"P van Rijckevorsel" wrote in message .. .
David Hershey schreef
Probably they tested it and found that it didn't break the record so
there was no reason to publish a followup. Even ring counting of trees
might underestimate the age of some trees.

+ + +
Well, to be exact, ring counting is of very limited use. A tree does not
have to make a ring every year, or on the other hand, does not have to
restrict itself to one ring per year. There is also the matter of pieces of
wood from a plant that has been dead for awhile.
PvR

So, how accurate are ring counts for the bristlecone pines? Would you
estimate ring counts are within say 1% or 5% of the actual age? Or are
they less accurate?

The Guinness Book of World Records reports that the 'Prometheus'
bristlecone pine had 4,867 rings when it was cut down. So should
Guinness report a range for the age, such as 4,876 plus or minus 5%?