daltontrees

Or could be Paxillus involutus?

Looking alittle further, I see that Stihl's policy is more like 'does not allow delivery of Stihl products bought online or over the phone, unless the dealer conducts (or has previously conducted) a Stihl professional hand-over with the customer or the customer is a known professional. A known professionalí would be someone who has recognised qualifications in the appropriate field for the machinery they are purchasing and/or has dealt with the dealer before.' My supplier is legitimately supplying me, then. If anyone's longstanding Stihl dealer has just recently insisted you come in to collect every time, they may be applying the policy too strictly. If they choose to lose business that way, that's up to them.

I know, but someone else did it on another posting thread recently too, the supplier wouldn't have done it if I hadn't demonstrated my competence with chainsaws by ordering dozens of spares off them int the past.

Quite bizarre spread, tree looks like agiant leafy catapult, client confidentiality prevents me from saying much more than that.

No it's just in woody mulch. I found loads yesterday at the base of a Liriodendron tulipifera, a compression fork at the base had torn off a few years ago, leaving no chance of recovery in that sector. I reckon the root on that side must increasingly be in a bad way.

I think a 2 thread is best for general purpose. A 3 is faster in soft wood, that's the only reason really to use it.

Update: my usual stockist just took the order over the phone, bless them, because I am an existing customer. Took 2 minutes. Parts will be here tomorrow. It's just Stihl that's the bams then, not the sensible stockist.

CURSES to Stihl. Today I wanted to get a filter cover for a 230. That one that you just turn the wee black knob at the back, lift it off, put a new one on and turn the knob again. I could do it behind my back in th dark, in a tree, in a gale. But I have to trudge off somewhere and pick it up so that Mr Stihl's minions can explain to me how to do it safely? And pay twice as much plus the earning time spent getting there and back and listening to instruction that I don't need. CURSES to them and their ludicrous policy. Next time it's a Husky. Or maybe a Makita.

Isnt it a bit risky to be asking for or offering copies of a copyright document on a public forum?

Sorry, can't help because I have never compared mine to any other brand. Basically Sorbus sell Haglof and Mattson. Mine's a Suunto and works perfectly well. They all seem to look and work the same. Just need to decide on 3 thread vs 2 thread depending on whether you are doing mostly hardwoods or softwoods. Ideally one of each.

A crod of wood takes up 3.63m3 but it only contains say 2.4m3 of wood. The rest is spaces. This will bulk out if split and thrown in a bag to about 4.3m3. This would equate to about 7 and a bit builders bags. Answer to second question, it depends on the species. Density varies from say 830kg/m3 for Japanese Larch to 1020kg/m3 for Scots Pine. A 3.63m3 block of the first would weigh 3.0 tonnes. A 3.63m3 block of the latter would weigh 3.7 tonnes. But a cord of wood is 1/3 space between logs. So you can say a cord of the former is 2.0 tonnes and of the latter is 2.5 tonnes.

I feel the same way about the term 'reaction wood'. But maybe that's just ME.

That gravel looks immaculate, I wonder if the driveway gets a heavy dose of weedkiller every year?

Beautifully presented.

Hey I might even remember the archeri bit too now, thanks. So you want to know where the name comes from. Well, clathrus comes from the greek word for cage, which is quite apporopriate for Clathrus ruber (Google it). When C. archeri was discovered it was given a different genus name (Lysurus archeri) but was later reassigned to Clathrus when it was found to be closely related to Clathrus ruber and other stinkhorns. I don't know who Archer was, it was and is common to name new species after patrons, colleagues or even friends. This probably doesn't help.

I ejoyed the article on rippling. The article on mechanoperception was heavy going. since it lacks a conclusion and isn't entirel in point to my notion about braiding, I'm going to pass on it for now. It is of course possible to see all wood as reaction wood insofar as every cell of new wood is tuned to its stress situation at the time of its growth and maturation. But that's not what I mean by reaction wood. Here's the definition of reaction wood from the International Association of Wood Anatomists - “wood with distinctive anatomical and physical characteristics, formed typically in parts of leaning or crooked stems and in branches, that tends to restore the original position of the branch or stem when it has been disturbed; also known as tension wood (in deciduous trees) and compression wood (in conifers)”. When I saidf growth abnormality I meant some sort of genetic abberation or pathogen-induced malformation. Like we see with Taphrina deformans, for example, which on Birch can be responsible for some weird and wonderful shapes and lumps. And Birch is known for its braided wood (sic). I won't therefore take up your challenge to demonstrate the difference since I suspect you had a different definition of growth abnormality in mind such as atypical distribution of wood. So wheeling back round with maximum economy of effort, I stand by my precautionary approach to braided wood since intuitively there is no particular suggestion that it is there to compensate for any biomechanical weakness in a way that normal wood would, or even that it is additional wood or is of different character to wood in the rest of the same tree. If I ever get to inject and dissect a suitable tree, I may also get round to taking a few samples of wood from different zones and put them through the microtome and then under the microscope for a comparison of cell size, length, shape and cellulose content.

You'll find the answer here if an answer can be found. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hedge-height-and-light-loss

I am always looking for any sort of mnemonic to hlep me slot htings like this into the memory banks. So how about Clathrus = claws thrust out of the ground?

D'oh. I take the point, if a complaint asrises crown reduction could take the trees outwith the definition in the Act. You have done me a big favour, thanks, I could advise clients in that way. That oscillating in/out of legislation thing was exactly what I was envisaging. I have the sorts of clients who would relish the devilment of winding neighbours up.

I will investigate what they were growing on, I tool the picture with my 4 year old daughter in tow and as ever had no opportunity to linger and contemplate. I tooka a semi-mature holly out 2 years ago in the bed and put in lots and lots of coarse mulch from the local recycling place. 40cm topsoil on glacial clays. Will say more if I can refine my observations.

Gosh, two replies!! Give me a few minutes, hours, days or years to get back to you on this.

Nice to have someone reply on this. Yes, I was thinking specifically about Slater and Harbinson 'Towards a new model of branch attachment' (AJ, 2010) when i said 'where vessels cross, something has to give'. I suppose I should have been more precise and said 'something has to be compromised or some special adaptation has to take place to allow ongoing biomechanical angd physiological integrity', but then everyone would have run away screaming. The generality of the dilemma stands. though. When wood overlaps, it can't just put on an outer ring every year.

That's entirely possible as a solution. But, when the law comes in for the first time we could have 200 year old Beech trees with heights of 30 metres (yes, not 30 feet) and stem diameters at 2 metres height of around 1 metre, coming into the definition of a high hedge. I expect the law is well intended but I astill think it is ill-considered when it will be used by people who have harboured agfrievance about deciduous tree shade for maybe 20 or 40 years.

You're right in a way but (Pedantry alert!) if canopy separation was specified as an action it would then take the hedge outwith the statutory definition of a high hedge. It would then not be competent for the LPA to also impose preventative action to stop the problem recurring.

With veruccas.