Jump to content

Talk:Sequoiadendron giganteum

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mdvaden (talk | contribs) at 04:39, 3 May 2008 (→"Largest" for volume, possibly misleading). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconPlants Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCalifornia Unassessed High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Westonbirt photo

Discussion deleted --- summary: hike395 didn't like the Westonbirt photo, because it was not taken in natural habitat. Arpingstone says it was a good picture, because it was a clear example of the species.

Just to add - there are plenty of places around the world where Sequoiadendron grows very well outside its natural habitat - there's tens of thousands planted in Britain, some already 53m tall (over half of the maximum recorded height in under 150 years!), so it is clearly very well adapted here; they're also growing very well elsewhere in western Europe, in the PNW north to Vancouver, New Zealand, southwest Australia, and parts of Chile. - MPF 20:53, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Actually, now that MPF has added text about the worldwide cultivation of S. giganteum, I like the Westonbirt photo! Because the photo illustrates the cultivation of S. giganteum. Thanks for adding the words, Michael! -- hike395


This is a database of known sequoia trees in Germany and Europe: http://sequoias.liluz.de/ http://www.com2inet.de/html/mammutbaum.php (in German) In Germany, sequoias are currently growing in 2491 locations, pictures are available for 1744 places and GPS coordinates for 332.

Usage of units

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories

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

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

Cultivar Hazel Smith

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

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

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

Minor unverified sequoia trivia

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wellingtonia Name

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

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

Article name "Sequoiadendron"

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

I'd object, as it would leave it the sole article in Category:Cupressaceae not listed at its scientific name - MPF 00:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the paragraph..."Poland"

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

Tallest in the Northeastern U.S.A.

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

"Largest" for volume, possibly misleading

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

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sequoiadendron_giganteum&oldid=209845647"