Talk:Torrey pine

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): Bambuseae-8368.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

I have a question about the conservation status of the Torrey Pine. In the picture it says that the Torrey Pine is endangered. In the article it says: "Despite its rarity the Torrey Pine is not endangered." Which one is it?

This should be resolved. I think the issue is that it is endangered in its native habitat, but is widely grown elsewhere. -Willmcw 01:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The conservation status of Pinus torreyana is Vulnerable according to the 2006 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. This is the list that Wikipedia has standardized upon for consistency's sake among the articles. Vulnerable is one step down from Endangered. Pinus torreyana insularis does not appear on the IUCN list, but as a subspecies is also Vulnerable.

It does; here - MPF 10:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

To be protected in the United States, where the plant is primarily found, it would have to be listed as Endangered or Threatened by the US Fish & Wildlife Service under the Endangered Species Act. As of May 2006 it was not on that list.

To be protected in California, it would have to be listed as either Endangered or Threatened by the California Department of Fish and Game Habitat Conservation Planning Branch. As of May 2006 it was not on the list.

Within the Torrey Pines State Reserve, California state law prohibits the collection of any cones, seeds, or flowers as well as any "natural or historic feature." -Robogun 06:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you definitely confirm that? Farjon (head of the IUCN Conifers Group) lists it as [EN (C2b)], with var. insularis as [EN (D)], in the Kew World Checklist and Bibliography of Conifers (1998). Has its status been changed since then? - MPF 08:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Double-checked in the IUCN/SSC Conifer Specialist Group Status Survey – that also lists it as EN (C2b); so does Farjon's monograph Pines (2nd. ed., 2005). I'd suspect the VU cited here must be a transcription error. - MPF 12:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't check those cites. Do you have any online references. In any event I think we should stick to Wikipedia form which specifies the current Red List. -Robogun 02:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Those are the primary sources, so are the best to follow. For online refs, this redlist page shows it correctly - makes me think the more that the VU on their species page is a transcription error - MPF 10:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll concur with that Red List cite. Thanks for the clarification. -Robogun 07:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 01:38, 4 July 2008 (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 Torrey. 71.126.140.136 (talk) 11:36, 14 April 2010 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Inclusion of the terminology section THANKS!

I like the basic layout and work put into this article despite a few glitches here and there. The terminology section made understanding the article much easier. I have an intense dislike for articles where I have to constantly leave the page to go look up words and terms that are jargon of the specific field the article is about. There is NOTHING wrong with using the scientific names for things, but remember wikipedia is for people who are LEARNING about the subject, not already masters of the terminology of the specific field. The fact that all good word processing applications now have easy to use copy-and-paste functions, there is no excuse for avoiding providing explanatory notes for words and terminology peculiar to a certain field of knowledge because of the added work of writing the explanatory notes. Go copy and paste them, we are not still back in the days of the typewriter where correction fluid and writing in the margins were our only options for adding or changing text! For example, in describing a certain plant leaf, one could describe it as being "glaucous and glabrous". It is little extra effort to include "gray-green and smooth", so don't make the people who read the articles do the work that should have been done by those who wrote it! Linstrum (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

FIXED: Inconsistent maximum heights under ideal cultivation

This article has the two different maximum heights under ideal cultivation conditions. I have tagged each with {{Inconsistent}} and {{Citation needed span}}. It's likely, and WP:AGF asks us to accept, that two different editors added each height at separate times from different sources (likely that neither read the entire article). Sufficient web research is likely to find sources for both, which would allow them both to be moved to one place in the article, and adding both citations. Lentower (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Article fixed. Citations for both heights, found via the four web searches "Torrey Pine HEIGHT" with each "feet/meter" pair. Lentower (talk) 23:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Conservation Status

The first reference (ICUN Redlist) lists the status as critically endangered, with 3000-3500 mature trees in the population. The conservation section of the article lists the number of trees in the population as ~100 (without citation) and the Uses/Cultivation section lists the population as just endangered, also without citation.

I wanted to fix this but IUCN broke its web site so the link is dead. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of pine cone info?

Spent a lovely time wandering on Santa Rosa recently and must say that the size of the torrey pine pine cones really made an impression on me: they're huge. Seems like it might benefit the page to include some note of the largeness of the cones. Just imho. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenrigsby (talk • contribs) 13:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

As food

I question the claim that the pine nuts were an "important food". As a rare tree, it is incapable of being an important food for any significant number of people. According to the article, the species may have been widespread during the last ice age. That is long before any records or evidence of what tribes of the historical period ate. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Good one. It was not sourced correctly. There was also more wrong with the statement. Leo Breman (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

tree-ring studies for the future ?

• .... a tree-ring study is showing California is suffering its worst drought in 1,200 years. The researchers took core samples of oaks as old as 500 years and oak logs dating back more than 700 years. by mercurynews.com 2014
  • University of Minnesota, Griffin

• A warning from ancient tree rings: The Americas are prone to catastrophic, simultaneous droughts Strong La Niña conditions drove medieval droughts. Science 31 DEC 2019 BY PAUL VOOSEN

• Oceanic and radiative forcing of medieval megadroughts in the American Southwest. By NATHAN J. STEIGER, JASON E. SMERDON, BENJAMIN I. COOK, RICHARD SEAGERA, PARK WILLIAMS, EDWARD R. COOK - Authors. SCIENCE ADVANCES 24 Jul 2019, Vol 5, Issue 7.

--Gerovier (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)