Jump to content

Talk:Betula papyrifera

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tennessee

[edit]

I have removed a question posed in the article, but wish to answer it here. The question was why they saw paper birch in Tennessee. It exists in TN naturally(although exceedingly rare, rated as 'critically imperiled' for TN), or it could be there horticulturally. Humans tend to plant pretty trees well outside their native ranges. So, either said Wikipedian saw a rare naturally-occurring paper birch in TN, or it was horticultural planting. FUNgus guy 18:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Does anyone know if there is a purpose behind the exfoliation of the bark? Axaladl (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply to permit the expansion of the trunk caused by growth. But it also sheds epiphytic algae, fungi, lichensPlantsurfer (talk) 08:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reassess

[edit]

We looked this over in class. It is our consensus that this is barely a start-class article. First, it is poorly written, with incomplete sentences, ambiguous phrases, grammatical errors, punctuation faults, typos (of should be or) how do we go on. Citations are unclear, and the article is mostly uncited. This could improved by better integrating the massive quotation, explaining what that big tree reference means, better lead, expand the culture section and the history section, better integrated pictures that go with the description, so we can see it and read it. Etc Etc Etc. Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

The World Checklist of Selected Plant Families now considers Betula kenaica to be a synonym of B. papyrifera.[1] Think it should be merged? Benny White (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What authority are we preferring? B. cordifolia is also listed as a subspecies by some authors (USDA), should that be merged too?Wasp32 (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe they should be merged as they seem to be completely different from my research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.232.101 (talk) 02:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subspecies

[edit]

Can somebody else clarify this. I listed some of the subspecies which seem to exist and added some clarification that like 3 are separate species. I don't know enough about this taxonomy to take a position myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasp32 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Betula papyrifera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Betula papyrifera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:24, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism point in Culture

[edit]

This point regarding vandalism of bark is uncited, but also is it really an element of culture particularly relevant to B. papyrifera? EntUrsprache (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Communicating Science

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2023 and 8 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EntUrsprache (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by EntUrsprache (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Betula_papyrifera&oldid=1194935035"