Looking for help identifying a tree species from old photograph

KMag · July 17, 2015, 02:47:00 PM

Hello to all,

I'm new here. I found your site while searching for help identifying a tree from an old photograph. I am a curator at a local Historical Society. To make a long story as short as possible, I am researching the history of a historical landmark that was tree. There are only a few photos of the tree, and it is now no longer standing. The printed records list it as two different species, one is that it was an American Elm. the second reference is that it was an Ash Tree.

I have scanned the one photo that shows the lower half of the tree. The photo is old, and the image is not as clear as I would like, but there are several clues as to which species it might be. I have my opinion, but I would like to have someone else look at the photo and see if they can form an opinion as to what they think it is. We are working on a Historical Marker, and I would like be able to know for certain which record is correct.

If anyone would be willing to take a shot at it, I could send you a scan of the photo. I would post it here, but it would loose resolution, and the details would not be visible. You can email me at kmag1226@gmail.com reply to this post. Thanks Ken M

Magicman · July 17, 2015, 03:11:46 PM

Hello KMag, and Welcome to the Forestry Forum.

I would love to see it posted here even if it did loose resolution. ;D

KMag · July 17, 2015, 04:17:27 PM

Here is the photo. The lack of quality will not let you see much.

beenthere · July 17, 2015, 04:46:15 PM

Welcome to the Forestry Forum.

Suggest scanning small sections of the photo and post them.. such as 2 or 3 showing the leaves and branches, and one of the bark. Should then be able to sort out ash leaves vs elm leaves, and ash branching vs. elm branching.

Texas Ranger · July 17, 2015, 04:47:33 PM

If the choice is between ash or elm, elm

beenthere · July 17, 2015, 05:01:53 PM

Quote from: Texas Ranger on July 17, 2015, 04:47:33 PM
If the choice is between ash or elm, elm

Agree with that too. Still hoping to see some more of the leaves. The forum will allow much more image quality than was shown.

GAB · July 17, 2015, 07:32:46 PM

KMag:
Can you tell us where this tree was?
I'm from New England and I have never seen an elm of that size with that type of branching. By that I mean branches that close to the ground for a tree of that size (diameter wise).
Gerald

SwampDonkey · July 17, 2015, 07:56:32 PM

I've seen open grown ash branch like that and also box elder. I've never seen an elm (American elm) like that and we have/had huge elms growing open in fields and fence rows without a limb for 15+ feet. They have upswept major limbs close to the trunk until they get near max high growth where they mushroom making an umbrella shape. It's not the silhouette of elm I'm used to. ;)

sandsawmill14 · July 18, 2015, 07:53:35 AM

i didnt see the tree standing but had a 30" elm butt log about 2 weeks ago that had a 12" knot about 5' up and another knot at about 6' up on other side of the tree. it was NOT fun to saw had a lot of stress in it

KMag · July 18, 2015, 12:57:52 PM

The tree was in Kentucky. I'm on the road now but I'll upload some blowup pictures tonight. There are a couple of parts of the photo where you can see some of leaf structure and branches. The photo was taken in 1918.

KMag · July 18, 2015, 09:03:52 PM

I cropped and re-sized some of the areas of the tree showing the leaves. Some are enlargements of the image showing as much detail as I can get. I will post enlargements of the trunk and branches in another post.

KMag · July 18, 2015, 09:10:45 PM

Here are the trunk pictures. They are are not as good as the leaves as the picture is not in focus as well.

beenthere · July 18, 2015, 09:59:39 PM

Seems I can see some opposite branching, so ash comes to mind.

KMag · July 18, 2015, 10:07:06 PM

My observation is that the leaves are symmetrical on both sides of the center stem (See photo #2). In photo #3, the dead branches appear to have opposite branches, not alternating. In photo #5, at the lower RH corner, it appears that the leaf is a compound leaf. I am not good enough to make any observation on the tree bark.

Any opinions would be appreciated. Ken M

KMag · July 18, 2015, 10:08:13 PM

Thanks Beenthere, I was typing when you posted. Ken M

SwampDonkey · July 19, 2015, 04:02:52 AM

Ash

WDH · July 19, 2015, 07:45:23 AM

I also agree with ash.

KMag · July 19, 2015, 01:19:45 PM

Thanks for the expert advice. I was thinking Ash as well, but wanted another opinion. Apparently someone mis-identified it back in 1918, and that information continued on to other documents. The survey map from that date also identifies it as Elm. Only one document identified it as ash, which made me start looking into verifying that information. I do know most of the common species, but this one was a challenge for me.

Unless anyone else posts an opinion to the contrary, I am going to officially note that it is was an Ash Tree. Thanks for help.

Ken M

SwampDonkey · July 19, 2015, 01:29:54 PM

Quote from: KMag on July 19, 2015, 01:19:45 PM
Apparently someone mis-identified it back in 1918, and that information continued on to other documents. The survey map from that date also identifies it as Elm.

Ken M

Most likely never questioned because so and so said it.

KMag · July 21, 2015, 12:35:50 PM

I appreciate everyone's expert opinion about the Tree. Now some history about it.

It was a Nationally recognized landmark, and was honored by the American Forestry Association in 1921 as one of their entries into their tree "Hall of Fame". Over 2200 foreign born men, who enlisted in the US Army during World War 1, were sworn in as US Citizens under the canopy of this tree. The tree was named "The Naturalization Tree". It has a marker placed where it first stood, which has just recently been relocated for various reasons.

You can read more about the historic tree here. http://camptaylorhistorical.org/

Thanks again for the help. Ken M