{"title":"寻找玛土撒拉:一个古老故事的新光","authors":"Daniel W. Pritchett","doi":"10.3959/TRR2019-10b","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Edmund Schulman is rightly honored for quantifying the age of bristlecone pines and discovering individuals significantly older than giant sequoias (Sequoiadendron gigantea), previously thought to be the oldest living things. However, George Engelmann inferred the potential for great age in his description of bristlecone pine (Pinus aristata) almost a century before, in 1863. Staff from Inyo National Forest re-made Engelmann's inference, and publically asserted that White Mountain bristlecones might outlive giant sequoias before Schulman had published any results of his bristlecone research. Schulman sampled White Mountains pines after seeing a photograph and caption associated with an article by founders of the University of California White Mountain Research Station. Although Schulman's correspondence and publications make this clear, incorrect theories regarding his decision to come to the White Mountains have been published and are promulgated at the Schulman Grove Visitor Center in the White Mountains. This paper places Schulman's work in its historic context by recovering forgotten information about attempts by Inyo National Forest staff and White Mountain Research Station to call attention to the trees. It also recovers details of Schulman's and C. Wesley Ferguson's activities in the White Mountains range as documented in field notes and Thomas Harlan's Bristlecone Pine Project database.","PeriodicalId":54416,"journal":{"name":"Tree-Ring Research","volume":"77 1","pages":"20 - 31"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Finding Methuselah: New Light on an Old Story\",\"authors\":\"Daniel W. Pritchett\",\"doi\":\"10.3959/TRR2019-10b\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Edmund Schulman is rightly honored for quantifying the age of bristlecone pines and discovering individuals significantly older than giant sequoias (Sequoiadendron gigantea), previously thought to be the oldest living things. However, George Engelmann inferred the potential for great age in his description of bristlecone pine (Pinus aristata) almost a century before, in 1863. Staff from Inyo National Forest re-made Engelmann's inference, and publically asserted that White Mountain bristlecones might outlive giant sequoias before Schulman had published any results of his bristlecone research. Schulman sampled White Mountains pines after seeing a photograph and caption associated with an article by founders of the University of California White Mountain Research Station. Although Schulman's correspondence and publications make this clear, incorrect theories regarding his decision to come to the White Mountains have been published and are promulgated at the Schulman Grove Visitor Center in the White Mountains. This paper places Schulman's work in its historic context by recovering forgotten information about attempts by Inyo National Forest staff and White Mountain Research Station to call attention to the trees. It also recovers details of Schulman's and C. Wesley Ferguson's activities in the White Mountains range as documented in field notes and Thomas Harlan's Bristlecone Pine Project database.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54416,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Tree-Ring Research\",\"volume\":\"77 1\",\"pages\":\"20 - 31\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Tree-Ring Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3959/TRR2019-10b\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"FORESTRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Tree-Ring Research","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3959/TRR2019-10b","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"FORESTRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
ABSTRACT Edmund Schulman is rightly honored for quantifying the age of bristlecone pines and discovering individuals significantly older than giant sequoias (Sequoiadendron gigantea), previously thought to be the oldest living things. However, George Engelmann inferred the potential for great age in his description of bristlecone pine (Pinus aristata) almost a century before, in 1863. Staff from Inyo National Forest re-made Engelmann's inference, and publically asserted that White Mountain bristlecones might outlive giant sequoias before Schulman had published any results of his bristlecone research. Schulman sampled White Mountains pines after seeing a photograph and caption associated with an article by founders of the University of California White Mountain Research Station. Although Schulman's correspondence and publications make this clear, incorrect theories regarding his decision to come to the White Mountains have been published and are promulgated at the Schulman Grove Visitor Center in the White Mountains. This paper places Schulman's work in its historic context by recovering forgotten information about attempts by Inyo National Forest staff and White Mountain Research Station to call attention to the trees. It also recovers details of Schulman's and C. Wesley Ferguson's activities in the White Mountains range as documented in field notes and Thomas Harlan's Bristlecone Pine Project database.
期刊介绍:
Tree-Ring Research (TRR) is devoted to papers dealing with the growth rings of trees and the applications of tree-ring research in a wide variety of fields, including but not limited to archaeology, geology, ecology, hydrology, climatology, forestry, and botany. Papers involving research results, new techniques of data acquisition or analysis, and regional or subject-oriented reviews or syntheses are considered for publication.
Scientific papers usually fall into two main categories. Articles should not exceed 5000 words, or approximately 20 double-spaced typewritten pages, including tables, references, and an abstract of 200 words or fewer. All manuscripts submitted as Articles are reviewed by at least two referees. Research Reports, which are usually reviewed by at least one outside referee, should not exceed 1500 words or include more than two figures. Research Reports address technical developments, describe well-documented but preliminary research results, or present findings for which the Article format is not appropriate. Book or monograph Reviews of 500 words or less are also considered. Other categories of papers are occasionally published. All papers are published only in English. Abstracts of the Articles or Reports may be printed in other languages if supplied by the author(s) with English translations.