This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/03/in-praise-of-the-national-tree
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
Version 0 | Version 1 |
---|---|
In praise of … the national tree | In praise of … the national tree |
(about 13 hours later) | |
Scotland's decision last week, following a public consultation, to designate the Scots pine as its national tree is clear and logical. But it prompts the question, probably not often asked until now, of whether the United Kingdom, from which the nationalist government wishes Scotland to separate, itself lays claim to a national tree? England, by general consent, has a de facto national tree in the form of the English oak, scientific name Quercus robur, which is also, problematically, sometimes dubbed the French oak. Wales honours Q robur's cousin the sessile oak, Q petraea, as its national tree, though this is also known, confusingly, as the Cornish oak. To complicate matters further, the sessile oak is also claimed by the Irish republic. All of which suggests that, though oaks of various kinds are probably the closest that Britain has to a national tree, the post might tactfully be treated as vacant. A seconder for the bong tree, anyone? | |
• This article was amended on 4 February 2014. An earlier version referred to Quercus rubor rather than Quercus robur. |
Previous version
1
Next version