Talk:Sequoia sempervirens

Assessment

whoever did first assessment on importance doesnt seem to have left any notes. It seems this page deserves at least a Mid assessment. 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 M.D. Vadenand send me the link - Thank-you...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". 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. - 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. 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.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. 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. 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 unsigned comment added by ThreeWikiteers (talk • 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."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.--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. Piet 10:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops it says tallest sequoia ever not tallest tree. My excuses. Piet 13:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

That height is only an unverified claim, anyway - MPF 10:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually that height WAS a verified claim. But it doesn't matter because Hyperion is higher.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. --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) - MPF 00:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is it important for all articles in Category:Cupressaceae to be listed at their scientific names? --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. --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.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. --Starwiz 04:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this Starwiz. The American Journal of Botany published a study by UC Berkeley's Environmental Science department [1] 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. 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. 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.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. -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.--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 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 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, Corvus coronoides _talk 00:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Delist

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the 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 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.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?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. 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.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.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.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.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 unsigned comment added by ThreeWikiteers (talk • 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.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?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 unsigned comment added by Bradluke22 (talk • 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.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 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.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?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 unsigned comment added by 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 unsigned comment added by 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. --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).[2]. There are probably equally tall living specimens out there. Eucalyptus has to hold the record as a genus/species. 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 unsigned comment added by 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. 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 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. 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. 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.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.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 unsigned comment added by 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.

--75.175.67.58 (talk) 04:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a reference? 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: [3] --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:

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. ThreeWikiteers (talk) 17:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The link above does not function. Probably you meant this:

Largest Redwoods Page Krasanen (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that one - thanks. 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. ThreeWikiteers (talk) 02:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Introduced the suggestion to add the TED talk at the Richard Preston page discussion zone. 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 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 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. 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 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. 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. 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). -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. 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. 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.

Rosetta 15:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 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 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. 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... 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. 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. 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 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.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.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.--Kevmin (talk) 04:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: page moved. Cleanup needs to be done by the regular editors. 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. 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 *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support. If anything, an article titled "Sequoia" should be a disambiguation page for the three related geni. Brutal Deluxe (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.--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. 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.--Kevmin (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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 primary usage is for the genus in reliable sources. I have therefore reverted the move so we can discuss this further (WP:BRD). 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: [4] [5] [6]. I'm going to relist this on requested moves. 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 partial title match. --Rkitko ^(talk) 14:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

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

The result of the move request was: pages moved as indicated below under #Consensus?, per discussion. GTBacchus^(talk) 17:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Sequoia → Coast Redwood — Relisted because move was reverted. See Talk:Sequoia#Requested_move and Talk:Sequoia#Contested_move. 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. --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.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per Curtis Clark. I'd be fine with Sequoia or 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". 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. Rdore (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus?

It seems we would all be fine with:

1. moving this page to Sequoia sempervirens
2. making Sequoia the dab page (either by redirecting it to Sequoia (disambiguation) or, perhaps better, moving the current dab page to Sequoia)
3. 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?--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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, 505 such links. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, from the main namespace, there are only 339. -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. 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. Chaozu42 (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

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

The statement in the text comes from the website: WALLACE W HANSEN Nurseries. No idea where he would have gotten the specific reference from. 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-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---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. 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,---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. 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.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, 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. — Eru·tuon 17:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

What does it really add to the essential elements of the article? 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.Mdvaden (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)