Talk:Eucalyptus

Plants High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Biota Mid‑importance

	Australia portal Eucalyptus is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Top-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2020 and 31 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ronanmorrill.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Links to mountain ash

The previous version of this article linked to two empty pages - Mountain Ash and Eucalyptus regnans - the common and the botanical name for the same species. I've added an entry to desribe the Australian Mountain Ash under E. regnans and adjusted the links to fit. However there are at least two other trees called "Mountain Ash" - the American Sorbus americana and the European Sorbus aucuparia. I guess the obvious solution is to have a page "Mountain Ash" which is more-or-less empty and simply links to the three different species, but is there a more elegant solution? Tannin

People generally know trees by their common name, not the botanical one, so that's what they'll look for. Aren't plant articles supposed to go under the commonest English name, the same as animals? If I wanted to find an article on the Australian tree Mountain Ash that's what I'd be looking for because I'm an Australian and even I don't know the proper botanical name! So I'd make articles on Mountain Ash (Australia) Mountain Ash (America) and Mountain Ash (Europe)... KJ

Thankyou. I see that Maveric149 has already moved it while I was still dithering! I lack the knowledge to write about the other Mountain Ash trees. Tannin

tallest tree

I'd like to note here that the tallest tree ever recorded was an Australian Mountain Ash tree, and not the coast redwood as the article implies (I'm not sure who wrote it). This eucalypt was measured at Watts River, Victoria, in 1872, to be 132.6 metres in height. This compares with the tallest standing tree (which is a redwood), the "Mendocino Tree" in California, at 112.014 metres in December 1996.

This claim of a 132.6m tree has never been verified and is considered by many to be very exaggerated; the tallest ever accurately measured tree remains a Coast redwood; the tallest currently known is the "Stratosphere Giant" (112.34m; 1998). MPF 10:50, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

So far as my memory serves me, MPF, that huge tree was measured by a registered surveyer, an apparently sober, honest and practical man of good reputation. I remember reading about him and being impressed by his credentials. I have some details about it here somewhere. Nevertheless, I do not think we can afford to take it as gospel. It is intruging, given that this was not just some yobbo telling a tall story ... er ... no pun intended ... but it seems too far beyond the other known heights to accept readily. It could be true, but we will never know now. The current phrasing in the entry seems suitable to me. We know 90m plus. Anything taller is just speculation. Tannin

Thanks Tannin! - Michael MPF 17:51, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

At any rate you could note that the E. regnans is the world's largest and tallest flowering plant (Angiosperm). --Szonyi 08:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And what is about the trees in Eucalyptus grove in Berkeley? I think, they are considered to be the tallest trees. I remember, that they are 110 m high.Michael Fiegle (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're apparently about 200 feet (61 m), definitely not the tallest eucalyptus - see here.. WolfmanSF (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration of this article

There seems to be a number of pictures accumulating which are just titled "Eucalyptus" The titles are a bit general and lack information as to where the image was taken and the species (or even common name). I am not certain the contribution that some pictures make to actually illustrating the article when they do not have this sort of information. It doesn't seem particularly encyclopaedic. There is also a certain amount of duplication. Are there any views on editing these pictures where there is duplication, or where no infomation as to place or type of tree? --AYArktos 00:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

imo, if there is some reason for there to be a photo gallery on the page, the duplicate pics up top can be moved down there; however, i'm not really sure of the purpose of the photo gallery here. makes sense for something like the sistene chapel, maybe, but a gallery of eucalyptus trees is probably unecessary. --Heah 01:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree (although I'm probably biased as most of these are my photos), I can't see any harm in having as many photos as possible (obviously if there are photos which are of really bad quality (eg. being of no higher res than the thumbnail) than they should go) to illustrate an article. Remember that a picture is worth a thousand words, and people should get as much out of Wikipedia as possible. --Fir0002 05:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Fir0002. I'm not too biased because only one of the pics on the article is mine (the English gunii in my garden). Say a schoolkid is doing a project on Eucalyptus and say he/she wants a pic to illustrate it. Shouldn't we give that person the widest possible choice? Certainly, low quality pics can go - Adrian Pingstone 08:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misunderstand me - I have nothing against the quantity of pictures. With about 600 species and enormous variation between those species there is plenty of scope for illustration and to my mind a gallery of pictures is probably the only way to illustrate the scope of the plant family. I am concerned where pictures are not properly annotated - a picture is not worth a thousand words if you do not explain what is being illustrated. To my mind the picture of the English gunii is titled meaningfully with both the species name and where it is located. None of the pictures are poor quality in themselves but a photo of sun shining through the branches of an unspecified eucalypt is not worth a thousand words - it does not add to one's understanding much - a picture of the shadow cast would add more to understand how the leaves hang differently and how the shade is less dense under many eucalypts ...--AYArktos 11:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point but disagree. What if the "sun through the leaves" pic perfectly suits someones requirements for a project? In other words why would we Wikipedians prejudge what may or may not be useful to our readers? :-) (I very much agree about detailed picture descriptions). As a matter of interest that gunii was bought by me in 1985 when it was one foot high. This year it was 80 feet high. Sadly, I had it felled a few months ago because of worry over possible root damage to my house - Adrian Pingstone 14:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

gaining information about care of

Hi, I am new to this website so I may be asking the wrong people this question, but I thought I would give it a try. I have recently moved into a little apt. just outside of Las Cruces, New Mexico. Actually the city is only a ten minute drive away. Anyway my landlady has 2 Eucalyptus trees in front of the apt. What I would like to know is how to care for these trees. I am guessing, but I believe they are around 30 feet tall. They have a small trunk about 8 inches in diameter. One of the trees yesterday just dropped a whole lot of leaves(they are an offwhite in color) and they also are dry and brittle. Do the Eucalyptus shed their leaves in the summer? How often do I water these trees? Do I give them a deep watering? This area has sandy soil so that will have to be taken into consideration also. If anyone can answer these questions I would be most grateful. Thanks Karen karenwtsn@yahoo.com

Without information as to what species or type of Eucalypt it is difficult to give any advice. There are about 600 species and the genus is adapted to a wide variety of conditions across the Australian continent. Generally a significant leaf drop at once is a problem. Deep watering would seem unlikely to succeed in a sandy soil. Some eucalypts neeed more water than others. I suggest the appropriate place to pursue your query is with a local gardening club. In the mean time, although Austrlaia is an arid continent it is probably safe to assume that some watering is in order as New Mexico is very dry too. Regards--AYArktos 00:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm probably a bit late entering this discussion, but I live in the Australian bush, and let me tell you most euaclypts are extremely hardy. They can easily withstand drought and grow in near impossible conditions (extreme slopes, extremely rocky soils). So I would only caution on not pampering the trees, don't give it too much water. --Fir0002 08:33, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. As others have mentioned, without knowing the species it's impossible to say. But a good starting point would be to water generously but infrequently - i.e., give them a good solid drink when you do water them, but don't water too often. Most eucs in the wild regularly have periods of several months at a time without rain. That's often longer than they like, but you get the idea. Tannin 13:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution from southern England: my eucalyptus gunii reached 80 feet before I had it felled. It was too close to the house and I was worried the roots would crack the structure. This tree endured English rain (frequently in copious quantities) and thrived. It certainly never needed watering! - Adrian Pingstone 19:53, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the trees will be ok this summer. Having read a little on the process of transpiration I can see that any amount of water you give them that would make a difference might put your town in danger of a water shortage. :-) Steve Dufour 22:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC) Eucalyptus fan from California, USA[reply]

"Eco-Terrorists"

Why take out the part about "eco-terrorists"? The information is in the article "Tree Wars" which is in the list of links. Of course they are not really terrorists since trees do not feel fear.Steve Dufour 03:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If no one objects I'll put it back.Steve Dufour 15:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the "eco-terrorists" were unknown individuals who killed several trees on the campus of the University of California in San Diego. Steve Dufour 08:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that ive seen many references to these trees in America, so many in fact i started to question if they were really native to Australia ( which I know to be a fact :) ).

Due to their extreme heartiness’ (provided regular fires) I question the wisdom of planting them in other countries, especially due to the fact the leaves are poisonous to most (all?) animals outside a few in Australia. A purely cursory guess would be they'd out most if not all trees in the world.. unless a canopy reducing sunlight has a major impact, but since they grow so high that might not have a big effect. Id recommend destroying any you see outside Australia, lest they turn into plague rabbits and cane toads have in Australia. Thats gardening according to someone with the only qualifications being a last name of Gardiner :)

They're very popular ornamental trees, especially in Souther California, which has environments which are very hospitable to eucalyptus trees. However, they do cause problems with their habits of shedding dead branches, as people have been occasionally injured or even killed by them (a professor was nearly killed by one in CSU Dominguez Hills a few years ago). In some places, though, they harm the environment by drawing out water from the local water tables.--Mr Fink 01:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Half sentence removed

I took out this: "... by some and detested by others whose views are blocked by this densely leaved and fast-growing tree." Why? Because the paragraph it was in was about positive benefits of the trees to California. The next paragraph was about the negative things. That's really a better style, IMO. Besides, I thought Eucalypts were famous for not being "densely leaved" and we can not read people's hearts to know that they detest something unless they say so. Cheers. Steve Dufour 21:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown Importance?

I noticed this tag at the bottom of this page. I would think that this article should have the very highest importance rating, or at the very least the second highest. I don't know what to do about it however. It seems like there is some kind of "Aussie Importance Committee" going through the articles so I don't want to take the tag off if this would remove the article from their attention. Have a gummy day. Steve Dufour 15:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very much incomplete

I don't see any reference to the eucalyptus tree/plant planted on the boundary of your property being a Natural Repellent for Mosquito's, ticks, fleas, gnats and flies. Which I've read that many eucalyptus repellent products tested by the USDA have been proven to be way more effective then "DEET" and way less harmful then chemicals... Not to mention that there are many medicinal uses as well. As usual google gives way to much importance to wiki when there are many far more informative resources available on the net. If your going to tell a "story" then the whole story!!!!! Get with it people.........

Do we need all this info on leaves?

An opinion, take with a grain of salt.

Well written. Thoroughly researched, but it seems too in-depth. This is a common problem that Wikipedia suffers from, the endless addition of tangential information. This is an article on Eucalypts, and doubtless needs information on foliage. However the depth of information on just leaves seems way over the top, particularly the glossary and diagrams. Consider that the article has barely touched on other important pertinent information such as the logging/forestry industry, environmental functions, community types, taxonomy, evolutionary relationships, the grazing industry/land clearing, reproduction, physiology and so forth.

We are now faced with a dilemma. We devote at least as much space to those and many other sub-topics as we have to leaves, in which case the artcile will be massive and I suspect unreadable as are so many Wikipedia articles. Alternatively we don't devote as much space to those topics and end up with an article that has a disproportionate amount of material devoted to leaves.

My suggestion is that the generic leaf information, ie that which is essentially glossary and the diagrams, be joined to the existing Wiki articles on leaves. We can then link to that section from here if required.

To me having that much generic info on leaves is no different to having a dozen paragarphs on transpiration on the grounds that eucs transpire. Useful, tangentially related, but out of place and redundnat given that there are already articles on leaves and tranpiration that we cna link to. IMO all we really need is a brief mention that most eucs exhbit dimorphism, and explanation of the basic alternate-opposite transitiona and a note that there are exceptions. Listing every possible exception and a detailed description of leaf development through the life cycle seems excessive to me. Better to add that information to the leaf article as required and link from here, rather than reproducing the information here.

YMMV Ethel Aardvark 10:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The entire "leaf characteristics" section is general information about leaves, and should go. There's no need to move it to leaf, because the material is covered amply there. If after that you still think there is too much detail, then you might consider rolling it out into a daughter article - Anatomy of Eucalyptus - but personally I think that would be going a bit too far at this stage. Hesperian 12:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Z" vs "S"

Isn't it standard policy in English Wikipedia to use American English rather than English English?--Mr Fink 02:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Hesperian 02:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to have a read of WP:ENGVAR. Nomadtales 06:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short summary: articles should use a consistent form of English, and where there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect use that dialect. In this instance the article was written primarily by Australian contributors, using Australian references, in Australian English. Eucalyptus is almost excusively an Australian genus, providing a strong tie to Australian English.

...and editors shouldn't chage that without good reason.Ethel Aardvark 07:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Gum Tree

Here is an image of a gum tree that I found in Heathcote National Park. I am not sure what the bulge is but maybe this could be used some where in the article.

--Ad@m.J.W.C. 04:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Adam. Hopefully someone can identify the disease. Hesperian 04:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--Ad@m.J.W.C. 04:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I believe they call it hemoriods? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.71.120 (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thailand

Additional sources

Pawyilee 15:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

usage for flowers and foliage

Just came across this http://www.rirdc.gov.au/pub/handbook/eucalypts.html link, its covers the usage of the flowers and foliage by the florist industries across europe, us and aust. Gnan garra 15:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hazards

The section was removed and I appreciate the reason - it was unreferenced. I have reinstated it and added some refs. However of all the instances I can find of people being killed in recent times, there are storms implicated: East Gippsland 2005, Riverina 1998, Mittagong NSW Feb 2005, Lorne Vic Nov 2007. The most famous death I can remember of a falling branch in still weather is the death of Judy in Seven Little Australians - but that is fictional. At the ver least I think we need to qualify for storms being involved in recent deaths. --Matilda ^talk 19:22, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this really belong here at all? All trees are prone to dropping branches in storms. Is there any evidence that Eucs are more prone to doing so than pines or oaks or the dozens of other tree groups that don't get this sort of hyperbolic "hazards" section?Ethel Aardvark (talk) 09:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I was just now thinking. It's like saying "Cats are animals and can be killed if hit by moving vehicles [5][6][7]." They're trees, no duh their branches can break. (Anon, 24 Sept 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.126.8 (talk) 02:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! Eucalyptus trees form a special hazard. Rather than (as with most trees), dropping limbs due to defect (as with rot), or during a storm, these tend to drop limps following a storm (I have personally seen this), at a time when other trees would be considered safe. So it is not a "duh" kind of thing but rather a special (and dangerous) characteristic of this tree. - Leonard G. (talk) 02:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice and all, but statments in Wiki are supposed to be verifiable, not original research and anecdotal accounts. I repeat: Is there any evidence that eucs are more prone to doing his than pines or cherries or rhododendrons?Ethel Aardvark (talk) 03:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found one reference. Keith, D. (2004): Ocean Shores to Desert Dunes, The Native Vegetation of New South Wales and the ACT. Dep. of Environment and Conservation (NSW), Hurstville. Page 59:

"The wet sclerophyll forests not only tolerate but seem to promote one of the most fearsome and catastrophic ecological disturbances on earth - crown forest fires. Eucalypts generate an enormous quantity of leaf litter which accumulate on the forest floor, creating a combustible arrangement of fuels that is ideally suited to the spread of bushfires. Eucalypts continually shed twigs, branches, bark and leaves, in contrast with conifers, and deciduous and rainforest trees..."

There is a reference to Catchpole, W. (2002): Fire properties and burn patterns in heterogeneous landscapes. In Flammable Australia: the fire regimes and biodiversity of a continent (eds. Bradstock, R.A., Williams, J.E. & Gill, A.M.). pp. 49-76. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. In my opinion anybody who makes an excursion to a tall eucalypt forest can immediately become convinced of branch shedding characters of eucalypts.Krasanen (talk) 10:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But be careful. This seems to only apply to wet sclerophyll forests, which are a minute fraction of all eucs. It may not be true of eucalypts in generalEthel Aardvark (talk)

At a stop during a recent trip in Australia (Kangaroo island) there were clearly posted warnings that an area under certain trees (River Gum) was hazardous and not to be entered. Underneath a number of these trees were large fallen branches. In response to my question as to specifics of the hazard the bus driver/guide told us of a fellow who parked his caravan (RV) under one and returned to find his vehicle in two pieces! (For further anecdotes regarding inadequate root development in cultivated parks see http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2003/feb/13/parks-coddle-killer-trees/)- Leonard G. (talk) 05:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reinstated the section with some references. Having read many warning signs in National Parks in Victoria and NSW regarding the risk of unpredictable dropping of large branches I was surprised that the section had been removed!dinghy (talk) 12:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

famous eucalypts

I'd like to see another article started in the "see also" section, with a list of famous eucalypts, such as the Burke and Wills Dig tree, the Karri trees in WA that were used as fire patrol towers and can now be climbed by tourists, the (deceased due to vandalism) "Tree of Knowledge" in Barcaldine, the "Cazneaux" tree in Flinders Ranges, and I bet there are dozens of others that people know of. Article should have the species, approx age (or approx germination year), the reason it's famous. BTW, should there be a "Eucalyptus in Australian culture" section in Eucalyptus? (Waltzing Matilda, the black stump, art by Namatjira, Heysen and others, etc.) Many of the above already exist as Wikipedia articles, so this would be a nice way of linking them. BoundaryRider (talk) 08:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Gloucester Tree, in Gloucester National Park, is probably Western Australia's most famous karri tree." [1]

Great idea!—but I wonder what the most famous karri is in other states ;-) cygnis insignis 09:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

more ...

Diamond Tree, Big Tree (Western Australia)? ibid

Thanks for those links - I've started another article called List of famous Eucalypt trees and linked it in. BoundaryRider (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about The Centurion? Hesperian 12:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eucalyptus regnans#Tallest specimens lists several individual trees by name, including The Centurion, Icarus Dream, and the Ferguson Tree. Hesperian 12:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, Hesperian, I've used your info to update the table. BTW the Centurion has a Facebook site! LOL BoundaryRider (talk) 06:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding Trees

I can attest to witnessing many eucalyptus trees exploding during intense bushfires. I’ve been told it relates to the flash point of the oil similar to petrol in a can, that why only in very intense fires they explode (due to evaporation and heat) but normally they just burn like a normal tree. I have seen an explosion cover almost 50 metres from a large tree, it’s very impressive. It mentions citation needed for this phenomenon, however wiki already cites sources under the exploding tree article.

Exploding tree

I have heard the trees can explode over 50 metres and breach fire breaks which are a major problem.

I also feel fire is understated in this article. Eucalyptus trees (mostly) require fire to germinate; the seeds are hard like a branch any only open during a fire. It’s a unique symbiotic relationship with fire that is fascinating, especially for such a ubiquitous tree in a large country / continent. It is an important consideration when fighting the common and very dangerous forest fires Australia experiences yearly. Watching an entire forest grow back from charcoal within a year or two when driving the pacific highway to Sydney is one of the great sights in nature IMO.

It should also be noted that the exploding trees are beloved to cause many deaths of koalas and other forest fauna. Who are unable to escape, and in areas where fires aren’t a problem koalas have faced massive over population problems (e.g Kangaroo Island).

As a side not, its always funny how koalas are demonstrated to be cuddly and cute but in reality you never want to touch a wild Koala, they are extremely fast over the ground, a surprise compared to their slow nature in trees, and also extremely vicious, I guess this is where the bear part of the name comes in :) Even though they aren’t actually related to bears.

Few if any euclaypts require fire to germinate. The vast majority will germinate any time soil moisture conditions are approriate. Some of the wet sclerophyll species such as regnans require a fire sterilised ash bed for succesful seedling establishment, but that's not the same as requiring fire to germinate. Many Acicias are dependent on fire scarification and volatile fire produced chemicals for germination cues, but that is not the case for the vast majoity of eucs.203.164.198.193

If the trees really do explode then perhaps actual citations to that effects are needed. The first says that they "explode into flame" not that they explode as in BOOM. The second doesn't seem like a reliable citation at all, it's a letter some random person wrote. 167.206.48.221 (talk) 13:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While boiling sap explosions can sunder trees in full-blown crown-fires (the occurrence of which is hardly unique to euc), I agree that the artcle emphasis on "explosi(veness)" is over-blown. I have removed [2] a line of text touting the apocryphal urban-legend of flammable oil mists (an assertion which is absurd when you think about it, as if such actually happened, then entire acres of euc forests would be spontaneously combusting all the time -- i.e., Aussie walks by with a cigarette downwind, and KABOOM!) ...since I consider the claim false, I zotted it instead of applying the use cite tag. (The mere fact that some haze exists over a forest in no way equates to it being in anywhere heavy enough of a vapor concentration as to be actually flammable let alone explosive; and no video of fires in progress has ever depicted such a thing.)--Mike18xx (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What some anonymous editor considers apocryphal is utterly irrelevant. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not opinion. If you believe the claim lacks references then add a cite tag. If you remove this material again I will report you. Have a nice day. Mark Marathon (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Report me? <laff!> Report away, Herr Gruppenfuhrer! I tremble in fear before the might of your Wehrmacht which grinds the bones of your enemies to powder. But before you do, you may want to Google "Onus of proof". (In brief, the onus of proof is upon the person making an assertion, not the one challenging it.) Note also, that in the case of a cite tag, any editor who comes along is free to zot the passage should said verifiable references not appear (I simply expedited the process because every rational fiber of my being concludes that the claim is total bullshit.) <stupid, unproven, unverified rubbishy nonsense zotted again> --Mike18xx (talk) 06:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As you wishMark Marathon (talk) 06:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]

May I humbly suggest that the conditions in which trees (appear to) explode may not be terribly conducive to sitting there calmly making a video. HiLo48 (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What, helicopters frighten away the clouds of explosive aerosol gas when taping these ubiquitous fires? When they're hovering a half kilo away? (Have any of youse guys ever watched the Mythbusters episode where they tried to make a car's gas tank explode, and found that it's absurdly difficult due to the very narrow range of concentrations at which misted fuels are actually flammable.) Explosive euc oil mists are firebug urban legend BS. AKA: "tall tale".--Mike18xx (talk) 06:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The good thing about Wikipedia is that what some anonymous contributor (who is clearly utterly ignorant of ecology and pyrology) "thinks" is utterly irrelevant. Actual scientists have studied this phenomenon and confirm that the volatiles released are indeed inflammable and capable of burning with no additional fuel. Amazingly you are utterly and totally wrong on this point, and all your "reasoning" is based upon gross ignorance. There is even vidoe evidence of this phenomenon occurong, albeit in Spain rather than in Australia. The original research of ignorant Jew baiters doesn't count for squat. If you keep reverting this you will get your account banned, which can only be a good thing. Had I posted as you have upon this subject, only to be proven wrong with unimpeachable references, I would now be sufferring from acute embarrassment. Have a nice day. Mark Marathon (talk) 04:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With an apparent lack of any reputable scientific literature worth citing, this evening [3] I tightened up the flammable/explosive section, and moved the blue mist stuff to a different section of the article with supportive links to other Wikipedia articles. I left the two "explode" references attached, even though I personally consider them worthless (the latter one had a one-line "literally explode" throw-away phrase, while the first was simply an amalgamation of every claim the writer could find, and his sexy hysteria claiming explosive oil mists in one paragraphed wasn't original-sourced). I.e., GIGO.

Problems with "explosive oil mist/haze/oil(etc)" claims from rational, physical standpoints:

Forests elsewhere around the world (e.g., the Smokey Mountains, etc) are occasionally shrouded in similar mists of organic haze, where they are the result of chemical reactions involving ultra-violet radiation (sunlight), water vapor and plant volatiles. Such hazes are more prevalent on stagnant, sultry, humid days under atmospheric inversions rather than on dry, windy, turbulent ones; and while hydrocarbons are a key constituent, the dispersed concentration of particulates is far too low to be flammable let alone "explosive" (if it were, the air would be poisonous to breathe; e.g., breathing gasoline fumes with your head stuck in a half-filled 5gl bucket).
The most destructive Aus wildfires occur on extremely windy days; given such a situation, any accumulated mists (whatever their composition) would be blown many kilometers downwind well before the arrival of any wildfire.
While flammable organic compounds are obviously present in euc, what is also present (unless the tree is dead) is 'water. Any oil in the tree is not going to burn, let alone "explode", until that water is first boiled away by fire. Show me a tree exploding in a fire, and it is invariably a boiling sap explosion rending the tree (and the healthier and "greener" a tree is, the more likely it is to explode from sap flashed into steam). Anybody who's ever tossed a green log into a bonfire, and then been bombarded by embers when it explodes twenty minutes later, learns this the hard way.
I have yet to see any video of burning eucalyptus which would support the idea of fire traveling through misted aerosol vapors not being immediately generated by conflagration combustion itself. I.e., while they burn right, bloody quick, the appearance of a euc fire under wind-load appears quite similar to that of fire racing through other types of dry vegetation under a heavy wind-load. (A jaunt to Youtube should make this readily apparent to any skeptical editor, where you'll find Yellowstone crown fires blow-torching just like Black Saturday.)--Mike18xx (talk) 04:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PS, Still waiting for evidence for your claim that "such explosions are more likely due to boiling sap flashing into steam during crown fires rather than any volatility inherent to resins". You do have evidence for this claim, right? You aren't the type of editor that posts nonsense on Wikipedia based on stuff you made up. Surely not, after the screed you posted above. I await your evidence with bated breath, especially since it will contradict the two impeccable references presented that say that the volatiles play a a major role. I assume you have video evidence to support this claim, since that seems to be the only evidence that you can understand/accept. ;) Mark Marathon (talk) 04:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In other news, you are also waiting for my evidence that ravens are black, and that the sun is hot. -- Look, you either have something verifiable (that was the hobbyhorse you rode in on, remember?) to back up this bullshit regarding explosive mists (and I cheerfully get to keep calling it "bullshit" so long as no one can prove it), or you don't. The mere fact that you have a reference does mean that said reference is verifiable -- because any editor (e.g., moi) who comes along can READ that reference and conclude that whomever wrote it didn't know their sphincter from a well-rounded terrestrial depression. (Can anybody link research to the explosivity --if any-- of euc haze concentrations? Any scientific analysis at all?)

One more thing; don't wholesale revert an article without bothering to read it first. While I dearly sympathize with your desire to have your trees explode, I would appreciate very much if you would leave the description of euc haze in the place I moved it to. Which is where it belongs. And where I included links to the sorts of mechanisms that generate it.--Mike18xx (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are now two unimpeachable references which state outright that the mists are inflamaable: one from New Scientist, a respected and highly credible journal that itself cites peer reviewed journal articles, and one from a peer reviewed pyrology conference proceedings. In short, we have references from pyrologists saying that the mists burn and may cause trees to explode. The WP article says that the mists burn and may cause trees to explode. the sources for the claim are authors of "New Scientist" or the pyrologists and peer review editors of the Asia Pacific Conference on Combustion. Whether you believe all these scientists "didn't know their sphyncter [sic] from a well-rounded terrestrial depression" is utterly irrelevant. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. The claim has been verified. You are free to believe the premier scientists researching the subject are wrong.

In fact I am sure you will.

"What you may not do is continue to disrpupt Wikipedia by deleting the well referenced claim because you refuse to believe the published, peer reviewed scientific evidence. Do so again and I can assure you you will be suspended, if not banned. Have a nice day. Mark Marathon (talk) 04:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth" ...do you even know what you're doing here, Mark?

Tell you what: post your links here in Talk, and we'll rip into them, and then arrive at some kind of consensus. Or maybe the people who think they're smarter will just bully forward like usual. Whatever. But can we leave the article *without* the exploding mist bullshit for a few days (I'm calling it bullshit until I see a primary source for the claim whom I consider not to be smoking crack. I.e., a scienticist who's actually measured aerosol concentrations, etc.)--Mike18xx (talk) 05:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know what I am doing here. You apparently do not. Might I suggest you read this? Since both New Scientist and a peer reviewed science conference proceedings are top tier reliable, published, appropriate sources the issue is settled. There is no need to "rip into" the sources. If you believe all these research scientists are wrong, then you are encouraged to add contradictory claims, backed up of course by reliable, published, appropriate sources.

If you insist n removing top tier references and the claims suported by them, then you will be suspended, which IMO will be a very good thing. Repeat the behaviour after your suspension ends and you will be banned. This is entirely your choice. Mark Marathon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two links previously in the article associated with exploding claims (whether trees themselves or mists) are #7 Santos, Robert L. (1997). "Section Three: Problems, Cares, Economics, and Species". The Eucalyptus of California. California State University., and and #13 ^ "Eucalytus Roulette (con't)". Robert Sward: Poet, Novelist and Workshop Leader.. Both links remain in the article as I edited it (to remove explosive mist claims only). Reference #7 (Santos) claims "The fierce blazes have been stoked by the highly volatile oils of the eucalyptus tree, which vaporize under intense radiative heat as the fire approaches and explode..." -- now that seems like it's actually saying something unique is occurring, but in scientific terms almost all fires with visible flames (i.e., not "smoulders") could be described similarly. E.g., the wax of a candle vaporizes, then burns. Etc. This is NOT the same thing as claiming that "hazes" or "mists", e.g., the blue mist which gives the Blue Mountains their name, is flammable or explosive -- and THAT is what I am trying to remove from the article.

Reference #13 (Sward) is not an original source (the original, according to him, is America's Largest Weed by Ted Williams in Audubon Magazine, Jan./Feb. 2002). Audobon is not a scientific periodical; the article excepted only has one instance of the word "explode" (in conjunction with "literally"), and makes no claim to flammable or explosive oil mists. The scope of the article is American euc.

Above, you claim two sources for flammable mists (New Scientist, and some "pyrology" conference), yet neither are in the appropriate sections of your own article reverts, and there were no New Scientist" references in the entire article (*addendum*: PRIOR TO YOUR MOST RECENT EDIT MINUTES AGO).

Now then, the two refs you have just hastily added to the article (their first appearance in it insofar as I am aware) -- Weber, and New Scientist, are malformed (no URL, no ISBN, or anything else that an editor can use to view and critique). Please fix them.--Mike18xx (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer have any idea what you are talking about. I added both the references here [[4]], well over an hour ago. I have no idea where you got the idea that they were not there MINUTES AGO and franky I don't care. Both references use Standard Oxford Referencing. This is not "malformed", it is the most widely used academic referencing style on the planet. Real references do actually exist in paper, not just on the internet. As for the rest of your most recent screed, I have no idea what point you are trying to make. The claim under discussion right now is that Eucalyptus oils burn endogenously and can cause trees to explode. that claim is now supported by two high quality references. That issue is settled, and if you remove the references or the claim one more time I can assure you you will be suspended.Mark Marathon (talk) 05:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

#1 Oh, please; it's not like it's actually difficult to link -- it's a courtesy to the article's reader, Mark. -- It saves every curious person who comes along the trouble of having to plop the sucker into Google.
#2 Screw your incessant bully-boy threats; try to behave like a decent human being in debate.
#3 Employing the logical fallacy of intimidation (yes, such a thing exists; and it's bad) to preclude critique of your sources (i.e., describing them as "top tier reliable", "unimpeachable," or "respected and highly credible" is a disingenuous tactic. (And some of us actually read those things on occasion, and frequently find them full of specious rot. "Nuclear Winter", anyone? I knew it was garbage the second I laid eyes on it in Scientific American a quarter-century ago...but I digress.)
#4 You write: "The claim under discussion right now is that Eucalyptus oils burn endogenously and can cause trees to explode." -- But that is NOT the claim under discussion. The one under discussion is the one I object to it the article (which is why I keep removing it; the actual claim under discussion is, verbatim, "On warm days vaporised Eucalyptus oil rises above the bush to create the characteristic distant blue haze of the Australian landscape. Eucalyptus oil is highly flammable..". -- This phrasing erroneously implies that the "blue haze" which gives the Blue Mountains their name is "highly flammable" -- I challenge you to find a credible source which maintains SPECIFICALLY THAT. Gooood luck, Sir. (I'll give you a few days before I rewrite it out again.) --Now, if you remove JUST that line, and restore the sentence listed in #5 below, that yields the substance of my edit which you persist in reverting. 0_o

Reiterate: We are NOT talking about the common phenomena associated with crown fires (in all types of vegetation when they occur) in which blasts of nearby fire (whether radiative or direct flame contact) boil plant volatiles with said gasses swiftly combusting thereafter. (Btw, if you want to re-write an article, crown fire needs PROMPT attention.)

#5 What is your objection to the following sentence, which you keep deleting: "Eucalyptus forests are sometimes shrouded in a smog-like mist of volatile organic compounds (terpenoids); the Australian Blue Mountains take their name from the haze."?--Mike18xx (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If your only concern is with the claim that ""On warm days vaporised Eucalyptus oil rises above the bush to create the characteristic distant blue haze of the Australian landscape. Eucalyptus oil is highly flammable." then only add a fact tag to that statement. You are utterly ignorant on that issue as well, and as soon as you post the fact tag you will be swamped with references establishing those facts. That's not a problem, Wikipedia should be verifiable, especially for those grossly ignorant of the subject at hand.

What you have been challenging however are statements that Eucalyptus oils burn endogenously and can cause trees to explode. You have challenged those statements multiple times in this discussion. You even started this discussion under the heading "Exploding Trees". You have repeatedly made outrageous claims that there is no way that fire can travel through Eucalyptus vapours. You claimed that flammable oil mists are a legend. You have consistently and repeatedly reverted claims that Eucalyptus oils burn endogenously and can cause trees to explode. There is now ay that you were only challenging the statements that eucalyptus vapour colours the air. You were directly, explicitly and repeatedly challenging the statements that Eucalyptus oils burn endogenously and can cause trees to explode.

That claim is now well established with highly reputable references. There is no disputing that scientists believe that Eucalyptus oils burn endogenously as a vapour/mis and by so burning they can cause trees to explode. You MUST not revert those statements. Your ignorance of the subject and your belief that the leading researchers in this field ""didn't know their sphyncter [sic] from a well-rounded terrestrial depression" is not an excuse for vandalism and edit warring.

You are free to challenge the statement that the vapours give the mountains their colour. The statement that they are flammable has been well established by two impeccable references.Mark Marathon (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Above I see some rather uncivil and bad faith comments. Comment on the content not the editor. Also please do not edit or edit within another editor's comments such as this, please read WP:TPG. Bidgee (talk) 09:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark wrote: "If your only concern is with the claim that ;On warm days vaporised Eucalyptus oil rises above the bush to create the characteristic distant blue haze of the Australian landscape. Eucalyptus oil is highly flammable." then only add a fact tag to that statement."

I respond: There are two statements being made there: the first sentence (which I have no objection to, other than its placement in the fire section, where it is "leading"), and the second, as it follows the first, erroneously implying that turpenoid smogs (the blue mist) are flammable.

Mark wrote: "You are utterly ignorant on that issue as well, and as soon as you post the fact tag you will be swamped with references establishing those facts. That's not a problem, Wikipedia should be verifiable, especially for those grossly ignorant of the subject at hand."

I respond: You're nuts if you think any expert (i.e., scientist in a relevant field) out there (including those whom you would cite) actually believes that the blue mist which gives the New South Wales Blue Mountains their name is flammable.

Mark wrote: "You even started this discussion under the heading "Exploding Trees"."

I respond: "Exploding Trees" was created on the Talk page over five years ago.[5]

Mark wrote: "You have repeatedly made outrageous claims that there is no way that fire can travel through Eucalyptus vapours."

I respond: By the newly-intruded euphemism "vapours," are you (A) referring to volatiles boiling out of cooking vegetation (your "endogenous" "oils", AKA "smoke") as a crown fire rapidly bears down, or '(B) referring to the famous "blue mists" of the Blue Mountains of New South Wales (which are a smog composed of terpenoids)? -- One of those things is not the same as the other thing; and if the article conflates the two -- as it currently does -- then it's factually incorrect as well as badly written, and must be fixed.--Mike18xx (talk) 08:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark wrote: "You claimed that flammable oil mists are a legend."

I respond: See above. One of those "mists/hazes/vapors/etc" is not the other "mist/haze/vapor/etc."--03:10, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Expert tag

Expert tag added [6] in order to seek verified consensus on claims made in the particular paragraph (e.g., the ubiquity, or lack thereof, of the terpenoid smogs AKA "blue mists" over the Australian landscape). Should an expert appear, I'd also request he confirm that terpenoid smogs have nowhere near enough of an atmospheric concentration as to be flammable, as well as the probable (IMO) tall-talishness of the following line from the Fire Hazard section: "bushfires can travel easily through the oil-rich air of the tree crowns" should that actually be referring to anything other than volatiles (AKA "smoke") being driven out of cooking vegetation by an advancing wildfire.--Mike18xx (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Big hole of emptiness

At present, the top of the article has a rather ungainly, ugly appearance with the long content list on the left yielding a large expanse of empty nothing after the header between right and left sides of one's screen (this is particularly apparent on 16x9 displays). Let's work to reflow various features to eliminate the empty white space. The most expedient solution would be to find a few generalist paragraphs which could be moved to the header portion of the article.--16:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

I don't remember why I'm watching this article, but I am, and while I currently have no opinon on the issue at stake in the current edit war, I would like to alert both sides that it is very likely that both editors would be blocked for 24 hours if this matter were reported to WP:AN3. I don't know why "sic" was used in a recent edit summary, but the relevant policy is WP:BURDEN which includes "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". It is well known at Wikipedia that contested material has to be referenced or removed. Resolution of something at an article like this should be relatively straight forward: on this talk page, note the text proposed to be added to the article with one or more reliable sources, and briefly explain how those sources verify the text. Then wait for comments from others, and possibly ask for assistance on the talk page of a relevant wikiproject (see top of this page). Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another POV: I dislike the use of the word explode unless someone can really prove that there is an explosion, as distinct from a rapid growth of flame. Once, I watched tall eucs burn, using binoculars at a distance of about 1 or 2 km. There was indeed a rapid growth of flame - it took only a couple of seconds for a large bright flame to develop, and maybe 5 or 10 seconds for the flame to race up a very tall tree. This is dramatic, but not literally an explosion. The article currently uses explode and gives 2 references. I looked at the references, which do use this word. (For Santos, I had to fix the link.) I don't think either of these references proves that explode is a correct word. But given the edit war, I haven't yet removed the word. Maybe the right wording is something like, "Flame can engulf ignited trees very rapidly, and the word explode is used by some authors."(refs) But so far, the only change I've made is to fix the link to Santos. Oaklandguy (talk) 08:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've had similar experiences and I tend to agree. The key factor is that the vaporised eucalyptus oil burns very rapidly and makes it appear that the air around a tree is burning. (I guess it is.) It's not a true explosion, but obviously some observers have described it as such. How about "Eucalyptus oil, especially in its vaporised form, is highly flammable. Bushfires can travel easily through the oil-rich air of the tree crowns. Some observers have described this phenomenon as an explosion." (With the current references, of course.) HiLo48 (talk) 11:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what is wrong with the current wording. There is no such things as a "true" explosion or "literal" explosion. If you look at the explosion article, it's simply "a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases" That seems to fit perfectly the event being described here. Rapid growth of flame - 5 or 10 seconds for the flame to race up a very tall tree. That's a rapid increase in volume, with an obvious release of energy, and it's certainly done in an extreme manner. I suspect the problem is that editors are assuming that only high explosives are explosive. Of course in the days before nitroglycerine, all explosives were low explosives of this type. The combustion of gunpowder or a fuel-air mix is certainly an explosion, but I don't see how it's substantially different to what's being described here. Mark Marathon (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm quite aware of the difference between low explosives and high explosives. Seems to me, the differences in the physics of a burning euc and the burning of black powder in a gun (low explosive) are the speed of flame travel, and the degree of increase in pressure due to confinement. I still don't like to use "explode" for burning eucs. Possible exception: perhaps someone can prove that the boiling of the sap produces sufficient steam pressure to be a significant factor in the speed with which a tree burns, or the properties of the embers produced. Oaklandguy (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't these trees native to New Zealand too?

Since both Australia and NZ were once connected. Or were they introduced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.198.169 (talk) 04:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand Eucalyptus were introduced. New Zealand and Australia broke apart before Eucalyptus trees could migrate into New Zealand.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And if the identity of certain Monte Bolca fossils have not been challenged since last I read about them, the genus arose along the European coast of the western Tethys Ocean during the Eocene.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest changing subheading on Eucalyptus as an invasive species

I suggest having a section on Eucalyptus as a plantation species that would cover all the content from North America, California, up to Pacific Islands inclusive. Most of the text deals with the use of this genus as plantations and only a small subset refers to as effects as an invasive species. This new section would then be followed by the section on Eucalyptus as an invasive species and would include the first paragraph under the current heading, which, in fact, tackles an example of the actual problem. Uncronopio. 00:20 12 Oct 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the current section on "invasive species" is almost entirely about plantations, with mention of invasiveness.

However we don't need new section on Eucalyptus as a plantation species. We already have that. If you want to create a new "ecological issues" section under "Eucalyptus as plantation species" or"Cultivation and uses" and move most of the "invasive species" text there, I would support that.Mark Marathon (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit 613259521 by Mark Marathon

Hi @Mark Marathon:,
I understand you probably had your reason to delete my edit, but could you explain it to me?
Cheers, Thouny(talk), on 10:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two related reasons

1) It's unreferenced.

2) It doesn't seem notable that a single hybrid is grown in some area of France. I'm sure there are many thousands of species and hybrids grown in different parts of the world for some purpose. That doesn't make them sufficiently notable for an article on the Eucalyptus genus. If we can show that this hybrid is, for example, the most widely grown species in Europe or the largest source of wood pulp in the Northern hemisphere, that would make it notable. A quick Google search seems to return either French sites, or articles linking to French sites. Of those sites, the material seems to be mostly aboricultural or genetic description. No information on area under cultivation, tonnage etc that I can see. This suggests that this species is only really known in France and only as an experimental crop. That doesn't make it sufficiently notable for inclusion in this article, though it would certainly qualify for its own article if you wish to create it. Mark Marathon (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from External Links

I removed these from the external links section since they seemed a bit useless, and repetitive of each other:

(subhead) ===Medicinal resources, eucalyptus essential oil===

If they are returned, they should just be in the rest of the list and formatted in a way that expresses what they lead to. Huw Powell (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Frost intolerance?

I took frost intolerance out of this article but it has been added in again. Both times unsourced. I grew up in country NSW were many many different species of Eucalypts exist and are subject to heavy frost each winter. There are many many more species throuhgout Australia that would experience the same. I feel that this fact is wrong and would request some citations to be added to this claim. Thanks Jamesbushell.au (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of these sources agree that eucalypts in general are not very cold-tolerant: #!, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6. WolfmanSF (talk) 02:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I see your point, but I think you can see mine. Eucalypts are not tolerant of the cold climates, say in North America, but are definitely tolerant of the frosts and cold weather typical to the areas where they have grown for thousands of years. I think that needs to be incorporated into your edit somehow. You should add the best of the references you provided too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesbushell.au (talk • contribs) 08:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. WolfmanSF (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great - pleasure doing wiki with you. Ive added a little more wording in the specific frost tolerance section, I'm hoping it makes sense to you. Cheers. Jamesbushell.au (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Eucalyptus. 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.

Y 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Eucalyptus. 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.

Y 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The trees have failed in draining swampy lands

See here: http://www.greenwin.kkl.org.il/features/land/drying_the_swamps/ "האקליפטוסים, למרבה הצער, לא עמדו בציפיות – הם שאבו את מרבית ההשקיה שלהם ממי-תהום, ולא תרמו לייבוש הביצות."

Translation: "Eucalyptus, unfortunately, did not work as expected - they drew most of their water from ground water, thus did not contribute to draining swamps. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amir Segev Sarusi (talk • contribs) 17:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Long copy and paste in Adaptation to fire section

The following paragraph is copied and pasted from the source. It also does not appear to refer directly to the genus.

The aridification of Australia during the mid-tertiary period (25-40 million years ago), combined with the annual penetration of tropical convection storms, and associated lightning, deep into the continental interior stimulated the gradual evolution, diversification and geographic expansion of the flammable biota. The absence of great rivers or mountain chains meant that there were no geographic barriers to check the spread of fires. From the monsoonal 'cradle', fire-promoting species expanded into higher rainfall environments, where lightning was less frequent, gradually displacing the Gondwanan rainforest from all but the most fire-sheltered habitats.^[1]

I'm removing it from the article. Any thoughts? The mayor of Yurp (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brutaldeluxe, I would be looking for any other use of the source for contentious statements, copyvio or not. As for relevance, eucalypt and acacia are the villains in that fairy tale version of events. cygnis insignis 20:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cygnis insignis, sorry I'm not grasping this, are you saying the source is fringe science? The mayor of Yurp (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brutaldeluxe, it is not an appropriate source. You have read the piece? cygnis insignis 09:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cygnis insignis, I have read it and doubted its reliability. Thank you for confirming my suspicions. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 09:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brutaldeluxe, the topic is highly contentious in this country, and this reeks of apologetics for unspeakable practices that destroy the land and endanger the life and property they are supposed to protect. An editorial defence of a two hundred year war on the environment, I'd like to think this could not be published these days. cygnis insignis 09:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Australia Burning: Fire Ecology, Policy and Management Issues" (PDF). CSIRO Publishing.

"Ευκάλυπτος" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ευκάλυπτος. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sawfly larvae - Pergidae sp.jpg scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:Sawfly larvae - Pergidae sp.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for October 8, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-10-08. Any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be made before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eucalyptus is a genus of over seven hundred species of flowering trees, shrubs or mallees in the myrtle family, Myrtaceae. Its foliage is relatively immune to attack by plant-eating animals because of the toxins found in the essential oil present in the leaves. Different species of Eucalyptus contain a range of differing compounds; koalas, possums and other marsupial herbivores make food choices based on the smell of the leaves.

This photograph shows sawfly larvae from the family Pergidae feeding on Eucalyptus leaves in the Bogong High Plains in Victoria, Australia. The larvae are naturally gregarious, and some species can cause serious damage to Eucalyptus by defoliation.

Photograph credit: Fir0002

Recently featured:

I think this phrasing was ok

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Eucalyptus&curid=49871&diff=1025128035&oldid=1023786402 this looks fine to me and MOS:EDITORIAL doesn't apply. Invasive Spices (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Type of wood ? Soft , medium, or hard?

What type of wood? Soft , medium ,or hard 2601:192:7F:8B20:0:0:0:BBD7 (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Softwood and hardwood are formal descriptors of types of trees, more to do with the nature of the flowers and seeds of the plants, not the nature of the of wood. Clicking on those links will tell you a lot more. Medium wood has no formal meaning that I'm aware of. Eucalyptus wood is technically hardwood. When freshly cut, and still full of sap, it is generally (but not always) quite soft and easy to bruise or cut with an axe or sharp blade. Years later, when the sap has completely dried out, it can be extremely hard. In my half century old house with eucalyptus framing, it's almost pointless trying to cut into the timber with hand tools. Power tools are the only way, and even they work hard to get anywhere. A quirk of timber labelling is that balsa, from a tropical tree, commonly used in woodworking because it is very light and easy to work with, is technically a hardwood. HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction with 'Exploding tree' article

This article claims that ignited Eucalyptus trees have been known to explode. However, the 'Exploding tree' article claims that there is no evidence of trees exploding due to fire. Only one of these statements can be correct, and one of the articles should be corrected to match the other. 2601:280:C980:8BA0:D0F1:7934:5ECF:5AC4 (talk) 07:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, and what I have seen from a long, safe distance, when a decent bushfire is underway on a suitably hot day (over say 40 degrees C), eucalyptus oil vapour in the air around a tree can explode, in the same way that a petrol vapour/air mixture explodes when ignited. (Sorry Americans, but we are talking about real gases here. I don't how to reword that for your confusing use of the word "gas" for the liquid you put in cars, but when I said petrol I meant what you call gas.) So the trees don't explode, but explosions occur in the air around the trees. So we do have explosions, just not of trees. I would love to see that described in a good source. They would probably do it better than I have. HiLo48 (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HiLo48: https://doi.org/10.2307/1934459 is your friend. And especially this ref that it cites: "McLaren, A. C. 1959. Propagation of flames in Eucalyptus oil vapour-air mixtures. Australian Journal of Applied Science 10: 321-328." That's a defunct CSIRO journal that I don't have easy access to. Zero^talk 12:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thank you. HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion about names (Eucalypteae, Eucalyptus, and eucalypts)

Often, this article doesn’t seem to be about the genus Eucalyptus per se. It is often confused about questions like what subset of Eucalypteae the common name “eucalypt” refers to.

1. In places, without clearly saying as much, is seems to treat eucalypt as the common name of Eucalyptus. That is not true in any dialect I know of, although it might have been in the nineteenth century.

2. Elsewhere, as where it claims that “Austroplatypus incompertus makes and defends its galleries exclusively inside Eucalyptus plants” (while that beetle’s article clearly and correctly notes that it also uses Corymbia species), it seems to think that Eucalyptus is equivalent to Eucalypteae. That is simply incorrect.

3. It also states that Eucalyptus, Corymbia, and Angophora together constitute the eucalypts, which is reasonable and consistent with some specialist literature. However, it disagrees with the Eucalypteae article, for example, which states that all Eucalypteae are eucalypts – also reasonable and also consistent with other specialist literature. Here the problem isn’t an error: it’s just confusing. We’re taking both sides on a tricky issue about plant names without even explaining the issue.

Some phrasing in this article can be cleaned up, but I think the root problem is that editors are using this article for material that is more appropriate to the eucalypt article. A lot of this article seems to actually refer to that somewhat wider group – of which Eucalyptus is certainly the most important genus by many measures, but just as certainly is not the only member.

Whether the common name eucalypt refers to only the three-genus group or to all seven genera of Eucalypteae is an open question. The other four genera in Eucalypteae are species-poor and relatively rare, and therefore are not often referred to in everyday English. And experts disagree. (Citations, all from botanists: splitting, lumping, and teaching the controversy (p. 40).) So it’s not clear that there is a solid basis to state that, for example, eucalypt is (or is not) synonymous with Eucalypteae and therefore, per WP:FLORATITLES, ought (or ought not) to be combined with it.

As a starting point for discussion, here is a suite of changes to address the inconsistency and confusion around names in Eucalypteae:

1. For purposes of article organization only, accept eucalypt in the broadest sense, as the vernacular term for all Eucalypteae. Therefore, following WP:FLORATITLES, merge Eucalypteae into eucalypt.

2. Move material that is about eucalypts generally to that article, particularly from ''Eucalyptus''.

3. Add a hatnote to ''Eucalyptus'' like: “This article is about the genus Eucalyptus; for eucalypts or gum trees in general, see eucalypt.

4. Expand the taxonomy section in eucalypt, pulling in material from ''Angophora'' and elsewhere, to describe the history of Eucalypteae systematics and the issues around common names. Those who favor a narrow, three-genus sense of eucalypt, for example, should find that perspective fully and fairly articulated here, which it is not on Wikipedia today.

5. Wherever appropriate (for example, in the seven Eucalypteae genus articles), refer to the central eucalypt taxonomy section to handle questions like what exactly counts as a eucalypt. This will tend to help keep Wikipedia using reasonably consistent definitions, and, more importantly, help readers get clear information about a potentially confusing topic. Indanthrene (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gum trees

Almost all Australians (where these trees originated) call them gum trees, far more often than they would call them eucalyptus trees. But the only place this name is mentioned is in a sub-section called Related genera where we say "Many species, though by no means all, are known as gum trees because they exude copious kino from any break in the bark". That does not cover the common Australian use of the term at all. And when Australians see "kino", most would think of a big lottery. I propose adding "gum tree" to the lead as an alternative name, with this as a source. HiLo48 (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with adding "gum tree" to a page about "Eucalyptus" is that "gum tree" is also applied to Corymbia, Angophora and other genera of eucalypts. The common name "gum tree" is referred to in the lead to the article about eucalypts. By all means, add the reference to that article. Gderrin (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But most Australians call eucalyptus trees gum trees. They are not aware of the distinction you mention. HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. A more complete explanation. Plants in the genera Eucalyptus, Corymbia, Angophora, Stockwellia (etc.) are all "gum trees" (as explained in the lead paragraph of Eucalypt and further explained in taxonomy). Your proposal would be like adding "also known as dog" in the article about German Shepherd, since there are many other breeds of dog apart from German Shepherds. "German Shepherd" ≠ "dog" and "Eucalyptus" ≠ "gum tree". German Shepherds are just one kind of dog, and "Eucalyptus" is (are?) just one kind of gum tree. Most Australians call eucalyptus trees, corymbia trees, angophora trees (etc.) "gum trees". Thanks for your suggestion. Happy to discuss it further here or on my Talk Page. Gderrin (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but we wouldn't write an article on German Shepherds without mentioning "dog". The solution is to devise wording that reports the facts in a correct way, such as "Eucalyptus trees are one of the genera commonly known as 'gum trees' in Australia". Or something like that, with a source. Zero^talk 04:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the vast majority of Eucalypts are not gum trees. Gum refers only to those species of Eucalypt with predominantly smooth bark. Hence red gum, ghost gum, scribbly gum, mallee gum etc. Most eucalypts do not have smooth bark, and are never called gum trees, or at least not by anyone who knows anything about Australian trees. Depending on the bark type, those species may be called box, bloodwood, woolybutt, stringybark, ironbark etc. This is most obvious in the common names of species that have smooth bark only on the upper portions of the trunk: gum top box, gum top ironbark, gum top bloodwood, gum top stringybark etc. Also note that not all of those species of eucalypt with predominantly smooth bark are called gum trees. E. victrix, for example, has smooth bark, but is a coolibah and never referred to as a gum.

In summary, almost all Australians do not call Eucalyptus gum trees. Australians only call smooth barked Eucalyptus gum trees. Trees with other types of barks have other names and are never called gum trees. Some trees with smooth bark are also not referred to as gum trees. Plants in the genera Eucalyptus, Corymbia, Angophora, Stockwellia (etc.) are not all "gum trees", in fact the majority or trees in those genera are not gum trees. There are more rough bark species species than there are gum species.

To continue the analogy, this proposal is akin to having an article on Attack dog with the sentence ""Attacks dogs are one of the classes of dog commonly known as 'German shepherds' in Australia". It's incorrect no matter how you approach it. Most attack dogs aren't German shepherds, most German shepherds aren't attack dogs, most people wouldn't call most German shepherds an attack dog and most people wouldn't call most attack dogs a German shepherd.

I can see only one correct way to include this information: "Most of those species of Eucalyptus trees which have predominantly smooth bark on the trunk are commonly known as 'gum trees' in Australia". That sentence could probably be usefully added to the "Bark" section.

Please note that the lede of the Eucalypt article fails a reference check. The reference it cites actually says "In Australia the eucalypti are commonly known as gum trees or stringybark trees". So if we want to use that a reference, we will need to include both gum tree and stringybark. Of course any Australian will be able to tell you this is nonsense. Nobody would ever call a blue mallee a stringybark or a gum. If you want an actual reference for common names used by Australians, almost any book on the subject will lay that out, with an explanation. The "Field Guide to Eucalypts" series by Brooker and Kleinig would be a good place to start, as would "Forest Trees of Australia" by Boland and Brooker, but there are countless others. What you'll notice is that there is no record of the majority of species ever being called a gum. 49.255.59.94 (talk) 06:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This quite mature Australian is completely unaware of the distinction you claim of only smooth barked eucalypts being called gum trees. I call them all gum trees, and this conforms with the habits of the cohort I'm part of. DO you have a source for your claim? HiLo48 (talk) 06:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My experience as an old Aussie is the same. Smoothness of bark is irrelevant. Incidentally a good source for Australian usage is the Macquarie Dictionary, which under "gum tree" says "any tree or shrub of the myrtaceous genus Eucalyptus". McKay (talk) 07:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just by chance, I cam across a discussion on flowering gums. Some links show us obviously rough bark for "gum" trees - (https://www.specialitytrees.com.au/trees/corymbia-ficifolia-fuw4g here) and (https://aussiegreenthumb.com/corymbia-ficifolia-red-flowering-gum/ here). Then there is Corymbia ficifolia. That article says it's commonly known as red flowering gum. HiLo48 (talk) 02:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Australia Burning: Fire Ecology, Policy and Management Issues" (PDF). CSIRO Publishing.

[1]