It’s on multiple Facebook pages, appears in Pinterest image collections, and is featured as a photo of a “Losu” tree, also described as “snow in April,” a species of which there are reportedly only three examples in China and that will be on the verge of extinction.
This specific post generated almost 2,500 reactions, over 140 comments, with only two users pointing out the fact that it was “fake” — and, by the time the Observer analyzed it, it had already been shared more than 900 times. But a little attention to detail in the image quickly raises suspicions about its veracity, given the enormous similarity to any digitally generated content retouched in editing software. But there are less subjective facts that leave clarification.
In the database of Botanic Gardens Conservation International, an association that has access to the collections of botanical gardens in more than one hundred countries, there is no reference to a tree with the name “Losu”. The same is true of the International Plant Names Index: zero results in a search with the same word, supposedly referring to a rare species.
In fact, this word only presents two types of results in Google, when searched: websites or Facebook profiles that publish the image published in this article (sometimes accompanied by comments that describe it as “false”) or pages that report publication as digital. manipulated or created by artificial intelligence.
The actual tree that is possibly related to the one pictured is known as a “summer snow” or “paper tree” (of which there are examples in mainland Portugal, for example). It is a tree of the genus Melaleuca, of the Myrtaceae family, which comes in different varieties and which, thanks to its white branches in the warmer times of the year, earned it this nickname, but even so, it is far from have the same appearance as what is described as “a species of which there are only three specimens”.
Conclusion
This image is fake. It is quite different from any so-called “snow” tree that actually exists. It has no correspondence in international botanical databases. And it looks like a digitally created or manipulated image. In addition, not even the trees scientifically and officially identified as “the rarest in the world” have only three specimens.
Thus, according to the Observer classification, this content is:
MISTAKEN
In the Facebook rating system this content is:
FAKE: Key content claims are factually inaccurate. This option generally corresponds to “fake” or “mostly false” ratings on fact-checking sites.
NOTE: This content was curated by The Observer as part of a fact-checking partnership with Facebook.
Source: Observadora
