Talk:Monterey Pine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

How's that moving trick done? Maybe this should really be "Monterey pine". I think "radiata pine" is a NZ invention, derived from "pinus radiata". --pm67nz - Never mind - noticed the "Move this page" link! --pm67nz ......

Congratulations! It can be tricky, first time.

Nope: it's a very common name for Pinus radiata in many places around the world. Here in Australia, for example, we also call them "Radiata Pine". There is, in other words, no "right" place to list this.

There are a couple of Wikipedia rules (well, more loose guidelines actually) that apply here:

• Use the most readily recognised unambiguous common name. Unfortunately, there isn't one, in this case. Montery Pine and Radiata Pine are both common. Say "Monterry Pine" in New Zealand (or a lot of other places) and no-one will know what you are talking about. But "Radiata Pine" has exactly the same problem, only in reverse.

• In International English vs US English conflicts, the 'pedia rule is to go with whichever one is first used: in this instance, it's "Radiata Pine".

• But then there is the argument that, seeing as it is native to N Am,erica, the N American name should take primacy. (I know that if an American or an Englishman tries to use a foreign (i.e., UK only) name for an Australian native species, I'll revert them quick smart.)

All of which leaves ..... a confusing mess! Neither name is satisfactory for an international encyclopedia. In fact, it seems to me that the only way to resolve this tricky one is to place the page under the only title that the species is universally recognised by: i.e., Pinus radiata - with, of course, appropriate redirects from Monterey Pine and Radiata Pine. I'll do that in a moment. Tannin 07:42, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Frequently in NZ it refered to as just simply "radiata" and there is no confusion. The name "Monterey Pine" is almost never used but sometimes comes up as an afterthought.ping 10:38, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Yeah. We sometimes say just "radiata" over here too. Either that or "more bloody pine trees". Depends on the context, really. Tannin

For the record, the page first appeared as "Pinus radiata", so now it's done the full cycle! There was also a preexisting link to "Monterey pine" from the pine page. I changed the page from "radiata pine" to "monterey pine" because that is the original common name, even though as a kiwi I never use it (or even remember it). Given redirects it doesn't matter for the purposes of finding the page, just perceved 'correctness', and there is no way anyone could object to "monterey pine" on those grounds, whereas "radiata pine" (no matter where exactly it was coined) mildly annoys me whenever I hear it, because my guess is that it originated with people unwilling to say anything as pretentious as "Pinus radiata" but not knowing any other name! pm67nz

Not sure about that. People talk about contorta and bloody ellioti and radiate fits neatly into the same shorthand. Also people talk about Scots Pine vs Radiata pine. Whatever. It doesn't really matter. Fortunately these days hardly anyone still talks about Kauri pine, Red pine or White pine which are all NZ natives and not pinus at all. ping 08:28, 19 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Conservation Status

I'm a bit surprised that this species' conservation status is Low Risk rather than Secure. I very much doubt that radiata will that ever disappear from New Zealand or Chile, given its commercial value. I think there is almost zero risk of extinction. --GringoInChile 16:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess it is because many of the native population are seriously threatened. SCHZMO ✍ 23:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pinus radiata

help me someone i have to find out how it was logged!

[edit] Initial class and importance ratings of article set forth

I have added the project california tag and suggested an initial rating of "B" and a class of high importance. The B rating stems from the fact that the article is usable, and further:

Writing: Satisfactory NPOV: Satisfactory Images: Satisfactory References: Fair Breadth: Fair

The reason i assign a high importance is that there are not all that many full stature native trees in California, and this one had a large historic coastal range; further, its forests are associated with a high rate of endemiscism of lower plants. Would like to her others' ideas. Anlace 15:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Must admit I'd differ slightly in interpretation - much as narrow endemics are of interest to plant nerds like us, globally, they are of relatively low importance (for the Calif project, I'd count as important species those that are widely distributed, or iconic like Sequoia sempervirens, etc). But equally, Monterey Pine is one of the most important species in global plantation forestry, so that does increase its importance (to humans). Of improving the article - first and foremost, a good photo of the species in its native habitat, for the taxobox. Can't do this myself, regrettably. Currently all the pics at commons are of cultivated trees (to which I could add any number more if I wanted to!). Otherwise, some refs and more details on taxonomy, distribution (inc. map), etc (which I can do). - MPF 10:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

i agree with most of your observations MPF, but i stick with my opinion of "high". this article is certainly as important as Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. i dont think one has to be a plant nerd in California to appreciate the role of a majestic tree, which happens to have broad use to humans and whose own endemicism is linked to habitats for many other endemics. anyway plant nerds have at least an equal voice to baseball fans out here [i happen to fall in both categories :) ]. i shall get a photo of this tree at some point also. best regards. Anlace 15:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

"this article is certainly as important as Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" Never heard of them! Grief, the page doesn't even have a photo! Definitely "low" importance :-) MPF 16:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)