Bob, Yes the red oak was accidentally left off the list. I am not sure what the tallest is in the park. The most recent data set I have is from 2005 with a red oak from the Maple Drive Area. I am sure it is still there and I don't recall any taller ones since, but will need to check with Dale when he gets back. Adding this 126.5' red oak does not affect the RI10 nor the RI5, but fixing the chestnut oak glitch and this omission will raise the RI20 to 125.73 It is a little difficult to coordinate all the numbers and not miss something, although I should have caught both these mistakes.
Ed Join me in the Eastern Native Tree Society at http://www.nativetreesociety.org and in the Primal Forests - Ancient Trees Community at: http://primalforests.ning.com/ ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [email protected] Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 2:14 PM Subject: [ENTS] Re: Rucker Index Thoughts Ed, One other thing. I didn't see N. red oak in Cook's RI lists. In the past, I know we measured tall northern reds to near the mid-120s in Cook. Are those trees all down now? Bob -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Edward Forrest Frank" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Bob, In the initial calculation I received there was a number marked 111.1+. It was ignored as a number when the calculation was done in the spreadsheet. the correct number is 124.65. I double checked the RI5, and the RI20 Erie Bluffs and all of the Allegheny River numbers so they should be fine. There is no numbers with + signs in the other calculations so they should be good also. Good catch. Ed --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org You are subscribed to the Google Groups "ENTSTrees" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
