Talk:List of oldest trees

The webpage that gives a 6000 year estimate of the baobob's age is maintained by the owners of the tree, who would have an obvious motivation to hype the age of the tree. According to a 2011 paper, the oldest radiocarbon age from wood from the tree is 1060 +/- 75 years. The tree is hollow, so its actual age is greater than this, but probably not to the tune of 5000 years.

Has anybody here seen the 2008 report of a 9500 year old Swedish tree? Is this reliable? https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080414-oldest-tree_2.html Geoffrey.landis (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC) [reply ]

• It looks like Old Tjikko or something similar, which is already mentioned in the "Clonal trees" section. Hut 8.5 10:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC) [reply ]

Ah-- the article didn't make that very clear.

Looking at the list, I see that various sites about the Huon Pine state that the oldest individuals in the clonal patch have been dated to "2000" or even "3000" years old. ("the oldest in Australia could be a Huon pine (Lagarostrobos franklinii) in Tasmania, the oldest stem of which is up to 2,000 years old."[1]; "Individuals have been known to reach an age of 3,000 years"[2]; "Living trees sampled by increment borer have yielded ring counted ages of up to 2500 years, and since these were not pith dates, it seems likely that there are living trees with ages in excess of 3000 years (Balmer 1999)."[3])

If we could find a reference, this would be relatively high on the list. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC) [reply ]

I remove King Clone from the list of trees, because a creosote bush isn't a tree. Instead, I put it back in the See Also list. If other editors disagree, let's discuss here. —hike395 (talk) 06:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC) [reply ]

Just wondering: in the tables each country is linked to is respective article with the exception of The United States. Is there a reason for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:F471:4160:5D4A:5782:576D:FA5D (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC) [reply ]

There are multiple olive trees with ages claimed between 6000 and 2000 years, and none are listed on this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.127.125.130 (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

Look under the "Old trees with estimated ages" section. — hike395 (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

I recently visited this tree, which has a few plaques explaining who determined its age, when, and how (a patent is mentioned), within a 2% margin of error (so the tree was between 3283 and 3417 years old at the time its age was measured, back in 2016). I'm no dendrologist, but are the dating methods for the trees with "confirmed ages" more precise than that? If not, why is Oliveira do Mouchão's age considered "unreliable"?

I can upload photos of the aforementioned plaques if necessary. One is an English translation of the main plaque explaining the who, when, and how.

2001:818:E302:DD00:2DAF:4416:DD9F:1DDF (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2021 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello @G4123H: I think the germination years are a good addition however they are crowding the table. Because they are the same data as the age – merely presented differently – and because there is available vertical space in every age column – I suggest making a single column titled |Age (years)/Year Germinated|. Invasive Spices (talk) 15 April 2022 (UTC)

The image at the beginning of the article is labelled "Estimates of its age range up to 900,000 (or even 1,000,000) years old"

Not only is this not credible, but the dedicated article about Pando shows it really can't be more than 14,000 years old and quite likely is considerably less.

Therefore I have edited the caption to something more sensible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.144.222.218 (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

To my reading the Mongarlowe Mallee does not belong in the clonal trees category. The trees in question are all the one specimen and it does not grow from "very short lived" clones or typically via vegetative clones. It is theorised that "if" the two close by specimens were derived from a single rootstock that split a long time ago that the tree could be >13 000 years old. This doesn't really fit within the category which is mostly filled with colonies that have persisted for long periods with regular new clones appearing. I think this would better fit into the trees with estimated ages category or alternatively splitting the record: 3000+ entry for trees with verified ages and 13000+ for trees with estimated ages to cover the possibility that it may have split from common rootstock.

Thoughts? Nickmista (talk) 05:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

I could not find any other sources mentioning a wollemi pine that's 60 million years old. Could someone help me with this. Cheeky91021 (talk) 11:31, 31 November 2027 (UTC) [reply ]

• List-Class List articles
• Unknown-importance List articles
• WikiProject Lists articles
• List-Class plant articles
• Mid-importance plant articles
• WikiProject Plants articles