Talk:List of tree genera

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.

Forestry (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Forestry, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ForestryWikipedia:WikiProject ForestryTemplate:WikiProject ForestryForestry articles

Improving the list

I have two suggestions for the list:

As the name of the list is "List of tree genera", major cells of the list should be genera, not species, in my opinion. For example, now there are four species and one subgenus of Prunus.
The list should be arranged according to a recent classification (like APG II). The major change would be melting dicots and monocots. Maybe families could be arranged by order. Krasanen (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Maybe arrangement by order is too "scientific". Another possibility which requires fewer changes would be splitting dicots into magnoliids and eudicots.Krasanen (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did the edits in 1.:

First scientific generic name, then common names.
If there are several groups, each with an own common name, or several species of a genus, they all have been placed in one line (e.g. Prunus and Annona).
If there was a species, I included an internal link also for the genus, and put "etc." after the species.
I removed internal links from family common names (e.g. "Rose family") Krasanen (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also nr. 2 done: magnoliids and eudicots separated. Krasanen (talk) 10:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is this meant to be a list of?

This article is titled "List of tree genera", yet it includes palms, ferns and bamboo which are not trees according to the definition used in the Wikipedia "Tree" article. Unless somebody can explain why these plants that are not trees are included in this list, I am going to delete them. Mark Marathon (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific? What definition on the Tree article do these plants fail to meet (I ask, as I sit looking at a vase turned from tree fern wood)? Nadiatalent (talk) 22:20, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most obviously, they don't produce woody tissue. Bamboos and tree ferns also lack secondary branches. I can't actually see any way in which these things are trees by the standard of the "tree" article.Mark Marathon (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what your source is for the definition you are using?--Kev min § 07:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article titled "tree". Mark Marathon (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What part of that article? "It most often has many secondary branches supported clear of the ground on a single main stem or trunk with clear apical dominance." doesn't mean that all trees have secondary branches. Nadiatalent (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark, do you have any reliable sources that are viable for use here though? Sourcing a statement to another wiki article is a no-go, and tree is fairly unreferenced thus not reliable for the assertion you are making.--Kev min § 19:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of tree in Heywood et al. (2007): Flowering Plant Families of the World. Kew: "A large perennial plant with a single branched and woody trunk and with a few or no branches arising from the base." If woody tissue is the criterion, only ferns of the three above mentioned groups should be excluded. From the same book: ARECACEAE: "Description ... in principle all have woody stems that terminate in a crown of leaves...". POACEAE: "SUBFAM. BAMBUSOIDEAE Usually perennial, rhizomatous, herbaceous, or woody, with hollow or solid stems and broad leaves..." However, there are many definitions; notably tree floras often include all the plants that meet a minimum height. I browse my bookcase further... For example, Cyatheaceae is included in LaFrankie (2010): Trees of Tropical Asia and Gardner et al. (2000): A Field Guide to Forest Trees of Northern Thailand. Whatever definition is used, it should be mentionded in the page. Krasanen (talk) 14:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even tree ferns fit that definition; there are major sculptures made from tree fern wood in Fiji, and if you try a Google image search for tree fern wood, you'll see a lot of very pretty items made from it. Nadiatalent (talk) 15:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be marketed as wood, but technically speaking the material in the trunks of tree ferns is not wood. The trunk is formed by the dead bases of old leaves and dense adventitious root mantle. See e.g. Dicksonia_antarctica#Anatomy and biology or search with Google 'tree ferns adventitious root stem' or something like that. Krasanen (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of trees and shrubs by taxonomic family

I'm not sure, so asking before template-tagging, but are there any concerns or support for merging this list with List of trees and shrubs by taxonomic family, which afaict covers the same territory. (with slight differences that it would be best to fix). Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]