Resin:
"There are of course 4 species of Calocedrus (or were you referring to Platycladus there?)"

Sorry, of course that is true. I had rather in my mind that Calocedrus clad is rooted quite high on the philogenetic tree of Cupressace so it's "sister group" is whole group of Teytraclinis, Microbiota nd Platycladus not as for example in case of Thuja and Thujopsis where we have two closely related genera...

I don't know anything about the origin of seeds but I think that in the 50's due to the "iron curtain" availability of seeds from US was very limited so I think that seeds came from other eastern European gardens.

You can check it on the webpage below it is even also in English...

Regards

CedLib

Here is a link that might be useful: Index of Plants of Arboretum in Rogow

cedlib
please send me a E-mail

Sorry, but I just can not figure how to sen an e-mail via Gardenweb forum even thought I have this option marked in my profile... Maybe I will figure it out in help zone...

Regards

CedLib

I sent you an E-Mail

Greetings

Cedlib

You have a very interesting collection from what ive
seen on your website

The collection I posted is not mine to any extend...
It is a collection of Warsaw University of Life Science, Faculty of Forestry in Rogow, about 50 km south-west from Warsaw.

CedLib

Hi, I think theres no problem to cultivate sequoiadendron in Estonia. I am from eastern Slovakia, the lowest temperature in every winter is -20 to -25C and we havo no ocean climate. In a small village, Jasov, next to Kosice city is a huge 40m high tree. The hardiness zone is 5. See the image in the link.

Here is a link that might be useful: sequoiadendron in Jasov

"In a small village, Jasov, next to Kosice city is a huge 40m high tree"

Nice specimen! But it is quite a long way further south than Estonia, so will benefit from extra summer heat; also Estonia can get to below -30° in severe winters, so it won't be so easy there.

Resin

So beautiful picture of it. Especially that church next to it. How warm are your summers there?

Denis

Denis, I answered your email. Summers are just as warm as in Estonia, thought. Usually 25 - 30C, max. 35C, but thats rare. I discovered that in Slovakia are at least 15 registered old sequoia taxons across the country.

Pizzi

I have a very nice book "Monumental trees of Slovakia" and probably the second species after Querqus robur in terms of number of monumental specimens is Sequoiadendron.

Maybe summers are not much warmer than in Estonia but muuuch longer and the weather is stable.
The village Jasov is on latitude 48 N on the southern slopes of Karpathians. Summer temperatures (above 20 C) begin there in late April - early May and stay till late September. Any eastern or northern wind is warmth by fohn effect of Karpathians. They are not growing good wine in Estonia - they are in eastern Slovakia...

Maybe it would be usefull to collect some seeds of that specimen.

Regards

CedLib

PS. Wonderful tree - I will have to visit it these year (every year I am staying a few days in "Low Beskids" so it is very close).

Ohhh, how do I want to have longer summer. It really lasts too short time. In the middle of May to the end of August or in some years to the middle of September. Happily the weatherstation says that the winter ends in the middle of March (forecast). I so wait for it...

Denis

Sequoia sempervirens, 46m tall:

Self-sown younger tree, 8 or 9m tall:

Resin

Nelumbo - witnessing the present weather conditions and forecasts for my region I doubt that my Sequoiadendron would survive (period of at least two-three weeks with temperatures constantly around or below -10 C) I wonder how is the weather where you live?

Regards

CedLib

Eeew, nasty cold there! Around -23 in most of Estonia (though -14 on the west coast) right now.

+5 here in UK, and +8 forecast for tomorrow but then colder toward the weekend.

Resin

Here is a link that might be useful: Temperature map

Apparently it was -30° in Estonia last night . . . yukk!

Resin

These Scandinavian High really makes me nervous...
I has already been such a nice early spring last week (Hammamelis in fool bloom) and now they don't give us hope for anything above 0 C till the end of the long-term forecast (first days of March)...
The bad thing is complete lack of snow. The weather turnover was very fast (from +8 C -8 C in 12 hours) and the air in the high is so dry that the snow usually connected with the cold front has not appeared.
In Estonia they have 60-80 cm of snow so the ground is not frozen, and small plats would have chance to survive. But what later?

Regards

CedLib

Yes, we have very, very cold weather right now. I just looked outside and there was -17 degrees (in Tallinn, coast) but what is in the land?? Yesterday there was -28 degrees. Yikes!!

I'm agree with CedLib, I don't like such frozing.. Before that coldness, there was almost +5 degrees warm and.... weeeeeeeee..... down to -10, and all the time it goes down and down, even -32 degrees may come. Terrible cold!! We have yes, so much snow and the ground isn't frozen. Happily my Metasequoia is under snow :) I'll let you (maybe I have showed) one link where you can see the snowcover in Estonia.

http://www.emhi.ee/index.php?ide=21,253

My plants are near Viljandi, in the middle-south of Estonia.

Denis

Resin - what age approximately is that Abies grandis (in the U.K.) you show us often?

Dax

Sorry, don't know. Guessing, about 100-120.

Resin

Thanks Resin.

Dax

No to think about the weather I prepared some photos of nice specimens o trees mentioned above.

Sequoia sempervirens in BG Berlin-Dahlem (it had to survive at least -22 C)

Sciadopitys verticillata from northern Poland (quite old one - about 100 years) - now maybe not Cupressace (Taxodiace) but close...

A nice specimen of Cunninghamia lanceolata (north-western Poland) - in a humid area it looks really nice

My father under very old Tsuga heterophylla. Deserted mansion park Northern Poland. I hope new owners of the estate (I have seen some works in mansion)would protect that tree.

And also that fir which I couldn't identify (Abies cephalonica?)

And moving towards Abies grandis - a very nice specimen of 42 m high with enormous trunk (around 150 years north-western Poland)

Regards

CedLib

What an amazing trees are down there?? In Estonia we haven't got such trees. Hugee!! Wow!! I wish I have a lot of money, then can I travel around Europe.

Brilliant trees
Denis

Hi Denis,

I found this with some details of the tallest trees in Estonia (Larix decidua 46m, Picea abies 44m, Pinus sylvestris 43m), I guess those are your first trees to head for!

Here is Abies grandis 57m, in the same forest as my other photos above (also another young self-sown Sequoia sempervirens at the right edge ;-))

Resin

Great stuff, Cedlib. I'm thinking about Poland a lot lately. Years ago, we had a research station in my town that worked with European larch extensively, for the pulp and paper industries. Of all the larch progeny at their disposal, those from somewhere in Poland turned out to be the best suited for our (Wisconsin) climate. Two of those trees, now about 15 meters tall grace the area around the entrance to the office where I worked until recently. Nice trees. I really like the looks of things in your pics. Sure does seem like a GREEN area!

Resin, just out of curiosity, what can you tell us about the soil at that N. England forest?

+oM

Sorry, not sure on the soil there, but it is acidic, and always moist, even in dry summers; most likely derived from glacial boulder clay. It is overlying hard but fissured volcanic dolerite rock (the Whin Sill), so there may well be rooting into the fissures as well.

Resin

Resin - beautiful fir!
It was alway very peculiar that the tallest trees in Europe are not-native (and probably most of them grow in UK). It is of course a result of impoverishment of the flora after glaciations which then couldn't "keep up" with the climate becoming suitable for such giants...
The tallest native tree in Europe is probably Abies alba (tallest ever recorded in 1908 in Schwarzwald 68 m). In Poland the statistics are not so precise but there is probably one living Abies alba nearly reaching 60 m. Probably the tallest living Picea abies is 50,2 m tall and Pinus silvestris 42,6 (Bia�owie�a National Park data but the trees growing there are considered to be the highest). There are archival records of Picea abies reaching 55 m. Of course we have also some Pseudotsuga exeeding 50 m.
Wisconsitom - with Larix in Poland there had been always some confusion. There are two ecologically different populations treated as subspecies. One, subalpine, growing with Pinus cembra at the treeline known as Larix decidua var. decidua (related to Alpine populations) and the second - lowland Larix decidua var. polonica know from a few old stands in central Poland. The origin of those stands is uncertain because larches can not regenerate under canopy. In mountains they facilitate from storms and fires. Confusion become even bigger because since a century in forestry Japanese larch (Larix kaempferi) is commonly used and as as we know it interbreeds with Larix decidua and specialists have spotted more and more characteristics of Larix kaemferi in trees germinated from seeds collected from Larix decidua...

Regards

CedLib

Resin - How did you find such information. Even I haven't seen it but I live near these Larix. Btw, very cool fir!

Denis

"It was alway very peculiar that the tallest trees in Europe are not-native (and probably most of them grow in UK)"

What I used to think too, but not true - the tallest tree in Europe is native, but it has only fairly recently been reported: Abies nordmanniana, in the Western Caucasus Biosphere Reserve, Russia. 85 metres tall. That rather dwarfs Britain's tallest trees! Documentation is unfortunately only very limited - see the top of the third page of this UNESCO report (pdf file).

"Probably the tallest living Picea abies is 50,2 m tall"

There's one 63 m tall reported from the Perucica Virgin Forest, Sutjeska National Park, Bosnia-Herzegovina.

"How did you find such information. Even I haven't seen it but I live near these Larix. Btw, very cool fir!"

I found it by doing a google translation of the Estonian wikipedia page for Scots Pine (where it is listed as a reference, #12), and then doing a google translation of the reference

Resin

Now, when the story has moved to Abies, so I wanted to ask about Abies beshanzuensis, are there any of them, where are they? Have people tried to re-grow it? What do you all think about it?

Denis

Hi Denis - I don't have any up-to-date details on this one; all I know is that there are 3 mature trees left in the wild, and that it is now in cultivation, in China at least, with attempts to enhance the wild population with new plants. I don't know if it is cultivated anywhere outside of China.

Resin

Appreciate all the great info, guys. This, obviously, is the kind of thread that gets my attention.

Those W. Caucuses forests must be simply wondrous.

+oM

Hi!

Look at my blog, then you'll see, what do I think about Sequoiadendron - www.tammelill.blogspot.com or look at My Page.

Denis

What a nice thread!

Pineresin: is that Kielder or Kyloe forest? What size are these forests. I know Kielder is the biggest forest in the UK. Never been there. Looking at these pics I am seriously contemplating going there this summer. For a week or so simply to venture into these woods. My favourite trees grow there I see!

You'll find them in NL aswell, but not like this or rarely so.

Some nice woods over here have Picea sitchensis with very good regeneration, P. Menziesii (rgeneration is incredible) and some Tsuga h. (also quite dense regeneration). Sitka spruce forests over here tend to be very fernrich. In fact: no other forest in NL comes close.
Where I live, there is a lot of deer browsing. These forest are directly behind the dunes. The tree that does best here is Abies grandis. It pales in size compared to those 57m Abies in teh UK, but it selfsows extremely well. I found some regeneration of it below a small Norway spruce stand.
So shade is not a problem.

These forests are highly valued by visitors. In NL, out of 200 woodland pics (research) 4 were favoured. The 2 most favoured pictures were those with a broadleave but always a spruce tree in it. My favourite too.

However: ecologists and nativists/environmentalists are controlling the woods here and they want to eradicate all foreign species. Al large natural area in the entral part of NL will see all Sitka and Doug fir dissapear. Simply because ot its origin. This will also include Abies grandis and Tsuga.....This purely xenofobic thinking is still on the rise and will have dtrinental effects for those who actually like conifers. There is no respect, so don't think 50-60m tall giants will survive. If you are foreign, you have no rights and you are of no value..

So I will enjoy them as long as possible and NE England seems a nice place to visit!
I wonder how tall those NW pacific trees wil become over here and in the UK (and elsewhere). Will they survive

jorginho - that is an unspoken tragedy.

Dax

Nevertheless it is true. They have joined forces, because there are several owners. One of them. ""The Utrecht Landscape" thought it was wise to come together and have one policy. Tjis is "the restoration" of the old countryide. It is strange that so many environmentalists only no one thing: to conserve and in doing so, being conservative. They do nbot seem to know the word "progressive" and the words "novel ecosystems"...Which are al around us in the world and are proven to be far more diverse than the "semi natural" landscapes they will become again (liek heath)....Semi natural....Also strange....They cannot tolerate antropogenic dispearsal of species, but they do tolerate manmade habitats....Anyways: may be it is time for some people. together with researcher who can prove that novel ecosystems are biodiverse and highly valued by visitors...
If we don't do anything, this dogmatic ideology (oxymoron) will kill of many trees and worse, so many new species who do only one thing wrong: being here.

As a child in small village in the 70's my family attended a church in who's churchyard I would gleefully punch the soft bark of a large tree without harm. I was informed it was a Wellingtonia and have always called them that since in error. I found these pictures from around 2004.

{{gwi:861489}}
{{gwi:861491}}
{{gwi:861494}}

Can someone finally confirm to the grown child what they in fact are? The village is in the midlands of England, roughly central as such.

Hi Jorginho - Kyloe; the location is 55°38'19"N 1°54'53"W.

Keilder is quite a long way from there, about 60 km southwest (straight line; a lot more by road). It is at higher altitude (200 - 400 m altitude) with poor soil, so the trees do not get so large.

Sad to hear about how things are in the Netherlands. If they are going to reject forests with non-native trees, then they should also reject fields with non-native crops (e.g. wheat). And then where will they be? Starving. It is very silly too, as many species of native wildlife find these tall conifer forests very good habitat to live in, often better than forests of only native species.

Resin

Resin.....is Kyloe on boulderclay? I noticed this is particularly nice for Picea sitchensis and Tsuga h. over here.

I am currently writing a book on the topic of ecoxenophobia and I am astouned valueladen words scientists use in this field of science. I am from the climatological field and we use the word antropogenic. They use the words unnatural when talking about human influences. Science should be done without any values as values cannot be proven and are personal, cultural and differ in time and space.

Besides: I have come across many research on biodiversity and indeed native forests in the UK for instance are not more species rich than antropogenic woods...

It is highly unscientific, single sided and very conservative in my opinion...No one seems to really willing to get a debate going one about this...

Sorry, not sure what the soil is there, but it is always moist, even in the driest summers.

I suspect these people often have unpleasantly similar political views? If they are ecoxenophobic, are they also human-xenophobic??

I wonder how they would like this part of Kyloe, with these regenerating naturally ;-))

{{gwi:652837}}

Resin

"Can someone finally confirm to the grown child what they in fact are?"

Sorry, missed your post there! Yes, they are Giant Sequoia Sequoiadendron giganteum.

Resin

'Sorry, missed your post there! Yes, they are Giant Sequoia Sequoiadendron giganteum.'

Thanks Resin, they appear to be pretty happy there though it seems a bit strange to be removing the 'Wellingtonia' from my consciousness. I have a couple of large ones (relatively speaking) in my locale now which I'll take a new look at.

Hi pineresin,

Long story and last one here, because I do not want to hijack this thread...

No these people are nice people, they in general totally against cultural xenophobia. They are not bad people and quite likable in general. But they in general seem to be blind for their xenophobic views and dismiss them immediately. I have read 6 books, chosen by my girlfriend (blind test) with the subject�nasive species". So I did not pick 'm. These are books meant for Univerity ecology/biology students. All these books are ridden with valueladen wording. At the end, it will be hard not to think of immigrant species as villains, pest, aggressive beings etc. You are indoctrinated in this way, like we can be indoctrinate din so many other ways. This psychological effect is ture for everybody, it is not that scientists themselves are not affected by this. And so it goes...these people find labour in various nature conservancy associations etc. And so their theory becomes practice..

In our Dutch naturereserves you find all sorts of sgns and explanations. In many instances, you read the simplified version: we cut out spruce and pines because they don't belong here because they are foreign".

The University of Wageningen has done some research on what people think about foreign species. In two ways. One was to ask about what they think about foreign species and cutting them down because they don't belong here. Answer: 65% are totally against. They were surprised that after explaning (wrngfully!) that they weed out other species and cause extinctions, still the majority did not buy it. Especially Doug fir was highly valued. They thought that broadleaves would be nr 1. They weren't. More on that in a moment.

A second one was to evaluate 200 woodland pics. They choose pics with clear foreign species, clear native species and a mix. End result: 4 woodlandtypes were highly valued. The top 2 consisted of a broadleave (beehc and oak) and in both cases a spruce tree (by some not considered native)..

So....who are ecologists doing it for? Not for the Dutch people. Not for nature. If nature has anything to say some species simply don't grow somewhere and others do. Not because trees and plants cause extinctions. Well... they think so everstill, but peerreviewed research shows they don't. Even in those books I mention you can read this in between lines. The do not emphasize did, but in those book they stated that not one foreign species ahs actually led to extinctions. And then: "until now" implying that this will probably happen or is likely to happen. It hasn't.

So what does Wageningen Uni want to do? DO they want to change their views..nope. Their goal is to change our views. They clearly concluded that other approaches need to be developped to make people change their views. This again comes close to some propaganda in the cultural sense.

In the UK, you see they want to weed out Pinus contorta and Picea sitchensis of the Caledonian forest (Scots pine). Which is "unique" (also another words that has no scientific meaning as so many things can be called unique). Now why is Scotspine a threatend species? No: it is the most widespread conifer around the world. It is the Scottish crossbill, a bird in that forest only found in Scotland. Okey, sound plausible. But the Crossbill is happy to feed on contorta. even more strange: waht makes this bird so special? It s colour? No? Does look different from the two other crossbills in that area...No...They in fact fligh in the same flocks with all others, you cannot distinguish them. So what is it? It is the song. It has its own song...so that is a good reason the set it apart and to weed out all sorts of nonnative species apparantly.
Etcetc.

If biodiversity is the main reason and it cannot be local biodiversity (because our local biodiversity has gone up much by all those foreign species and not too much loss of older species). Biodiversity is global, according to them. Scots pine is not at risk. Nor is any other species in that area of any concern worldwide. Why spend so much money in your scottisch forest, while you would do A LOT more for global diversity if you would spend that money to protect the Indonesian rainforest? The fact is that ecologists and conservatist use biodiversity as a reason, but their main goal is their own nation. Not global biodiversity.

Finally: it seems to be a big problem that the Ruddy duck intebreads with the whitehead duck. They however get fertile offspring. Besides: genetic swamping has never let to the demise of any species. The Ruddyduck and the Whitetailduck are no more different than black and white people. They are the same species. But in ecology, basic human things like discrimination have not the proble of being considered morally incorrect. So even so, we must kill the Ruddyduck at sight to keep the whiteheadduck (whitetailduck??) genetically pure. Where did we read that before.

Another final example is the Sikka deer, also in England. It interbreeds with reddeer. Is the reddeer at threat wordlwide? It is not. do they produce fertiel offspring? Yes they do. So if anything, you get another species. A new species. But that is not okay: the reddeer must nbe kept genetically pure. The Sikkadeer must be shot a sight.

I think ecology is a good showcase how people can think basically when confronted with newcomers and strangers when they do not feel the pressure of morals. They tend to be prejudice, act on their prejudice etc...This is also our nature. It shows that nature and natural do not equal good and unnatural equals bad. We do not need to judge., However: it is the people at large and not some scientist who decide what happens in a countyr and what not. If I tell these examples to people, they find it totally unacceptable. The only ones who do, are ecologists and co...

I wonder what the Dutch Nurserymens's Association has to say about cutting down all non-native trees?

Just because it's not native, doesn't mean that it is invasive or doesn't provide food and habitat for wildlife.

Narrow minded people can be blind and intolerant in many ways. Here's an example. I classify people in two groups. Straight tree people and crooked tree people. Straight tree people like straight trees, matched pairs, and straight lines. Crooked tree people like crooked trees, mixed plantings and curved lines......and straight trees too! If I, as a garden designer, tried to put a crooked tree in a straight tree person's yard they wouldn't go for it. Rigid thinking with no tolerance. It's hard to educate a person with that mindset.
Good luck.

Mike

Tought topic...

I can say that I am on both sides of the barricade because professionally I am dealing with nature conservation (also some active projects of grassland conservation involving getting rid of invasive species or clearing native trees that are re-growing on abandoned meadows etc.) and on the other had my hobby is connected to "alien" species and what is more woody plants...

I think it all depends on balance and proportions... There is enough space for natural habitats in the less altered landscapes and in the more transformed ones we should allow alien species because they also produce habitats for some native species (birds, insects etc.)...

Another aspect is history and culture. Some not-native species are present here for so long that they become the inevitable element of cultural landscape. For example Robinia pseudoacacia is very invasive where I live but on the other hand it's flowers and honey produced from it are now parts of the local cuisine...

And of course most of invasions are processes we can not reverse...

Regards

CedLib

Well, in The Netherlands and elsewhere people react only if they suddenly see their local forest being chopped down. Then some local politicians explain why this is "good" and the debate gets really heated. But of course, the insist it is better. Not for any locals, but it is according and more over for those ecologists who think American trees especially (NW pacific trees do well over here) don't belong here and have all sort of bad traits.

The main problem are a majority of invasion ecologists, not the amateurs and nature enthusiasts. They have been influenced by ecologists not vice versa.

Simply read these two pdfs, which show clearly how some think.

The order is this.

1) read the first pdf.

2) the second pdf has the response to 1), whihc you find in the last few pages, not the first!

3) the second pdf starts with the final response of the writers of 1), so page 1-4 are the last ones you need to read.

1) http://www.brown.edu/Research/Sax_Research_Lab/Documents/PDFs/Essay%20on%20some%20topics_SAX.pdf

2)
http://www.brown.edu/Research/Sax_Research_Lab/Documents/PDFs/Biological%20invasions.pdf

I totally agree with Sax and Gaines.

Much similar nonsense happening here. And Cedlib, like you, due to certain aspects of my job, I sometimes have to be the "enforcer" of such ill-considered nonsense!

I am in charge of the vegetation around our city's numerous stormwater detention ponds. I got here late, fifteen years after the fact. During that entire time, prairies have been anointed as the "native" vegetation. This despite the fact that this particular plant community made up only a tiny percentage of the plant cover at the time of European settlement. This was a forest here, through and through! But now, we destroy woody plants that, although native, are "invasive" within the prairie context.

If only these zealots would concentrate on the truly problematic species, like buckthorn, which truly can completely take over sites. But no, we're worried about red twigged dogwood, probably among the most "native" plants there could possibly be in this area.

Ughhhh.....+oM

Mobile phone pics of two Sg's I saw in the garden of a possibly Victorian large, but not huge, house today. If you can age the trees you can age the house (not the house in the first pic, the one in question is hidden by trees in the adjacent lot)

{{gwi:861497}}
{{gwi:861498}}
{{gwi:861499}}

Same here: why are they introducing heathfields in amny places which are fully dependant on funding. They were natural, as humans cut down woods and started heards with sheep etc (sheep: nonnative of course, like goats..). Now because our society has evolved, heath dissapears and is at constant "threat"". Now what is the "threat"? If it were foreign species, the threat was by nonnative invasive species (Doug fir, sitka spruce etc). Although this does happen, almost all the time it is being transformed into woods by native species. These are, all of a sudden, not invasive species. They are now labelled "pioneers". A rather noble name. These pioneers are Scots pine and Betula pendula. And these are constantly removed anyways...What is the use of this? It costs money all of the time. Now NL is tiny, but they want to do this on scale the size of a bog US state all over Europe...Because all over Europe, heards are gone because of various reasons. Instead of letting things be, the EU says this seminatural habitats (seminatural sounds better than artificial I guess) are ""unique" and of high value.

So the problem...these landscapes have no natural, logic reason for being there and become constantly dependant on human intervention. And this intervention is payed by taxpayers money. Not because the people think it is important. They prefer woods, clearly prefer woods out of all landscapes. No: ecologists think it is important.
So the economy comes to a stop and yes, there are cuts on budgets. In NL of 2 billion Euro it is reduced to 475 million. Organisation start to cry out etc.

So even if you say it is a good thing to remove human induced species dispearsal and keep human induced habitats, how sustainable is this? They also use nonnative species like rabbits and Scotish Highland cattle to keep heath... Now, the wolf is nearing our borders. We know what happened in Yellowstone with the reintroduction of wolves: herbivours could not stand still and eat every developing tree and grasslands turned into forests. Waht will happen when wolves enter our country you think??

What we see is a mix of thoughts. What is good is what once was. I never heard of a nature progression, only nature conservation. Everything which is new, must be exterminated. They use double standards. If a species is brought here by humans, it is unnatural. If habitats are completely dependant and caused by mankind, it is suddenly "seminatural". If somehting massively enters a (most of times manmade habitat!!!) it is a pioneer (native) or aggresive invasive alien (foreign).

Now I know politicians are excellent in abusing terminology whenever it suits 'm. From scientist, you'd expect impartial, non valueladen wording. But ecologists, biologist and their ilk behave much more like politicians than the impartial scientists should be. They are doing science a big disfavour.

In the end, invasion ecology currently is more an ideology than science. As many black and white, good versus nad thinking dogmatic ideologists they are also going beyond what has become a standard in a civilised society: you show empathy with lives, no tonly human lives. You do not behave like a monster in savaging or planning eradication of living things. It is one of the main goals of this ideology. They will fail to reach their goals at the cost of many lives and tons of money. I already can give you manyu evidence for this failure and atrocities commited o rinsitgated by these people.

Hi!

A bit different text: My Metasequoia has survived the winter in Estonia!! I'm so happy about it!! We had very, very hard winter. 70 cm (~27 inch) snow and 3 weeks over -20C (-4F) and the hardest day was in February: -32C (-25F). Prrrr, such stupid cold >:(
My Metasequoia is quite healthy but some twigs got cold..
I'll show the picture of it in weekend, when the biggest flower fair of Estonia is going on..

Denis