Talk:Sequoioideae/Archive 1

Help

Sequoioideae is in need of sources and more text. I can't find any sources and I am trying to add a picture. If any one ever reads this, help now!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Madeditor02 (talk • contribs) March 21 2010 (UTC)

Height

This article is about the tallest and largest tree species in the world, yet no height, size, weight, etc, are given. The article is quite incomplete without some more specific facts in that regard. --Dan East (talk) 23:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, you will find all that information in the species pages. rosetta (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endangered?

Are they still endangered? Since I can buy a redwood two_by_four at Home Depot even here in Arizona without any special paperwork, I wonder just what sort of special status this species still has? Clarification here would be nice. Zaphraud (talk) 02:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tree plantations outside the natrual habitat do not have any protection status. A plant species can only be protected in its natural environment, as part of that ecosystem, unlike some animals which you would not be allowed to have because you could not legally buy them or their eggs or babies.

All three Sequoioideae species have been grown and planted worldwide, but only Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) is used extensively for lumber productions. Redwoods still feature some rather large distribution along the Western Coast Ranges and even there, in their native habitat, many forests are not protected and are managed regularly. Most oldgrowth Giant Sequoia (Sequoiadendron) groves are protected but there are second growth and new plantations which partly are managed commercially. This is still a young market with no significant share. Dawn redwood (Metasequoia) was just recently discoeverd, the relict groves in China are protected (well, not hard enough) and plantations all oevr the world are quite young. Commercial value of the wood is uncertain and so far it seems they never will be important in forestry. Does that answer your question ? rosetta (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible Page

This page is a classic example of why "crowdsourcing" is not sufficient by itself. There are some obscure flowers with more information on their pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.201.14.124 (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't indict the idea of crowdsourcing based on one page. I'm posting here because this is probably the worst intro in a wikipedia page about a plant variety I can recall (I've read quite a few). The intro paragraph currently consists of "Sequoioideae is a subfamily in the family Cupressaceae, with three genera," then a lengthy, poetic, uninformative quote from a Steinbeck novel ("from them comes silence and awe" and "they are ambassadors from another time.") I would expect an intro to mention that it's a type of tree...maybe alter the first sentence to something like "Sequoioideae is a subfamily of conifer trees in the Cupressaceae (cypress) family, with three genera." Then summarize some of the factual details elsewhere in the article. That Steinbeck quote, however nicely written, just seems radically out of place here, and was almost certainly referring just to the American genera (or perhaps a single species) anyway. 71.238.69.41 (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the page needs to be sorted out. I like the Steinbeck quote (which i did not put), it may very well be the best part of the page because it tries to express why people think that 'the Redwoods' are special. I know it's not wiki style and should go into trivia, but then, you would not read it in the right place. but, that freedom of author above wiki law finally will not work. rosetta (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing broken link

I fixed a broken link in the section on Paleontology. Before fix it read: The fossil record shows a massive expansion of range in the Cretaceous and dominance of the Arcto-Tertiary flora, I noticed the red ink/broke link, so I searched and found the correct link: Arcto-Tertiary Geoflora

Couldn't find any way to comunicate with CLCStudent. who sent me this message: Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Sequoioideae have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. CLCStudent (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Since I couldn't contact, I made the change again and am adding to the talk page. --Embunker (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Section - Evidence for reticulate evolution in Sequoioideae

" ... Yang et al. used two single copy nuclear genes, LFY and NLY ..." The current NLY hyperlink is to an Airline. AnnaComnemna (talk) 12:38, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reticulate evolution

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to not move. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 10:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sequoioideae → Redwood – Redwood is the common name for this subfamily; therefore, it should be moved to redwood Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 01:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the proposed change. Redwood is a common name with a meaning that varies with context. In California the term redwood is most commonly used to describe a particular species and not a subfamily. Davefoc (talk) 07:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, WP plants says to keep the plant articles at the taxonomic names, and "Redwood" is a very ambiguous term with many different meaning in different industries. --Kev min § 16:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. "Redwood" most commonly refers to coastal redwood, not the entire subfamily. Redwood (disambiguation) should be moved to the base title; most of the links going to currently going to redwood can be sent to a more precise topic (predominantly coastal redwood). Plantdrew (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree thanks Plantdrew Raquel Baranow (talk) 01:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Reticulate evoluton

This section is garbled and unnecessarily written in a way that is difficult for a layman to understand. Also, there are additional articles published that are relevant, c.f. Scott, Alison Dawn, Noah WM Stenz, Pär K. Ingvarsson, and David A. Baum. "Whole genome duplication in coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) and its implications for explaining the rarity of polyploidy in conifers." New Phytologist 211, no. 1 (2016): 186-193. Sbelknap (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an expert that could help us sort this out? Sbelknap (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: California Natural History

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2023 and 1 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Addbug (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jessekolodny (talk) 02:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC) Addbug I reverted your edit four a couple reasons. As I noted, it was very vague and non-specific. I also checked the sourcing a little more, and your citation (as added) does not actually go to the purported source, but to a paywall (title link and DOI link) or the publications source (ISBN link). As the source is a book not journal, you should be using the Cite book template to give an accurate citation with specific pages called out. Additionally this source should be used with specificity regarding the Coast redwood, as it does NOT encompass the totality of the subfamily, notably it does not address Metasequoia which makes the addition you made too generalized with regard to all three living species.--Kev min § 23:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see these are edits as part of the coursework Wikibiosci has assigned. Im sure Ian (Wiki Ed) has more experience in the intricacies of assigned editing so I will be brief here. I reverted the IUCN edits as added by Addbug due to the linked citation again not being accurate. In this instance the IUCN citation given was for a wholly different taxon, specifically Bubo milesi the arabian owl: "Bubo milesi: UAE National Red List Workshop". IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 2019-07-11. Retrieved 2023-10-18.. I would also recommend reading WP:Peacock as the added text falls under this.--Kev min § 01:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

Wiki Education assignment: California Natural History

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2023 and 1 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Addbug (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Aruiz8 (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]