Personally to me, it seems if you don't split the list then why even bother making separate lists for different states, locations, single vs. multi-stemmed, etc. From an biological or ecological perspective in forest and in front lawn are completely different beasts, as different as Smokies vs. northern reaches of Maine, recent third-growth and old-growth. Plus, isn't it more exciting to say find a tree that is 95% of the known in forest max girth than say only 70%, and where probably 100% of the top ten lists for girth will be from front lawns and 100% of heights from forests? Plus, isn't the experience of a great tree in a front lawn with cars rushing by, the sun beating down, and branching starting at 4' way (not that all lawn tree have this form, some are fairly forest looking in form) different than some forest monarch, not that lawn tree may not be impressive and neat, there are some nice old trees in my town, but still it's such a different thing for so many different reasons. 

Biologically, ecologically, I don't see how it makes much sense (although, granted, various forest disturbances and histories can complicate things, depending upon what you are after). What can we gain about max girth and height in different forests and open parks and lawns and so on if everything is mushed together? Anyway, I'm beating a dead horse. Hopefully people will at least mark the difference so those who wish can look at the relevant data for particular needs.

I agree. I don't like to hear that a tree is open grown, that is why it ranks so high. The capacity of a species is what we are after. Someone had said that we should list forms separately. I think we need to proceed with a formula that doesn't consider form. The trees should equal themselves out, as forest trees are taller and open trees have more girth.

Additionally, sub sets for regions, states, sites, species could also be
made. Will detailed this in a Jan. 22 post to the site.

Ed C

Not meaning to push a personal preference, but just noting another way
of putting it: 89.0%, 87.3%, and 86.5% of "maximum potential". One B+,
but no A's.

Darian

You certainly know far more than I do about tree canopy
structure from your detailed mapping of giant trees around the world. If I
were to look for an expert on the subject, you would be the one I would
call, but on this question about whether canopy spread is a useful
measurement or not, I still disagree with your assessment.

For the trunk dimensions and the canopy dimensions the formula is using
linear dimensions. Using a volumetric measure might be more appropriate,
but a canopy does not form a perfect cone or sphere, the trunk tapers (as
per your formula). Compromises must be made. I feel the simpler method is
adequate for defining the space. This is especially so considering that we
are considering each the measurements as a percentile of the maximum. For
giant trees the formula may or may not breakdown. For a detailed modeling
of tree form, certainly a more complex set of descriptors might be needed,
but as a measure of overall bigness this formula is excellent.

We can calculate an index using just circumference and height as the only
parameters, and we can calculate a figure using circumference, height, and
crown spread. We could calculate a figure using those three plus an
additional undetermined parameter using this methodology. If we base the
numbers on a 1 to 100 or 1 to 1000 scale, all of these would generate
numbers in a comparable range. This would let us see how inclusion of each
of these different parameters affected the overall picture. Part of the
beauty of the formula is that all values are treated equally.

I agree that whatever method is chosen, there may be problems with
certain trees. The formula by comparing the measured parameter with the
largest known measure of that parameter, I believe minimizes that problem.
Please post additional thought you have on the issue, or propose an
alternate formula. I am sure many of us are interested in what you have to
say on the subject.

Ed

anyway I suppose it doesn't matter anyway, as long as height, situation,
etc. anyone can make up there own tables
as they see fit, renormalizing % of each factor to max for location type
and setting coefficients as they desire, there isn't a way to make one
single list that's good for every purpose or desire anyway. 

one thing
though with officially keeping open and forest completely tied together,
well won't this, with equal coefficients case in particular, mean that a
great many in forest trees might not even make it onto the table and
perhaps in other cases notable lawn trees, how many of each type will
appear? if just one from each region then obviously there will be no way to
rebuild the table since you'll loose whatever % of species for each table
type. even if say 5 of each species get in the list, maybe it is a species
that gets exceptional girth and spread in the open and so much less so that
no amount of height will let any forest tree make the list. what exactly is
going to be plugged into the list, all significant finds from each region
(many entries per region) or just one tree per region, etc.?

I would also favor historical.

They are good points.
OTOH, I keep envisioning this fat white-ash that grew to immense spread
open-grown, branching exceptionally low to the ground and how while it
seemed big it just didn't seem nearly as big as this one I saw off-trail in
Pine Orchard that just towered up soooo high, but a very narrow crown. I
think with the 1,1,1 (1/3,1/3,1/3) factors it would not even make the list
though and would appear to be almost incomparably smaller by these #'s which
isn't the feel that I get around them. And say there was some redwood 50'
taller and similar diameter to one that, for some reason, and maybe it
doesn't occur to this extent, had exceptional enough spread to come out as
high or even much higher in final score. still, I do see your valid points
regarding spread.

• New Point System Ranking Table htm

Even, if it is
determined that spread or longest branch are going into the score, I
still will not measure it on any tree that isn't near championship
status or part of a study plot. I have just too much territory to cover
and too many trees to measure in places that are too far away to return
to frequently -- and I'm not getting any younger. That is a primary
reason why I prefer the 100 point scoring system. On a 300 point
system, you can't tell if a tree is a medium sized tree with 3 data
components or a large tree with 2 dimensions recorded. Most of Will's
trees won't show up on the list either since only height and girth are
recorded for most of them. A 100 point system will allow trees with
only 2 dimensions recorded to be fairly represented. To be truly fair
and consistent, the third dimension shouldn't even be considered in the
score. Save the three dimension scoring for study plots where there is
adequate time to properly obtain all the data required.

Paul Jost

    The crown spread information in my database is weak. I often estimated crown spread. Very little information has been included about maximum limb length. Crown spread is the weak link. I have racked my aging brain to think up shortcuts for compiling acceptable canopy data and each time I have ended up abandoning whatever I was working on.

    Your summary of our point system discussions is very useful. Fine job as usual. I'll respond to you request for additional thoughts in a day or two.

Bob