"Dear Visitor,
I’m happy to report that the people have selected the oak as their choice for
America’s National Tree in the nationwide
vote hosted by The National Arbor Day
Foundation on this Web site."
Weep for the common chokecherry
(Prunus virginiana) the truest bluest
finest freeest tree in the land from the arrowshaft run thru Custer to my wife's greeatgrandmothers wine ;anyone who ever had to live in the
wildwood of the United Stats knowth the king is the chokecherry.
No offense, but, Choke Cherry? Come on, that's a shrub; an understory species; barely a tree on a good day. The Black Cherry is the great American cherry, and a medicinal plant, to boot (love that cough syrup). It can grow to an impressive size, but like most cherries, it's usually a successional species, and prone to falling down. The national tree should properly be a climax species, the sort that eventually overtops things like cherries and hornbeams. For all the talk about how big it is out west, you don't have many big trees out there, do you? (Same goes for you Texans.) And I don't want to hear about giant conifers on the West Coast, either. The American tree must be a broadleaf, deciduous, flowering tree. Now, I have no problems with Oaks, but I don't get the Oak as a species. What Oak? There are dozens! Quecus has got to be the biggest genus around, and there's a world (well, a continent) of difference between the White Oak of the east, the Live Oak of the south, the Canyon Oak of the west, not to mention those scrubby Post and Blackjack Oaks of the Cross Timbers forest at the edge of Texas, where the trees give way to plains. Did I mention the dearth of trees in Texas? Yeah, yeah, maybe there're Cottonwoods along some river, but those are just Poplars on steroids, and will also fall down in less than a human lifetime. Let's face it, the Tuliptree is the American tree par excellence. Its range is almost exactly the eastern US. It's the tallest tree around, except for the Sycamore, which it can overtop by growing faster. And unlike the Oaks, which have species all over the place (English Oak, anyone?), Liriodendron tulipifera is (like its leaf shape) virtually unique, with only one other species in the genus, and that in SE Asia. It's a tree of great character: known for being tall and straight, it also bears the most beautiful flowers of any true forest tree. These have not been adjusted by human meddling, like Prunus, and Malus, and the rest of the Rose crew. Nevertheless, Liriodendron is modest, and doesn't make a big show. The flowers are borne high aloft, and are mostly green, so you may have to make a point of looking for them. This is truly a noble tree, but maybe I've said all this before? I would have voted for it, but I don't think it should get mixed up in politics.
All right that's it. If I could string together a moment or two of coherence you'd really be getting the whatfor now.
West bashing may be ok, but Texas? This site stinks with Texans. (My point precisely says AW). -badabing-
"Dearth of trees in Texas"? I have twelve acres of trees in Texas not to metion a Tulip tree or two in North Carolina, and a Sycamore already dwarfing the Rocheblave house so let me just jump in here...(veins popping, temples and neck.)
(Ok, maybe you do have a few trees in Texas but not any big ones)
Here jimlouis cocks back his sticks, fingers dangling at their ends, his birdcage puffed out, and emits a budweiser enhanced spittle flecked retort.
Oh yeah, what about that Treaty (live) Oak in Austin. (Not deciduous says AW, and besides, wasn't it poisoned to death by a local sicko?).
Yeah, well how come they gotta be deciduous? I think they put that guy on death row.
...dammit, where's Tom Moody when you need him? Come on TM, get him. He can't get away saying we have little trees. Can he? Bill? Can he get away that? Or is that why we all fled, to get away from our little trees? Oh dreaded epiphany.
Live oaks in Texas grow to enormous size, but by Alex's phallocentric logic, size only matters if it's vertical. Texan-bashing is all just bluster on his part, anyway, because, as he admits, the mighty tulip is a shrub next to the Redwoods further west.
You gotta know I already let him have it last night. In Amarillo we got a whole dambd forest of great big *long*(not tall) redwoods. Long cause they'r lying on the ground petrified. They'r "mighty" petrified our mighty redwoods. mesquete ? how bout them. thorny and tasty for the bbq. / cedar groves suitible for real-good fence posts. uh er anything else you wanted me to remind em ?
The mighty coconut palms of Padre Island ? (imports again)
He's right Jim, we got not-a-lotta to brag on treewise.
Remember those fake tree's in Freds ?
One of my favorite Texas trees is the bois d'arc, which natives pronounce "boh-dark." It's not much to look at--it has multiple trunks and dense, skinny branches. But once a year it drops melon-sized, chartreuse fruits all over the streets and sidewalks. These "hedge apples" (or, as my grandfather called them, "horse apples") are covered with a lumpy, vaguely reptilian hide. They're dense and inedible, and about the only good thing you can say for them is they hold their shape well as you kick them down the street.
link
Shrub? Have you ever actually seen a chokecherry? In Wisconson 1000
year old 'mothers' 2 feet in diameter
are still pumping out fruit 'over the canopy'. Medicinal uses for this amazing tree far outnumber those
for Prunus serotina, the black cherry. Long live the weeds , the cedars ,the yarrow/ give me chokecherries
mashed in bison marrow..
OK, so maybe there're a few oversized Chokecherries out there. There's always an exception, but all the literature I find, including this from WI, describes it as a "shrub or small tree". I like shrubs as much as anyone; herbaceous plants too; even mosses, and worts, and slime molds, if you really want to "get down", but we were talking about trees… Not that size is everything. If that were the case, the Redwood (or is it Sequoia?) would be the clear winner. I say it's too big. The national tree should have some relation to human scale; the Redwoods are more like skyscrapers. Just won't do for tree-hugging, not to mention the limited range. Actually, I thought the Redwood would win, 'cause Americans like things overdone, but I guess more people have a genuine relationship with some Oak or other. (Probably the Redwood got more votes than any single Oak species. Maybe we should send the ballots to FL for a recount.) Anyway, if you want to know where the size fixation leads, check out the Register of Big Trees. (American Forests won't publish it online, but here's a (messy) reprint.) They have a point system based on circumference, height, and crown spread. The big eastern trees do well to score 500 points, while the giant conifers get up to 1300. The Chokecherry manages 264 in its larger eastern version, but the "champion" specimen does stand an impressive 74ft tall, not bad for a species usually listed as 30ft at best. The top Tuliptree scores 516 points, at 111ft, but let's not forget that the colonists cut down ones that were twice that size. I was surprised that Live Oak is, in fact, the highest scoring Oak, and just beats out Liriodendron, with 527 points, not so much on the basis of spread (at 132ft, only 7ft more than TT), but because of its great girth (439in to 374). This in a tree that's only 55ft tall. I think it's fair to say that the Live Oak is squat! (Strictly a descriptive term, of course. Besides, what's a Live Oak without Spanish Moss?) Truth is, these numbers don't mean much, or at least don't represent typical profiles of the species. When you see pictures of these trees, they're hardly recognizable, coming off as overgrown eccentrics. So, while your choice is as good as mine, give me a tree that fits in your yard, but won't be mistaken for the lawn. And, as we say in the tree biz, "up yours!"
|
- jim 5-01-2001 3:40 pm
Weep for the common chokecherry (Prunus virginiana) the truest bluest finest freeest tree in the land from the arrowshaft run thru Custer to my wife's greeatgrandmothers wine ;anyone who ever had to live in the wildwood of the United Stats knowth the king is the chokecherry.
- frank 5-02-2001 9:01 pm [add a comment]
No offense, but, Choke Cherry? Come on, that's a shrub; an understory species; barely a tree on a good day. The Black Cherry is the great American cherry, and a medicinal plant, to boot (love that cough syrup). It can grow to an impressive size, but like most cherries, it's usually a successional species, and prone to falling down. The national tree should properly be a climax species, the sort that eventually overtops things like cherries and hornbeams. For all the talk about how big it is out west, you don't have many big trees out there, do you? (Same goes for you Texans.) And I don't want to hear about giant conifers on the West Coast, either. The American tree must be a broadleaf, deciduous, flowering tree. Now, I have no problems with Oaks, but I don't get the Oak as a species. What Oak? There are dozens! Quecus has got to be the biggest genus around, and there's a world (well, a continent) of difference between the White Oak of the east, the Live Oak of the south, the Canyon Oak of the west, not to mention those scrubby Post and Blackjack Oaks of the Cross Timbers forest at the edge of Texas, where the trees give way to plains. Did I mention the dearth of trees in Texas? Yeah, yeah, maybe there're Cottonwoods along some river, but those are just Poplars on steroids, and will also fall down in less than a human lifetime. Let's face it, the Tuliptree is the American tree par excellence. Its range is almost exactly the eastern US. It's the tallest tree around, except for the Sycamore, which it can overtop by growing faster. And unlike the Oaks, which have species all over the place (English Oak, anyone?), Liriodendron tulipifera is (like its leaf shape) virtually unique, with only one other species in the genus, and that in SE Asia. It's a tree of great character: known for being tall and straight, it also bears the most beautiful flowers of any true forest tree. These have not been adjusted by human meddling, like Prunus, and Malus, and the rest of the Rose crew. Nevertheless, Liriodendron is modest, and doesn't make a big show. The flowers are borne high aloft, and are mostly green, so you may have to make a point of looking for them. This is truly a noble tree, but maybe I've said all this before? I would have voted for it, but I don't think it should get mixed up in politics.
- alex 5-04-2001 12:44 am [add a comment]
All right that's it. If I could string together a moment or two of coherence you'd really be getting the whatfor now.
West bashing may be ok, but Texas? This site stinks with Texans. (My point precisely says AW). -badabing-
"Dearth of trees in Texas"? I have twelve acres of trees in Texas not to metion a Tulip tree or two in North Carolina, and a Sycamore already dwarfing the Rocheblave house so let me just jump in here...(veins popping, temples and neck.)
(Ok, maybe you do have a few trees in Texas but not any big ones)
Here jimlouis cocks back his sticks, fingers dangling at their ends, his birdcage puffed out, and emits a budweiser enhanced spittle flecked retort.
Oh yeah, what about that Treaty (live) Oak in Austin. (Not deciduous says AW, and besides, wasn't it poisoned to death by a local sicko?).
Yeah, well how come they gotta be deciduous? I think they put that guy on death row.
...dammit, where's Tom Moody when you need him? Come on TM, get him. He can't get away saying we have little trees. Can he? Bill? Can he get away that? Or is that why we all fled, to get away from our little trees? Oh dreaded epiphany.
- jimlouis 5-04-2001 11:12 pm [add a comment]
Live oaks in Texas grow to enormous size, but by Alex's phallocentric logic, size only matters if it's vertical. Texan-bashing is all just bluster on his part, anyway, because, as he admits, the mighty tulip is a shrub next to the Redwoods further west.
- Tom Moody 5-05-2001 12:01 am [add a comment]
You gotta know I already let him have it last night. In Amarillo we got a whole dambd forest of great big *long*(not tall) redwoods. Long cause they'r lying on the ground petrified. They'r "mighty" petrified our mighty redwoods. mesquete ? how bout them. thorny and tasty for the bbq. / cedar groves suitible for real-good fence posts. uh er anything else you wanted me to remind em ? The mighty coconut palms of Padre Island ? (imports again) He's right Jim, we got not-a-lotta to brag on treewise. Remember those fake tree's in Freds ?
- bill 5-05-2001 12:12 am [add a comment]
One of my favorite Texas trees is the bois d'arc, which natives pronounce "boh-dark." It's not much to look at--it has multiple trunks and dense, skinny branches. But once a year it drops melon-sized, chartreuse fruits all over the streets and sidewalks. These "hedge apples" (or, as my grandfather called them, "horse apples") are covered with a lumpy, vaguely reptilian hide. They're dense and inedible, and about the only good thing you can say for them is they hold their shape well as you kick them down the street.
- Tom Moody 5-05-2001 12:29 am [add a comment]
And rolling them (we grew up calling them horse apples)out onto East Kiest Blvd. in South Oak Cliff, they were great for that.
- jimlouis 5-06-2001 5:19 am [add a comment]
Wow, you guys have all the folk names, and come by them naturally. I feel like Lomax on the prairies. My dad told me they were Osage Oranges, which turns out to be the “official” name. Thought to be native to a fairly small range in TX, AK, OK, the tree may be the best the area has to offer. Still, there is the sex issue. The species has separate male and female trees, which is no better than the way we do things. I think the national tree should have perfect flowers: male and female all in one; all trees bearing flowers and fruit. Just ask the Wheel, he knows OO.
- alex 5-06-2001 8:39 pm [add a comment]
link
- link- (guest) 8-09-2004 11:22 am [add a comment] [edit]
Shrub? Have you ever actually seen a chokecherry? In Wisconson 1000 year old 'mothers' 2 feet in diameter are still pumping out fruit 'over the canopy'. Medicinal uses for this amazing tree far outnumber those for Prunus serotina, the black cherry. Long live the weeds , the cedars ,the yarrow/ give me chokecherries mashed in bison marrow..
- frank 5-07-2001 7:51 pm [add a comment]
OK, so maybe there're a few oversized Chokecherries out there. There's always an exception, but all the literature I find, including this from WI, describes it as a "shrub or small tree". I like shrubs as much as anyone; herbaceous plants too; even mosses, and worts, and slime molds, if you really want to "get down", but we were talking about trees… Not that size is everything. If that were the case, the Redwood (or is it Sequoia?) would be the clear winner. I say it's too big. The national tree should have some relation to human scale; the Redwoods are more like skyscrapers. Just won't do for tree-hugging, not to mention the limited range. Actually, I thought the Redwood would win, 'cause Americans like things overdone, but I guess more people have a genuine relationship with some Oak or other. (Probably the Redwood got more votes than any single Oak species. Maybe we should send the ballots to FL for a recount.) Anyway, if you want to know where the size fixation leads, check out the Register of Big Trees. (American Forests won't publish it online, but here's a (messy) reprint.) They have a point system based on circumference, height, and crown spread. The big eastern trees do well to score 500 points, while the giant conifers get up to 1300. The Chokecherry manages 264 in its larger eastern version, but the "champion" specimen does stand an impressive 74ft tall, not bad for a species usually listed as 30ft at best. The top Tuliptree scores 516 points, at 111ft, but let's not forget that the colonists cut down ones that were twice that size. I was surprised that Live Oak is, in fact, the highest scoring Oak, and just beats out Liriodendron, with 527 points, not so much on the basis of spread (at 132ft, only 7ft more than TT), but because of its great girth (439in to 374). This in a tree that's only 55ft tall. I think it's fair to say that the Live Oak is squat! (Strictly a descriptive term, of course. Besides, what's a Live Oak without Spanish Moss?) Truth is, these numbers don't mean much, or at least don't represent typical profiles of the species. When you see pictures of these trees, they're hardly recognizable, coming off as overgrown eccentrics. So, while your choice is as good as mine, give me a tree that fits in your yard, but won't be mistaken for the lawn. And, as we say in the tree biz, "up yours!"
- alex 5-08-2001 7:33 pm [add a comment]