Talk:Pinus flexilis

Edit to remove incorrect common name southwestern white pine

Though there does not appear to be complete agreement on the relationships among P. flexilis James, P. strobiformis Engelmann, and P. strobus L., the USDA (and all other credible sources found using internet searches, except wiki) identify the common name Southwestern White Pine as P. strobiformis, not P. flexilis. It's also disturbing that the wiki page for P. strobiformis does not identify the common English name as Southwestern White Pine but as the Chihuahua white pine, in contradiction to the USDA and all credible internet sources. ChuckBiggs2 (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to improve sort order in category Pinus

I edited this to change the sort order on the page for the Category:Pinus. It had been set to alphabetize under Pine. That might make sense for categories where there are a lot of trees and a few of them are pines; then all the pines group together. But on the page where everything is a pine, it made more sense to alphabetize under Limber. 140.147.236.194 (talk) 16:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza[reply]

Photo of limber pine (Pinus flexilis) male cones is probably a photo of whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) male cones

While reading the article on limber pines, I noticed that the photo of limber pine male cones is really a picture of whitebark pine male cones. Limber pine male cones are yellow and whitebark pine male cones are reddish pink, as this photo shows. As whitebark pines and limber pines are very similar, these distinguishing characteristics can be used to identify the two species. I doubt the species vary by geographic distribution; however, I could be wrong. I have noticed limber pine cones in central Idaho and Wyoming are yellow and whitebark pine male cones are reddish pink. I have not figured out how to upload a picture of the limber pine male pollen cones onto this discussion site, sorry. --Aserrian (talk) 15:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Whitebark Pine which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

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 per request. Favonian (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Limber pine → Pinus flexilis – WP:FLORA Famartin (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC) – WP:FLORA is the guideline that governs the naming of plant articles. It 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. The limber pine is a relatively rare pine with little if any economic or agricultural use. Therefore, it should be titled under its scientific name Pinus flexilis Famartin (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Support move to scientific name. See above. Famartin (talk) 04:01, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Famartin --- Limber pine is most prominent in the field of botany/ecology: no notable agricultural, economic, or cultural use. —hike395 (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Plantdrew (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - must have missed this one a few weeks ago. No-brainer. scientific name like 99% of other plant species pages...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – the discussion below shows yet again why it is rarely sensible to have such articles at the English name. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Because of policy, common sense, and consistency with other articles in the genus. First Light (talk) 00:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom.--Melburnian (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Question --- should we split the article into Pinus flexilis and Pinus reflexa? It sounds like they are distinct species. —hike395 (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both efloras and the USDA PLANTS database list P. reflexa as a synonym of P. strobiformis. So instead maybe we should remove the uncited section that argues it's a distinct species. Tdslk (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict. The statement that it is recognized as a "distinct species..erroneously through confusion with the Mexican [Pinus strobiformis]" seems to be Original Research. Flora of North America and the US Govt (USDA Plants, etc.) recognize P. strobiformis as occuring in the US, and have P. reflexa as a synonym of P. strobiformis. The Gymnosperm Database has quite a bit of discussion about the issue on their P. flexilis page and suggests that P. reflexa may be a hybrid between P. strobiformis and P. flexilis, with more introgression from P. strobiformis. If researchers aren't certain enough about it's origins to name it as a hybrid taxon Pinus x reflexa, there doesn't seem to necessarily be anything erroneous or confused about treating reflexa as a synonym of strobiformis. It might be better to change the redirect target of Pinus reflexa to Pinus strobiformis and move much of the reflexa content in this article to P. strobiformis. Plantdrew (talk) 20:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That makes some sense why I couldn't figure out that part. I've been attempting to start a new article on the P. strobiformus (at User:LionMans Account/Southwestern white pine). There's also an article Chihuahua White Pine which might be the same thing. Guess really need to get my article to start class at least. LionMans Account (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like that is P. strobiformis, but with the same OR on P. reflexa as this page has. I would suggest that you merge your information into that page, and remove the section claiming P. reflexa as a distinct species. Tdslk (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for figuring this out. Just goes to show ya: when the title of an article is an ambiguous common name, all sorts of cruft accumulates in it. —hike395 (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Selective merge of content from Twister (tree)

Text and/or other creative content from Twister (tree) was copied or moved into Pinus flexilis with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

White Mountains

Quote "White Mountains of Northern California", the link is for a mountain range in central Eastern California not in Northern California. אביהו (talk) 08:16, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]