Hi everyone,
The leitmotiv to identify this tree is to identify a fungus living on it. By the distribution pattern seem to be planted. I think that it belongs to the genus Fagus, but I not sure to be F. sylvatica. Can anyone help?
Thanks in advance,
zaca

Location data:
Continent: Europe
Country: Portugal
City: Lisboa (or Lisbon, capital of the country)
Place: Parque Aventura, some 5 km west of the city boundary

It sure looks like European Beech (Fagus sylvatica) with Lichens growing on the bark.

The fruits of Fagus sylvatica are fuzzy, the ID plant's is smooth. Unless they start off smooth and become fuzzy later it would seem to be something else.

Fruits of Fagus sylvatica

https://www.google.ca/search?q...

sooby said:The fruits of Fagus sylvatica are fuzzy, the ID plant's is smooth. Unless they start off smooth and become fuzzy later it would seem to be something else.

Yep, I never even opened/enlarged the photo showing fruit ... it's definitely NOT Fagus sylvatica!

Could it be Celtis australis?

https://www.google.ca/search?q...

Edited to add there is apparently a specimen in the university garden in Lisbon that could be used to compare:

https://www.monumentaltrees.co...

Nettle Tree (Celtis australis) is found in Lisbon: https://www.monumentaltrees.co...

Thankfully I created this topic because I was (mistakenly) convinced that it was a Fagus. At the end, it seems that the key is the smooth roundish fruits.
Many thanks to the participants in the discussion: plantladylin and sooby.
Best regards,
zaca

I think @sooby nailed the ID. Check out the images on this page for comparison:
http://tree-species.blogspot.c...

Leaves and fruit: http://www.alamy.com/stock-pho...

Bark: https://hiveminer.com/Tags/can...

Incidentally (?), those are not fungi on the tree bark. They are lichens. One is a crustose type lichen, the other is a foliose type.

I agree with plantladylin, in that sooby identified this tree, resulting as Celtis australis; My acknowledgement by that.
The comment by Leftwood seems unfocused; I never pretended that the fungus I want to identify was in the photos attached with the purpose of identifying the tree; that's why I wrote "The leitmotiv to identify this tree is to identify a fungus living on it". It happens that I'm also a lichen lover and know very well that the photo with the trunk of the tree as many lichens attached and not only one crustose and one foliose. In fact, among the foliose we can see several of the genus Parmotrema (the grey ones on the right) and also several of the genus Physcia (the light bluish dispersed by the trunk); Among the crustose there are mainly two of the genus Pertusaria (one with the thallus clearly yellow, probably P. heterochroa) and one with whitish thallus; in addition at the bottom of the photo one can see one with black apothecia (probably, of the genus Buellia) and another with tan coloured thallus that is not possible to identify to genus only on the basis of a photo.
Best regards to all,
Grateful,
zaca

I agree with plantladylin, in that sooby identified this tree, resulting as Celtis australis; My acknowledgement by that.
The comment by Leftwood seems unfocused; I never pretended that the fungus I want to identify was in the photos attached with the purpose of identifying the tree; that's why I wrote "The leitmotiv to identify this tree is to identify a fungus living on it". It happens that I'm also a lichen lover and know very well that the photo with the trunk of the tree as many lichens attached and not only one crustose and one foliose. In fact, among the foliose we can see several of the genus Parmotrema (the grey ones on the right) and also several of the genus Physcia (the light bluish dispersed by the trunk); Among the crustose there are mainly two of the genus Pertusaria (one with the thallus clearly yellow, probably P. heterochroa) and one with whitish thallus; in addition at the bottom of the photo one can see one with black apothecia (probably, of the genus Buellia) and another with tan coloured thallus that is not possible to identify to genus only on the basis of a photo.
Best regards to all,
Grateful,
zaca

Regardless of all the other distracting comments:

None of the leaves illustrated, nor the branching of the twigs, suggested European Beech. The leaves illustrated none of Beech's typical wavy margins, nor the typical character of Beech twigs. Fagus sp. as an ID was a dead end.

Congrats to those who recognized that the one fruit illustrated was of a completely different genus. Where might this have run if not for that recognition? Would there still be combativeness about lichens?

Look for the most gross ID features first, and then chase down the details and peripheral features LAST. That saves a lot of dead-end searching, and eliminates the rebuttal comments - which are usually useless.

Being more attentive now, it seems that this species is spread and here it is used by the municipal services to plant new urbanizations, as in the case of the attached photograph, taken in my field trip today and to which I superimposed some of the details.

Is the bottom inset the same tree!?

I am afraid of not having understood the question posed by porkpal, whom I thank.
The photograph shows a trunk and two more distant specimens of the species under analysis. The superimposed fruits and leaves are from these trees.
Regards,
zaca

Hello folks. We just moved in to a new house that has this plant in it! It's looking a bit sad. Any ideas what it is so we can figure out how best to care for it?

Hi Blooca:

Welcome to the site, and to the Plant ID forum.

You should start a new thread with your ID request - or ask one of this site's Admin's to help you do so.

Posting at the end of someone else's thread (and especially this very old one) is not conducive to you getting prompt informative replies to your question.