daltontrees

Ach, my publishing brain is like a mult-ringed cooker, always something on the back burner simmering slowly for next week's soup (don't know what kind), something ready soon-ish and something being stir-fried.

I know, great saw. In winter I have to put the trigger lock on, full choke and get the tip of the 26" bar under a log. Means you can put your back into it. Usually fires after 2 pulls. Then take choke off and do it again and it always goes right away. Gotta get the throttle lock off immediately though, or the clutch will suffer.

The Epilogue: After trying to get a bit of tubing to insert inside the broken haldle, I gave up. My blacksmith wouldn't touch it either. So I asked my Husky dealer if he could get me a new handle. Yes but £65. So I looked on eBay, none for sale except in the States. I spotted the cheapest one and watched it. The delay was because unless it's below £15 you pay VAT and duty to bring it in to UK. It was $25. The exchange rate made that about £15.50. So I watched and watched and 2 days before the closing date the exchange rate snuck up and the price was £14.99. So I bought it. It arrived from Florida 4 days later. I just put it on, took about 5 minutes. It fitted perfectly and looks well made enough to outlive the saw. No duty or VAT paid to HMRC. Thanks again for all help but this was the sanest and cheapest solution in the end.

And finally... According to the researched definition reaction wood is not a defence mechanism, it's a normal response as part of the self optimisation characteristics of trees. Adaptive growth can be a defence mechanism. See the useful quote from Bowen v National Trust. However, it seems clear that although it could be triggered (as in the case) by the inherent weakness of included forks and bark death and oxidation and infection at the point of compression, this form of defence mechanism seems to be a normal response to a normal phenomenon in healthy trees. The difficulty is that the failure of compression forks with included bark, and the resulting decay, is probably the most common cause of the demise of healthy trees. 'Par for the course', as it were. If a castle was built big enough, no-one would even try to attack it. Is that a defence mechanism? If it had been a bit smaller and someone had had a go and failed because the walls were too thick, that's a defence mechanism.

I have edited the Wikipedia page for 'reaction wood', including the changes suggested by you all and the Shigo commentary provided by btggaz (hope it's right...). Editing Wikipedia is not for the faint hearted especially if, like me, you have the weight of moral responsibility bearing down on you as you do it. But if anyone disagrees with the definition please say so or change it yourself. For now I see it as a great improvement on the previous doubtlessly well-intended entry. Thanks all. A definition of reaction wood will be added when I summon the strength and technical knowhow to do it on Wikipedia.

Mine's a first impression 1991, can't see that it has changed much since then and before Shigo's death. What makes the book approachable is the balance between illustrations and text. There isn't a page in it that is less than 50% illustration. I would have thought Mattheck and Breloer or Lonsdale would be better for the PTI, really to pass the theory part of PTI you just have to remember a few key points that you will be taught in the course. Reading the book will just confuse, as it goes way beyond what is needed for PTI.

That's a good wee book, I saw a copy in a charity shop a few weeks ago and meant to buy it. I already have something similar "Plant Names Simplified" £7.25 new.

There's a finite number of the endings, just need to make sure the ending of the species agrees with the case, plurality and gender of the genus. Let me see theres 2 pluralities, at least 5 cases and 3 genders, that makes only 30 permutations to remember. Easy (not!).

Yeah, Wikipedia ir right just often enough to assume it's right all the time, which it's not. The bar and chain is rightflly yours for Aotus, though. If it's right.

It's a bit of a nightmare, isn't it? It's very useful to have a way of remembering the order of taxonomic groupings. As you no doubt know by now every species falls into a structured naming, in the order Kingdom/Phylum/Class/Order/Family/Genus/Species. Here's one that I just thought of that you can carry around in your head (if there's any room left). Knowing Plant Classification Order For Gary’s Studies

Further comment from Addendum anorachum (Morris 2014). Anura in frogs is taxonomically an Order, which is 2 levels up from Genus. Ditto for Proboscidea (Order for elephants, genus for devil's claws)

Think it is! I have been robbed of a 200T bar and/or chain. Just because you didn't specify that the names had to be of living genus's's'. OK so all the Davidia molluscs are fossils. Within the taxonomy system that means they are still registered ICZN. You've probably already looked at Wikipedia, but see Necatia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia anyway for interesting implications of identical genus names. Davidia has been jumping spiders, bivalves and trees. I deserve at least an empty 100ml Stihl oil bottle or prize of equal value for getting a genus that has 3 examples. And if you allow fossils (I did a couple fo years of geology, they're in my brain) you could have Drimys and Chrysolepis.

Davidia. Where's my prize?

I am very curious to know more about this. Was it a freak occurrence or was the tree's toppling caused by the activities? I will keep an eye on the story to see if tehre is any more reporting. Horrible business for the parents during a 'family fun day'. I had been thinking about taking my daughter to one yesterday.

Anyone got any strong view on me adding to Wikipedia a definition of adaptive growth along the lines of the Bowen case wording? Cross referenced to reaction wood of course. Dammit I'd have to check if Wikipedia alrady has axiom of uniform stress. And then something else, and then, and then...

So it's teleology is it? I shall hunt it down mercilessly in scientific talk. The nice wording of the judgement is very technical, and we can suppose the judge is quoting carefully from the experts, probably from a statement of agreed facts. And the "All agree" thing is not necessarily all in the world, just all in the case. But considering who the witnesses are, that's pretty solid. I hope we can get to see the latest DD article. Delightful choice of the chinese buddy....!

I'd agree. Foliage of seedlings and very younbg trees is highly misleading sometimes.

Here's the core of what the case said about AG. "Examination has revealed that where it joined the main stem of the tree there was a depression or cup on the upper surface and at either side of that point of the branch there was the phenomenon of adaptive growth (“AG”) in the form of what Mr Forbes-Laird calls adaptive growth flares, and which some others call “bulges” or “ears”. These, it is agreed, would have been visible from the ground, and are very much at the heart of this action. In simplified terms AG is a biomechanical response by the tree to load stress on a branch, or to gravitational forces causing deflection of the branch, or as a “repair” response, for example, to some internal damage to the cambial cells on the outer surface of the wood of the branch. This autonomic response causes the normal annual growth ring process, programmed into every tree, to become exaggerated in thickness in order to reinforce or add strength to the branch at this point. In other words it is autonomic response by a tree to a stressed branch. "All agree that inspection of trees for safety purposes is carried out from ground level – a system called visual tree assessment or VTA, first defined by Professor Mattheck. It is based on inspection from ground level and does not require any aerial examination. The depressed area I have described above would not have been visible from the ground. The claimant’s expert estimates that the AG flares had been in place for 5-10 years. At some later stage a crack or fissure had developed in the central upper surface of the join as a primary failure due to stress and this had led to oxidation and water ingress into the wood of the branch at this point. This too would have been impossible to see from the ground. Once this crack process started it is said that a secondary failure leading to the shearing from the branch of the stem was inevitable. "At the heart of the claimants’ case is the proposition that the mere presence of the AG at this point was a warning sign of a possible failure and meant that further investigation of the join was indicated. The defendant’s case is that AG is a frequently found feature on many if not most mature beeches of the age of this tree." The case is worth a read as it has all the drama and suspense of a Detective Dendro story...

Point taken. The words 'to generate' impliesd thought too, so maybe the words 'modified to create' shoudd be replaced by 'different, resulting in". Shigo's not half as bad as Mattheck and Breloer for dippy anthropomorphisms. I like to stick to the observable and let others have their version of the metaphysical.

I have just been through Bowen v National Trust, Micklewright v Surrey, Atcins v Scott for relevant references to the terminology. Only the first has any, but boy does it use adaptive growth in spades. So much so that in the written judgement it has to be abbreviated to AG it is used so many times. But in a nutshell it is described by the juidge as a 'phenomenon', not as a kind of wood. I'll rejig my notes for the useful bits there and that btggaz quoted from Shigo. And hopefully it wil all materialise as a plain english unambiguous authoritative set of definitions in Wikipedia. It's a start anyway. I have a daunted sense that we are really only in the paddling pool messing about with the definitions.

There's 2 Trees of heaven near me, so I popped by a couple of hours ago to check. The twigs, just coming into leaf, looked pretty much identical to your photos, including withered tip. I'd say 99% sure yours is A.a. But would love to see confirmation in due course.

Thanks for taking the trouble to type this all out. It's what I needed to know. In short Shigo supports if not originally puts forward the definition of reaction wood as being based on resistance to gravitational stress, specifically leaning stems and branches. I'll tidy this all up in a day or two.

The Daily Mail quoting Nigel Farage quoting the @pink Book'. You are being led to believe...

And Norway Maple is Acer platanoides the 'plane-like maple'. The leaves are pretty similar to P x h.

That'd be mt question too. I'm fairly sure it is one. There is no pore surface and it is exhibiting the bark spitting you would expect on oak.