Welcome to a forgotten corner of the ancient forest.
Tasmanian woodchippers burning off have inadvertently killed the largest hardwood tree in the world.
The 350-year-old eucalyptus regnans, at 79-metre (260ft), was the largest hardwood tree in the world. It was accidentally 'cooked to death' when a fire started by woodchippers raged out of control.
This story was reported in the Observer in London on June 1st. Clearly it wasn't newsworthy in mainland Australia. We just don't care do we..
There are many jewels hidden amongst the leaves in this forgotten part of the ancient forest. Spend some time browsing and you are sure to find some. Click here or continue your search below
or read the most recent entries here.Not to detract from the tragedy that this tree was burned; but it isn't the tallest tree in the world. Nope, not even close. At 260 ft. (79 Meters) it may be the tallest Eucalyptus, or the tallest tree in the southern hemisphere, but not the tallest tree in the world. No, that title belongs to any one of dozens of redwoods that grow along California’s northern coast. There is at least one in every grove which tops out at more than 350 ft. (110 meters). That’s more than 10 stories taller than the “El Grande” tree. I hope I haven’t offended anyone, but facts are facts; and I felt that the matter should be set straight.
Posted by: tom at August 7, 2003 04:24 AMNot to detract from the tragedy that this tree was burned; but it isn't the tallest tree in the world. Nope, not even close. At 260 ft. (79 Meters) it may be the tallest Eucalyptus, or the tallest tree in the southern hemisphere, but not the tallest tree in the world. No, that title belongs to any one of dozens of redwoods that grow along California’s northern coast. There is at least one in every grove which tops out at more than 350 ft. (110 meters). That’s more than 10 stories taller than the “El Grande” tree. I hope I haven’t offended anyone, but facts are facts; and I felt that the matter should be set straight.
Posted by: Tom at August 7, 2003 04:24 AMQuite right the redwoods are bigger. The first sentence should have said the largest hardwood tree. We also have taller trees in Western Australia but like the redwood they are softwood trees.
Posted by: chris at August 7, 2003 08:55 AMThe worlds tallest tree was a Eucalyptus regnans measuring 143m at Mt. Baw Baw, Victoria. Another Mountain ash was estimated to be taller at 150m plus. these were, unfortunately felled during 19th century. The tallest living trees are californian redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens)
Given a few hundred years the eucalypts may well take the record again as they have life cycles of +400 years
The real crux of the matter is not the height/records but that our forest industries/governments are killing our national treasures!
Posted by: michael at December 12, 2003 01:01 PMAccording to “Guinness Book of Records” (London 1977, p 3, a Mountain Ash (Eucalyptus regnans) tree that once grew at Thorpdale South in Gippsland, Victoria, Australia holds the record for the tallest tree in the world for which official and authentic records exist. This tree stood 114.4 m (375 feet) in height. George Cornthwaite, a Government contract surveyor, described the tree which grew on the property of his brother, W. Cornthwaite beside McDonald's Track.
“In 1884 I measured the tallest tree ever measured by a surveyor. It beat the highest American record by a few feet. It was at Thorpdale South in Moe district. It was near the top of the ridge forming the watershed between the Latrobe and Tarwin rivers, about 1100 ft. (335 m) above sea
level. It was in the midst of a blackbutt forest, remarkable for the number of large trees to the acre. The tree itself was a blackbutt or mountain ash, and although it stood about two chains (40 m) from the edge of the clearing its head showed prominently above the skyline of the surrounding timbers.
After I had found it was not on higher ground than the nearby trees, I decided to measure it.
The angles were first read by the Abney level and afterwards checked with a theodolite, the height by both methods being recorded at 370 feet (113 m). When the tree was cut down the next year I measured the trunk on the ground. It was 375 feet (114.4 m), the extra height probably being
caused by the spreading out of the branches when the tree struck the ground.
The tree was a perfect specimen of the eucalypt. The distance from the base to the first limb was 250 feet (76.25 m), and the girth of the trunk was nearly 9 feet (2.7 m). About ten years ago (1922) I measured the trunk of another tree from the same district. The top had been burned off, but
the end of the main stem was nearly 5 feet (1.5 m) in girth. As the measurement from the base to this point was 294 feet (89.6 m) the original height of the tree must have been about 350 feet (106.75) "
The site of the tree was marked in 1976 by a monument in the form of a granite cairn and plaque together with a tall steel pole one tenth of the height of the tree (11.4 metres).
Posted by: Walter Savige at December 22, 2003 11:34 AMFurther to my recent entry, I should state that my aunt Annie Savige (nee Lloyd, born 1872) grew up at Thorpdale South. In her twilight years she stated:
“Tall trees were all round, many 365 feet in height, sixty or more of these giants had to be felled for the safety of the house …In spite of the terror with which these big trees filled my childish heart, they had a fascination for me and their eventual passing away caused me a feeling of regret.“
Not a single Eucalyptus regnans is to be found at Thorpdale South today. A photo, taken about 1890, shows the home of John Lloyd with a backdrop of a towering stand of Eucalyptus regnans.
Posted by: Walter Savige at December 22, 2003 01:52 PM@tom, the article on the "El Grande " tree never said it was the tallest tree in the world OR Australia! it said it was the "LARGEST TREE in Australia! It had an impressive 20m/65ft girth!
Australia's tallest tree is in the Styx valley last measured at 96m/315ft.
I was a very sad for us tree lovers indeed. :(
I hope this never happens again. These giants of the forest should remain forever! they are "natures skyscrapers"
cheers guys!
If you would like to see some amazing photos of the mighty Mountain Ash from the 19th century check out this web site: http://www.nre.vic.gov.au/virtualexhibition/trees/
Its rather sad, but it shows the massive size they grew to - they were even used as houses/stables etc.
They can grow again to these heights but only with our help!
Posted by: michael at February 19, 2004 08:34 PMwashington state in the 19th century had 400 foot tall douglas firs and other kinds of trees.. it still has a few record trees.
Damn loggers.
Posted by: Glenn at February 28, 2004 06:42 AMyeah bc has been known to have a number of large douglas firs too ..
i have no particular problem with responsible logging .. but there are far too many cases of greed and arrogance destroying national treasures in the name of a short term profit ...
Posted by: Russ at April 27, 2004 05:14 PMThe tallest tree evr, according to the guiness book of records WAS a Mountain Ash. It was found ON THE GROUND in Victoria and measured over 400 feet. I read this in the 1993 book.
Posted by: Paul at May 18, 2004 09:20 PMThe tallest tree ever scientifically verified by a certified surveyor (hence to the nearest inch) was the 114m Thorpdale tree (a Eucalyptus Regnans). It was measured twice - once when it was standing, and once when it was cut down. This is about 2m higher than the current highest Californian Redwood which is 112m. There is anecdotal evidence that many more Eucalypts were around the 120m mark, but the Thorpdale tree is the only with enough hard evidence to be credited in the Guiness Book of records.
Another web site (http://members.ozemail.com.au/~mruhsam/TALLTREE.html) has more photos of the massive Eucalyptus Regnans - some of which are still alive and can be visited today!
Posted by: Michael Ruhsam at June 8, 2004 02:38 PMI cant not belive they kill my little baby and make it bleed wit water n pain from the liverness of the sweet blossums in the winter n the cool sly summer. why must they take humanity into there own hands n destroy such beauty of our natural surrondings, why dont they just take away all the air n we all die since motehr natures creations are not welcomed we too were creatated by mother nature.
so long my sweet inocent baby, shall you forever rest in peace ...................
anoymous
why am i writing about our big trees to panamanias and not australians...we (aussies) are too appathetic and passive- these trees are a precise scientific tools, habitat for millions of organisms, spectactular to gase upon, carbon sinks, oxygen producing, living precious internationally significant priceless treasures. there is something very wrong with the world, when we are capable of growning (forestry) enough timber to support or needs very adequatly yet we still cut down trees that some humans consider more important than their own lives??? i have alot of difficulty comprehending this rationale...ancient trees do not equal woodchips for cheep office paper. use cheep office paper and add rags to the production process, use retired land in a sustainable manner and regenerate the soil with the production of the timber...whats the problem? the economics add up, PM get a resource manager. please. you clearly have no idea what you are doing with OUR resources.
Posted by: Rebecca Kelley at September 6, 2004 11:39 AMPeople are quoting the Thorpdale tree from the Guiness Book of records, but if I look up the Guiness book of records under tallest tree I get this, quote:
"According to the researches of Dr A.C. Carder, the tallest tree ever measured was an Australian Eucalyptus regnans at Watts River, Victoria, Australia, reported in 1872 by forester William Ferguson. It was 132.6 m (435 ft) tall and almost certainly measured over 150 m (500 ft) originally.
Another Eucalyptus at Mt Baw Baw, Victoria, Australia, is believed to have measured 143 m (470 ft) in 1885."
Sounds like it was properly ie. "scientifically" measured to make into the Guiness book of Records.
Does anyone know much about cutlivating the californian redwood, Sequoia sempervirens in Australia? I know it prbably sounds a little evil to some of you but I love those trees and I'm thinking of buying some land in Tasmania and planting a little grove on it.
Posted by: Jody at January 26, 2006 06:48 PMHmm, there's a Mountain Ash 270 ft tall at Cambarville in Victoria which makes it 10 ft taller than the one you're referring to.
Elsewhere, you claim heights of 330 ft for other Mountain Ash.
What are the facts? Apparently the woodchippers didn't kill the world's tallest hardwood tree fter all.
i heard of a tree 370 ft high which makes this one look small.
Posted by: tom at June 1, 2006 05:36 PMThe article said LARGEST NOT TALLEST.
Posted by: Robert at October 25, 2006 02:45 AM
Stumble It!