Talk:Pinus sylvestris

Untitled

Hi; Scots pine is sometimes referred to as pinus sylvatica rather than sylvestris. Can anyone clarify the difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.114.34 (talk) 02:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 January 2020 and 22 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Soualigan599.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Food source?

The cambium was used as food during WW1/WW2 in Finland. (unsourced statement by IP editor, added 3 December 2008)

Distribution

The P. sylvestris is also found in the Great Lakes area in North America. You can see a range map of this in Trees and Nonflowering Plants Reader's Digest (isbn: 0-7621-0037-0). -- IvanTortuga (talk) 06:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

But does this ref. claim that it is part of its native range? I grow lots of exotic plants in my garden, some of them seed themselves, but this does not make my part of the world part of their range. Imc (talk) 07:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

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 Scots 140.147.236.194 (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Name

Why is the Scots Pine called the Scots Pine? Is it named randomly? Or was it because Scotland was first place it was seen? (I think that is MUCH more realistic). If it became extinct extinct from Scotland then that be really wierd. 78.151.47.177 (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Its probably known as Scots Pine in English because Scotland is the only place in the British Isles where it widely grows, apart from that its distribution is only patchy in the British Isles, hence the English probably referred to it as "Scots Pine" because it was "that pine tree native to Scotland".

Kentynet (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Though the English would, of course, have said "Scotch Pine". Kim Traynor | Talk 12:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

In the U.S., they're known as "Scotch pine." Sca (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Scotch pine is the correct name in Canada too. 99.238.167.214 (talk) 05:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

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)

Keeping article at its common name

Reading through the article, especially Scots pine#Cultivation and uses, I see that Scots pine is quite widespread throughout the world and commonly used for its wood and as a Christmas tree. Per WP:FLORA, I think that the article's title should be its common name. If other editors disagree, and wish to rename the article, I would suggest going through the process at WP:RM, and notifying the editors who participated in the discussion at Talk:Pinus albicaulis#Requested move to scientific name —hike395 (talk) 02:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Question

I was recently looking at two Scots pines, one of which had seed cones but did not appear to have pollen cones. The other had only pollen cones. This would seem to indicate that the trees were male and female. This isn't mentioned in this article. Is it generally the case or do both types of cone appear on a single tree? Amandajm (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Invasive species ¬_¬?

I had a quick look at the 3 sources that list Scots Pine as an invasive species. the first 2 didn't load, but the last one did. However, the last one didn't actually include Scots Pine on the list of invasive species. So far there is no evidence a Wikipedia user can access to verify that this tree is an invasive species. I have a paper due in a few hours so I can't afford to spend time finding more sources, but somebody should either look or delete the line about it being an invasive species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by English cheese man (talk • contribs) 04:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Bug report: numbers missing in legend

Can someone maybe report this at mw:Extension talk:Media Viewer/About? I can't, for some reason.

The image description of the species distribution contains a numbered legend, but the numbers aren't shown when you click on the image, which makes it very confusing. It took me a while to figure out what E meant for example.

It would have been much better if the items in a list in an image description would be prefixed with ① ② ③ and so on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The legend in the taxonbox is set by |range_map_caption=Distribution. The information on the image at Commons is just to describe the image there and is not automatically used with the image. You can change the image caption by adding something like in |range_map_caption=Pinus_sylvestris.
① Main range of the species. ② Isolated occurrences. ③ Natural populations extinct. ④ Arctic circle.. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

No, the range_map_caption parameter sets the range map caption in the infobox, which I'm not talking about. I believe I was perfectly clear on this, so I'll quote myself: ‘when you click on the image’. There would be no point in showing the legend in the infobox, since the features that require a legend are too small to make out unless you click on the image. When you do, the range map caption is no longer visible and the text that is displayed is taken from the image description. However, as I said the numbers in the list are stripped, which is very confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pinus sylvestris/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Esculenta (talk · contribs) 16:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll take on this review. Currently, the article seems to fall short of the good article criteria, particularly 2 and 3. I leave some starting comments here for consideration; more comments to follow after these are addressed. Esculenta (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• the lead is quite short and does not adequately summarize the article's contents. See WP:LEAD
• several terms in the description section need links (to plant glossary perhaps) or glosses, e.g.: habit, shoot, glaucous, leaf persistence, serrated, globose, wing
• where is the taxonomy section? Who first described the species? When? What does the species epithet sylvestris mean? After a taxonomy section is made, the info in the "Names" section could probably be placed in there. Regarding names, the article mentions common names used "Before the 18th century", but what is it mostly called now? The names "Scots pine" and "Scotch pine" are mentioned in the lead sentence, but are not cited in the article text.
• "Over 100 Pinus sylvestris varieties have been described in the botanical literature, but only three or four are now accepted." ... yet five are listed in the table? Accepted by who? And where are the citations for information given for the last four entries in the table?
• Several places in the article needs citations. Please check the article to ensure that there are citations at the end of every paragraph.
• the two-sentence "In culture" section is weak. Is there no other information that could enhance this section? (also, what is a "plant badge"?)
• the info on the wood pine nematode is out of place in the "uses" section. Perhaps there is place for a separate section on this and other pests/parasites that afflict this species? If not, then maybe expand the ecology section to include this.
• any estimates of its population size (both within and outside of its natural range)? see doi:10.1111/eva.12809
• there's little to no discussion of the mating system of the plant, dispersal biology, selfing rate, population structure, effects on genetic diversity, etc. These topics have all been extensively discussed in the botanical literature (P. sylvestis is the most extensively studied conifer species in the botanical literature), and a reader might expect this overview article to mention and briefly summarize the overall gist of this research.

• There has been no effort to bring this article up to standard in the last 10 days, despite the nominator being active on Wikipedia. GAN closed as not passed. Esculenta (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2023 (UTC)