Talk:Birch

Untitled

where are they from, what is their origin?

Critically endangered species - why this category? The article is about the genus, not about the species, and only some species of the genus are endangered (even critically), so this category belongs to the species. For example silver birch (Betula pendula) is very common in the whole Europe and large part of Russia. 62.209.237.4 21:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, this was caused by the {{StatusCritical}} template next to one of the species in the list. It was removed. SCHZMO ✍ 12:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Whilst extracting some info from the Bioata infobox, for a major international broadcaster, I find that this page and some others (Begonia Crassula Ficus Epilobium Birch Oak Willow) contain a link in the infobox, under the genus name, to an individual. Would it be possible to place that elsewhere? At the moment, info-agents reading the page (and less-educated humans such as myself) might think the "L" was the name of the Genus, and follow the hyperlink to the individual whilst expecting a link to the genus page. If the 'birch' page is the page for a genus, this is even stranger...

Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.185.144.120 (talk) 14:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I too find the "L" link (to the Carl Linnaeus article) a bit confusing. But Linnaeus basically invented modern taxonomy, and his Wikipedia article says "In botany, the abbreviation L. is used to indicate Linnaeus as the authority for a species' name". So apparently this abbreviation is well-known in certain circles. Riordanmr (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The unambiguous scientific naming of a taxon includes the authority because the same scientific name may have been given to another taxon by a different author. Thus Richardia L. and Richardia Kunth are different genera in different families (the latter is a synonym of Zantedeschia). Echidna Forster, 1777 is a name for a genus of moray eels while Echidna Cuvier, 1797 is a name for the spiny anteater. We set the authority in smaller type, both in the taxobox and in text, to help to differentiate it from the scientific name. By convention dates are used with zoological names but not with botanical ones. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Pioneer confusion

So are birches pioneer species or not? The current page bluntly claims both, making it unclear. -68.148.30.86 (talk) 03:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I added the 'contradicts' template to the ecology section. Maybe it acts as a pioneer someplaces but not others?--99.237.58.118 (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not see the contradiction mentioned. Please explain how you feel the description of birch ecology is contradictory. The page states that birch are capable of rapid colonization in both primary and secondary successions. - Mork the delayer (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

why mention Sami people group?

This is a fine article on many aspects of the Birch species. But why mention it is a preferred wood of the Sami people? It is prized by Tlinkit and Haida Native Alaskan people groups also, and I'm sure many, many others as well. Why start a list of all indiginous people groups who prefer to use birchwood over other woods? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.185.10.74 (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the passage, this is just a randomly chosen, unsupported mention. This article could use some more wp:reliable sources, and has been tagged for that some time ago.Rror (talk) 08:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

sauna switches

to my knowldge they are only made of birch trees - maybe that should be mentioned here. there are various medicinal aspects claimd why young birch sprigs are used. it seems slappers reduce mosquito bite swellings and may be antiseptic. i want proper sources before adding those details, but for sure the birch is the tree for sauna vasta! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.186.98.160 (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

two photos

I added the two photos of birch wood, one plain and the other finished (with varnish). In real life they look a lot different but they don't look very different in the photos, so I think that maybe only one is needed in the article. Does anyone have a preference as to which one to keep? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

the brich trees have sap — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.204.116 (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2013 (UTC) The birch has paper like bark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.64.152.228 (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Range map is incomplete

On the Betula genus map the genus is missing from Iceland even though both Betula pubescens and Betula nana, along with its hybrids, are native to Iceland.

There maybe be other errors in the range map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olvirki (talk • contribs) 20:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

There are. Betula nana is also present on Svalbard and Novaya Zemlya. See Den Virtuella Floran [1] Plantsurfer 08:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

References

No discussion on merge

There is a proposed merge template (with Birch bark) on this article, but no discussion. For the record, I oppose the merge. Birch bark & its uses are distinct enough from the tree in general. Newystats (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. Birch-bark is a material of extraordinary cultural importance in Scotland, Scandinavia, Russia and subarctic North America. Deserves its own article (which can be substantially expanded). Creuzbourg (talk) 21:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Closing, given the clear objections and no support. Klbrain (talk) 07:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Source for Latin etymology

Regarding the etymology of Latin betulla, Wiktionary cites Ranko Matasović (2009), Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Celtic, p. 64. Unfortunately the Internet Archive is down now so I can't check that source. - LaetusStudiis (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)