Lindsey Creek Giant

Moderators: edfrank, dbhguru

User avatar
Don
Posts: 1569
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:42 am

Re: Lindsey Creek Giant

Post by Don » Tue Feb 27, 2018 5:26 pm

I've been fascinated by the images of what might well be the LCG...but rather than accept the ongoing conclusion that it's a single tree that forked down low and fused as it grew, or two trees that grew together, I'd like to posit for the sake of discussion that this is a single tree that some centuries back experienced a somewhat major fire, and the "inclusions" delineated in Matt's paired photo are the cross-sections (albeit at 45 degrees or so) of burn scars. Viewing yet the third photo (first one in this thread), the left and right sides of the bole exhibit similar bark characteristics (slight spiraling grain from lower right to upper left) while the center portion seems discontinuous, disturbed as if the tree was working to repair a fire scar that extended a fair ways up the bole, perhaps extending beyond the upper limit of the photo.
Don Bertolette - President/Moderator, WNTS BBS
Restoration Forester (Retired)
Science Center
Grand Canyon National Park

BJCP Apprentice Beer Judge

View my Alaska Big Tree List Webpage at:
http://www.akbigtreelist.org

fooman
Posts: 100
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2011 2:18 pm

Re: Lindsey Creek Giant

Post by fooman » Tue Feb 27, 2018 6:03 pm

M.W.Taylor wrote: Why is the rod considered a red herring ? What is diversionary about the rod ?
Hi Michael,

The rod/pole/tool was not apparent as such in the low resolution photo originally posted by Mario. At low resolutions, the shadow from the rod/pole/tool could be interpreted as strong indicator of included bark. Higher resolution images of the same photo revealed its true nature - just something lying on the cut.

Cheers,
Matt

Ral
Posts: 26
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2013 12:09 pm

Re: Lindsey Creek Giant

Post by Ral » Tue Mar 20, 2018 12:33 pm

Thanks you for all the replies, fascinating to read.

User avatar
John Harvey
Posts: 749
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 8:25 pm

Re: Lindsey Creek Giant

Post by John Harvey » Mon Apr 22, 2019 10:13 pm

Michael, Don, Mario, all,

Now the real question is, did any of you noticed this was Jack London inside the tree?.
Attachments
CD4FBA34-2291-4AA0-8131-040189203E39.png
John D Harvey (JohnnyDJersey)

East Coast and West Coast Big Tree Hunter

"If you look closely at a tree you'll notice it's knots and dead branches, just like our bodies. What we learn is that beauty and imperfection go together wonderfully." - Matt Fox

User avatar
F.Jakobsson
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2013 7:53 am

Re: Lindsey Creek Giant

Post by F.Jakobsson » Thu Apr 25, 2019 12:38 am

John,

To paraphrase: 
I didn't see the author for the tree.

Reminds me of when a ranger in Sequoia N.P. began talking about Mark Twain (the author), and I spontaneously thought she was talking about the giant sequoia stump bearing his name...

Perhaps a side effect of having the head full of trees 24/7 :)

Fredrik

User avatar
John Harvey
Posts: 749
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 8:25 pm

Re: Lindsey Creek Giant

Post by John Harvey » Thu Apr 25, 2019 3:48 pm

Fredrik,

I didn't notice myself until someone pointed it out to me. Unfortunately both trees met a similar fate.
John D Harvey (JohnnyDJersey)

East Coast and West Coast Big Tree Hunter

"If you look closely at a tree you'll notice it's knots and dead branches, just like our bodies. What we learn is that beauty and imperfection go together wonderfully." - Matt Fox

User avatar
Don
Posts: 1569
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:42 am

Re: Lindsey Creek Giant

Post by Don » Sat Apr 11, 2020 5:34 pm

John-
A belated reply where I join F.Jacobsen's comment (...didn't see the author for the trees). First question re Jack London was 'where was White Fang' ?

As I reviewed the discussion, I did follow Taylor's initial description, but 'branch' where he 'fuses'. We may both agree, once Michael defines "fuses". I think that there were two adjacent stems, the one on the left outgrew the one on the right at some point well above the top of the photograph, and that there would have been only a single meristem (pith) with a single set of nesting annual rings, barring iterations, enclosing the pith for the remainder of the tree. All that to say that where the dbh would have been taken, we're looking at two trees. And if we were able today to measure it, we'd utilize Bob Leverett's Functional Circumference formula to achieve single-stem/multi-stem parity for an accurate measure.
When/If American Forests revises its online Measuring Guidelines to consider, for 'gobsmackers' like these, to use volume as a measure of "Big-ness", we can probably resolve the different views on this subject.
For the record, it's my suspicion is that the second stem was a smaller, later growth, either a coppice/burl or seedling (likely to be similar to same DNA), that was out competed and perhaps senesced? All speculation, but nobody has shown me cross-sections that demonstrate that two stems grow into one where crossections show one disappearing into the other. Just saying...
-Don

Post Reply

Return to “California”