This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This site: https://www.giant-sequoia.com/faqs/giant-sequoia-questions/

claims that Giant Sequoias have the potential to grow as tall as Coast Redwoods, but don't because they always end up getting topped by lightning. If you look at the large ones, the trunk does seem to end abruptly, and they do often get hit by lightning. They would certainly be taller if they didn't lose their pointed crowns. I would say this claim is probably true.

However, since the source is a site that sells giant sequoias, I'm not sure if it's considered a reliable source. Has anyone seen this claim repeated elsewhere?

Hopefully one of the ones in Europe grows to full maturity without getting struck!

MrAwesome888 ( talk) 02:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I edited this talk heading to included more about size. December 2017, I edited the article because giant sequoia as a species are not the largest trees in the world. On the record, at most, only 8 to 12 of them are, and coast redwood exceeds all other giant sequoias in the wild or in parks. I added a reference to wikipedia's page about Grogan's Fault ^[1]. Then another user here removed the edit claiming the tree is not sourced. But they were mostly incorrect. The Grogan's Fault coast redwood is sourced to references including news articles and a certified arborist which include quotes of a scientist about new discoveries and reference to research permits. Apparently there are even larger coast redwoods. But if the largest one documented and verified is bigger than all giant sequoias except just a handful of exceptions, there's no truthful basis to claiming "giant sequoias" are the largest trees in the world. Let alone the giant sequoia article states historically coast redwood were larger. In light of the facts and resources referenced, I reverted the page once again because it's the only way to gain accuracy. The only other option is to completely delete any claim that giant sequoias are the largest trees, and speficy only the exceptions. Wikipedia's own coast redwood page also refers to Grogan's Fault in its table of largest. ^[2] The Real Luke Skywalker ( talk) 04:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

It's worth noting that a similar situation happened on the coast redwood page to avoid saying Sequoia species are the world's tallest trees. Rather, the page was changed for accuracy to say the species includes the tallest trees, stating "This species includes the tallest living trees on Earth, reaching up to 379 feet (115.5 m) in height (without the roots) and up to 29.2 feet (8.9 m) in diameter at breast height" . Factually, coast redwoods are not the world's tallest trees. For example, there is a hemlock in Prairie Creek part 274 ft. tall which exceeds millions of coast redwoods for height, including any coast redwood found in Muir Woods National Monument. The Real Luke Skywalker ( talk) 04:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I changed the heading back, please do not hijack my posts like this. They are the largest trees, but that doesn't mean that EVERY Giant Sequoia is larger that EVERY tree of the next largest species. The average Giant Sequoia is larger than the average Coast Redwood, and the largest confirmed Giant Sequoia is larger than the largest Coast Redwood (despite what your Coast Redwood hype site says), therefore it is fair to say that Giant Sequoias are the largest trees. That doesn't mean there's no overlap. Yes there may have been Coast Redwoods in the past that were larger that any currently living Giant Sequoia, but there were also larger Giant Sequoias in the past, such as "Mark Twain" and "Mother of the Forest," and probably others. Since there's no way to compare them, we are going to stick with comparisons with currently living trees.

MrAwesome888 ( talk) 20:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Why do people always need to quarrel about one definite winner .... why not make it 'Both Sequoias are the largest tree species' ? --rosetta

Hey Mr. Awesome ! About the true potential - it's right that the Sierra Sequoias are prone to get flashed many times over their long lifespan. It's actually the Sierras main way to start fire naturally (when smouldering crown parts finally fall down, days or weeks after a rainstorm - thus supporting their survival.) However, without any storm or lightning damage, most Gant Sequoias probably still would not get as high as the Redwoods. The maximal tree height is determined by sun energy input x water supply and the last factor is unbeatable in the Coast Ranges. Redwood trees also do not need to invest as much energy in hardening their terminal shoot, compared to the Sierra with frosty winter winds, and strong UV-radiation, where Giant Sequoias also have significantly less time ( = the short growing season in that elevation) to work all this out. Meaning, their height growth is much slower; and that again means, the crown top is statistically (e.g. per meter) much more exposed to damaging factors. As you can see, all these arguments are environmentally determined, not genetically. It would be interesting to grow Giant Sequoias in a suitable spot in the Coast Ranges to see how they perform. --rosetta

Hello, i started to correct some titular namings but then got confused myself. To my knowledge, title names like 'the' Giant Sequoia (as opposed to 'some giant sequoias') are spelled like that. Or is this is wrong for US English (which should be the measure here) ? I've found both variations in the US English 'original' literature, and could not determine a clear rule. I think if there is a rule, then it should also apply to related terms like sequoia, redwood, dawn redwood ...

Can somebody clarify this please (and ideally, update the articles writing) ... ? rosetta ( talk) 22:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Rosetta: Formatting decisions, such as capitalization, should be governed by Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Capitalization of common names already has a style guideline, which states

English vernacular ("common") names are given in lower case in article prose (plains zebra, mountain maple, and southwestern red-tailed hawk) and in sentence case at the start of sentences and in other places where the first letter of the first word is capitalized. They are additionally capitalized where they contain proper names: Przewalski's horse, California condor, and fair-maid-of-France.

Thus, it should be "giant sequoia". I'll revert the changes you've made to the article. — hike395 ( talk) 13:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

:Hike395: OK, that's fine with me. And thank you for clarifying this ! (and sorry for the inconvenience) rosetta ( talk) 14:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Any others mind adding another bullet under tallest, for outside the natural range? There is a bullet for tallest outside the United States, but it's possible that was originally added to the page with the same idea in mind.

In 2020, a specimen was found and measured to be 212 feet in Oregon, about 22 feet taller than any other planted Sequoiadendron known around the world.

212 foot Sequoiadendron announcement

That announcement and confirmation also leads to a video showing what the tree looks like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C55:7B80:35E9:897B:E8F1:6859:86DE ( talk) 02:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)