Talk:Pine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Talk:Pine/Archive 14 Apr 2004

We need a disambiguation page between pine the tree and PINE the unix email client...


Some asian pines added. Tmesipt. 3.6.04.

Contents

[edit] Sorting the list(s)

I took a stab at sorting the list and it doesn't come out quite right and it's time for bed, but it looked like this:

Many more species occur in Mexico south of the US border (some just into the US in Arizona & New Mexico), including:

Simple sort with a spreadsheet, but looks like I'd need to get a little fancier; presumably we'd want to do the sorting on the visible part, eh what?

Are there really a dozen kinds of piñons? (bark beetle got 'em all in much of New Mexico. Awwww ...)

;Bear 07:29, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC)

I agree that the list should be sorted by common name, not by species name. The vast majority of the visitors to this page are not experts --- they would browse a list with a common name in mind, not a species name. I would also fold the Pinyons into one major header, with no links (yet) to individual species that are Pinyons:
  • Pinyon pines:
    • Big-cone pinyon - P. maximartinezii
    • Johann's pinyon - P. johannis
    • Nelson's pinyon - P. orizabensis
    • etc.
-- hike395 15:19, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Most other genera on Wikipedia are listed either alphabetically by Latin name (usually with the Latin name first), or else in taxonomic order. With several pines having more than one widely used common name, but only one Latin name, I reckon listing by Latin name is safer as well as fitting the Wiki standard better. When I get round to it (fairly soon I hope!), I'll be including a taxonomic order list at Pinus classification. - MPF 11:14, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'm also embarking on changing all the conifer species pages, starting with pines, to caps (i.e. Loblolly Pine, rather than Loblolly pine), as per the recently established Wiki standard at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life (see the talk pages there, or ask User:UtherSRG). - MPF 11:14, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and yes, 12 pinyons (plus seven more if you include other related species in subgenus Ducampopinus); 6 of them are Mexican endemics. Eventually, I'll get round to doing a page for each of them, with the current pinyon pine page as a group introduction. - MPF 11:14, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think we could find the space for not only the normal list by Latin name but also another list by common name, and that one can refer to the other. ;Bear 17:10, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC)
Good idea if it will fit easily; I'll try to work on it sometime, as two parallel columns (like e.g. the genus list at Ericaceae), but might be a tight fit for those with small computer screens? - it would look awful if long lines ran over and messed up the columns - MPF 20:45, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I think the list is so long that it deserves its own page. Or rather, two pages, one for each sorting order. -- hike395

Trial for fit in two columns (using the species with the longest names) MPF 16:49, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Alphabetic by scientific name
Alphabetic by english name

Fits OK on my screen, provided there's no pics in the way. Not sure how it would look on a small 640 x 480 screen, though. MPF 16:57, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You don't like the separate page idea? -- hike395
Hi Hike - it is an option, but not one I'm hugely in favour of, I must admit. It means if you add something new, it has to be done on two pages. Discovered this the hard way - I'm rather regretting having created the pages live oak, white oaks and red oaks in addition to list of Quercus species. Adding Texas live oak had to be done on three pages! - MPF 20:17, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Oh, I see what you mean. I was assuming that the list was already exhaustive, but it sounds like it isn't. -- hike395
Yep, not yet complete; there's about half of the Mexican species I've not added yet, and the pinyons & bristlecone pines to link direct to their own individual pages (not written yet!) rather than group pages. Also, it never can be exhaustive, varieties may get raised to full species or vice-versa, and new species discovered (I know of one new pine recently found in Vietnam and not yet formally named & described**) - MPF 09:30, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
"about half of the Mexican species I've not added yet" - Done now - MPF 14:16, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is a great page. Lots of good work here. Question: is there a reason why the ToC is way down there? Is that someone's preference? Most articles try and force the ToC to the opening screen area as that is where it does the most good (personally, I do not even like the ToC, but I like it buried way down in the text even less). - Marshman 04:09, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I guess because no paragraph title was put in higher up . . it got gradually pushed down as I expanded the description. I'll add a header higher up sometime soon (I'd actually like to rejig the page a fair bit, so might do it at the same time). MPF 20:40, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

**Now, with some others, described and added to the list; refs.: R. Businsky (2004), A revision of the Asian Pinus subsection Strobus (Pinaceae), Willdenowia 34: 209-257; and R. Businsky (2003), A new hard pine (Pinus, Pinaceae) from Taiwan, Novon 13: 281-288. - MPF 00:38, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Height?

This article doesn't include the height of pine trees. This should be added. —Simetrical (talk) 00:57, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Very variable from species to species (3m to 80m). It is generally mentioned for each individual species. - MPF 23:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] i wanna know the development of pine and some other info

what's the growth rate / how long do they take to become a big tree / aging status/ death


also

  • harmfui insects and treament

thaks!

[edit] Gametophyte vs. sporophyte

The phrases "male cone" and "female cone" make me cringe a bit...

Cones are part of the sporophyte. The sporophyte doesn't produce gametes and are strictly speaking incapable of having gender.

The pollen and ovules are gametophytes. They produce gametes; they have genders.

Maybe a minor point, but once you start referring to sporophytes as male and female it starts getting difficult to understand the life cycle properly. I'm also tempted to add reference to the scales of the cones as sporophylls and introduce the term "strobilus". Paalexan 00:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Point taken, but these are widely used terms. They are included in serious floristic works - when there's such marked differentiation between the organs producing them, I can't really see persuading people not to apply gender names to them. The same could be said of e.g. male and female flowers on some flowering plants (e.g. oaks, hollies); again, widely used terminology.
Yeah, but lots of people who write floristic works don't really know what they're talking about. :-) "Pollen cone" and "seed cone" seem like perfectly comprehensible & intuitive terms that describe things more accurately... Paalexan 02:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
On strobilus, this is already mentioned in the conifer cone article (a page I've been meaning to do more on for ages!), and would be better expanded on there, rather than on every conifer genus page - MPF 09:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
Ah, OK, that makes sense. Paalexan 02:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other species?

I found the following pine species in Ecology and Biogeography of Pinus that were not included in the article, and was wondering whether they are actually distinct species:

  • Pinus dabeshenensis – Pinus armandii var. dabeshenensis
  • Pinus donnell-smithii – synonym of Pinus hartwegii
  • Pinus nubicola – synonym of Pinus apulcensis (a.k.a. P. oaxacana)

--Schzmo 23:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Idents to right - MPF 00:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I.D. this Tree

Does anyone know what kind of pine this tree is? It was taken in a park near Madison, WI. --71.117.38.45 01:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It is most likely a Red Pine (Pinus resinosa). The one in the foreground in the top right corner looks like Eastern White Pine (Pinus strobus). (Red Pine, Eastern White Pine, and Jack Pine are the only pines that grow naturally in Wisconsin). SCHZMO ✍ 11:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fossil Record

one of the questions that most of the botanical pages bring up are the relations between the modern members of the family and the extinct members. How and where should this be adressed? For example I work at an Interpretive center in Washington state and we have 3 pinus species present in the fossil record here: P. macrophylla, P. tetrafolia, and P. latahensis how whould one relate them to this entry in Wikipedia? Kevmin

Bit of a tricky one - There are more named pine fossils (at least a couple hundred) than there are living pine species, and very few of them have been researched well enough to determine whether they are genuinely distinct, or the same as another earlier-named pine fossil. There is also a naming problem, "Pinus macrophylla" is an invalid name, as that name has already been used for another, extant pine back in 1839. So adding just three would be a bit out-of-place in the rest of the article. Maybe a new page on Pinaceae fossils could be started, but it'll be a big task to put together anything useful. Everything would need to be placed in the context of its dating (pine fossils cover a span of about 120 million years), and relationship, if any known, to other pine fossils and modern pines - MPF 01:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name origins: German "Föhre"

The article was incorrect concerning the German equivalent of "Föhre":

  • Föhre is used in all of Germany, not only in parts. Both names Kiefer and Föhre. Kiefer is the usual name, but Föhre is equally valid. Föhre is known to at least all people dealing with plants (forresters, gardeners, botanists). Föhre is the original name.
  • The article was wrong in stating that the word Kiefer is unrelated. In fact it is related, but the relationship is not easy to see. It is derived from Kien-Föhre, named after the Kienspan that was made from the resin-rich wood. These Kienspäne (plural) were used as candles.

Kind regards, 213.39.216.41 20:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/i/n/Talk%7EPine_8a65.html"