Talk:Pinus longaeva

Age

The referenced article says "Although a single tree trunk can become at most about 600 years old, the spruces had survived by pushing out another trunk as soon as the old one died...." This sounds like a colony-type plant like Pando. The Bristlecone pine trunks are assayed to 4000+ yrs age. Dan Watts (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a botanist, but it doesn't strike me as quite the same thing as Pando. The oldest root has itself been dated to about 8000 years old. I would call a root a part of an individual organism, even if the trunks are more temporary. What defines a tree? Granted, the trunk is what we supra-surface organisms notice most of the time, but isn't a root an important part of a tree? And so wouldn't a root that has been growing and maturing for 8000 years represent a single organism rather than a colony? In the case of Pando, by contrast, I don't think anyone's claiming that any given root has persisted for thousands of years. I tried to get at the difference in my revision by means of the word individual to honor the trunk-centric human conception of trees. Jbening (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

O.K., that sounds convincing. I will not challenge that again. Dan Watts (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Old Tjikko

Jbening, you seem to be aware of the fact that this tree is not a clonal colony, yet you have reverted my changes to the section that mentions the Norway Spruce. This tree is not part of a "cluster" or "colony" of trees which is why I have made the changes that I did. Yes, there were other trees with old roots found in the same area, but they are genetic individuals and should not be grouped together as a colony would be. I think the confusion here was my use of the word "clonal" which did not mean to imply a colony which is why I also used the word "individual" in conjunction with clonal. Yet you reverted my edits with an edit summary stating "The Norway Spruce is not a clonal colony" which contradicts the changes that I made to the article. I hope this has cleared up any confusion over my edits. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, and we do indeed appear to agree on substance. Why use the term "clonal individual"? I'm concerned that having "clonal" in there could lead to confusion, even though you do say "individual" rather than "colony". I don't know if this is what you're getting at, but I personally wouldn't refer to the sprouting of new trunks as cloning, but again I'm not a botanist. Jbening (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If I'm reading the reference correctly, the implication is an ancient underground mass that has evidently sent up many trunks over time; the single trunk that remains is 600 years old. The primary differences between this and Pando (or your average spreading bamboo) are that in the case of the spruce, the lateral extent of the underground mass is much smaller, and the trunks seem to be sent up primarily sequentially, rather than simultaneously.

The term "clonal colony", although in common use, is somewhat misleading, since these organisms are genetic individuals, and to a greater or lesser extent also physiologically integrated. I see the point of calling it a "clonal individual" to make the distinction, but that term could also be taken as meaning an individual produced by clonal reproduction (for example, a hydra budded off an older one). I think the key point in the description is that, although the trunk is 600 years old, the underground parts are over 90 centuries old.--Curtis Clark (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Jbening, I suppose I do consider the sprouting of new trunks as "cloning". Perhaps "regeneration" would be more appropriate? Either way, I was the principal author of the article Old Tjikko, and I was simply parroting what others had said regarding the tree. If you read the references used in that article, you will see that the man who discovered the tree even calls it a clone. I would not be opposed to changing the wording used, as long as the changes can be considered accurate and descriptive. I'm not one to argue over semantics. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 12:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Works for me! If a botanist calls it cloning, I'm not going to dispute it. Thanks for the cogent reply. Jbening (talk) 01:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Move rejected. Consensus clearly favors Pinus longaeva as the proper title for this article.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Pinus longaeva → Great Basin Bristlecone Pine — Undo unilateral move quoting WP:NC(flora) which says in part that The ideal title for an article would be a unique, unambiguous, and well-known name for its subject. What part of Great Basin Bristlecone Pine fails this? Clearly this name is unique, unambiguous and well-known. One implied reason that it should not be used is that there are two other common names that can be used for the tree, both of which are not linked to the article on the wiki. Given the importance of this species, for the age of the trees and the fact that there are two individual trees with articles (Methuselah and Prometheus) that use the common name it is important to have this article at the correct place. WP:NC(flora) also states The following notes are in general compatible with naming policy and the standard Tree of Life project. Our general guidance includes using the name most common in English. Clearly only one of the two names in dispute can be considered the common name. Further, WikiProject Tree of Life states In cases where there is a formal common name (e.g. birds), or when common names are well-known and reasonably unique (e.g. "Cuvier's dwarf caiman"), they should be used for article titles. Scientific names should be used otherwise. I fail to see how Great Basin Bristlecone Pine fails this test. Clearly Great Basin Bristlecone Pine is the best name for the article based on its usage in the wiki, the supporting wiki project, and two naming conventions. — Vegaswikian (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose Colchicum (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Support Per nom. Also, the unilateral move should be reversed (move this article back to Great Basin Bristlecone Pine where it has always been) unless consensus can be achieved to support the move to Pinus longaeva. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose since there is more than one common name used by different reliable sources for this species. The name should be Pinus longaeva with redirects for the common names. Hardyplants (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. Endorse using the most common name, in accordance with policy. For now, let's go with a google test: "Pinus longaeva", 23,900 hits; "Great Basin Bristlecone Pine", 6,300 hits. When I have time, I will perform a review of usage in the relevant literature, in accordance with the WP:NC and WP:UCN statement that

  "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject."

which line Vegaswikian continues to studiously avoid facing up to, despite apparently being familiar with the rest of the relevant policies. I am very confident that a review of the literature would reveal an even greater preference for the current title. Hesperian 00:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a somewhat confusing situation. First, the most common name used to refer to the topic of this article is not "Pinus longaeva" or "Great Basin Bristlecone Pine"; it is simply, "Bristlecone Pine".

Results 1 - 10 of about 160,000 for "Bristlecone Pine"

Even if only a quarter of those hits are references to the Great Basin species (it's probably much more since the other Bristlecones are even less popular), that's still almost twice as many hits as "Pinus longaeva" gets.

However, that name also refers to other species, so more precision is necessary. A natural way to do that is to add "Great Basin" to the name since that is commonly done. Personally, I would prefer Bristlecone Pine (Great Basin) or even Bristlecone Pine (Pinus longaeva) because either of these titles would correctly specify the most common name as well as appropriately disambiguate from the other uses. But adding "Great Basin" to the front of the name is perfectly acceptable per the guidelines as I understand them, you just shouldn't mistakenly conclude that that is the most common name.--Born2cycle (talk) 07:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It is only confusing to you. Most uses of the term Bristlecone Pine do not refer to a species at all; they refer to Pinus sect. Balfourinae, a taxonomic section comprising three species. A lay person might not know that there are three species, and they might not know that together they comprise a section, but the fact remains that when a lay person says "Bristlecone pine", the set of plants they are circumscribing with the term coincides exactly with the set of plants that a scientist circumscribes when using the same P. sect. Balfourinae.

You might just as well be arguing over which species of Acer the term "Maple" generally refers to. It simply doesn't.

This situation arises every time someone can't, or chooses not to, identify a plant down to species level. "What kind of tree is that, dad?" "That? Why, that's a maple, son." That conversation doesn't render "maple" a common name for whichever species they are looking at; it simply means that dad was only able to, or only bothered to, identify the tree down to genus level.

Hesperian 10:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose.

1. The routine separation of P. longaeva from P. aristata is only around 30 years old. Prior to that, references simply said "bristlecone pine", which already has a satisfactory article.
2. The current common names are contrived, intentionally made up in order to provide new common names to substitute for the scientific names of the separated species. The name in common use by ordinary blokes has always been "bristlecone pine", which now refers to both species (or three, since P. balfouriana, which has the most stable common name of the lot, has been tossed in to confuse the common name issue even further).
3. There are three contrived common names for P. longaeva.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the names are contrived in order to deal with the issue that the most common name used to refer to all of them is the same: Bristlecone Pine. But such contriving is in accordance with the naming guidelines (in particular, WP:PRECISION). But all that is an argument to use a disambiguated form of Bristlecone Pine in the title (which Great Basic Bristlecone Pine is, per WP:PRECISION), not to go to something altogether different from the most common name. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No. When they were recognised as distinct species, the name bristlecone pine retained its original meaning. The lay person didn't go out and read the scientific papers and decide that from now on, when they say bristlecone pine they mean the particular species that grows in their back yard. Bristlecone pine continued to refer to the same broad group of trees, only now scientists considered that group of trees to be a taxonomic section comprising three species. Hence bristlecone pine became the common name of a taxonomic section, the individual species lacked a common name, so some were contrived to fill the gap. Hesperian 10:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. The most common name in reliable sources that are relevant to this article is the scientific name, Pinus longaeva. --Una Smith (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Basis, please. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose It's clear from the discussion that Pinus longaeva is the most commonly used name in books and online. Having a redirect from the 'common' names not only suffices, but helps to educate people regarding that fact. My view is in spite of the fact that I'm not a plant biologist, but simple common folk from the U.S. West that commonly uses the common name "Bristlecone Pine" (btw, I've never heard anyone call it, in conversation, either the "Great Basin Bristlecone Pine" or "Pinus longaeva", but then, Wikipedia is a written work and not an oral tradition). First Light (talk) 20:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• You're absolutely right that the most common name is just Bristlecone Pine... in conversation, in books and online. However, that name as is ambiguous, and an appropriate way to deal with it is to extend it per WP:PRECISION using another common (but less common) name by adding Great Basin to the front of it. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

• Born2cyclePlease don't misrepresent what I said. The most common name in written sources, by very far, is Pinus longaeva. Wikipedia is absolutely dependent on written reliable sources, and not oral tradition. According to those reliable sources, the article's title is correct at Pinus longaeva. First Light (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

No, when people say Bristlecone Pine they are referring to a taxonomic section comprising three species. One might just as well argue over which species of Acer is meant when someone says "maple". Hesperian 10:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Fine. But my point is that most references to the topic of this article use the name "Bristlecone pine", unless you're arguing that what they're actually referring to is not the topic of this article, but the "super species" that encompasses all Bristlecone pine species. In that case, we probably should have one article called Bristlecone pine that describes all three (or however many it is) species. I don't understand the obsession with having to have a separate article for every single species, no matter how slight the differences may be among the closely related species. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Once could take that argument a step further and ask why does each species of pine need a separate article - why not one article for all Pine trees? For some people, they see little or no difference between all those pine trees (something akin to the guy who said 'seen one redwood, seen them all'). I can imagine those folks thinking that these Wikipedians must be obsessed to have a separate article for every different pine species. I would answer for you and them: this an encyclopedia. Having a separate article for each species is not only appropriate, but it's what makes Wikipedia such an extraordinary resource. First Light (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, Born2cycle has been reduced for arguing for a sweeping change to the overall ToL area - so now he'll be tangling with the larger group of animal editors in addition to the plant editors. Good luck with that! Stan (talk) 13:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose for now while the bigger picture is being sorted out at WP:NC (flora).Melburnian (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• WP:NC: Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject. GBBP is not the name which most of the verifiable reliable sources in English use.

"great basin bristlecone pine" 164

"Pinus longaeva" 634

"great basin bristlecone pine" -"Pinus longaeva" 69

"Pinus longaeva" -"great basin bristlecone pine" 539 Colchicum (talk) 20:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• WP:NC (flora): The ideal title for an article would be a unique, unambiguous, and well-known name for its subject. GBBP is not unique. Intermountain bristlecone pine 12, Western bristlecone pine 13 against 164 for GBBP. Colchicum (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Not unique? Exactly what else does great basin bristlecone pine get used for? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
    • You seem to mix up unique and unambiguous. Colchicum (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
    • FYI: wiktionary:unique. Colchicum (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Well one definition from Merriam-Webster includes being the only one. So it depends on how you view that. You are using this to say that the species does not have only one name which is correct. I'm saying that the great basin bristlecone pine only describes one species of tree so it is the only one described by that name and hence it is unique and precise as well. The same would also be true for the Western bristlecone, I believe, however its use is not likely more common. Also we need to consider that this is an encyclopedia for general usage and not a scientific journal so using names that are in common use are preferred over what you would see in scientific journals as long as the species is described is not ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Unique and unambiguous...hey, we could use a DNA sequence! Problem solved. Not. --Una Smith (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Both Jepson and the Utah flora call it "Western bristlecone", no doubt because its range is broader than just the Great Basin. I'm not going to comment on which is "most common", because very few people even know there are several species of bristlecone, let alone any names for them. Stan (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• Born2cycle, check your facts. The article has almost always been at Pinus longaeva. It was moved to GBBP unilaterally by Vegaswikian twice in December 2008. Therefore Pinus longaeva is the established title. Colchicum (talk) 20:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • That's the problem with many of these discussions when editors choose to ignore the facts. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree, but I use different facts, and come to a different conclusion.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Curtis, what facts would support your contention that the article "has almost always been at Pinus longaeva"? I see no facts about this article being at anything other than Great Basin Bristlecone Pine prior to 10/13/2008. You certainly have not cited any. Presumably Vegaswikian did not notice the move until December (not surprising, there was no WP:RM discussion, or even a discussion about it on this talk page, nor was it done in a properly logged move), when he first (properly) moved it back to its long established title. This is a prime candidate for a improper bold move revert. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

        • I meant different facts, as in "not the same": The only well-known name for the trees is "bristlecone pine", which has an article, and the variety of "common" names that were invented for P. longaeva and P. aristata s..str. were to provide English alternatives to the pre-existing scientific names. To state that these are somehow more "common" is an anti-scientific-name POV that is not supported by the (different, not the same) facts. I'd hate to think that Wikipedia edit history would trump reliable sources.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

        • BTW, Curtis, that link directs you to a recent proposal by Born2cycle, one which is thankfully dead in the water. B2c's proposal, if approved, would give him carte blanche to revert any move ever made, if justified by a convention that B2c doesn't like. Hesperian 10:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

That's an absurd mischaracterization of the proposal, Hesperian. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Edited for categories

I just edited the way this shows up in the category "Pinus." It had been set up to alphabetize there under the common name, "Great Basin Bristlecone Pine." But this didn't make sense since it showed on the list with the binomial (scientific) name. So I changed it to realphabetize it that way. But I added the Redirect page to the Category. So now, the common name does show. 140.147.236.194 (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Citation option

For the "Citation Needed" in regards to the sentence about a thin strip of living tissue connects to the roots, here is an option: https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2011/04/21/methuselah-bristlecone-pine-thought-be-oldest-living-organism-earthRyoung122 15:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)