Talk:Pseudotsuga/Archive 1

Untitled
The Douglas fir is the state tree of Oregon, but grows in equal abundance in all the Pacific NW and Canada, with some great examples at the Olympic National forest in Washington. However, The tallest living specimen (currently known) is the 330' Coos giant, known as the Brummit Fir--and I assume it is hundreds if not 1000 or more years in age. It is not wholly implausable to imagine that some old growth firs were indeed in the 300' to 400' level before logging, deforestation, and fires in the 19th and 20th centuries really started to widdle away at the larger examples of giantism for this species.

However, there are certain doubts about whether old documented tree heights are to be taken as reliable. For example, the record of a 415' Douglas fir in Lynn Valley, BC, certainly requires a bit of faith.

The Coastal Douglas fir is very common as a sub-urban street tree in Portland,Oregon, but generally doesn't grow as tall as it would in the forest. There are some scattered middle to older growth stands in parts of the city, but Forest Park is probably the best example. Notable examples:


 * 165' Douglas fir at Powell Butte


 * 242' Douglas fir at Forest Park (tallest tree in Portland). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tuscaloosa11 (talk • contribs).
 * Is this a comment or question, or did you mean to put this in the article space?  SCH ZMO  ✍ 19:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

conservation status
Why are the conservation statuses of the individual species listed here on the genus page? Wouldn't they be more appropriate on the pages of the individual species?  SCH ZMO  ✍ 18:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Uses section: timber, wood, lumber
Should it be changed to 'timber?' 'Wood' is the most general term in the English-language, whereas in North America, what Commonwealth speakers call 'timber,' is generally called 'lumber' here in the vernacular, although 'timber' is used in the trade. I thought 'wood' was fine. "'Wood' from Douglas fir trees is used for structural applications required to withstand high loads." KP Botany 20:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose so. Sometimes I'm just a little hasty, but thanks for not reverting out of hand.The Boy that time forgot 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I get hasty, too, but I know you're a serious contributor. KP Botany 22:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The hyphen
What's with the use of the hyphen throughout? This is rather new, this hyphenating to indicate it is not really that. Or is it? There are places besides Google where adding the hyphen and doing a search will return null or limited results. What's the authority on it? It should be explained that it is more commonly spelled without the hyphen, when and on whose authority it changed. Also the capitalization or not should be explained, as it is most often written with Douglas capitalized, as it is from a proper name, only in the Latin is this usually dropped, or so I thought. This line needs referenced, "The hyphen in the common name indicates that douglas-firs are not true firs, i.e. they are not members of the genus Abies." KP Botany 18:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * USDA ref added - MPF 12:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see the reference? KP Botany 16:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Hike has made it inline now. - MPF 18:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The reference does not elaborate on the hyphen any and neither does the text. KP Botany 17:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the origin of the hyphen - where was it first used? Many common names of plants are not 'correct' names. Should we now have Cape-gooseberry and Chinese-gooseberry?89.240.13.182 17:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The Flora of North America hyphenates the name. --EncycloPetey 17:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello all- You can see more discussion on this at User_talk:Katr67 and User_talk:MPF -Eric (talk) 19:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Conflict
While searching for information on the "Henry" tree, a supposily named tall tree which was not a redwood, so I assumed it might be a Douglas Fir. I found the following conflict with your article on the Douglas fir:

"Douglas-fir is named for Henry Douglas (1798-1834), a Scottish botanist who traveled in North America. The word Pseudotsuga means ‘false hemlock", while menziesii is used in recognition of Archibald Menzies (1754-1842), a Scotch physician and naturalist, who discovered Douglas-fir in 1793 on Vancouver Island, British Colombia." This quote is from "http://www2.fpl.fs.fed.us/techsheets/SoftwoodNA/htmlDocs/pseudomenziesii.html", and was published by the Center for Wood Anatomy Research at the Forest Products Laboratory of the US Forest Service.

Over fifty years ago my father-in-law, a licensed arborist in the state of Connecticut relates that he was shown an extremely tall Douglas fir (200+ meters) which the locals called the "Henry Tree"

I don't know which Douglas, the Forest Services Henry or the David as cited in the Wikipedia article on the Douglas fir is the individual that the Douglas fir was named for. I, for one, would like to know the answer.

User: ananderson23:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The dates given above for 'Henry' Douglas (1798 - 1834) closely reflect the dates of David Douglas (1799 - 1834) as referenced from; Mitchell, L. House, S (1999). David Douglas, Explorer and Botanist. Aurum Press. London. ISBN 1-85410-591-4. So closely that I suspect that they are the same person. The above publication reprints David Douglas' description of his first encounter with Pseudotsuga menziesii, which at that time was called Pinus taxifolia, on the shores of the Colombia river;


 * "The ground on the south side of the river is low, covered thickly with wood, chiefly Pinus canadensis P. balsamea, and a species which may prove to be P. taxifolia" (Mitchell, 1999)


 * See also David Douglas.The Boy that time forgot 15:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Douglas-fir in Europe
I would like to know
 * 1) When Douglas-fir species only come from North America, Mexico and East Asia, where do the Douglas-firs in Europe come from?
 * 2) Do they all descend from American trees introduced to Europe? Can they be traced back even to David Douglas himself?
 * 3) I have heard a story that the Douglas-fir became extinct in Europe during the last Ice Age. Is that true?
 * 4) And if yes, was it of an own species or the same still found today?
 * 5) Is it known what the distinctive ecological influence in Europe was, that it vanished there but survived in America and Asia, who both had an Ice Age too? --Vancouver robin 07:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You can ask these questions at Reference desk/Science --- hopefully someone can help you there. hike395 14:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will do that. --Vancouver robin 21:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Old Growth Douglas Fir
The article says, "old claims of trees up to 126 m (415 ft) have never been verified."

Perhaps it's more like, those who did verify the height of such trees are either long dead or soon to be, and any hard evidence for trees of such size is fragmentory at this point. --71.222.40.209 03:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Old claims of trees cannot be scientifically verified today, but sound historical records place good independent indications that trees up to 400 feet did exist in optimal forests before industrial logging harvested the biggest and tallest specimens.

Such measurements have been taken by trained foresters, surveyors, and lumbermen alike. For example, Alfred J. Nye, who measured the Lynn valley tree at 415 feet long, was a land appropriator for Lynn Valley, BC. Edward Tyson Allen, a trained Forester stationed in Portland, Oregon, measured the Nisqually tree at 380 feet with steel tape in 1900. Richard Mcardle, trained Forester estimated the Fir at Mineral Wash. at 393 ft previous to being topped in the wind. Other trees up to 400 feet were measured by lumbermen near Vancouver, and in Washington state.

I see no reason to doubt these old measurements anymore than I should doubt the recently announced tallest tree, Hyperion--which has not been corroborated by all scientists.

--75.175.60.108 (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your comments. You might wish to review WP:RS. In brief, the content of the article must be verifiable by other editors by referencing reliable source(s). Please see WP:FN for how to cite sources. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Updated and added a reference to the trivia section regarding a more historically suggested 415 ft specimen logged in 1902, not 1895. --75.175.55.204 (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Douglas-fir height
I have altered the height range for this tree from 20-100 to 20-120 metres. I feel this alteration is warranted given the current scientific estimates of water mechanics and maximum tree height in Redwoods and tall evergreens. Perhaps the most arguable reason is the good historical evidence to support their having once been occasional trees in excess of 100 metres of which I may base this statement off at least 20 historically recorded specimens which come to my mind. --75.175.55.204 (talk) 01:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Brummitt Fir height 329 or 339 feet?
The Brummitt fir is officially recognized at 329 feet tall, an average between two figures. The tree is situated on a steep slope and the highest end of the trunk is 339 feet above ground, whereas the lowest end of the trunk is 319 feet above ground.

I believe the tree should be mentioned for its greatest length of stem -- 339 feet as its highest point above ground. Therefore I have listed the tree at 103.3 m at "greatest length of stem", though not invalidating the official figure which is still 329 feet. my information is referenced at the bottom with "Forest Giants of the Pacific Coast" And I have replaced page 44 with the "Introduction XVI" which tells about how the Brummitt fir was measured.

--75.175.55.204 (talk) 02:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Mineral tree, 120 meters tall
Perhaps the article should mention that the tree at Mineral, Washington was measured in 2 sections. The standing portion of the tree was measured at 225 feet tall in 1924, and 6 feet in diameter at the break. The blown top section of the tree was on the ground and measured 168 feet long. This tree measured over 15 feet in diameter and was 1,020 years old.

Source: http://www.skimountaineer.com/CascadeSki/CascadeConifers.html

Old photograph of the tree at Mineral: http://www.minerallake.com/Iverson%20Photos/IversonMineralBigTree35.jpg

--75.175.79.174 (talk) 06:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the  link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The hyphen thing...
In the case of both this article, and of Coast Douglas-fir, that hyphen is really odd-looking. It may be something used by scientific writers to designate that this isn't a "true fir", but "most common usage" is supposed to prevail; nowhere but in Wikipedia have I ever seen "Douglas-fir", I've only ever seen "Douglas fir" (and often with both caps "Douglas Fir"). Ditto with "redcedar", which especially with Western red cedar (or Western Red Cedar) is another example of a technical usage dominating Wikipedia when the most common usage is clearly different. It may be that the title of this article "has" to be that; but in many, many places/articles it just looks out of place, e.g. in British Columbia articles, Canadian English usage is supposed to prevail; and the usage is "Douglas fir" and "Western red cedar" in those two cases; hyphens nowhere to be seen.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Douglas-fir seems to dominate in a Google Scholar search. WP:NC says, "Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain." I doubt that a proposal to change the title to Douglas fir would gain a consensus since there are good reasons for the existing title and it has been stable for a long time. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your point is taken, but if a name is from another form of English than that related to the subject matter, it doesn't make sense; why the hyphenated version predominates in Google may very well be simply because of all the wiki-clones out there; to me it looks like a British-ism and/or just looks wrong. Discouting the probability of the wikiclones re google, and noting that google is not teh arbiter of "most common usage", I'd say the North American standard for this, or the Pacific Northwest standard perhaps, should apply; and I've never seen "Douglas-fir" in a publication from BC or Washington or Alaska....or the contracted form "redcedar" either.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I cited Google Scholar above, so wiki-clones are not included, only "scholarly" (professional journals and the like) sources are included. These are good sources according to WP:NC. That isn't to say that you can't make the argument, but it is unlikely to gain a consensus, since some will certainly cite Google Scholar in favor of the current title. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hadn't noticed that...but how many of those sites are British in origin? And wouldn't sites like the British Columbia Ministry of Forests (actually currently British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range but such titles tend to change with cabinet shuffles, MoF is the main one - their online library is here and has all kinds of good stuff...this glossary is interesting but doesn't have tree species listed) or United States Forest Service also qualify as official and/or scholarly?Skookum1 (talk) 18:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I just checked the MoF library search; there are 2638 entries for "Douglas fir" (w/wo capitals, the capitalized form being common) and 2109 for "Douglas-fir"...pretty much a draw I guess, in statistical terms even just within this one jurisdiction/ministry....in news media it's usually without the hyphen, however....Skookum1 (talk) 18:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For a discussion on this, see here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants/Archive14. And I think this applies as well: Argumentum_ad_populum. Eric talk 14:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion closed &mdash; no consensus for rename. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hyphen discussion 2011-12
Yeah, wha'ts with that hyphen anyway? It's definitely NOT common usage in British Columbia, where this is one of the main "commercial crops" and very very common (often capital-F Douglas Fir, too). It's getting tiresome to have to pipe Douglas fir all the time in order to represent Canadian usage in CAnadian articles, I'd venture the same issue applies to other Pacific Northwest-related articles. Is "Douglas-fir" really "most common usage" or is it just a wiki-affectation based on some reading/interpolation of this or that source?Skookum1 (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a wiki-only phenomenon: there are a number of sources that use it (see WT:WikiProject Plants/Archive14 for the last discussion). I'm neutral on whether WP should use the hyphen or not, but you may wish to bring this up at WT:WikiProject Plants if you feel strongly about it. —hike395 (talk) 04:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why Skookum1 is bringing this up again only 18 months after s/he proposed it previously at Talk:Douglas-fir. But, having been through the process, s/he should know where and how to proceed. Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The hyphen leaps out from the page as plainly incorrect to anyone who really understands how hyphens are meant to be used in English, and Skookum1 apparently has hope that we can make Wikipedia look better. Some Wikipedians have cited this use of the hyphen in books and U.S. gov't publications as arguments that it should be used here, but WP is merely promulgating the bad style and lack of professional proofreading in those publications. The hyphen is wrong here. Most of us have at one time or another proceeded on notions that we later found to be misconceptions--e.g. Journey's music is tolerable, the Pacer is a cool car--it happens to the best of us. Anyone who really wants to understand this hyphenation question can find the guidance if they look for it. People who don't want to know that they've been in error all this time will merely cite erroneous sources to support their delusion. Eric talk 16:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Skookum1 has been annoyed by this since he first saw it - and by "Western redcedar" - but has been too busy elsewhere in Wikipedia with more important problems to bother saying anything about it, but finally ona recent "stroll" through the Vancouver article decided enough was enough, and I piped it there to the normal "Douglas fir". Coming from a part of the world where both it and the Western red cedar are a core feature of the economy and the landscape - and one which is not in the United States (as if Douglas-fir and Western redcedar were the common usages there, which they're not) I decided "enough was enough".  I'm also kinda hyphen sensitive lately becaues of the ridiculous arguments put forward to support its eradication from titles which normally have it, in favour of the Almighty Endash and its typographical superiority over us backwards people who prefer English the way it was before Wikipedians came along and decided it needed re-inventing....Skookum1 (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia should just follow the system followed by entomologists where potentially misleading common names for taxa are all one word (e.g. ladybug, dragonfly). Redcedar is a botanical example of that system already. I think this page should be moved to Douglasfir. Additionally, since Pseudo-tsuga is more closely related to Larix than it is to Tsuga, while Pseudo-larix is more closely related to Tsuga than Larix, all mentions of the genus names Pseudo-tsuga and Pseudo-larix should be hyphenated to reduce confusion.70.242.143.57 (talk) 03:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The use of hyphens in genus names is governed by the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants. In article 60.9 it states that a hyphen can be used if the name is composed of two words that could be used separately, but it explicitly states that this is not the case with pseudo-. Acer pseudoplatanus is given as an example that is not to be spelled Acer pseudo-platanus. Nadiatalent (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi 70.242.143.57 and Nadiatalent; I think this section is about the common name, not the genus. At the beginning of this section, Skookum1 discusses Douglas fir . This discussion is stale and Skookum1 is no longer active. It may be appropriate to archive this discussion unless there is renewed interest in this topic. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Hyphenating Pseudotsuga and Pseudolarix is not permitted and is a separate topic. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Move "Douglas-fir" to "Pseudotsuga"
The Douglas-fir article is now an article about the genus Pseudotsuga, not about the North American species Pseudotsuga menziesii, whose article is named Coast Douglas-fir. 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) 09:23, 11 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) 18:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There really aren't very many articles with a link to Douglas-fir meaning the whole genus. The vast majority of articles linking here are about places in the NW US or SW Canada where Pseudotsuga menziesii is an important part of the landscape, and the only species of Pseudotsuga present. There are some articles about places in other parts of the world where Douglas-fir has been introduced; but P. menziesii is the only species grown on a commercial scale outside of it's native range (i.e. in New Zealand), and the only species naturalized in Great Britain. On the rare occasions when another species is being called "douglas-fir", it is almost always qualified in some way (big-cone, Mexican, Chinese, etc.). There is no qualifier for P. menziesii (Coast douglas-fir is Psuedotsuga menziesii var. menziesii).Plantdrew (talk) 21:10, 14 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: Moved to Pseudotsuga Mike Cline (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Douglas-fir → Pseudotsuga – Douglas-fir is ambiguous, can refer to either the species Pseudotsuga menziesii, or the genus Pseudotsuga as a whole. Plantdrew (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC) Per WP:FLORA, scientific names are preferred for plant article titles. Douglas-fir overwhelmingly is used to refer specifically to Pseudotsuga menziesii, which is one of the most common trees in Western North America, an important timber source exported worldwide, and introduced into other parts of the temperate world. Usage of "douglas-fir" to refer to the genus as a whole rather than specifically for P. menziesii is comparatively rare. Of the other species of Pseudotsuga, only one is native to an English-speaking country (where it would actually have an English language "common" name), and none of them are cultivated to any significant extent outside their native range or exploited for timber on a major scale. When the other species are referred to as douglas-firs, a qualifier is almost always involved (i.e. Mexican douglas-fir, big-cone douglas-fir, etc.). There is no qualified form of the name for P. menziesii which would disambiguate it; it is simply "douglas-fir".

It's clear from context that the vast majority of incoming links to this article are referring to P. menziesii, not the entire genus. It may be desirable to retain Douglas-fir as a disambiguation page, but I would suggest redirecting Douglas-fir to Pseudotsuga menziesii. P. menziesii is sufficiently important that renaming that article to a common name (either Douglas-fir or Douglas fir) may be worthwhile.Plantdrew (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I support this move. Also, I support redirecting Douglas-fir to Pseudotsuga menziesii. Thank you for the proposal. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I also support this move. WP:FLORA states
 * Scientific names are to be used as article titles in all cases except when a plant has an agricultural, horticultural, economic or cultural use that makes it more prominent in some other field than in botany; e.g. rose, apple, watermelon.
 * I would argue that "douglas-fir" is not more prominent in forestry than it is in botany. Also, WP:FLORA directs us:
 * In cases where multiple taxa share the same common name, a disambiguation page should be used.
 * Given that both the genus and M. menziesii share the Douglas-fir common name, I would convert Douglas-fir to a dab page. —hike395 (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support move as per relevant wikiproject guidelines. This type of ambiguity is difficult for a novice to understand with the current arrangement of page names, and that would be simplified by the move and disambiguation. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Support, as suggested by Curtis Clark in this sobering discussion from 2007. Will be a nice improvement to get that yucky hyphen out of the article title. Eric talk 16:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. The majority of readers searching for "Douglas-fir" are probably looking for  P. menziesii, so I hope the lemma doesn't become a DAB. As Plantdrew points out, species that grow primarily in non-English speaking countries can't really be said to have English-language common names. A DAB with only two entries would go against WP:TWODABS. Kauffner (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, we can move this article to Pseudotsuga, and have a hatnote to the species, which is already there. —hike395 (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: The hyphen is strange. My understanding is that hyphens are generally used to create compound modifiers, not compound nouns. Let's get rid of the hyphen one way or another. —BarrelProof (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Reading the previous move discussion just above, it seems that my absence was sufficient cause for at least one editor to dismiss my rationale/testimony. Barrelproof is quite right, it looks strange; to me in fact it looks French, of all things; that there's been a war on the hyphen from the MOS crowd, applying it where they say it doesn't belong and throwing mdashes around on common terms (and forbidding the use of hyphens for paired words even though they're common usages), but this one gets rationalized as "correct" is forcing against WP:COMMONNAME and propping up a false paradigm.  It's odd as "redcedar" which is also really strange looking, but even moreso would be "Western-redcedar" (the normal usage is "Western red cedar", often fully capitalized.......but for other trees also, I don't recall seeing Douglas-maple or Norway-maple or English-elm etc......this is an anomaly, backed up only by odd academic style; I mentioned BC in my first sally because this tree is (or was) one of hte mainstays of the local economy for decades; almost tempted to say "more than anywhere else on earth" but I don't know the forest stats for Washington, Oregon, Alaska etc.....the common usage "in my parts" is clearly Douglas Fir.  Here's a search for "Vancouver Sun"+"douglas fir" and while some douglas-fir listings show up, the predominant usage (other than wiki clones and pieces of academica) is "Douglas fir".  I also checked the Ministry of Forests library and yes, douglas-fir does show up; but speaking again as someone raised in an area where this tree (and the Western Red Cedar) are foundations of the economy and so entrenched in the education system, I would have been scored down for using the hyphen.  Is that OR?  LOL, yeah well to me so is the contention that the hyphen is correct.Skookum1 (talk) 08:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Whatever a select group on a Wikiproject may decide, this is definitely against 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)
 * Hold on: there's a basic contradiction here. Recall that the large majority of Douglas fir usage really refers to Pseudotsuga menziesii. So, there seems to be two rational moves of pages:
 * Assume we want an article titled Douglas fir. Then, the right thing is to move the genus article currently at Douglas-fir to Pseudotsuga, and move the species article Pseudotsuga menziesii to Douglas fir, and leave a hatnote to the genus.
 * Assume we only want scientific names as titles. Then we would move the current genus article to Pseudotsuga and make Douglas fir be a redirect to Pseudotsuga menziesii.
 * In either event we want to move this article to Pseudotsuga. Let's agree on this move, and then open a discussion at Talk:Pseudotsuga menziesii about whether to rename that article to its common name. —hike395 (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: No, that is not rational at all, and still goes against our policy (no longer just a guideline) to use the common English name. The logical thing is to move the genus article to Douglas fir, and to move the species article to Coast Douglas fir.  That takes care of both disambiguation and common name elements.  Skinsmoke (talk) 03:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a problem with your proposal: Coast Douglas fir is the variety Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii, not the species Pseudotsuga menziesii. —hike395 (talk) 11:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Using scientific names does not go against the WP:TITLE policy. The policy explicitly endorses the WP:FLORA guideline here: WP:MOSAT. WP:UCN (see footnote 3 especially) applies to commonly used names; scientific names may be more commonly used than "common names". The most commonly used name for the entire Douglas fir genus is probably Pseudotsuga, although Douglas fir is certainly the most commonly used name for the species Pseudotsuga menziesii.  Of the article title criteria (WP:CRITERIA), Douglas-fir fails Precision, Consistency and Recognizability, and an unambiguous alternative using a common name (Douglas-fir (genus)??) would be less Concise. Recognizability is achieved by having people following a link to Douglas-fir arrive at the article on the common species. Consistency is achieved by using a scientific name for a title (as most other plant articles are titled).  Titling the genus article Douglas-fir is not WP:PRECISE, and Pseudotsuga is a natural disambiguation (WP:NATURALDIS).Plantdrew (talk) 00:39, 20 February 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.