Talk:Bristlecone pine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Bristlecone pine is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
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.
Please see: http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/Martyr.html and http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/1998/08/23/SC72173.DTL
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)
[edit] 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)
I cleaned up a few instances of vandalism. I'm never having kids... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.46.169 (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I reverted a bit more. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 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)
