File talk:700 yr red river gum02.jpg
Latest comment: 15 years ago by B.navez
Age edit
About this tree, no evidence is given for the announced age of 700 years. Of course, it doesn't show any sign of very fast growth, but length of the twigs, smoothness of the bark, and vegetation are not representative of extraordinary slow growth condtions. If it were really 700 years old, we could see rougher bark, dead parts and a lot of reiterations. I have already seen individuals like this one that are no more than 70 years old. Perhaps for this one, more than a century, that's all. --B.navez (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well that's what the tour guide told me but I'm not a botanist so I don't know --Fir0002 www 10:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- OK if he said so, I have just my own feeling not to be convinced. Let's go like that for the moment. If I find new evidences in one or another way I will put them forwards. --B.navez (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well that's what the tour guide told me but I'm not a botanist so I don't know --Fir0002 www 10:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
