something like "a plant is a type of organism", the notion you can destroying a plant without destroying an organism sits a little queer with me. Of course, my application of general semantics may also seem a little odd.

Michael, my paraphrase for your position is that Old Tjikko is an individual, and thus not a clonal colony any more than any other multicellular creature is a clonal colony. It has had the same body for 9550 years, while Pando's has not had a single body (I assume Pando's root system has been disconnected at some point in its life, possibly now). Furthermore, Pando is not a single organism according to a common meaning while Old Tjikko is, nor is Pando a tree but rather trees or a forrest. All of this put Old Tjikko in a different class from Pando, and thus Old Tjikko doesn't belong in the "clonal trees" category. When it comes to common usage, the articles you refer to are in plain language, and thus are an example of common usage (though news articles might misuse terms & sacrifice accuracy for simplicity to make the story more compelling). For you, a tree is an organism. I suspect there's more to your position, but I'm having a hard time putting it into words.

The wikistress seems to be arising from the usual: a disagreement of definitions. Since definitions are declared rather than derived, you can't prove one is correct. You can show one is more useful, and in some circumstances you can argue (as dab does) that a definition is based on common usage. Ambiguity is a problem for common usage, preventing it from being decisive evidence, but doesn't completely rule out a common usage argument as support for a definition. I'd like to add one other item of support: how Wikipedia defines "tree". Wikipedia should be self consistent and, inasmuch as articles should follow the same guidelines, Wikipedia is an authority on itself. These together give more credence to the "a tree is a type of plant, which has stem(s) and roots" definition, but (in general) we should allow for the possibility that other Wikipedia articles should adopt a new definition. The definition of clonal colony supports the position that Old Tjikko is not a clonal tree, as defined at the top of the list. Thus the Wikipedia's definitions of "tree", "clonal colony" and "clonal tree" suggest the central points of Michael and dabs' positions are valid.

The notion of "body" as separate from "organism" may be helpful in this discussion, but the common meaning has an ambiguity. When a single body divides, producing multiple clones, what happens to the original body? Is Pando's original body gone? My definition of "body" would require that distinct bodies remain distinct over time. When a body divides, it produces two new bodies, neither being the original. Thus, Pando's original body is gone. Applying this property of bodies to conjoined twins who are separated by operation and we get two new bodies & the original is gone. Maybe the definition needs work.

Jeez, this is wordy. Echh. Kanenas (talk) 04:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should wait for Guiness to come up with the appropriate term for this (tree, clone), and settle this matter once and for all. How about this: If Guiness labels it one or the other or a whole new term, would that be accepted by everyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.21.233 (talk) 03:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

And if Guiness don't come up with such a term? I think we should merge the lists, get rid of this artificial dichotomy and (perhaps) have a column that indicates whether the entry is a single organism, clonal organism or both or whatever. Any objections or better suggestions. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

so far, this relies on press agency reports plus national geographics. Giving four links to articles based on the same press release doesn't change that. As long as we don't have an actual academic source for this, that's just a random headlines recentism and not verifiable. I am happy to state that some roots in Norway have been carbon dated to 8000 years ago, but I am not sure to what extent this is relevant to the "oldest tree" topic. An actual academic source would be a good start. dab (𒁳) 15:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but I believe there is very little difference between a "clonal colony" and a tree which has regrown multiple times from the same root system. In essence, they are the same, its just a difference of numbers. I think the list should be divided between "single trees with a definite lifespan" (i.e., a confirmed age by counting tree rings or otherwise) and "clonal trees with an estimated lifespan" (i.e., an estimated age of clonal colonies and young trees with old root systems). Also, the clonal section includes plants that aren't even trees! Grasses and shrubs defnitely do not belong here. As to what these two sections should be named is beyond my expertise, otherwise, this proposed organization seems to make the most sense to me. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

indeed. I guess that's what I was trying to say above. --dab (𒁳) 06:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Judean date palm

I think adding the 2000 year old date palm seed that was successfully sprouted a couple years ago would be good. Here's the main article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judean_date_palm Not sure how you guys are classifying things but you could make a very good argument that the plant itself is 2000 years old and would fit on the chart.97.91.190.78 (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Tree mentioned twice

Isn't the chestnut tree of 100 horses mentioned twice in the chart? (once with its italian name and once with its english name)

Yes, thanks for spotting that. I've removed one of them. Hut 8.5 11:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A user: it's still there as 15 april 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.253.166.209 (talk) 22:28, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

the oldest tree in syria

the oldest tree in syria is an oak tree of about1400 years its in the village of bramanet-raad,tartous syria

oldest tree in Poland

The oldest Tree in Poland (Bartek) is said to be 625 years, but in the explanation 1200 years. This does not work out. The article about this individual tree says that 1200 years is no longer considered valid, but 625 years would be the correct value. I do not have strong evidence which of these two values really counts, only the assumption from what I read in these two articles that the 1200 years is kind of out voted. Maybe someone with better knowledge of the hard facts should adapt this to the right age in all three places (plus possible other occurences, search for Bartek with "Search" not with "Go").--Bk1 168 (talk) 07:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Oldest trees in Germany

There is a very good article in the German wiki, see http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Markante_und_alte_Baumexemplare There are some trees aged more than 1000 years listed 88.79.134.74 (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC) --

Prometheus in the list.

I believe Prometheus is dead, perhaps it should be removed from the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.85.76 (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It still was a notable old tree, the introduction tells you its dead, and the description in the list says it was cut down in '64, so I don't see why anybody would be confused. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 23:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

California Redwoods

I'm not a botanist or horticulturist, so I'm not going to amend this article myself, but can someone explain why no redwoods (which according to the REDWOODS Wiki article) some of which are dated to 3500 years old, are included in this list of oldest trees? IvarStrott (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There are two species of trees in California commonly called "redwoods". They are Sequoiadendron gigantea (Giant sequoia) and Sequoia sempervirans (Coast redwood). Both are mentioned in this list and are among the oldest trees in the world. Allanm051 (talk) 04:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

King Clone

I removed the King Clone from the list. This organism is a shrub. Nobody would consider it a tree. It might be worth noting the oldest woody clonal plant (be it tree or shrub) on this list, but the King Clone isn't it. There are several other older clonal trees on List of long-living organisms that should probably be added to this list.

Removed entry: King Clone || 11,700 || Larrea tridentata|Creosote (Larrea tridentata Coville) || Mojave Desert, California 192.104.39.2 (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Are Baobabs the oldest trees

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v198/n4881/abs/198708b0.html Speciems know 5000 years+ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.236.235 (talk) 08:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The above citation points to a 1950s opinion, not an accepted scientific fact produced by evidence.Ryoung122 21:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Copy edits

I've tried to copy edit the three-paragraph lede sufficiently to take down the copy-edit template placed here last October. I'd appreciate it if a couple of editors would chime in here, to opine about whether my edits are sufficient to justify taking down the template. I think if two other editors !vote "aye" here, a third should take it down. I'm not feeling bold enough to judge my own work. David in DC (talk) 20:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Partial and biased list

A list of long-lived trees that starts at 308 years old must be horribly patchy as there would be many, many species that easily reach this age that aren't on the list. Perhaps the only reason the 308 year old tree is mentioned is because it is American. But surely there is never any trace of parochial American bias on Wikipedia?

300 or even 4000 years is too young to be meaningful in a discussion of long lived trees - it isn't even at 1st decile of the oldest. Or failing that have the list expanded with a wider literature search and the inclusion of ignored regions, like the Australian continent. Gmelina (talk) 06:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Revising

I'd like to propose some changes to this page. First of all, a lot of the trees on the list have poorly verified ages. Some don't have citations at all, while others link to touristy pages hyping an unverified and apparently speculatory age. I would like to make a list of verified oldest trees, i. e., those that have had their rings counted or cross-dated, or have been radiocarbon dated. From what I've been able to figure out, the list should go something like: Prometheus, Methuselah, unnamed Patagonian cypress, General Noble, etc. Then a separate list of estimated ages of other notable trees, starting with the Llangernyw yew. Then the list of clonal trees. While I think any 300-year-old tree is pretty cool, I agree with Gmelina that that's a bit too young to merit being on this list. Tdslk (talk) 06:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. The list is very North America-centric, unfortunately. If there are more global trees with verified, ancient, ages, please add them to the list! Tdslk (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Oldest olive tree

Conversation copied over from Paulapico's talk page byTdslk (talk) 03:09, 9 July 2011 (UTC):

Dear sirs. My name is José Lousada and I am the researcher / inventor of the method under discussion. On the subject in question, I would like to emphasize two aspects: • Any method used to date very old trees, provides only an estimate and not an accurate assessment of age. Thus, also the method of carbon-14 dating, being an indirect method, the result is that provides an estimate of the age. Since carbon 14 is retained in the organic compounds and this has been decreasing over the life of the earth, through their analysis is possible to estimate the age the age at which it was formed. But it's always an estimate. In the Carbon-14 was not printed the date or year that the tree was planted or seeded. So that the age of trees (or any other substance containing carbon) is presented in the form of a range of values (or margin of error). To illustrate this point, I enclose a report by carbon-14 dating which estimated age in 170 + / -35 years. • This method in discussion was developed by a team of researchers from a public university, and this method was subsequently subjected to a certification process for Patent. During this process has undergone various stages of examination by experts, and in the end was awarded with the National Invention Patent No. 104183.

Yours sincerely

J.Lousada

• Caption1
  Caption1

Dr. Louisada, Thank you for your comments. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like your two files loaded to Wikipedia. Perhaps you could provide links to another place to find them on the Web? Also, do you have a link to your patent or to any peer-reviewed journal articles that describe your methods?

I agree with you that tree ages determined by carbon dating come with a certain amount of variance. The extent of the variance has been well-documented, though, and is small compared to the overall age of 1000+ year old trees. For this reason I think that carbon dated ages should be included on the list of verified ages, but if the consensus among editors is that they aren't good enough, then I would be fine with moving such trees to the list of estimated ages. In any event, none of the trees currently on the list had their ages determined through carbon dating, so this would not change things in practice. Tdslk (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear sirs

Unfortunately, I could not put the file on the page. Thus, alternatively, could you give me an e-mail address to which I can send you? In relation to the link or peer-reviewed journal article that describe the methods, as this is patented the information that I can give is the one in the patent. I can not give more information as it is "secret patent". Also Coca-Cola does not disclose its method of manufacture, despite patented... Yours sincerely J.Lousada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.136.157.71 (talk) 10:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Keeping your methods secret makes it hard to verify your claims. I don't speak Portuguese, but when I put this page into Google translate it says "The alternative developed "allows the trees to date through a mathematical model that relates age to the characteristics of the trunk dendrometric (radius, diameter or perimeter)." So your patented method is to determine the tree's age by it's diameter? I'm not aware of any case where diameter has anything but a very coarse correlation with tree age.

Presumably you created a regression equation linking diameter to age, using diameters of trees with ages determined by counting or cross-dating tree rings. What was the biggest/oldest tree you had in your data set? If it's much smaller and younger than the tree you think is 2,850 years old, how do you justify such an extreme extrapolation? Also, what's the variance? Tdslk (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I just reverted your edit to the list of oldest trees because there was no citation to a verified age, determined by tree rings or carbon dating, for the tree. Do you know of a citation, perhaps from the researchers at UTAD who studied it? If you can verify it that would be really exciting, since it would be the oldest living angiosperm on earth! Tdslk (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to edit! I don´t know how to answer you here... The Olive tree was considered the oldest one here at Portugal. The method is patented by the University of Trás-os-Montes (Portugal) and they verify ages till 3000 years ( http://www.oliveirasmilenares.com.pt/ ) You can see more pictures of the Olive Tree here: http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.179292875460801.46048.113823935341029 and the declaration of age is this one: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=187011198022302&set=a.179292875460801.46048.113823935341029&type=1&theater . I hope you can understand all :)

You can see also this in english here: http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-622217?ref=feeds%2Flatest and the news in Portuguese at http://www.cienciahoje.pt/index.php?oid=49909&op=all and http://www.publico.pt/Sociedade/arvore-mais-velha-de-portugal-certificada-este-sabado-vive-em-santa-iria-da-azoia_1501904 7 July 2011 (Paula Pico)

If I read this page correctly, their method is to estimate age based on the size of the tree, so the olive tree should go on the list of trees with estimated ages. Do you know what the age of the oldest remaining tree rings are on this tree? Tdslk (talk) 03:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

"Abstract PT104183 - The dating of relatively young and TREES, GENERALLY, EASY, AND METHODS COMMONLY USED IN THIS CASE FOR THE OPTICAL ASSESSMENT OF THEIR AGE. BUT VERY OLD TREES IN YOUR USE is impractical, since, among other things, in most cases the central part of the tree (which corresponds to a zone OLDER TREE) Rot, which makes its dating.FACE IN ADDITION, A methodology was developed for measuring NO DESTRUCTIVE OF ANY AGE VERY OLD TREE, EVEN IF THIS PRESENT INSIDE OCA."

I hope this can help you. I don't know anything about trees, I just live near this one. :) paulapico (talk) 16:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Organizational Flow

I took the liberty to re-work the order of the three tables. Logically, the first issue in the "oldest tree" debate is "individual vs. clone." The second issue is "verified vs. estimated". The "estimated" age list is closer cladistically to the "verified" list...they are both "individual" counts, estimated or not. It makes sense to compare apples to hypothetical apples, not apples to hypothetical oranges (the clonal-colony ages are also estimated).Ryoung122 23:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Oldest Tree by Species vs. Oldest Trees Overall

I would suggest a fourth list, "Oldest Tree by Species," for species that do not live nearly as long as the oldest ones. I also suggest a cutoff point for the main lists. There must be literally hundreds of giant sequoias over 2000 years old, many of them documented and many more estimated.Ryoung122 23:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Last summer I did some major edits to this page, including making separate lists for verified and unverified trees. At the time I decided to set 1500 years old as the minimum age. I think that's a good cutoff point (obviously, since I picked it), but I wouldn't have any objections if there's a majority opinion for a different age limit.

You are probably right about the number of very old sequoias out there (not to mention bristlecone pines), but I haven't found any sources listing verified ages for trees beyond what's on the page now. If someone were to publish a paper listing, say, 300 sequoias with very old ages, that would swamp the list, and I agree that some sort of limits should be set (say, only the five oldest trees of each species), but thus far it hasn't been a problem. Tdslk (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make a list of oldest by species, you could find some <1500 year old champions by looking at an earlier version of this page, such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_oldest_trees&oldid=436216138. Just be careful about which trees have verified ages! There are also many trees <1500 on OLDLIST, the source I used for most trees with verified ages. Tdslk (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Color Codes for Living/Dead

It would be a good idea to disambiguate living from dead trees. One method is to use "green highlight" for living trees. Ryoung122 23:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

This would require a lot of digging through sources since OLDLIST doesn't distinguish between the two. And even if a core was taken from a living tree, it could have died since that time. For example, the age of the oldest Patagonia cypress was published in 1993. If it is still alive, it would now be about twenty years older than the age given on the page, but I don't know of any source confirming that it is still alive. Tdslk (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Merge Suggested

I would like to informally suggest a merge of the two charts. The "clonal" distinction is not really that important, but could still be expressed as one new column in the one chart. Having read through the references, it appears as though the Old_Tjikko tree is actually an individual tree that was cloned but maybe now stands on its own and thus the info which suggests the old pines *only* lived to be 5000 or so years is old info, esp. in light of the recent discoveries of spruces much older. If this idea is too radical for consideration I may not be aware of (which is why Im not editing the page itself), at least consider adding the poor old dying dog of a tree to the individual tree chart. Andrewbaron (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

My sense is that they should be merged. I see a lot of debate regarding what's a "tree" and debate on whether the article should merge them or keep them apart, and debate on whether or not dating methods are reliable. None of these debates are appropriate, as they suggest adding content that should only come from reliable secondary sources. What do reliable secondary sources call a "tree"? What ages do reliable secondary sources give to the trees? Do the reliable secondary sources call the oldest Norway Spruce a tree? If the reliable secondary sources disagree, then that's worth mentioning, too. The content of this article needs to get back to some Wikipedia fundamentals. —Danorton (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thats all well and good but there are no reliable secondary sources who delineate "lists of oldest trees". And within that list of trees are clonal trees which some people think should be on a seperate list because they're "cheaters" in the age game and aren't dated by counting tree rings. This is all relatively new stuff and there are few books on the subject and as far as I can tell none of them are arguing over whether or not clonal trees are "cheaters" and how we should rank them among the "regular" trees. Until someone publishes an annual list of oldest trees we are going to have to assemble it ourselves and that involves some opinions on how that list should be complied. I see no inappropriate "original research" going on here, merely a discussion of how to proceed with the information we have available to us. I think the lists should remain apart because the clones are indeed cheaters and are not really as old as their carbon dating suggests. There is a significant difference between a tree that lived for 5000 years and a writhing mass of hundreds of trees all with different ages but are connected by a single, older root system. One is a really old tree... the other is a bunch of young trees connected by old roots. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If, as you say, "there are no reliable secondary sources who delineate 'lists of oldest trees'", then they shouldn't be delineated here. If reliable secondary sources say they're "cheaters", then the article should mention it. If they don't, then the article shouldn't mention it. This article's biggest problem seems to be inclusion of original research, which simply doesn't belong in Wikipedia articles. To argue that it's notable absent supporting secondary sources and to assert that it should be distinguished is opinion, also inappropriate for Wikipedia articles. You aren't presenting information here, you are interpreting it from a non-neutral point of view and presenting that interpretation. You don't have to assert it yourselves, if you're going to follow core principals, you have to omit contentious or potentially contentious material that lacks secondary sources. Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia's Verifiability core policy that bears repeating here:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

—Danorton (talk) 03:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

If you believed what you said then you would have nominated this article for deletion already. I'm done wih this conversation. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be taking this personally. I believe that we all share the common interest of improving Wikipedia and I believe that there are many besides me that are interested in improving this article in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Are you one of us? —Danorton (talk) 04:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not taking anything personally. I've made plenty of improvements to this article, have you? You seem to think that OR includes making a list of facts... if thats true then pretty much all of the lists on Wikipedia should be deleted as OR. We are simply collecting the facts as presented and presenting them in list format, which raises some issues regarding classification and such. In the end I dont see you presenting any useful advice for improving this article, you simply quote policies and try to sound smart. Nothing personal, but you're wasting my time with this conversation. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems that I am a bit late for the discussion, but I feel that must speak my opinion. Yes, some kind of merge is necessary. Nature is not as clean and simple as a linear list gives the idea of. There are always a number of special cases and certain circumstances that must be taken into account in nature. For example, Pinus longaeva, it shoots new limbs just like the Picea abies. Perhaps not in the same fashion, but still it does, and that makes the distinction between clonal and non-clonal a bit farfetched. Besides, no trees are 100% non-clonal or lacking regeneration. I think the most informative option here is to have only one list with an explanatory comment beside each entry with "unconventional" tree growth. (Apologies for my bad English) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.72.14.13 (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Age of Methuselah

An anonymous edit yesterday changed Methuselah's age to 4843, the same age listed on its wikipage. On that page two links are provided to support that age. One of them leads to a nature documentary that, at least according to its transcript, never gives a precise age. The other goes to the gymnosperm database (http://www.conifers.org/pi/Pinus_longaeva.php), which states:

The oldest known living specimen is the "Methuselah" tree, 4,789 years, age verified by crossdating, sampled by Schulman and Harlan in the White Mountains of CA. I'm not sure when that age was determined, but Schulman found the tree in 1957 and he died in 1958, so it seems likely the tree had 4,789 rings (crossdated) in the summer of 1957, in which case the tree was 4,832 years old in 2000. In 2006, it is 4,838 and still going.

So the author is not sure of the age. And after trying to find an answer, I can't blame the person. I suspect the author looked at the Rocky Mountain Tree Ring Research OLDLIST, which I used as a source for most of the trees on the "verified ages" list, which gives Methuselah's age as 4,789, but doesn't say as of when. The OLDLIST table has a somewhat ambiguously named column called "Collector(s), Dater(s), Reference". For Methuselah, this column says "Ed Schulman, Tom Harlan". Ed Schulman was the one who cored the tree, and came up with an age of >4600. Perhaps Tom Harlan, who worked in tree ring research after Schulman, came along and did the cross-dating to come up with the 4,789 number? I've skimmed through Harlan's published papers, but can't find a published source for this age. Perhaps he personally told the OLDLIST keepers the age?

Searching around, there are lots of newspaper articles (and even tangential science papers) that throw out a date for Methuselah, but without giving a source. The best I've found thus far is a 2003 New York Times article that says:

The laboratory's senior scientist, Dr. Edmund Schulman, discovered Methuselah in 1957 and estimated its age at about 4,600 years. (The current Forest Service estimate is 4,733.)

So is 4733 the estimate of the age in 1957, or in 2003? If it was for 1957, then the current age would be 4788, just one shy of the OLDLIST number. If it was for 2003, then the current age is 4742. Either way, 4843 would be an overestimate.

Can anyone else find a reference that will shed light on this issue?

(Special tantalizing bonus quote from that NYT article: "researchers connected with the Arizona lab say that a recent analysis of a tree boring collected years ago by Dr. Schulman indicates that one of Methuselah's neighbors is even older. But out of concern for that tree's safety, they are not disclosing anything more about it.") Tdslk (talk) 13:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Ginko trees?

They are reported to get pretty old. But there doesn't seem to be any one in your list. Kindly sb. add one. --99.11.160.111 (talk) 07:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide a citation to a reliable source giving the age of an individual ginkgo tree? Tdslk (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The Oldest of Turkey

Can someone add it to the list? The name of the tree is "Koca Katran". It is located in Elmalı, near Antalya. It is ceddar(Cedrus libani) and probably its subspecies is Tauros Ceddar. It is nearly 2000 years old.(http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/default.aspx?pageid=438&n=turkey8217s-oldest-tree-is-2000-years-old-2005-08-26)--Ollios (talk) 18:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Defynnog Yew

Though I added this entry at the top of the uncertain ages table in July in good faith, a 'fact' backed up by a reference from what should be a reilable source, I've since become aware that it's thought by the UK's Ancient Yew Group (see http://www.ancient-yew.org/) highly unlikely to be of such an age. I was simply going to remove the text that I'd added but since I've no good reference to do so and do have what on the face of it is a good reference in favour of its retention, I have left it be for the while but with this note here on the talk page. For the record it is (so far as I'm given to understand) almost certainly ancient but perhaps no more than a 1000 years old or so. cheers Geopersona (talk) 14:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that most of the ages in the uncertain table are dubious. If it were up to me, I would just delete the entire table. —hike395 (talk) 02:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I created that table three years ago to to separate the trees with more questionable ages from the main table. I don't have any strong attachment to the uncertain-aged table, but if it were removed then it would take a lot more work to keep such trees from popping up in the main list. Tdslk (talk) 14:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)