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!"
|
- frank 5-07-2001 7:51 pm
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]