Talk:Juniperus bermudiana
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Common Name
editOrdered by results. Zero-result searches omitted.
| search string | results | notes |
|---|---|---|
| Bermuda cedar | 1,130,000 | |
| Bermuda juniper | 261,000 | |
| Bermuda redcedar | 34,200 | |
| "Bermuda cedar" | 10,800* | use by Bermuda National Trust, residents of Bermuda, the Oxford English Dictionary and the governments of Bermuda and Great Britain; [Dec 3 Update:] up to 11,000; under the search string <"bermuda juniper" -"common names include Bermuda juniper"> — the removal being from the Wikipedia entry, there were only 10,900 results |
| "Bermuda juniper" | 694* | [Dec 3 Update:] down to 687; under the search string <"bermuda juniper" -"common names include Bermuda juniper"> — the removal being from the Wikipedia entry, there were only 90 results |
| "Juniperus Bermudiana" | 633 | |
| "Bermudian cedar" | 131 | use by the government of the Azores |
| "Bermudan cedar" | 70* | [Dec 3 Update:] only 6 different websites |
| "Bermuda redcedar" | 9 | [Dec 3 Update:] mirrors of Wikipedia entry only |
| "Bermuda red cedar" | 2 | [Dec 3 Update:] same-site |
| search string | results | date of articles |
|---|---|---|
| Bermuda cedar | 499 | |
| Bermuda juniper | 172 | |
| Juniperus Bermudiana | 55 | |
| "Juniperus Bermudiana" | 23 | |
| "Bermuda cedar" | 19 | 1842-1996 |
| "Juniperus Bermudiana" cedar | 16 | |
| "Juniperus Bermudiana" AND (cedar OR juniper) | 16 | |
| "Juniperus Bermudiana" juniper | 6 | |
| "Juniperus Bermudiana" juniper cedar | 6 | |
| "Bermuda juniper" | 4 | 1891-1928 |
| "Bermudian cedar" | 2 | 1900 |
- After going through the first dozen-or-so, which all used either "cedar" or j...b purely, I ceased inspecting the articles.
| search string | results | date of articles |
|---|---|---|
| cedar | 139 | |
| Bermuda cedar | 34 | |
| "Bermuda cedar" | 19 | |
| juniper | 6 |
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.68.109.119 (talk • contribs)
- Numbers and statistics don't prove anything. Some genetic evidence would be more useful. Note the species epithet is written lower case (Juniperus bermudiana, not Juniperus Bermudiana) - MPF 09:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- What does "genetic evidence" have to do what it is called? Furthermore, how do "numbers and statistics" not have to do with what it is called? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.68.110.247 (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
- Genetic evidence for classifying it as a cedar - which can't be found. You state yourself that Bermuda Juniper is the more accurate name; for this reason it should be given priority, regardless of numerical usage: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things"; Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Don't overdo it "In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative" ... "But it does mean that we need to temper common usage when the commonly used term is unreasonably misleading". The name "Bermuda Cedar" is misleading, as it is stating that is it a species of Cedrus, which it is not. - MPF 10:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- What does "genetic evidence" have to do what it is called? Furthermore, how do "numbers and statistics" not have to do with what it is called? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.68.110.247 (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
- I've already posted a comment on MPF's talk page but I'll reiterate here so my comments will be linked directly to the article. MPF has argued repeatedly that the "common names" that should be given preference for plants are those that are used by people within the native range of a plant species, regardless of what other common names are used elsewhere, or how truly common these names are relative to one another. As this article shows that occasionally conflicts with another of MPF's mandates, that every species can have but a single "correct" common name, and that common name should have some phylogenetic significance. Unfortunately common names just don't work that way; that is one reason why botanists use botanical names in the first place. "Cedar" and "Cedrus" are not necessarily the same thing, no matter how much MPF would like us to think so. It is a plain and simple fact that "Cedar" is used as a common name for many plants that are not in the genus Cedrus. MPF has railed against "cultural imperialism" (meaning those of us in the USA try to impose our own common names on plants that are known by different common names elsewhere) but this article suggests that MPF is engaging in a bit of cultural imperialism of his own, by trying to impose a "correct" (but rarely used) common name on a plant that goes almost exclusively by a different common name on the island to which it is native. I have been around and around this issue with MPF, and while I respect his botanical knowledge and the work he has done for Wikipedia, his unilaterally imposed editorial ideas about common names continue to frustrate me, and clearly other botanical editors as well. MrDarwin 15:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's your opinion; many would differ, and consider that common names should reflect scientific name use, not least because so many people have a phobia towards scientific names and refuse to use them, leaving the options for confusion wide open. Also, have you asked the people of the Lebanon and the leaders of the Cedar revolution how they feel about having their national symbol redefined to be a juniper? The cedar means a lot there, and its application to other taxa does constitute a form of imperialism. - MPF 15:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of a lot of people (including, I daresay, most of the other botanical editors at Wikipedia). I'm not sure who besides you is arguing that "common names should reflect scientific name use". Systematic botanists tend to keep common names at arm's length because the whole point of common names is that they do not have a one-to-one correspondence with botanical names, that multiple common names can be applied to a single species, the same common name can be applied to two or more entirely different species, and that different common names are used in different parts of the world for any particular species. But I'll tell you what: I would be quite interested in whether the Lebanese actually use the word "cedar". As far as I can find out, both Cedrus and "cedar" are derived from the ancient Greek kedros, and I would like very much to know if the ancient Greeks applied this word exclusively to plants now classified in the genus Cedrus because if they ever applied the name to Juniperus or any other genus of plant, a strong argument could be made that your usage of the word is incorrect. In fact such an argument could probably be made for many names, because common names predated botanical names by thousands of years, and in many cases botanists have appropriated common names as botanical names that have a much narrower, or entirely different, meaning than the original common or vernacular names. (One such example is "cactus", derived from the ancient Greek common name for "thistle"; note that there are no cacti native to Greece or anywhere in Europe.) MrDarwin 18:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Addendum: I checked an old Latin dictionary and the definition it gives for cedrus (as a Latin word, not as a botanical genus) is "cedar, juniper". I also found a reference to the word "cedrus" being used for several species, including Juniperus oxycedrus L., in ancient times. Note also that "oxycedrus" can be literally translated as "prickly cedar", which is indeed one of the common names for this species. MrDarwin 19:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's not just my opinion, it's the opinion of a lot of people (including, I daresay, most of the other botanical editors at Wikipedia). I'm not sure who besides you is arguing that "common names should reflect scientific name use". Systematic botanists tend to keep common names at arm's length because the whole point of common names is that they do not have a one-to-one correspondence with botanical names, that multiple common names can be applied to a single species, the same common name can be applied to two or more entirely different species, and that different common names are used in different parts of the world for any particular species. But I'll tell you what: I would be quite interested in whether the Lebanese actually use the word "cedar". As far as I can find out, both Cedrus and "cedar" are derived from the ancient Greek kedros, and I would like very much to know if the ancient Greeks applied this word exclusively to plants now classified in the genus Cedrus because if they ever applied the name to Juniperus or any other genus of plant, a strong argument could be made that your usage of the word is incorrect. In fact such an argument could probably be made for many names, because common names predated botanical names by thousands of years, and in many cases botanists have appropriated common names as botanical names that have a much narrower, or entirely different, meaning than the original common or vernacular names. (One such example is "cactus", derived from the ancient Greek common name for "thistle"; note that there are no cacti native to Greece or anywhere in Europe.) MrDarwin 18:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's your opinion; many would differ, and consider that common names should reflect scientific name use, not least because so many people have a phobia towards scientific names and refuse to use them, leaving the options for confusion wide open. Also, have you asked the people of the Lebanon and the leaders of the Cedar revolution how they feel about having their national symbol redefined to be a juniper? The cedar means a lot there, and its application to other taxa does constitute a form of imperialism. - MPF 15:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've already posted a comment on MPF's talk page but I'll reiterate here so my comments will be linked directly to the article. MPF has argued repeatedly that the "common names" that should be given preference for plants are those that are used by people within the native range of a plant species, regardless of what other common names are used elsewhere, or how truly common these names are relative to one another. As this article shows that occasionally conflicts with another of MPF's mandates, that every species can have but a single "correct" common name, and that common name should have some phylogenetic significance. Unfortunately common names just don't work that way; that is one reason why botanists use botanical names in the first place. "Cedar" and "Cedrus" are not necessarily the same thing, no matter how much MPF would like us to think so. It is a plain and simple fact that "Cedar" is used as a common name for many plants that are not in the genus Cedrus. MPF has railed against "cultural imperialism" (meaning those of us in the USA try to impose our own common names on plants that are known by different common names elsewhere) but this article suggests that MPF is engaging in a bit of cultural imperialism of his own, by trying to impose a "correct" (but rarely used) common name on a plant that goes almost exclusively by a different common name on the island to which it is native. I have been around and around this issue with MPF, and while I respect his botanical knowledge and the work he has done for Wikipedia, his unilaterally imposed editorial ideas about common names continue to frustrate me, and clearly other botanical editors as well. MrDarwin 15:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Almost 11,000:90 in my favour, MPF. Official use, scholarly use...sorry, but you cannot win this one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.68.109.119 (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
- I'm happy with 155.68.109.119's edit which seems a reasonable compromise. - MPF 21:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've discovered some information, which I've already added to the cedar article, that MPF may find a bit unsettling, but as far as I can determine (and I've cited a reputable reference), it is accurate. MrDarwin 21:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm happy with 155.68.109.119's edit which seems a reasonable compromise. - MPF 21:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Almost 11,000:90 in my favour, MPF. Official use, scholarly use...sorry, but you cannot win this one. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.68.109.119 (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
Your claim that Cedrus was not not native to Ancient Greece is clearly not true: the Ancient Greeks were not confined to the area occupied by modern Greece - MPF 21:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- I suppose that was sloppy wording on my part; I should have made clear that the reference was to the region where ancient Greek language and culture originated; "ancient Greece" can mean any number of different things, depending on what time period you're talking about. MrDarwin 22:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
May I ask why this article for Bermuda Cedar redircets to its binominal name? I find this very odd becasue the title should take the binominal format (either underlined or intalisiced) if it does. However, checking Wikipedia, when I put in Ranunculus repens I get redirected to the common name .. creeping buttercup. It seems silly to link the the binominal name. By the way, reading a bit of the chat above, it should be noted that the government of Bermuda and everyone in Bermuda calles the plant Bermuda Cedar but everyone there also knows it is not a cedar. This is also was taught in the Government sponsored Bermudian Natural History Education course and in schools (first hand knowledge on my behalf). We also ought to be aware that there are common names and local names for plants. There tend to be far more local names than common names. Candy 20:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Scale insect
editWasn't the scale insect inroduced accidentally from Canadian Fir trees (used for Christmas) or is my memory faulty? Candy 19:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Sensitivity Training
editAny argument like this over nomenclature is going to take place within the often embittered climate created by what many Bermudians, especially the more darkly-complected, have felt acutely as a sort of imperialism of the outside world when it comes to the 'common' identity and identification of Bermuda and everything in it. Bermudians look back on a proud, seafaring history of resilience, self-reliance, ingenuity, adaptability, and of going out into the world and giving Bermuda, from its inception, a role and a weight in the history of the West, and of the World, out of all proportion with it's size and population. They are as aware, however, that in the memories, text books, media, and imaginations of outsiders, they are illiterate subsistence farmers and plantation labourers, on the one hand, or colonial wallahs, depending on their complexions. They are in the Caribbean, they are called Bermudans, the Bermuda rig is a Bermudan rig, and the tree upon which the history, economy, and lives of Bermudians were so dependant for so long (a tree which, despite it's now dwindled numbers, occupies a place in the hearts, lore and traditions of Bermudians that perhaps only the tree-worshipping German pagans could appreciate...though perhaps not, as they just worshipped trees, of which they had numerous specie, whereas Bermudians depended on cedar, as their only natural resource, and their only actual tree, for everything) is a Bermuda Juniper. Bermudians already speak with a trans-Atlantic accent, and are acutely aware that the subtle, not clearly grasped things that have made them, and theri culture, unique in the Anglo-Saxon world...and most of those things have something to do with cedar...are being erased under an ocean of outside media, ideas, tourists, and immigrants. Very soon, those things that were unique to Bermudians will, like the cedar, be effectively extinct, while the populace itself will have been culturally homogonized with that of the USA, the West Indies, and other English-speaking states. Like the islands, they will still be thickly crowded when everything that is native to them is gone into histories unread or unwritten. Bermuda is densely overgrown with Casuarina, palm trees (other than palmetto) and Mexican pepper, and countless other introduced flora (and fauna...there was nothing Bermudian about kiskadees, and tree frogs, and many other Bermudian species, even within living memory). The people of Bermuda will similarly not much longer be able to convince themselves that they are not what outsiders say they are (they long ago imported limbo competitions, bright clothing, and calypso music to satisfy the expectations of tourists). Given all that, one has to be reasonable in how one labels a tree which most visitors to this site will never see, when the only people who relate to it, and who relate to it as closely and passionately as they do, have always related to it as cedar. It's always been sufficient to add in brackets after the first mention of Bermuda cedar its Latin name, and, for the denser readers, that it is a juniper and not a cedar).
Aodhdubh 02:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Bit harsh there bro. Sounds a little sour but I'm not getting at whom!! I agree it should be called Cedar - I was taught that at BMAZ when I used to live in Bermuda and all the scientists on the island also call it by its common name. The way it stands at the moment should be sufficient and appropriate. Candy 17:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Citations needed
edit1, There needs to be citations for some information in here. The article lacks any evidencing. 2. I thought that the scale insect came from a batch of Xmas trees from Canada. (Perhaps referncing would help solve this). Candy 23:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Hawaii
The provided citation for the tree's existence in Hawaii, HEAR.org, has removed such claims (according to the wayback machine on archive.org, as of sometime between January 1st and 6th, 2007) and now list the photographed samples as being Monterey cypress. 199.172.198.83 23:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Juniperus bermudiana. 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:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100812023940/http://www.bamz.org/bda_biodiversity_project.aspx to http://www.bamz.org/bda_biodiversity_project.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- 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) 00:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)