|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article uses text donated by Wildscreen from their ARKive project (see below). For further information, please see Wikipedia:GLAM/ARKive.|
|The content of this article has been derived in whole or part from Wildscreen ARKive texts. Permission has been received from the copyright holder to release this material under both the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license and the GNU Free Documentation License. You may use either or both licenses. Evidence of this has been confirmed and stored by OTRS volunteers, under ticket number 2011090810014488.
This template is used by approved volunteers dealing with the Wikimedia Open Ticket Request System (OTRS) after receipt of a clear statement of permission at permissions-enwikimedia.org. Do not use this template to claim permission.
Moved to talk page:
"One researcher claims to have found an older tree in the vicinity, but refuses to reveal the location to anyone, ostensibly for the tree's protection."
No evidence for the existence of this tree has been published in any scientific literature: data concerning its age etc could easily be published without revealing its location. I've come across this claim several other places, and strongly suspect it to be an urban legend - MPF 11:27, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
There are a few mistakes here I believe, relative to the cutting of Prometheus. The name Prometheus is reported to have been applied to the tree several years before it was cut, and other old trees in the grove were also named. Currey probably did have an idea of the trees age--he is quoted in one of the articles listed below as knowing it was probably quite old. Note also the discussion regarding "oldest living thing" in one of the articles.
Jeeb 05:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
According to Currey, in one of the web articles referenced at article end, the pith of the tree did not exist below the 100" point (about 8.3 ft or 2.5m) of the trunk. This is the distance from where the first full section was taken, to the germination point, not to the ground level. Ground level was elevated during the 5000 years the tree grew. Jeeb 22:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I think the Prometheus tree deserves it's own article. Any objections? Jeeb 22:29, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed; 'Methuselah' too - MPF 23:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Oldest living single organisms
I put the word "single" back in the first paragraph of the Oldest living organisms section to match the wording of the first paragraph in the article Rsduhamel 19:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
No longer recognized as oldest
There's an article linked on today's Drudge Report stating that a nearly 10,000 year old spruce tree has been identified--time to update this article. But I think we should nail down the actual species of this spruce before adding the mention. Matt Gies (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- There is a distinction to be made here between the Spruce in question (see ) where the longevity is the result of propagation through cloning and the Bristlecone pine where it is not. Jooler (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Edited to improve sort order in Category Pinus
I edited this to change the sort order on the page for the Category Pinus. It had been set to alphabetize under Pine. That might make sense for categories where there are a lot of trees and a few of them are pines; then all the pines group together. But on the page where everything is a pine, it made more sense to alphabetize under Bristlecone. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza