Talk:Araucariaceae
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Wood volume implausibly low edit
It says Tāne Mahuta has a calculated wood volume of 517 m3. This seems implausibly low.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 14:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry. I mistakenly read 16.11 ft diameter at base height as 16.11 m.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 14:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Araucarites kozloduyana edit
Is this a joke? Kozloduy Island is also mentioned on the Coal forest page, unreferenced, as containing a coal forest. Seems a bit unlikely as a google search for either reveals nothing and both are widely considered extinct. I will remove this if no one objects.
Jwrstewart (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Araucariaceae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110524173027/http://hua.huh.harvard.edu/china/mss/volume04/ARAUCARIACEAE.published.pdf to http://hua.huh.harvard.edu/china/mss/volume04/ARAUCARIACEAE.published.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Statement in overview is silly and should be deleted edit
The statement "At least one genus, possibly Agathis, survived into the Eocene.[1]" - makes no sense. Right below this is a section that names three (3) extant "genera" of the Araucariaceae. So what does this opening statement mean? Of course at least one genus survived. That's what the article is about. The timeline is also wrong, where it says "recent". It should be "Present". 98.194.39.86 (talk) 04:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Per source, it is talking about araucarians in the northern hemisphere (specifically, North America). The group is now absent in the northern hemisphere, except for a few species of Agathis in Malesia which possibly spread there from the Sahul region in relatively recent times. That said, I agree that the sentence is confusing and I have removed it (unless someone else objects). The use of "present" or "recent" in the geological range template is a matter of convention, I think. Best take up the matter in Template talk:Geological range, as most articles use "recent."-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 04:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)