Talk:List of largest giant sequoias

Methuselah Tree

There's one obvious discrepancy I can find between this list and the one at Sequoiadendron. Here, Methuselah Tree is listed as the 28th largest, whereas in the main article it's at #16. Any ideas? mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I did not use the Sequoiadendron article as a source for this article. I have seen Methuselah listed as the 24th largest tree on one list from 1996. It is ranked as the 27th largest tree on another list (date unknown). It is ranked as the 30th largest tree on yet another list from 1998. It is ranked as the 28th largest tree in Wendell Flint's authoritative book To Find the Biggest Tree from 2002, as well as on the National Park Service's list from the same year. I have yet to see any credible list that ranks it any higher than 24th, but I will keep searching for the most up-to-date and credible sources to ensure the accuracy of the data presented. Thanks for your help! DiverDave (talk) 00:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Widest tree?

I'd like to see a citation for the "widest" tree. I question whether it is a baobab; it may be the Montezuma cypress in Monterey, Mexico.Ryoung122 20:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Removing the Lost Monarch from the Discussion and revising the volume of the General Sherman

1. The Lost Monarch is a not a Giant Sequoia it's a Coast Redwood and is irrelevant to the topic. 2. The Lost Monarch is a two stemmed tree and the measurement cited here at 42,500 cu/ft includes 6,000+ cu/ft of material from Stem #2. 3. Dr. Robert Van Pelt places the Lost Monarch, when measuring a single stem at 34,914 cu/ft which puts it 24th, not 7th, on this list if it were a Giant Sequoia. 4. The 2nd largest Coast Redwood "Melkor" has the same problem. It's measurements include a 2nd Stem. 5. The largest Single Stemmed Coast Redwood comes in at somewhere in the neighborhood of 36,800 cu/ft. which would place that tree at approximately 16th on this list, if it were a sequoia, which it is not.

Lastly, Behold the following comment by Dr. Robert Van Pelt author of "Forest Giants of Pacific Coast" as he was addressing the issue of tree species and volume comparisons on a thread at nativetreesociety dot org

"For single stemmed trees the Sequoias have no peer. These are the trees I know of over 10 K cubic feet

Sequoiadendron 55,040 Sequoia 36,890 Agathis 18,250 Thuja 17,650 Eucalyptus 13,300 Pseudotsuga 12,320 Picea 11,920 Taxodium ~10K Adansonia ~10K

I do not think any others would make this list.

In terms of living biomass, remember that a tree like the General Sherman is 99 percent dead. Only the cambium, a very small amount of phloem and xylem, the leaves and fine roots are actually alive.

The Populus tremuloides (and P. tremula in Asia) clones are famous, but most people forget that Sequoia is often clonal - a grove of 7 or 8 giants would have more mass than the 47,000 stems of Utah's 'Pando' clone. Other, less well studied clones could be just as extensive (and ancient). Where I live there is evidence that certain clones of Acer circinatum or Rhododendron macrophyllum are 4-6,000 years old. These clones could now consist of enough stems to warrent inclusion in this list.

In terms of actual living mass, the mycelium of the Armelaria gallica that covers 15 hectares in Upper Michigan will probably beat any of the 'tree' contenders.

How unromantic."

As you can see above, Dr. Van Pelt uses the measurement of 55,040 cu/ft for the General Sherman Tree. It is the same figure cited in his book "Forest Giants of Pacific Coast" in which he measures the top 10 trees of all the major Pacific Coast Trees. This is the most up to date consumer book on Tree Volumes in existence. To my knowledge there has been no peer reviewed materials that contradict his measurements. He used a Criterion RD-1000 Laser to measure the volume of the General Sherman, and the other top 10 Giant Sequoia's in which his volumes differ substantially from the pin & transit measurements of prior decades primarily conducted by Flint and Law. Because the Criterion RD-1000 can measure dozens if not hundreds of diameter measurements from various angles even while the laser is impeded by vegetation...the data collected is far more comprehensive than that collected by a transit which is slow and tedious and requires line of sight measurements. Thus the most current accurate measurement of the General Sherman is 55,040. If it has not been revised, or commented upon in the next few weeks, I will make the revisions myself for the top 10 trees. AfterSeven (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

Washington Tree - 2nd Largest?

I was checking a ref and this NPS article has Washington Tree 2nd at 47,850 cubic feet in volume whilst this page shows 35,901 cubic feet. What is the discrepancy and should this be fixed? Buzzbo (talk) 23:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The Washington Tree lost much of its trunk as a result of a lightning strike/fire in 2003. See the section on Damaging agents. mgiganteus1 (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2012 (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)

AfterSeven 07:03, 25 June 2013 (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 reports on the Lost Monarch and now The President to be misleading in a 'tree volume' context.