Hyperion (Tree)(en.wikipedia.org)
en.wikipedia.org
Hyperion (Tree)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperion_(tree)
18 comments
I was wondering whether the editors had debated whether or not to also help keep Hyperion's location secret, indeed there is discussion, and several back-and-forth inclusion/retractions of the location, on the talk page of that article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hyperion_(tree)
A few years ago we followed one of those coordinates (from the edit history) to try to find the tree. Got within a few meters but it didn't look like the photos and there was no redwood there much taller than the others. Still was a fun hike. The coords were just a mile or two off the paved road, but involved a bit of bushwhacking and log jumping.
Left my hat there on a branch too :( If anyone finds it, let me know, I miss that thing...
Left my hat there on a branch too :( If anyone finds it, let me know, I miss that thing...
What made you think YOU didn't contribute to the "devastation of the habitat surrounding Hyperion caused by visitors"?
I probably did! That's always a concern for our much loved natural treasures.
But IMHO the need for conservation and preservation should be balanced with providing public access. If nobody got to enjoy the outdoors for fear of damaging it, they'd never develop a love for it and want to protect it.
It's not a black and white thing. Different agencies, administrations, resource managers, parks, and individuals all have their opinions on that. Some are 100% pro conservation while others want to allow mixed uses. I'm somewhere in the middle.
PS That area is already a national and state park (weird co-managing situation). We'd go backpacking there with or without that specific tree being there. However, we did go off trail and trekked some short distances in search of the tree, being as careful as we could be, but still undoubtedly leaving some impacts.
But IMHO the need for conservation and preservation should be balanced with providing public access. If nobody got to enjoy the outdoors for fear of damaging it, they'd never develop a love for it and want to protect it.
It's not a black and white thing. Different agencies, administrations, resource managers, parks, and individuals all have their opinions on that. Some are 100% pro conservation while others want to allow mixed uses. I'm somewhere in the middle.
PS That area is already a national and state park (weird co-managing situation). We'd go backpacking there with or without that specific tree being there. However, we did go off trail and trekked some short distances in search of the tree, being as careful as we could be, but still undoubtedly leaving some impacts.
See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_trees
I hadn't heard of the second and third tallest species, South Tibetan cypress and Yellow meranti. There are also far more very tall eucalyptus species than I expected.
Unfortunately these are just the tallest current trees, and there are records (some believable, some dubious) of much taller trees in the relatively recent past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_superlative_trees#Tall...
I hadn't heard of the second and third tallest species, South Tibetan cypress and Yellow meranti. There are also far more very tall eucalyptus species than I expected.
Unfortunately these are just the tallest current trees, and there are records (some believable, some dubious) of much taller trees in the relatively recent past: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_superlative_trees#Tall...
I found the list of superlative trees more interesting. I had no idea there were organisms other than fungus that grew to this scale. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pando_(tree)
Centurion - 100m / 330 feet, Eucalyptus regnans, 1.5hr south of Hobart, tallest flowering tree.
nice to see all the fern tramplers signing in, sigh :-/
Amazing. Like a 38 story building. Much taller than the Statue of Liberty. Almost as tall as Starship.
Better picture, with tree climbers for scale: https://www.npr.org/sections/pictureshow/2009/09/redwoods.ht...
Is that a photo of the actual tallest tree or just the tallest photographed tree?
Good question. This was back in 2009 so I can't quite remember for sure anymore. The National Geographic October 2009 issue is the original source for this, but I couldn't find a copy online.
The photographer Michael Nichols posted this article about his experience: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/burden-of-dreams-in-the-r_b_7...
Steve Sillett is the scientist who discovered and measured Hyperion, so I BELIEVE that is the same tree Michael is talking about finally getting permission to photograph. Sorry, I don't know for 100% sure.
The photographer Michael Nichols posted this article about his experience: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/burden-of-dreams-in-the-r_b_7...
Steve Sillett is the scientist who discovered and measured Hyperion, so I BELIEVE that is the same tree Michael is talking about finally getting permission to photograph. Sorry, I don't know for 100% sure.
> OK, maybe it's not the Biggest, Tallest Tree Photo Ever — but it's the biggest one I've ever seen.
The tree in the photo is only 300 feet. Hyperion is 380 feet.
The tree in the photo is only 300 feet. Hyperion is 380 feet.
The book The Wild Trees is a fantastic story about finding this tree.
Hiked to the tree a few years ago. It is a very strong, healthy, attractive tree. You really feel the power of life when looking at it. Mighty.
[deleted]