Yep, it's real; been there, seen the trees ;-)

Great place!

Resin

Almost 30 years ago I visited the UK and was on the lookout for trees of all sorts. There are redwoods planted in a lot of places, and also the giant sequoias (Wellingtonias). I think Resin posted a picture of the avenue at Benmore a while ago. There are also some impressive Douglas fir trees, etc.

I have also heard that our coast redwoods grow amazingly well in New Zealand.

--Spruce

I find it offensive in the extreme for British tree growers suffering a hero-complex to appropriate a magnificent endemic American tree to honor the name of Wellington. This is less a compliment to the tree than to the man. I would think anybody who pretends to pay homage to the coast redwood by putting up a website dedicated to it would have the basic intelligence and decency to refrain from acts of intellectual colonialism considering how badly the real thing turned out a couple of centuries ago.

As for the novelty of redwoods in a row, see page 244 of my 1999 book Conifers of California, to wit:
"Genetic analysis of redwoods has shown that clonal members may occasionally form a line of trees up to 100 feet long. These have probably arisen from the rooting of numerous branches of a tree that fell long ago."
Incidentally, the same thing has happened in numerous species, conifers and broadleaves alike.

"I find it offensive in the extreme for British tree growers ..."

I agree fully - never liked that silly name!

Resin

Please accept my apologies! I should have known better.

--Spruce

Come Sunday, I'm going Wellington hunting w/ my camera.

Wellington, lol...

To what extent is the fallen old parent log alive? Are the new trees still connected or are they considered seperate entities (even if clones)?

As far as I know, fully alive, with the trees still connected.

Looked up: the tree was one of a small plantation planted in 1936; it blew down c.1950, with the re-growth now about 20m tall.

Resin

pinetree30,
As an emeritus professor of forestry, I would have thought you would have the intelligence to refrain from brit bashing and keep to the topic in question.
Bluespruce.

Hi Bluespruce,

Got to disagree there - if a UK renaming of a US native tree causes offence to US citizens, he has every right (and duty) to point this out.

Resin

Hi Resin,
It seems to me the UK renaming of a US native tree was secondary in his remarks.

Bluespruce.

Your screen name makes my point, bluespruce.

I beg for you forgiveness pinetree,perhaps I should have called myself scotchpine or even scotspine! but then again I'm not a scot either.

Ho-Hum,
I always find this quite peculiar, amusing even - an American person (of note in this case, I understand) getting in a state (no pun intended...) about the Sequoiadendron giganteum being refered to as Wellingtonia. Why on earth should one be so upset? It is just a name, after all. The Duke of Wellington never even saw the trees, so it is not as if he claimed them 'as his own'. It was named over a century ago, so perhaps it is time to move on from the hurt!
As an aside, such trees were growing across most of the globe many thousands of years ago; America was simply their last refuge. Not that I am trying to steal your glory here (goodness, I can almost feel the follow-on posts looming..).
As a person of science you should appreciate that the only really relevant reference is the scientific name. For any living organism there will be localised common or nick-names attached that are significant or meaningful to the individual countries, and are not meant as a means of 'claiming' that organism from the country of origin.
Incidentally, may I ask whether anyone can advise on the plural reference for these trees, Sequoiadendron giganteum or Sequoiadendron gigantea? (or something else).

Here is a link that might be useful: Sequoiadendron giganteum in the UK

Getting back to the topic at hand... Awesome pic Wadet!

I am confused though. Doesn't each separate "tree" need it's own root system (ie. root ball)?? Where are each tree's roots? It looks like these trees are just coming out of a log. LOL

redwood ron, I don't understand it either. I would describe most of my countrymen as very easy-going and wouldn't give a rat's patooty about the name of a tree in the UK.
On the subject of the tree and it's rootball, I do know that there are trees growing literally on the branches of huge giant redwoods in California. They are growing out of the material that collects on the huge branches so it's a little different, and I doubt they can get very big.

"Just a name", Redwood Ron? People fight wars over names, always have. Since we share a name, I'll step gingerly, but think of Macedonia (Greece) and Macedonia (Republic of). No war yet, but wait.
Only scientific names are relevant? Then why don't we only use them, and not common names? I remember when my son was about 10 and we were hiking. I pointed to a tree and said .."that's Pinus flexilis". He responded, "but dad, what's its real name?"
Real names are relevant too. A friend of mine spent many years trying to get the common name (used by farmers etc.) canyon maple to replace bigtooth maple, which was a straight-out English translation of Acer grandidentatum. He actually succeeded with his quixotic quest. Don't you think that's a blow for honesty in botany?

I see that the British Conifer Society have put a new link to the Redwood World UK site, they must be watching this thread.

The British renaming of a tree that has already been named seems to be very insulting. They should at least include the correct common name for the tree in parenthesis.

Wow - one passing comment on the absurdity of the whinging about the name Wellingtonia, and a clutch of hurt and upset posters, even predicting doom and war in Greece over a name! Amusing, but quite sad.
I also find it quite astonishing that people take time to express angst over the name Wellintonia, yet barely mention the destruction of these magnificent ancient trees that still continues (though rather more discreetly) to this day. How about expending some energy writing and protesting about that issue. I am constantly amazed that although many Americans lament their lack of native history (asside from Indian), and envy the ancient castles of Europe, much of what is their main herritage from past millenia - magnificent trees such as these - is being destroyed.
Oh, and by the way pinetree30, , we use common names because they are more convenient to write and speak than many latin names. I love easy questions!
I Agree though, with the poster who said that most of his countrymen are easy going and would also laugh at their countrymen feeling "hurt" about the name.
Look after your trees.
Ron

Actually, I envy you English more for The Beatles than your ancient history, lol.

You alluded to the destruction of these trees as still on going, where exactly is this taking place?

As I understand it, much of the uncut stands of redwood that are left are privately owned by timber companies that are sytematically cutting their timber. Those that are in the national parks and state parks are protected by these agencies and will eventually be the only old-growth redwoods left. The trees are being replanted, and they do grow quickly, but it probably takes several hundred years to approach the size of the current old-growth trees. I do remember that a 400 yr. old Sequoia is considered a teenager, and not a "mature" specimen. Assume redwoods are similar.

Hi Scotjute,

Correct on the threats. For a detailed analysis, see the IUCN Red List assessment (link below).

Of the regrowth, what life stage to call it is a bit tricky; they are mature enough to produce viable seed from about 15-20 years old, but equally, the habitat characteristics of natural forests aren't fully exhibited until they are several hundred years old.

Resin

Here is a link that might be useful: IUCN Red List: Sequoia sempervirens