Talk:Prunus caroliniana

Taxonomic databases disagree

The Plant List is generally a good source for wikipedia because it aggregates other taxonomic databases, so I have moved the page to Laurocerasus caroliniana, in an attempt to sort out a confusion with Prunus laurocerasus. However, TPL says that its data for these species comes from Tropicos, but Tropicos is (now) showing something quite different. Guess we'll have to keep track of that. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Move it back to Prunus. I see the confusion surrounding this species and P. laurocerasus, but this placing this species in Laurocerasus is basically an error in TPL (I'm going to leave something on your talk page about issues with TPL). I can't find any evidence that the generic placement of this species (in Prunus) is currently disputed by botanists.

Google Scholar has no references where botanists are calling it Laurocerasus caroliniana after 1963 (there are a couple recent references from Chinese silviculturalists and a US mycology student). Usage in the early 20th century was probably influenced by Small's 1933 "Manual of Southeastern Flora" which called it L. caroliniana. The 1968 "Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas" supplanted Small as the standard reference for the SE USA, and P. caroliniana was used in that work. GRIN, USDA Plants, and 6 references cited in Tropicos all go with P. caroliniana.Plantdrew (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, and was (surprised to be) able to revert the move. Thanks for your input. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

The height of this tree is given as up to 500 feet. While a reputable source is given, this would make it the tallest tree in the world. Has a decimal point been dropped? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.184.193.132 (talk) 16:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The articles has height of the tree as 8-13 m, and that it grows at elevations up to 500 ft above sea level, not that the tree itself is 500 ft tall. Plantdrew (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Page view spike

@Abductive:, this article does have more page views over the course of the year than I would expect. Looking at the page view data, I see the highest page views for the year have consistently been on the second Sunday in April (4/10/2016, 4/9/2017, 4/8/2018). While many plant articles have a strong annual pattern of higher/lower pageviews (I think it might be interesting to do a study using Wikipedia page-views as a proxy for phenology), a consistent single day spike is pretty unusual. There must be some kind of annual event that is driving this. I thought perhaps there is a cherry blossom festival somewhere in the Carolinas, but haven't been able to find one yet. Plantdrew (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe some university, botanical garden or commercial nursery sends out an email featuring the species? Abductive (reasoning) 20:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)