Talk:Nothofagus moorei

Untitled

I have just come back from a property where some 30 of these tree's were logged i can only wonder at there value ?

nothing, now that they are not in the ground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.29.169 (talk) 03:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Untitled

In about 1981 I was in a car travelling from Hill End to Bathurst, on the Bridle Trail which goes beside the Macquarie River. West of Hill End there were long stretches of this river with Nothofagus moorei growing, although otherwise the area was cleared for farmland. This is south of Barrington Tops by some distance and appears to be natural distribution [assuming the trees are still there]. Microstrobos (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ornamental tree

We need a few more sources and details of how this tree is used as a ornament. I'm skeptical. - Shiftchange (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Antarctic Beech at Comboyne

Unwarranted spin off article with too much overlap. Doesn't appear to be an independently noteworthy subpopulation, and proportional discussion of populations should occur at species article for context. --Animalparty! (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Merge - much of the general material covers the same ground; the details about the local population can form a paragraph or small section in the species article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
• Agree - seems silly to have two articles. ~ Mellis (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
• Agree with merge. Just as useful as "Antarctic Beech at Dorrigo", "Antarctic Beech at Werrikimbe" etc. Gderrin (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 22:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

New genera

The new genera (Lophozonia, Fuscospora etc.) have not been accepted outside New Zealand. For example, see:

https://biodiversity.org.au/nsl/services/search?product=APC&tree.id=51209179&name=Lophozonia+moorei+%28F.Muell.%29+Heenan+%26+Smissen&inc._scientific=&inc.scientific=on&inc._cultivar=&max=100&display=apc&search=true

or

https://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/taxonomydetail.aspx?id=467521

They were New Zealanders, who changed the nomenclature. As Nothofagus exists at least in six countries outside New Zealand (Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, France (New Caledonia), Australia, Chile, Argentina), Nothofagus should still be the genus name in Wikipedia. Thus, all the species articles, at least the species outside New Zealand, should be edited and the old names restored. Probably someone from New Zealand changed the genus names in Wikipedia. Now tree enthusiasts around the world are wondering, what is the valid name. Krasanen (talk) 17:38, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, Flora of Australia has Nothofagus. What other authorities are there....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

...also World Checklist of Selected Plant Families. I agree with Krasanen. Gderrin (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

For Argentina, see http://www.floraargentina.edu.ar/

For Papua New Guinea, see http://www.pngplants.org/

And GRIN (my second reference) is the most respected international plant database. Krasanen (talk) 06:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

References

I would be happy with a move back to Nothofagus. The orignal mover was a probably a New Zealander (by their contribs) and actually asked around, but no-one replied. Do you need some help rejigging it all?Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I have done the fuscosporas. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Thanks Cas. Gderrin (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Cas! I made some further (relatively minor) edits. Now everything should follow the traditional taxonomy. Krasanen (talk) 16:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)