daltontrees

Could be C. macrocarpa

It's a Goat Willow Salix caprea for sure.

Japanese Maple (Acer palmatum) "Bark of young stems is green"

I agree about late April. Go as far north west as possible. OK maybe not the bombing practice range at Cape Wrath, but north and west for raw nature and bracing weather. The Assynt area and Torridon are special. East is drier, so are the people. Picturesque, but heaving with people most of whom are trying to sell souvenirs.

You probably would...

After all that's been said, I am still not entirely clear what the objective is. If there is a concern about future damage to your building, hte person you would seek redress from in the first instyance if damage occurs is the owner of the tree. That's the same as the owner of the land. So what you could do is sned a recorded letter to the landowner putting them on notice that you are concerned about the likely effects of the tree, its roots and water uptake, on your building, perhaps mentioning the raw NHBC guidance. Having ut the tree owner on notice, it would be easy to demonstrate foreseeability in a future insurance or civil claim. There are so many other factors in this that I don't think one can say for sure that damage will occur, or when. It would be the tree owner's decision whether to take advice and seek a concession from the LPA to adjust the planting. In turn, if the LPA refuses while knowing of the potential for damage, again future liability will be easier to prove. At that point it will be for whomsoever to juggle 5837 and all the other best-practice documents that should or shouldn't have been taken into account. Stick a copy of the letter with your title deeds. Then you can probably forget about it for a few decades.

Me ma's wellies on Sunday night.

Better known as Carpinus betulus...

It's that simple for me. Arbtalk is populated by both theoretical and practical people, consultants and contractors. I fully understand that renaming a species doesn't change the implications of it being present. It's just an attitude of mind to strive always to be as right as one can be. And I think that deliberately ignoring current nomenclature reflects badly, to some degree. Not being aware of it is a different matter... until we all have some sort of Fungbook account that sends us alerts about new names, it will always take a while to notice thn adopt them. I was reacting to suggestions that taxonomy is a self-justifying system that has nothing to do but torture people with unnecessary name changes. That definitely is not the case. Leylandii? A cross-genuse hybrid, inherently interesting for that reason alone, and bound to be kicked about a bit as a fairly arbritrary nomenclature is settled upon. These freaks (the hybrids, not the taxonomists) are there to provoke debate, and we can learn from that.

Pliable is probably the best word to describe it. It seems the fungus has spread and established radially, treaditionally a strong CODIT defence route. OK I know the tree is dead but 3 shouldm be strong even then... Nice to see anyway, I'd love to hav ebeen able to tae a thin slice off to see what the spread looked like and inch in.

Possibly Leccinum scabrum the Brown Birch Bolete

On felled Elm. 3rd pic is section of bracket, lying on its side.

"My first thoughts are - how is this different from any other chain?" And oddly, no answer...

Waste not, want not...

Or a very long selfie stick...

Trees are not the problem. Are there shrinkable clays and/or insufficiently deep foundations? That's all you need to think about.

Wow, I just clicked on the link beside Cerioporus. Synonyms (now largely redundant) include Agaricus, Boletus and Trametes. Anybody still using those old-school names? I hope not.

Thanks for that, I had seen the last two being used but I didn't check whther this was because they were outdated uses or brand new ones. Now I know. For those that are dismissive of all this - I believe it's important that new names are used. It's a matter of taxonomy, and that in turn is a result of research into DNA that shows where species originated. New species can arise as a result of natural genetic mutation, usually at the point of spore production form parent cells, and those mutations that are better adapted to their environment will do better, and will eventually supersede the parent genetic mix at that locale. They might still be able to breed with the parent species. Eventually mutations will carry the new species so far away in characteristics from the parent species that inter-reproduction will no longer be possible. At that point it could be said we have a new species. These branches in the evolutionary tree are what taxonomy is all about. Understanting this adaptation is a step closer to understanding the subtle slow long-term co-evolution with trees. This is one reason why it's important to follow taxonomic name changes. Were the parents of these new species losing the battle agaisnt host tree species? And why? What were the trees doinfg differently? But here's another one to adopt the new names. If you aren't aware of new names you are somehow showing that you don't keep your professional knowledge up to date. And if you don't know about the name changes and why they were necessary, what else don't you know about the fungus? And what else about trees don't you know? And what does that say about the quality of your advice and actions...? Personally (na dI appreciate that I am a sad git) I think it interesting that the fungus formerly known as Piptoporus betulinus is currently undestood to be more closely related to Fomitopsis pinicola. And that The fungus fka Inonotus dryadaeus is not as closely related to Inonotus hispidus as formerly suggested by its old name.

These pics aren't strictly biomechanics, but I thought since they have a sepulchral theme I'd put them next to the previous memorial picture.

Perhaps the foundations have been designed to accommodate the trees' influence, or perhaps there are no shrinkable clays. If the answer to both those is neither, or if you don't know the answers, then speculation is pointless. But if they are 'yes' then ... 5837 in regard to these issues is secondary to well-established industry standards, particularly NHBC and building regulations. Annex A is 'informative', a lower level of imperative than the rest of the Standard. It talks of the 'need to' avoid damage. At best one can say that in saying 'need' it is echoing legal liabilities and the cost/life implications for buildings if the advice is not followed. I know of no precedent citing 5837. There are several subsidence cases citing NHBC and two citing 3998. So could done get hammered for not consulting 5837 or not taking its advice? Probably not in isolation. Could a Council be liable for imposing conditions that ignore Annex D? Hmmm, maybe but not in isolation. Such conditions would be unreasonable and should be overturned. I think someone in the design team would be responsible for spotting the conflict between conditions and likely subsidence. Ideally before conditions were formally imposed.

Powdery mildew, common on Norway Maples. I saw a load of it on Monday in Edinburgh, but only on the red leaved variety. Nothing to worry about and nothing you can do. It's a symptom of humidity.

It's ahawk moth OK, but looks a bit more like the Convolvulus Hawk-moth Agrius convolvuli. Rare. Feeds on Bindweed, apparently, which can only be a good thing.

Almost certainly.

Good balanced perspective there.

Good point, thanks.