Old Tjikko is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||||||||
Old Tjikko has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Regarding my use of the term "individual" in the introduction. I felt it was necessary to distinguish between clonal colonies and clonal individuals. Clonal colonies are many different individuals of the same DNA, which to the unknowing eye would appear to be more than one tree but are actually the same plant. Clonal "individuals" are a single plant which manages to survive due to an old root system sprouting new trunks every time the old one dies... such as in this case. I think the distinction is clear and necessary. -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 23:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC) |
I'm unclear from the text of the article exactly what was radiocarbon-dated to provide the age estimate for this tree. The article states that parts of the root system were dated, but it also clearly states that the root system is the part of the tree that remains alive when each individual trunk dies. Living things cannot be radiocarbon dated.
None of the still-active English-language sources help with this question. Does the Swedish source explain? Are there dead fragments of root system that have been genetically identified with this tree, or something like that? TCSaint ( talk) 06:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Old Tjikko is not the oldest individual tree (as in trunk/canopy) and it is not the oldest clonal tree (as in root system). It is, however, the oldest living Norway Spruce. I have edited the intro for a more accurate statement of the status/rank of the tree. The attempt to salvage the "oldest tree" title by creating a strange category for what is basically "the oldest clonal tree with a single currently living trunk" is unnecessary when the tree is notable enough as the oldest living Norway Spruce.
The cited sources also do not say that the root system of the tree was carbon dated; rather, genetically matching dead fragments (cones, etc) from beneath the tree were dated.-- Kimcmich ( talk) 02:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
A couple of things:
Shearonink ( talk) 22:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
There is not really a path leading to the tree, so it can usually only be found by using the guided tours.-- Bk1 168 ( talk) 22:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Old Tjikko is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | ||||||||||||||||
Old Tjikko has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Regarding my use of the term "individual" in the introduction. I felt it was necessary to distinguish between clonal colonies and clonal individuals. Clonal colonies are many different individuals of the same DNA, which to the unknowing eye would appear to be more than one tree but are actually the same plant. Clonal "individuals" are a single plant which manages to survive due to an old root system sprouting new trunks every time the old one dies... such as in this case. I think the distinction is clear and necessary. -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 23:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC) |
I'm unclear from the text of the article exactly what was radiocarbon-dated to provide the age estimate for this tree. The article states that parts of the root system were dated, but it also clearly states that the root system is the part of the tree that remains alive when each individual trunk dies. Living things cannot be radiocarbon dated.
None of the still-active English-language sources help with this question. Does the Swedish source explain? Are there dead fragments of root system that have been genetically identified with this tree, or something like that? TCSaint ( talk) 06:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Old Tjikko is not the oldest individual tree (as in trunk/canopy) and it is not the oldest clonal tree (as in root system). It is, however, the oldest living Norway Spruce. I have edited the intro for a more accurate statement of the status/rank of the tree. The attempt to salvage the "oldest tree" title by creating a strange category for what is basically "the oldest clonal tree with a single currently living trunk" is unnecessary when the tree is notable enough as the oldest living Norway Spruce.
The cited sources also do not say that the root system of the tree was carbon dated; rather, genetically matching dead fragments (cones, etc) from beneath the tree were dated.-- Kimcmich ( talk) 02:47, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
A couple of things:
Shearonink ( talk) 22:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
There is not really a path leading to the tree, so it can usually only be found by using the guided tours.-- Bk1 168 ( talk) 22:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)