Talk:Stewartia pseudocamellia

Move

Move per discussion on Stewartia. KP Botany 01:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Trunk dimensions

I removed that because it implies the trunk is "8-10 m wide (25 to 30 feet wide)," which is rather large for a small to medium sized shrub. Please reread what you wrote when another editor in the project removes it, before reinserting it. I meant to put a note here earlier, and apologize for not adding it with an explanation. KP Botany 21:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a missing comma, sorry - it is the crown width- I will try to make it more clear. Hardyplants 22:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Please, pause and consider this. This is a "small to medium sized shrub." Do you really think that something "8 -10 m wide" is a small to medium sized shrub? This is huge and sprawling shrub at 8 meters wide!!! I think this needs to be removed an a different source consulted, because I think it IS a small to medium sized shrub, not a huge and sprawling multi-trunked shrub that covers 8-10 meters!!! KP Botany 22:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you failed to see that it is a "a small tree" Its relatively slow growing so maybe that is why you think its a shrub, it is some times used in bonsi gardens. I will look it up in Dirr when i have time. Hardyplants 22:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC) . Dirr says it grows up to 60 feet tall in the wild in japan, in the land scape it grows 30-40 feet tall. it has a rounded shape not straight so 10 meters wide seem about right Hardyplants 23:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not small for trees, is it? Yeah, the multiple trunks keeps me thinking shrub, not tree. But 60' tall is not a small tree. I would like you to get one source and pull all this together so the whole article sounds like it is about one plant, not a small tree that grows to 60' tall and 10m wide, which is not small at all. Also, some clarification on the multiple trunks might be in order. I'm stuck on the opening with the small to medium sized tree--it's not like I could plant that in my front patch where the association says "small to medium sized tree" and have it grow 60' tall! KP Botany 23:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

PS But now I really want one! KP Botany 23:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Its a nice plant in the land scape so if you have the space and can find one it would be worth growing.

The differences in large shrubs and small to medium sized trees can be tricky, a number of woody plants will take on different shaped depending on how many stems are initially produced from the trunk early in the trees life. This species often has multiple stems low on the trunk or multiple stems rising from near the ground that cause the trees to grow more wide than tall, when plants have only one trunk they will tend to be more tall than wide. The 60 foot tall growing plants in Japan are not typical and one should list typical dimisions in the article and maybe list maximum later.

If you have questions about the 10 meters and small trees check with MPF, he is the one that entered that info, the width info I will reference when I add more info on this species. The sources that I have generally agree, but I sometimes find his information questionably used. One problem that I see with Wikipedia is that many of the plant articles are written by people that have no practical experience with the real living plants and have no knowledge about the plants but just "book learning" and they can not place all the information in context.

I am grateful when people correct my word usage and grammar in my edits and point out that something needs to be clarified - this area I am weak I, but too often some editors make it difficult to contribute. Hardyplants 02:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately we have to create an article that can be read and used by others. When someone questions what you have inserted it is better to just rethink it thoroughly, including checking with other editors, rather than accusing people of making thinks difficult for you to contribute. The purpose of this talk page is that, to make the article better for all of our users. Yes, many of our plant articles are problematic because they are written from book descriptions rather than from people who have seen the plants--but not because these editors have failed to describe the plant with their own eyes, but because these editors fail to understand that the book authors are describing the overall diversity found in the species with one description, or don't understand the terminology used in the description (most often this last one). We also sometimes, although less often, have problems with editors who only describe what they've seen. Still, when reading an article and it says something different than the source you are using, or that appears to contradict what you are adding, the thing to do is question the editors who have added it, as I did with you, and to leave it out until the issue can be settled, rather than misleading readers for the time. I will put a fact tag by the size of the tree until we get the issue settled. This is a courtesy to users of this encyclopedia, so please take it just as that. KP Botany 18:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I checked numerous Japanese and Korean websites, with 10-15m commonly cited; one of my books (Bean) also cites 18m as recorded in Japan; I've changed it to "10-15 m (rarely to 18 m)". The crown width is (as with all trees) far too variable to be worth including; one of my best tree field guides says "The spread, beloved of gardening books, is NOT given. It is greatly dependent on surroundings and is nearly meaningless." (and quite right, too!). - MPF 21:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW, on tree heights, my rule of thumb has been to use 'small' for trees from 6-15m, 'small to medium size' for 15-25m, 'medium-size' for 25-35m, 'medium to large' for 35-45m, 'large' for 45-60m, and 'very large' for anything over 60m (right up to 110m). I've tried (well, maybe the occasional slip-up) to be consistent across all tree articles. - MPF 21:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, living and growing up in deserts, I probably am not a good judge of what is small or large in trees. KP Botany 21:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Can a plant "resent" the sun?

The article states "The trees generally require some light shade in the afternoon as they resent the hot afternoon sun..." "Resent" isn't the right word, is it? It makes it sound as if the plant is a conscious entity. But what's the right word? Somebody should re-write this. 64.161.0.134 (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The plants can "tolerate" the sun, but the foliage can wilt and/or growth is negatively impacted. Hardyplants (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)