"I'd treat all these pre-laser measurement claims with an extremely high level of scepticism. Basically, any historical claims over 115m sould be regarded as cr@p and ignored." I understand and support such scepticism, but one needs to realize just how many giants were logged in the past 150 years to gain a better appreciation for some of these historical records. I think Van Pelt, and Dr. Al Carder of Victoria would have a slight issue with your statement. Carder grew up as a boy in Surrey, B.C. about the time when many of the last stands of 300 foot + Douglas-fir were logged. He is 98 years old, but remembers seeing many old giants well over 300 feet high. He even saw a photograph in the Vancouver Museum of a fir felled at Lynn Valley in 1902, which measured 415 ft high (including 5 ft stump), and 14 ft 3 inches in diameter at the stump-- [This was the tallest Douglas-fir officially known to him]. Other firs of between 300 and 400 feet were felled in and around Vancouver; Kerrisdale 1896, Lynn Valley 1907, and Cloverdale 1881, among others. issafish, I believe 480 feet is a bit fantastic for Douglas-fir, and represents a maximum which even the tallest historical records do not venture. Perhaps you are thinking of the "Nisqually fir" south of Tacoma, Wa. which was measured as a fallen tree at "380" ft in length with steel tape by USFS ranger Edward Tyson Allen (1875-1942) & his party in the year 1900 near the Nisqually river while conducting research on Douglas-fir stands. Your date of 1930's, however, correlates more with the "big fir" at Mineral, Wa. measured by "McCardle" (McArdle, Richard E. USFS Chief from 1952-1962) in 1924-25 and estimated from direct measurement to have stood 393 feet high. It is possible your father is recalling another fir which was previously unrecorded. As for the Eucalypt, "Centurion" I think Bob Gordon of Forestry Tasmania is by no means unwarranted in estimating the tree's top having blown out in the last 20 years. He says, "it may actually have been the tallest tree in the world at some stage." Considering it is nearly 300 ft to the original "blown" top, and at that point "roughly" 3 ft in diameter, it certainly would not be exaggerating to postulate a height of 350-365 ft originally. Historically speaking, 365 feet is a height at which a number of Eucalyptus Regs at Thorpdale, Gippsland were claimed-- many 250 or 275 ft to the first major branch!--Not to mention the record tree in Moe district situated on the William Cornthwaite property, measured at a standing height of 370 ft, and a felled length of 375 ft (via chain) compliments of George Cornthwaite, William's contract surveyor brother c. 1881-1884. Yet, 5 miles NW of Thorpdale, in the South Yarragon range, a specimen reported at 410 ft in length was claimed by a Mr. John Rollo (early land owner, miner) c. 1889. Here is a link that might be useful:

Some of the WA gum trees are regarded as weedy in Victoria because they hybridize with the local species and 'polute' the gene pool. Corymbia/Eucalytpus ficifolia is OK as far as I know. The only local Eucalypt that grows to a moderate size (12m), that I know about, is pauciflora or Snow Gum. Yes they do grow around Melbourne though they are not common. If selecting local species and you have the space for then stick to the Box or Stringybark Eucalypts, as these retain all their bark and generate very little mess. Although you could probably get away with a River Red Gum which also grow to around 12m. By the time they reach their full size and start sheding copius amounts of bark and limbs you and I will have departed this earth.

I get them all the time. It's just part of the balance of nature. The first is probably fungal damage after some mechnical damage. The second are probably lerpies (little waxy bumps on some of them?). The both indicate stress - they aren't a problem in themselves. Perhaps you are in a drought, or you've put something in the soil they don't like (perhaps a concrete foundation nearby?) If you really don't like the look, cut all the affected leaves off or prune the tree back hard. It will either bounce back or die completely.

Yes, there could have been a bit of sooty mould, and although it would be over 25 years ago, I recall I did check over it for evidence of that, ie. ants; fluffy little bugs; scale but found no substantail evidence of it so I got some qualified advise (Sydney Royal Bot. Gardens) and was told it was probably due to staining from the euc's. oils. I currently have some scale infestation on 2 of a dozen nerium oleanders (the pink ones), which I grow as single stemmed specimens. I also have a rose garden and when I spray my roses, about once every 2 months or more, and my azaleas for azalea lace bug (the roses for aphids and blackspot) I also give these 2 oleanders a spray. A dash of labacid and a dash or two of the fungicide triforene. The triforene also works, you know, for ink spot desease on kangaroo paws. Both systemics and I don't think too obnoxious when used rarely to the environment. By the way, I had a look at your site, Len, and was impressed, good job Pal.