User talk:Krasanen

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - MPF 00:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Norway Spruce
Hi Krasanen - thanks for the information you have added to several pages! Do you have a reference for the tallest Norway Spruce? - thanks, MPF 00:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The reference for the tallest Norway Spruce
Leibundgut, H. (1982). Europäische Urwälder der Bergstufe. Verlag Paul Haupt, Bern, Stuttgart.

It is mentioned also in many Web-sites, like: http://www.baumsamen.com/pflanzen/seite.58.htm http://www.rueggerholz.ch/weihnacht/rottanne.html Krasanen 08:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Tallest trees
Hi Krasanen - I'm a little concerned about that Tasmanian Giant Trees website, as they don't give any information on their methods of measurement, or if or how they were checked and verified; the Tasmanian Forestry pdf paper does do so. What I find particularly difficult is the discrepancies between the two for measurements of some individual trees, cited as taller in the Giant Trees website than in the Forestry pdf paper. Measuring trees accurately is surprisingly difficult and very prone to over-estimation, so I tend to be extremely cautious about any claims at all where they are not accompanied by detailed information on verification; I am satisfied that the measurements cited by the Gymnosperm Database, and the Tasmanian Forestry pdf paper are so, but not the Tasmanian Giant Trees website. For further commentary (showing just how frequently trees are measured inaccurately) see e.g. here from the US Eastern Native Tree Society (sorry about the imperial figures!). What it demonstrates, is that one just cannot be too cautious or sceptical. - MPF 15:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Please take care when editing tree articles - tasmanian blue gum edit looks like vandalism - you must put edit summaries or talk page comments why you eliminate part of a legitimate article - or you will be blocked for repeated edits like that SatuSuro 01:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi SatuSuro! Sorry that I edited without putting edit summaries or talk page comments. Now the information in the "Eucalyptus globulus" page is related to only one of four subspecies of E. globulus: Eucalyptus globulus subsp. globulus. E. maidenii and E. bicostata are not in the list in the "List of Eucalyptus species" page, and therefore I drew conclusions they are considered as subspecies of E. globulus in Wikipedia. I then created a new page for subsp. globulus and moved the content from the "Eucalyptus globulus" page there. But now I see Eucalyptus pseudoglobulus is in the "List of Eucalyptus species" page, and we should perhaps add E. maidenii and E. bicostata there. So, I edited without reading Wikipedia content good enough. Sorry! Krasanen (talk) 11:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No problems - most eucalypt articles are low standard and not up to the available literature - and i am slowly trying to catch available articles to get a sense of what is in most need of attention (in matters of style and format - not actual content) - so if you are able to sort it all out from your point of view - good - but I myself have mainly literature from the 70's and 80's in hard copy - i think there a  couple of other editors around who seem to be able to extract pdfs and other material from what appears to be thing air (or government web sites perhaps) - so for the current info on the sub species on globulus - i am the last to ask or inform - sorry to have intruded on your editing! SatuSuro 11:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * For current taxonomic information there are good Plant Checklists online:


 * http://www.anbg.gov.au/chah/apc/index.html - Australian Plant Census
 * http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/floraonline.htm - Flora of New South Wales
 * http://www.flora.sa.gov.au/census.html - Electronic Flora of South Australia
 * http://www.rbg.vic.gov.au/dbpages/viclist/cd/ - A Census of the Vascular Plants of Victoria
 * http://www.tmag.tas.gov.au/Herbarium/Herbarium2.htm - Tasmanian Herbarium


 * The problem is that different herbaria have often different opinions about the status of a given taxon. In the case of E. globulus, NSW says the four taxa are distinct species, but all the others of the references above say they are subspecies of E. globulus. I suggest Wikipedia could adopt the opinion of NSW, just because it is easier (fewer articles needed), and each article could contain some mention like "some botanists consider this taxon a subspecies of E. globulus". But I think something should be done: now the four taxa are considered distinct species in Eucalyptus globulus, subspecies in Blue Gum, and List of Eucalyptus species contain E. globulus and E. pseudoglobulus but not E. bicostata and E. maidenii. In the case you think it is okay, I can make stubs for the missing three taxa and needed editing for the remaining articles. Krasanen (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a good argument to actually put the details of the differences in the main e.globulus article - that diff institutions have diff opinions needs to be mentioned SatuSuro 22:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Red Cedar move
Re: your moving Toona australis to Toona ciliata - you may wish to back that up with facts, i.e a published botanical source showing the species merge or some such. Otherwise, I can see your edits being reverted. Such is the nature of Wikipedia. Peter1968 (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Peter1968! I have already listed two botanical sources listed in Toona ciliata:


 * NSW FloraOnline by Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney. See:
 * http://plantnet.rbgsyd.nsw.gov.au/cgi-bin/NSWfl.pl?page=nswfl&lvl=sp&name=Toona~ciliata
 * In that site the current name of the Red Cedar is Toona ciliata M.Roem. and Toona australis (F.Muell.) Harms is a synonym.


 * GRIN Taxonomy for Plants by USDA, ARS, National Genetic Resources Program. See:
 * http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/taxon.pl?36753
 * Also in this site the current name is T. ciliata M.Roem., and there are 3 synonyms: Cedrela toona, Cedrela velutina, and Toona australis Harms. This site gives natural distribution: Afganistan, China, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Myanmar, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, AUSTRALIA (NSW and Queensland).


 * Other online sources, for example:


 * Australian Plant Census by Council of Heads of Australasian Herbaria. See:
 * http://www.anbg.gov.au/cgi-bin/apni?taxon_id=63392
 * Toona ciliata M.Roem. is again the correct name and Toona australis (F.Muell.) Harms is a synonym.


 * Global Biodiversity Information Facility. See:
 * http://data.gbif.org/species/13744241/
 * The correct name is Toona ciliata Roemer. Synonyms are missing but the common name is Australian Redcedar. Also the distribution map shows that Australia is included in the distributional range. (The map does not show the total range and it includes also some areas where the species is exotic.)


 * AgroForestryTree Database by World Agroforestry Centre. See:
 * http://www.worldagroforestry.org/Sea/Products/AFDbases/AF/asp/SpeciesInfo.asp?SpID=1649
 * The current name is Toona ciliata M.Roem. and there are six synonyms including Toona australis (F. Muell.) Harms. Common names are: Australian red cedar, Australian toon, Burma cedar, Burma toon, Indian cedar, Indian mahogany, Indian toon, moulmein cedar, Queensland red cedar, red cedar, toon tree, toona tree. Geographic distribution, native: Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam. Australia is missing from this list but identity of the species is clear because of the synonym T. australis and the common name Australian red cedar.


 * NCBI taxonomy database. See:
 * http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?mode=Info&id=67918&lvl=3&p=mapview&p=has_linkout&p=blast_url&p=genome_blast&lin=f&keep=1&srchmode=1&unlock
 * Toona ciliata is the correct name and Toona australis is a synonym.


 * Integrated Taxonomic Information System by Smithsonian Institution. See:
 * http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=29029
 * Toona ciliata. Taxonomic Status, Current Standing: ACCEPTED
 * Search result for Toona australis: Taxonomic Status, Current Standing: NOT ACCEPTED - SYNONYM. Krasanen (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Heritiera/Argyrodendron
The paper is Wilkie et al, Phylogenetic Relationships within the Subfamily Sterculioideae (Malvaceae/Sterculiaceae-Sterculieae) Using the Chloroplast Gene ndhF, Syst. Bot. 31(1): 160-170 (2006)

I haven't seen the paper, only the abstract, but I've extracted the sequences from GenBank and plugged and chugged them through Phylip. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Definition of temperate rainforest
Hi Krasanen. Thanks for the quick edits to Caspian Hyrcanian mixed forests and for your comment on Temperate rainforests. Looking over the Characteristics section of the Temperate Rainforest article, ocean proximity and coastal mountains really do look like they're just contributing factors to the high rainfall. Do you know of any good, general definition of a temperate rainforest? I think that high rainfall evenly distributed throughout the year (or supplemented by fog, as in parts of the North American Pacific Northwest) is reasonable. I think rainfall and temperate are important here, since there are mountain tops in the United States that get over 2,000 mm of precipitation per year, but are really covered in alpine tundra because a significant amount of precipitation falls as snow. But again a reference would be good since we're not supposed to do original research. Miguel.v (talk) 04:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I know (and I think there are) only local definitions of temperate rainforest, and these definitions differ markedly from each others. I read the Temperate rainforest article through again, and now I think the most important addition would be just that: It should be mentioned that "temperate rainforest" is quite a loose or indefinite concept, and definitions of "temperate rainforest" differ from country to country. With examples, of course. And you are right: sufficient moisture and temperate climate are the most important factors, as they appear already in the name. (And of course, that the area is covered by forest.) Other factors could be mentioned in regional chapters; for example, sufficient soil fertility is important in Australia but is probably not a limiting factor in Pacific Northwest. Krasanen (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the amount of epiphytes (including mosses and lichens) on trees could be the best indicator for "true rainforest class" moisture. Sufficient amount of rainfall is very difficult to define globally, because there are so many influencing factors: distribution of rainfall, temperature, fog, topography... But the epiphytes indicate directly there is no drought periodes as they cannot take moisture from soil. The large amount of epiphytes belongs also to many rainforest definitions. Krasanen (talk) 09:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

High Tasmanian trees
Are you aware that it is an online item? http://www.archive.org/details/eucalyptihardwoo00lewiuoft SatuSuro 08:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

refrences for largest of species
Wendell flints book "to find the biggest tree", published 2002, so a newer source. thanks for asking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradluke22 (talk • contribs) 14:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reference, that's interesting, I haven't read Flint's book. However, I don't think so long "Largest trees" list is reasonable... already 14 species. There are so many unmeasured large tree species in the world that the list becomes very imperfect and too "american". There are at least four Eucalyptus species besides Eucalyptus regnans over 180 cubic meter, in the tropics there are trees of at least 250 cubic meter. Plus Cryptomeria, Fitzroya etc. In addition, the volume of the biggest sugar pine, for example, seems to be an estimate as it is exactly 10,000 cubic feet. I think the top four list was sufficient as volume of Tane Mahuta is controversial. My opinion is the right place for it would be number three because the structure of a Kauri tree is very different from northern conifers with rather short main trunk and very large branches. Krasanen (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Lost Monarch
Lost Monarch.

Yes, a reliable source.

Trying to drag heels on posting those resources, because a few of the documents list the creeks and elevations of the trees. I think Sillett's redwood webpage at Humboldt university has a diagram listing the volume too. That may be a decent item to link to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThreeWikiteers (talk • contribs) 23:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

data from Flint's book
The problem is: I have the 1987 edition of the book, and I think that Bradluke22 is using the more up-to-date 2002 edition of the book. In the 1987 book, the superlatives appendix says Oldest Impossible to determine on a living tree. By actual ring count on a stump near the Chicago Stump, 3,126 to 3,200 years according to who counted. Muir Snag in the same grove (Converse Basin in Sequoia National Forest) may be as old or older, but an accurate ring count is not feasible

hike395 (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Little context in Eastern Leatherwood
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Eastern Leatherwood, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Eastern Leatherwood is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Eastern Leatherwood, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yellowstone old growth
I don't doubt the existence of old-growth forests in Yellowstone, I just couldn't find any numbers on their extent. In particular the Yellowstone fires of 1988, which burned thousands of square kilometers, must have had some affect on the area's old forests. I will put Yellowstone back, but without a number for now. Miguel.v (talk) 15:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Knowledge of Dipterocarpaceae
Hello, How are you? I need your help. I ask you if you could enlarge Dipterocarpaceae article making better known this group of trees in Wikipedia, adding links to "Dipterocarpaceae" and information about  "Dipterocarpaceae" existence on topics as trees articles in tropical articles or botanical or biodiversity articles. Do you know people that could be interested about Dipterocarpaceae article? They are welcome too. Thank you very much.Curritocurrito (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Tropical plants
Hello, How are you? I need your help. I thank you your help in the articles and I hope you help me again in future. I ask you: Can you find more people willing writing in tropical trees, genera and families? I ask you if you could enlarge some articles making better known this group of trees in Wikipedia, adding links to genera and families and writing information and asking people if they are interested in writing about topics as tropical trees articles, tropical forest articles or botanical or biodiversity articles. Do you know Wikipedia forums that could be interested about these type of articles? They are welcome too. I thank you very much.

I am from Spain and my mother language is not English language. Many country side areas, and Natural areas and Living beings are in Countries where population cannot collaborate with Wikipedia, but their Natural World and its highly economically valuable species are very important too in the human knowledge and developtment of the mankind. People should have information because these matters are important, not just a curiosity only. This unknow world is from Poles to ecuator, in unoccupied oceanic areas closely to Europe, in Deserts as Sahara, or whatever. But to me the main aim is to gather the abundant information disperse about living communities and living beings that have existed for millions of years because they are disappearing and in 20 years they will are not longer exist. Curritocurrito (talk) 11:50, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nothofagus
Hello Krasanen,

I agree with you about Nothofagus moorei etc. So, why not be bold and make the changes? Gderrin (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message. I look forward to a comment from Its-mrb too. Gderrin (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)