Talk:Pinus ponderosa

Scent

The Jeffrey Pine page says that its own scent is vanilla while the Ponderosa Pine has a turpentine scent, whereas this page says Ponderosas have a vanilla scent. I was taught that the Jeffrey was more Pineapple/tropical, whereas the Ponderosa was more vanilla. Perhaps an expert can reconcile these pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bramblez (talk • contribs) 05:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The Ponderosa Pine smells like the best parts of Starbucks. I am an interpretive guide in a predominantly Ponderosa forest and those babies smell like vanilla. I most certainly would have noticed Turpentine by this point with the appalling amount of trees that I have sniffed. Jjthebikeguy (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I've done some digging on the internet and found that some websites do mention the vanilla scent of the Jeffrey Pine and mark it as a distinguishing feature, whereas the same websites do not mention a vanilla or butterscotch or pineapple scent, for that sake, of Ponderosa Pines. So I've omitted the bit about the smell.

I have comments regarding this under Jeffrey Pine. Though I agree that smell can be percieved diiferently by different people, my experience with having people put their nose right up against the bark, consistently yields agreement that it has a vanilla smell. Try it. I too have never noticed the turpentine smell mentioned. Sometimes your own nose is a better source than everything on the internet. Arthropod (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Ponderosa:

http://plants.usda.gov/plantguide/pdf/pg_pipo.pdf

http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/departments/espm/extension/PONDEROS.HTM

http://www.cnr.vt.edu/DENDRO/DENDROLOGY/syllabus/factsheet.cfm?ID=108\

Jeffrey Pine:

http://plants.usda.gov/plantguide/pdf/pg_pije.pdf

http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/departments/espm/extension/JEFFPINE.HTM

http://www.cnr.vt.edu/DENDRO/DENDROLOGY/syllabus/factsheet.cfm?ID=228

And this site mentions the vanilla smell of the Jeffrey Pine but doesn't mention the smell of Ponderosa Pines.

http://www.sonoma.edu/users/c/cannon/bio314chapter4.html

Moerasbabe (talk) 21:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The wording by Hike395 seems good to me.[1] Relevant guidance may be found at WP:V and WP:OR. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Moving article to "Ponderosa pine"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was Keep the article at Pinus Ponderosa

---

User:Clyde frogg copied the article to Ponderosa pine, did some editing, and turned this article into a redirect. I reverted his changes, for the following reasons:

1. According to WP:FLORA, articles about plants should be titled with their scientific names, except "when a plant has an agricultural, horticultural, economic or cultural use that makes it more prominent in some other field than in botany; e.g. rose, apple, watermelon.". Further, WP:FLORA says "These exceptions are determined on a case-by-case basis through discussion towards consensus." I'll notify WikiProject Plants and we can start a discussion here.
2. According to WP:CUTPASTE, renaming articles by copy-pasting their contents is highly undesirable, because Wikipedia needs to keep the history of the page for copyright and attribution reasons. If the consensus is to move the page, and we cannot move the page due to limitations in MediaWiki, we'll ask an admin to move the page for us.

I'll open the discussion for renaming the article, below. —hike395 (talk) 12:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments on article renaming

• Oppose moving to "Ponderosa pine". There's no good reason to depart from the WP:PLANTS policy in this case. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose No real reason offered; gains nothing. Eau (talk) 19:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Western yellow pine" is almost as prevalent a common name as "ponderosa pine" in many timber-producing areas.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Curtis Clark's reason is enough - too many common names for a plant that has a single, unambiguous name. First Light (talk) 04:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gallery?

What does the word "gallery" mean in this sentence "from the galleries of all species in the genus Dendroctonus"? There's a page gallery forest, is it that? Can a link be made to that, since it seems to be a specialized use of the word. -- Dough34 (talk) 14:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Infraspecific taxa

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pinus washoensis (Pinus washoensis) was recently closed as keep (on technical grounds that the title didn't merit deletion, although there wasn't much enthusiasm for treating it as a species). @Abductive, Jts1882, Casliber, and UtherSRG:: (taxonomy editors who participated in the AFD).

Looking into the situation with P. washoensis, I came to realize that this article is presenting mutually incompatible classifications in the taxonomy section. Pinus ponderosa subsp. critchfieldiana was described in 2013 by Callaham who treats Pinus ponderosa var. pacifica J.R. Haller & Vivrette and Pinus ponderosa var. benthamiana (Hartweg) Vasey as synonyms of P. p. subsp. critchfieldiana. The taxonomy section includes both critchfieldiana and pacifica as different taxa, and the map in the taxobox show benthamiana. Haller & Vivrette treat benthamiana as a synonym in their 2011 description of pacifica, and also provide a name at varietal rank for the erstwhile species washoensis. Both Callaham and Haller & Vivrette mentional the informal term "Pacific race". Although the exact limits of the range may differ a little bit, critchfieldiana/pacifica/benthamiana are the same taxon. Willyard 2017 elevates the Rocky Mountain varieties (brachyptera and scopulorum in the taxobox map) to species, and Willyard 2021 recognizes var. washoensis and treats the Pacific race as var. benthamiana. The taxobox maps in this article and Pinus washoensis derive from the same Forest Service publication; at some point US government taxonomy was treating P. washoensis as a species (I think ITIS may still be doing so, but at the moment, it isn't loading for me).

POWO and WFO are no help. The classification is inconsistent there as well. POWO has vars. pacifica, ponderosa and scopulorum, and cites Farjon 2010 for ponderosa and scopulorum (Farjon only recognizes those two subspecies). POWO and WFO list Pacific critchfieldiana and benthamiana (as well as washoensis) as synonyms of var. ponderosa, and has no synonyms listed for var. pacifica, but it's not clear how this situation arose. If following Haller for the name pacifica, benthamiana should be a synonym of that (and if following Haller, washoensis should be recognized as a variety).

We have an article on Willamette Valley ponderosa pine; both of Willyard's paper mention Willamette and Puget Sound populations. There's a name (Pinus ponderosa var. willamettensis) for the Willamette population floating around on the internet but it hasn't been formally published.

I think what needs to happen (at a minimum) is to merge the P. washoensis and Willamette Valley articles here, and make a table that compares the names/ranges/circumscriptions of Callaham and Willyard (and Haller or Farjon?). But I'm not very proficient with markup for tables.

Edited to add:There's some squabbling over typification. Haller rejects Lauria (1996) designation of a type for the species. And the differences in the names used for the Pacific race hinge on types. Plantdrew (talk) 02:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying it fails WP:V? Abductive (reasoning) 02:58, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think so - I think the issue is that there are reliable sources that disagree with each other on what the nature of this entity is and what its boundaries are, and it overlaps with something else. I tend to agree that merging all to here might have some merit. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I realized not too long after starting the AFD that I jumped the gun, I should have proposed a merge, so that is my mistake. I do agree with a merge of both articles (Washoe and Willamette). My original motive for starting the AFD was on the fact that the article labeled the tree as a distinct species, however many of the references used labeled the tree as a variety of Ponderosa, not to mention the article itself didn't quite provide a good argument for the classification of it as a separate species. I do think that it is particularly interesting reading the P. Ponderosa Page written by Chris Earle on the Gymnosperm Database; [2], I do think that his writeup does at least cover at least some of why there is so much confusion for the species and its distinct varieties, especially given that the species itself has much variation throughout its range. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 05:11, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm good with merging to here and making a table. If you put all the relevant fields here, I can either make the table itself, or find a template that can fit the need. ({{species table|no-ecology=yes}} comes to mind.) - UtherSRG (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Now I'm having second thoughts about the table. What I had in mind was presenting Callaham and Willyard side by side without presenting either as the "one true classification", but I think that would end up being original research; it's one thing for me to analyze critchfieldiana/pacifica/benthamiana as the same taxon on a talk page, but we do need a single source that connects them as synonyms (which could be Willyard 2021, or maybe better the Gymnosperm Database, since Willyard doesn't mention Callaham's var. readiana). Plantdrew (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Ah! I misunderstood what you wanted. I'm sure there are some examples of that on other articles we can crib from for the formatting. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

@Plantdrew, Abductive, Casliber, CycloneFootball71, UtherSRG, and Jts1882: just seen this now. The page is certainly a mess currently, and needs some major cleanup. First and most important, the only valid name for Pacific Ponderosa Pine is benthamiana, described as a species by Hartweg in 1847, and recombined as a variety by Vasey in 1876, and a subspecies by Silba in 2009. Haller & Vivrette (in describing var. pacifica in 2011), and Callaham (in describing subsp. critchfieldiana in 2013), both cited Hartweg's Pinus benthamiana as a synonym of their respective new names; both these new names are therefore illegitimate nomina superflua which should not be used other than listing in synonymy (ICN Art. 52; see also GRIN). They could only be valid if their respective authors had explicitly excluded Hartweg's much older name; but they didn't, they did the opposite. As to the rank used for benthamiana, whether species, subspecies, or varietas, that is a matter of taxonomic opinion; the preferred (Callaham, Gymnosperm Database, GRIN, etc.) is currently subspecies [declaration of interest: me included]. In this, I would discount Willyard et al.'s treatment as a variety, as these authors appear to be what I can only call 'wilfully ignorant' of even the very existence of the rank of subspecies at all (search the two Willyard et al. papers for the letter string 'subsp' - it only occurs in the titles of papers in the references!), in complete contradiction to normal usage in botany; there is no reasoned argument given for reducing its rank from subspecies to the lower rank of varietas, so it is not a significant or serious contribution to the decision.

Second, the name "var. willamettensis" is a nomen nudum, not a valid scientific name; until formally described, it should only be given an informal name (as its page title does). Correct though that it is just an outlying population of subsp. benthamiana; I'm not aware of any serious botanical justification for validating it as a separate taxon distinct from subsp. benthamiana.

Third, the author citation for subsp. brachyptera is (Engelm.) Silba (2011; predates Callaham's publication of the same combination in 2013).

Fourth, the disputed status of washoensis is not emphasized enough ("Its current classification is Pinus ponderosa var. washoensis" is very far from agreed); multiple authors from T C Brayshaw 1986 onwards give it no status at all, a straight synonym of subsp. ponderosa [declaration of interest: me included], while others still consider it a species or subspecies.

In the table distinguishing the subspecies, the line covering the immature (12-16 months old, not mature, which is brown in all) cone colour is not really representative of the cited reference; a more accurate characterisation from it and other sources would be:

• benthamiana: always green
• ponderosa: mostly red-brown to dark purple, rarely green (typical: File:Pinus ponderosa - ponderosa pine - Flickr - Matt Lavin (4).jpg)
• scopulorum: mostly green, rarely red-brown (typical: File:Pinus ponderosa scopulorum cones.jpg)
• brachyptera: mostly green, rarely red-brown
• readiana: this (not brachyptera!) should be left blank as it is not described, though likely the same as scopulorum (of which some authors at least regard it a synonym [declaration of interest: me included])

Also in this table, the cone width needs to be specified as open, not closed, cones; and the branch angle needs to be specified as to whether new 1st-year branches, or mature branches (I presume the former, as the latter will be highly variable with snow load damage, etc.).

In the main description paragraph, there is some inconsistency, with needle length for subsp. benthamiana given as exactly 19.8 cm, but ranges are given for the other subspp.; they should also all be cited in scientific measures (cm, mm, etc.) first, rather than little-comprehended US imperialist measures, as (a) a globally important species, which is also (b) native in Canada, not just USA. Also, in the cone description, 'purple' only applies to subsp. ponderosa, not the other subspecies (this is determined by genetics, not by whether they are chewed by squirrels or not, as currently given). For the tree sizes, see the Gymnosperm Database; the tallest Pinus lambertiana cited is now dead, with the tallest pine currently an 82.97 m P. ponderosa subsp. benthamiana in Oregon.

Distribution section: the sentence about Pinus arizonica would be better placed in the Taxonomy, rather than the Distribution.

Finally, some ridiculous trivia in the article that need culling: Ecology: "American black bears can climb up to 12 feet up a ponderosa" Really? They drop off if they ever try to climb just one millimetre more? This is relevant to Pinus ponderosa only, and not to any other tree species? Utter absurdity! In nuclear testing: is this item really relevant to the species? Was it part of a multi-species test, or just what they happened to have available? And the vernacular names: I'd suggest only Ponderosa Pine and Western Yellow Pine should be in the lead paragraph; the others cited are archaic, misleading ('bull' and 'blackjack' are general unspecific terms cited for multiple pine species: see e.g. Lemmon 1895), or downright obscure ("filipinus pine" - what, really? Certainly not a 'common' name!) and would be better moved to near the end of the article (Culture section, perhaps?), if kept at all.

Hope this helps! - MPF (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

At least according to Plants of the World Online (POWO) the three valid subspecies are the autonym Pinus ponderosa var. ponderosa, Pinus ponderosa var. pacifica, and Pinus ponderosa var. scopulorum. Pinus ponderosa on POWO For now we mostly follow POWO on Wikipedia as the arbiter of what is or is not a "real" plant species or subordinate taxa for everything except ferns and lycophytes. That's a debatable subject, but something for the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants rather than here.

Yes, this does mean that the taxon box is wrong right now by the POWO standard. No, I have no idea if they're going to update to follow that reference you found in GRIN.

As for all the other uncertain subspecies, the tact I take on pages is that if lots of botanists are still using the name I don't care if POWO, IPIN, World Flora Online (WFO), or USDA thinks they are legit or not, I'm going to put the information into the article. Just noting that the status is disputed and that other points of view are available. Take as an example Geum triflorum, I followed POWO there for the taxon box, but put in some disputed names in current use into the main text with references to which databases do or don't list them as accepted.

I quite agree that as an internationally important species it needs to be in one consistent measurement, probably mostly SI, though I will understand if others might argue that having some conversion to US customary units would be appropriate. Personally, though, I think it makes articles harder to read to have lots of unit conversions. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 23:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

POWO is inconsistent. critchfieldiana/pacifica/benthamiana are all names for the western-most subspecies/variety. POWO has critchfieldiana and benthamiana as synonyms of var. ponderosa. POWO either needs to treat pacifica as another synonym of var. ponderosa (if following a two infraspecies taxonomy), or have two of critchfieldiana/pacifica/benthamiana as synonyms of the third (if following a three infraspecies taxonomy, and it isn't clear why POWO doesn't have benthamiana rather than pacifica as the third infraspecies if they are going that route). POWO has some sort of problem that needs to be fixed and can't be relied on in this case.Plantdrew (talk) 02:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Looking at POWO, it looks like they were following Farjon (2010) in recognising two varieties, with benthamiana and critchfieldian as synonyms of the nominal subspecies. Then it looks like they added pacificaas a new variety described by Haller & Vivrette (2011; although they cite WCVP as their source for the record). They could have accepted that the affiliation with benthamiana is uncertain (hence not moving its synonymy from the nominal), but as they didn't accept washoensis as a variety (another conclusion of that paper), it does suggest an incomplete update. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)