Hi everyone,
Searching for a most practical label for individual trees, I would suggest using ‘notable trees’ or ‘arbres remarquables’ like a French association. Advantages: easier to find historical or interesting trees on a map.
Is there already a good iNat tag or a better idea? Thanks for all the great pictures, best regards, Jacques
2 Likes
I haven’t seen any standardization - hard to do across regions and languages, and what is notable to one person is ordinary to another. But one option - I tend to fave notable or interesting observations (incl. trees), and you can sort observations/photos by number of faves.
3 Likes
I actually haven’t thought about it before - but I think there are some trees out there that we can agree are notable. The now-nonextant Wye Oak in Maryland comes to mind. And the “Witness Tree” in Gettysburg that was at the location of the Gettysburg address. wow - would it be interesting to have a tag that would link everyone’s observations of the same historic tree together. But somehow be specific enough to not link different historic trees together. hmm…
2 Likes
True, but I took this as referring to trees that were officially or popularly named, or were on a register of historic trees. Much like historic homes or buildings – they may indeed seem ordinary or boring, but if they are on a register, that indicates that they are deemed important.
In Sequoia and King’s Canyon National Parks, there are trees with individual names (e.g. the Boole Tree), as well as many without. The named trees would thus be “notable.”
2 Likes
I see registered trees as a small subset of the topic - most interesting trees arent registered anywhere.
1 Like
I guess if you think about it, any tree that you make an observation of is by definition a notable tree, with the observation being the notes made about it!
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 60 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.