Talk:Ailanthus altissima

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Ailanthus altissima is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 15, 2008.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 13, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
July 24, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article


Perhaps there should be something about britain based on this article: .Smallman12q (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

remarks on the previous page[edit]

>> "wishing your ailanthus and daylily are strong and happy", with ailanthus metaphorically referring to the father and daylily to the mother.

for previous description this is about Toona sinensis. Toona sinensis is long life when Ailanthus altissima is short lived and rarely lives more than 50 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jero Smith Ju (talkcontribs) 12:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jero. Thanks for your contribution. I reverted back to the previous version because you did not supply a reference, and in fact you deleted the existing reference. This is a featured article, which means it is of the highest quality on Wikipedia, and therefore everything must be referenced for inclusion here. If you have a reference for your information, please supply it and make whatever changes are necessary. If not, it is original research and doesn't belong on Wikipedia. DJLayton4 (talk) 14:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

hi, thanks your feedback. check it out what Toona sinensis wiki wrote in culture part. well, they're talking about the same thing while there must be only one kind of tree. this makes wiki itself embrassed while you mentioned this article is 'very high quality'. in fact, the 'culture in china' part reduce its standar. and i should say unless one is familiar well in one culture, or shouldn't wrote anything he didn't comprehend. this is a joke and kinds of unrespectful.

the reference#49 in the Ailanthus altissima wiki is just a chapter. not everything is perfect. why what wrote on it should be the subject to mislead the meaning behind the chinese culture pn this tree to the world? better not to write if so.

Again, as i well-advisedly added in this section before, WOULD someone call his father as 'Ailanthus altissima'? a tree lives NO MORE THAN 50 years.. when this short-of-living-fact just has been mentioned in the beginning of this 'high quality' Ailanthus altissima wiki.

finally, it's a culture sobject. what can you expect when you just totally have no idea of what's been talked about, and what could i say about this futurmore? Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jero Smith Ju (talkcontribs) 18:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Jero, I'm very interested in what you have to say but I'm not quite sure I'm understanding you. It seems Hu (reference#49) provides an incomplete perspective on the cultural importance of the species in China, but it is the only source we have. Please provide another so we can improve our understanding. From Hu, "Ailanthus is chosen to represent the father for its magisterial posture as expressed by the straight, tall bole in a mature tree". I'm not sure where the age issue comes in, but hopefully we can reach a better understanding of this species. (first contribution, sorry if I'm doing it wrong) (talk) 05:32, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the Hu reference could be incorrect, but like the previous commenter ( noted, references are necessary to confirm what Jero is saying. Just claiming that we don't know what were talking about is unproductive. Wikipedia is based on referenced information, not knowledge as an individual as part of a certain culture. And for the record, no, I would not call my father Ailanthus altissima, or any other tree for that matter, no matter how long-lived ;-) DJLayton4 (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Just a quick note: I've recently reread the Hu paper, and I have to agree with Jero that Hu's distinction between the two "ch'un" species is ambiguous at best. From the context given by Hu, it sounds highly likely that the 'positive' colloquialisms likely refer to "Toona sinensis", while a good for nothing stump sprout is very much Ailanthus. Hu doesn't seem to mind letting his readers confuse two very different trees to squeeze in another colorful anecdote, so I guess I'm just being pedantic. (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Show me the reference ;-) DJLayton4 (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Haha, well, that's the problem. The initial Hu reference itself is ambiguous- I'd be refuting Hu with Hu. It gets pretty murky. In the prior paragraph he points out that two very different trees share the same name. He then relates an anecdote to the species based solely on the ideogram for spring (ch'un). My two cents is that its doubtful the metaphor is specific to Ailanthus, and therefore highly relevant to its description, but rather persists in the description due to the appeal of the cutesy/memorable anecdote. An equally powerful metaphor to demonstrate the perceptions of Ailanthus might base around "as the unfolding buds of ailanthus appear, the helpless eyes of the starving people turn clear" as the nursery rhyme actually uses the full ch'un-shu and contrasting that with the stump sprout. ...Then I finish writing and see that the brat metaphor uses solely ch'un as well. I guess the reason I fell down this rabbit hole was to point out that the section of Hu referenced is shaky at best and, given Jero's input, it may not be improving the quality of this article to propagate the confusion further. Which, I might add, is an excellent article. (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Setaria glauca[edit]

"yellow bristle grass" is definitely Setaria pumila = Setaria glauca auct. non (L.) P.Beauv. The species now called Pennisetum glaucum has never been called "yellow bristle grass" ; it is pearl millet. By the way, Plant List gives no common names. Michel Chauvet (talk) 21:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC).

Additional information[edit]

Additional information that may be provided, this information is taken from the source links provided below.

Description- Concerning bark: Even as the species becomes very large and trunk diameters also becomes very large, hints of ridges and furrows appear on the light gray, mature bark as twigs become branches. These ridges and furrows are of a lighter gray. The bark of Tree-of-Heaven remains smooth as the twigs become branches, taking on a slight checkered appearance. concerning leaf arrangements: The alternate leaves emerge bronzed in spring then quickly turn from medium to dark green as they grow. Age: The species may reach the age of 130 years, while this not average in the least it is possible. Flowers: Usually long, thing green-white flowers in late spring. (While this is stated in a convoluted fashion, the object should be a more digestible means of information to be presented.) Fruits: The fruits grow in clusters; a fruit cluster may contain hundreds of seeds. (This is what helps drives the rapid threat it poses.) Fruits are one-seeded, dry schizocarps with wings 1 to 2 inches long.

Also a management methods section would beneficial, especially for the do it yourself type of people. "Tree-of-Heaven Ailanthus altissima". Division of Forestry. Ohio Division of Forestry. Retrieved 22 October 2015. 

"Ailanthus altissima". United States Forest Service Database. United States Forest Service. Retrieved 22 October 2015. 

Sladonja, Barbara; Sušek, Marta; Guillermic, Julia (October 2015). "Review on Invasive Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima (Mill.) Swingle) Conflicting Values: Assessment of Its Ecosystem Services and Potential Biological Threat". Environmental Management. Volume 56 (4): 1009–1034. doi:10.1007/s00267-015-0546-5. 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12arober (talkcontribs)

There used to be a management section, but it was moved to the Wikibooks page as per WP:NOTHOWTO. The other stuff is fine but it seems like much of it is already covered. For example, the fruits are already described, but as samaras rather than schizocarps. The more technical literature seems to agree they are samaras and not schizocarps, e.g. Flora of China. DJLayton4 (talk) 08:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)