Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto
If it should seem so easy, why can't you ID them?
|
Just because they're familiar trees that doesn't mean they're easy to identify, genius.
If you don't know what they are, just don't reply to this thread. You're not getting the higher ground if you want to be a smart alec.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg
Not really. Can’t even see the shape of the leaves. And the leaves might be shiny and evergreen, or that might be just the way the sun is hitting them. You’re asking us to identify these trees by their shape and growth habit alone. Now I can do that sometimes, with a tree that has a unique profile, but not with these trees - they’re just not that unique. Do you understand how many species of trees there are in the world? Do you understand how many non-native trees have been planted in both Australia and the US?
|
The leaves are clearly evergreen. That was self-explanatory. And yes, that's the point, they're so ordinary and plain looking that they can be identifiable. You know very well that it can work that way as well. Heck, I even provided some genus names. But that failed to satiate you.
There's no need to "understand". It's not like I asked a vague question about a tree with green leaves and insisted that you identify it based on a verbal description. At least I tried to provide a couple of photos. Not my problem that you cannot identify it.
Quote:
|
If it’s true they’re in a park, why not just call the park and talk to someone? Or maybe the city has an arborist who would know? Why insist that a bunch of strangers, most of whom have never been anywhere near Australia, must know the answer to your question?
|
Um, first off, this tree is clearly a universal one and isn't just restricted to Australia - Besides, you even said yourself that it isn't "unique". Second of all, there are many users in here from Australia. No need to change the goalpost in here and be patronizing - If you don't know what the tree is, just don't comment. Easy as that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite
That helps a little bit. I was able to zoom in on some of the leaves to get their shape. I think those trees look like they may be the evergreen called Cinnamomum camphora, aka camphor laurel. Its origin is China, Japan, Korea, Viet Nam and it has been introduced to several countries around the world including to USA and Australia.
There are only 4 or 5 states in USA where they are known to be, so what American states was it that you saw these trees?
In some parts of Australia they have turned into an invasive species and in other parts they are a helpful plant or are cultivated in plantations.
Multiple trunks from one root system are common, and mature trees can reach 100 feet in height.
Information and pictures: https://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/13519
Here are some additional pictures of what the trees, flowers and fruit look like: https://www.bing.com/images/search?q...ra&FORM=HDRSC2
. |
Thank you for helping and being generous. I hope more posters in here were more like you. I've seen these sort of trees in pictures from Illinois and Michigan I believe. Just the midwest in a nutshell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nn2036
|
Definitely does look like a Ficus nitida. The overall bulbous shape, the almond-like leaves and that off-white trunk. Good call, sir.
I now doubt it's an oak as oaks have 'crinkly' leaves, whereas this tree species doesn't.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
