Talk:Pseudotsuga

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Move "Douglas-fir" to "Pseudotsuga"[edit]

The Douglas-fir article is now an article about the genus Pseudotsuga, not about the North American species Pseudotsuga menziesii, whose article is named Coast Douglas-fir. This causes continuously misconceptions: in the Douglas-fir article there is much information related only to Pseudotsuga menziesii, and many other articles link to the Douglas-fir article although the Coast Douglas-fir article would be more relevant. Therefore I suggest: The "Douglas-fir" article would be renamed to "Pseudotsuga", "Douglas-fir" would be made a redirect to "Coast Douglas-fir", and all the information related only to P. menziesii in the current "Douglas-fir" article would be moved to the "Coast Douglas-fir" article. Any opinions? Krasanen (talk) 09:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I realized there are also many articles with a link to the Douglas-fir article meaning really the whole genus. So, maybe it is not a good idea to put into effect the renaming and redirect as I wrote. However, I would still move all the information related only to P. menziesii in the current "Douglas-fir" article to the "Coast Douglas-fir" (and "Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir" if needed) article. Krasanen (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I moved most (but not all) of the content related only to P. menziesii. Krasanen (talk) 18:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
There really aren't very many articles with a link to Douglas-fir meaning the whole genus. The vast majority of articles linking here are about places in the NW US or SW Canada where Pseudotsuga menziesii is an important part of the landscape, and the only species of Pseudotsuga present. There are some articles about places in other parts of the world where Douglas-fir has been introduced; but P. menziesii is the only species grown on a commercial scale outside of it's native range (i.e. in New Zealand), and the only species naturalized in Great Britain. On the rare occasions when another species is being called "douglas-fir", it is almost always qualified in some way (big-cone, Mexican, Chinese, etc.). There is no qualifier for P. menziesii (Coast douglas-fir is Psuedotsuga menziesii var. menziesii).Plantdrew (talk) 21:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Pseudotsuga origin[edit]

Because of their distinctive cones, Douglas-firs were finally placed in the new genus Pseudotsuga (meaning “false hemlock”) by the French botanist Carrière in 1867. The genus name has also been hyphenated as Pseudo-tsuga.[1]

Kortoso (talk) 18:36, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Pseudotsuga Mike Cline (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)



Douglas-firPseudotsuga – Douglas-fir is ambiguous, can refer to either the species Pseudotsuga menziesii, or the genus Pseudotsuga as a whole. Plantdrew (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC) Per WP:FLORA, scientific names are preferred for plant article titles. Douglas-fir overwhelmingly is used to refer specifically to Pseudotsuga menziesii, which is one of the most common trees in Western North America, an important timber source exported worldwide, and introduced into other parts of the temperate world. Usage of "douglas-fir" to refer to the genus as a whole rather than specifically for P. menziesii is comparatively rare. Of the other species of Pseudotsuga, only one is native to an English-speaking country (where it would actually have an English language "common" name), and none of them are cultivated to any significant extent outside their native range or exploited for timber on a major scale. When the other species are referred to as douglas-firs, a qualifier is almost always involved (i.e. Mexican douglas-fir, big-cone douglas-fir, etc.). There is no qualified form of the name for P. menziesii which would disambiguate it; it is simply "douglas-fir".

It's clear from context that the vast majority of incoming links to this article are referring to P. menziesii, not the entire genus. It may be desirable to retain Douglas-fir as a disambiguation page, but I would suggest redirecting Douglas-fir to Pseudotsuga menziesii. P. menziesii is sufficiently important that renaming that article to a common name (either Douglas-fir or Douglas fir) may be worthwhile.Plantdrew (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I support this move. Also, I support redirecting Douglas-fir to Pseudotsuga menziesii. Thank you for the proposal. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I also support this move. WP:FLORA states
Scientific names are to be used as article titles in all cases 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.
I would argue that "douglas-fir" is not more prominent in forestry than it is in botany. Also, WP:FLORA directs us:
In cases where multiple taxa share the same common name, a disambiguation page should be used.
Given that both the genus and M. menziesii share the Douglas-fir common name, I would convert Douglas-fir to a dab page. —hike395 (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Support move as per relevant wikiproject guidelines. This type of ambiguity is difficult for a novice to understand with the current arrangement of page names, and that would be simplified by the move and disambiguation. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Support, as suggested by Curtis Clark in this sobering discussion from 2007. Will be a nice improvement to get that yucky hyphen out of the article title. Eric talk 16:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment. The majority of readers searching for "Douglas-fir" are probably looking for P. menziesii, so I hope the lemma doesn't become a DAB. As Plantdrew points out, species that grow primarily in non-English speaking countries can't really be said to have English-language common names. A DAB with only two entries would go against WP:TWODABS. Kauffner (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, we can move this article to Pseudotsuga, and have a hatnote to the species, which is already there. —hike395 (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: The hyphen is strange. My understanding is that hyphens are generally used to create compound modifiers, not compound nouns. Let's get rid of the hyphen one way or another. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Reading the previous move discussion just above, it seems that my absence was sufficient cause for at least one editor to dismiss my rationale/testimony. Barrelproof is quite right, it looks strange; to me in fact it looks French, of all things; that there's been a war on the hyphen from the MOS crowd, applying it where they say it doesn't belong and throwing mdashes around on common terms (and forbidding the use of hyphens for paired words even though they're common usages), but this one gets rationalized as "correct" is forcing against WP:COMMONNAME and propping up a false paradigm. It's odd as "redcedar" which is also really strange looking, but even moreso would be "Western-redcedar" (the normal usage is "Western red cedar", often fully capitalized.......but for other trees also, I don't recall seeing Douglas-maple or Norway-maple or English-elm etc......this is an anomaly, backed up only by odd academic style; I mentioned BC in my first sally because this tree is (or was) one of hte mainstays of the local economy for decades; almost tempted to say "more than anywhere else on earth" but I don't know the forest stats for Washington, Oregon, Alaska etc.....the common usage "in my parts" is clearly Douglas Fir. Here's a search for "Vancouver Sun"+"douglas fir" and while some douglas-fir listings show up, the predominant usage (other than wiki clones and pieces of academica) is "Douglas fir". I also checked the Ministry of Forests library and yes, douglas-fir does show up; but speaking again as someone raised in an area where this tree (and the Western Red Cedar) are foundations of the economy and so entrenched in the education system, I would have been scored down for using the hyphen. Is that OR? LOL, yeah well to me so is the contention that the hyphen is correct.Skookum1 (talk) 08:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Whatever a select group on a Wikiproject may decide, this is definitely against Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). An Advanced Google search in English for Douglas fir excluding Wikipedia and Pseudotsuga gives 6,670,000 hits (781 unduplicated hits). A similar search for Pseudotsuga excluding Wikipedia and Douglas fir gives 144,000 hits (which turns out to be 731 unduplicated hits). Confine those searches to Google Books, and you get 1,670,000 hits (1,000 unduplicated hits) for Douglas fir and 148,000 hits (803 unduplicated hits) for Pseudotsuga. However, a large number of the Books hits for Pseudotsuga are for books in languages other than English (German, Italian, Dutch and Spanish), and a large proportion of the English publications use the term Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga), despite the search parameters (which don't seem to work on Books). On the general search there are a lot of false hits in both searches, including numerous roads named Douglas Fir Drive, various people called Pseudotsuga (yes, really!) and a place in Canada by that name (which seems to produce an enormous number of hits). The scientists among us may have a case for using the scientific name if this wasn't an extremely common tree, commonly used in the construction industry, and equally commonly used as Christmas trees. But it isn't something confined to their introspective little world, it is something that is commonly referred to by the rest of humankind, and not by its Latin name. Most readers searching for this are going to look for Douglas fir, and a good many are likely to be put off completely when they find themselves landing on a page about something in Latin. Incidentally, Skookum1 will be delighted to hear that the hyphenless version is infinitely more common than the hyphenated version, but will no doubt be distressed to hear that many of the hyphenated references are from his native Canada. On the basis of this, I would Support a move to Douglas fir. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I can see a good rationale for all common names redirecting to the binomial scientific name (which I supported above), despite this being the English Wikipedia. For one thing, such an approach would eliminate conflicts arising out of competing views on which common name wins the article title slot for a given species. But Skinsmoke makes good arguments above for the common name approach. Whether we move to Latin or simply lose the hyphen, we'll be improving the quality of the English on en.Wikipedia. Eric talk 17:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Hold on: there's a basic contradiction here. Recall that the large majority of Douglas fir usage really refers to Pseudotsuga menziesii. So, there seems to be two rational moves of pages:
  1. Assume we want an article titled Douglas fir. Then, the right thing is to move the genus article currently at Douglas-fir to Pseudotsuga, and move the species article Pseudotsuga menziesii to Douglas fir, and leave a hatnote to the genus.
  2. Assume we only want scientific names as titles. Then we would move the current genus article to Pseudotsuga and make Douglas fir be a redirect to Pseudotsuga menziesii.
In either event we want to move this article to Pseudotsuga. Let's agree on this move, and then open a discussion at Talk:Pseudotsuga menziesii about whether to rename that article to its common name. —hike395 (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: No, that is not rational at all, and still goes against our policy (no longer just a guideline) to use the common English name. The logical thing is to move the genus article to Douglas fir, and to move the species article to Coast Douglas fir. That takes care of both disambiguation and common name elements. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
There is a problem with your proposal: Coast Douglas fir is the variety Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii, not the species Pseudotsuga menziesii. —hike395 (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: Using scientific names does not go against the WP:TITLE policy. The policy explicitly endorses the WP:FLORA guideline here: WP:MOSAT. WP:UCN (see footnote 3 especially) applies to commonly used names; scientific names may be more commonly used than "common names". The most commonly used name for the entire Douglas fir genus is probably Pseudotsuga, although Douglas fir is certainly the most commonly used name for the species Pseudotsuga menziesii. Of the article title criteria (WP:CRITERIA), Douglas-fir fails Precision, Consistency and Recognizability, and an unambiguous alternative using a common name (Douglas-fir (genus)??) would be less Concise. Recognizability is achieved by having people following a link to Douglas-fir arrive at the article on the common species. Consistency is achieved by using a scientific name for a title (as most other plant articles are titled). Titling the genus article Douglas-fir is not WP:PRECISE, and Pseudotsuga is a natural disambiguation (WP:NATURALDIS).Plantdrew (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move: both genus and species articles[edit]

MOVED TO:
Move of genus article performed. Move of species article still under debate at Talk:Pseudotsuga menziesii
The following discussion 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.

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Technical close to feed the BOT Mike Cline (talk) 19:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)



– The discussion about renaming Douglas-fir has brought up an interesting point. The term "Douglas fir" is well-known in consumers of forestry products, such as lumber and Christmas trees. This use of "Douglas fir" refers to trees in the species Pseudotsuga menziesii. Trees in the genus Pseudotsuga can be referred to as "Douglas firs", but that is not common outside of botany. Therefore, let us move the species article to its common name Douglas fir, and move the genus article to its scientific name Pseudotsuga. —hike395 (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


Discussion of double-page move starts here

Later: I find Skinsmoke's arguments quite persuasive, but they apply to the species Pseudotsuga menziesii -- that's the tree that is used in construction and Christmas trees. All of the other species in the genus Pseudotsuga are much rarer, and as far as I know, are not commonly used in forestry. Collectively, all of the species in Pseudotsuga could be called "Douglas firs", but that is not common English usage. Therefore, I currently
reiterate my Support for moving Douglas-fir to Pseudotsuga
Support moving Pseudotsuga menziesii to Douglas fir
I think we ought to have a second separate move discussion for the latter, though. —hike395 (talk) 11:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I would be prepared to compromise on that one, provided the tree itself moves to the common English name. It wouldn't need a separate move discussion, the normal process would be to link that move into this move discussion and extend the discussion period to allow people a chance to comment on the combined proposal. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Endorse Skinsmoke It makes sense, doesn't it, that the common meaning in English should be presented in its most common form, and that the scientific genus-name be presented in Latin; works for me, and gets rid of all those hyphens in ordinary passages (largely non-scientific, at least not botanical ones, e.g. geography of forest regions and parks). Common meaning in common name, scientific meaning in Latin. Fairly straightforward when you look at it that way.Skookum1 (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm no Pseudotsuga subject-matter expert, but I think I can be consistent in saying ditto to Skookum1 here (and Skinsmoke) and support Hike395's proposition #1 above, if I understand everyone correctly. Eric talk 16:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support both suggestions of hike395. There should be an article titled Douglas fir (with or without a hyphen), but it should be for P. meziesii. Tdslk (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support moving Douglas-fir to Pseudotsuga. Oppose moving Pseudotsuga menziesii to Douglas fir. "Douglas-fir", with the hyphen, appears to be more common in reliable sources (as indexed by Google Scholar) than "Douglas fir", without the hyphen.[1] "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." (Please see WP:MOSNAME.) Also, we don't usually change article titles that have been stable with no compelling reason to do so. That does not exist for the latter move, in my opinion. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support (just in case anyone was really in doubt). There are far wider reliable sources than Google Scholar about a species as common as Douglas fir. This is not something that just has relevance within the scholarly scientific community, but is of relevance to conservation of the environment, commercial forestry, the construction industry and the celebration of Christmas, none of whose results show up in that Scholar search (which is heavily botany and genetics biased). Taking a wider view, the results show that in reliable sources, the unhyphenated version has an overwhelming lead over the hyphenated version. Even taking the Scholar results, many of those hyphenated hits are where Douglas fir is used as an adjective (Douglas-fir forests and Douglas-fir plantations are two obvious examples), and I think (I could be wrong) that there is a case that it should be hyphenated when used as an adjective, even though it is not normal to do so when used as a noun (as the article title would be). Skinsmoke (talk) 10:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment if that's the case, then it is probably the case that scientific organizations and institutions may have an evolved styleguide or two/ and that they should be consulted; scientific/academic publishing houses, for example, may have some. CANENGLISH for example has the old CP/CBC styleguide as did in the print days all the newspaper chains; now they use botcheckers LOL....I"m approaching this also from the "common reader" not the specialist academics, and feel that Douglas fir's primacy in normal (non-scientific) print isn't insignificant; if anything it begs the question "do academic/scientific styles distinguish in some way between the tree and the genus in the use of "Douglas fir"/"Douglas-fir". If not why not?? Not that I think there should be a new paradigm, but despite observance of scientific accuracy WP:COMMONAME should apply unless there's exceptions in WP:TITLE and so on that validate this; but what do you do a field, say tourism or literature or the media where "Douglas fir" IS the norm....would it not be original research, or an imposed style, to go against their sources and insist on the hyphen? MOS:HYPHEN doesn't answer this, but I've never understood the kill-the-hyphen thing, and my phone's spellchecker continues to break up normal compound words into two, so who I am to argue with "progress". I'm a pretty widely read person, and "Douglas-fir" looks downright odd - as does "Western redcedar"....Skookum1 (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, with Pseudotsuga menziesii moving to the unhyphenated Douglas fir. I am concerned that some of the 400+ incoming links to Douglas-fir may be intended to link to the genus. I did edit the most obvious cases where genus was intended (the other species of Pseudotsuga) prior to my initial move request, and the vast majority clearly intend to be about the species, but there may be a few incoming links that end up going to the wrong article. I can't check all the incoming links, but I suppose a hatnote should be sufficient.Plantdrew (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment The hyphen is intended to indicate that Douglas firs are not "true firs" (in the genus Abies). In my opinion, it completely fails at it's intended purpose. The only people who know what the hyphen indicates are already aware that Douglas firs aren't "true firs". The hyphen convention is sometimes carried to ludicrous extremes (e.g. Mock-orange, False-plantain, which already have common names that indicate that they are actually not oranges or plantains). The hyphen convention is not widely supported by botanists. The US and Canadian governments share a list of quasi-official common names for plants which follows the hyphen convention, although I'm not aware of any governmental or botanical style guides that REQUIRE the hyphen. Nevertheless, governmental usage has given the hyphenated form a higher profile in web searches. In actual common usage, the unhyphenated form is far more popular.Plantdrew (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment "Douglas-fir", with the hyphen, is the correct form. Some databases:
http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?30191
http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=183426
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Tree&id=3357&lvl=3&p=mapview&p=has_linkout&p=blast_url&p=genome_blast&lin=f&keep=1&srchmode=1&unlock
http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=200005380
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/silvics_manual/Volume_1/pseudotsuga/menziesii.htm
http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/psemenm/all.html Krasanen (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Rebuttal All but one of the above are U.S. government websites, and likely all followed the lead (and likely via copy/paste) of the original promulgator of the erroneous hyphen, which I think might have been the USDA. As someone with long experience proofreading U.S. government publications, I can assure you that English language excellence is not a hiring criterion there, that people who write those publications are not doing exhaustive research to verify the validity of their work, and that countless incorrect terms and notions (including random capitalization of common nouns--oy vey!) are perpetuated daily in their publications. Many people in the U.S. government, including at least one former president, pronounce nuclear "new-kew-lur". That doesn't make it right. Some related reading: Argumentum ad populum. Eric talk 13:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Like Plantdrew mentioned above, the hyphen is used because Douglas-fir is not "true fir" (Abies). See e.g. the paragraph "What's in a Name?" here:
http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/boise/learning/nature-science/?cid=fsed_009737
For the same reason Thuja plicata is western redcedar (not true cedar (Cedrus).Krasanen (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment That was apparently the reasoning of someone at USDA once upon a time, based on that person's fantasy of how hyphens are used in English, not based on how they are really used. You will not find that hyphen in any dictionary I've ever encountered. Here are just a few examples of non-hyphenated, multi-word common names that contain technically inaccurate terms in them: Spanish moss, prairie dog, sea lion, sea lettuce. Eric talk 18:18, 21 February 2013 (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.

Given that User:Mike Cline performed the first half of this move, I will restart the discussion at Talk:Pseudotsuga menziesii, and make a new entry at WP:RM. —hike395 (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pseudotsuga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pseudotsuga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://conifersociety.org/conifers/conifer/pseudotsuga/