Talk:Pine/Archive 1

Early messages
Some asian pines added. Tmesipt. 3.6.04. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.23.172.132 (talk) 06:07, 6 March 2004 (UTC)

We need a disambiguation page between pine the tree and PINE the unix email client... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.117.11.226 (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2004 (UTC)

Name origin dispute
User:Kenneth Alan claims (bold text in dispute): The modern English name pine derives from Latin Pinus by way of French pin, meaning needle. In the past (pre-19th century) they were always known as fir in English, from Old Norse fura, and Old English furh by way of Middle English firre. The Old Norse/Old English name is still used for pines in some modern North European languages: in Danish, fyr, in Nowegian, furu, and in Northern Germany, Föhre. British English speakers refer to it as fir but in American English, "fir" is now restricted to Abies and Pseudotsuga. Other unrelated European names include German Kiefer (the most widely used name in Germany) and Tanne(tannin), Swedish tall(from deal), Dutch den(tannin), Finnish mänty, Russian sosna and Bulgarian and Serbo-Croat bor.

(1) French pin does not mean "needle", it is derived directly from Latin pinus, itself probably derived from Greek pitys (pine; resin). The word "pin" as in pins & needles is derived from Latin pinna, a feather, and is wholly unrelated.

(2) British English speakers refer to Pinus as pine, not fir. This has been the case for at least 250 years. There is no difference between British and American usage.

(3) Deal derives from Old High German dilla (plank, board), and is not related to Swedish tall for pine.

(4) Tannin derives from tannatus, thought to be of Celtic origin, and is not related to Dutch den for pine.

Sources: Oxford English Dictionary; Dallimore & Jackson, Handbook of Coniferae; W J Bean, Trees & shrubs hardy in the British Isles; Royal Horticultural Society Dictionary of Gardening; P Miller, Gardener's Dictionary (1731, a standard eighteenth century British reference book on plants; uses pine for Pinus).

Etymology is a well-researched science, and the results of this research are widely presented in many dictionaries. The above results of one person's uncorroborated ideas have no place in Wikipedia. - MPF 20:21, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually, the OED (2nd edition) mentions "Scotch fir" (Pinus sylvestris) first under the entry for fir(1). (Along with Abies pectinata, Abies balsamea, and Picea excelsa.) So that's at least one Pinus that's commonly referred to as "fir". That's consistant with my recollection of people's (unscientific) usage. -- DrBob 20:42, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Unscientific is the word. The only people who might call a pine a 'fir' are doing so through mis-identification, and would call any conifer a 'fir'. I've heard people call cedars, larches, cypresses and many other conifers 'fir'; it does not mean anything more than the same person calling a goose a 'duck' through lack of awareness of their identification; it does not make 'duck' a valid name for geese. The name 'fir' is not used for any pine in any modern wildlife, gardening, forestry or other text. The OED refers to it as the first recorded historical use there, not the modern usage. The New Oxford Dictionary of English (1998) for example restricts fir to Abies. - MPF 21:23, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, though I'll note that the OED entry has a quote in that entry for "Scotch fir" from 1846 (from what looks like a journal of agriculture). That's 158 years ago, not 250. No reason the Scots pine article can't mention it is a former and common name. (n.b. The OED 2nd ed. "Pine" entry has "Scotch pine, Pinus sylvestris, commonly called Scotch FIR") -- DrBob 21:41, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Just because "laity" a whole island-wide consider it a fir by spoken word, doesn't make it irrelevant to the article page. Kenneth Alansson 02:14, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * That pitys happens to be a false etymology. Pitys directly means "pitch" and the source for spruce tree classification due to the high pitch usage from the Picea tree named spruce. Pin meaning needle is only natural considering the vast amounts of "pins" all over the tree, causing "pain", connected to the word "pine", as the needles on the trees are quite pointy! Pinna is related to the word "fan" or "vane", which does describe the nature of these needles on the trees!
 * Cite the published reference, please. - MPF
 * "pine2 ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pn)

v. pined, pin*ing, pines v. intr. To feel a lingering, often nostalgic desire. To wither or waste away from longing or grief: pined away and died. v. tr. Archaic To grieve or mourn for. n. Archaic Intense longing or grief. [Middle English pinen, from Old English pnian, to cause to suffer, from *pne, pain, from Vulgar Latin *pna, penalty, variant of Latin poena, from Greek poin. See kwei-1 in Indo-European Roots.] Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved."
 * The OED has a very similar entry under pine, entirely separate from the entry for the tree, and giving its different, unrelated origins. It has as much to do with pine trees, as lead (keeping a dog under control) does with lead (the metal). There are plenty of other examples of words sharing the same spelling, but having completely unrelated meanings, etymology and origins. - MPF 01:01, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Your arguements are failing. See your arguement under Talk:Pine where you try to dispute my interpretation of life-form distribution where you only add to my perception rather than countre it. You are only helping my cause here. A pine needle does cause pain(pine). One cannot lead a dog with lead, using either interpretation of lead. Kenneth Alansson 02:14, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Pins cause pain, regardless of whether you believe it carries weight in etymology. Refer to the expression "Pins and Needles". Refer to getting poked by a pine needle the first time, feeling unexpected pain. Use common sense, sources aren't everything when there are gaps and you must connect the dots, especially when the evidence is physically in front of you. Kenneth Alansson 23:00, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I prefer to refer to long-researched, documented evidence, than hearsay. I do not wish to arbitarily dismiss 300 years of expert lexicographal work. - MPF 01:01, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * How is what I stated hearsay? Is it not your own immersion of ideas based upon your hearsay of other people's ideas, then, of a time during fascist elite enlightenment(3 centuries prior)? Besides, when a primary source overlooks issues relevant to the subject at hand, then they have questionable credibility as the ultimate source from which you derive astuteness in understanding. Just because antiquity decided the earth was flat, doesn't in itself make it true. Kenneth Alansson 02:14, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Widely known as an obsolete historical use, not a modern one. And pine wood is not widely used as firewood, because it throws out dangerous sparks. And check your dictionary: fire and fir are unrelated etymologically. - MPF
 * That doesn't make it irrelevant, but in fact makes it all too important. Check the online dictionary I spoke of, type "fir" in Google and it will reference furhwood. What expression lasts to this very day in extreme relation? Firewood. Pines are useful for setting sparks in kindling and when they are dry, the wood is good. Regardless of what you think about the etymology of fir and pyre, they share a direct relation because viking pyres chiefly used pinewood for their cremations. Pine wood is the holy wood of Freyr, an old revered deity: "Lord of the Forest", literally interpreted meaning "Lord of the Firs". There are many settlements in Sweden and Norway and some in England attesting to this. Refer to the deifinition of the word frith. Kenneth Alansson 23:00, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * It does not mention firewood there, for which it gives an entirely different etymology under its separate entry. - MPF 01:01, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I stated "furhwood". You are obviously trying to tire me with unsubstantiated, unscientific and unoriginal approaches that evade the stated subject in my arguements, while I attend your every dispute in my writing. If you don't have anything to argue with, you sure are showing it by feigning a "stupid" response(possibly to confuse me?). Kenneth Alansson 02:14, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Deal and tall are related because that is what the tree's wood is called, a difference from the older "fura" now encapsulated in "barr", meaning pine needle. See? Even in Swedish they refer to barr=fir meaning needle, as in pine=pin meaning needle. The Swedish term for Norway spruce is "gran", meaning "grain", reflecting the choice to name the fura "tall" meaning "deal", regarding the names of the wood.
 * Cite the published reference, please. - MPF
 * If you knew Swedish this would be no problem. Use common sense as I stated above. There is not always an expert opinion from the past that we can reference from, at least especialy when using the internet because not everything is considered worthy of mentioning online. Perhaps you should consider that some things are so obvious as to not need somebody to write a book or comment about because they assume that people can figure that out themselves. Although you may have difficulty learning when somebody doesn't provide a silver platter of information from which you can breastfeed your knowledge to redistribute, not everybody shares this disability. Unfortunately, most American schools are failing in this regard, therefore, I do not hold you personally responsible for things beyond your training. Kenneth Alansson 23:00, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * The online dictionary used by Google presents Tan as:
 * "\Tan\, n. [F. tan, perhaps fr. Armor. tann an oak, oak bar; or of Teutonic origin; cf. G. tanne a fir, OHG. tanna a fir, oak, MHG. tan a forest. Cf. Tawny.] 1. The bark of the oak, and some other trees, bruised and broken by a mill, for tanning hides; -- so called both before and after it has been used. Called also tan bark. Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc."
 * MPF, may I remind you that you purported Quercus(oak) as the source of the word fir? Even though I still disagree, and believe the term relative to the fur of mammals(like fire, causing heated insulation-when you stand under a fir/pine in winter snow, you are protected from cold, but less protected under spruces and other conifers, and pine is used for lean-to construction in simple shelters because of this, notably in Scouting, which I directly participated in), it states there that they have a direct relation by the word "tan" as well. Who knows their etymology now? Kenneth Alansson 21:11, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I suggest you refer to the Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology or any other standard etymological reference. You will find no cited evidence for the above assertions. - MPF 21:23, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * So, you declare that your source must automatically be superior? You have declared me ad hominem in the past on a few occasions, but that doesn't conceal your behaviour in relation to me. Both I and Bob have shown you valid references from more than one source and point of view, but your mind is narrowly fixed as your actions reflect that. Narrowmindedness doesn't contribute well to the diffusion of encylopedic information, and you must yield to more than your own knowledge here at Wikipedia when others have information to contribute. You do not own the articles. Kenneth Alansson 21:44, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Can we summarize the discussion with just the first comment? The rest of the page makes no sense now that Kenneth deleted his comments. -- hike395 15:19, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I've restored his text. I'll shortly move the whole section above to an archive. - UtherSRG 15:35, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorting the list(s)
types or pines:


 * Bishop pine - P. muricata
 * Great basin bristlecone pine - P. longaeva
 * Rocky mountains bristlecone pine - P. aristata
 * Coulter pine - P. coulteri
 * Eastern white pine - P. strobus
 * Gray pine, Foothill pine or Digger pine, P. sabineana
 * Foxtail pine - P. balfouriana
 * Jack pine - P. banksiana
 * Jeffrey pine - P. jeffreyi
 * Knobcone pine - P. attenuata
 * Limber pine - P. flexilis
 * Southwestern white pine - P. reflexa
 * Loblolly pine - P. taeda
 * Lodgepole pine - P. contorta
 * Longleaf pine - P. palustris
 * Monterey pine - P. radiata
 * Colorado pinyon - P. edulis
 * Parry pinyon - P. quadrifolia
 * Single-leaf pinyon - ''P. monophylla
 * Texas or Papershell pinyon - P. remota
 * Pitch pine - P. rigida
 * Pond pine - P. serotina
 * Ponderosa pine - P. ponderosa, including P. washoensis
 * Red pine - P. resinosa
 * Sand pine - P. clausa
 * Shortleaf pine - P. echinata
 * Slash pine - P. elliottii
 * Spruce pine - P. glabra
 * Sugar pine - P. lambertiana
 * Table Mountain pine - P. pungens
 * Torrey pine - P. torreyana
 * Virginia pine - P. virginiana
 * Western white pine - P. monticola
 * Whitebark pine - P. albicaulis

Many more species occur in Mexico south of the US border (some just into the US in Arizona & New Mexico), including:
 * Apache pine - P. engelmannii
 * Arizona pine - P. arizonica
 * Chihuahua pine - P. leiophylla
 * Chihuahua white pine - P. strobiformis
 * Hartweg's pine - P. hartwegii
 * Mexican white pine - P. ayacahuite
 * Montezuma pine - P. montezumae
 * Ocote pine - P. teocote
 * Big-cone pinyon - P. maximartinezii
 * Johann's pinyon - P. johannis
 * Mexican pinyon - P. cembroides
 * Nelson's pinyon - P. nelsonii
 * Orizaba pinyon - P. orizabensis
 * Potosí pinyon - P. culminicola
 * Rzedowski's pine - P. rzedowskii
 * Weeping pinyon - P. pinceana

Simple sort with a spreadsheet, but looks like I'd need to get a little fancier; presumably we'd want to do the sorting on the visible part, eh what?

Are there really a dozen kinds of pi&ntilde;ons? (bark beetle got 'em all in much of New Mexico. Awwww ...)

;Bear 07:29, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC)


 * I agree that the list should be sorted by common name, not by species name. The vast majority of the visitors to this page are not experts --- they would browse a list with a common name in mind, not a species name. I would also fold the Pinyons into one major header, with no links (yet) to individual species that are Pinyons:


 * Pinyon pines:
 * Big-cone pinyon - P. maximartinezii
 * Johann's pinyon - P. johannis
 * Nelson's pinyon - P. orizabensis
 * etc.
 * -- hike395 15:19, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Most other genera on Wikipedia are listed either alphabetically by Latin name (usually with the Latin name first), or else in taxonomic order. With several pines having more than one widely used common name, but only one Latin name, I reckon listing by Latin name is safer as well as fitting the Wiki standard better. When I get round to it (fairly soon I hope!), I'll be including a taxonomic order list at Pinus classification. - MPF 11:14, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm also embarking on changing all the conifer species pages, starting with pines, to caps (i.e. Loblolly Pine, rather than Loblolly pine), as per the recently established Wiki standard at WikiProject Tree of Life (see the talk pages there, or ask User:UtherSRG). - MPF 11:14, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, and yes, 12 pinyons (plus seven more if you include other related species in subgenus Ducampopinus); 6 of them are Mexican endemics. Eventually, I'll get round to doing a page for each of them, with the current pinyon pine page as a group introduction. - MPF 11:14, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I think we could find the space for not only the normal list by Latin name but also another list by common name, and that one can refer to the other. ;Bear 17:10, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC)


 * Good idea if it will fit easily; I'll try to work on it sometime, as two parallel columns (like e.g. the genus list at Ericaceae), but might be a tight fit for those with small computer screens? - it would look awful if long lines ran over and messed up the columns - MPF 20:45, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I think the list is so long that it deserves its own page. Or rather, two pages, one for each sorting order. -- hike395

Trial for fit in two columns (using the species with the longest names) MPF 16:49, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fits OK on my screen, provided there's no pics in the way. Not sure how it would look on a small 640 x 480 screen, though. MPF 16:57, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * You don't like the separate page idea? -- hike395
 * Hi Hike - it is an option, but not one I'm hugely in favour of, I must admit. It means if you add something new, it has to be done on two pages. Discovered this the hard way - I'm rather regretting having created the pages live oak, white oaks and red oaks in addition to list of Quercus species. Adding Texas live oak had to be done on three pages! - MPF 20:17, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see what you mean. I was assuming that the list was already exhaustive, but it sounds like it isn't. -- hike395


 * Yep, not yet complete; there's about half of the Mexican species I've not added yet, and the pinyons & bristlecone pines to link direct to their own individual pages (not written yet!) rather than group pages. Also, it never can be exhaustive, varieties may get raised to full species or vice-versa, and new species discovered (I know of one new pine recently found in Vietnam and not yet formally named & described**) - MPF 09:30, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * "about half of the Mexican species I've not added yet" - Done now - MPF 14:16, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This is a great page. Lots of good work here. Question: is there a reason why the ToC is way down there? Is that someone's preference? Most articles try and force the ToC to the opening screen area as that is where it does the most good (personally, I do not even like the ToC, but I like it buried way down in the text even less). - Marshman 04:09, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I guess because no paragraph title was put in higher up . . it got gradually pushed down as I expanded the description. I'll add a header higher up sometime soon (I'd actually like to rejig the page a fair bit, so might do it at the same time). MPF 20:40, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

** Now, with some others, described and added to the list; refs.: R. Businsky (2004), A revision of the Asian Pinus subsection Strobus (Pinaceae), Willdenowia 34: 209-257; and R. Businsky (2003), A new hard pine (Pinus, Pinaceae) from Taiwan, Novon 13: 281-288. - MPF 00:38, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Height?
This article doesn't include the height of pine trees. This should be added. &mdash;Simetrical (talk) 00:57, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Very variable from species to species (3m to 80m). It is generally mentioned for each individual species. - MPF 23:15, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

i wanna know the development of pine and some other info
what's the growth rate / how long do they take to become a big tree / aging status/ death

also
 * harmfui insects and treament

thaks!

Gametophyte vs. sporophyte
The phrases "male cone" and "female cone" make me cringe a bit...

Cones are part of the sporophyte. The sporophyte doesn't produce gametes and are strictly speaking incapable of having gender.

The pollen and ovules are gametophytes. They produce gametes; they have genders.

Maybe a minor point, but once you start referring to sporophytes as male and female it starts getting difficult to understand the life cycle properly. I'm also tempted to add reference to the scales of the cones as sporophylls and introduce the term "strobilus". Paalexan 00:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Point taken, but these are widely used terms. They are included in serious floristic works - when there's such marked differentiation between the organs producing them, I can't really see persuading people not to apply gender names to them. The same could be said of e.g. male and female flowers on some flowering plants (e.g. oaks, hollies); again, widely used terminology.


 * Yeah, but lots of people who write floristic works don't really know what they're talking about. :-) "Pollen cone" and "seed cone" seem like perfectly comprehensible & intuitive terms that describe things more accurately... Paalexan 02:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * On strobilus, this is already mentioned in the conifer cone article (a page I've been meaning to do more on for ages!), and would be better expanded on there, rather than on every conifer genus page - MPF 09:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, OK, that makes sense. Paalexan 02:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Other species?
I found the following pine species in Ecology and Biogeography of Pinus that were not included in the article, and was wondering whether they are actually distinct species: --Schzmo 23:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Pinus dabeshenensis – Pinus armandii var. dabeshenensis
 * Pinus donnell-smithii – synonym of Pinus hartwegii
 * Pinus nubicola – synonym of Pinus apulcensis (a.k.a. P. oaxacana)
 * Idents to right - MPF 00:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I.D. this Tree
Does anyone know what kind of pine this tree ? It was taken in a park near Madison, WI. --71.117.38.45 01:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It is most likely a Red Pine (Pinus resinosa). The one in the foreground in the top right corner looks like Eastern White Pine (Pinus strobus). (Red Pine, Eastern White Pine, and Jack Pine are the only pines that grow naturally in Wisconsin).  SCH ZMO  ✍ 11:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Fossil Record
one of the questions that most of the botanical pages bring up are the relations between the modern members of the family and the extinct members. How and where should this be adressed? For example I work at an Interpretive center in Washington state and we have 3 pinus species present in the fossil record here: P. macrophylla, P. tetrafolia, and P. latahensis how whould one relate them to this entry in Wikipedia? Kevmin
 * Bit of a tricky one - There are more named pine fossils (at least a couple hundred) than there are living pine species, and very few of them have been researched well enough to determine whether they are genuinely distinct, or the same as another earlier-named pine fossil. There is also a naming problem, "Pinus macrophylla" is an invalid name, as that name has already been used for another, extant pine back in 1839. So adding just three would be a bit out-of-place in the rest of the article. Maybe a new page on Pinaceae fossils could be started, but it'll be a big task to put together anything useful. Everything would need to be placed in the context of its dating (pine fossils cover a span of about 120 million years), and relationship, if any known, to other pine fossils and modern pines - MPF 01:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Name origins: German "Föhre"
The article was incorrect concerning the German equivalent of "Föhre":
 * Föhre is used in all of Germany, not only in parts. Both names Kiefer and Föhre. Kiefer is the usual name, but Föhre is equally valid. Föhre is known to at least all people dealing with plants (forresters, gardeners, botanists). Föhre is the original name.
 * The article was wrong in stating that the word Kiefer is unrelated. In fact it is related, but the relationship is not easy to see. It is derived from Kien-Föhre, named after the Kienspan that was made from the resin-rich wood. These Kienspäne (plural) were used as candles.

Kind regards, 213.39.216.41 20:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Images, species unknown
I've taken a couple of pictures of a pine tree near where I work in Mercer Island, Washington. I'm having trouble identifying the species. If someone can help me figure out which type of pine it is, I'd be happy to add the images to that species' article. Any tips on photographing trees would also be appreciated. Thanks. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * European Black Pine Pinus nigra. Tips on photos - top one is rather grainy and burnt out; not easy to get a good pic with such a bright sky behind. One of the menaces of getting good tree pics, I fear. - MPF 19:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What type of Pine would eat up the most CO2?
Im trying to start a nation wide tree planting effort and I want to know what type of tree eats up the most CO2?

www.Myspace.com/PoeticExpressn1

please leave a message —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.108.158.38 (talk) 04:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Musical tribute to the pine
Add a link to Pines of Rome? AnonMoos (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What about the German classic song "Oh Tannenbaum", which has also been released in other language versions?--VKing (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Reproduction?
How about something on reproduction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SplendidConfusion (talk • contribs) 20:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As well as reproduction, I think the life cycle should be included tooCDoris-Bio341 (talk) 04:35, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Corrected image caption
I just thought I should justify the change. The image caption previously said "pine among larch and alder". The image seems to show only pine cones, I don't see any that look like larch cones, and certainly nothing that looks like alder catkins (the closest thing an alder has to cones). I can see why the mistake was made by looking at the German blurb that comes with the image, which if translated runs something like (according to Google translator with one missed translation "pine" supplemented):

''District Cottbus: "offspring" of future forests - In the forest areas of the Republic is the seed production of pine, larch and alder in full swing. Among the oldest and most productive plantations cones to harvest the plant belongs in a circle Babben Finsterwalde. In the previous year, with a yield of 73 quintals of demand for genetically valuable seed in the entire state forestry farm Finsterwalde covered. For the GDR Afforestation in the year alone are 6,000 kilograms of pine seed needed. Forest Hlefer people and provide for 3 750 quintals cones ready. sixth of the revenue comes from plantations.''

While the beginning of the blurb mentions the 3 species, later it focuses on pine. The blurb also not so much a description of the image, as the image seems to be meant as an illustration for the broader passage. --Ericjs (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * German is my first language and you are absolutely correct. Only the last two sentences are relevant for the image - they mention the need of pine seeds for reforestation and that one sixth of them is harvested from plantations. The rest is talking about seed production in general and in Finsterwalde. Good job :) Rror (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Expand construction use
At the moment, there is only a brief line on pine usage in furniture and interior building. There should be some elaboration on that. Juranas (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Under "Uses", instead of two subheadings "Food" and "Boimedical" there should be another subheading "Timber and Pulp." Hermanoere (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

is unique sap chemistry discussed anywhere?
These are all the hits from pubmed that mention pine and turpentine, but apparently the ecology is interesting and related to the turpene content of sap. I would also ask anyone to lobby the USDA and ARS to get an API for the national ag library to automate stuff like this, pubmed seems to be the leader here. btw, anyone have literature on lightning strikes on pine trees? The needles could be good lightnng rods ( I just bring this up due to a peraonsl story, no reason to believe any notability here LOL). Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Sugar Pine no longer Tallest species
Not sure why I deleted my comment before ... anyway, the Sugar Pine is no longer the world's tallest pine. 2 tree experts, Mario Vaden and Michael Taylor, discovered 4 Ponderosa Pines in January 2011, each one taller than the previous record holder that was a Sugar Pine. I'm not sure which reference would be appropriate. If you search online with keywords Ponderosa, tallest, record, etc., and maybe "news", I think you will find several articles. One article redistributed was called "Tallest of the Tall". Of the 4 new Pinus height records, the tallest was 268.35 feet tall. ThreeWikiteers (talk) 07:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Tightening up the page
If there is no objection, I'd like to tighten/tidy up the page a bit to get rid of some of the glaring white spaces. This may mean the removal of some of the pictures in order to do so. Isa bli  dine  06:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree - There probably could be a few less images in this article. I've been looking at the current images, and I think most of them could be replaced with higher quality, more illustrative images.  --BlueCanoe (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm working mostly on content now but go for it if you'd like to change the images. I noticed some beautiful images on pinus (their article is incredible!) -- Isa bli  dine  15:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Replaced images, trying to illustrate the article with a wide range of species and locations. Mexico & Central America are under-represented geographically (not many images on Commons), and taxonomically the white pines, pinon pines, and mediterranean pines are under-represented, but it's an improvement. Hard to squeeze 100+ species into 7 images and still be completely representative. Here's a really nice photo of an old pinon pine that I didn't have room for. --BlueCanoe (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoa, such an improvement. Looks outstanding on the iPhone wikipedia app as well. And that image of the cembroides is enough to take your breath away. -- Isa bli  dine  03:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed article quality class from start to B --GreenPine (talk) 15 May 2011

i love you mn 79o0o9a i love you mom and dad alali ^-^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.97.140.213 (talk) 18:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Archive
Is there an archive of page edits? I would like to see what the page looked like in the past. Daniel 66.57.84.138 (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"deal wood"
Is deal wood from certain pine wood? 68.126.125.17 (talk) 00:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * As well as reproduction, I think the life cycle should be includedCDoris-Bio341 (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

"Compressive strength of pine" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Compressive strength of pine. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 03:52, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Farming/forestry
I added Arkansas because that is what the main source is referring too. Pine trees grow totally different in different places and with different species. It's misleading to say that what is true for pines in Arkansas is true for pines everywhere, that is simply not the case. If my edits need cleaning up/more sources/more clarification (which I suspect they do) please advise. Quixoticelixer- (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)