How we read the woodland

Sources before superlatives

We favour managing organisations, botanical institutions, conservation assessments and relevant scientific literature. Topic pages link to useful starting sources. An institutional overview may explain a place; a research paper may be necessary for a contested mechanism. Neither should be presented as evidence for a claim it does not actually address.

Room for uncertainty

Tree records change, species assessments are revised and scientific explanations develop. We distinguish established observations from estimates and avoid precise figures when their methods or currency cannot be stated confidently. Our summaries are introductions, not exhaustive reviews or live inventories.

Conservation is the context

We do not publish restricted locations of sensitive trees or rare plants. We encourage designated routes, footwear hygiene where required and respect for local restrictions. Forests are also cultural landscapes: local and Indigenous knowledge should not be erased by a story that begins only when a plant enters a scientific publication.

Independence and limits

This website is not a park authority, botanical institution, scientific journal or emergency service. References do not imply endorsement or affiliation. We do not sell tours, certify plant identifications or offer foraging advice. Our contact tool creates a draft locally; it is not a staffed live chat.

Corrections are welcome

If a claim needs correction, send the page address, the wording concerned and a credible source. Explain whether the issue concerns a name, measurement, definition or interpretation. Please do not include confidential information or precise sensitive-species coordinates.

Send a botanical question