danbrown87

Pretty much the same as Beech, apart from colouration. I think it is a mutation which is occasionaly found in the wild.

Just tried to get the lass to come and have a look at these pics and she wouldn't even get up. Something about sick of looking at bloody pictures of bloody trees. She doesn't know what she's missing!

What is "Iron Oak"? I'm sitting here with some lovely Cherry in the fireplace. Might also be a market for wood from fruit trees because of the smell. Maybe an oak/apple mix.

Is the Ash you usually burn well seasoned? Although you can burn Ash green it's still much better to season it.

Just noticed you're from the North-East too. You at Kirkley Hall? I started an ND at Askham-Bryan (York) last year, but from the experience I've had I reckon I might have got more out of Kirkley.

The one I usually use on the ground is one of those lovely orange ones, that's why I had to check what caps the 660 had.

Checked our 660 today, it's screwcap.

I'm sure our 660 has the new type ones, I'll check tomorrow and post my findings (if I remember, I've been known to forget such simple things as replacing the caps).

I could think of better things to do if a trip was what I was after. I think the poison in Yew is called taxin, don't think it's halluginogenic though.

I think the wet weather encourages them to stay put in burrows more and the so the virus can spread between animals more quickly.

http://www.aie.org.uk/aie_data/aie_firewood.html I think somebody else posted that in another thread. Fairly basic info, but usefull and informative nevertheless.

That's a much better way of approaching things. I just thought, "Hmmm, what would I like in the garden?". Valuable lesson learned.

Quercus robur "Fastigiata"? Still going to be an "Oak Tree" but more compact?

A deer with no eyes and no legs?

Are we talking about the normal Type C Stretch Airs here or the Extreme ones? I'm a poor student, currently wearing second hand SIP Traditional trousers and need any investment to last. Any thoughts?

Took the words right out of my mouth. I like trees but hate the way they giggle and go to the toilet in groups.

I quite fancy some gore-tex too. Whereabouts do you get the ex army stuff?

A Beech of that size might not survive a heavy thin as they can't produce epicormic. I'm with detritus on the crown lift. You're right about pruning Beechs, they really don't appreciate it.

I'm inbetween years at college, on placement till January. I've found that perserverance is the best bet. If you know somebody in the industry, ideal, if not I'd get a CV together and send a load out with a letter explaining what you're after. Might also be an idea to ring a few places up. arbjobs.co.uk advertises quite a few vacancies too. Good luck mate.

OK, so we decide to use "A" instead of "Acer". What do we use instead of "Acacia" or "Abies"? "AC" and "AB" ? We'd then have the need to go and decipher our new system, which is actually more, "complex and difficult to master" than the current one. I personally know far more botanical names for trees than I do phone numbers. They are words, part of a language and as such our brains have evolved to understand them. On the other hand, yes, computers have been designed to understand codes. Barcodes, for example. Scan one in a tree nursery and it will probably come up with the genus and species of the tree. It will translate from code, to language. PS. Look at what you've started Nuggsy. I hope you have a very good explanation for this.

But the current system has meaning. Salix alba is White Willow, alba meaning white. If we were to introduce numbers and letters instead we'd end up with extremley long combinations of numbers and letters, in order to classify all of the species. These in turn would be shortened, and then have to be refrenced. If we were to classify trees in a series of numbers and letters what would be next? Semi-detatched houses become SDHs? Border Terriers become BTs? We have a system that works well. We use common names when the situation is right to use them and if things need to be more precise, we use the globaly accepted format.

I'm not saying anything like that, but it's the best we have at the moment. If we want to be able to identify and describe trees accuratley, we need to do so universally, which is what we do in the current system.

Useless things, knees. Everyone is my family has "Bad Knees", including me. I've been taking Cod Liver Oil capsules (which give you nasty, fish burbs) and Glucosamine Sulphate for a few months and honestly think it does help. Hope your knees improve.

If it wasn't necessary to have the current nomenclature system we have, I'm sure it would have long ago been done away with. It may not always be necessary to use it, for example when speaking to clients who may well already have identified a tree as "an oak" or "an ash". But, the fact remains that there are subtle differences in species, even those of the same genus. If anything, in this world of increasing demand for efficiency etc. the need to be able to identify species (and not just trees) accuratley will become more essential. Take for example the the influenza virus (not strictly speaking an organism so classified slightly differently, but the point I'm making is the same). There are a number of different strains of that virus, H5N1 (Bird Flu) and H1N1 (Spanish Flu) to name just a couple, which are deadly. Now, the need to identify things precisley and acuratley becomes more apparent. In a totaly anecdotal situation, we may discover a new tree in the uncharted Amazon which has fantastic medicinal properties. There may be many trees in the same genus, all looking very similar, but only this one species which has the medicinal properties. Finally, I'm not saying that I would always be spouting off the botanical names for trees to clients, I'm just saying that I think the system is absolutley essential.

Aye, their owner, Craig, is a champion climber too.