Re: OT The world's oldesr tree.
Loren Russell wrote:
>
> Rest assured that ANY date for any living tree much above 5,000 years is
> pure
> fantasy! One would think that several millenia is enough, but Tree-olatry
> tends to many exaggerated claims, which usually associate great size with
> great age.
>
> The oldest Sierra redwoods are certainly older than the oldest coast
> redwoods, and many bristlecone pines surpass all the redwoods, some
> exceeding 5000 years. I don't think that 6000 is authenticated for any
> living indivdual, though there are reasonable examples of greater age in
> clones [fungi, creosote-bush, box-huckleberry].
loren
This was my suspicion, so I am glad to have it confirmed. I have always
understood that the Bristlecone Pines were the real ancients (and my,
they do look it!).
I have no idea who arrived at such an astonishing record age for the
particular redwood in question or how they made their estimate. As I
have now seen three different claims - 6,000, 7,000 and 12,000 years -
I suspect the whole thing belongs to the realm of fantasy or perhaps
wishful thinking..
The clone concept of the olderst living things is a rather questionable
one to my way of thinking. As far as I can see the plant never really
battles with old age like normal individuals but just keeps on renewing
its youth. The oldest clone I have heard of is the Lomatia they found in
Tasmania a few years ago. I have seen the suggestion of 43,000 years for
this but have no idea whether this is at all credible.
Moira
--
Tony & Moira Ryan <theryans@xtra.co.nz>
Wainuiomata (near Wellington, capital city of New Zealand)
