Talk:Pseudotsuga

The Douglas fir is the state tree of Oregon, but grows in equal abundance in all the Pacific NW and Canada, with some great examples at the Olympic National forest in Washington. However, The tallest living specimen (currently known) is the 330' Coos giant, known as the Brummit Fir--and I assume it is hundreds if not 1000 or more years in age. It is not wholly implausable to imagine that some old growth firs were indeed in the 300' to 400' level before logging, deforestation, and fires in the 19th and 20th centuries really started to widdle away at the larger examples of giantism for this species.

However, there are certain doubts about whether old documented tree heights are to be taken as reliable. For example, the record of a 415' Douglas fir in Lynn Valley, BC, certainly requires a bit of faith.

The Coastal Douglas fir is very common as a sub-urban street tree in Portland,Oregon, but generally doesn't grow as tall as it would in the forest. There are some scattered middle to older growth stands in parts of the city, but Forest Park is probably the best example. Notable examples:

• 165' Douglas fir at Powell Butte

• 242' Douglas fir at Forest Park (tallest tree in Portland). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tuscaloosa11 (talk • contribs) .

Is this a comment or question, or did you mean to put this in the article space? SCHZMO ✍ 19:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

conservation status

Why are the conservation statuses of the individual species listed here on the genus page? Wouldn't they be more appropriate on the pages of the individual species? SCHZMO ✍ 18:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Uses section: timber, wood, lumber

Should it be changed to 'timber?' 'Wood' is the most general term in the English-language, whereas in North America, what Commonwealth speakers call 'timber,' is generally called 'lumber' here in the vernacular, although 'timber' is used in the trade. I thought 'wood' was fine. "'Wood' from Douglas fir trees is used for structural applications required to withstand high loads." KP Botany 20:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose so. Sometimes I'm just a little hasty, but thanks for not reverting out of hand.The Boy that time forgot 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I get hasty, too, but I know you're a serious contributor. KP Botany 22:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The hyphen

What's with the use of the hyphen throughout? This is rather new, this hyphenating to indicate it is not really that. Or is it? There are places besides Google where adding the hyphen and doing a search will return null or limited results. What's the authority on it? It should be explained that it is more commonly spelled without the hyphen, when and on whose authority it changed. Also the capitalization or not should be explained, as it is most often written with Douglas capitalized, as it is from a proper name, only in the Latin is this usually dropped, or so I thought. This line needs referenced, "The hyphen in the common name indicates that douglas-firs are not true firs, i.e. they are not members of the genus Abies." KP Botany 18:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

USDA ref added - MPF 12:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the reference? KP Botany 16:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Hike has made it inline now. - MPF 18:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The reference does not elaborate on the hyphen any and neither does the text. KP Botany 17:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the origin of the hyphen - where was it first used? Many common names of plants are not 'correct' names. Should we now have Cape-gooseberry and Chinese-gooseberry?89.240.13.182 17:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The Flora of North America hyphenates the name. --EncycloPetey 17:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello all- You can see more discussion on this at User_talk:Katr67#Douglas-fir_et_al and User_talk:MPF#Douglas-fir -Eric ^(talk) 19:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Conflict

While searching for information on the "Henry" tree, a supposily named tall tree which was not a redwood, so I assumed it might be a Douglas Fir. I found the following conflict with your article on the Douglas fir:

"Douglas-fir is named for Henry Douglas (1798-1834), a Scottish botanist who traveled in North America. The word Pseudotsuga means ‘false hemlock" , while menziesii is used in recognition of Archibald Menzies (1754-1842), a Scotch physician and naturalist, who discovered Douglas-fir in 1793 on Vancouver Island, British Colombia." This quote is from "http://www2.fpl.fs.fed.us/techsheets/SoftwoodNA/htmlDocs/pseudomenziesii.html", and was published by the Center for Wood Anatomy Research at the Forest Products Laboratory of the US Forest Service.

Over fifty years ago my father-in-law, a licensed arborist in the state of Connecticut relates that he was shown an extremely tall Douglas fir (200+ meters) which the locals called the "Henry Tree"

I don't know which Douglas, the Forest Services Henry or the David as cited in the Wikipedia article on the Douglas fir is the individual that the Douglas fir was named for. I, for one, would like to know the answer.

User: ananderson23:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The dates given above for 'Henry' Douglas (1798 - 1834) closely reflect the dates of David Douglas (1799 - 1834) as referenced from; Mitchell, L. House, S (1999). David Douglas, Explorer and Botanist. Aurum Press. London. ISBN 1-85410-591-4. So closely that I suspect that they are the same person. The above publication reprints David Douglas' description of his first encounter with Pseudotsuga menziesii, which at that time was called Pinus taxifolia, on the shores of the Colombia river;

"The ground on the south side of the river is low, covered thickly with wood, chiefly Pinus canadensis P. balsamea, and a species which may prove to be P. taxifolia" (Mitchell, 1999)

See also David Douglas.The Boy that time forgot 15:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Douglas-fir in Europe

I would like to know

1. When Douglas-fir species only come from North America, Mexico and East Asia, where do the Douglas-firs in Europe come from?
   1. Do they all descend from American trees introduced to Europe? Can they be traced back even to David Douglas himself?
2. I have heard a story that the Douglas-fir became extinct in Europe during the last Ice Age. Is that true?
   1. And if yes, was it of an own species or the same still found today?
   2. Is it known what the distinctive ecological influence in Europe was, that it vanished there but survived in America and Asia, who both had an Ice Age too? --Vancouver robin 07:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You can ask these questions at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science --- hopefully someone can help you there. hike395 14:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I will do that. --Vancouver robin 21:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Old Growth Douglas Fir

The article says, "old claims of trees up to 126 m (415 ft) have never been verified."

Perhaps it's more like, those who did verify the height of such trees are either long dead or soon to be, and any hard evidence for trees of such size is fragmentory at this point. --71.222.40.209 03:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Old claims of trees cannot be scientifically verified today, but sound historical records place good independent indications that trees up to 400 feet did exist in optimal forests before industrial logging harvested the biggest and tallest specimens.

Such measurements have been taken by trained foresters, surveyors, and lumbermen alike. For example, Alfred J. Nye, who measured the Lynn valley tree at 415 feet long, was a land appropriator for Lynn Valley, BC. Edward Tyson Allen, a trained Forester stationed in Portland, Oregon, measured the Nisqually tree at 380 feet with steel tape in 1900. Richard Mcardle, trained Forester estimated the Fir at Mineral Wash. at 393 ft previous to being topped in the wind. Other trees up to 400 feet were measured by lumbermen near Vancouver, and in Washington state.

I see no reason to doubt these old measurements anymore than I should doubt the recently announced tallest tree, Hyperion--which has not been corroborated by all scientists.

--75.175.60.108 (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. You might wish to review WP:RS. In brief, the content of the article must be verifiable by other editors by referencing reliable source(s). Please see WP:FN for how to cite sources. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Updated and added a reference to the trivia section regarding a more historically suggested 415 ft specimen logged in 1902, not 1895. --75.175.55.204 (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Douglas-fir height

I have altered the height range for this tree from 20-100 to 20-120 metres. I feel this alteration is warranted given the current scientific estimates of water mechanics and maximum tree height in Redwoods and tall evergreens. Perhaps the most arguable reason is the good historical evidence to support their having once been occasional trees in excess of 100 metres of which I may base this statement off at least 20 historically recorded specimens which come to my mind. --75.175.55.204 (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Brummitt Fir height 329 or 339 feet?

The Brummitt fir is officially recognized at 329 feet tall, an average between two figures. The tree is situated on a steep slope and the highest end of the trunk is 339 feet above ground, whereas the lowest end of the trunk is 319 feet above ground.

I believe the tree should be mentioned for its greatest length of stem -- 339 feet as its highest point above ground. Therefore I have listed the tree at 103.3 m at "greatest length of stem", though not invalidating the official figure which is still 329 feet. my information is referenced at the bottom with "Forest Giants of the Pacific Coast" And I have replaced page 44 with the "Introduction XVI" which tells about how the Brummitt fir was measured.

--75.175.55.204 (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Mineral tree, 120 meters tall

Perhaps the article should mention that the tree at Mineral, Washington was measured in 2 sections. The standing portion of the tree was measured at 225 feet tall in 1924, and 6 feet in diameter at the break. The blown top section of the tree was on the ground and measured 168 feet long. This tree measured over 15 feet in diameter and was 1,022 years old.

Source: http://www.skimountaineer.com/CascadeSki/CascadeConifers.html

[1]

--75.175.79.174 (talk) 06:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)