Talk:Pinus contorta

Images, formatting
Various version of the caption formatting for Image:Pinus_contorta_map.png and Commons:Image:Pinus contorta map.png are given below. (The displayed versions have sizepx, left and right deleted from the image format.) I think all are acceptable except Revision as of 23:07, 26 September 2005. It does not format properly on some browsers. The line breaks occur after the each color name. The last one may be objectionable on browsers that do not display colored text properly, but otherwise is the one I prefer because the reader can match the colors of the caption to those on the map directly without having to translate the word blue to the color blue. Additionally, I think it fine to include subsp. in each line. I didn't because I think it is unnecessarily verbose for a caption where brevity is a virtue and because the text color sets off the subspecies name from the species name.
 * Nice idea on the colour captions; the word "subsp." should however be included as indication of rank is required in plant infraspecific taxa (ICBN Article 24). The captions have however made me realise I did the map badly in the first place, as red-green colourblind people will have trouble seeing the map; maybe I'd better re-do it in new colours - any suggestions for better colours? - MPF 21:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I took advantage of a feature of my graphics editor that I've wanted to try. Commons:Image:Pinus contorta map.png has been modified with different textures as well as colors to distinguish the regions. Please revert this experiment once you've had a chance to see it; I'm not that pleased with it, but it might help the discussion. -Walter Siegmund 23:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This morning, I had coffee with a friend with red-green (deuteranomaly?) color blindness, the most common form of color blindness. I was able to try different color schemes for Commons:Image:Pinus contorta map.png with him. The one I uploaded, i.e., the current version, is the one that was easiest for him to distinguish. He said that the textures that I tried in the previous version were not very helpful. The rule seems to be to use only one color in the red/yellow/green range since these look similar to someone with deuteranomaly and similar conditions. Shades between green and dark blue are perceived normally so the remaining colors should be chosen from that pallet, despite it being very restrictive. He can easily distinguish between the cyan and blue (of the new map). Finally, ensure that the text suffices to convey the information even if the colors do not. I think that the article, as written does that. The color blindness article has links to graphics design web sites with much more information. Walter Siegmund 23:31, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I'll have a look at the color blindness talk page sometime soon; I find the cyan a bit glaring (and hard to read the cyan text), but that's a small price to pay for clarity for all. - MPF 22:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with your comments about the colorblind version. We could have both versions and put the colorblind version in a thumbnail. -Walter Siegmund 00:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Revision as of 15:55, 27 May 2005


 * Revision as of 22:22, 26 September 2005


 * Revision as of 23:07, 26 September 2005


 * Revision as of 08:10, 14 October 2005

-Walter Siegmund 16:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Help identifying pine species
Hi. I'm hoping one of you tree expert-types can help me identify the species in this picture http://www.cayoosh.net/pix/cleven/bridgecanyon99.jpg - not sure if it's a Ponderosa or Lodgepole or maybe something else. The area this is from has a lot of such snag-type pines - I was looking for another picture or two from other locations, and maybe one with a closeup of the needles; I know I don't have a closeup of the bark for sure. The location is on the inland side of the Coast Mountains in British Columbia, about 20 mi W of Lillooet, British Columbia, which is in Ponderosa Pine range as well as Lodgepole.Skookum1 21:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't tell. The foliage and bark do not look like Ponderosa Pine to me. You've ruled out Douglas Fir? That probably would have been my first guess. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Gee, it could be, but it hadn't occurred to me as I've always associated that type of gnarliness with pines. I'll be up there next week and will try to find/photograph some other examples - some are definitely pine, but I haven't been up close and personal with that one (it's a telephoto shot; that cliff in the background is ~3000', about 1/4 mile away. Depends on where I'll get to but I'll take some pics of the various trees in that area - very interesting bioregion, BTW - and get back here once they're developed and scanned.  The type of pine I'm thinking of has large jigsaw-piece "plates" in its bark and long needles; can't remember the cones.Skookum1 23:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like douglas-fir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.5.74.146 (talk) 23:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit to improve sort order in Category Pinus
I edited this to change the sort order on the page for the Category:Pinus. It had been set to alphabetize under Pine. That might make sense for categories where there are a lot of trees and a few of them are pines; then all the pines group together. But on the page where everything is a pine, it made more sense to alphabetize under Lodgepole. 140.147.236.194 (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Whitebark Pine which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:29, 31 May 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: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Lodgepole pine → Pinus contorta – Several common names, including differing names for subspecies. Most unambiguous would be to locate plant at scientific name. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support In general, I'm in favour of using the scientific name, so support a move. "Lodgepole pine" does seem to be a genuinely 'common' name rather than a made-up English name, so its use is somewhat better justified than some other English names of pines, although the confusion as to whether the name refers to the species as a whole or just one subspecies means that it fails the precision test of WP:AT. (The Flora of North America treats them as varieties, not subspecies; it uses "lodgepole pine" for the species and for var. latifolia but not for the other varieties.) Peter coxhead (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support While lodgepole pines are culturally significant (i.e., they are used to make tipis), this Google ngram link shows that the majority of the usage in English books is still scientific. Therefore, both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:FLORA guide us to using Pinus contorta. —hike395 (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Hike395's n-gram link omits the overwhelming most common capitalization of the common name; see this correction. Dicklyon (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You're right --- my mistake. I suspend my !vote until I can do more analysis. —hike395 (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support' – The scientific name is the best one that precisely describes the species. Lodgepole pine appears to be a common name for two of the subspecies, but not the central subspecies, the one that includes the type, which is called shore pine. The species overall seems to have relatively obscure common names twisted pine and contorta pine, which are English translations of the Latin name. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The alternative names are quite rare. Dicklyon (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - the article covers both "shore pine" and "lodgepole pine", which are well distinguished in common usage (people in the western US would never call P. contorta trees growing on the coast "lodgepole pine", nor would they call trees growing inland "shore pine"). Move to scientific name which covers both vars./subsps. Plantdrew (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There may be different names with different shades of possible meaning--if those differences are big enough that separate articles could be written, then split, but otherwise it's fine to just pick one and roll with it. Dicklyon's evidence is quite compelling. Red Slash 23:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * To "pick one and roll with it", twisted pine is the one to chose (or contorta pine, which is less English). Lodgepole pine is not what this page is about, it is about two things, lodgepole pine and shore pine. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Support For the coastal subspecies, "Lodgepole pine" fails the recognizability, naturalness, and precision criteria. Because human populations are concentrated near coasts, our readers are as likely to encounter the coastal subspecies as the inland subspecies. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support This article is on the species so it should be at the taxonomic address, the scientific name Pinus contorta. Opposing !votes suggesting that if there's no split of the article then it's just fine to keep it at one of the subspecies' vernacular names reveals a lack of understanding of the hierarchy in taxonomy. Lodgepole pine ≠ all Pinus contorta; it is, instead, a subset of this taxon and thus this article. Given that logic, in the early days of Wikipedia when there wasn't enough information to split Pinus from Pinus contorta and since the latter is a subset of the former, you could have easily argued in the same manner to move pine to lodgepole pine. What Sminthopsis84 articulates above is that the species as a whole has no clear and widely used vernacular name; the subspecies do, but unless the subspecies articles are split, none of the vernacular names applied to the subspecies can unambiguously apply to the entire taxon Pinus contorta at the rank of species. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 03:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support re Rkitko --- common name is much less precise than scientific name. It's not clear to me that common name is more recognizable than the scientific name, so the trade off doesn't seem worth it. —hike395 (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment About your comment, Hike395, like Douglas fir and others, lodgepole pine is part of the lumber industry nearly anywhere it grows.  I submit that the people most in contact with these trees and refer to them in their own common speech not by the Latin name but as "lodgepole pine".  I can guarantee you if a logging truck goes by with a stack of fresh-cut lodgepole pines someone's not gonna say "yep, he's carrying a load of pinus contorta".  In truth in that phrase they'd just say pine - unless there were two possibilities, e.g. yellow pine.  What's common in printed sources is not what is most common in English-as-she-is-spoke.  Particularly around those in daily contact with the subject; suggest a search on that basis would be at the BC Ministry of Forests Library website or its equivalent in Washington, Idaho, Montana etc.  The Latin name will be there, but not in the way and with the primary use that "lodgepole pine" would have.  In the same light, as those for whom these are a commodity; the forest companies.  Their reports will mention the Latin name only by way of introduction and use the vernacular term.Skookum1 (talk) 17:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah but in my neck of the woods, the logging and building industry pretty well unanimously refers to Eucalyptus regnans as Tasmanian oak....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, they will only be referring to the infraspecific taxon latifolia whether variously reported as a subspecies or a variety as "lodgepole pine." If they encounter, log, or admire the infraspecific taxon contorta, the autonym also variously reported at the rank of subspecies or variety, they could refer to it as "shore pine." Neither of these names apply to the entire taxon Pinus contorta at the rank of species. As it stands, the article is currently mislabeled for the subject matter it covers. Rkitko (talk) 02:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support per Sminthopsis84.--Melburnian (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support The common name is sometimes used for the species as a whole, see USFS reports. However, this is unusual, as the common name is not typically used for the pygmy subspecies. Most articles using this name describe a tree with a diameter much greater than the height of the Bolander pine. -AfadsBad (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support because the scientific name for the species is unambiguous. However, the common name of this species truly is "lodgepole pine". In most of the range of this tree species, this is a forest tree that grows tall and straight, and the common name of "lodgepole" is widely known. The gnarled version of the tree that is found on windswept coastal sites is far less widely known than the forest interior version, but the species has the "contorta" name because it was first described by botanist David Douglas, who saw it along the coast. --Orlady (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Support There are so many subspecies and subspecies vernacular names that this article could appear under many vernacular names besides this one. And if the article were split into subspecies articles, the scientific names would be even more important to distinguish them from each other, and still connect them as the same species. First Light (talk) 15:37, 17 August 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.

Uses in popular culture section?
A suggestion by Prax (a horticultural expert) leads to the Rocinante, on The Expanse (TV series), being renamed after this. ELSchissel (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Clarify the subspecies
The text is a bit garbled, sometimes using 'lodgepole' and 'shore' interchangeably, and other times using those names to (apparently) distinguish the coastal variety from the interior variety. This needs clarification, as the average reader is just going to be confused. also, you can't say, as the text does, that varieties of the same species 'hybridize' - surely that can only be applied to different species (as mentioned regarding Jack Pine). I think the word you want is 'mingle' or 'interbreed'. 2A01:CB1D:2E:3500:11DE:2DC4:5B20:2CC0 (talk) 10:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

"Lodgepole" name
In the article, it says this type is called "lodgepole" because it grows tall and straight. However, the example photos show trees that are relatively short and very twisted. I wonder if there's a good picture of a stand of tall, straight lodgepole pines that could be added... TooManyFingers (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2024 (UTC)