Talk:Larix laricina

Article title - Move to Tamarack

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus. Never properly listed at WP:RM, or perhaps just forgotten. Please relist. Patstuarttalk 21:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I have yet to find one reference that refers to the common name of this tree as "Tamarack Larch". While it is a larch, its name in North America is simply "Tamarack" (or sometimes "Hackmatack"). Referring to it as "Tamarack Larch" is be like calling Tilia platyphyllos a "Lime Linden". The article should be moved/renamed either to "Tamarack" or "Larix laricina" in accordance with Naming conventions. Luigizanasi 19:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - "Referring to it as Tamarack Larch ... (etc)" - not so, as 'tamarack' does not mean the same as 'larch'. The converse is more relevant; in the Tilia platyphyllos instance, it would be like calling it a "Broad-leaved", instead of "Broad-leaved Lime": without the generic qualifier, 'tamarack' alone does not indicate what it is. - MPF 14:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * No one calls Tilia platyphyllos "broad-leaved". On the other hand "Tamarack" is by far the most common common name of Larix laricina. A better analogy would be if one of the many Prunus trees with single names (e.g. Apricot, Peach, etc.) were callled Apricot plum or Peach plum. Luigizanasi 17:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you try Google six of the top ten hits for the exact phrase are non-Wikipedia mirrors, most notably this one, which is a Canadian Forest Service site. I'd call the Canadian Forest Service a significant reference.  Guettarda 16:06, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
 * On the CFS reference, it would have been nice if you had read my reply below before of immediately coming to MPF's defense. On google hits, FWIW, "tamarack larch" (with the quotes) gets 838 hits, "tamarack" on its own gets 3,000,000 hits, and "tamarack larix" (without the quotes, to get at the pages that mention the tree) gets 67,000 hits. Luigizanasi 09:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Support

 * Support: same reason as nom. Tutmosis 22:04, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - My book "Trees of North America" mentions this tree as Tamarack JoJan 06:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * support. As I have been asked to put in a vote here, I suppose I should. It appears overwhelmingly clear that the common name in use is "Tamarack" (with "Tamarack larch" a non-contender). I see there is even a "Western tamarack". Where a well-established common name is in place it is ill-advised to try and displace that. As to category, well, the category is inconsistent anyway: in a category with the name Pinaceae one would expect entries such as Larix laricina. It would be nice if it were technically possible to enter "category: Pinaceae| "Larix larcina"" which would result in the entry being listed in the category as Larix laricina. Brya 12:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Strong oppose: it would break up the indexing at Category:Pinaceae, resulting in its not being together with the other larches and thereby making it hard to find in the index. For an example of use of this form of the name by a group for whom the species is native, see e.g. here or here. The need for a move is also rendered un-necessary by the redirect from "Tamarack" - MPF 14:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * On breaking up the category indexing, I believe that if the code is used, "Tamarack" would appear with the other larches under the letter "L". On the two sources, the first is a tourism site for British Columbia where the tree is not all that common except in the northeastern corner, so hardly authoritative. The second is from the Canadian Forest Service, which, other than the one page you cited, uses "tamarack", see, , , , and 63 other hits as a search of the Natural Resource Canada Department site will show, compared  to only two hits relating to plant diseases that use "Tamarack Larch". The references I have at hand include: R.C. Hosie (1979), Native Trees of Canada ISBN 08890255090; E. Hultén (1968), Flora of Alaska and Neighboring Territories ISBN 0804706433; William J. Cody (1996), Flora of the Yukon Territory ISBN 066016406X; Phillips (1978), Trees of North America and Europe ISBN 0394502590; MacKinnon, Pojar & Coupé (1992) Plants of Northern British Columbia ISBN 1551050153;  Peattie (1953) A Natural History of Western Trees and (1964) A Natural History of Trees of Eastern and Central North America. None of them has "Tamarack Larch" as a common name, and neither does the Gymnosperm Database website. Tamarack is, by far, the most common name and "Tamarack Larch" is hardly used at all. Luigizanasi 16:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The code without the name Larch doesn't work, I've tried it before on other occasions. And even if it did, it would also make the index look very peculiar with 'Tamarack' listed under L without the word 'larch'. Also the naming conventions clearly allow for the use of less common names in cases where using a less common name improves comprehensibility; this is very valid in this case where the name 'tamarack' is meaningless to most people outside of North America; adding the group name 'larch' makes it much more comprehensible. It is also worth bearing in mind (c.f. Naming conventions (precision)) "tamarack" on its own is also used for Pinus contorta subsp. murrayana in western North America; it could very reasonably be argued that 'tamarack' itself should be a disambiguation page. - MPF 18:55, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me get this straight: You oppose using the most common name and give people a mistaken impression of its common name because it won't work on a Wikipedia categorization page??? Then it would joint Tsuga on the category page, which is all by itself rather than being with its species under "H". Well not anymore, as I have tried categorising "Tsuga" under "Hemlock" and it’s now under “H”. Feel free to revert.
 * I agree the Tsuga case is a problem, which I would like to find a work-around for; unfortunately, Hemlock is a disambig page. Yes, I do consider it very important to include the word 'larch' in the title for indexing and page search facilities. I have no problem with wording the introductory sentence differently to indicate that 'Tamarack' on its own is the more commonly used form. - MPF 11:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2. The code should work now, as I believe there has been a change in the software. I just experimented with Apricot, putting in  and it does show up under the letter "P".
 * But it doesn't show up as 'Prunus Apricot' or 'Apricot Prunus', or 'Apricot (Prunus)', or any other form indicating the reason for the positioning, only 'Apricot'. - MPF 11:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 3. We probably agree that it would be better to have Genus species as the article title for plants, given the tremendous inconsistencies and differences in common names. However, the main problem with doing this is the way categorization works in Wikipedia, which would lead to confusion among the large majority of potential users who are not familiar with scientific plant names.
 * Yes; whether all the Pinaceae should be moved to sci names is well worth investigating; all other conifers are. - MPF 11:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 4. We also probably would agree that categorization should work differently, where we should be able to put anything we want and have it appear where we want it. So, for example, it would be nice if we could have the article "Pinus contorta" appear both as Lodgepole Pine and Shore Pine in, say, Category:Pine Family for popular names and as Pinus contorta in Category:Pinaceae for scientific names. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way, yet.
 * 5. If there is a desire to ensure that species in a given genus are listed together in category pages &mdash; which I think is a good idea &mdash; the way to do this with the current state of the software is to create a separate category for each genus. So Tamarack could be in Category:Larches, etc.
 * Not a good idea, as it is very bad over-categorisation; in particular, it would make checking for vandalism vastly more time-consuming - at the moment, 'recent changes' at Category:Pinaceae checks 150 pages with two mouse clicks; if they were split into separate categories by genus, that means 40 mouse clicks and page loading waits to do the same check. - MPF 11:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 6. Back to the main issue, someone outside North America is much more likely to come across "tamarack" all on its lonesome, and the very first line does say it is a larch. Google search on 'tamarack': 3,120,000 hits; Google search on '"tamarack larch"': 501. US Forest Product Laboratory] search on "Tamarack": 27 hits, "tamarack larch": 3 hits of which only one is a reference to the tree name.
 * 7. according to Peattie, Pinus contorta is also called "Cypress" and "Spruce Pine". Does that mean we need disambiguations for "Cypress" and "Spruce" to indicate that they might also refer to lodgepole pine (and to Jack Pine-Pinus banksiana). On the other hand, I would not be opposed to a Tamarack (disambiguation), just like we have a Cedar (disambiguation). This should perhaps be done for most common tree names that could lead to ambiguity.
 * There's a difference there between recorded rare usages and common names - we don't expect to cover every single misidentification anyone has ever made, only the names that get used fairly widely. - MPF 11:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
 * My main point is that the tree should appear under what is by far its most common name and that wikipedia should not give the mistaken impression that the tree's common name is "Tamarack Larch", which is hardly used at all. Enough for now Luigizanasi 17:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, why does it concern you so much with such vehemence, for someone who hasn't contributed to the page? I don't even see (given your user page babel box) a link to fr:Mélèze laricin, why hasn't this been written yet?! (worth noting the French name does include genus indication!). As the person who wrote over 90% of the page, I feel entitled to have my titling of it taken a little more seriously. - MPF 11:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Finally - one other option - would you be willing to consider a move to 'Eastern Larch' as a compromise? That is also quite widely used as a name. - MPF 11:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * lists Tamarack or American Larch as common names of L. laricina. The Illustrated Book of Trees: A Visual Guide to More Than 250 Species (Paperback) by Eric A. Bourdo, Salamander Books (July 19, 1999), ISBN 1840650834 lists Tamarack or American Larch also. My 1947 edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica refers to it as "the American larch (L. laricina), commonly called tamarack, known also as hackmatack and to the French Canadians as épinette rouge." I agree with MPF that it would be good if "Larch" were to appear in the common name, even if it isn't the most common name but still widely used. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find support for 'Eastern Larch' in the books that I happen to own. I wonder if 'Tamarack (larch)' or 'American Larch' have any merit as a possible compromise?  Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * oppose If it is to be moved, the move it to Tamarack (larch) or American Larch. I agree that it is important for "larch" to remain in the title, either as a part of the common name, or as a disambiguation mark. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per Uther. Incidentally, I favour scientific names for plants in general - but where exactly a plant ends up doesn't matter too much - that's what redirects are for.  Guettarda 16:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment I come to this page from a redirect from Tamarack. I go uh???!! Did I miss something here? Never seen "Tamarack Larch" before in my life, and I have had a lifelong interest in trees and wood. I go and check all the references I have at home which include Cody, Hultén, Hosie, Peattie, and a couple of others that I believe are less authoritative. I go to the gymnosperm database website. None of them has "tamarack larch" as a common name. I check the history of the page and notice it was written mainly by User:MPF, who, I can say without hesitation, has done some excellent work on tree. However, in my previous interactions with him and with others (notably with User:Brya, who I "know" from the excellent advice and minifaq on wood he has written on the rec.woodworking newsgroup), he has shown that he is prone to pushing a certain POV and rather possessive of articles he has written. So, with some trepidation that has proved justified, I propose to move the page to what is by far the most common name of the tree, rather than just doing the move and possibly ending up in a silly revert war.

The first objection I get from MPF I get is that the name is used in two obscure references, one from a tourism website and the other from a page on insects from the Canadian Forest Service. The second objection, which has some validity, is that there is a desire to keep species of the same genus together on a categorization page. On the first one, I point out that the CFS has 67 pages mentioning tamarack, and only one reference to "tamarack larch". Incidentally, Hosie's book, which was the standard reference on Canadian trees, and its successor by John Laird Farrar ([Trees in Canada]) are both published by the CFS. On the second one, I proposed two alternatives. The first is to have separate subcategories for each genus. This is dismissed as over categorization and, more importantly, that it makes fighting vandalism more difficult. Fine, I'm all in favour of making fighting vandalism as easy as possible. The second alternative, is dismissed purportedly because it did not work. Despite the fact that I had done something similar in another area, I test it again just to be absolutely sure. It actually does work. The code will put "tamarack" under the letter "L" with the other larches in the categorization page. So I try to meet the objection in good faith and do the work to find a solution within the limitations of the categorization software.

Then MPF intimates that I should take myself off to the French Wikipedia and that I have no right to propose changes to the article because I had not edited it previously. He also brings in other members of his coterie. I suppose I could bring in a bunch of people from the Canadian Wikipedians Noticeboard or Wikiproject Alaska to take my side, but I have no interest in perpetuating this, and I am not interested in engaging in conflict.

On the proposed compromises, they are just replacing an extremely uncommon name, with others that are only slightly less uncommon. I don't get the insistence that it have "larch" in page title if we can get it to appear along with the other larches in the Pinaceae category page. If anything, someone seeing it there might be struck by the incongruity and go to the page and learn that it is a larch and maybe learn something more about it. Finally, if the WikiProject Plants participants want to continue to mislead potential readers as to the common name of Larix laricina, go right ahead, you will get no more grief from me. And I will studiously avoid editing articles that are the property of the Plant group, especially those owned by MPF. There are plenty of other areas to which I can contribute. Luigizanasi 09:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry - I'm a little late on this, but in the worst case, could you move the page to "Tamarack", make a subcategory in Category:Pinaceae for the larches, and put "Tamarack" in there? Thus, there won't be any pecuriarities with "T" being under "L"  SCH ZMO  ✍ 01:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I got redirected here from Hackmatack, which is the only name I can recall having heard it called in Maine. I don't have a dog in this fight but for what it is worth National Audubon Field guide to Eastern Trees calls it a Tamarack also called Hackmatack and Eastern Larch. As does Trees of Maine  which is a painting by Lee Bean. Tamarack may be a corruption of Hackmatack which my American Heritage dictionary says is "perhaps from Western Abenaki". Websters says it is an "American Larch". Put me down for "Eastern Larch" KAM 14:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

There should be a disambiguation page for Tamarack, as Tamarack is also the name of a major retail outlet and dining complex along the West Virginia Turnpike near Beckley, West Virginia. This Tamarack specializes in arts, crafts and foods made by West Virginia artisans.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

More Uses - Tamarack
I agree with those discussants who contend that the common name for this species is &quot;Tamarack&quot; not &quot;Tamarack Larch&quot;. There is absolutely no reference to any tree called Tamarack Larch anywhere but this Wikipedia article. That being said, the term Tamarack Larch does help distinguish the tree from its western cousin and the lodgepole pine, both of which appear to be called some variety of Tamarack. Perhaps a compromise would be to title the article &quot;Tamarack (Larch)&quot;.

More to my main interests: The uses section of the article should be expanded somewhat. The most common historical use of the wood of the species has been in water-side structures (wharfs, docs) and as ships' timbers. The wood is very rot resistant and holds up well against insect and salt damage. More recently the wood is being increasingly used in decks and porches and in outdoor furnishings. As deck material, its use is growing rapidly, especially in the Northeast United States as Western Red Cedar becomes rarer and more expensive.

Jmedgar (talk) 18:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)Jim Edgar jime@starcraftcustombuilders.com

A Maybe error
"North America and Canada" Canada is in North America 207.6.168.201 (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Page move
I just moved the page from Draft: back here - I don't think there was any useful history here worth saving. Guettarda (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Perfect; thanks. /wiae /tlk  09:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Larix laricina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005174426/http://globaltwitcher.auderis.se/artspec_information.asp?thingid=44751 to http://globaltwitcher.auderis.se/artspec_information.asp?thingid=44751

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

What about Montana?
I'm in Montana in the Flathead Valley this week and the place is crawling with tamarack. Plus, multiple businesses are named after the tree. The found-in description in the article suggests this should not be so, yet here they are. Is there another species of larch known as tamarack? If so, we need a note at the top to direct people there. If these are the same trees, the article needs to be fixed (with proper sources, natch). I'm not really expert in trees so I'm hoping someone else can help here. Thmazing (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: BIOL 412 HONORS
— Assignment last updated by Gmcb3345 (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Error in Distribution and Ecology
In Distribution and Ecology, under the Associated forest cover tab, the second paragraph has a noticeable wording/spelling error. 2604:3D09:757D:E500:1CF6:B8B0:88B:5F80 (talk) 06:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed. 🌀CycloneFootball71🏈 |sandbox 02:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)