User talk:Krasanen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Krasanen, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - MPF 00:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Norway Spruce

Hi Krasanen - thanks for the information you have added to several pages! Do you have a reference for the tallest Norway Spruce? - thanks, MPF 00:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The reference for the tallest Norway Spruce

Leibundgut, H. (1982). Europäische Urwälder der Bergstufe. Verlag Paul Haupt, Bern, Stuttgart.

It is mentioned also in many Web-sites, like: http://www.baumsamen.com/pflanzen/seite.58.htm http://www.rueggerholz.ch/weihnacht/rottanne.html Krasanen 08:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tallest trees

Hi Krasanen - I'm a little concerned about that Tasmanian Giant Trees website, as they don't give any information on their methods of measurement, or if or how they were checked and verified; the Tasmanian Forestry pdf paper does do so. What I find particularly difficult is the discrepancies between the two for measurements of some individual trees, cited as taller in the Giant Trees website than in the Forestry pdf paper. Measuring trees accurately is surprisingly difficult and very prone to over-estimation, so I tend to be extremely cautious about any claims at all where they are not accompanied by detailed information on verification; I am satisfied that the measurements cited by the Gymnosperm Database, and the Tasmanian Forestry pdf paper are so, but not the Tasmanian Giant Trees website. For further commentary (showing just how frequently trees are measured inaccurately) see e.g. here from the US Eastern Native Tree Society (sorry about the imperial figures!). What it demonstrates, is that one just cannot be too cautious or sceptical. - MPF 15:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

Please take care when editing tree articles - tasmanian blue gum edit looks like vandalism - you must put edit summaries or talk page comments why you eliminate part of a legitimate article - or you will be blocked for repeated edits like that SatuSuro 01:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi SatuSuro! Sorry that I edited without putting edit summaries or talk page comments. Now the information in the "Eucalyptus globulus" page is related to only one of four subspecies of E. globulus: Eucalyptus globulus subsp. globulus. E. maidenii and E. bicostata are not in the list in the "List of Eucalyptus species" page, and therefore I drew conclusions they are considered as subspecies of E. globulus in Wikipedia. I then created a new page for subsp. globulus and moved the content from the "Eucalyptus globulus" page there. But now I see Eucalyptus pseudoglobulus is in the "List of Eucalyptus species" page, and we should perhaps add E. maidenii and E. bicostata there. So, I edited without reading Wikipedia content good enough. Sorry! Krasanen (talk) 11:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


No problems - most eucalypt articles are low standard and not up to the available literature - and i am slowly trying to catch available articles to get a sense of what is in most need of attention (in matters of style and format - not actual content) - so if you are able to sort it all out from your point of view - good - but I myself have mainly literature from the 70's and 80's in hard copy - i think there a couple of other editors around who seem to be able to extract pdfs and other material from what appears to be thing air (or government web sites perhaps) - so for the current info on the sub species on globulus - i am the last to ask or inform - sorry to have intruded on your editing! SatuSuro 11:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

For current taxonomic information there are good Plant Checklists online:
The problem is that different herbaria have often different opinions about the status of a given taxon. In the case of E. globulus, NSW says the four taxa are distinct species, but all the others of the references above say they are subspecies of E. globulus. I suggest Wikipedia could adopt the opinion of NSW, just because it is easier (fewer articles needed), and each article could contain some mention like "some botanists consider this taxon a subspecies of E. globulus". But I think something should be done: now the four taxa are considered distinct species in Eucalyptus globulus, subspecies in Blue Gum, and List of Eucalyptus species contain E. globulus and E. pseudoglobulus but not E. bicostata and E. maidenii. In the case you think it is okay, I can make stubs for the missing three taxa and needed editing for the remaining articles. Krasanen (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a good argument to actually put the details of the differences in the main e.globulus article - that diff institutions have diff opinions needs to be mentioned SatuSuro 22:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red Cedar move

Re: your moving Toona australis to Toona ciliata - you may wish to back that up with facts, i.e a published botanical source showing the species merge or some such. Otherwise, I can see your edits being reverted. Such is the nature of Wikipedia. Peter1968 (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peter1968! I have already listed two botanical sources listed in Toona ciliata:
  • NSW FloraOnline by Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney. See:
http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/NSWfl.pl?page=nswfl&lvl=sp&name=Toona~ciliata
In that site the current name of the Red Cedar is Toona ciliata M.Roem. and Toona australis (F.Muell.) Harms is a synonym.
  • GRIN Taxonomy for Plants by USDA, ARS, National Genetic Resources Program. See:
http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?36753
Also in this site the current name is T. ciliata M.Roem., and there are 3 synonyms: Cedrela toona, Cedrela velutina, and Toona australis Harms. This site gives natural distribution: Afganistan, China, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Myanmar, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, AUSTRALIA (NSW and Queensland).


Other online sources, for example:
  • Australian Plant Census by Council of Heads of Australasian Herbaria. See:
http://www.anbg.gov.au/cgi-bin/apni?taxon_id=63392
Toona ciliata M.Roem. is again the correct name and Toona australis (F.Muell.) Harms is a synonym.
  • Global Biodiversity Information Facility. See:
http://data.gbif.org/species/13744241/
The correct name is Toona ciliata Roemer. Synonyms are missing but the common name is Australian Redcedar. Also the distribution map shows that Australia is included in the distributional range. (The map does not show the total range and it includes also some areas where the species is exotic.)
  • AgroForestryTree Database by World Agroforestry Centre. See:
http://www.worldagroforestry.org/Sea/Products/AFDbases/AF/asp/SpeciesInfo.asp?SpID=1649
The current name is Toona ciliata M.Roem. and there are six synonyms including Toona australis (F. Muell.) Harms. Common names are: Australian red cedar, Australian toon, Burma cedar, Burma toon, Indian cedar, Indian mahogany, Indian toon, moulmein cedar, Queensland red cedar, red cedar, toon tree, toona tree. Geographic distribution, native: Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam. Australia is missing from this list but identity of the species is clear because of the synonym T. australis and the common name Australian red cedar.
  • NCBI taxonomy database. See:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Info&id=67918&lvl=3&p=mapview&p=has_linkout&p=blast_url&p=genome_blast&lin=f&keep=1&srchmode=1&unlock
Toona ciliata is the correct name and Toona australis is a synonym.
  • Integrated Taxonomic Information System by Smithsonian Institution. See:
http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=29029
Toona ciliata. Taxonomic Status, Current Standing: ACCEPTED
Search result for Toona australis: Taxonomic Status, Current Standing: NOT ACCEPTED - SYNONYM. Krasanen (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Heritiera/Argyrodendron

The paper is

Wilkie et al, Phylogenetic Relationships within the Subfamily Sterculioideae (Malvaceae/Sterculiaceae-Sterculieae) Using the Chloroplast Gene ndhF, Syst. Bot. 31(1): 160-170 (2006)

I haven't seen the paper, only the abstract, but I've extracted the sequences from GenBank and plugged and chugged them through Phylip. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)