Talk:Douglas fir/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

WikiProjects

I added this tree to WikiProject Oregon because it is the Oregon state tree. Not sure it needs to be part of any other state's WikiProject. Not because I'm being Oregon-centric, but because it just seems silly. Heck it may have been silly to include it in WikiProject Oregon, and it's probably better off in some biology-related project... Katr67 00:22, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Photo

The Douglas-fir is one of the proudest trees North America has to offer, gracing coastal mountainsides and summits alike; is a collection of trees on a golf-course really the best we can do here? Jackmont 04:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hyphenated name?

Is it Douglas-fir (with the hyphen) or Douglas fir (without the hyphen)? Even though it's written with the hyphen in this article, I've only seen it without the hyphen anywhere else (and I'm from Oregon, so I'm familiar with the tree). 207.69.137.23 00:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Douglas-fir, with the hyphen, is fairly common, especially in botanical literature, and is used by those who wish to avoid confusing this species with true firs, genus Abies. You can find a discussion of this and related issues at WP:TOL and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life and the archives of the latter. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#Douglas-fir -Eric ^(talk) 12:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Coast Douglas-fir as a variety

I changed the taxonomic rank of the Coast Douglas-fir from subspecies to variety. This is supported by taxonomic databases, like:

• Flora of North America
• GRIN Taxonomy for Plants
• NCBI Taxonomy Browser
• The Gymnosperm Database Krasanen (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

And none of them recognizes P. menziesii var. caesia. Krasanen (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krasanen (talk • contribs)

No Trivia Section

Wikipedia discourages the use of trivia sections.

Let's re-title the "Statistics" section as "Notable Individuals" and put the last bullet, which mentions the 476-ft theoretical height limit, somewhere in the main body of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Facial (talk • contribs) 17:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Moving "Douglas-fir" to "Pseudotsuga"

This article is about the North American species Pseudotsuga menziesii, but the Douglas-fir article is currently about the genus Pseudotsuga. This causes continuously misconceptions: in the Douglas-fir article there is much information related only to Pseudotsuga menziesii, and many other articles link to the Douglas-fir article although the Coast Douglas-fir article would be more relevant. Therefore I suggest: The "Douglas-fir" article would be renamed to "Pseudotsuga", "Douglas-fir" would be made a redirect to "Coast Douglas-fir", and all the information related only to P. menziesii in the current "Douglas-fir" article would be moved to the "Coast Douglas-fir" article. Any opinions? Krasanen (talk) 13:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I realized there are also many articles with a link to the Douglas-fir article meaning really the whole genus. So, maybe it is not a good idea to put into effect the renaming and redirect as I wrote. However, I would still move all the information related only to P. menziesii in the current "Douglas-fir" article to the "Coast Douglas-fir" (and "Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir" if needed) article. Krasanen (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I moved most (but not all) of the content related only to P. menziesii. Krasanen (talk) 18:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You probably should move it back (if there is anything to be necessarily moved back); this is a complicated case, but we simply cannot use the species taxobox for the variety article, it is factually wrong.

I have seen a few similar situations, and there we'd either use separate articles, or treat the "nominate" subspecific taxon and the species together, or treat the species under another subspecific's article and add a hatnote to disambiguate. But that I have only seen once, and there it was because the nominate subspecies was extinct an little was known about it. In this case it is fairly clear, as little of what applies to the species does not also apply to the Coastal variety, which is also better known. Hence I moved the article to the species name Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

465 FT Douglas fir Felled in 1897

I decided that this historical record was important for the article given the scientific evidence suggesting such a height is possible, if remotely so. There is some evidence trees even taller have been felled, but I cannot yet locate substantial evidence. --75.175.76.175 (talk) 06:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Historically Reported Douglas-Fir Exceeding 300 and 400 Feet

300 Oregon City, OR, 1850. Quarterly of the Oregon Historical Society – pg. 207, 1916. 300 “Douglas fir trees were cut on the site of the city of Vancouver 300 feet in height and 11 feet in diameter.” The Encyclopedia Americana By Scientific American, inc 1903. 300+ William Clark, March 10, 1806. 39 feet girth, 6 ft above ground, estimated 200 feet to first limbs. 300+ "At the Pan-American Exposition there was on exhibition from Snohomish County a section of a fir tree which had been considerably over a hundred yards long and two hundred feet to the first limb. It was 920 years old and scaled 75,000 feet of lumber." - Pearson's magazine, 1905 pg. 113. 304 Jedediah Smith Redwoods State park. 13.5 dia 305 Woss Lake on northern Vancouver Island. 18 ft diam. 305 NW CA. 2007 300c. Est. orig. ht of Clatsop Fir, Clatsop, OR. Blown down 1962,- 200.5 ft to broken top 4.5 ft dia. Breast ht diam 15.48 ft. 306 W of Roseburg, OR. Esquire-The Wrestless man. 2004 307 Finnegan's Fir, OR. Blown down 1975. Officially listed at 302 ft. 309 British Columbia, displayed at International Exhibition. By Aeneas McDonell Dawson –1881 311 9 feet diameter.—Housing By National Housing AssociationPublished 1935. 311 9’4” diam. 50,000 board feet, 434 years old, cut in Washington State, Aug. 16, 1926. Spirit of the Lakes by David K Peterson, 2004. 311 Aberdeen, Wash. 1929 Appleton Post Crescent 312 Felled in 1886, Georgia St. Vancouver, BC – [Vancouver Art Gallery] Fir tree measured 13 feet diam at breast height, and 4 feet in diam 200 feet from butt. 312 “The Hunters & Serjt Pryor informed us that they had Measured a tree on the upper Side of quick Sand River 312 feet long and about 4 feet through at the Stump.” The Journals of Lewis and Clark. April 5, 1806. 315 Skagit River, alluvial bottom.The Washington Forest Reserve by Horace Beemer Ayres, Geological Survey (U.S.) 1899. pg 295. 315 Coquitlam River watershed at Meech Creek, BC 316 A fir tree felled measured 316 feet to the top most branch. The Year-book of facts in science and art‎ By John Timbs, 1860- Pg. 35 318 NW CA. 2007 318 A fallen fir tree measured by Lewis and Clark, Saturday, April 5th, 1806, not far from fort Vancouver [near Gresham]. Only 3.5 feet diameter. [Possibly Sitka Spruce] 320+ Est. orig. ht of Red Creek Fir, Vancouver IS, BC. 239 ft to broken top, diameter of broken top 2.95 ft . Diam at breast ht 13.9 ft 320 Koksilah Giant, British Columbia--blown down 1979 after clearcut. 320 Olympic Natl Park WA. 16 ft dia 320 James Irvine Fir -- Prairie Creek State Park/ James Irvine Trail, Cal. 320 “One of the wonders of the American forests is the fir tree of Puget Sound. The trees average 200 feet high, and some specimens have been cut that measured 320 feet in length and twelve feet in diameter at the base, with a straight and well proportioned log length of ninety feet to the first limb.” - The Canadian horticulturist: Volumes 5-6 – Page 94 Fruit Growers' Association of Ontario - 1882 320 "The size of the fir trees and the number growing upon given acres in good timber districts is almost incredible to residents upon the Atlantic slope of the continent. Trees often measure 320 feet in length, more than two-thirds of which are free from limbs." -Annual Report to the Commissioner of Agriculture for the year 1878 pg. 539 - by United States Dept. of Agriculture - 1879 321 Humboldt Fir -- Prairie Creek State Park, Cal. 321 Cathcart, Wa. -- The Washington Forest Reserve by Horace Beemer Ayres, Geological Survey (U.S.) 1899. pg. 300 321 "Thus, of yellow-fir (Abies grandis) two sections were shown taken from the same tree, the first six feet ten and a half inches in diameter exclusive of bark, taken "one hundred and thirty feet from the ground;" the other five feet ten inches, taken "two hundred feet from the ground," with the statement that the tree was three hundred twenty-one feet high, fifteen and three-quarters feet in diameter at the butt,..." International Exhibition, 1876 By United States Centennial Commission pg. 6, 1880. 322 Near Eugene Oregon, NE of Lowell. A 500 yr old grove of Douglas Fir averaging about 300 feet in height. The tallest measured at 322.—Moon Oregon, pg 202, by Elizabeth Morris, Mark Morris. 2007 324 Chehalis, Lewis Co. Wa. Oak Tribune 1934 324 Wa--900 yr old, Times Recorder, Nov. 1935 325 Stanley Park, BC 1916, 10 ft diam. Felled for safety reasons. 325 Douglas Fir in Stanley Park, BC, Toppled in 1926, 800 years old. 325 "Fir trees two hundred and two hundred and fifty feet high, and six and seven feet in diameter, are seldom out of view in these forests; eight and ten feet in diameter and three hundred feet high are not at all uncommon. Trees of fourteen and fifteen feet in diameter are not difficult to find, and a fallen tree near Olympia measures three hundred and twenty-five feet in length, and another, at a distance of ninety feet from the root, measures seven feet in diameter." - Annual Report of the Commissioner of the General Land Office to the Secretary of the Interior - Page 73 by United States General Land Office - Public lands - 1867 325 Skagit Co. Wa. Illabot Creek, 5 miles east of Rockport, 1910. 10 ft diam. Measured as a fallen tree on the property of Henry Martin. 326 Queets Valley, Washington 1988. 6.7 feet diameter. 328 Sedro Woolley, WA 1906. 17 ft diam 329 Brummet Creek Tree, 4.4 ft diam c. 1950, blown down. 330 According to the United States Department of Agriculture, Technical Bulletin published in October, 1930, there is a standing Douglas Fir near Little Rock, Washington, which is 330 feet in height, with a diameter of approximately 6 feet. 330+ Est orig. ht of tree, from mast 304 feet tall 28 in diam at butt, 12 in diam at top single Douglas Fir spar used as Radio mast in Portland. Sagas of the Evergreens, By Frank H. Lamb, Published 1938. 330+ Elma, Wa. A felled Douglas fir, 5 feet 2 inches in diameter was cut into seven logs each 40 feet long. The tree was 221 years old according to ring count. - Monthly bulletin By Loyal Legion of Loggers and Lumbermen. 1918, pg. 21. 330+ Spar fir tree 275 feet tall. - Chronicle Telegram, Feb. 14, 1921 pg. 2. 335+ Spar fir 285 ft tall. - Ironwood Times, The, Mar. 9, 1923 pg. 1. 335 - "It may not be generally known that many specimens of fir found on the shores of Puget Sound equal in height the infamous giant Sequoia or "Big tree" of California, for firs have been cut down which were over 325 feet in length from topmost branch to the edge of the cut, not including eight or ten feet of the trunk left standing above the roots." - Engineering In The Logging Industry In The American Pacific Northwest - Cassier's Magazine Vol. XXIX April, 1906 No. 6 339 Toledo, Ore – spar tree 214 ft tall 34 inches at cut, severed section was 125 feet. 339 Doerner Fir [Brummitt Fir], Coos Co. OR. 11.5 Dia, est. 500-600 yr old. 339 ft to lowest portion of trunk. 340 - Puget Sound, 42 ft around. Over 79,218 board feet, age 300 years 340 feet high. Spring of 1904 Mccormick Lumber Co. Lewis Co, WA Sent to St. Louis Exhibition.--The Indian Forester - Page 320 340-50 – A Washington yellow fir tree 7 feet 11 in diameter and 340 feet long – The School Journal, Published 1893 E.L. Kellogg & Co. pg. 85 [This tree was also described as 350 feet in total height: Chicago: Its History and Its Builders--Josiah Seymour Currey, 1918 . pg 78] 340 6 km N of Cloverdale, BC. Felled by loggers in 1917, Measured by Dr Al Carder and father as a boy. 347 Astoria, Oregon Douglas Fir cut for flagpole 251 feet tall, Panama-Pacific Exposition.-- Pamphlets on Wood Preservation, 1900-1915, University of California. 348 “Forest Service records a Douglas Fir with a measured height of 380 feet, and I, personally, have seen many over 300, one 348.” By Joseph T. Hazard, Pacific Crest Trails from Alaska to Cape Horn--1948, pg. 64 350 Mossyrock, Wa. 1939 A fir tree 350 feet tall, and 11 feet in diameter was felled and sent to Olympia. It scaled 40,000 Board feet – Centralia Daily Chronicle, July 19, 1939, pg. 1. 350 “Recently a log from one these fallen firs was taken to Washington, where it was on exhibition, It was part of a six hundred-year-old tree which had attained a height of 350 feet. The log weighed 60 tons and will furnish 16,690 feet of timber.” Ireton Ledger, Sep. 5, 1935 pg. 3 350 "Tallest Tree in State," 350 ft tall, 16 dia. - Sedro Woolley, Wa. 1902. Darius Kinsey photo collection – Kinsey photographer, 1978 —pg. 152-153 350 “Many trees, each over 280 feet tall, have been measured about Blaine [Wa]. Others in that vicinity and elsewhere reach to a height of 350 feet. There are without doubt large numbers of trees in Washington over 300 feet high.” – Forest Leaves – pg. 162 by Pennsylvania Forestry Association, American Forestry Association, 1890. 350 - "In Skagit County is a forest of Douglas pine and white cedar in which there are many trees reaching 325 feet high, and some of them are fully 350 feet high." Forest Leaves - Page 162 by Pennsylvania Forestry Association, 1922. 350+ "The trees of our forests, owing to the favorable influences referred to, are of rich, dark green foliage, rapid growth to enormous proportions, commonly from 3 to 6 feet in diameter, 350 feet high, sometimes more, and 185 feet to the first limb. This I state from actual measurements from trees prone on the ground." Fifth Biennial Report to the Board of Horticulture – Oregon Board of Horticulture,1898 pg. 545 350 Trees from 250 to 350 feet high are common sights. A fir tree recently cut near Clallam Bay was 13 feet in diameter at the butt, and a 100-foot log cut therefrom, which was seven feet in diameter at the top, scaled 84,100 feet of lumber. Report by Washington (State). Bureau of Statistics, Agriculture and Immigration - 1896. 350 c. Fir, Westholme, Vancouver Is. BC. Blown down 1913, 1500 yr old, 17-dia. 180 ft to blown top, and 150 ft to first branch. 350+ est. orig. Ht of Queets Fir, Queets River, WA. 202 ft to broken top 6.7 ft dia. Breast ht. diameter is 15.9 ft. Over 1,000 years old. 350 Est. Height. Fir cut down in King Co. Wa measured 9 ft in diameter at the butt, and 4 ft 8 in at the top, 186 ft long, and scaled 64,000 feet of lumber. – Report By Washington (State). Bureau of Statistics, Agriculture and Immigration, 1896. pg. 33 350+ Near Latourell, Oregon. An immense grove of giant firs situated in a protected flat surrounded by high bluffs, between Bull creek and the Hood river. Trees estimated at 350 to 400 feet high with circumference estimated over 60 feet at 3 feet above ground. Portsmouth Herald, July 18, 1900 pg. 5 350+ a "Douglas Pine" Dr. Forbes measured that was 320 ft to broken branches, and as thick as his waist where the trunk broke. He made out the average Douglas Pine ranged somewhat over 300 feet in height in British Columbia, based on measured trees. Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society Volume VIII, 1863-4. 350 "On the site of what is now Vancouver city--the present terminus of the Canadian Pacific Railway--and in the neighborhood of that town, on Burrard Inlet, was a renowned group of these trees, and "many still standing around the city, are from 250 to 350 feet high and 12 feet in diameter at the base, or about 36 feet in girth," growing so close together that the trees almost seem to touch each other..." - The Wilderness and Its Tenants - By John madden 1897, pg. 168. 350 "There the trees, crowded close together, rise to a height of 300 feet; indeed, lumbermen report trees 350 feet high, with trunks 11 feet in diameter, free of branches for 200 feet, and with hardly any perceptible taper up to that height." - The Humeston New Era, July 26, 1916 pg. 4 350 "Firstly, it may be said that previous to the year 1885, the place now occupied by this city [Vancouver] was a wilderness of gigantic trees, some of them being fully twelve feet diameter a few feet above the ground, and from 300 to 350 feet in height, all of which had to be cut down and rooted out before a house could be built." - 3800 Miles Across Canada - By John Wilton Cuninghame Haldane 1908, pg 224. 352 Lynn Valley, N Vancouver BC, Felled in 1907, 9 ft 8 in diameter. 220 feet to lowest branch. This tree contained 16 logs of wood, 16 feet per log. Top 92 feet discarded. Height 352 feet including 4 ft stump. Details are recounted by historian Walter Mackay Draycott of Lynn Valley, BC. 355 “The tallest tree on record in Canada today is a Douglas fir in Strathcona Park on Vancouver Island. It is over 108 m tall.” -- Countdown Canada: A conceptual Geography study, By Alderdice, Roy, 1941-, Sled, George, 1941-, Vass, Ben, 1934- Published 1977 Macmillan of Canada 358 Cloverdale, Surrey, BC. Tallest Fir measured by a BC forester. Discovered in 1881 by William Shannon, while constructing Hall's Prairie Rd. Measured after being Felled, 1,100 yr old. 11.5 ft dia. 360 “The timber began to get larger and by the time we had traversed three miles into the trail we viewed countless numbers of gigantic fir trees growing not less than fifty feet apart and towering at least 360 feet into the air.” Deming Trail, Whatcom Co. Wa. Bellingham Herald - July 10, 1909 375 Vancouver Island, BC. - Mason City Globe-Gazette, Nov. 4, 1961 pg. 20. 300-400 The gigantic fir trees of Washington are often between 300 and 400 feet high, a single one sometimes furnishing 100,000 feet of lumber. To eastern eyes the stumps left standing look very strange. They are from five to fifteen feet high. – Newark Daily Advocate Sep. 27, 1889. 375 Est ht. [Astoria, Oregon c. 1846 ] “There was a monstrous fir pine that had been blown up by the roots, and it looked as if it had been down for many years. Some of the boys measured it and reported that it was twelve feet in diameter at the butt and three hundred and thirty feet in length to where it had been sawed off to make a roadway. It was eighteen inches in diameter where it had been sawed off ; so the boys concluded that it must have been about four hundred feet high.” -- Burr Osborn, Survivor of Howison Expedition to Oregon, 1846 -- Oregon Historical Quarterly - Page 361 by Oregon Historical Society - Oregon – 1913 380 Nisqually R. Wa, 1899/1900 measured as a fallen tree. Portion of top missing. Measured with steel tape by USFS ranger Edward Tyson Allen, one of the early technically trained foresters who was stationed in Portland, Oregon. 393 Mineral, Wa. Blown down 1930, 1,020 yr old. 15.4 ft. diam at breast ht. 6 ft. in diameter at 225 ft. Height measured by USFS Chief Richard McArdle in 1924 with steel tape and Abney level. 168 ft of blown top measured on the ground and recorded in 1905 by Joe Westover, land engineer from Northern Pacific Railway, and measured again by Leo Isaac in 1924-25 at 160 feet. The tree and blown top was measured in 1930 by Jesse Hurd, superintendent of Pacific National Lumber Company’s operations in Mineral. A section of this tree still resides at the Wind River Arboretum, Wa. 350-400 “It is, however, the fact that the trees cut in the Oregon region are generally young and of small size, while those cut in Washington, especially by the mills along the South Bend branch of the Northern Pacific Railway are giants, many of them being from 350 to 400 feet in height, and from five to fourteen feet in diameter.” --Telephony: Volume 61 - Page 183. Harry B. McMeal - 1911 400 “In the typical fir forests, the trees, crowded close together, become very tall, two hundred fifty to four hundred feet high, and sometimes eight to twelve feet in diameter.” The Pacific Monthly by William Bittle Wells – 1903 pg. 345 400 "The maximum height known is nearly 400 feet; the greatest diameter of the stem is 14 feet. Can be grown very closely, when the stems will attain, according to Drs. Kellogg and Newberry, a height of over 200 feet without a branch." - Select Extra-Tropical Plants Readily Eligable For Industrial Culture Or Naturalization, With Indications Of Their Native Countries And Some Of Their Uses. - Baron Ferd. Von Mueller, 1884 pg. 268 400 "From the Cascade range to the Pacific, compromising about one-half of Washington Territory, the surface is densely covered with the finest forest growth in the world. Some of the trees, straight as an arrow, are four hundred feet in height, and fourteen feet in diameter near the ground." -- Resources of the Pacific Slope: A Statistical and Descriptive Summary... By John Ross Browne 1869, pg 574 400 “Here, too, it reaches its greatest dimensions, it being claimed that about the base of Mt. Rainier there are trees [Douglas Fir] over 400 feet in height.” The American Naturalist 1899 by American Society of Naturalists, pg. 391 400 “In its native habitats, the Douglas fir varies considerably in dimensions. In the forests of Washington State it often reaches a height of 250 feet, with a girth of 36 feet. There, trees so high as 300 feet have been seen. These trees are therefore more than twice the height of Nelson's Column in Trafalgar Square and would even over-shadow the Boston stump. Trees even much loftier than this have been seen, some of them almost reaching the height of the Spire of Salisbury Cathedral which is a little over 400 feet. Specimens have been known to be more than 750 years old.” Trees in Britain, By Lionel John Farnham Brimble, Macmillan, 1946 – pg 98. 400 “These forest giants are only surpassed in size by the California red-wood trees, of which we have heard so much. Some of them grow four hundred feet high and fifteen feet through, single trees yielding eighty thousand feet of sawed lumber.” - Our native land By George Titus Ferris, 1882, pg. 130. 400 Fir tree 400 feet tall. - Chronicle Telegram, Feb. 14, 1921 pg. 2. 400 c. 1908, "Robert E. Lee" tallest tree of Ravenna Park, Seattle, Wa. 400+ As it lay. Puget Sound, 1876 correspondence from Mr. Sproat to Robert Brown, Book: The countries of the world. 400 Kerrisdale District, S Vancouver, BC. Felled in 1896. Julius Martin Fromme superintendent of Hastings Mill, says it was the largest Fir ever received by the Mill at almost 400 ft long. Bark up to 16" thick. 13' 8" butt diam. 400 Allegedly logged by MacMillan Export Company, Copper Canyon, Vancouver Island, BC. date unknown. 400 1893, a “Red fir” in Chehalis County, Wa. 400 feet high, and nearly 54 feet in circumference 6 feet from the ground. – Gettysburg Compiler, Mar. 4, 1893. pg. 4. 400+ 1909, a Giant fir tree over 400 feet tall East of Seattle, Wa. Located on western slope of Cascade Mountains, 17.8 ft diam, 18 inches above ground. - The Cedar Rapids Evening Gazette, Nov. 29, 1909 pg. 10. & “Coast and Mountain News.” Western Lumberman, Jan. 1910. pg. 16. 412 Felled near Tacoma, Wa. and measured 412 feet in length “Which Is the Biggest of Them All?” MacMillan Bloedel News, Vancouver, B.C., Nov. 1970, pg. 6. 415 Lynn Valley, N. Vancouver B.C. Felled in 1902 by the "Tremblay Brothers" at Argyle Rd off Mountain Highway (Centre Rd) on the property of Alfred John Nye who measured the felled fir tree at 410 feet long, and 5 feet tall at the stump where the diameter was 14 feet 3 inches, and bark 13.5 in thick. Details are recounted in correspondence between historian Walter Mackay Draycott, and Mr. Alfred John Nye, both of who lived in Lynn valley, B.C. 450+ "...and the Douglas Spruce, one of the most valuable timber trees on earth, becomes in Oregon and Washington the tallest trees known, 450 to probably 480 feet high!" - How to tell the trees and Forest Endowment of Pacific Slope By John Gill Lemmon, Sara Allen Plummer Lemmon 1902, pg. 13. 465 1897 A fir-tree cut down at Loop's Ranch Forks, Whatcom county, Washington, was 465 feet high, 220 feet to the first limb, and 33 ft 11in circumference at the base and scaled 96,345 feet of lumber. Ring count showed this tree to be 484 years old.– The New York Times, Topics of the Times, March 7, 1897, The Overland Monthly, 1900, pg. 329, The Columbia River Empire by Patrick Donan, Oregon-Washington Railroad and Navigation Company, 1899, pg. 68, & Meehans' Monthly: A Magazine of Horticulture, Botany and Kindred Subjects Published by Thomas Meehan & Sons, 1897. 480 Douglas-fir felled at the southeast slope of the Black Hills, near Bordeaux, Wa c. 1930. It was situated in a south facing valley with high ridges on either side. This tree was measured on the ground with steel tape by loggers at 480 feet in length, and 12 ft in diameter at the butt. – Personal communication.

--75.175.74.127 (talk) 21:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is a Google map which includes approximate locations for some of the above historical reports: Tallest Trees - Douglas Fir Map Maybe this might be helpful for the article. --75.175.74.10 (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Pseudotsuga which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

This bot is stupid. please ignore, see below. —hike395 (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Douglas fir. The table by hike395 makes a compelling case for the move especially as the botanical name has a low recognizability. WP:FLORA also points to the common name in this case. Salix (talk): 21:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Pseudotsuga menziesii → Douglas fir – The term "Douglas fir" is well-known in consumers of forestry products, such as lumber and Christmas trees. This use of "Douglas fir" refers to trees in the species Pseudotsuga menziesii. Trees in the genus Pseudotsuga can also be referred to as "Douglas firs", but that is not common outside of botany. Therefore, let us move the species article to its common name Douglas fir. —hike395 (talk) 17:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Previous discussion from Talk:Douglas-fir

Whatever a select group on a Wikiproject may decide, this is definitely against Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). An Advanced Google search in English for Douglas fir excluding Wikipedia and Pseudotsuga gives 6,670,000 hits (781 unduplicated hits). A similar search for Pseudotsuga excluding Wikipedia and Douglas fir gives 144,000 hits (which turns out to be 731 unduplicated hits). Confine those searches to Google Books, and you get 1,670,000 hits (1,000 unduplicated hits) for Douglas fir and 148,000 hits (803 unduplicated hits) for Pseudotsuga. However, a large number of the Books hits for Pseudotsuga are for books in languages other than English (German, Italian, Dutch and Spanish), and a large proportion of the English publications use the term Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga), despite the search parameters (which don't seem to work on Books). On the general search there are a lot of false hits in both searches, including numerous roads named Douglas Fir Drive, various people called Pseudotsuga (yes, really!) and a place in Canada by that name (which seems to produce an enormous number of hits). The scientists among us may have a case for using the scientific name if this wasn't an extremely common tree, commonly used in the construction industry, and equally commonly used as Christmas trees. But it isn't something confined to their introspective little world, it is something that is commonly referred to by the rest of humankind, and not by its Latin name. Most readers searching for this are going to look for Douglas fir, and a good many are likely to be put off completely when they find themselves landing on a page about something in Latin. Incidentally, Skookum1 will be delighted to hear that the hyphenless version is infinitely more common than the hyphenated version, but will no doubt be distressed to hear that many of the hyphenated references are from his native Canada. On the basis of this, I would Support a move to Douglas fir. Skinsmoke (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I can see a good rationale for all common names redirecting to the binomial scientific name (which I supported above), despite this being the English Wikipedia. For one thing, such an approach would eliminate conflicts arising out of competing views on which common name wins the article title slot for a given species. But Skinsmoke makes good arguments above for the common name approach. Whether we move to Latin or simply lose the hyphen, we'll be improving the quality of the English on en.Wikipedia. Eric ^talk 17:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I find Skinsmoke's arguments quite persuasive, but they apply to the species Pseudotsuga menziesii -- that's the tree that is used in construction and Christmas trees. All of the other species in the genus Pseudotsuga are much rarer, and as far as I know, are not commonly used in forestry. Collectively, all of the species in Pseudotsuga could be called "Douglas firs", but that is not common English usage. Therefore, I currently

reiterate my Support for moving Douglas-fir to Pseudotsuga

Support moving Pseudotsuga menziesii to Douglas fir

I think we ought to have a second separate move discussion for the latter, though. —hike395 (talk) 11:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I would be prepared to compromise on that one, provided the tree itself moves to the common English name. It wouldn't need a separate move discussion, the normal process would be to link that move into this move discussion and extend the discussion period to allow people a chance to comment on the combined proposal. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse Skinsmoke It makes sense, doesn't it, that the common meaning in English should be presented in its most common form, and that the scientific genus-name be presented in Latin; works for me, and gets rid of all those hyphens in ordinary passages (largely non-scientific, at least not botanical ones, e.g. geography of forest regions and parks). Common meaning in common name, scientific meaning in Latin. Fairly straightforward when you look at it that way.Skookum1 (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm no Pseudotsuga subject-matter expert, but I think I can be consistent in saying ditto to Skookum1 here (and Skinsmoke) and support Hike395's proposition #1 above, if I understand everyone correctly. Eric ^talk 16:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support both suggestions of hike395. There should be an article titled Douglas fir (with or without a hyphen), but it should be for P. meziesii. Tdslk (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support moving Douglas-fir to Pseudotsuga. Oppose moving Pseudotsuga menziesii to Douglas fir. "Douglas-fir", with the hyphen, appears to be more common in reliable sources (as indexed by Google Scholar) than "Douglas fir", without the hyphen.[1] "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." (Please see WP:MOSNAME.) Also, we don't usually change article titles that have been stable with no compelling reason to do so. That does not exist for the latter move, in my opinion. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support (just in case anyone was really in doubt). There are far wider reliable sources than Google Scholar about a species as common as Douglas fir. This is not something that just has relevance within the scholarly scientific community, but is of relevance to conservation of the environment, commercial forestry, the construction industry and the celebration of Christmas, none of whose results show up in that Scholar search (which is heavily botany and genetics biased). Taking a wider view, the results show that in reliable sources, the unhyphenated version has an overwhelming lead over the hyphenated version. Even taking the Scholar results, many of those hyphenated hits are where Douglas fir is used as an adjective (Douglas-fir forests and Douglas-fir plantations are two obvious examples), and I think (I could be wrong) that there is a case that it should be hyphenated when used as an adjective, even though it is not normal to do so when used as a noun (as the article title would be). Skinsmoke (talk) 10:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment if that's the case, then it is probably the case that scientific organizations and institutions may have an evolved styleguide or two/ and that they should be consulted; scientific/academic publishing houses, for example, may have some. CANENGLISH for example has the old CP/CBC styleguide as did in the print days all the newspaper chains; now they use botcheckers LOL....I"m approaching this also from the "common reader" not the specialist academics, and feel that Douglas fir's primacy in normal (non-scientific) print isn't insignificant; if anything it begs the question "do academic/scientific styles distinguish in some way between the tree and the genus in the use of "Douglas fir"/"Douglas-fir". If not why not?? Not that I think there should be a new paradigm, but despite observance of scientific accuracy WP:COMMONAME should apply unless there's exceptions in WP:TITLE and so on that validate this; but what do you do a field, say tourism or literature or the media where "Douglas fir" IS the norm....would it not be original research, or an imposed style, to go against their sources and insist on the hyphen? MOS:HYPHEN doesn't answer this, but I've never understood the kill-the-hyphen thing, and my phone's spellchecker continues to break up normal compound words into two, so who I am to argue with "progress". I'm a pretty widely read person, and "Douglas-fir" looks downright odd - as does "Western redcedar"....Skookum1 (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support, with Pseudotsuga menziesii moving to the unhyphenated Douglas fir. I am concerned that some of the 400+ incoming links to Douglas-fir may be intended to link to the genus. I did edit the most obvious cases where genus was intended (the other species of Pseudotsuga) prior to my initial move request, and the vast majority clearly intend to be about the species, but there may be a few incoming links that end up going to the wrong article. I can't check all the incoming links, but I suppose a hatnote should be sufficient.Plantdrew (talk) 02:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment The hyphen is intended to indicate that Douglas firs are not "true firs" (in the genus Abies). In my opinion, it completely fails at it's intended purpose. The only people who know what the hyphen indicates are already aware that Douglas firs aren't "true firs". The hyphen convention is sometimes carried to ludicrous extremes (e.g. Mock-orange, False-plantain, which already have common names that indicate that they are actually not oranges or plantains). The hyphen convention is not widely supported by botanists. The US and Canadian governments share a list of quasi-official common names for plants which follows the hyphen convention, although I'm not aware of any governmental or botanical style guides that REQUIRE the hyphen. Nevertheless, governmental usage has given the hyphenated form a higher profile in web searches. In actual common usage, the unhyphenated form is far more popular.Plantdrew (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment "Douglas-fir", with the hyphen, is the correct form. Some databases:

http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?30191

http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=183426

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Tree&id=3357&lvl=3&p=mapview&p=has_linkout&p=blast_url&p=genome_blast&lin=f&keep=1&srchmode=1&unlock

http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=200005380

http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/silvics_manual/Volume_1/pseudotsuga/menziesii.htm

http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/tree/psemenm/all.html Krasanen (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Rebuttal All but one of the above are U.S. government websites, and likely all followed the lead (and likely via copy/paste) of the original promulgator of the erroneous hyphen, which I think might have been the USDA. As someone with long experience proofreading U.S. government publications, I can assure you that English language excellence is not a hiring criterion there, that people who write those publications are not doing exhaustive research to verify the validity of their work, and that countless incorrect terms and notions (including random capitalization of common nouns--oy vey!) are perpetuated daily in their publications. Many people in the U.S. government, including at least one former president, pronounce nuclear "new-kew-lur". That doesn't make it right. Some related reading: Argumentum ad populum. Eric ^talk 13:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Like Plantdrew mentioned above, the hyphen is used because Douglas-fir is not "true fir" (Abies). See e.g. the paragraph "What's in a Name?" here:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/boise/learning/nature-science/?cid=fsed_009737

For the same reason Thuja plicata is western redcedar (not true cedar (Cedrus).Krasanen (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment That was apparently the reasoning of someone at USDA once upon a time, based on that person's fantasy of how hyphens are used in English, not based on how they are really used. You will not find that hyphen in any dictionary I've ever encountered. Here are just a few examples of non-hyphenated, multi-word common names that contain technically inaccurate terms in them: Spanish moss, prairie dog, sea lion, sea lettuce. Eric ^talk 18:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

New discussion

The previous discussion was about double-page move. The genus article was moved to Pseudotsuga by admin Mike Cline. Now, let's see if we can come to consensus about moving this article to its common name. We also need to resolve the hyphen issue. —hike395 (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

About the hyphen --- The main criteria for selecting an article title in WP are: recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency. To me, "Douglas-fir" and "Douglas fir" are the same for all of these, except "naturalness". Our readers are far more likely to search for or link to "Douglas fir" than "Douglas-fir" (or "Pseudotsuga menziesii"). As far as I can tell, only North American botanists regularly use "Douglas-fir": other English speakers use "Douglas fir" to buy their Christmas trees or order a load of wood. Therefore, I support the non-hyphenated common name for the article title. —hike395 (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. The proposed form is certainly more common on GBooks, per this ngram. Kauffner (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I think your ngram actually searched for Douglas minus fir (every instance that used "Douglas" but not "fir"). This ngram shows the common name is more commonly used than the scientific name, but the two are within an order of magnitude. Also, "Douglas fir" is moderately more common than "Douglas-fir". Tdslk (talk) 01:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The documentation says it, "subtracts the expression on the right from the expression on the left." But if you sum the totals for "Douglas fir" and "Douglas-fir", that name is still overwhelmingly more common than the scientific name. Kauffner (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty neat --- you can do math with grams, but ask for hyphenated phrases by using square brackets. To compute the fraction of times "Douglas fir" is used, divided by the sum of "Douglas fir" plus "Douglas-fir", see [2]. Looks like 60% of the time, book writers use "Douglas fir", 40% of the time book writers use "Douglas-fir". It's closer than I would have thought, but still favoring "Douglas fir".

• Oppose moving Pseudotsuga menziesii to Douglas fir or Douglas-fir. The scientific name is consistent with the use of the scientific names for the closely related Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca, Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii and Pseudotsuga articles. We don't usually change article titles that have been stable with no compelling reason to do so. Even though Google Trends indicates that "Douglas fir" is 10x more common as a search term than the hyphenated name, other common names or the binomial name, I oppose the move.[3] The hyphen issue is avoided. A look through the talk pages will find verbose and divisive discussions of the hyphen. The scientific name is accepted worldwide and is most common in the scholarly botanical literature, an important class of reliable sources for this article, i.e., it is "consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." (please see WP:TITLE). It does not appear to be the case that the hyphenated name is restricted to North America. It appears in at least one article in The Telegraph.[4]--Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Just want to point out the Google Trends time series that Walter refers to supports Skinsmoke's assertion. Look at the peaks of query volume of "Douglas fir" in December: Christmas trees! No corresponding spike in "Douglas-fir". —hike395 (talk) 04:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

That is interesting. Also, see Noble Fir. Thank you. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per Wsiegmund. When multiple vernacular names are in conflict, especially when there may be regionally differences, and the title of the article can't be settled easily, the scientific name should be used to fulfill the article title criteria of precision and consistency. A similar issue arose years ago with Cytisus scoparius, which is known as broom or common broom in its native range and as Scotch broom in its invasive range. With so many "common" names or spellings to choose from, often the best choice is to retain the name recognized worldwide - the scientific name. Rkitko ^(talk) 02:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
• The name "Douglas fir" is well-known enough to be in Oxford, American Hertitage, and Merriam-Webster. But it seems that it may not be well-known enough to make it into Wikipedia. The No. 1 NAMINGCRITERIA for a title is that it be recognizable, i.e. readers should be able to the look up at the title and say, "Yup, I am in the right place." That's not likely with the current title. They'll be arguments about the title whatever it is. Using the scientific name doesn't allow you to bypass them. Kauffner (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Naming criteria are not ranked by importance. They are all equally important and to be weighed in each case with what is possible and what is practical. What is practical here is choosing the scientific name. Rkitko ^(talk) 15:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Comparing the names by criteria --- I think it would be useful to compare the three alternative names by all of the naming criteria. Here is my take on them:

Criteria	Pseudotsuga menziesii	Douglas-fir	Douglas fir	Comment
Recognizability	Low	High	High	For people familiar with the tree (which includes botanists, Christmas tree purchasers, and people who live in the Pacific Northwest), the common name variants are both recognizable
Naturalness	Low	Medium-Low	High	Large majority of people search for common name with no hyphen
Precision	High	Medium-High	Medium-High Medium	Scientific name is precise, common names almost always refers to this species, but not always. Walter points out that "Douglas fir" could be confused with a type of fir.
Conciseness	Medium	High	High	Scientific name somewhat longer than common names, but not overwhelmingly longer
Consistency	High	Low	Low	Vast majority of flora articles use scientific names

My take is that the common names beat the scientific names on 3 of the 5 criteria, with "Douglas fir" beating "Douglas-fir" on the naturalness criterion. This is not a slam dunk, but looking at WP:FLORA, this does fit into the "when a plant has an agricultural, horticultural, economic or cultural use that makes it more prominent in some other field than in botany" exception to the use of scientific names (hence the recognizability score, above). YMMV. —hike395 (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for the cogent summary. I would score "Douglas fir" lower on the precision criterion because this species is not a a true fir. Some readers may assume that an article so-titled is about an Abies species. This title has been stable since 2010 April 21, i.e., almost three years‎.[5] Consequently, TITLECHANGES is pertinent. "Changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." (WP:TITLECHANGES) With good arguments for the current title, I think it should stay where it is. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the operative word is "controversial". See, e.g., the infinite edit wars over Gdansk versus Danzig, motivated by conflicting patriotism. And, indeed, people shouldn't be spending time fighting over article titles because of differing WP:POVs. But, if we interpret any title change as being governed by WP:TITLECHANGES, then we would essentially never change a title, and WP:RM and WP:CRITERIA would be useless. Note that WP:TITLECHANGES talks about how to settle controversies when titles are unstable: it's a guideline for when there are edit wars, bad feelings, and a lack of WP:NPOV. I certainly hope we haven't devolved that far in this case!

Overall, I think that WP:CRITERIA provide guidelines for when there is a good reason to change article titles. Under these guidelines, I believe that there is a good reason to move "Pseudotsuga menziesii" to "Douglas fir". We're all being very careful and assuming good faith --- nothing has become intractable.

Later: See the discussion from last year for the logic behind WP:TITLECHANGES. I think it supports my interpretation. —hike395 (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I can see why you are saying "Douglas fir" is less precise than "Douglas-fir". Perhaps it would be a "Medium" on the precision scale. —hike395 (talk) 06:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

• oppose - the vast majority of plants are at scientific names and lack uniform common names - hence all better at then so all species of genus can align. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Post-move discussion

Oh terrific, now we have this at common name page and Pseudotsuga macrocarpa, Pseudotsuga japonica, Pseudotsuga sinensis at their species name pages. This is silly and looks unprofessional Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Why was this article moved? I see no consensus for this action in the discussion immediately above. If anything, a majority favor Pseudotsuga menziesii. I questioned the scoring in Hike395's table. With no consensus for the move, the old name should have been retained. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I was surprised at the move, also: there seemed to be plenty of opposition. Perhaps you should ask the closing admin at his/her talk page? —hike395 (talk) 09:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You are the person who nominated it - what do you think about the other Pseudotsuga pages? What are you going to do about this now? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Let's consider the choice between Pseudotsuga macrocarpa/Bigcone Douglas fir/Bigcone Douglas-fir. I think all of the other article title choices are similar to this one. First, the guidance to use common names at WP:FLORA doesn't apply, because Bigcone Douglas-fir is not commonly known outside of botany. Turning to the five main article naming criteria, my interpretation is:

Criteria	Pseudotsuga macrocarpa	Bigcone Douglas-fir	Bigcone Douglas fir	Comment
Recognizability	Low	Low	Low	None of these is commonly recognizable
Naturalness	Low	Low	Low	I don't think this is a popular target for search, either under its scientific name or common name(s).
Precision	High	Medium-High	Medium	Scientific name is most precise. Common name with a hyphen refers to only one species. Common name without a hyphen could get confused with an Abies species.
Conciseness	Medium	Medium	Medium	Scientific name is just three characters longer than common name: no real difference
Consistency	High	Low	Medium-Low	Vast majority of flora articles use scientific names. P. menzesii uses "Douglas fir", which lends a small amount of consistency for use of "Bigcone Douglas fir"

So, for precision and consistency with WP:FLORA, I think we should leave those other Pseudotsuga species alone. Would you interpret the criteria differently? What do you suggest? —hike395 (talk) 05:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I suggest this article go back to being Pseudotsuga menziesii. I don't want the other articles moved pretty much for the reasons you've pointed out above, and to point out that most plants don't have standard common names, hence any other examples of plants which do lead to situations such as this where most of its congenerics will keep their scientific names and thus we have strange formatting and titles and forego uniformity. sigh. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand: you are putting a large weight on consistency, which was sacrificed to improve recognizability and naturalness. —hike395 (talk) 14:54, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

One thing is that above all we need to be accurate. As a quality that really trumps everything else. We try our best to be as accessible as possible, but being accurate trumps that. No point in being accessible if it leads to doubt. For instance, the whole genus Pseudotsuga is also called douglas-fir, so that stuffs the name of the page at the get-go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

This move seems to have been rushed, and I think it is a bad move because it makes Wikipedia look inconsistent. Also the common name is more contentious than the scientific name. Hardyplants (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

If the plant has a common name, a name that's given in the major dictionaries, we should use that. Otherwise, it should get a scientific name. I don't see any inconsistency. Kauffner (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Alright Kauffner, which does the term apply to, the species or the genus? Given that the other members of the genus are called "X douglas-fir". It's often more complicated with plants, simple common names often vary and are often applied to more than one entity. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:52, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• This is a mess! It's particularly bad that "Douglas-fir" with the hyphen redirects here, since this is, in my experience, much more often used for the genus. "Douglas fir" and "Douglas-fir" should lead to a disambiguation page which links to the genus and all the species. If non-botanists are desperate to use the common name, then how about "Douglas fir (species)"? This is at least unambiguous. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

  I commend this admirably clear explanation [6] from Oregon State University. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

  Did the mover actually read the article? I hadn't, but when I did it's clear that most of it is actually not about the species as a whole but about the "coast Douglas-fir", P. menzesii var. menzesii. So if the article is to be at the common name, surely it should be at "Coast Douglas fir" or "Coast Douglas-fir"? Peter coxhead (talk) 14:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

  Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii and Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca already exist. For consistency with those, Pseudotsuga, and the vast majority of other Pinaceae articles, this article should be at Pseudotsuga menziesii. Peter coxhead's link along with my point that "Douglas fir" is not a a true fir suggest to me that precision is low for "Douglas fir" . Pseudotsuga menziesii is not as recognizable to the general reader, but it is unambiguous and not misleading. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Tally

Preferences from the "New discussion" section above (unless indicated otherwise).

"Douglas fir"

1. hike395
2. Kauffner
3. Skinsmoke*
4. Skookum1*
5. Eric*
6. Tdslk*
7. Plantdrew*

"Pseudotsuga menziesii"

1. Wsiegmund
2. Rkitko
3. Casliber
4. Hardyplants**
5. Peter coxhead**
6. Sminthopsis84**

Preference unclear

1. Krasanen* (Krasanen favors "Douglas-fir" over "Douglas fir" but does not express a preference of Pseudotsuga menziesii v. "Douglas fir")

 * Preference expressed in the "Previous discussion from Talk:Douglas-fir" section
 ** Preference expressed in the "Post-move discussion" or "Tally" sections

Tally discussion

With no consensus for the move in the "New discussion" section, I think it should not have been moved. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Has anyone contacted the closing admin and asked them to review their decision? That would be the first step if you want this to change. Of course the closing admin made the decision based on the table in the discussion, but perhaps too much weight was put on that and very little on the experience of editors that work in this subject area (not that we own these articles, but we understand the need for heightened need for consistency and precision much more acutely because we deal with these articles more frequently). If the closing admin does not return a message or is not willing to reconsider, a move review might be the best process. Those are the options available. Rkitko ^(talk) 20:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'e let them know. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I know there have been vociferous voices against the move. Then I see tally above and we have 7 to 5 in favor. I haven't actually found the arguments against particularly compelling. Yes there is some vagueness about the application of common name but i think its rather over blown. Appeals to consistency don't convince me either there are articles which have titles matching many of the well known common names of trees and wikipedia breaks consistency many times plus WP:FLORA lays down clear guidelines. The recognisability argument is strong and many more people have heard of "Douglas fir" than the "Pseudotsuga menziesii". This does not apply to the subspecies where the common names are quite obscure. By all means hold a move review but I've not been convinced to revert my closure.--Salix (talk): 00:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC) (closing admin)

WP:TITLECHANGES, part of an English Wikipedia policy (which trumps WP:FLORA), says "Changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed." We've all seen opinions ebb and flow as editors leave and are replaced. This provision prevents minor shifts of opinion from generating frequent title changes. My view is that no consensus exists for the change to "Douglas fir". --Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:46, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Salix - "douglas fir" can refer to both the genus and the species, hence is ambiguous. Accuracy trumps recognisability, though we try for the latter where possible. 7 to 5 is not an overwhelming consensus and would normally be held as no consensus. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'll recognize that it's not a vote that we do that to achieve consensus through discussion. Salix wasn't convinced of our arguments. I'm not pleased with the outcome and I think it is possible that Salix overlooked the strength of our arguments. Thanks for taking the time to reply, Salix. The job of a closing admin is difficult. The argument succinctly pointed out in the last two comments by Wsiegmund and Casliber, though, could have been enough to leave the discussion as no consensus, in my opinion. I suppose, though, that's why we might have a move review process if anyone else thinks it necessary. Rkitko ^(talk) 19:16, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Please add me to the Pseudotsuga menziesii group. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not swayed by arguments about consistency. Prior to my moving the article on the genus from Douglas-fir to Pseudotsuga, all of the Pinaceae genera which occur in the US/Canada/UK (except the ambiguous Tsuga/Hemlock) were titled by common names, as are many other tree genera native to English speaking regions of the Northern Hemisphere (e.g. Maple, Oak, Hickory). So there is some consistency in having temperate tree genera at the common name, and I think these examples are "more prominent in some other field than in botany" per WP:FLORA and appropriately titled with common names. However, unlike pines, spruces, oaks and maples, where no single species is particularly prominent, the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of Douglas fir seems to be P. menziesii; only one other species of Pseudotsuga occurs in an English speaking country and P. macrocarpa has a very restricted range. The context of the vast majority of incoming links to Douglas-fir and Douglas fir makes it clear that P. menziesii, rather than Pseudotsuga is intended. I'd also argue that most discussions about the genus (genera being a scientific concept) are going to use the scientific name. "Douglas fir" is of course the obvious common name for the genus, but ambiguous usage for the genus can be handled via hatnote (botanist editors, including myself, I think are sometimes a little quick to pull out ambiguity as an argument for moving to scientific name; common names are often ambiguous, but there are many where a single plant is clearly the PRIMARYTOPIC)

On the other side of consistency, Wikipedia has plenty of articles where only one species in a genus is titled by common name. Having Barley as the only common name titled Hordeum species and Apple as the only Malus seems entirely appropriate to me in light of WP:FLORA.

Ultimately it should come down to whether Douglas fir "has an agricultural, horticultural, economic or cultural use that makes it more prominent in some other field than in botany" (WP:FLORA). This is a subjective judgement, but I personally think that it does have this prominence. It's the single most important North American timber species, and is the dominant species in many western North American forests. I do probably overestimate its prominence in the world as a whole, having spent 18 years in a region where it is common. I'd like to see further discussion of P. menziesii's prominence in other fields rather than questions of ambiguity and consistency in the title.Plantdrew (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough - one of the other problems here is first mover advantage. Often articles are not moved unless there is a clear consensus, so I was surprised by this one. Anyway, we can discuss at a Move Review. FWIW, it is not as prominent in areas it does not occur, and I wasn't aware that "douglas fir" was the common name until this debate, but then I am more used to hardwoods anyway....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I was also surprised by the move as consensus was lacking. Of course it is less prominent outside of the native range, but it has become naturalized in the UK and New Zealand. I'm not sure how common/prominent it is those two countries.Plantdrew (talk) 21:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

The name Oregon Pine is the common name that I'm most familiar with, as a name for the timber, in an area where the tree doesn't grow. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)