 |
Most of the definitions confuse the two and some even say they are interchangable which is frustrating as the mock exam oral question I was asked on Tuesday was to define the difference between an Ancient and a Veteran Tree. So what is the difference, and in particular have you an official definition for an Ancient tree?
I would define Ancient as very old for the species.
And I define Veteran as a condition assessment, somewhat regardless of its age. A tree that displays several of the following core characteristics: dieback/retrenchment, oversized trunk diamiter, significant deadwood, hollow trunk/branches, cracks/splits/holes, certain fungi/bacteria (esp heart rot), and possibly also some other characteristics such as moss/litchen, certain invertibrates, etc such that they have great ecological, social/cultural, (and landscape?) significance.
I would even include ancient as one of the optional core characteristics.
Trouble is my definition is horribly complicated and, how can you get a simple definition that does not end up including trees that are not veterans.
And while I am sort of on the subject, what is special about an Ancient tree? it is old, so what? A Veteran tree has social and ecological significance. What significance does does a purely Ancient tree have? If you say historical you are just repeating that an Ancient tree is very old. That would be a circular argument so you will have to do better than that. The philosophy is of some interest as just as the answer to how old is ancient varies according to the perspective of each species, our own perspective of what length of time is of significance to us is largely affected by our own percieved life span, and what time perspective is of any consideration to our politicians is severly limited by the extremely short life of any government. The abolition of the heriditary peerage and coming change to an elected house of lords is sure to make this worse. Or am I just ancient and unable to tolerate change myself. |
|
