Jump to content

Talk:Sequoiadendron giganteum/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Westonbirt photo

Something has been bothering me about showing the photo of the Giant Sequoia in an arboretum in England. To me, this tree is a symbol of the Southern Sierra Nevada. Showing a photo of it out of its natural habitat is like showing a photo of an tiger in a zoo, with the cage evident. It seems unaesthetic and displeasing to me.

I put the photo of the General Grant tree down by the table of largest trees (since that seems to make sense), so I used the arboretum shot in the taxobox.

Do people feel the same way as I do? Should I remove the arboretum shot and move the General Grant tree up to the taxobox? -- hike395 07:47, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

If you feel you have a better picture, by all means add it. Dysprosia 07:50, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I took the Westonbirt pic and find your argument most peculiar! There is certainly no "cage" around the tree. Neither is a tree a a symbol of anything. I think my pic shows the form of the tree very well. Surely, the requirement is to show the clearest shot of the tree? Moreover, I imagine there are plantations of Giant Sequioa elsewhere around the world, not just the USA. Remove it from the taxobox by all means but please leave it in the article somewhere. Thanks,
Adrian Pingstone 09:08, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I did not say there literally was a cage around the tree --- it was a metaphor. And, the symbolism of the Sequoia is evident to me (which is all I claimed). In their natural habitat, these Sequoia grow in large groves of thousand+ year old trees that dwarf you and make you feel insignificant. The first time that I walked in Giant Forest, in Sequoia National Park, it was cool and foggy, which made the whole grove quiet and majestic. It is hard to describe the feelings that these groves evoke. Walking amongst these trees, to me, is like entering a cathedral more splendid than any other I've been in.
So, I find showing a young (< 200 year old) tree in isolation, in an arboretum, out of its biological context to be discordant. If it had been a birch or elm (e.g.), I would not raise the objection.
I could leave the photo in somewhere (After all, I've felt uncomfortable about this for months, anyway, and didn't say anything). The problem is that the article is chock-a-block with photos already. If I add a new photo in the taxobox, I don't have any place to put the arboretum photo. (And, all of my sequoia photos are analog, not digital, I would have to scan them). If I swap the General Grant tree photo with the arboretum photo, then readers may wonder why we put the arboretum photo next to the table of largest trees. It isn't very logical, but I could do it in the spirit of Wikilove. --- hike395 19:25, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
P.S. Adrian: if you ever have a chance to visit Sequoia National Park, especially when it is uncrowded, I highly recommend it. Giant Sequoia are very difficult to grow outside of their natural habitat, because they have very specific soil and climate needs. I suspect there are only a handful of isolated grown trees outside of the Sierra Nevada. hike395
Hullo! I understand all your points. I put cage in quotes because, of course, I didn't think you meant cage literally.
I don't think whether you are comfortable is relevant, the only question I ask when I add a picture (and I've added about 600 now) is does the picture add to the value of the article, for the worldwide reader? It would be odd if you could say NO to that question. I think that, in your love for your country and your giant trees, you have forgotten that we are making an encyclopedia. So the reader will presumably be interested to know that such trees exist outside the USA, will have a clear picture of one such tree, and some will be able to visit Westonbirt (I live about 10 miles from it) to see it. We are not all living in the USA!!
I cannot imagine why the reader will be in any way be bothered that it happens to come against the table of largest trees. Few pics on WP articles come exactly against what they are illustrating.
My suggestion is that the article now be left as it is. You have your taxobox pic and I have my UK pic, and we can leave the matter at that. What say you?
Adrian Pingstone 09:18, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'll leave the article as it stands and end the argument. -- hike395 13:25, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Thanks.
Adrian Pingstone 16:14, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Just to add - there are plenty of places around the world where Sequoiadendron grows very well outside its natural habitat - there's tens of thousands planted in Britain, some already 53m tall (over half of the maximum recorded height in under 150 years!), so it is clearly very well adapted here; they're also growing very well elsewhere in western Europe, in the PNW north to Vancouver, New Zealand, southwest Australia, and parts of Chile. - MPF 20:53, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Actually, now that MPF has added text about the worldwide cultivation of S. giganteum, I like the Westonbirt photo! Because the photo illustrates the cultivation of S. giganteum. Thanks for adding the words, Michael! -- hike395

Usage of units

Could someone convert the largest trees table to metric, please? - MPF 20:56, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC) . . . thanks! MPF

For Heaven's sake! Do we have to have an edit war on usage of units? Please note the following from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers):

"Sometimes numbers and dates are expressed in ranges, such as "4–7" for the numbers 4 through 7. Use an en dash for these when possible. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes for more information."

Clearly dashes are acceptable, en dashes anyway. WormRunner | Talk 15:43, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Also, just wanted to point out from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers):

Use a space character between the value and the unit symbol e.g. 111 lb rather than 111lb.

-- hike395 15:58, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Categories

I deleted Category:Trees from this article, because there are a huge number of articles about species of trees, while really only a small number of articles about notable trees. So, the categorization structure should somehow reflect the taxonomy of Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life, but I don't know the plans of the participants. -- hike395 14:40, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There are no current plans to add categories to ToL articles. I suspect that if it is ever done, an article would be placed in a category for the next higher taxon (ie, a species article would be placed in the category of its genus, a genus article in its family category, etc) to mimic the taxonomy hierarchy. This would allow a dump of all the articles that fall within a given taxon to be performed easily. - UtherSRG 14:50, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Looks like two things are deterring the use of categories in ToL articles --- the daunting scale of the task, and the MonoBook categories bug (see Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#MW 1.3 categories). The latter has been fixed, not much can be done about the former. On that talk page, I suggested using common names for the category names. We can continue discussion there, if you like. --- hike395 15:03, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Cultivar Hazel Smith

I was looking for information on that type cultivar of the giant redwood, when I found a forum [1] where is said: Hazel Smith is a cultivar of Sequoiadendron giganteum. It is a blue form of Sequoiadendron and the cultivar originated in a nursery in New Jersey around 1960. The original Hazel is the name of one of the nursery owners and it was named in her honor. It is hardier then the species.

In the article here is mentioned: A recently selected cold tolerant cultivar 'Hazel Smith' is proving more successful in that area. This clone was the sole survivor of several hundred seedlings grown at a nursery in New Jersey.

It personally think that 1960 isn't quite recent, so who's right? Cheers, Tbc2 10:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Minor unverified sequoia trivia

I recall reading somewhere although I now cant find either that;

Fossil sequoias have been found on the south coast of England and in Cornwall. - Flynnbar 12:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Fossils allied to the Sequoia - Metasequoia - Sequoiadendron group are very widespread throughout the northern hemisphere. Assigning them to the modern genera is less easy; some are, but many of them are intermediate or somewhat different taxa, now classified in new extinct genera such as Drumhellera, Haborosequoia, Nephrostrobus, Peltaconus, Quasisequoia and Yubaristrobus. For a lengthy discussion, see Chapter 6 (The fossil record of Cupressaceae), pp. 54-68 in Farjon, A. (2005). Monograph of Cupressaceae and Sciadopitys (RBG, Kew; ISBN 1842460684 ) - MPF 12:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Flynnbar 22:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The first Sequoiadendron giganteum grown by John Veitch founder of Veitch Nursery was planted at nearby Killerton where he spent a great portion of his career, and had very close ties. - Flynnbar 12:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

That wouldn't surprise me. Though as Veitch collected such a large quantity of seed, everyone and their dog had Sequoiadendron seedlings within a year or two, and it isn't a particularly noteworthy point (particularly as Matthew's seed had already been planted some months earlier in Scotland). - MPF 12:49, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Wellingtonia Name

I feel it is a glaring omission not to mention explicitly that Sequoiadendron giganteum are, certainly in the south west UK, very commonly known as Wellingtonias. The two books I have to hand, Roger Phillips - Trees in Britain Europe and North America, and Hillier's Manual of Trees & Shrubs, 5th Edition, both also list Wellingtonia first as a common name for the tree. Flynnbar 22:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added a note under the naming section. - MPF 10:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Article name "Sequoiadendron"

Having a species article named after its genus is kind of odd, and in this case, unnecessary. Would anyone mind terribly if it were moved to "Giant Sequoia"? --Yath 14:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd object, as it would leave it the sole article in Category:Cupressaceae not listed at its scientific name - MPF 00:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that's not the case now, there is a huge difference between one of the most-commonly-known trees (and the world's largest) and a lot of species that are less-well-known. However, if others are also well-known, they could be listed as such.Ryoung122 01:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Comments in the Sequoia article discussion also explain the need for Genus names to avoid confusion. Because in this case, Giant Sequioa is not a Sequoia at all. See how misleading and innacurate it's common name is? It's common name makes it out to be in the Coastal redwood genus. Its good that you thought of the idea for clarity though. Mdvaden (talk) 04:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

About the paragraph..."Poland"

This paragraph is a mistake: the information is supposed to be about the presence of sequoia in Poland, but...in the sentence you find two places within USA! Who put it here, please check them again! I am not from Poland, but I do not recall any Vermont or lake Champlain in that country....At the bottom line, nobody can learn if sequoia was indeed grown in Poland, or the temperatures are given for places in USA (Vermont, Lake Champlain), and therefore the paragraph shall be "USA" not "Poland". [Cristian, 28-Aug-2006]

Tallest in the Northeastern U.S.A.

The article lists the tree at Blithewold Gardens, in Bristol, Rhode Island as the tallest, at 35 meters tall, however, according to here and here, the tree is only ~85-90 feet (~26-28m) tall. That would make this tree the tallest instead. There are a number of secondary and tertiary sources that list the Blithewold tree at 100 feet, however, wouldn't it stand to reason that the more accurate figure would be from the primary source? Assuming the primary source is accurate, it could still be the largest tree, but would not in this case be the tallest. 100 feet could also be a rounded up figure, or just a much misquoted figure in tourist information. Or it could be accurate, I don't know. -- RM 14:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"Largest" for volume, possibly misleading

The article states that Giant Sequioa is the largest tree for volume. That sentence may be misleading and innacurate. I suggest that the words be changed to something like "the species Sequioadendron giganteum contains a few trees that are the largest in the world for volume".

Particularly since there are only 7 to 15 Giant Sequoia trees known to be larger for volume than the Lost Monarch Coastal Redwood. And there may be but 7 to 15 Giant Sequoias larger than Del Norte Titan, Iluvatar, El Viejo del Norte > > > Atlas Grove and Grove of Titans Redwood Giants.

Any other ideas on a way to phrase the sentence so that it is more accurate? Mdvaden (talk) 04:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarify "Sequoia" as a common name

Didn't think anyone would object, and it's a minor edit for now - but added a sentence in the beginning of the article to clarify that the name "giant sequoia" does not mean they are sequoioa trees, and that "Sequoia" is the genus of the coastal redwood. If anyone thinks this does not clarify, feel free to share your thoughts. Again, it's a minor edit - easy to change if need be. Mdvaden (talk) 04:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

They were both at one time in the genus Sequoia, hence the name (when botanists decided that they were in separate genera, Sequoia sempervirens retained the original generic name because of the principle of priority). I think the first paragraph already makes clear that they are different, and your addition either says too much about the naming distinction, or not enough about the history behind it.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Squoias over 30,000 cubic feet

Does anyone know of a list more up to date than the one in "Wendell Flints" book? or if anyone is still out there mearsuring and searching for larger trees like wendell did in his book? Cheers --Bradluke22 (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone?

Sequoiadendron not all "world's largest' trees

Added a parenthetical statement near the beginning of the article, because Giant Sequioas are not the world's largest trees. Properly, only 7 individual Giant Sequoia trees are the largest trees. The Lost Monarch Coastal redwood, and several other coastal redwoods, have been documented to be larger than most Giant Sequoias seen in forests or urban areas. Also, historical logging data records Coastal redwoods to have been logged which were larger than any Giant Sequioas currently standing.

In short, only 7 Giant Sequioas are the world's largest trees. That's the facts. Realistically, Stagg and Boole Giant Sequoias, may be equal or slightly smaller than the Lost Monarch, which would leave only 5 Giant Sequoias as the world's largest. Likewise, only 14 are larger than the Coastal Redwood Illuvatar which holds 37,500 cubic feet - only the Column Tree up to General Sherman are larger.

Basically, even with historic data, it may nearly impossible to really know which species had the largest trees in the past. For now, the remaining specimens are the only practical trees to compare, with General Sherman and 6 other subordinate Seqoiadendrons in the Sierra Nevadas, Lost Monarch Coastal Redwood in Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Park - Illuvatar is in Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park, at the undisclosed "Atlas Grove".ThreeWikiteers (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I measured the Floyd Otter tree in 2001 & didn't know any else had been up there. Who provided the volume data for the table? Hardscrabble 208.19.60.19 (talk) 16:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Mythology

Are there no myths, legends or folklore that relate to these tree, either individually or collectively?--The Lesser Merlin (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Verify statistics in table?

There's some discussion at Talk:General Grant tree, about incorrect statistics for Giant Sequoia trees. Do any editors of this article have the Flint book handy, to verify these numbers? It's out-of-print, and not in my local library. hike395 (talk) 16:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if some are incorrect, some have been rounded to one decimal place, i have both the first and second edition of flints book here on my lap, i will check the trees in the table now. Thank you Boole22 (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Refer to this for top 30 http://www.nps.gov/archive/seki/bigtrees.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradluke22 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Tyler Arboretum photo & ref?

Hey, Bradluke22: was there a reason to delete the photo & reference? Let us know. Thanks! hike395 (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sequoiadendron commonly known as the "sequoia" as opposed tp the "redwood"

When I visited Yosemite they very specifically differentiated between the "redwood" and the "sequoia" treed as being two very separate trees. While your article does mention the common names it refers to the sequoia as a type of redwood and when one looks up merely the word sequoia in wikipedia it tells you that a sequoia is a redwood tree. Very confusing! Mslott (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the nomenclature is confusing; the Coast Redwood's Latin name is Sequoia sempervirens, where the Giant Sequoia's Latin name is Sequoiadendron giganteum, so it's understandable, since both are referred to as both Sequoia and Redwood. However, it is also the case that, while they are not the same species or genus, they are in fact rather closely related, being in the same family Cupressaceae and indeed the only two trees in the subfamily Sequoioideae so it is perhaps not surprising that their names are similar and that they're easily confused. However, the current page names follow the Wikipedia naming convention for plants. --davigoli (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
There is also a third member in the subfamily Sequoioideae: Metasequoia glyptostroboides. Krasanen (talk) 13:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, Krasanen. Thanks for the correction. --davigoli (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


Planted in Norway

There are several sequoiadendron planted along the southwest coast of Norway (around Stavanger and Bergen; encyclopedia article from Store Norske Leksikon norwegian only).


Error in Table

The table lists General Sherman with a larger girth in feet, but General Grant with a larger girth in meters. Both cannot be correct! One of the measurements or unit conversions is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.123.5.144 (talk) 19:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

An interactive map of the Sequoiadendron range could be added to the External Links section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterusso (talk • contribs) 10:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


Requested move to Giant Sequoia

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sequoiadendron → Giant Sequoia — User:Ryoung122 wishes to retitle this article. Let's discuss. —hike395 (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose for the reason that Kevmin gives. The point could be made that Sequoiadendron giganteum should be at "Giant Sequoia". The naming guidelines for plants suggest scientific names except in cases of species more widely known by their common names, so a case would need to be made that "Giant Sequoia" is more common in reliable sources.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. Both of these apparent "oppose" comments are in fact in agreement with what I think...that there should be two articles, at least: one for the genus and one for the species. In fact, in the past two articles existed, before being merged. Looking at the article history, this article has been renamed several times. Ryoung122 08:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I would note that I have proposed there be three articles at least, one genus level article and one each for every species.--Kevmin (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

As for common names, let's see: on Google search, virtually every hit for "sequoiadendron" comes with the full scientific name; only the Wikipedia article uses "sequoiadendron." This indicates that such a name is NOT a common usage. As for common usage, I think that it's quite easy to demonstrate:

http://www.nps.gov/seki/index.htm

The park is named "Sequoia National Park", NOT "sequoia national park."

The park was named long ago, however. Note the more-recently named "Giant Sequoia National Monument":

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/sequoia/gsnm.html

For this reason, I think a species-level article named "giant sequoia" would be appropriate. In actuality, a lot of commonly-named trees are named after common names. In this case, moreover, the "scientific" name is one that the average lay person wouldn't immediately guess or know the answer to.Ryoung122 08:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I will not argue that the extant species articles for Sequoiadendron and Sequoia could be placed at the common names, however the move you made yesterday and the proposal above that I oppose is to redirect the genus name to the common name. This move is based, I think, on the statement you made at on the Sequoia talk page that both Sequoiadendron and Sequoia are monotypic, which as I have shown, they are not.--Kevmin (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  1. I hope we agree that the appropriate name for an article about the genus (not the species) is Sequoiadendron. I've never heard Sequoiadendron chaneyi called Giant Sequoia.
  2. "Sequoia National Park" is more problematic than "Joshua Tree National Park" (which was argued unsuccessfully as a reason for calling the article Joshua tree: "Sequoia" has an alternate meaning. IF the park were called "Giant Sequoia National Park", it would be more accurate. More broadly, national parks are named for a lot of reasons. There are yellow stones in Yellowstone, and the canyon in Grand Canyon NP is grand by most definitions, but I'm not sure what a "yosemite" is.
  3. Google comparisons are problematic. "giant sequoia" returns "About 216,000 results", and "sequoiadendron giganteum", "About 60,600 results". But we all know that we must focus on reliable sources, and Google hits bring up blogs and other stuff that would never be allowed as individual article references. A better measure is Google Scholar. "sequoiadendron giganteum" gets around 1,780, and "giant sequoia" gets around 3,750. A lot of the latter are ecological and forestry studies, so it could be argued that even scientists go for "giant sequoia" over the species name.
  4. The flora naming guidelines] say this:

Scientific names are to be used as page titles in all cases except the following, as determined on a case-by-case basis through discussion on the WikiProject Plants talk page:

  1. Agricultural and horticultural cases in which multiple different products stem from the same scientific name (eg. brussels sprouts, cabbage & broccoli). In such a case, a separate page with the botanical description of the entire species is preferred (eg. Brassica oleracea).
  2. Plants that are sufficiently significant economically or culturally should be given a page describing their use, history and associations, with their common name as a page title. Example: coffee. Simultaneously, a separate page titled with the plant's scientific name should be created; this would be the place for botanical descriptions and relationships. Example: Coffea.
  3. Where a genus is monospecific (has only a single species), the article should be named after the genus, with the species name as a redirect. If a family contains only one genus, the article should still be at the genus name, as that is more likely to be commonly recognised. Taxa of minor rank that contain a single taxon of major rank are treated at the article on the major rank.
First, it would appear that there should be a notice at WP:PLANTS. I think we can rule out item 1, because there are no commercially used parts of the plant that are more known than the species itself. Item 3 is why the species and genus should have separate pages, since the genus is not monospecific. Item 2 seems to be salient, but it's not clear that there is enough information for two articles.
I'm willing to accept that the issue is still open, but you do need to put a notice at WP:PLANTS.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
checkY --- I just put a pointer to this discussion at WT:PLANTS —hike395 (talk) 18:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
In my considered opinion, the "Joshua tree" debate was also incorrect and should be overturned. Regardless of what guidelines at WP: Plants says, Wiki rules, guidelines, and policies are like levels of bureaucratic, administrative, and judicial authority: in theory, local administrative actions (such as a city tapping water out of a reservoir) may be subject to lower court rulings, while the lower-court rulings are subject to the upper-court (Supreme Court) rulings. Wikipedia's core policies, such as "no original research" and the argument that Wikipedia articles should reflect the outside sources, are stated to be "non-negotiable."
Aside from that, it's clear that:
A. There are two problem issues right now: the articles are currently named for the genus (which creates confusion) and
B. The Wiki policy on plants says that when something is very commonly known, such as coffee, it should be named after the common name. Please tell me that no child has heard of a "redwood." I suggested using "Coast redwood" and "Giant sequoia" as longer-term, common names, but another option is to use "redwood" and "sequoia." In any case, the articles are not named for the species, anyway (see problem A) but the genus.
Coming back to names of National Parks, it's completely irrelevant to say "what is a Yosemite?" It should be clear to any educated person that "Kings Canyon" refers to a place name and "Sequoia" refers to a tree. It's NOT correct to compare a place name to a tree. Also, as I mentioned, the more-recent Giant Sequoia National Monument made clear that this is now the preferred long-form of the common name.
Ryoung122 03:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Others agree with you about Joshua Tree, and of course anything in Wikipedia can be overturned with community consensus. I'm not sure where you came up with "original research", though; iirc the arguments hinged on reliable sources and NPOV.
Coffee is a bad example for supporting your point; it's a modified food product, not a tree, and it's neither one species (both Coffea arabica and Coffea canephora are used to make the drink), nor is it a genus (afaik Coffea mogeneti isn't). As for "redwood", it's correctly a disambiguation page. And neither Sequoia nor Sequoiadendron has a common name; imo the only issue here is what to call the species article.
Sequoia does indeed refer to a tree. Kings Canyon is indeed a place name. It's not correct to compare the name of a National Park to the name of a species; what would happen if the US Congress changed the name to "Ancient Groves National Park", or botanists decided that Wellingtonia had priority? The question here is what to name the article about Sequoiadendron giganteum. You would be better off arguing this specific case, since it seems likely that "Giant Sequoia" has a greater use in reliable sources, that to argue general principles.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Split into species articles?

At this point, I'm somewhat opposed to splitting into multiple species articles, because there is no current WP material on Sequoiadendron chaneyi, and from what I've read (e.g., [3]), chaneyi is an extinct ancestral species of giganteum, so it would be difficult to write an extensive article on chaneyi.

My proposal: let's add a section about evolution to the genus article. If that section gets large enough, then we should split the article into species articles. This is the natural progression of WP articles. —hike395 (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Technically, I agree with the "split into species" articles. It doesn't matter if the other species would be only a stub. What matters is that the current merger creates confusion: is this an article about the species, or about the genus?Ryoung122 03:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
I think it's clear right now: the title is the genus alone, per the guidelines, above. We can rewrite the first sentence to make it even clearer. —hike395 (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
From what I know its common practice to have separate articles for extinct taxa, Equus ferus ferus, Ovis aries, etc... so I do not see the problem with creating an article for Sequoiadendron chaneyi. True the article will not be anywhere near the length of Sequoiadendron giganteum, but this is common for obscure taxa and taxa described form one or two locations/fossils/places.--Kevmin (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I kind of like the idea of adding a short section to the genus article which covers any extinct species (and seeing whether it gets long enough to separate). I've never really liked the "create a stub for everything" approach, and think it works even less well for extinct species than extant ones, although of course some extinct species will merit their own articles. The wikipedia coverage of extinct species is so much less extensive than the coverage of living species, that it is a bit hard to find a lot of precedents. Kingdon (talk) 02:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Wikispecies (which has a separate article for the extant species, as one would expect) is attracting the interest of some professional biologists, so it is growing. Material tends to be copied in both directions, from -pedia to -species and vice versa. In the long run Wikipedia is very likely to gain species articles. There is a big backlog of information about fossils that isn't making it into either project though, so it seems that the lack of information about the extinct species is less likely to be corrected soon. Nadiatalent (talk) 15:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sequoiadendron/Giant Redwood

Currently, the redirect Giant redwood points to this article. However, I notice that Sequoia sempervirens claims to be commonly known as the giant redwood. Should the redirect link to there or here? Or should there be a disambiguation if both trees are known by the same common name? SFB 10:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Sequoia sempervirens article only uses the phrase "giant redwood" in the External links ([4]), where the name refers to Sequoiadendron. (I'm going to change the link description to clarify.) — Eru·tuon 21:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
But on what basis did User:Norcalal remove the listing of "giant redwood" as a common name for Sequoia sempervirens? A google search gets a very large number of hits. This is a clear case where citations are needed for lists of common names, we shouldn't just oscillate between different people's hunches about which common names are most common. Nadiatalent (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking the reference was "Gigantea." It should and is now replaced until sorted out as per citation. Norcalal (talk) 00:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sequoiadendron chaneyi

Just a note, I have finally gotten around to fleshing out and moving to live a beginning article on Sequoiadendron chaneyi. A look over the article would be good, and consideration of how better to deal with this article on a genus/species/species here should be looked at again. --Kevmin § 17:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Info on the root system of Sequoiadendron ?

It would be interesting to have a section on the extent of growth of the roots of these huge trees . Hopefully someone can complete the article on that . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.102.198 (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move to Sequoiadendron giganteum

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Sequoiadendron currently redirects here, but it can be turned into an article. Can someone knowledgeable about this please look at these redirects and see if they should redirect to either Sequoiadendron or Sequoiadendron giganteum. Jenks24 (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


Sequoiadendron → Sequoiadendron giganteum – WP:Naming conventions (flora) recommends that articles about plants have Latin species names for titles, except when there is only one species per genus. There are now two articles about Sequoiadendron species: this one, and Sequoiadendron chaneyi, an article about an extinct species. I therefore suggest moving this article. —hike395 (talk) 02:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Comments

It would neither a dab nor an SIA, since S. giganteum and S. chaneyi have different names. I'd be willing to write a short stub to restart the genus article. —hike395 (talk) 06:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
A stub would work, or a list article (list of species of the genus). 70.24.251.208 (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Neither is how we normally create plant articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Stub articles are the normal way articles are created. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. A genus with two or more species is not monotypic, even if one or more of them are extinct. The genus is wider than just S. giganteum, so the title "Sequioadendron" should be used to cover the whole genus, including all species, extinct and extant. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support. This would be similar to the move made for Ginkgo in 2008. Melburnian (talk) 07:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support, but not a move. Whether the species is extinct or not is irrelevant. The proper question is whether separate articles on the species in the genus meet the requirements for notability, etc. If they do, then there should be an article on the genus as well as articles on the species. So it's not simply a case of moving, as Hike395 has noted above. There are two rather different situations where there will only be a genus article:
  • A genuinely monospecific genus.
  • A genus where there is not enough information to warrant separate species articles – this is unlikely to be the case for extant species but can often be the case for a wholly extinct genus where only limited information exists on its species.
Peter coxhead (talk) 07:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
...what? I'm confused. So you're suggesting we not move the article? In my opinion the sequence should go move Sequoiadendron to Sequoiadendron giganteum without leaving a redirect behind, then start a new genus article stub at Sequoiadendron to discuss things that concern the genus. In this case the extinct species already has a nice article and is certainly notable. As I'm sure you're aware, in modern science literature if there was enough evidence and data to lead authors to erect a new extinct taxon, there is certainly enough to discuss in a Wikipedia article on the topic. Rkitko (talk) 14:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I am also not sure exactly what Peter is suggesting. I was planning on doing what Rkitko is suggesting, above. —hike395 (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't clear. The point I was trying to make is that this isn't a move since there should be a genus article as well as the species articles, which is what I think Rkitko is also saying. Peter coxhead (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Ah, I see. To me, that's an odd way to put it since we would actually be moving this current article to another title. The alternative "not move" procedure would be copy & paste content to the new species article or start a new one from scratch and reformat this entry to suit a genus article, both of which are ill-advised. The current article focuses on the extant species and should be moved, making way for a completely new genus article at this title. In that way I do see it as a move from one title to another. I don't see how it's not a move. Anyway, semantics. I think we're all supporting the same idea. Rkitko (talk) 01:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I have been surprised how difficult it is to get consensus on moves and merges. I tend to err on the conservative side of opening the discussion. —hike395 (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support per all the reasons above. (If I remember correctly, Dan Axelrod considered S. giganteum and S. chaneyi to be effectively conspecific, but consistently maintained separate names for fossil taxa.)--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comparison of largest Giant Sequoia

The latest edit swapping the order of General Grant and the President tree does not seem to be valid (at least, not yet). The table of largest sequoia is listed by volume of the trunk only (see the footnote). The cited article at [5] says that the President tree has 45,000 cubic feet of wood in the trunk, which is consistent with the current entry in the table (which says 45,184). The cited article then goes on to say that there is 9,000 cubic feet of wood in the branches of the President,which makes it 15% larger than the General Grant. But, the cited article does not list an update volume for the trunk of General Grant. So, this is comparing apples to oranges.

To alter the table, we need updated values of the trunk volume, OR we need to get estimates of the total wood volume above ground. Perhaps Stephen Sillett has published this data? Until we have an apples to apples comparison, I think that the table should remain in its previous state. —hike395 (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Centralizing the discussion at Talk:List of largest giant sequoias#Altering order of list based on Stephen Sillett measurements. Please make comments there. —hike395 (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Wellingtonia

This statement appears in the entry: The name "Wellingtonia" has persisted in England as a common name, though is deprecated as cultural imperialism. The statement includes a link to Robert Ornduff's article - A Botanist's View of the Big Tree. Ornduff doesn't refer to Lindley's naming of Sequoiadendron as "cultural imperialism"; quite the contrary, he says: Although the impression was given that American botanists believed that Lindley had pulled a fast one by his expeditious scientific naming of the Big Tree, I am not convinced that his rush into print reflected anything other than excitement over what he had learned of the tree. He wrote "What a tree is this! -of what portentous aspect and almost fabulous antiquity!" The history of the naming of Sequoiadendron is not especially confused - far greater confusion exists elsewhere. The resolution of the nomenclature is of immense interest, which Ornduff elaborates in an informed and balanced way. The use of Wellingtonia was a brief historical episode no more imperialist than the Swiss Carl Meissner's use of the name for what is now Meliosma arnottiana to commemorate the Duke of Wellington. The episode - a Swiss and an English botanist naming Asian and American trees to commemorate an Irishman - reflects the international collaborative nature of science not exclusive nationalism. The continued use of the name Wellingtonia in the vernacular in the British Isles – by the very few people who would recognise a Sequoiadendron/” Wellingtonia” – is a question of ethnobotanical folklore not of either botanical science nor latter-day imperialism, imagined or otherwise. Using a Wikipedia article on a botanical topic to make a pesudo-political point diminishes the both the topic under discussion and Wikipedia itself.213.94.142.94 (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)Michael Roberts

As the source given clearly doesn't support the reference to "cultural imperialism", I've removed it. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Pulling water

I wrote about the giant Sequoia tree in capillary action. I once read that there is a natural enhancement in this tree, discovered recently, that helps it get the water all the way up. Perhaps something to do with a counter-current mechanism. Anybody seen that? Could you point me to the article? Thanks פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You better look for such research in Sequoia sempervirens (Redwood) rather than Sequoiadendron (Giant Sequoia). --rosetta — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.182.34.92 (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Roots

The description is completely ignoring the root system. Can anyone add information about it? --Trickstar (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Weeping sequoia

Do you know that exists a cultivar of Weeping sequoia? I did not but I discovered one in an arboretum in France. There is nothing about this weeping cultivar in the page. So I added a paragraph in the page. A contributor reverted with this message :

poor English translation from French source, no English version on that website, s/b in 'Cultivation' section... instead, s/b added to 'Talk' page so someone may find an English source & re-add in proper section


I created a subcategory in Commons to gather the photos of this cultivar : Commons:Category:Sequoiadendron giganteum 'Pendulum'.

Is there someone to fix my 'poor translation' (I agree), choose a source and add the paragraph in the 'proper section'. Sources are easy to find :

Cultivars

Weeping Sequoia in Nancy, France

There is a cultivar of weeping tree : Sequoiadendron giganteum 'pendulum' : First, the trunk is like a steeple. The wood of this trunk is soft. When the trunk bend over to the bottom because of its weight, a new branch grows vertically as a new trunk. So the tree has an irregular shape. Lateral branches bent to the bottom. This tree can reach 4 meters high in 10 years. [1]

Friendly yours. --Tangopaso (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.pepilaurains.com/laurains/1198/boutique/35939/sequoiadendron_giganteum_pendulum.htm#.Wh6BP4WcH4Y

True Potential & Claim to Size. See note under similar heading above too. Edits coming.

Somebody sent a note about edit "war" uneccesarily when I tried to get the article accurate. So it can resolved here in one of two ways. To simplify, giant sequoias are not the largest trees in the world. Only a handful of them. So either the largest coast redwood (referenced on wikipedia) will be added back into this article to clarify ... or ... the statement about giant sequoias being largest must be removed and changed. The change can specify exactly which 8 to 12 giant sequoias are larger than any other species. This will need to correlate with the Sequoia sempervirens page's table of largest coast redwoods with the largest being over 41,000 cubic feet. Like mentioned above, even the coast redwood page does not claim those are the tallest. The page accurately mentions the species includes the tallest. A similar fix must be made to this giant sequoia page, and there are basically two options to do it. Or three options if no claim about size is made. It's worth nothing the coast redwood Grogan's Fault is sufficiently referenced from it's page so that whoever reverted my first edit was apparently mistaken. The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 07:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Stop adding your blog post as a reference to your unpublished claims about a tree to Wikipedia, all such citations and your article need deleted. You know the drill about how to get the tree officially recognized and published for its size. Do that, then come back here with that source. Wikipedia editors have spent too much time letting you use Wilipedia to advertise your business in the guise of a website link to the "biggest tree." Well done building your business reach, by the way, so many try every day to add their business to Wikipedis and fail, but you went about it remotely, very sneaky. I call BS and unreliable non-source. --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:5C (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
I think you would do better to avoid throwing accusations at the wall and simply staying on topic. We're still left with Melkor and Lost Monarch, officially nominated and on the record as national champions. Each of those is larger than scores of giant sequoias. Those and other coast redwood, fully documented, still leave the giant sequoia article needing a fix on how to phrase it. Actually, conifers.org confirms Grogan's Fault too at http://www.conifers.org/cu/Sequoia.php [1] ... So whether we included Grogan's Fault or not, what's crystal clear still leaves the giant sequoia page needing a fix. Please stay on topic, because you've written more to build your opinion that to handle the new talk subject.The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
For others who want to make progress on text improvements, here's a mainstream link to American Forest's page on a national coast redwood champion >> http://www.americanforests.org/big-trees/coast-redwood-sequoia-sempervirens-7/ [2] ... coast redwood of this size are why the clarification was suggested the other day. Also, this introduces why the comment by Mr. or Mrs. "Special Contributions" opens up another problem if they take issue with expert arborist resources. Whereas mdvaden.com's redwood pages are up-to-date for photos and information, the American Forest's redwood page has the wrong photo. American Forest is basically internationally recognized, but their page is less complete. But at least their numbers are right. The sizes and points listed are correct to the best of my knowledge. This brings us back to explaining what words describe which specific giant sequoia trees and what few of them, are bigger than other trees. It's very simple. But I'd like to hear other's ideas for text and sentence options. Thanks. The Real Luke Skywalker (talk) 00:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
We've moved from using a blog post to an email by that blog writer. Good job! "Based on multiple measurements by highly credible observers including Chris Atkins, Michael Taylor, and Ron Hildebrandt, the tree, which is named Grogan's Fault, has an estimated stem volume of 1,084.5 m3 (38,299 ft3). This is all the more impressive because it is clearly a single-stem tree (Vaden 2015, Mario Vaden email 2015.05.20)."  :) --2602:306:CD1E:44B0:F842:9971:6DAD:1A87 (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
@The Real Luke Skywalker: To be blunt, your sources FAIL WP:secondary, and this has been pointed out t you multiple times. That is why they are being removed, they are NOT verified repeated in reliable secondary sources.--Kevmin § 02:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
@Kevmin .. it's unclear who you are, but I started reading here and feel the need to chime in. You are out in left field under this heading, and arguing it seems. I checked out a couple of giant sequoia pages and found it's true, that only a dozen or so sequoiadendron are bigger than largest coast redwoods. And that's using references that qualify, unlike what you just posted. Save the Redwoods League has some information and is verifiable. American Forests has some information. Those are verifiable. There's also published works, books, about scientists and coast redwoods. The problem here is not the heading. I suggest you make an effort to help with finding references, because some apparently exist. Not a lot, but maybe enough to get the job done and improve things. With American Forests being verifiable, it's unclear if you missed what the previous person referring to them. Oganizations don't get much more verifiable than American Forests. Actually, there's an article the latter published a couple years ago that relates to this. I don't have a copy anymore, but will see if I can dig up the issue if it's online. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.163.157 (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Here's a start. Volumes aren't covered, but Save the Redwoods League (verifiable) lists coast redwood diameter over 29.2 ft. Assuming that diameter at chest height, that's gigantic. https://www.savetheredwoods.org/redwoods/coast-redwoods/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.163.157 (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Here's one more. User "kevmin" tried to dismiss this, but American Forests is completely verifiable, so we must deal with reference. Again, volume isn't stated, but the page lists 1290 points for the largest coast redwood, which isn't too far below General Sherman giant sequoia. The coast redwoods must have huge trunks to get this many points. Over 20 to 25 feet wide, or bigger. http://www.americanforests.org/explore-forests/americas-biggest-trees/champion-trees-national-register/?search_area=adv_search&bt_page_id_reset=1&species=REDWOOD&state=CA&state_opt=eq&species_opt=eq&search_val=&submit_search=Search — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.163.157 (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Found something else tonight courtesy of someone else's suggestion. The non-fiction best seller by Richard Preston includes coast redwoods up to 40,000 cu. ft. one of them being Lost Monarch. Richard Preston also worked with the research scientist in the redwoods climbing and measuring while he produced this book. [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.163.157 (talk) 04:38, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
All BUT some of the Sequoiadendon specimens known, STILL means Sequoia is the smaller species. Anytime you have to caveat something to note that its not actually doing what you suggest, that means it doesnt meet the criteria.--Kevmin § 04:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Incorrect. Just because the tallest trees known are a few coast redwood, that does not make coast redwood the tallest species. A factual true statement is that some of them are the tallest. Likewise, Bristlecone pines (plural) are not the oldest trees in the world. The species includes some of the oldest. To go to a nursery, but a 5 gallon 10 year old bristlecone and say it's one of the oldest trees in the world is false and probably foolish. Where your logic went off track, is trying to say a "species" is big or small. Notice you said "smaller". The size or weight of a species is never measured. If it is, then it's ONE, which is pretty darn small. One Sequoiadendron, one Sequoia, one Metasequoia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.163.157 (talk) 08:07, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Those who realize the difference, imagine at a nursery, one friend buys a 12 foot coast redwood, then turns to their friend and says "I just bought the tallest tree in the world". Or bought 100 of them and said "I bought the tallest trees in the world". It wouldn't make any sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.39.163.157 (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

You are aware that isnt what my point was, and that your logic works in revers as well, one specimen that is larger then other specimens does not make it the bigger of the two as is being claimed in the edits that were reversed.--Kevmin § 10:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.conifers.org/cu/Sequoia.php
  2. ^ http://www.americanforests.org/big-trees/coast-redwood-sequoia-sempervirens-7/
  3. ^ Preston, Richard (2007), The Wild Trees: A Story Of Passion And Daring. Allen Lane Publishers.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sequoiadendron_giganteum/Archive_1&oldid=1146683338"