Wikipedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Sequoia sempervirens

2014-09-08T12:32:55Z

ThreeWikiteers: /* Range and Ecology change suggested / sought */ new section

{{talkheader}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 8
|algo = old(91d)
|archive = Talk:Sequoia Sempervirens/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=GAN
|action1date=December 17, 2005
|action1result=Listed
|action1oldid=31838649

|action2=GAR
|action2date=October 25, 2007
|action2result=Delisted
|action2link=Talk:Sequoia#GA_Delist
|action2oldid=167100378

|currentstatus=DGA
|topic=Natsci}}
{{WikiProject Plants|class=B|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject California|class=B|importance=High}}

==Assessment==
whoever did first assessment on importance doesnt seem to have left any notes. It seems this page deserves at least a Mid assessment. [[User:Architectsf|Architectsf]] 23:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
::I rarely check my messages in websites: anyhow I like reviewing assessments. If you stumble upon a prior assessment page for this Redwood / Sequoia article, email me from [http://www.mdvaden.com M.D. Vaden]and send me the link - Thank-you...[[User:Mdvaden|Mdvaden]] ([[User talk:Mdvaden|talk]]) 03:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

==Awaiting an admin move ==

It seems pretty weird to me that an article which didn't even have a talk page is "awaiting an admin move back to [[Sequoia]]". [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 09:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:Please leave it at [[Sequoia]]. This is part of an agreed policy change discussed at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life]], to work towards a move of plants to scientific name titles, beginning with some conifer families. The move to "california redwood" was not done with reference to the WP:TOL project. - [[User:MPF|MPF]] 11:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:: This just seems weird, even if ''sequoia'' is the genus. By all accounts, the tall ones are called Redwoods (or Coast Redwoods) and the fat ones are called Giant Sequoias. It is misleading to call this one Sequoia IMHO. [[User:Bonus Onus|Bonus Onus]] 01:58, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
::: I agree with Bonus Onus. I live in California; when people talk here about a "Sequoia," they mean the Giant Sequoias in the eastern central part of the state. Everyone calls the tall ones "redwoods," as Bonus Onus states. Calling a redwood a "Sequoia" in the common vernacular sounds like it's wrong. While it's an admirable goal to headline articles with scientific names, I think a statement in the introductory sentence should indicate something like "while the correct genus is 'sequoia,' the tree is more commonly referred to as a 'redwood' by the layperson." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so while it should be accurate, it should not be confusing in the effort to be accurate. People will be coming here for information, and they shouldn't be confused in the process or think they're in the wrong article.[[User:DavidHoag|David Hoag]] 17:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
:::: Leave it. it is the agreed upon policy and this is not subject to what everyone calls it. i fyou dont like it put a redirect in. 03:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
:I read in the ''LA Times'', decades ago, that the Coast Redwoods live within the range of the fog, and thrive there for that reason. That is a clear difference between them and Giant Sequoias. [[User:Ancheta Wis|Ancheta Wis]] 12:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC) The article on Giant Sequoia says "Giant Sequoia is distinct from the Coast Redwood at the genus level"

:Agreed: this article has a misleading title. Coastal redwoods and sequoias are two related but distinct species. The redwoods are taller, slimmer, and live half as long. Redwoods occupy a different ecosystem and have a greater need for water. [[User:Durova|Durova]] 16:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

::Your assessment may be 180 degrees off the mark. The common name "Giant Sequioa" is what is misleading, not this article title. And that is one excellent reason for the goal and priority to set a trend toward Genus names, rather than common names for information and research. A giant sequioa is not a "Sequioa" - it's a giant Sequioadendron. Thus it's name is confusing. So "Sequioa" is fitting for both policy and accuracy when describing a Coastal Redwood - for it Sequioa, not a "Giant Sequioa". —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ThreeWikiteers|contribs]]) 05:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC) 

:::Actually the truth is, these trees existed before anyone from Europe decided to give them a name, whether a colloquial name, a scientific name, or an "Indian" name (which is written in a Latin alphabet). Giant "sequoias" were called sequoias first, so to say that it is not a sequoia is a bit misleading.

In any case, Wikipedia is supposed to reflect outside sources, not Wiki-activism. This article should be renamed "Redwood" or "Coast Redwood."[[User:Ryoung122|Ryoung122]] 01:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
: "Wiki-activism"??. What should be done is this article should be a Genus level article named ''Sequoia'' as that is the taxonomic name as the genus is NOT monotypic. The information on the extant species should be moved to a species level article "possibly" named "Coast Redwood" or ''Sequoia sempervirens'' and articles on the extinct species such as ''[[Sequoia affinis]]'' need to be created.--[[User:Kevmin|Kevmin]] ([[User talk:Kevmin|talk]]) 01:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

==Pronunciation==

It would be nice to have a sound file to help pronounce words like these.

==Tallest tree ever==
The [[Thorpdale, Victoria]] article states the town once had a tree that was 114 m tall, which is taller than the Dyerville Giant. [[User:Pietdesomere|Piet]] 10:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:Oops it says ''tallest sequoia ever'' not tallest tree. My excuses. [[User:Pietdesomere|Piet]] 13:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
::That height is only an unverified claim, anyway - [[User:MPF|MPF]] 10:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

:::Actually that height WAS a verified claim. But it doesn't matter because Hyperion is higher.[[User:Ryoung122|Ryoung122]] 01:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

== This article is badly named ==

In California, when referring to a tree, "Sequoia" means exactly one thing: ''Sequoiadendron giganteum''. The trees in this article (''Sequoia sempervirens'') are called redwoods. Now I can understand having "redwood" as a disambiguation page, but at the very least this page should be given a name that 1) is not used to describe an entirely different organism, and 2) unambiguously refers to ''this'' organism. I think the best name would be '''Coast Redwood''', which at least incorporates the common name, though the full binomial name would at least be an improvement over the current title. --[[User:Yath|Yath]] 14:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

:I'd object, as it would leave it the sole article in [[:Category:Cupressaceae]] not listed at its scientific name; monotypic genera are also by [[WP:TOL]] convention under their genus names only (c.f. [[Ginkgo]], etc) - [[User:MPF|MPF]] 00:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

::Why is it important for all articles in [[:Category:Cupressaceae]] to be listed at their scientific names? --[[User:Yath|Yath]] 03:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

::"Giant Sequoia" and "Coastal Redwood" are basically household names; they're widely known to most people, being the world's largest and tallest trees. Thus, for the general reader, naming the Coastal Redwood article "Sequoia", is quite confusing. For example, no one would name the article on the [[American Robin]] "''[[Turdus migratorius]]''", even though, if one were to be pedantic, "Robin" is "misleading", as the American Robin is not a member of [[Erithacus]]. The [[Saguaro]] is in the monotypic genus [[Carnegiea]], yet it is [[Carnegiea]] that redirects to Saguaro. This contradicts official conventions, yet no one has proposed changing the title to [[Carnegiea]] because that would unhelpful to most users. In special cases where the animal or plant is essentially an icon in the public imagination and very familiar by its common name, as in the cases of the Saguaro, the Coastal Redwood, and the Giant Sequoia, it seems that such policy is pedantic rather than helpful. --[[User:Xiao Li|Xiao Li]] ([[User talk:Xiao Li|talk]]) 20:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

:::This article should be re-named. The scientific name is sequoia sempervirens, NOT 'sequoia' alone. The common name, "redwood" or "coast redwood," makes a lot more sense.[[User:Ryoung122|Ryoung122]] 01:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

== Family vs. Fairy ring ==

I know next to nothing about plants. From what I can tell by searching, however, a "fairy ring" is a ring of fungi. I can't find anything about "family ring" online that wasn't copied out of Wikipedia, but at least the image page calls it a "family ring", not a "fairy ring". I may have messed up with the names, but at least there's some transparency now. --[[User:Starwiz|Starwiz]] 04:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks for looking into this [[User:Starwiz|Starwiz]]. The American Journal of Botany published a study by UC Berkeley's Environmental Science department [http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/full/91/7/1140] that refers to "fairy rings" in sequoia populations, and I can find no scholarly reference to "family rings" among sequoias. This may be a weak arguement for reverting back but it seems evidence enough for me. I admit that I, like you Starwiz, have extremely limited knowledge on this topic. If anyone has a more information I'm sure we'd all welcome it. [[User:Jaredroberts|Jared]] 19:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
::I'm glad this is verified now--that study is way more evidence than I had. I've edited the description [[:Image:Family_ring_of_redwoods.jpg]] to reflect the change. [[User:Starwiz|Starwiz]] 02:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

:::To answer that question, since the answer handles several other objections by amateurs: the benefit is one accurate name, versus a cofusing myriad of common names. Besides, searchers can still find the trees in Wikipedia anyway, since common names are included in articles. But common names cause a lot of organizational errors, such as Douglas fir, which is not "fir" nor in the Abies genus of true fir trees. And on another note, Sequoiadendron, the other tree, is more properly "giant sequoia", not "sequioa". Sequoia is a genus, and it refers only to the Coast Redwood.[[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 16:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

== Height of lowest branches ==
When we were poking around in Redwood National Park I had my Leica laser rangefinder with me. I did measurements on the lowest major branches of a sequioa tree and they averaged about 125 ft (40 m) above the ground. Truly amazing. My results aren't scientific enough to put in the article, but it's a good "gee whiz" thing for the discussion page. -[[User:Rolypolyman|Rolypolyman]] 20:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

== Minor edit ==

It seems that somebody has used this page to test with wikipedia editing, I deleted this "test" part.--[[User:Patillotes|Patillotes]] 20:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

==GA Sweeps (on hold)==
This article has been reviewed as part of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force]] in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the [[WP:WIAGA|Good article criteria]]. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.
*There is a complete lack of in-line cites that needs to be fixed.
I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a [[WP:GA|Good article]]. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through [[WP:GAR]]). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at [[WP:GAN]]. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, [[User:Corvus coronoides|'''Corvus coronoides''']] [[User talk:Corvus coronoides|''talk'']] 00:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

== GA Delist ==

{{{icon|[[Image:Symbol unsupport vote.svg|25px]]}}} In order to uphold the quality of [[Wikipedia:Good articles]], all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the [[WP:WIAGA|GA criteria]] as part of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force|GA project quality task force]]. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of
[[October 25]],
[[2007]], this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from [[WP:GA]]. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at [[WP:GAN]]. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at [[WP:GAR]]. 

 
*Lack of in-line cites [[User:Corvus coronoides|'''Corvus coronoides''']] [[User talk:Corvus coronoides|''talk'']] 13:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

::You listed lack of in-line cites as the reason. Although I was not part of this article's construction, I'd like to learn how the cites are coded-in, and will try to find and add a couple later this month, but may be delayed due to moving.[[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 23:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

== Del Norte Titan in Statistics ==

While researching and reading about Titan redwoods in Jedediah Smith Redwoods, I found one source that said the Del Norte Titan redwood was the largest for volume. That's how the "Statistics" part of this article currently reads. But lately, I discovered a couple of sources online, stating that the Lost Monarch Titan is larger than Del Norte Titan. Would others like to perform a few searches and see what you come up with?[[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 07:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

:There is a bit online to research, but not much. Recently, I found and visited these titan redwood trees. [http://www.http://www.mdvaden.com/grove_of_titans.shtml M.D. Vaden Titan Redwood Page]

:And inbetween visiting those titans and photographing them, I came across a pdf file '''American Journal of Botany 90(2): 255 - 261. 2003.''' Apparently that is 2003. And the measurements were likely prior to 2003.. It's a research paper. In a table, it lists 977.9 cubic meters as the main trunk volume for The Lost Monarch titan. And 945.6 cubic meters as the main trunk volume for the Del Norte Titan. With extra reiterated stem volume of 11.5 cubic meters for Lost Monarch and 99.1 for Del Norte titan. This would seem to make the Del Norte Titan larger. But recently, I've seen several websites, listing Del Norte Titan as just over 36,000 cubic feet, and The Lost Monarch at a bit over 40,000 cubic feet. It seems that those references were more recent. I did not bookmark the URLs. We can find them, for certain. Images of the titans available are rare, and for that reason, I'm not planning to donate any to Wikipedia yet.[[User:Mdvaden|Mdvaden]] ([[User talk:Mdvaden|talk]]) 06:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

::Just noticed on Wikipedia's page for the Redwood National and State Parks, in "Flora", that Lost Monarch is said to be the largest redwood with 42,500 cubic feet (1205 cubic meters). The same number showed up on a newsletter for broadband tree wardens. But no source is listed.[[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 16:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

:::Been almost 2 months - no more feedback about the largest redwood. If nobody else replies soon, may make the change in the next couple of weeks. Will wait a few more days for feedback.[[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 23:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of the table entries are contrary to other respected sources of rank by volume.

Most published sources do not have the double stemmed 'Lost Monarch' ranked as first by volume. Forest Giants of the Pacific Coast by Robert Van Pelt is one of them. It has the largest basal diameter but to be fair it's still a doubler - and is usually ranked as third - still impressive. These trees are one-of-kind unreplacable ancient global treasures. Please do not publish location hints/maps for recognition/personal reasons/page hits. It does no good for anyone and especially not the groves. They are not some super secret locations known only to the elite few as some like to go along with so eagerly. Leave them be if you believe in preserving them for future generations to visit and study.[[User:Bigtree75|Bigtree75]] ([[User talk:Bigtree75|talk]]) 21:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

== External Link: Titan Redwoods ==

Added one external link, to a page with excellent photographs of the largest known coast redwoods, including the Del Norte Titan mentioned in this Sequioa article. In the "Extra Reading", Preston's book The Wild Trees refers to most of the trees shown in the M.D. Vaden photographs. After an intensive search online for images of the Titan redwoods, results are rare. The M.D. Vaden page has the most complete collection of full trunk views available. For ground-level panoramic views, it is the most complete visual documentation available for these trees on the internet. All images are copyrighted, and not available to upload to Wikipedia.

—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ThreeWikiteers|contribs]]) 23:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC) 

== Tallest / Largest Edit / BradLuke22 & Lady Arwyn ==

Could BradLuke22 or Lady Arwyn provide the source for the Titan redwood measurements?

:There are a couple of documents online that list Adventurer Tree - few years back - near 32,000 cubic feet. I suspect you have access to a document, table or field notes that may not be online. Are the measurements in a book? Thanks.

::Someone - BradLuke or Lady Arwyn - added a tallest / largest section. Seems like a good idea, but some sentence text was discussion that should be in here on the discussion page, so I edited that text and added this as reference. In their edit, they asked if someone might have something more up to date, but I suspect their contribution is the most recent numbers available. I'm unfamiliar with Adventure Tree's size, but the others sound right based on information encountered.[[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 18:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

:::The recent edit for largest redwoods - the table - seems fairly accurate. I'd be very interested even for my own records, what the source is, especially for Adventure Tree. Any chance the editor BradLuke22 is "in the loop" of the Humboldt university program for canopy research?[[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 21:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if i have put any inaccurate data on, i pretty sure the adventure tree is in the wrong place, but was just trying to use both my book "to find the biggest tree" this site http://www.humboldt.edu/~sillett/redwoods.html (largest tree's list on the third pic near top) and a few other sources to get the most up to date list, please edit it if you no there wrong.. Sorry for not using discussuion page up till now, i'm new to editing on wiki.. Thanks, Luke 30 april 2008 —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Bradluke22|Bradluke22]] ([[User talk:Bradluke22|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Bradluke22|contribs]]) 19:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC) 
::Thanks for coming back. If Adventurer is slightly over 39,000 cubic feet, you have it in the right spot. It's just that I don't know any numbers for it. For the rest, looks like you have the same numbers I've found. The SineBot automatically added your signature, but if you put 4 Tildes (~), the character to the left of numeral "1" using the shift key, it adds your signature to a comment. Again, that's 4 consecutive Tildes. Feel free to jump in on any of the tree, redwood, sequioa pages for editing any time. Thanks.[[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 00:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

== Citation for Largest: Opinions sought ==

For the largest and tallest sizes, someone stuck "Citation Needed". Those might be very hard to come by. There apparently are documents online somewhere, that a lot of saavy experts may not be willing to supply the URL for.

:So here's where your opinions will be handy - there is a webpage by a "Certified Arborist" from Oregon, specifically about many of these trees. See [http://www.mdvaden.com/grove_of_titans.shtml Arborist's page about Largest Sequoia Coastal Redwoods]. One paragraph is presented as an "Arborist Report" confirming reported trunk diameters for 4 of the Largest trees.

::Would that work as ONE starter citation to cover the trunk diameter aspect? This is a Certified professional, whose certification is listed on the International Society of Arboriculture website?

:::Certainly more citations can be added as they become available. But the secrecy surrounding these trees may require using the outside fringe of the Citation guidelines. Please have your say - thanks.[[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 21:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

:::Also, I'm not sure of the right way to write multiple citations. If several are needed for one paragraph, or one table, are they placed one right next to another? Or inserted next to the fragments of information that they belong to?[[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 00:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

== Tallest existing tree species in the world ==

I edited the text to suggest that the Redwood/Sequoia is the tallest '''currently existing''' species of tree in the world. I say "existing" because equally tall specimens of Douglas-Fir (300-415ft), and Australian Eucalyptus (300-400+ft) did exist in original old growth forests as can be extrapolated from solid historical record and scientific evidence. Yet, no other forest today contain as many tall trees in excess of 300 feet as do the Redwood forests of California. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.175.57.16|75.175.57.16]] ([[User talk:75.175.57.16|talk]]) 04:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 

:: The article would have been shorter, and conveyed they same identical meaning, if you omitted "existing". Because the redwoods exist, and they are the tallest known trees. But it's no real issue, so the added word is fine. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/96.253.164.77|96.253.164.77]] ([[User talk:96.253.164.77|talk]]) 06:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 

:::The following from above is not the point of a current encyclopedic article:
:::''"I say "existing" because equally tall specimens of Douglas-Fir (300-415ft), and Australian Eucalyptus (300-400+ft) did exist in original old growth forests as can be extrapolated from solid historical record and scientific evidence."''

:::There is reason (cited) that leaves the measurements of the other species in question, while the measurement of the current tallest Coast Redwoods at around 380 feet is not in dispute. I am concerned about current science not some unproven historical measurements, which are suspected to have been exaggerated. Clearly we could get into an argument that historical Coast Redwoods in the valleys around Eureka, areas along the Eel River and its tributaries, as well as others to the north were likely to exceed current verifiable measurements. But that argument is not what this current article is about. I changed the article to state the current fact of the matter. Norcalal 01:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"suspected to have been exaggerated." Well I could claim the "Eureka tree" (380 feet) cut down in 1914 by lumber operator 'BF Porter", and reported by the American Forestry Association., 1915, is equally as suspicious as any other old record. I am just as suspicious about current trees reported at 380 feet with almost no photographs or details. But I choose to believe Steven Sillett (with good reason), just as I choose to believe the American Forestry Association, and just as I believe the old USFS chief Richard McArdle, who in 1924-5 measured the big tree (Douglas-fir) at Mineral, Wa. and calculated its original height at 393 feet prior to wind damage. --[[Special:Contributions/75.175.67.58|75.175.67.58]] ([[User talk:75.175.67.58|talk]]) 04:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

::I don't know if anyone has looked thoroughly through all Australian forest, but the tallest specimen of a tree found is a fallen Eucalyptus 143m (cf tallest living Coast Redwood 115m).[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20827861.900-extreme-survival-whats-bigger-than-a-whale.html]. There are probably equally tall living specimens out there. Eucalyptus has to hold the record as a genus/species. [[User:Tsinfandel|Tsinfandel]] ([[User talk:Tsinfandel|talk]]) 00:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

== Redwood Documentary Spam ==

Someone has recently been posting an external link to a documentary page '''redwoodsdocumentary dot com''' which has virtually no information or photos. I noticed that other editors have been wise to delete it, but the original spammer has undone the deletion to repost the site of no value. I deleted it again. Keep an eye on it, and please delete it as soon as it shows up, unless they can produce a specific page not yet seen, with substantial info relevant to the article.

::One good reason for deletion, is the deletion already by several editors, as well as the original poster of the link not coming into the discussion page about it. They are using a bull in a china shop tactic. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/96.253.164.77|96.253.164.77]] ([[User talk:96.253.164.77|talk]]) 06:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 

== Added additional redwood Image / Feel free to comment ==

Figured nobody would mind the addition of the one image of Del Norte Titan. The image was recently contributed for the Del Norte Titan page, and it's a very good example for size comparison. Could have asked first, but seeing it's addition is virtually inconsequential, plus the image is near the bottom right, this seemed like a good way to display it for your consideration.

:If editors see a need for deletion, please speak your mind. It illustrates size comparison quite well. Also, images of this tree are rare on the internet. So it's a handy contribution to a page about it's species. [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 05:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

== External Link > Your opinions please ==

There is a website that I would like to suggest for the External Links. It is [http://www.redwoodhikes.com Redwood Hikes dot com]

It is virtually the most thorough website I have seen regarding the redwoods and trails. The photos are excellent. And it is virtually encyclopedic in many regards due to it's organization, legend, photos and structure. Could you please browse several pages and it's tables. Would like to add it in the next week or two, if nobody disagrees with it. I'll check back here for your input and opinions. Thanks. [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 06:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

== Largest Trees > Mystery Redwood ==

There is a tree indicated at the Humboldt State Univ. website, and no name is given for what is potentially a second largest redwood - related to the table on this article page. An Oregon arborist who is certified, personally measured the trunk diameters of most of the biggest redwoods in this article's list, and, has found, photographed and measured a tree that can fit the mystery tree's general description by a fraction of an inch. I added this arborist as a citation to partially cover the notation for "citation needed" that's been lingering for weeks. This at least partially covers the citation needs, and is more generous with photographic evidence than the Humboldt state university website, which is the main base of operations for measuring these trees. Unfortunately, the university staff don't seem to have compiled a complete resource that can be cited to cover all our bases here for this large and tall redwood stuff.

If you have better suggestions, please write them here. Thanks. [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 23:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

== Anonymous editors: refer changes to discussion page ==

Noticed another change by one anonymous user. Specifically the user 216.160.121.211.

::Be sure to post suggestions for changes or deletions in the discussion section first.
::List the suggestion, and list alternative that better supply a change or deletion.[[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 21:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

==Tree sit protests==
I believe a noteworthy sociological aspect of these trees is that they seem to inspire direct action political protests, among the more noteworthy being Ms. Hill's tree-sit and the more recent tree-sit on the campus of U.C. Berkeley. If these facts are 'original research' I would like to be educated. Perhaps it's the planners, landlords, and chainsaws which inspire the protests.[[User:Critical Chris|Critical Chris]] ([[User talk:Critical Chris|talk]]) 15:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

== Trivia Items about Sequoia... ==

Dunno if a trivia section is in order, but...

1) The word "sequoia" is the shortest word in the English language to incorporate all of the five primary vowels (a, e, i, o and u).

2) The Official Presidential Yacht of the USA was named Sequoia.

They are useless trivia...but maybe a mention? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.48.50.34|68.48.50.34]] ([[User talk:68.48.50.34|talk]]) 01:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC) 

== Tallest Redwood, New data from LIDAR 2008 ==

Perhaps the article should mention the fact that hundreds of newly found Redwoods exceeding 106 m have been indicated from recent analysis of aerial LIDAR data taken in 2007!

I think that list of "tallest Redwoods" will need some serious updating come 2009. It could take years for these trees to be charted and independently measured with lasers.

--[[Special:Contributions/75.175.67.58|75.175.67.58]] ([[User talk:75.175.67.58|talk]]) 04:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
:Do you have a reference? [[User:Krasanen|Krasanen]] ([[User talk:Krasanen|talk]]) 12:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Reference? Michael Taylor has recently mentioned the LIDAR results in a forum on Oct. 15th. He specifically said that the data processed for canopy height of 106 m (348 ft) or more has yielded "hundreds" of previously unknown trees: [http://www.treeclimbing.com/component/option,com_fireboard/Itemid,49/func,view/id,132306/catid,285/limit,6/limitstart,0/]
--[[Special:Contributions/75.175.67.58|75.175.67.58]] ([[User talk:75.175.67.58|talk]]) 00:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

::The only current updated list seems to stem from the menu of the Oregon Arborist M. D. Vaden page:

::[http://www.mdvaden.com/grove_of_titans.shtml Largest Redwoods Page]

::See the menu of that page. There is a note that the list was an October update sent to the arborist from Michael Taylor. Although many LIDAR trees were found by LIDAR, most of the data in this article is reasonably accurate, but may need some minor changes. [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 17:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

:::The link above does not function. Probably you meant this:
:::[http://www.mdvaden.com/grove_of_titans.shtml Largest Redwoods Page] [[User:Krasanen|Krasanen]] ([[User talk:Krasanen|talk]]) 19:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

:::: Yes, that one - thanks. [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 23:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

== TED talk by Preston ==

An anonymous user added an external link to a TED talk by author Preston. I reverted the page back, and suggest that the TED talk maybe be considered for the Richard Preston page. The TED talk parallels a lot of Preston's book THE WILD TREES which is already listed in the references. The video starts immediately with advertising segments, and alternates between a little philisophy, then redwood forest stuff, and redwood tree stuff.

It's a good video as far as videos go. But it really seems to fit the Richard Preston page, if it's going to be useful in some kind of encyclopedic way. But for example, just a few minutes into the video, Preston jumps to story telling of Steve Sillett free climbing a tree with wasps, the afterward talks about his own fear of heights, then into people and fear of heights.

This is really a micro video version of Preston and his story book on some west coast tree people. If you review the video, count how few minutes even in the first 1/3 of the video, pertain to redwood facts, versus the story telling aspect. [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 02:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

::Introduced the suggestion to add the TED talk at the Richard Preston page discussion zone. [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 23:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

== The Wild Trees book by Preston - a question ==

Here is a question for other contributors:

Should Preston's book called The Wild Trees remain in the Further Reading?

Either way others suggest if fine with me. But it's not a redwood book. It's a story with a bunch of redwood stuff inserted randomly. 1/2 the book at least, is about people. Some parts are about other trees. The book is not called "The Wild Redwoods". But it does have quite a few redwood facts. If you have read it, you know what I mean. One section is on Eucalyptus in Australia. One section is Preston climbing a pine across the Atlantic. Another section is about learning to climb in Douglas fir. Do you see what I mean? The redwoods are used as a climax, but can we consider the book base on it's complete content. So what do you think? Leave it in the list? Is maybe 35% redwood content in a story form, sufficient for encyclopedic content - remember, it has no photographs in it of anything in mentions. Pleae add your thoughts on this. Thanks [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 00:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

:Am beginning to change my opinion, that maybe Preston's book should be discarded as a reference. Have been following updates from an arborist M. D. Vaden who visited most of the largest coast redwoods. A recent update to that site's page [http://www.mdvaden.com/grove_of_titans.shtml M. D. Vaden Largest Redwoods] and a review of The Wild Trees - see the menu - says that the scientist Sillett was not the first to reach old growth canopy. That's one more discrepency with Preston's book. More and more, it seems that Preston's book is not a good idea to list as a reference material. This last bit of info showed up after my last commnent. [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 17:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

::Took some time and looked up the name Baranek that M. D. Vaden mentioned. There is a G. Beranek with a website [http://www.atreestory.com A Tree Story]. Apparently, as Vaden stated, Beranek looks to be a legit old timer of the redwoods. Author, photographer and climber. This can undermine the credibility of The Wild Trees regarding climbing into old growth canopy. The error is nearly 2 decades off the mark, with the wrong person credited. [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 23:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

== Article quite good - maybe tweak tolerance to flooding ==

Have read the entire page a couple of times lately.

Very hard to find areas to edit. Some new data would probably be very feasible. But for what's on the page, it's well written. Did notice something that may need an edit. The article states that redwoods are very tolerant to flooding and adapt to silt accumulations. But I recall reading lately about some flooding in a redwood park - maybe Tall Trees Grove - where flooding and siltation caused some die-back of the canopy tops. They probably grew roots, but with some loss above. It that is accurate, then they would not be VERY tolerant of flooding, but would be trees that can survive flooding and silt accumulations.

Feel free to look around for information about this. I'll look too. [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 08:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

== Evolutionary history? Cultural history? ==

It would be important to briefly talk about the evolution of sequoias, as well as what is known about the history of human knowledge about them (starting from indigenous peoples). -[[User:Pgan002|Pgan002]] ([[User talk:Pgan002|talk]]) 09:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

:Good idea. How broad or specific? I was reading the Tall Trees Grove brochure last week, and a man, for example, used to row upriver to the grove to catch and salt fish. Some American Indian tribe used to be up Redwood Creek too. Those might be too specific. [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 04:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

::'''Support'''.I might be for brief summaries of Cultural and Evolutionary sections, but those details would be better placed in daughter or related main articles. It seems to me that the article is quite long and I would caution making it longer. The indigenous aspect of the article could be located (linked to?) in or developed in an article that might include the following as one section: For example, Tolowa and Yurok articles (and articles of predacessors), which are the primary native groups to have inhabited the region now occupied by RNSP park, for example could link to other culturally relevant issues. Evolutionary aspects of the trees themselves connect to a story that could potentially span geologic time and include the development and demise of a much larger ancient range for the coast redwood and perhaps dozens of related trees species (now extinct) from the same family, which used to cover the Northern hemisphere. I am not sure about the history of the now extinct sister species, but mention of that aspect of the science is of significant interest would assist readers to learn of the mega- massive story of these mega-massive trees. [[User:Norcalal|Norcalal]] ([[User talk:Norcalal|talk]]) 06:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

== Phylogenetic aspects ==

I edited the genetic refs at the end of the 'Decscription' chapter. Pls have a look.

I think it's not justified to say Sequoia is 'likely autoallopolyploid', and changed that to 'possibly allopolyploid'. The relevant paragraph of the cited sources goes as following:

''(1) Sequoia may either be a partially diploidized autohexaploid (AAAAAA) derived from some ancestoral species of Sequoia, thus carrying a single ancestoral genome; or (2) Sequoia may be an autoallohexaploid (AABBBB or AAAABB) thus containing two ancestoral genome. Although we are not certain about the two ancestral species, Metasequoialike and Sequoiadendron-like species may have contributed to the ancestry of coast redwood; or (3) Sequoia may be a segmental allohexaploid (A1A1A1A1A2A2, A1A1A2A2A2A2, or A1A1A2A2A3A3), presumably derived by hybridization between two or three closely related ancestral species. We are not sure if these ancestral species belong to ancient Metasequoia, Sequoiadendron, and Cryptomeria, or they were different species of Sequoia that existed in the prehistoric times.''

That's from: Ahuja, M.R.; Neale, D.B. (2001). "Origins of Polyploidy in Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) and Relationship of Coast Redwood to other Genera of Taxodiaceae". Silvae Genetica 51 (2002): page 99.

I would like to put that into a footnote, but i'm new to wikipedia. I'd appreciate if someone would have a look, and decide if it's worth to clutter the article, or maybe create a seperate chapter about this very fascinating topic.

[[User:Rosetta|Rosetta]] 15:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/78.49.65.182|78.49.65.182]] ([[User talk:78.49.65.182|talk]])  

==Fallen Trees==
I recently added a section on about two fallen Sequoia in the Uk and someone deleted them! there happens to be only two in the UK and i think it is important that they are identified and listed, anyone disagree then i would like i full reason why as i think that they are both eligable to be listed. Thanks [[User:Bankhallbretherton|Bankhallbretherton]] ([[User talk:Bankhallbretherton|talk]]) 23:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

::Seems to me, that the deletion of them was a good idea. About the only reason I'm posting, is to give you a chance to delete it before I do. Regarding this topic, its irrelevant and inconsequential. Otherwise over the years, we'd have to add fallen redwoods in Japan, fallen redwoods in Canada, fallen redwoods in New Zealand. This article is not about fallen redwoods. If you don't delete it, I will. And if one person already did, their action and my post, is two opinions versus yours. So the consensus currently favors deletion. [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 07:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

:::'''Delete'''. I deleted the mention initially and I will again. Editors should weigh in on this, but it is quite obvious. This article discusses this species in a very big deal way as all species deserve. However, can you imagine listing the dead rose bushes or ferns or anything growing outside its natural environment in the yards of individuals. Please... [[User:Norcalal|Norcalal]] ([[User talk:Norcalal|talk]]) 06:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason what so ever to be rude about it. The problem has been resolved with alternate methods that allow them to be identified and valid with references. [[User:Bankhallbretherton|Bankhallbretherton]] ([[User talk:Bankhallbretherton|talk]]) 09:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

::::The problem has not been resolved. Regarding people commenting, inclusion of the "fallen trees" is a minority opinion. Also, an internet search for such fallen trees or fallen sequoia yield next to nil by internet standards. But if the drive-through redwood "Chandelier Tree" is searched for, an abundance of results appears. The large lack of references alone, illustrates that these fallen trees are far from noteworthy. And if this article should include special trees, the Dyerville Giant, Founders Tree, Big Tree, Corkscrew Tree, Drive-Thru tree and others would rate much, much higher on the priority scale. Please don't shove your fallen tree agenda when you are the minority, with virtually no references online. [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 03:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Well maybe you should do an area in the article for noteable specimens, but i guess you just want to keep this article to the native lands instead of specimens in other places like the UK, or at least thats what it looks like. The tree at Bank Hall and the ones at Leighton Hall are very popular in the UK and are in areas of speicial interest and therfore protected. Its a loss to the page [[User:Bankhallbretherton|Bankhallbretherton]] ([[User talk:Bankhallbretherton|talk]]) 19:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
::Apparently you fail to see that your voice on this fallen redwood is still the minority. Once again deleted. If you add it again, we will need to report your action. The article needs no section on special specimens, because there would be hundreds of special specimens throughout the world. I suggest you try starting your own tangent article on that and see how long or short if flies.[[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 06:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

==taxonomy==

It's just a convenient coincidence that there is ONLY ONE species of genus sequoia and only one species of the genus sequoiadendron. However, most genuses have multiple individual species. Even for humans (homo sapiens) there are extinct species such as homo neanderthalensis. So, it's a bit fictive to simply list only the genus name, and not the species name, on the disambiguation pages.[[User:Ryoung122|Ryoung122]] 01:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

:Both of the genera DO have multiple species, it just happens that only one species in each is still living (''[[Sequoiadendron chaneyi]]'' and ''[[Sequoia affinis]]'' are extinct). It is the policy of the floral and faunal wikiprojects to have monotypic genera articles at the genus level, as was done with these two. If you look at the taxoboxes and the text of the two articles you will see that they do mention in the first lines the specie binomials. Both articles should be split into genus and species level articles for all included taxa.--[[User:Kevmin|Kevmin]] ([[User talk:Kevmin|talk]]) 04:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

==Requested move==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a [[WP:RM|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: '''page moved'''. Cleanup needs to be done by the regular editors. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] ([[User talk:Vegaswikian|talk]]) 01:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

----

[[Sequoia]] → [[Coast Redwood]] — Having Sequoia point to this article is very confusing. The term Sequoia is usually used to refer to Sequoiadendron giganteum. [[User:Rdore|Rdore]] ([[User talk:Rdore|talk]]) 23:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

===Survey===
:''Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with'' <code><nowiki>*'''Support'''</nowiki></code> ''or'' <code><nowiki>*'''Oppose'''</nowiki></code>'', then sign your comment with'' <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>''. Since [[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|polling is not a substitute for discussion]], please explain your reasons, taking into account [[Wikipedia:Article titles|Wikipedia's policy on article titles]].''

*'''Support'''. If anything, an article titled "Sequoia" should be a disambiguation page for the three related geni. [[User:Brutaldeluxe|Brutal Deluxe]] ([[User talk:Brutaldeluxe|talk]]) 00:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

*Conditional Support: if this article is reworked into a genus level article for the one living species and the several extinct species such as ''[[Sequoia affinis]]'', ''[[Sequoia chinensis]]'', ''[[Sequoia langsdorfii]]'', and ''[[Sequoia magnifica]]''.--[[User:Kevmin|Kevmin]] ([[User talk:Kevmin|talk]]) 17:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

*'''Support''' I agree with the disambiguation page idea, I think that the other species should be listed on the sequoia disambiguation page. [[User:Bankhallbretherton|Bankhallbretherton]] ([[User talk:Bankhallbretherton|talk]]) 09:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

===Discussion===
:''Any additional comments:''

:Regarding a disambiguation page, it is a good idea, the information that is here and pertains to the genus level information for ''Sequoia'' could be moved to an article titled ''[[Sequoia (genus)]]'' and this page can be made into a disambig.--[[User:Kevmin|Kevmin]] ([[User talk:Kevmin|talk]]) 17:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[WP:RM|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.</div>

===Contested move===
I didn't see consensus in the above discussion since there were points raised like the conditional support of Kevmin that were not taken into consideration. I '''oppose''' the move to the common name per [[WP:NC (flora)]]. There are several common names, all of which can be ambiguous. When the move was completed, ''[[Sequoia]]'' was left as a redirect, negating the desired effect. And in reply to Rdore's initial rationale, it can be confusing, but that's why we have disambiguation pages. ''Sequoia'' is most often used to describe this genus, including the only extant species. Sequoia is used as a common name for several species, but I'm confidant the [[WP:PRIMARY|primary]] usage is for the genus in reliable sources. I have therefore reverted the move so we can discuss this further ([[WP:BRD]]). [[User:Rkitko|Rkitko]] ([[User talk:Rkitko|talk]]) 12:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
: The discussion seemed to unanimously agree the right thing was to make a disambiguation page, not have Sequoia be the disambiguator. Unfortunately, your revert was quick enough no one had time to turn the redirect into a disambig page. Per [[WP:NC (flora)]], "when a plant is of interest outside botany—for example because it has agricultural, horticultural or cultural importance—then a vernacular name may be more common." In this case sticking with (just the genus of) the biological name seems pedantic in a very confusing way. Both trees are definitely a part of popular culture, and the common usage is definitely (Giant) Sequoia for Sequoiadendron giganteum and (Coast or Coastal) Redwood for Sequoia sempervirens. For example, here are some news articles that use these terms: [http://articles.latimes.com/2004/sep/20/local/me-bigtrees20] [http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-04-26/news/17421409_1_coastal-redwoods-world-s-tallest-trees-humboldt-redwoods-state-park] [http://www.mercurynews.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=14445326&siteId=568]. I'm going to relist this on requested moves. [[User:Rdore|Rdore]] ([[User talk:Rdore|talk]]) 04:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
::''"then a vernacular name '''may''' be more common."'' If you want to use the metrics of google hits, I find more hits for "''Sequoia sempervirens''" than I do for "coast redwood" in google, google books, and google scholar. These are indications that "coast redwood" is not the most commonly used name. As for "giant sequoia", that would be a case of a [[Wikipedia:DAB#Partial title matches|partial title match]]. --[[User:Rkitko|Rkitko]] ([[User talk:Rkitko|talk]]) 14:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a [[WP:RM|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: '''pages moved''' as indicated below under [[#Consensus?]], per discussion. [[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]]) 17:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

----

[[:Sequoia]] → {{noredirect|1=Coast Redwood}} — Relisted because move was reverted. See [[Talk:Sequoia#Requested_move]] and [[Talk:Sequoia#Contested_move]]. [[User:Rdore|Rdore]] ([[User talk:Rdore|talk]]) 04:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

:'''oppose''': if this article moved the ''Sequoia'' page needs to be reworked into a genus level article for the one living species and the several extinct species such as ''[[Sequoia affinis]]'', ''[[Sequoia chinensis]]'', ''[[Sequoia langsdorfii]]'', and ''[[Sequoia magnifica]]''. This is how genus and species level articles are properly treated. --[[User:Kevmin|Kevmin]] ([[User talk:Kevmin|talk]]) 05:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' as stated: [[Sequoia]] should be a stub about the genus, with a hatnote pointing to [[Sequoia (disambiguation)]], or alternately [[Sequoia]] should be the dab page and [[Sequoia (genus)]] the stub. Then the issue of whether the extant species should be at [[Coast redwood]] or [[Sequoia sempervirens]] can be debated on its own merit.--[[User:Curtis Clark|Curtis Clark]] ([[User talk:Curtis Clark|talk]]) 05:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' per Curtis Clark. I'd be fine with ''[[Sequoia]]'' or [[Sequoia (genus)|''Sequoia'' (genus)]] as the stub for the genus. This page should be located at ''[[Sequoia sempervirens]]'', not [[coast redwood]]. The species name is more common in ghits in google, books, and scholar than "coast redwood". [[User:Rkitko|Rkitko]] ([[User talk:Rkitko|talk]]) 14:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

* '''move to [[Sequoia sempervirens]] instead''', with [[Sequoia]] pointing to [[Sequoia_(disambiguation)]]: I'm not attached to "Coast Redwood" as a name anyway. I just felt that having "Sequoia" come directly here was quite confusing. [[User:Rdore|Rdore]] ([[User talk:Rdore|talk]]) 14:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

===Consensus?===

It seems we would all be fine with:
#moving this page to [[Sequoia sempervirens]]
#making [[Sequoia]] the dab page (either by redirecting it to [[Sequoia (disambiguation)]] or, perhaps better, moving the current dab page to [[Sequoia]])
#creating [[Sequoia (genus)]] as a stub, which will mention the extinct species as well as ''S. sempervirens''

Any disagreement? Rkitko, if everyone agrees, would you do the honors in case admin privs are needed for any of the moves?--[[User:Curtis Clark|Curtis Clark]] ([[User talk:Curtis Clark|talk]]) 16:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[WP:RM|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.</div>

===Pages moved===
I have carried out the moves indicated immediately above. I've done a bit of cleanup; what remains is to disambiguate the links that currently point to [[Sequoia]], which is now a disambiguation page. There are, at the time of this post, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Sequoia&limit=505 505] such links. -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]]) 17:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
:Actually, from the main namespace, there are only [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Sequoia&namespace=0&limit=339 339]. -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]]) 17:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

== LiDAR ==

LiDAR, or Light Detection and Ranging, is just briefly introduced in the Statistics part of the article. People who enjoy editing this Sequoia s. page may want to keep an eye out for more information about LiDAR and coast redwoods. This is rather new to the internet pertaining to coast redwoods, but extra references and articles should begin to emerge. This is some of the latest technology to be used in the coast redwood forest. [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 06:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

== sempervirens name a coincidence? ==

This sentence wasn't clear to me:
"Because of their seemingly timeless lifespan, coast redwoods were deemed the "everlasting redwood" at the turn of the century; in Latin, "sempervirens" means "ever green" or "everlasting," a coincidence unknown to those who named these giants."

Who deemed coast redwoods "everlasting redwood"? Who gave the Latin name including "sempervirens" and why did they do so if not in references to the seemingly timeless lifespan? I see no reference here that would substantiate this is a coincidence. [[User:Chaozu42|Chaozu42]] ([[User talk:Chaozu42|talk]]) 20:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

:Yes, I was looking to say the same thing, [[User:Chaozu42|Chaozu42]], had you not already said it. The error should be removed immediately. [[Special:Contributions/86.31.105.33|86.31.105.33]] ([[User talk:86.31.105.33|talk]]) 13:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

::The statement in the text comes from the website: [http://www.nwplants.com/business/catalog/seq_sem.html WALLACE W HANSEN Nurseries]. No idea where he would have gotten the specific reference from. [[User:Norcalal|Norcalal]] ([[User talk:Norcalal|talk]]) 20:41, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

== Vulnerable, but not endangered ==

Today linked article to existing [[:Category:Endangered flora of California]], with "endangered" not used as the specific [[IUCN Red List]] status classification term [[Endangered species]] is. ''Sequoia sempervirens'' is a designated ICUN [[Vulnerable species]]. For now this cat. is a general use "California species for attention-protection-education" - per ICUN from least concern through critically endangered species, intended for the very broad range of wikipedia readers.

The specific [[International Union for Conservation of Nature|International Union for Conservation of Nature-ICUN]] criteria are described in [[IUCN Red List]] article, and the [[NatureServe]] system in [[NatureServe conservation status]] article. The [[:Category:Plants by conservation status]] has all the cat. children. Sorry Sequoia to have used your talk-page off topic.---best---[[User:Look2See1|Look2See1]] [[User talk:Look2See1|t a l k →]] 02:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

:"Endangered" is a very specific term and unless it is well-defined, we shouldn't be throwing "Endangered" categories on a bunch of pages of species that are not considered endangered by any authority. It can cause more confusion than you hope to help alleviate. [[User:Rkitko|Rkitko]] ([[User talk:Rkitko|talk]]) 02:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

::What would be a better term to change to please? I agree it is confusing, at best an 'interim file folder' that was incorrectly named on initiation. That's why I said "For now" above. Please consider leaving until it's improved (soon). Thanks,---[[User:Look2See1|Look2See1]] [[User talk:Look2See1|t a l k →]] 02:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

:::I'm not sure I understand. Why use an interim placeholder category? What do you hope to accomplish by categorizing it (incorrectly) as an endangered plant? It is already categorized as a vulnerable plant. And it is already categorized as flora of California. Some kind of intersection between the two does not seem like a viable category. [[User:Rkitko|Rkitko]] ([[User talk:Rkitko|talk]]) 02:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

== Fallen Trees (Redwood) Deleted Once Again ==

Maybe note the earlier discussion above about the Fallen Redwood (tree) which once again crept into the article via user Bankhallbretherton who seems bent on pushing this tree even though being the minority.

I just deleted it once again. And this time, Bankhallbretherton apparently added a caption about it being a "giant bonsai" which is misleading and inaccurate. Way off the mark. Bankhallbretherton ought to try making an article on "special" trees and see if it flies. In the meantime, they need to utilize the talk section and build a majority for future changes. Not just keep ramming a one-man-show agenda.

If even a photo of the fallen redwood in the UK (virtually no reference) were to be used in this article, more than one person should discuss where it shall be. And how the caption should read so it does not ruin the accuracy again.[[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 06:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
:It's not just a fallen redwood, but one that has sprouted several young trunks. Trunk-sprouting is like the growth pattern of old redwoods, whose limbs sprout new trunks (and sometimes limbs on the new trunks sprout new trunks, up to 5 or so times). It's valuable to show this growth pattern by a photo, not just explain it with text.The existence of this tree at Bank Hall in the UK can be verified from reliable websites (for example, [http://www.redwoodworld.co.uk/picturepages/bretherton.htm Redwood World]).We should move the image (and the fairy ring image) to the Reproduction section; that's where the article talks about this stuff. Then we'll be illustrating the text of the article, which Wikipedia policy encourages us to do.So here I have explained three reasons that we should include the fallen tree image: it's notable, has been verified, and is connected to the text of the article. Unless you have any objections, I will add the image back in. — [[User:Erutuon|Eru]]·[[User_talk:Erutuon|tuon]] 17:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
::What does it really add to the essential elements of the article? Reproduction? Or adption? I think you may have two reasons, rather than 3. The sprouting is common to trees in general.

:: Why in Reproduction? It did not reproduce. If anything, its growth and adaption. If its placed anywhere within the reproduction section, it would be essential to note that it is '''not''' reproduction, but a structural change.

::Is there any lack about Sequoia sempervirens in that this fallen redwood fulfills? It is not unique. There is a fallen redwood on Hiouchi trail in Jedediah Smith redwoods state park, that is rooted at both ends. There is a fallen redwood across the Prairie Creek at Prairie Creek redwoods state park. Both of those have trunks sprouted as well. There are numberous ones in the forest and across trails at Redwood National Park.

::This leaves more options than merely inserting a photo of that one particular fallen redwood here. Options include:
::a. Add it in another article instead, about trees and growth development
::b. Omit it because it's not very unusual
::c. Add it with an accurate explanation of how or why the tree responded.

::If option "c" is chosen, then it may be worth scouring Wikipedia for related articles on trees, plant growth, etc., to link text in the description. That way people can learn something, rather than us just stuffing a photo of odd growth into the article. Editors here can try to add it, but list the options on how to do it here in discussion first. I agree with the ThreeWikiteers that the '''Bonsai''' caption was out of whack.[[User:Mdvaden|Mdvaden]] ([[User talk:Mdvaden|talk]]) 17:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

:::Just noticed, for example, that Wikipedia has an article on a Nurse Log. Which the fallen redwood is not. If added at all, it may be worth noting what it is and what it is not.[[User:Mdvaden|Mdvaden]] ([[User talk:Mdvaden|talk]]) 17:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
::::I agree that the photo doesn't show reproduction, but text in the Reproduction section talks about sprouting fallen redwoods, and the photo belongs with the text that describes it. If the text doesn't belong in the Reproduction section, we can move it to a new section and place the image there.If the photo shows a common growth pattern, that's all the more reason to include it. If there's a more famous fallen sprouting redwood, then someone should upload a photo of it, and we can include it instead. — [[User:Erutuon|Eru]]·[[User_talk:Erutuon|tuon]] 19:10, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
:::::The aspect about growth seems to be the most valid of the 3 so-called reasons. The fact that a website refers to a fallen redwood is not a reason, but an example. But I could lean toward adding it if the sprouting is explained. And I agree with the MdVaden suggestion to differentiate that its not a nurse log. The article should not indicate that the sprouting is unique to redwoods. And it could be added that the sprouting is something it shares in common with other trees. Although Wikipedia may not have the ideal term in place yet. Stem and sprout are close. Basal shoot does not fit. "Stems" may be a better word. We should review Wikipedia's articles on plant growth, pruning and trees, to see if there are parts of articles that can be woven together with this. Also, if possible, I'd like to see if NorCal has time to offer an opinion or suggestion too, because they were the initial one to delete the fallen redwood months ago.[[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 22:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
::::::You can cross out the link as a reason (leaving only one reason). The link mentions the specific redwood that's in the photo. I provided the link because I thought you were looking [[#Fallen Trees|above]] for "references" proving that the Bank Hall redwood (the tree in the photo) exists. But you were actually looking for references mentioning fallen redwoods, to establish the notability of the topic. So, my second "reason" was pointless. — [[User:Erutuon|Eru]]·[[User_talk:Erutuon|tuon]] 00:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
::::::Either way, links can come in handy. Now all that's needed, is the right caption to go with the photo, and the right hyperlinks to related tree pages on Wikipedia, if available. The word '''reiteration''' is starting to be used among canopy scientists for the extra sprouted trunk-like stems. But I can't find references in Wikipedia, or at some sites where words are defined. On fruit trees and some other hardwoods, those are referred to more or less as water sprouts.[[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 23:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The point of myself including the photo is the fact that the sequoia is one of two specimen in the UK that have this fallen state and have survived. Also seen as that it is '''NOT''' in its natural environment and that this specimen is an example of the tree used in the UK out of its native environment (which is mentioned in the section it was included in so was relevant) The bonsai description was used as it is of a [[Bonsai#Common styles|raft bonsai style]] in it's appearence. I guess you just want the topic to include specimen in your country in its native environment, which is a shame as people in the UK will now be unaware that such specimen exist in their own country now you have removed it. [[User:Bankhallbretherton|Bankhallbretherton]] ([[User talk:Bankhallbretherton|talk]]) 02:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
:Actually, the point is that you are now off topic in a realm of speculation. The conversation had started to lean toward inclusion of it. But if you want to resort to "guess" in guessing games, we can drop it altogether. I suggest that you start focusing on things like the correct caption and photo, before the opportunity vanishes.
:Any real problems were like the wrong caption that user mdvaden commented on (nurse log). That defect got into the article by someone going solo and bypassing the discussion area. That's a bonafide problem found in the editing history - no guessing about that. I logged-in today, actually expecting to see the photo included with an accurate caption and possibly related links. What a surprise to merely find a speculative reply in the discussion area. [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 02:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

== Temporary or Permanent deletion of Redwood World link & comment about other links ==

Temporarily deleting one external link to Redwood World. http://www.redwoodworld.co.uk because the home page is not about Coast redwood, the home page photos are Giant Sequoia, and a lot of content is about Dawn Redwood and Giant Sequoia. If we add part of that site, please write here in discussion first, which page there has the most Coast Redwood information. And if we agree the page has enough unique relevant content, then that section would be best to include. At first glance, the home page had the feel of a Wellingtonia site. Thanks. [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 23:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

::Move Prof. Sillett's Humboldt University Link to the top of the external link list. And shifted some of the more solid informational links upward too. Almost deleted the Monumental Trees more about Sequoia Sempervirens link, but kept it for now. It's rather a little league site for info, and the Hyperion page there has a photo of Stratosphere Giant or other coast redwood, so that is inconsistent with fact. Anyway, I moved it down to the bottom. The '''Humboldt Redwoods State Park''' link is questionable. Wouldn't that almost be better to place on a Wikipedia page of it's own? It's much more park specific than enlightening about the species. [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 23:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

:::US National Park Service Link was broken or defunct. Replaced it with a functioning link for Redwood [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 23:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

==Overall dimensions, plus new diameter data==

Still do not know what are the overall dimensions of this trees, l ie including the roots, so that this information to be added in the article. [[User:Maleiva|Maleiva]] ([[User talk:Maleiva|talk]]) 02:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

One reliable resource, www.mdvaden.com/grove_of_titans.shtml in a recent blog posting, introduced a new discovery of one 28.6 ft. diameter Coast Redwood in Redwood National and State Parks. The announcement about a preliminary measurement. The M. D. Vaden redwood blog posts also mentions another discovery by someone else, of one more Coast Redwood of near equal diameter; also recent. This may be worth adding to the Wikipedia article in the near future. The source is credible. [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 12:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

== Poor accuracy of lengths conversions ==

The accuracy of many of the conversions from feet to meters in this article needs to be approved. For example, just until my last edit, 350 feet and 360 feet both equaled to 110 meters according to the article. By adding an extra accuracy parameter to the template telling the number of decimals to be used in the rounding (hence writing it on the form {{tlxi|convert|length|unit1|unit2|accuracy}}), I could change this to 106.7 meters for 350 feet and 109.7 meters for 360 feet instead, but there are still a lot of places where the accuracy should be increased. —[[User:Kri|Kri]] ([[User talk:Kri|talk]]) 08:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

== Range and Ecology change suggested / sought ==

Presently, the range and ecology part, says Coast Redwoods mainly grow in mountains. But a lot of the tree don't. For example, Bull Creek Flats of Humboldt Redwoods State Park has one of the tallest canopies known. There's Stout Grove in Jedediah Smith Redwoods. They grow in mountains and also flat areas. In fact, before extensive logging, vast groves existed in flats, like near Crescent City, Smith River, Crannell, etc.. I'm not certain how to change the description on the page. But the range and ecology should be changed to lessen emphasis about mountains. [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 12:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

2012-03-17T05:54:34Z

ThreeWikiteers: /* Removal of external link */

== More Image Links ==

The main proof for the Grove of Titans seems to lie with photographic documentation. If anybody knows of web pages with Grove of Titans photographs, please list them. I could only think of a few sources, with photos from Preston, Vaden, Taylor and a photographer named Dunklin.

Dr. Sillett has a university webpage with redwood photos, including Lost Monarch in the Grove of Titans, but the page does not refer specifically to the "Grove of Titans".

Several other websites have photos, but most of the sites appear to be re-using versions of the same images from those 4 people.[[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 22:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Some geolocated photos are available on Google Earth:-　http://www.panoramio.com/photo/41742122
　
〜〜〜〜　[[User:QuentinUK|QuentinUK]] ([[User talk:QuentinUK|talk]]) 12:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

:: The geolated photos, though available, would be deemed unreliable, because there are similar photos for the grove in at least 2 other locations in the same park, spanning nearly a mile. And neither Google Earth, nor Panoramio, can certify whether any are correct.[[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 05:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

== Removal of external link ==

Just removed one external link that showed someone's photos of the grove, because the pages include fictitious content. The names are known for certain to be false, and that leaves a big gray area about whether the narrative is fact or fiction. The site is also displayed anonymously, with no identity attached to it. Although there is a contact button, there is no name, no address, no phone, no credentials.

If anybody wants to add it, it will need to be discussed here first. If it gets restored without first discussing it, I will delete it again. Before we even discuss the site, we probably would need to know the site owner's name and credentials. Thanks. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ThreeWikiteers|contribs]]) 05:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC) 

:: Meant to add, that the remaining external links are rock solid. One was a publication (Orion), excerpted from what became a best selling book. Richard Preston is practically an expert climber, and networked with the discoverers and scientists who study these trees. His name and bio are public. The site by Vaden, has contact information, certification credentials, and experience listed as working with the same scientists and discoverers. So those external links are still dependable and useful. [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 05:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Grove of Titans

2012-03-17T05:49:47Z

ThreeWikiteers: /* More Image Links */

Talk:Grove of Titans

2012-03-17T05:40:27Z

ThreeWikiteers: /* Removal of external link */ new section

Grove of Titans

2012-03-17T05:33:44Z

ThreeWikiteers: Removed website because no identity is affixed to the site. The site also has fictitious characters, the names having morphed or changed in the past year or so. Non-authoritative source.

[[Image:Lost Monarch.jpg|thumb|300px|Arborist glancing up at Screaming Titans, one of the coastal redwood trees in the Grove of Titans.]]
The '''Grove of Titans''' is a redwood grove in [[Del Norte County, California|Del Norte County]], [[Northern California]], which includes several massive [[Sequoia sempervirens|Coast Redwood (''Sequoia sempervirens'')]] trees, some being the largest known redwoods in terms of wood volume. The largest Coastal Redwood tree in the [[grove (nature)|grove]] by volume is [[Lost Monarch (tree)|Lost Monarch]]. The largest known single stem Coastal Redwood that resides there is [[Del Norte Titan]].<ref>[http://www.conifers.org/cu/se/index.htm Gymnosperm Database]</ref>

==History==
The Grove of Titans (unofficially named) was discovered May 11, 1998, by [[Stephen Sillett]], and naturalist [[Michael Taylor (forester)|Michael Taylor]] in Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Park.<ref>Preston, Richard (2007). ''The Wild Trees: A Story Of Passion And Daring''. Allen Lane Publishers.</ref> The location of the [[Grove (nature)|grove]] has not been disclosed to the general public. The discovery implies that Sillett and Taylor are the first to realize and declare the significance of the grove, not that they are the first ones to have seen the grove. The grove's botanical significance is near equal with [[Atlas Grove]] to the south.

==Flora==
Names of the named largest redwoods in this grove include [[Lost Monarch]], El Viejo del Norte, Screaming Titans, [[Eärendil]] and [[Elwing]] Aragorn, Sacajawea, Aldebaran, Stalagmight and [[Del Norte Titan]].

Several abundant [[understory]] plants are [[Polystichum munitum|California sword fern - ''Polystichum munitum'']] and [[Oxalis oregana|Redwood sorrel - ''Oxalis oregana'']].

==Location==
The Grove of Titans is in [[Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Park]] of Northern California, south of Highway 199. The closest town is [[Crescent City, California]]. The location was described by author Richard Preston as "the bottom of a hidden notch-like valley near a [[Glade (geography)|glade]]." The exact location within the park has not been revealed for fear that excessive traffic will damage the grove.
==See also==
*[[Redwood National and State Parks]]

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://www.mdvaden.com/grove_of_titans.shtml Grove of Titans Redwoods: videos and photos]
*[http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/234/ The Wild Trees by Richard Preston: excerpt in Orion, "Day of Discovery"]
*[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9713486 NPR: Redwood Article]
*[http://www.richardpreston.net/books/imageGallery/2.html Image of the "Lost Monarch"]

[[Category:Trees of California|Sequoia sempervirens]]
[[Category:Redwood National and State Parks]]
[[Category:Protected areas of Del Norte County, California]]

Pinus ponderosa

2011-05-16T04:19:51Z

ThreeWikiteers: Gymnosperm Database page referencing discovery by Taylor & Vaden. Site is managed by Dr. Chris Earle.

{{Taxobox
| status = LR/lc
| status_system = IUCN2.3
| image = Ponderosa_Identification.jpg
| image_width = 250px
| image_caption = ''Pinus ponderosa'' subsp. ''ponderosa'' Identification Guide
| regnum = [[Plant]]ae
| divisio = [[Pinophyta]]
| classis = [[Pinophyta|Pinopsida]]
| ordo = [[Pinales]]
| familia = [[Pinaceae]]
| genus = ''[[Pine|Pinus]]''
| subgenus = ''[[Pinus classification|Pinus]]''
| species = '''''P. ponderosa'''''
| binomial = ''Pinus ponderosa''
| binomial_authority = [[David Douglas|Douglas]] ex C.Lawson
| range_map = Pondssp.png
| range_map_width = 240px
| range_map_caption = Range map of ''Pinus ponderosa'' and ''Pinus arizonica''
}}
'''''Pinus ponderosa''''', commonly known as the '''Ponderosa Pine''', '''Bull Pine''', '''Blackjack Pine''',<ref name="Moore2008">{{cite book |author=Moore, Gerry; Kershner, Bruce; Craig Tufts; Daniel Mathews; Gil Nelson; Spellenberg, Richard; Thieret, John W.; Terry Purinton; Block, Andrew |title=National Wildlife Federation Field Guide to Trees of North America |publisher=Sterling |location=New York |year=2008 |page=89 |isbn=1-4027-3875-7}}</ref> or '''Western Yellow Pine''', is a widespread and variable [[pine]] native to western [[North America]]. It was first described by [[David Douglas]] in 1826, from eastern Washington near present-day [[Spokane, Washington|Spokane]].

==Distribution==
''Pinus ponderosa'' is a dominant tree in the [[A.W. Kuchler|Kuchler]] plant association, the [[Ponderosa shrub forest]]. Like most western pines, the ponderosa is associated with mountainous topography. It is found on the [[Black Hills]] and on foothills and mid-height peaks of the northern, central and southern [[Rocky Mountains]] as well as the [[Cascades]] and [[Sierra Nevada (U.S.)|Sierra Nevada]], and the [[Maritime Coast Range Ponderosa Pine forests]].

==Description==
[[File:Pinus benthamiana 08822.JPG|thumb|left|Bark, [[Yosemite National Park]], CA]]

The Ponderosa Pine has a very distinct bark. Unlike most conifers, it has an orange bark, with black lining the crevasses, where the bark "splits". This is most noticeable amongst older Ponderosa Pines. The bark has a pleasant, sweet smell reminiscent of baking cookies.<ref>[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111803772 Ponderosa Pines: Rugged Trees With A Sweet Smell]</ref> The tree can often be identified by its characteristic long needles that grow in tufts of three. Its needles are also the only known food of the [[caterpillar]]s of the [[Gelechiidae|gelechiid]] [[moth]] ''[[Chionodes retiniella]]''.

==Size==
The National Register of Big Trees lists a Ponderosa Pine that is {{convert|240|ft|m|abbr=on}} tall and {{convert|290|in|cm|abbr=on}} in circumference.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.americanforests.org/resources/bigtrees/register.php?details=3961|publisher=American Forests|work=National Register of Big Trees|title=Pacific ponderosa Pine}}</ref> In January 2011, a Pacific Ponderosa Pine in [[Siskiyou National Forest]] in Oregon was measured with a laser to be {{convert|268.35|ft|m|abbr=on}} high. The measurement was performed by [[Michael_Taylor (forester)|Michael Taylor]], and a Certified Arborist from Oregon.<ref>[http://www.conifers.org/pi/Pinus_ponderosa_benthamiana.php Gymnosperm Database - Pinus Ponderosa benthamiana]</ref><ref>{{cite newspaper| url=http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110123/NEWS/101230353/| title=Tallest of the tall| date=2011-01-23| first=Paul| last=Fattig| newspaper=Mail Tribune| location=Medford, Oregon | accessdate=2011-01-27}}</ref> This Ponderosa Pine is now the tallest known pine. The previous tallest known pine was a [[Sugar Pine]].

==Taxonomy==
Modern forestry research identifies four different [[taxa]] of Ponderosa Pine, with differing botanical characters and adapted to different climatic conditions. These have been termed "geographic races" in [[forestry]] literature, while some botanists historically treated them as distinct species. In modern botanical usage, they best match the rank of [[subspecies]], but not all of the relevant botanical combinations have been formally published.

===Subspecies===
[[File:Pinus ponderosa scopulorum Custer State Park SD.jpg|thumb|right|Subspecies ''scopulorum'', [[Custer State Park]], SD]]

#''Pinus ponderosa'' subsp. ''ponderosa'' [[David Douglas|Douglas]] ex C. Lawson - '''North Plateau Ponderosa Pine'''.
#*Range & climate: southeast [[British Columbia]], [[Washington (U.S. state)|Washington]] and [[Oregon]] east of the [[Cascade Range]], [[Arizona]], northwestern [[Nevada]], [[Idaho]] and western [[Montana]]. Cool, relatively moist summers; very cold, snowy winters (except in the very hot and very dry summers of central Oregon, most notably near Bend, which also has very cold and generally dry winters).
#''Pinus ponderosa'' subsp. ''scopulorum'' ([[George Engelmann|Engelm.]]) E. Murray - '''Rocky Mountains Ponderosa Pine'''.
#*Range & climate: eastern [[Montana]], [[North Dakota]], [[South Dakota]], [[Wyoming]], [[Nebraska]], northern and central [[Colorado]] and [[Utah]], and eastern [[Nevada]]. Warm, relatively dry summers; very cold, fairly dry winters.
#''Pinus brachyptera'' [[George Engelmann|Engelm.]] - '''Southwestern Ponderosa Pine'''
#*Range & climate: southern [[Colorado]], southern [[Utah]], northern and central [[New Mexico]] and [[Arizona]], and westernmost [[Texas]]. The [[Gila Wilderness]] contains one of the world's largest and healthiest forests.<ref>[http://www.worldwildlife.org/wildworld/profiles/terrestrial/na/na0503_full.html Arizona Mountains forests] at World Wildlife Fund.</ref> Hot, relatively moist summers; mild winters.
#''Pinus benthamiana'' [[Karl Theodor Hartweg|Hartw.]] - '''Pacific Ponderosa Pine'''
#*Range & climate: [[Washington (U.S. state)|Washington]] and [[Oregon]] west of the [[Cascade Range]], [[California]], and just into westernmost [[Nevada]]. Hot, dry summers; mild wet winters.

The distributions of the subspecies, and that of the closely related [[Arizona Pine]] (''Pinus arizonica'') are shown on the map. The numbers on the map correspond to the taxon numbers above and in the table below. The base map of the species range is from Critchfield & Little, ''Geographic Distribution of the Pines of the World'', USDA Forest Service Miscellaneous Publication 991 (1966).

Before the distinctions between the North Plateau race and the Pacific race were fully documented, most botanists assumed that Ponderosa Pines in both areas were the same. So when two botanists from California found a distinct tree in western Nevada in 1948 with some marked differences from the Ponderosa Pine they were familiar with in California, they described it as a new species, Washoe Pine, ''Pinus washoensis''. However, subsequent research has shown that this is merely a southern outlier of the typical North Plateau race of Ponderosa Pine.

===Distinguishing subspecies===
{| class="wikitable"
!  Taxon
!  1 North Plateau 
!  2 Rocky Mts 
!  3 Southwest 
!  4 Pacific 
!  
!  5 Arizona 
!  6 Storm's 
|-
|  '''Character'''
!  (''ponderosa'') 
!  (''scopulorum'') 
!  (''brachyptera'') 
!  (''benthamiana'') 
!  
!  (''arizonica'') 
!  (''stormiae'') 
|-
|  Needles per fascicle
|  '''3'''
|  '''2'''-3
|  2-'''3'''
|  '''3'''
|  
|  4-'''5'''
|  3-'''5'''
|-
|  Needle length
|  10–22 cm
|  8–17 cm
|  12–21 cm
|  15–30 cm
|  
|  12–22 cm
|  20–30 cm
|-
|  Needle thickness
|  1.7-2.2 mm
|  1.5-1.7 mm
|  1.6-1.9 mm
|  1.3-1.7 mm
|  
|  1.0-1.1 mm
|  1.0-1.2 mm
|-
|  Cone length
|  5–11 cm
|  5–9 cm
|  5–10 cm
|  7–16 cm
|  
|  5–9 cm
|  6–11 cm
|-
|  Cone scale width
|  14–19 mm
|  16–20 mm
|  14–19 mm
|  18–23 mm
|  
|  15–18 mm
|  12–17 mm
|-
|  Immature cone colour
|  purple
|  green
|  green
|  green
|  
|  green
|  green
|-
|  Mature cone surface
|  matte
|  matte
|  glossy
|  glossy
|  
|  glossy
|  matte
|-
|  Seedwing to seed length ratio 
|  1.9-2.5
|  2.1-3.4
|  3.0-3.5
|  3.0-4.7
|  
|  2.8-3.2
|  3.0-3.5
|-
|  Max tree height
|  50 m
|  40 m
|  50 m
|  81 m
|  
|  35 m
|  20 m
|-
|  USDA hardiness zone
|  4
|  4
|  6
|  7
|  
|  7
|  8
|}
'''Notes:''' 
Taxon numbers refer to the map 
Needles per fascicle - the most frequent number is in '''bold''' 
Seedwing : seed length ratio - high numbers indicate a small seed with a long wing; low numbers a large seed with a short seedwing

==Threats==
[[Blue stain fungus]], ''Grosmannia clavigera'', attacks this species from the mouth of the [[Mountain Pine Beetle]].

==See also==
{{Commons|Pinus ponderosa|Ponderosa Pine}}
*[[Ponderosa shrub forest]]
*[[Maritime Coast Range Ponderosa Pine forests]]

==Notes==
{{reflist}}

==References==
* {{IUCN2006|assessors=Conifer Specialist Group|year=1998|id=42401|title=Pinus ponderosa|downloaded=12 May 2006}}
*Baumgartner, D. M. & Lotan, J. E. (eds.) (1988). ''Ponderosa Pine the species and its management''. Symposium proceedings. Cooperative Extension, Washington State University.
*Conkle, M. T. & Critchfield, W. B. (1988). Genetic Variation and Hybridization of Ponderosa Pine. Pp. 27–44 in Baumgartner, D. M. & Lotan, J. E. (eds.).
*Critchfield, W. B. (1984). Crossability and relationships of Washoe Pine. ''Madroño'' 31: 144-170.
*Farjon, A. (2nd ed., 2005). ''Pines''. Brill, Leiden & Boston. ISBN 90-04-13916-8.
*Haller, J. R. (1961). Some recent observations on Ponderosa, Jeffrey and Washoe Pines in Northeastern California. ''Madroño'' 16: 126-132.
*Haller, J. R. (1965). Pinus washoensis in Oregon: taxonomic and evolutionary implications. ''Amer. J. Bot.'' 52: 646.
*Haller, J. R. (1965). The role of 2-needle fascicles in the adaptation and evolution of Ponderosa Pine. ''Brittonia'' 17: 354-382.
*Lauria, F. (1991). Taxonomy, systematics, and phylogeny of ''Pinus'' subsection ''Ponderosae'' Loudon (Pinaceae). Alternative concepts. ''Linzer Biol. Beitr.'' 23 (1): 129-202.
*Lauria, F. (1996). The identity of ''Pinus ponderosae'' Douglas ex C.Lawson (Pinaceae). ''Linzer Biol. Beitr.'' 28 (2): 99-1052.
*Lauria, F. (1996). Typification of ''Pinus benthamiana'' Hartw. (Pinaceae), a taxon deserving renewed botanical examination. ''Ann. Naturhist. Mus. Wien'' 98 (B Suppl.): 427-446.
*Smith, R. H. (1977). Monoterpenes of Ponderosa Pine xylem resin. ''USDA Tech. Bull.'' 1532.
*Smith, R. H. (1981). Variation in Immature Cone Color of Ponderosa Pine (Pinaceae) inNorthern California and Southern Oregon. ''Madroño'' 28: 272-274.
*Van Haverbeke, D. F. (1986). Genetic Variation in Ponderosa Pine: A 15-Year Test of Provenances in the Great Plains. ''USDA Forest Service Research Paper'' RM-265.
*Wagener, W. W. (1960). A comment on cold susceptibility of Ponderosa and Jeffrey Pines. ''Madroño'' 15: 217-219.

==External links==
*[http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=PIPO USDA Plants Profile: ''Pinus ponderosa'']
*[http://www.conifers.org/pi/pin/ponderosa.htm Gymnosperm Database: ''Pinus ponderosa'']
*[http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/get_JM_treatment.pl?195,210,216 Jepson Manual treatment - ''Pinus ponderosa'']
*[http://calphotos.berkeley.edu/cgi/img_query?query_src=photos_index&where-taxon=Pinus+contorta ''Pinus ponderosa'' - Photo Gallery]

{{-}}

[[Category:Pinus|ponderosa]]
[[Category:Trees of the Western United States]]
[[Category:Trees of the West Coast (U.S.)]]
[[Category:Flora of the Sierra Nevada region (U.S.)]]
[[Category:Trees of California]]
[[Category:Trees of Colorado]]
[[Category:Trees of Idaho]]
[[Category:Trees of Montana]]
[[Category:Trees of Nevada]]
[[Category:Trees of New Mexico]]
[[Category:Trees of South Dakota]]
[[Category:Trees of Washington (state)]]
[[Category:Trees of Wyoming]]
[[Category:Trees of British Columbia]]
[[Category:Trees of Northwestern Mexico]]
[[Category:Trees of Northeastern Mexico]]
[[Category:San Gabriel Mountains]]
[[Category:San Bernardino Mountains]]
[[Category:Symbols of Montana]]
[[Category:United States state plants]]
[[Category:Ornamental trees]]
[[Category:Garden plants of North America]]
[[Category:Plants used in bonsai]]
[[Category:Least concern flora of California]]
[[Category:Least concern flora of the United States]]

[[az:Pinus ponderosa]]
[[ca:Pi Ponderosa]]
[[cs:Borovice těžká]]
[[da:Gul-Fyr]]
[[de:Gelb-Kiefer]]
[[et:Kollane mänd]]
[[es:Pinus ponderosa]]
[[fr:Pin ponderosa]]
[[it:Pinus ponderosa]]
[[lt:Geltonoji pušis]]
[[no:Gullfuru]]
[[pms:Pinus ponderosa]]
[[pl:Sosna żółta]]
[[pt:Pinus ponderosa]]
[[ro:Pinus ponderosa]]
[[ru:Сосна жёлтая]]
[[fi:Keltamänty]]
[[sv:Gultall]]
[[uk:Сосна жовта]]
[[zh:西黄松]]

Tsuga heterophylla

2011-05-16T02:57:46Z

ThreeWikiteers: Removed an "l" from Tsuga

{{Taxobox
| status = LR/lc | status_system = IUCN2.3
| status_ref = <ref name=iucn>{{IUCN2006|assessors=Conifer Specialist Group|year=1998|id=42435|title=Tsuga heterophylla|downloaded=12 May 2006}}</ref>
| image = Western hemlock branch.jpg
| image_width = 240px
| image_caption = Western Hemlock foliage and cones
| regnum = [[Plant]]ae
| divisio = [[Pinophyta]]
| classis = [[Pinophyta|Pinopsida]]
| ordo = [[Pinales]]
| familia = [[Pinaceae]]
| genus = ''[[Tsuga]]''
| species = '''''T. heterophylla'''''
| binomial = ''Tsuga heterophylla''
| binomial_authority = ([[Constantine Samuel Rafinesque-Schmaltz|Raf.]]) [[Charles Sprague Sargent|Sarg.]]
| range_map = Tsuga-heterophylla-range.png
| range_map_caption = Range
| range_map_width = 240px
}}

'''''Tsuga heterophylla'''''. the '''Western Hemlock''', is a species of [[Tsuga|hemlock]] native to the west coast of [[North America]], with its northwestern limit on the [[Kenai Peninsula]], [[Alaska]], and its southeastern limit in northern [[Sonoma County, California|Sonoma County]], [[California]].<ref name=farjon>Farjon, A. (1990). ''Pinaceae. Drawings and Descriptions of the Genera''. Koeltz Scientific Books ISBN 3-87429-298-3.</ref><ref name=gd>Gymnosperm Database: [http://www.conifers.org/pi/ts/heterophylla.htm ''Tsuga heterophylla'']</ref>

==Habitat==
''Tsuga heterophylla'' is an integral component of Pacific Northwest forests west of the [[Pacific Coast Ranges|Coast Ranges]], where it is a [[climax species]]. It is also an important timber tree throughout the region, along with many of its large coniferous associates.<ref name=packee>Packee, E.C. ''Tsuga heterophylla.'' Silvics of North America, Volume 1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC. 1990. [http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/silvics_manual/Volume_1/tsuga/heterophylla.htm ''Tsuga heterophylla'']</ref>

[[Image:Tsuga heterophylla1.jpg|left|thumb|Young tree]]

==Description==
''Tsuga heterophylla'' is a large [[evergreen]] [[pinophyta|coniferous]] [[tree]] growing to 50–70 m tall, exceptionally 78 m, and with a trunk diameter of up to 2.7 m. It is the largest species of [[Tsuga|hemlock]], with the next largest ([[Mountain Hemlock]] ''T. mertensiana'') reaching a maximum of 59 m. The [[bark]] is brown, thin and furrowed. The crown is a very neat broad conic shape in young trees with a strongly drooping lead shoot, becoming cylindric in older trees; old trees may have no branches in the lowest 30–40 m. At all ages, it is readily distinguished by the pendulous branchlet tips. The shoots are very pale buff-brown, almost white, with pale pubescence about 1 mm long. The [[leaf|leaves]] are needle-like, 5–23 mm long and 1.5–2 mm broad, strongly flattened in cross-section, with a finely [[serrate]]d margin and a bluntly acute apex. They are mid to dark green above; the underside has two distinctive white bands of [[stoma]]ta with only a narrow green midrib between the bands. They are arranged spirally on the shoots but are twisted at the base to lie in two ranks on either side of the shoot. The [[conifer cone|cones]] are small, pendulous, slender cylindrical, 14–30 mm long and 7–8 mm broad when closed, opening to 18–25 mm broad. They have 15–25 thin, flexible scales 7–13 mm long. The immature cones are green, maturing gray-brown 5–7 months after pollination. The [[seed]]s are brown, 2–3 mm long, with a slender, 7–9 mm long pale brown wing.<ref name=farjon/><ref name=gd/>

==Ecology==
''Tsuga heterophylla'' is closely associated with [[temperate rain forests]], and most of its range is less than 100 km from the [[Pacific Ocean]]. There is however an inland population in the [[Rocky Mountains]] in southeast [[British Columbia]], northern [[Idaho]] and western [[Montana]]. It mostly grows at low altitudes, from sea level to 600 m, but up to 1800 m in the interior part of its range in Idaho.<ref name=farjon/><ref name=gd/>

[[Image:Tsuga heterophylla 5087.JPG|left|thumb|Young individuals in [[Olympic National Park]].]]

===Shade-tolerant===
It is a very shade-tolerant tree; among associated species in the Pacific Northwest, it is matched or exceeded in shade tolerance only by [[Taxus brevifolia|Pacific yew]] and [[Abies amabilis|Pacific silver fir]].<ref name=packee/> Young plants typically grow up under the canopy of other conifers such as [[Sitka Spruce]] and [[Douglas-fir]], where they can persist for decades waiting to exploit a gap in the canopy. They eventually replace these conifers, which are relatively shade-intolerant, in in climax forest. However, [[storm]]s and [[wildfire]]s will create larger openings in the forest where these other species can then regenerate.

Initial growth is slow; one year old seedlings are commonly only 3–5 cm tall, and two year old seedlings 10–20 cm tall. Once established, saplings in full light may have an average growth rate of 50–120 cm (rarely 140 cm) annually until they are 20–30 m tall, and in good conditions still 30–40 cm annually when 40–50 m tall. The tallest specimen, 78.9 m tall, is in [[Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park]], [[California]] ([[USA]]). It is long-lived, with trees over 1200 years old known.<ref name=gd/>

==Uses==
''Tsuga heterophylla'', Western Hemlock, is the [[List of U.S. state trees|state tree]] of [[Washington (U.S. state)|Washington]].<ref>Washington State Government: [http://www.leg.wa.gov/Legislature/StateSymbols/ State Symbols]</ref>

===Cultivation===
Western Hemlock is cultivated as an [[ornamental tree]] in gardens in its native habitats and along the U.S. Pacific Coast, where its best reliability is seen in wetter regions. In relatively dry areas, as at [[Victoria, British Columbia]], it is exacting about soil conditions. It needs a high level of organic matter (well-rotted wood from an old log or stump is best; animal manures may have too much [[nitrogen]] and [[salt]]), in a moist, acidic soil.

===Forestry===

Outside of its native range, Western Hemlock is of importance in [[forestry]] for [[timber]] and [[paper]] production, and as an [[ornamental tree]] in large [[garden]]s, in northwest [[Europe]] and southern [[New Zealand]].

It has [[naturalisation (biology)|naturalised]] in some parts of [[Great Britain|Britain]] and [[New Zealand]], not so extensively as to be considered an [[invasive species]], but an [[introduced species]] tree.

===Food===
The edible [[cambium]] can be collected by scraping slabs of removed bark. The resulting shavings can be eaten immediately, or can be dried and pressed into cakes for preservation. The bark also serves as a source of [[tannin]] for [[tanning]].

Tender new growth needles (leaves) can be chewed directly or made into a bitter tea, rich in [[vitamin C]] (similar to some other hemlock and pine species).

Western Hemlock boughs are used to collect [[herring]] eggs during the spring spawn in [[Alaska Panhandle|southeast Alaska]]. The boughs provide an easily collectible surface for the eggs to attach to as well as providing a distinctive taste. This practice originates from traditional gathering methods used by [[Alaska Natives|Native Alaskans]] from southeast Alaska, specifically the [[Tlingit people|Tlingit]] people.

==References==
{{commons|Tsuga heterophylla}}
{{reflist}}

{{TsugaSpecies}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:Tsuga Heterophylla}}
[[Category:Tsuga|Heterophylla]]
[[Category:Trees of the Northwestern United States]]
[[Category:Trees of the West Coast (U.S.)]]
[[Category:Trees of Alaska]]
[[Category:Trees of British Columbia]]
[[Category:Trees of California]]
[[Category:Trees of Idaho]]
[[Category:Trees of Montana]]
[[Category:Trees of Oregon]]
[[Category:Trees of Washington (state)]]
[[Category:Trees of mild maritime climate]]
[[Category:Garden plants of North America]]
[[Category:Ornamental trees]]
[[Category:Least concern plants]]

[[cs:Jedlovec západní]]
[[de:Westamerikanische Hemlocktanne]]
[[et:Läänetsuuga]]
[[es:Tsuga heterophylla]]
[[eo:Okcidenta cugo]]
[[fr:Pruche de l'Ouest]]
[[lt:Kaliforninė cūga]]
[[nl:Westelijke hemlockspar]]
[[ja:ベイツガ]]
[[no:Vestamerikansk hemlokk]]
[[pms:Tsuga heterophylla]]
[[pl:Choina zachodnia]]
[[ru:Тсуга западная]]
[[sk:Jedľovec rôznolistý]]
[[fi:Lännenhemlokki]]

Pinus ponderosa

2011-05-16T02:54:26Z

ThreeWikiteers: One of the discoverers was a Certified Arborist. Usually that is sufficient confirmation because arborists routinely provide arborist reports. And Taylor is one of the 2 leading tall tree measuring experts in the USA.

{{Taxobox
| status = LR/lc
| status_system = IUCN2.3
| image = Ponderosa_Identification.jpg
| image_width = 250px
| image_caption = ''Pinus ponderosa'' subsp. ''ponderosa'' Identification Guide
| regnum = [[Plant]]ae
| divisio = [[Pinophyta]]
| classis = [[Pinophyta|Pinopsida]]
| ordo = [[Pinales]]
| familia = [[Pinaceae]]
| genus = ''[[Pine|Pinus]]''
| subgenus = ''[[Pinus classification|Pinus]]''
| species = '''''P. ponderosa'''''
| binomial = ''Pinus ponderosa''
| binomial_authority = [[David Douglas|Douglas]] ex C.Lawson
| range_map = Pondssp.png
| range_map_width = 240px
| range_map_caption = Range map of ''Pinus ponderosa'' and ''Pinus arizonica''
}}
'''''Pinus ponderosa''''', commonly known as the '''Ponderosa Pine''', '''Bull Pine''', '''Blackjack Pine''',<ref name="Moore2008">{{cite book |author=Moore, Gerry; Kershner, Bruce; Craig Tufts; Daniel Mathews; Gil Nelson; Spellenberg, Richard; Thieret, John W.; Terry Purinton; Block, Andrew |title=National Wildlife Federation Field Guide to Trees of North America |publisher=Sterling |location=New York |year=2008 |page=89 |isbn=1-4027-3875-7}}</ref> or '''Western Yellow Pine''', is a widespread and variable [[pine]] native to western [[North America]]. It was first described by [[David Douglas]] in 1826, from eastern Washington near present-day [[Spokane, Washington|Spokane]].

==Distribution==
''Pinus ponderosa'' is a dominant tree in the [[A.W. Kuchler|Kuchler]] plant association, the [[Ponderosa shrub forest]]. Like most western pines, the ponderosa is associated with mountainous topography. It is found on the [[Black Hills]] and on foothills and mid-height peaks of the northern, central and southern [[Rocky Mountains]] as well as the [[Cascades]] and [[Sierra Nevada (U.S.)|Sierra Nevada]], and the [[Maritime Coast Range Ponderosa Pine forests]].

==Description==
[[File:Pinus benthamiana 08822.JPG|thumb|left|Bark, [[Yosemite National Park]], CA]]

The Ponderosa Pine has a very distinct bark. Unlike most conifers, it has an orange bark, with black lining the crevasses, where the bark "splits". This is most noticeable amongst older Ponderosa Pines. The bark has a pleasant, sweet smell reminiscent of baking cookies.<ref>[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111803772 Ponderosa Pines: Rugged Trees With A Sweet Smell]</ref> The tree can often be identified by its characteristic long needles that grow in tufts of three. Its needles are also the only known food of the [[caterpillar]]s of the [[Gelechiidae|gelechiid]] [[moth]] ''[[Chionodes retiniella]]''.

==Size==
The National Register of Big Trees lists a number of large Ponderosa Pines up to {{convert|227|ft|m|abbr=on}} tall.<ref>[http://www.americanforests.org/resources/bigtrees/register.php?details=614 American Forests: National Register of Big Trees]</ref> and {{convert|294|in|cm|abbr=on}} in circumference.<ref>[http://www.americanforests.org/resources/bigtrees/register.php?details=615 American Forests: National Register of Big Trees]</ref> In January 2011, a Pacific Ponderosa Pine in [[Siskiyou National Forest]] in Oregon was measured with a laser to be {{convert|268.35|ft|m|abbr=on}} high. The measurement was confirmed by [[Michael_Taylor_forester|Michael Taylor]] of California, and Certified Arborist M. D. Vaden of Oregon. The title used to be held by a [[Sugar Pine]].<ref>{{cite newspaper| url=http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110123/NEWS/101230353/| title=Tallest of the tall| date=2011-01-23| first=Paul| last=Fattig| newspaper=Mail Tribune| location=Medford, Oregon | accessdate=2011-01-27}}</ref>

==Taxonomy==
Modern forestry research identifies four different [[taxa]] of Ponderosa Pine, with differing botanical characters and adapted to different climatic conditions. These have been termed "geographic races" in [[forestry]] literature, while some botanists historically treated them as distinct species. In modern botanical usage, they best match the rank of [[subspecies]], but not all of the relevant botanical combinations have been formally published.

===Subspecies===
[[File:Pinus ponderosa scopulorum Custer State Park SD.jpg|thumb|right|Subspecies ''scopulorum'', [[Custer State Park]], SD]]

#''Pinus ponderosa'' subsp. ''ponderosa'' [[David Douglas|Douglas]] ex C. Lawson - '''North Plateau Ponderosa Pine'''.
#*Range & climate: southeast [[British Columbia]], [[Washington (U.S. state)|Washington]] and [[Oregon]] east of the [[Cascade Range]], [[Arizona]], northwestern [[Nevada]], [[Idaho]] and western [[Montana]]. Cool, relatively moist summers; very cold, snowy winters (except in the very hot and very dry summers of central Oregon, most notably near Bend, which also has very cold and generally dry winters).
#''Pinus ponderosa'' subsp. ''scopulorum'' ([[George Engelmann|Engelm.]]) E. Murray - '''Rocky Mountains Ponderosa Pine'''.
#*Range & climate: eastern [[Montana]], [[North Dakota]], [[South Dakota]], [[Wyoming]], [[Nebraska]], northern and central [[Colorado]] and [[Utah]], and eastern [[Nevada]]. Warm, relatively dry summers; very cold, fairly dry winters.
#''Pinus brachyptera'' [[George Engelmann|Engelm.]] - '''Southwestern Ponderosa Pine'''
#*Range & climate: southern [[Colorado]], southern [[Utah]], northern and central [[New Mexico]] and [[Arizona]], and westernmost [[Texas]]. The [[Gila Wilderness]] contains one of the world's largest and healthiest forests.<ref>[http://www.worldwildlife.org/wildworld/profiles/terrestrial/na/na0503_full.html Arizona Mountains forests] at World Wildlife Fund.</ref> Hot, relatively moist summers; mild winters.
#''Pinus benthamiana'' [[Karl Theodor Hartweg|Hartw.]] - '''Pacific Ponderosa Pine'''
#*Range & climate: [[Washington (U.S. state)|Washington]] and [[Oregon]] west of the [[Cascade Range]], [[California]], and just into westernmost [[Nevada]]. Hot, dry summers; mild wet winters.

The distributions of the subspecies, and that of the closely related [[Arizona Pine]] (''Pinus arizonica'') are shown on the map. The numbers on the map correspond to the taxon numbers above and in the table below. The base map of the species range is from Critchfield & Little, ''Geographic Distribution of the Pines of the World'', USDA Forest Service Miscellaneous Publication 991 (1966).

Before the distinctions between the North Plateau race and the Pacific race were fully documented, most botanists assumed that Ponderosa Pines in both areas were the same. So when two botanists from California found a distinct tree in western Nevada in 1948 with some marked differences from the Ponderosa Pine they were familiar with in California, they described it as a new species, Washoe Pine, ''Pinus washoensis''. However, subsequent research has shown that this is merely a southern outlier of the typical North Plateau race of Ponderosa Pine.

===Characteristics distinguishing the subspecies of ''P. ponderosa'' and ''P. arizonica''===
{| class="wikitable"
!  Taxon
!  1 North Plateau 
!  2 Rocky Mts 
!  3 Southwest 
!  4 Pacific 
!  
!  5 Arizona 
!  6 Storm's 
|-
|  '''Character'''
!  (''ponderosa'') 
!  (''scopulorum'') 
!  (''brachyptera'') 
!  (''benthamiana'') 
!  
!  (''arizonica'') 
!  (''stormiae'') 
|-
|  Needles per fascicle
|  '''3'''
|  '''2'''-3
|  2-'''3'''
|  '''3'''
|  
|  4-'''5'''
|  3-'''5'''
|-
|  Needle length
|  10–22 cm
|  8–17 cm
|  12–21 cm
|  15–30 cm
|  
|  12–22 cm
|  20–30 cm
|-
|  Needle thickness
|  1.7-2.2 mm
|  1.5-1.7 mm
|  1.6-1.9 mm
|  1.3-1.7 mm
|  
|  1.0-1.1 mm
|  1.0-1.2 mm
|-
|  Cone length
|  5–11 cm
|  5–9 cm
|  5–10 cm
|  7–16 cm
|  
|  5–9 cm
|  6–11 cm
|-
|  Cone scale width
|  14–19 mm
|  16–20 mm
|  14–19 mm
|  18–23 mm
|  
|  15–18 mm
|  12–17 mm
|-
|  Immature cone colour
|  purple
|  green
|  green
|  green
|  
|  green
|  green
|-
|  Mature cone surface
|  matte
|  matte
|  glossy
|  glossy
|  
|  glossy
|  matte
|-
|  Seedwing to seed length ratio 
|  1.9-2.5
|  2.1-3.4
|  3.0-3.5
|  3.0-4.7
|  
|  2.8-3.2
|  3.0-3.5
|-
|  Max tree height
|  50 m
|  40 m
|  50 m
|  81 m
|  
|  35 m
|  20 m
|-
|  USDA hardiness zone
|  4
|  4
|  6
|  7
|  
|  7
|  8
|}
'''Notes:''' 
Taxon numbers refer to the map 
Needles per fascicle - the most frequent number is in '''bold''' 
Seedwing : seed length ratio - high numbers indicate a small seed with a long wing; low numbers a large seed with a short seedwing

==Threats==
[[Blue stain fungus]], ''Grosmannia clavigera'', attacks this species from the mouth of the [[Mountain Pine Beetle]].

==See also==
{{Commons|Pinus ponderosa|Ponderosa Pine}}
*[[Ponderosa shrub forest]]
*[[Maritime Coast Range Ponderosa Pine forests]]

==Notes==
{{reflist}}

==References==
* {{IUCN2006|assessors=Conifer Specialist Group|year=1998|id=42401|title=Pinus ponderosa|downloaded=12 May 2006}}
*Baumgartner, D. M. & Lotan, J. E. (eds.) (1988). ''Ponderosa Pine the species and its management''. Symposium proceedings. Cooperative Extension, Washington State University.
*Conkle, M. T. & Critchfield, W. B. (1988). Genetic Variation and Hybridization of Ponderosa Pine. Pp. 27–44 in Baumgartner, D. M. & Lotan, J. E. (eds.).
*Critchfield, W. B. (1984). Crossability and relationships of Washoe Pine. ''Madroño'' 31: 144-170.
*Farjon, A. (2nd ed., 2005). ''Pines''. Brill, Leiden & Boston. ISBN 90-04-13916-8.
*Haller, J. R. (1961). Some recent observations on Ponderosa, Jeffrey and Washoe Pines in Northeastern California. ''Madroño'' 16: 126-132.
*Haller, J. R. (1965). Pinus washoensis in Oregon: taxonomic and evolutionary implications. ''Amer. J. Bot.'' 52: 646.
*Haller, J. R. (1965). The role of 2-needle fascicles in the adaptation and evolution of Ponderosa Pine. ''Brittonia'' 17: 354-382.
*Lauria, F. (1991). Taxonomy, systematics, and phylogeny of ''Pinus'' subsection ''Ponderosae'' Loudon (Pinaceae). Alternative concepts. ''Linzer Biol. Beitr.'' 23 (1): 129-202.
*Lauria, F. (1996). The identity of ''Pinus ponderosae'' Douglas ex C.Lawson (Pinaceae). ''Linzer Biol. Beitr.'' 28 (2): 99-1052.
*Lauria, F. (1996). Typification of ''Pinus benthamiana'' Hartw. (Pinaceae), a taxon deserving renewed botanical examination. ''Ann. Naturhist. Mus. Wien'' 98 (B Suppl.): 427-446.
*Smith, R. H. (1977). Monoterpenes of Ponderosa Pine xylem resin. ''USDA Tech. Bull.'' 1532.
*Smith, R. H. (1981). Variation in Immature Cone Color of Ponderosa Pine (Pinaceae) inNorthern California and Southern Oregon. ''Madroño'' 28: 272-274.
*Van Haverbeke, D. F. (1986). Genetic Variation in Ponderosa Pine: A 15-Year Test of Provenances in the Great Plains. ''USDA Forest Service Research Paper'' RM-265.
*Wagener, W. W. (1960). A comment on cold susceptibility of Ponderosa and Jeffrey Pines. ''Madroño'' 15: 217-219.

==External links==
*[http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=PIPO USDA Plants Profile: ''Pinus ponderosa'']
*[http://www.conifers.org/pi/pin/ponderosa.htm Gymnosperm Database: ''Pinus ponderosa'']
*[http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/get_JM_treatment.pl?195,210,216 Jepson Manual treatment - ''Pinus ponderosa'']
*[http://calphotos.berkeley.edu/cgi/img_query?query_src=photos_index&where-taxon=Pinus+contorta ''Pinus ponderosa'' - Photo Gallery]

{{-}}

[[Category:Pinus|ponderosa]]
[[Category:Trees of the Western United States]]
[[Category:Trees of the West Coast (U.S.)]]
[[Category:Flora of the Sierra Nevada region (U.S.)]]
[[Category:Trees of California]]
[[Category:Trees of Colorado]]
[[Category:Trees of Idaho]]
[[Category:Trees of Montana]]
[[Category:Trees of Nevada]]
[[Category:Trees of New Mexico]]
[[Category:Trees of South Dakota]]
[[Category:Trees of Washington (state)]]
[[Category:Trees of Wyoming]]
[[Category:Trees of British Columbia]]
[[Category:Trees of Northwestern Mexico]]
[[Category:Trees of Northeastern Mexico]]
[[Category:San Gabriel Mountains]]
[[Category:San Bernardino Mountains]]
[[Category:Symbols of Montana]]
[[Category:United States state plants]]
[[Category:Ornamental trees]]
[[Category:Garden plants of North America]]
[[Category:Plants used in bonsai]]
[[Category:Least concern flora of California]]
[[Category:Least concern flora of the United States]]

[[az:Pinus ponderosa]]
[[ca:Pi Ponderosa]]
[[cs:Borovice těžká]]
[[da:Gul-Fyr]]
[[de:Gelb-Kiefer]]
[[et:Kollane mänd]]
[[es:Pinus ponderosa]]
[[fr:Pin ponderosa]]
[[it:Pinus ponderosa]]
[[lt:Geltonoji pušis]]
[[no:Gullfuru]]
[[pms:Pinus ponderosa]]
[[pl:Sosna żółta]]
[[pt:Pinus ponderosa]]
[[ro:Pinus ponderosa]]
[[ru:Сосна жёлтая]]
[[fi:Keltamänty]]
[[sv:Gultall]]
[[uk:Сосна жовта]]
[[zh:西黄松]]

Talk:Tsuga heterophylla

2011-03-18T23:29:54Z

ThreeWikiteers: /* 2011 Discovery over 80 meters */

{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Plants|class= Start|importance=Low|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject California|class=B|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Canada|bc=yes|importance=Low|class=B|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Washington|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Oregon|class=Start|importance=Mid|nested=yes}}
{{Project Alaska|importance=Low|class=B|nested=yes}}
{{WikiProject Montana|class=Start|nested=yes}}
}}

== WikiProject class rating==
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. [[User:BetacommandBot|BetacommandBot]] 14:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

== 2011 Discovery over 80 meters ==

The maximum height for Tsuga heterophylla has now been established at 271.98 feet from a recent 2011 discovery. Over 80 meters. The only reference presently is [http://www.mdvaden.com/hemlock_tallest.shtml MDV Tallest Hemlock Discovery 2011]. The tree has been named '''Tsunami'''. [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 04:42, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
::Update: this Western Hemlock has been added also to the conifers.org database at [http://www.conifers.org/pi/Tsuga_heterophylla.php Western Hemlock data at conifers.org]Almost everything that makes it into that database is deemed "official" or reliable. [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 23:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

2010-08-30T05:06:32Z

ThreeWikiteers: The original source used to specifically state "challenge" but has changed, so that no reference seems to exist for more than just clarification.

[[Image:Iluvatar redwood 400.jpg|thumb|300px|An Oregon Arborist in 'Atlas Grove', next to a coastal redwood named [[Iluvatar (tree)| Iluvatar]], during Spring of 2008.]]
'''Atlas Grove''' is a nickname for a grove of trees in [[California|California's]] [[Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park]]. The third largest coastal [[Sequoia sempervirens|redwood]] tree is in this grove. It is called [[Iluvatar (tree)| Iluvatar]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iluvatar_(tree)</ref>

According to author Richard Preston, Atlas Grove was discovered by naturalist [[Michael Taylor]], in 1991.<ref>Preston, Richard (2007). ''The Wild Trees: A Story Of Passion And Daring''. Allen Lane Publishers. page 82.</ref>

Among tree hunters and botanists, some trees are given names unofficially. On the other hand, over 900 groves have been named in honor of people, families or organizations: said to be an "everlasting memorial to an individual, family or organization". <ref>Save the Redwood Memorial Groves List (2008). [http://www.savetheredwoods.org/protecting/pdf/grove_list.pdf ''Save the Redwood Memorial Groves List''.] List of Memorial Groves</ref>. Nobody has openly disclosed or discounted whether 'Atlas Grove' is one of over 900 dedicated memorial groves.

A part of 'Atlas Grove' was studied; referred to as the Atlas Project, confined to approximately 1 hectare. The location of this stand of trees is undisclosed. For importance, 'Atlas Grove' is virtually on par with the [[Grove of Titans]], another undisclosed grove with titan redwoods.

Trees in the stand were measured with tapes and laser range finders. 20 days, with 5 climbers, was spent just for measuring Iluvatar. Scientific studies were done with moisture, light and sap flow sensors. Wildlife in the grove was studied too, including the North American wandering salamander - [[Aneides vagrans]].

This grove contains other old coastal redwoods including Atlas Tree, Gaia, Pleiades, Ballantine, Promethius, Bell and others. Neighboring species include ''[[Pseudotsuga menziesii]]'', ''[[Picea sitchensis]]'', ''[[Acer macrophyllum]]'', ''[[Rhamnus purshiana]]'', ''[[Umbellularia californica]]'', ''[[Tsuga heterophylla]]'', ''[[Chamaecyparis lawsoniana]]'' and ''[[Lithocarpus densiflorus]]''.

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
*[http://www.mdvaden.com/grove_of_titans.shtml Photographs: Documentation, Photos and Information with Atlas Grove]

[[Category:Trees of California]]

Talk:Sequoia sempervirens

2010-06-23T03:19:34Z

ThreeWikiteers: /* Fallen Trees */

{{talkheader}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=GAN
|action1date=December 17, 2005
|action1result=Listed
|action1oldid=31838649

|action2=GAR
|action2date=October 25, 2007
|action2result=Delisted
|action2link=Talk:Sequoia#GA_Delist
|action2oldid=167100378

|currentstatus=DGA
|topic=Natsci}}
{{WikiProject Plants|class=B|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject California|class=B|importance=Mid}}

==Assessment==
whoever did first assessment on importance doesnt seem to have left any notes. It seems this page deserves at least a Mid assessment. [[User:Architectsf|Architectsf]] 23:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
::I rarely check my messages in websites: anyhow I like reviewing assessments. If you stumble upon a prior assessment page for this Redwood / Sequoia article, email me from [http://www.mdvaden.com M.D. Vaden]and send me the link - Thank-you...[[User:Mdvaden|Mdvaden]] ([[User talk:Mdvaden|talk]]) 03:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

==Awaiting an admin move ==

It seems pretty weird to me that an article which didn't even have a talk page is "awaiting an admin move back to [[Sequoia]]". [[User:Gene Nygaard|Gene Nygaard]] 09:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:Please leave it at [[Sequoia]]. This is part of an agreed policy change discussed at [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life]], to work towards a move of plants to scientific name titles, beginning with some conifer families. The move to "california redwood" was not done with reference to the WP:TOL project. - [[User:MPF|MPF]] 11:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
:: This just seems weird, even if ''sequoia'' is the genus. By all accounts, the tall ones are called Redwoods (or Coast Redwoods) and the fat ones are called Giant Sequoias. It is misleading to call this one Sequoia IMHO. [[User:Bonus Onus|Bonus Onus]] 01:58, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
::: I agree with Bonus Onus. I live in California; when people talk here about a "Sequoia," they mean the Giant Sequoias in the eastern central part of the state. Everyone calls the tall ones "redwoods," as Bonus Onus states. Calling a redwood a "Sequoia" in the common vernacular sounds like it's wrong. While it's an admirable goal to headline articles with scientific names, I think a statement in the introductory sentence should indicate something like "while the correct genus is 'sequoia,' the tree is more commonly referred to as a 'redwood' by the layperson." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so while it should be accurate, it should not be confusing in the effort to be accurate. People will be coming here for information, and they shouldn't be confused in the process or think they're in the wrong article.[[User:DavidHoag|David Hoag]] 17:34, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
:::: Leave it. it is the agreed upon policy and this is not subject to what everyone calls it. i fyou dont like it put a redirect in. 03:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
:I read in the ''LA Times'', decades ago, that the Coast Redwoods live within the range of the fog, and thrive there for that reason. That is a clear difference between them and Giant Sequoias. [[User:Ancheta Wis|Ancheta Wis]] 12:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC) The article on Giant Sequoia says "Giant Sequoia is distinct from the Coast Redwood at the genus level"

:Agreed: this article has a misleading title. Coastal redwoods and sequoias are two related but distinct species. The redwoods are taller, slimmer, and live half as long. Redwoods occupy a different ecosystem and have a greater need for water. [[User:Durova|Durova]] 16:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

::Your assessment may be 180 degrees off the mark. The common name "Giant Sequioa" is what is misleading, not this article title. And that is one excellent reason for the goal and priority to set a trend toward Genus names, rather than common names for information and research. A giant sequioa is not a "Sequioa" - it's a giant Sequioadendron. Thus it's name is confusing. So "Sequioa" is fitting for both policy and accuracy when describing a Coastal Redwood - for it Sequioa, not a "Giant Sequioa". —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ThreeWikiteers|contribs]]) 05:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC) 

:::Actually the truth is, these trees existed before anyone from Europe decided to give them a name, whether a colloquial name, a scientific name, or an "Indian" name (which is written in a Latin alphabet). Giant "sequoias" were called sequoias first, so to say that it is not a sequoia is a bit misleading.

In any case, Wikipedia is supposed to reflect outside sources, not Wiki-activism. This article should be renamed "Redwood" or "Coast Redwood."[[User:Ryoung122|Ryoung122]] 01:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
: "Wiki-activism"??. What should be done is this article should be a Genus level article named ''Sequoia'' as that is the taxonomic name as the genus is NOT monotypic. The information on the extant species should be moved to a species level article "possibly" named "Coast Redwood" or ''Sequoia sempervirens'' and articles on the extinct species such as ''[[Sequoia affinis]]'' need to be created.--[[User:Kevmin|Kevmin]] ([[User talk:Kevmin|talk]]) 01:52, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

==Pronunciation==

It would be nice to have a sound file to help pronounce words like these.

==Tallest tree ever==
The [[Thorpdale, Victoria]] article states the town once had a tree that was 114 m tall, which is taller than the Dyerville Giant. [[User:Pietdesomere|Piet]] 10:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
:Oops it says ''tallest sequoia ever'' not tallest tree. My excuses. [[User:Pietdesomere|Piet]] 13:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
::That height is only an unverified claim, anyway - [[User:MPF|MPF]] 10:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

:::Actually that height WAS a verified claim. But it doesn't matter because Hyperion is higher.[[User:Ryoung122|Ryoung122]] 01:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

== This article is badly named ==

In California, when referring to a tree, "Sequoia" means exactly one thing: ''Sequoiadendron giganteum''. The trees in this article (''Sequoia sempervirens'') are called redwoods. Now I can understand having "redwood" as a disambiguation page, but at the very least this page should be given a name that 1) is not used to describe an entirely different organism, and 2) unambiguously refers to ''this'' organism. I think the best name would be '''Coast Redwood''', which at least incorporates the common name, though the full binomial name would at least be an improvement over the current title. --[[User:Yath|Yath]] 14:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

:I'd object, as it would leave it the sole article in [[:Category:Cupressaceae]] not listed at its scientific name; monotypic genera are also by [[WP:TOL]] convention under their genus names only (c.f. [[Ginkgo]], etc) - [[User:MPF|MPF]] 00:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

::Why is it important for all articles in [[:Category:Cupressaceae]] to be listed at their scientific names? --[[User:Yath|Yath]] 03:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

::"Giant Sequoia" and "Coastal Redwood" are basically household names; they're widely known to most people, being the world's largest and tallest trees. Thus, for the general reader, naming the Coastal Redwood article "Sequoia", is quite confusing. For example, no one would name the article on the [[American Robin]] "''[[Turdus migratorius]]''", even though, if one were to be pedantic, "Robin" is "misleading", as the American Robin is not a member of [[Erithacus]]. The [[Saguaro]] is in the monotypic genus [[Carnegiea]], yet it is [[Carnegiea]] that redirects to Saguaro. This contradicts official conventions, yet no one has proposed changing the title to [[Carnegiea]] because that would unhelpful to most users. In special cases where the animal or plant is essentially an icon in the public imagination and very familiar by its common name, as in the cases of the Saguaro, the Coastal Redwood, and the Giant Sequoia, it seems that such policy is pedantic rather than helpful. --[[User:Xiao Li|Xiao Li]] ([[User talk:Xiao Li|talk]]) 20:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

:::This article should be re-named. The scientific name is sequoia sempervirens, NOT 'sequoia' alone. The common name, "redwood" or "coast redwood," makes a lot more sense.[[User:Ryoung122|Ryoung122]] 01:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

== Family vs. Fairy ring ==

I know next to nothing about plants. From what I can tell by searching, however, a "fairy ring" is a ring of fungi. I can't find anything about "family ring" online that wasn't copied out of Wikipedia, but at least the image page calls it a "family ring", not a "fairy ring". I may have messed up with the names, but at least there's some transparency now. --[[User:Starwiz|Starwiz]] 04:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
:Thanks for looking into this [[User:Starwiz|Starwiz]]. The American Journal of Botany published a study by UC Berkeley's Environmental Science department [http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/full/91/7/1140] that refers to "fairy rings" in sequoia populations, and I can find no scholarly reference to "family rings" among sequoias. This may be a weak arguement for reverting back but it seems evidence enough for me. I admit that I, like you Starwiz, have extremely limited knowledge on this topic. If anyone has a more information I'm sure we'd all welcome it. [[User:Jaredroberts|Jared]] 19:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
::I'm glad this is verified now--that study is way more evidence than I had. I've edited the description [[:Image:Family_ring_of_redwoods.jpg]] to reflect the change. [[User:Starwiz|Starwiz]] 02:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

:::To answer that question, since the answer handles several other objections by amateurs: the benefit is one accurate name, versus a cofusing myriad of common names. Besides, searchers can still find the trees in Wikipedia anyway, since common names are included in articles. But common names cause a lot of organizational errors, such as Douglas fir, which is not "fir" nor in the Abies genus of true fir trees. And on another note, Sequoiadendron, the other tree, is more properly "giant sequoia", not "sequioa". Sequoia is a genus, and it refers only to the Coast Redwood.[[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 16:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

== Height of lowest branches ==
When we were poking around in Redwood National Park I had my Leica laser rangefinder with me. I did measurements on the lowest major branches of a sequioa tree and they averaged about 125 ft (40 m) above the ground. Truly amazing. My results aren't scientific enough to put in the article, but it's a good "gee whiz" thing for the discussion page. -[[User:Rolypolyman|Rolypolyman]] 20:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

== Minor edit ==

It seems that somebody has used this page to test with wikipedia editing, I deleted this "test" part.--[[User:Patillotes|Patillotes]] 20:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

==GA Sweeps (on hold)==
This article has been reviewed as part of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force]] in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the [[WP:WIAGA|Good article criteria]]. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.
*There is a complete lack of in-line cites that needs to be fixed.
I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a [[WP:GA|Good article]]. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through [[WP:GAR]]). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at [[WP:GAN]]. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, [[User:Corvus coronoides|'''Corvus coronoides''']] [[User talk:Corvus coronoides|''talk'']] 00:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

== GA Delist ==

{{{icon|[[Image:Symbol unsupport vote.svg|25px]]}}} In order to uphold the quality of [[Wikipedia:Good articles]], all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the [[WP:WIAGA|GA criteria]] as part of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force|GA project quality task force]]. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of
[[October 25]],
[[2007]], this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from [[WP:GA]]. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at [[WP:GAN]]. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at [[WP:GAR]]. 

 
*Lack of in-line cites [[User:Corvus coronoides|'''Corvus coronoides''']] [[User talk:Corvus coronoides|''talk'']] 13:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

::You listed lack of in-line cites as the reason. Although I was not part of this article's construction, I'd like to learn how the cites are coded-in, and will try to find and add a couple later this month, but may be delayed due to moving.[[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 23:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

== Del Norte Titan in Statistics ==

While researching and reading about Titan redwoods in Jedediah Smith Redwoods, I found one source that said the Del Norte Titan redwood was the largest for volume. That's how the "Statistics" part of this article currently reads. But lately, I discovered a couple of sources online, stating that the Lost Monarch Titan is larger than Del Norte Titan. Would others like to perform a few searches and see what you come up with?[[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 07:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

:There is a bit online to research, but not much. Recently, I found and visited these titan redwood trees. [http://www.http://www.mdvaden.com/grove_of_titans.shtml M.D. Vaden Titan Redwood Page]

:And inbetween visiting those titans and photographing them, I came across a pdf file '''American Journal of Botany 90(2): 255 - 261. 2003.''' Apparently that is 2003. And the measurements were likely prior to 2003.. It's a research paper. In a table, it lists 977.9 cubic meters as the main trunk volume for The Lost Monarch titan. And 945.6 cubic meters as the main trunk volume for the Del Norte Titan. With extra reiterated stem volume of 11.5 cubic meters for Lost Monarch and 99.1 for Del Norte titan. This would seem to make the Del Norte Titan larger. But recently, I've seen several websites, listing Del Norte Titan as just over 36,000 cubic feet, and The Lost Monarch at a bit over 40,000 cubic feet. It seems that those references were more recent. I did not bookmark the URLs. We can find them, for certain. Images of the titans available are rare, and for that reason, I'm not planning to donate any to Wikipedia yet.[[User:Mdvaden|Mdvaden]] ([[User talk:Mdvaden|talk]]) 06:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

::Just noticed on Wikipedia's page for the Redwood National and State Parks, in "Flora", that Lost Monarch is said to be the largest redwood with 42,500 cubic feet (1205 cubic meters). The same number showed up on a newsletter for broadband tree wardens. But no source is listed.[[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 16:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

:::Been almost 2 months - no more feedback about the largest redwood. If nobody else replies soon, may make the change in the next couple of weeks. Will wait a few more days for feedback.[[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 23:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Some of the table entries are contrary to other respected sources of rank by volume.

Most published sources do not have the double stemmed 'Lost Monarch' ranked as first by volume. Forest Giants of the Pacific Coast by Robert Van Pelt is one of them. It has the largest basal diameter but to be fair it's still a doubler - and is usually ranked as third - still impressive. These trees are one-of-kind unreplacable ancient global treasures. Please do not publish location hints/maps for recognition/personal reasons/page hits. It does no good for anyone and especially not the groves. They are not some super secret locations known only to the elite few as some like to go along with so eagerly. Leave them be if you believe in preserving them for future generations to visit and study.[[User:Bigtree75|Bigtree75]] ([[User talk:Bigtree75|talk]]) 21:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

== External Link: Titan Redwoods ==

Added one external link, to a page with excellent photographs of the largest known coast redwoods, including the Del Norte Titan mentioned in this Sequioa article. In the "Extra Reading", Preston's book The Wild Trees refers to most of the trees shown in the M.D. Vaden photographs. After an intensive search online for images of the Titan redwoods, results are rare. The M.D. Vaden page has the most complete collection of full trunk views available. For ground-level panoramic views, it is the most complete visual documentation available for these trees on the internet. All images are copyrighted, and not available to upload to Wikipedia.

—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/ThreeWikiteers|contribs]]) 23:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC) 

== Tallest / Largest Edit / BradLuke22 & Lady Arwyn ==

Could BradLuke22 or Lady Arwyn provide the source for the Titan redwood measurements?

:There are a couple of documents online that list Adventurer Tree - few years back - near 32,000 cubic feet. I suspect you have access to a document, table or field notes that may not be online. Are the measurements in a book? Thanks.

::Someone - BradLuke or Lady Arwyn - added a tallest / largest section. Seems like a good idea, but some sentence text was discussion that should be in here on the discussion page, so I edited that text and added this as reference. In their edit, they asked if someone might have something more up to date, but I suspect their contribution is the most recent numbers available. I'm unfamiliar with Adventure Tree's size, but the others sound right based on information encountered.[[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 18:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

:::The recent edit for largest redwoods - the table - seems fairly accurate. I'd be very interested even for my own records, what the source is, especially for Adventure Tree. Any chance the editor BradLuke22 is "in the loop" of the Humboldt university program for canopy research?[[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 21:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if i have put any inaccurate data on, i pretty sure the adventure tree is in the wrong place, but was just trying to use both my book "to find the biggest tree" this site http://www.humboldt.edu/~sillett/redwoods.html (largest tree's list on the third pic near top) and a few other sources to get the most up to date list, please edit it if you no there wrong.. Sorry for not using discussuion page up till now, i'm new to editing on wiki.. Thanks, Luke 30 april 2008 —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Bradluke22|Bradluke22]] ([[User talk:Bradluke22|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Bradluke22|contribs]]) 19:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC) 
::Thanks for coming back. If Adventurer is slightly over 39,000 cubic feet, you have it in the right spot. It's just that I don't know any numbers for it. For the rest, looks like you have the same numbers I've found. The SineBot automatically added your signature, but if you put 4 Tildes (~), the character to the left of numeral "1" using the shift key, it adds your signature to a comment. Again, that's 4 consecutive Tildes. Feel free to jump in on any of the tree, redwood, sequioa pages for editing any time. Thanks.[[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 00:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

== Citation for Largest: Opinions sought ==

For the largest and tallest sizes, someone stuck "Citation Needed". Those might be very hard to come by. There apparently are documents online somewhere, that a lot of saavy experts may not be willing to supply the URL for.

:So here's where your opinions will be handy - there is a webpage by a "Certified Arborist" from Oregon, specifically about many of these trees. See [http://www.mdvaden.com/grove_of_titans.shtml Arborist's page about Largest Sequoia Coastal Redwoods]. One paragraph is presented as an "Arborist Report" confirming reported trunk diameters for 4 of the Largest trees.

::Would that work as ONE starter citation to cover the trunk diameter aspect? This is a Certified professional, whose certification is listed on the International Society of Arboriculture website?

:::Certainly more citations can be added as they become available. But the secrecy surrounding these trees may require using the outside fringe of the Citation guidelines. Please have your say - thanks.[[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 21:01, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

:::Also, I'm not sure of the right way to write multiple citations. If several are needed for one paragraph, or one table, are they placed one right next to another? Or inserted next to the fragments of information that they belong to?[[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 00:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

== Tallest existing tree species in the world ==

I edited the text to suggest that the Redwood/Sequoia is the tallest '''currently existing''' species of tree in the world. I say "existing" because equally tall specimens of Douglas-Fir (300-415ft), and Australian Eucalyptus (300-400+ft) did exist in original old growth forests as can be extrapolated from solid historical record and scientific evidence. Yet, no other forest today contain as many tall trees in excess of 300 feet as do the Redwood forests of California. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/75.175.57.16|75.175.57.16]] ([[User talk:75.175.57.16|talk]]) 04:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC) 

:: The article would have been shorter, and conveyed they same identical meaning, if you omitted "existing". Because the redwoods exist, and they are the tallest known trees. But it's no real issue, so the added word is fine. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/96.253.164.77|96.253.164.77]] ([[User talk:96.253.164.77|talk]]) 06:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 

:::The following from above is not the point of a current encyclopedic article:
:::''"I say "existing" because equally tall specimens of Douglas-Fir (300-415ft), and Australian Eucalyptus (300-400+ft) did exist in original old growth forests as can be extrapolated from solid historical record and scientific evidence."''

:::There is reason (cited) that leaves the measurements of the other species in question, while the measurement of the current tallest Coast Redwoods at around 380 feet is not in dispute. I am concerned about current science not some unproven historical measurements, which are suspected to have been exaggerated. Clearly we could get into an argument that historical Coast Redwoods in the valleys around Eureka, areas along the Eel River and its tributaries, as well as others to the north were likely to exceed current verifiable measurements. But that argument is not what this current article is about. I changed the article to state the current fact of the matter. Norcalal 01:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

"suspected to have been exaggerated." Well I could claim the "Eureka tree" (380 feet) cut down in 1914 by lumber operator 'BF Porter", and reported by the American Forestry Association., 1915, is equally as suspicious as any other old record. I am just as suspicious about current trees reported at 380 feet with almost no photographs or details. But I choose to believe Steven Sillett (with good reason), just as I choose to believe the American Forestry Association, and just as I believe the old USFS chief Richard McArdle, who in 1924-5 measured the big tree (Douglas-fir) at Mineral, Wa. and calculated its original height at 393 feet prior to wind damage. --[[Special:Contributions/75.175.67.58|75.175.67.58]] ([[User talk:75.175.67.58|talk]]) 04:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

== Redwood Documentary Spam ==

Someone has recently been posting an external link to a documentary page '''redwoodsdocumentary dot com''' which has virtually no information or photos. I noticed that other editors have been wise to delete it, but the original spammer has undone the deletion to repost the site of no value. I deleted it again. Keep an eye on it, and please delete it as soon as it shows up, unless they can produce a specific page not yet seen, with substantial info relevant to the article.

::One good reason for deletion, is the deletion already by several editors, as well as the original poster of the link not coming into the discussion page about it. They are using a bull in a china shop tactic. —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/96.253.164.77|96.253.164.77]] ([[User talk:96.253.164.77|talk]]) 06:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC) 

== Added additional redwood Image / Feel free to comment ==

Figured nobody would mind the addition of the one image of Del Norte Titan. The image was recently contributed for the Del Norte Titan page, and it's a very good example for size comparison. Could have asked first, but seeing it's addition is virtually inconsequential, plus the image is near the bottom right, this seemed like a good way to display it for your consideration.

:If editors see a need for deletion, please speak your mind. It illustrates size comparison quite well. Also, images of this tree are rare on the internet. So it's a handy contribution to a page about it's species. [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 05:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

== External Link > Your opinions please ==

There is a website that I would like to suggest for the External Links. It is [http://www.redwoodhikes.com Redwood Hikes dot com]

It is virtually the most thorough website I have seen regarding the redwoods and trails. The photos are excellent. And it is virtually encyclopedic in many regards due to it's organization, legend, photos and structure. Could you please browse several pages and it's tables. Would like to add it in the next week or two, if nobody disagrees with it. I'll check back here for your input and opinions. Thanks. [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 06:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

== Largest Trees > Mystery Redwood ==

There is a tree indicated at the Humboldt State Univ. website, and no name is given for what is potentially a second largest redwood - related to the table on this article page. An Oregon arborist who is certified, personally measured the trunk diameters of most of the biggest redwoods in this article's list, and, has found, photographed and measured a tree that can fit the mystery tree's general description by a fraction of an inch. I added this arborist as a citation to partially cover the notation for "citation needed" that's been lingering for weeks. This at least partially covers the citation needs, and is more generous with photographic evidence than the Humboldt state university website, which is the main base of operations for measuring these trees. Unfortunately, the university staff don't seem to have compiled a complete resource that can be cited to cover all our bases here for this large and tall redwood stuff.

If you have better suggestions, please write them here. Thanks. [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 23:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

== Anonymous editors: refer changes to discussion page ==

Noticed another change by one anonymous user. Specifically the user 216.160.121.211.

::Be sure to post suggestions for changes or deletions in the discussion section first.
::List the suggestion, and list alternative that better supply a change or deletion.[[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 21:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

==Tree sit protests==
I believe a noteworthy sociological aspect of these trees is that they seem to inspire direct action political protests, among the more noteworthy being Ms. Hill's tree-sit and the more recent tree-sit on the campus of U.C. Berkeley. If these facts are 'original research' I would like to be educated. Perhaps it's the planners, landlords, and chainsaws which inspire the protests.[[User:Critical Chris|Critical Chris]] ([[User talk:Critical Chris|talk]]) 15:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

== Trivia Items about Sequoia... ==

Dunno if a trivia section is in order, but...

1) The word "sequoia" is the shortest word in the English language to incorporate all of the five primary vowels (a, e, i, o and u).

2) The Official Presidential Yacht of the USA was named Sequoia.

They are useless trivia...but maybe a mention? —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.48.50.34|68.48.50.34]] ([[User talk:68.48.50.34|talk]]) 01:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC) 

== Tallest Redwood, New data from LIDAR 2008 ==

Perhaps the article should mention the fact that hundreds of newly found Redwoods exceeding 106 m have been indicated from recent analysis of aerial LIDAR data taken in 2007!

I think that list of "tallest Redwoods" will need some serious updating come 2009. It could take years for these trees to be charted and independently measured with lasers.

--[[Special:Contributions/75.175.67.58|75.175.67.58]] ([[User talk:75.175.67.58|talk]]) 04:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
:Do you have a reference? [[User:Krasanen|Krasanen]] ([[User talk:Krasanen|talk]]) 12:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Reference? Michael Taylor has recently mentioned the LIDAR results in a forum on Oct. 15th. He specifically said that the data processed for canopy height of 106 m (348 ft) or more has yielded "hundreds" of previously unknown trees: [http://www.treeclimbing.com/component/option,com_fireboard/Itemid,49/func,view/id,132306/catid,285/limit,6/limitstart,0/]
--[[Special:Contributions/75.175.67.58|75.175.67.58]] ([[User talk:75.175.67.58|talk]]) 00:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

::The only current updated list seems to stem from the menu of the Oregon Arborist M. D. Vaden page:

::[http://www.mdvaden.com/grove_of_titans.shtml Largest Redwoods Page]

::See the menu of that page. There is a note that the list was an October update sent to the arborist from Michael Taylor. Although many LIDAR trees were found by LIDAR, most of the data in this article is reasonably accurate, but may need some minor changes. [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 17:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

:::The link above does not function. Probably you meant this:
:::[http://www.mdvaden.com/grove_of_titans.shtml Largest Redwoods Page] [[User:Krasanen|Krasanen]] ([[User talk:Krasanen|talk]]) 19:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

:::: Yes, that one - thanks. [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 23:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

== TED talk by Preston ==

An anonymous user added an external link to a TED talk by author Preston. I reverted the page back, and suggest that the TED talk maybe be considered for the Richard Preston page. The TED talk parallels a lot of Preston's book THE WILD TREES which is already listed in the references. The video starts immediately with advertising segments, and alternates between a little philisophy, then redwood forest stuff, and redwood tree stuff.

It's a good video as far as videos go. But it really seems to fit the Richard Preston page, if it's going to be useful in some kind of encyclopedic way. But for example, just a few minutes into the video, Preston jumps to story telling of Steve Sillett free climbing a tree with wasps, the afterward talks about his own fear of heights, then into people and fear of heights.

This is really a micro video version of Preston and his story book on some west coast tree people. If you review the video, count how few minutes even in the first 1/3 of the video, pertain to redwood facts, versus the story telling aspect. [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 02:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

::Introduced the suggestion to add the TED talk at the Richard Preston page discussion zone. [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 23:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

== The Wild Trees book by Preston - a question ==

Here is a question for other contributors:

Should Preston's book called The Wild Trees remain in the Further Reading?

Either way others suggest if fine with me. But it's not a redwood book. It's a story with a bunch of redwood stuff inserted randomly. 1/2 the book at least, is about people. Some parts are about other trees. The book is not called "The Wild Redwoods". But it does have quite a few redwood facts. If you have read it, you know what I mean. One section is on Eucalyptus in Australia. One section is Preston climbing a pine across the Atlantic. Another section is about learning to climb in Douglas fir. Do you see what I mean? The redwoods are used as a climax, but can we consider the book base on it's complete content. So what do you think? Leave it in the list? Is maybe 35% redwood content in a story form, sufficient for encyclopedic content - remember, it has no photographs in it of anything in mentions. Pleae add your thoughts on this. Thanks [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 00:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

:Am beginning to change my opinion, that maybe Preston's book should be discarded as a reference. Have been following updates from an arborist M. D. Vaden who visited most of the largest coast redwoods. A recent update to that site's page [http://www.mdvaden.com/grove_of_titans.shtml M. D. Vaden Largest Redwoods] and a review of The Wild Trees - see the menu - says that the scientist Sillett was not the first to reach old growth canopy. That's one more discrepency with Preston's book. More and more, it seems that Preston's book is not a good idea to list as a reference material. This last bit of info showed up after my last commnent. [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 17:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

::Took some time and looked up the name Baranek that M. D. Vaden mentioned. There is a G. Beranek with a website [http://www.atreestory.com A Tree Story]. Apparently, as Vaden stated, Beranek looks to be a legit old timer of the redwoods. Author, photographer and climber. This can undermine the credibility of The Wild Trees regarding climbing into old growth canopy. The error is nearly 2 decades off the mark, with the wrong person credited. [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 23:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

== Article quite good - maybe tweak tolerance to flooding ==

Have read the entire page a couple of times lately.

Very hard to find areas to edit. Some new data would probably be very feasible. But for what's on the page, it's well written. Did notice something that may need an edit. The article states that redwoods are very tolerant to flooding and adapt to silt accumulations. But I recall reading lately about some flooding in a redwood park - maybe Tall Trees Grove - where flooding and siltation caused some die-back of the canopy tops. They probably grew roots, but with some loss above. It that is accurate, then they would not be VERY tolerant of flooding, but would be trees that can survive flooding and silt accumulations.

Feel free to look around for information about this. I'll look too. [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 08:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

== Evolutionary history? Cultural history? ==

It would be important to briefly talk about the evolution of sequoias, as well as what is known about the history of human knowledge about them (starting from indigenous peoples). -[[User:Pgan002|Pgan002]] ([[User talk:Pgan002|talk]]) 09:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

:Good idea. How broad or specific? I was reading the Tall Trees Grove brochure last week, and a man, for example, used to row upriver to the grove to catch and salt fish. Some American Indian tribe used to be up Redwood Creek too. Those might be too specific. [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 04:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

::'''Support'''.I might be for brief summaries of Cultural and Evolutionary sections, but those details would be better placed in daughter or related main articles. It seems to me that the article is quite long and I would caution making it longer. The indigenous aspect of the article could be located (linked to?) in or developed in an article that might include the following as one section: For example, Tolowa and Yurok articles (and articles of predacessors), which are the primary native groups to have inhabited the region now occupied by RNSP park, for example could link to other culturally relevant issues. Evolutionary aspects of the trees themselves connect to a story that could potentially span geologic time and include the development and demise of a much larger ancient range for the coast redwood and perhaps dozens of related trees species (now extinct) from the same family, which used to cover the Northern hemisphere. I am not sure about the history of the now extinct sister species, but mention of that aspect of the science is of significant interest would assist readers to learn of the mega- massive story of these mega-massive trees. [[User:Norcalal|Norcalal]] ([[User talk:Norcalal|talk]]) 06:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

== Phylogenetic aspects ==

I edited the genetic refs at the end of the 'Decscription' chapter. Pls have a look.

I think it's not justified to say Sequoia is 'likely autoallopolyploid', and changed that to 'possibly allopolyploid'. The relevant paragraph of the cited sources goes as following:

''(1) Sequoia may either be a partially diploidized autohexaploid (AAAAAA) derived from some ancestoral species of Sequoia, thus carrying a single ancestoral genome; or (2) Sequoia may be an autoallohexaploid (AABBBB or AAAABB) thus containing two ancestoral genome. Although we are not certain about the two ancestral species, Metasequoialike and Sequoiadendron-like species may have contributed to the ancestry of coast redwood; or (3) Sequoia may be a segmental allohexaploid (A1A1A1A1A2A2, A1A1A2A2A2A2, or A1A1A2A2A3A3), presumably derived by hybridization between two or three closely related ancestral species. We are not sure if these ancestral species belong to ancient Metasequoia, Sequoiadendron, and Cryptomeria, or they were different species of Sequoia that existed in the prehistoric times.''

That's from: Ahuja, M.R.; Neale, D.B. (2001). "Origins of Polyploidy in Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) and Relationship of Coast Redwood to other Genera of Taxodiaceae". Silvae Genetica 51 (2002): page 99.

I would like to put that into a footnote, but i'm new to wikipedia. I'd appreciate if someone would have a look, and decide if it's worth to clutter the article, or maybe create a seperate chapter about this very fascinating topic.

[[User:Rosetta|Rosetta]] 15:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/78.49.65.182|78.49.65.182]] ([[User talk:78.49.65.182|talk]])  

==Fallen Trees==
I recently added a section on about two fallen Sequoia in the Uk and someone deleted them! there happens to be only two in the UK and i think it is important that they are identified and listed, anyone disagree then i would like i full reason why as i think that they are both eligable to be listed. Thanks [[User:Bankhallbretherton|Bankhallbretherton]] ([[User talk:Bankhallbretherton|talk]]) 23:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

::Seems to me, that the deletion of them was a good idea. About the only reason I'm posting, is to give you a chance to delete it before I do. Regarding this topic, its irrelevant and inconsequential. Otherwise over the years, we'd have to add fallen redwoods in Japan, fallen redwoods in Canada, fallen redwoods in New Zealand. This article is not about fallen redwoods. If you don't delete it, I will. And if one person already did, their action and my post, is two opinions versus yours. So the consensus currently favors deletion. [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 07:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

:::'''Delete'''. I deleted the mention initially and I will again. Editors should weigh in on this, but it is quite obvious. This article discusses this species in a very big deal way as all species deserve. However, can you imagine listing the dead rose bushes or ferns or anything growing outside its natural environment in the yards of individuals. Please... [[User:Norcalal|Norcalal]] ([[User talk:Norcalal|talk]]) 06:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason what so ever to be rude about it. The problem has been resolved with alternate methods that allow them to be identified and valid with references. [[User:Bankhallbretherton|Bankhallbretherton]] ([[User talk:Bankhallbretherton|talk]]) 09:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

::::The problem has not been resolved. Regarding people commenting, inclusion of the "fallen trees" is a minority opinion. Also, an internet search for such fallen trees or fallen sequoia yield next to nil by internet standards. But if the drive-through redwood "Chandelier Tree" is searched for, an abundance of results appears. The large lack of references alone, illustrates that these fallen trees are far from noteworthy. And if this article should include special trees, the Dyerville Giant, Founders Tree, Big Tree, Corkscrew Tree, Drive-Thru tree and others would rate much, much higher on the priority scale. Please don't shove your fallen tree agenda when you are the minority, with virtually no references online. [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 03:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

==taxonomy==

It's just a convenient coincidence that there is ONLY ONE species of genus sequoia and only one species of the genus sequoiadendron. However, most genuses have multiple individual species. Even for humans (homo sapiens) there are extinct species such as homo neanderthalensis. So, it's a bit fictive to simply list only the genus name, and not the species name, on the disambiguation pages.[[User:Ryoung122|Ryoung122]] 01:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

:Both of the genera DO have multiple species, it just happens that only one species in each is still living (''[[Sequoiadendron chaneyi]]'' and ''[[Sequoia affinis]]'' are extinct). It is the policy of the floral and faunal wikiprojects to have monotypic genera articles at the genus level, as was done with these two. If you look at the taxoboxes and the text of the two articles you will see that they do mention in the first lines the specie binomials. Both articles should be split into genus and species level articles for all included taxa.--[[User:Kevmin|Kevmin]] ([[User talk:Kevmin|talk]]) 04:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

==Requested move==
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a [[WP:RM|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: '''page moved'''. Cleanup needs to be done by the regular editors. [[User:Vegaswikian|Vegaswikian]] ([[User talk:Vegaswikian|talk]]) 01:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

----

[[Sequoia]] → [[Coast Redwood]] — Having Sequoia point to this article is very confusing. The term Sequoia is usually used to refer to Sequoiadendron giganteum. [[User:Rdore|Rdore]] ([[User talk:Rdore|talk]]) 23:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

===Survey===
:''Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with'' <code><nowiki>*'''Support'''</nowiki></code> ''or'' <code><nowiki>*'''Oppose'''</nowiki></code>'', then sign your comment with'' <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>''. Since [[Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|polling is not a substitute for discussion]], please explain your reasons, taking into account [[Wikipedia:Article titles|Wikipedia's policy on article titles]].''

*'''Support'''. If anything, an article titled "Sequoia" should be a disambiguation page for the three related geni. [[User:Brutaldeluxe|Brutal Deluxe]] ([[User talk:Brutaldeluxe|talk]]) 00:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

*Conditional Support: if this article is reworked into a genus level article for the one living species and the several extinct species such as ''[[Sequoia affinis]]'', ''[[Sequoia chinensis]]'', ''[[Sequoia langsdorfii]]'', and ''[[Sequoia magnifica]]''.--[[User:Kevmin|Kevmin]] ([[User talk:Kevmin|talk]]) 17:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

*'''Support''' I agree with the disambiguation page idea, I think that the other species should be listed on the sequoia disambiguation page. [[User:Bankhallbretherton|Bankhallbretherton]] ([[User talk:Bankhallbretherton|talk]]) 09:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

===Discussion===
:''Any additional comments:''

:Regarding a disambiguation page, it is a good idea, the information that is here and pertains to the genus level information for ''Sequoia'' could be moved to an article titled ''[[Sequoia (genus)]]'' and this page can be made into a disambig.--[[User:Kevmin|Kevmin]] ([[User talk:Kevmin|talk]]) 17:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[WP:RM|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.</div>

===Contested move===
I didn't see consensus in the above discussion since there were points raised like the conditional support of Kevmin that were not taken into consideration. I '''oppose''' the move to the common name per [[WP:NC (flora)]]. There are several common names, all of which can be ambiguous. When the move was completed, ''[[Sequoia]]'' was left as a redirect, negating the desired effect. And in reply to Rdore's initial rationale, it can be confusing, but that's why we have disambiguation pages. ''Sequoia'' is most often used to describe this genus, including the only extant species. Sequoia is used as a common name for several species, but I'm confidant the [[WP:PRIMARY|primary]] usage is for the genus in reliable sources. I have therefore reverted the move so we can discuss this further ([[WP:BRD]]). [[User:Rkitko|Rkitko]] ([[User talk:Rkitko|talk]]) 12:12, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
: The discussion seemed to unanimously agree the right thing was to make a disambiguation page, not have Sequoia be the disambiguator. Unfortunately, your revert was quick enough no one had time to turn the redirect into a disambig page. Per [[WP:NC (flora)]], "when a plant is of interest outside botany—for example because it has agricultural, horticultural or cultural importance—then a vernacular name may be more common." In this case sticking with (just the genus of) the biological name seems pedantic in a very confusing way. Both trees are definitely a part of popular culture, and the common usage is definitely (Giant) Sequoia for Sequoiadendron giganteum and (Coast or Coastal) Redwood for Sequoia sempervirens. For example, here are some news articles that use these terms: [http://articles.latimes.com/2004/sep/20/local/me-bigtrees20] [http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-04-26/news/17421409_1_coastal-redwoods-world-s-tallest-trees-humboldt-redwoods-state-park] [http://www.mercurynews.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=14445326&siteId=568]. I'm going to relist this on requested moves. [[User:Rdore|Rdore]] ([[User talk:Rdore|talk]]) 04:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
::''"then a vernacular name '''may''' be more common."'' If you want to use the metrics of google hits, I find more hits for "''Sequoia sempervirens''" than I do for "coast redwood" in google, google books, and google scholar. These are indications that "coast redwood" is not the most commonly used name. As for "giant sequoia", that would be a case of a [[Wikipedia:DAB#Partial title matches|partial title match]]. --[[User:Rkitko|Rkitko]] ([[User talk:Rkitko|talk]]) 14:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a [[WP:RM|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: '''pages moved''' as indicated below under [[#Consensus?]], per discussion. [[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]]) 17:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

----

[[:Sequoia]] → {{noredirect|1=Coast Redwood}} — Relisted because move was reverted. See [[Talk:Sequoia#Requested_move]] and [[Talk:Sequoia#Contested_move]]. [[User:Rdore|Rdore]] ([[User talk:Rdore|talk]]) 04:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

:'''oppose''': if this article moved the ''Sequoia'' page needs to be reworked into a genus level article for the one living species and the several extinct species such as ''[[Sequoia affinis]]'', ''[[Sequoia chinensis]]'', ''[[Sequoia langsdorfii]]'', and ''[[Sequoia magnifica]]''. This is how genus and species level articles are properly treated. --[[User:Kevmin|Kevmin]] ([[User talk:Kevmin|talk]]) 05:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' as stated: [[Sequoia]] should be a stub about the genus, with a hatnote pointing to [[Sequoia (disambiguation)]], or alternately [[Sequoia]] should be the dab page and [[Sequoia (genus)]] the stub. Then the issue of whether the extant species should be at [[Coast redwood]] or [[Sequoia sempervirens]] can be debated on its own merit.--[[User:Curtis Clark|Curtis Clark]] ([[User talk:Curtis Clark|talk]]) 05:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

*'''Oppose''' per Curtis Clark. I'd be fine with ''[[Sequoia]]'' or [[Sequoia (genus)|''Sequoia'' (genus)]] as the stub for the genus. This page should be located at ''[[Sequoia sempervirens]]'', not [[coast redwood]]. The species name is more common in ghits in google, books, and scholar than "coast redwood". [[User:Rkitko|Rkitko]] ([[User talk:Rkitko|talk]]) 14:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

* '''move to [[Sequoia sempervirens]] instead''', with [[Sequoia]] pointing to [[Sequoia_(disambiguation)]]: I'm not attached to "Coast Redwood" as a name anyway. I just felt that having "Sequoia" come directly here was quite confusing. [[User:Rdore|Rdore]] ([[User talk:Rdore|talk]]) 14:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

===Consensus?===

It seems we would all be fine with:
#moving this page to [[Sequoia sempervirens]]
#making [[Sequoia]] the dab page (either by redirecting it to [[Sequoia (disambiguation)]] or, perhaps better, moving the current dab page to [[Sequoia]])
#creating [[Sequoia (genus)]] as a stub, which will mention the extinct species as well as ''S. sempervirens''

Any disagreement? Rkitko, if everyone agrees, would you do the honors in case admin privs are needed for any of the moves?--[[User:Curtis Clark|Curtis Clark]] ([[User talk:Curtis Clark|talk]]) 16:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a [[WP:RM|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.</div>

===Pages moved===
I have carried out the moves indicated immediately above. I've done a bit of cleanup; what remains is to disambiguate the links that currently point to [[Sequoia]], which is now a disambiguation page. There are, at the time of this post, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Sequoia&limit=505 505] such links. -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]]) 17:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
:Actually, from the main namespace, there are only [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Sequoia&namespace=0&limit=339 339]. -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]]) 17:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

== LiDAR ==

LiDAR, or Light Detection and Ranging, is just briefly introduced in the Statistics part of the article. People who enjoy editing this Sequoia s. page may want to keep an eye out for more information about LiDAR and coast redwoods. This is rather new to the internet pertaining to coast redwoods, but extra references and articles should begin to emerge. This is some of the latest technology to be used in the coast redwood forest. [[User:ThreeWikiteers|ThreeWikiteers]] ([[User talk:ThreeWikiteers|talk]]) 06:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)