Talk:Fagus grandifolia

Plants Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Plants portal This 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
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Beech Species

Is there any reason why this article, Mexican Beech, and Oriental Beech are titled by their common names, unlike the Japanese Beech and the Taiwan Beech which go by their scientific names? I'm no dendrologist, but it seems totally inconsistent with the rest of the wikipedia's articles on trees. UltraBibendum (talk) 02:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I flipped this article to its latin name dm (talk) 16:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photos needed

Hey, readers and editors. If you have access to American beech trees and a good camera, this article could use better pictures of the leaves (say, a close-up of one leaf on a beech tree in sunlight) and nuts (a closeup of a split open nut husk with the nut inside). The current pictures of leaves and nuts aren't that good, and there aren't any better ones on Wikimedia Commons. — Eru·tuon 20:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fagus grandiflora?

Google has also massively the name Fagus grandiflora or Fagus grandiflora var. mexicana, adequacy?--Estopedist1 (talk) 08:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Estopedist1: not sure what you mean by "adequacy", but, yes, it's a common typo it seems. There's a nice example here, where the title has the correct epithet grandifolia but the text has the erroneous grandiflora. Google Scholar gives me 462 hits (including citations) for the erroneous Fagus grandiflora and 22,900 for the correct Fagus grandifolia. The erroneous name does appear with one record in GBIF. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]