This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Because of their distinctive cones, Douglas-firs were finally placed in the new genus Pseudotsuga (meaning “false hemlock”) by the French botanist Carrière in 1867. The genus name has also been hyphenated as Pseudo-tsuga. [1]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Technical close to feed the BOT Mike Cline ( talk) 19:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
– The discussion about renaming Douglas-fir has brought up an interesting point. The term "Douglas fir" is well-known in consumers of forestry products, such as lumber and Christmas trees. This use of "Douglas fir" refers to trees in the species Pseudotsuga menziesii. Trees in the genus Pseudotsuga can be referred to as "Douglas firs", but that is not common outside of botany. Therefore, let us move the species article to its common name Douglas fir, and move the genus article to its scientific name Pseudotsuga. — hike395 ( talk) 19:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Discussion of double-page move starts here
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Pseudotsuga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pseudotsuga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Peter, I do not have access to the source that you restored. Does it point to a statement of the USDA's reasoning for the use of the hyphen? If the source merely points to a passage where the hyphen is used, that does not support the statement regarding some people's (erroneous) belief that a hyphen used this way constitutes a wink and a nod to indicate that the species is not a true fir. Eric talk 16:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@
Eric: there are genuinely common names, spontaneous names that were created by and used by people for the plants and animals around them that they knew and used. I find these fascinating reflections of folk history, particularly the way that some of them have been bowdlerized (e.g.
cuckoo pint). Then there are made-up, constructed names, created by organizations who wanted English names for plants and animals that didn't have them, or wanted a single "standardized" English name. I'm very happy to accept the authority of dictionaries for spontaneous names. But the authority for made-up, constructed names, just like made-up scientific names, lies with the authors and organizations.
The general approach followed by USDA and the Forest Service for "Douglas-fir" has been followed by many other bodies that made up English names, namely to use a "binomial" system, as described in one of the latest such lists of which I am aware, namely made-up English names for British fungi (see
[4]): "the majority of names in the published list are composed of two words; loosely, an adjective (for individual species) written first and a noun (for genus or distinguishing character) in second place". This often necessitates reducing two words to one (so in the BSBI list of the English names of plants,
Festuca filiformis has the made-up English name "fine-leaved sheep's-fescue", where "sheep's-fescue" is used as a single word for Festuca). As I noted above, it's easy to demonstrate that this approach has been used when making up English names over a considerable period of time and in different English-speaking countries for many different groups of organisms. "Douglas-fir" isn't a one-off example, but part of a worldwide, principled approach to constructing English names for organisms.
There are variations in the degree to which hyphens are used; older systems seem to me to use hyphens more, newer ones (particularly in the US?) more likely to run the words together. So perhaps if made up now the English name of the genus would have been "Douglasfir". There's a discussion of hyphenation in made-up English bird names
here.
In this particular case, what cannot be disputed, since it is well sourced, is (a) the use of the hyphenated form in reliable botanical sources that are definitive for information such as descriptions, distributions, etc. (b) the intention that the constructed English name should indicate clearly that the genus and species are not firs.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 10:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
The heading of this article includes three common names for the genus Pseodotsuga: Douglas fir, Douglas-fir, Douglas tree, Oregon pine. These same names are included in the article on Douglas fir species. Is this use of the same common names to designate a species and a genus based in some reliable source? -- Auró ( talk) 20:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Because of their distinctive cones, Douglas-firs were finally placed in the new genus Pseudotsuga (meaning “false hemlock”) by the French botanist Carrière in 1867. The genus name has also been hyphenated as Pseudo-tsuga. [1]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: Technical close to feed the BOT Mike Cline ( talk) 19:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
– The discussion about renaming Douglas-fir has brought up an interesting point. The term "Douglas fir" is well-known in consumers of forestry products, such as lumber and Christmas trees. This use of "Douglas fir" refers to trees in the species Pseudotsuga menziesii. Trees in the genus Pseudotsuga can be referred to as "Douglas firs", but that is not common outside of botany. Therefore, let us move the species article to its common name Douglas fir, and move the genus article to its scientific name Pseudotsuga. — hike395 ( talk) 19:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Discussion of double-page move starts here
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Pseudotsuga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:52, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pseudotsuga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
@ Peter, I do not have access to the source that you restored. Does it point to a statement of the USDA's reasoning for the use of the hyphen? If the source merely points to a passage where the hyphen is used, that does not support the statement regarding some people's (erroneous) belief that a hyphen used this way constitutes a wink and a nod to indicate that the species is not a true fir. Eric talk 16:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@
Eric: there are genuinely common names, spontaneous names that were created by and used by people for the plants and animals around them that they knew and used. I find these fascinating reflections of folk history, particularly the way that some of them have been bowdlerized (e.g.
cuckoo pint). Then there are made-up, constructed names, created by organizations who wanted English names for plants and animals that didn't have them, or wanted a single "standardized" English name. I'm very happy to accept the authority of dictionaries for spontaneous names. But the authority for made-up, constructed names, just like made-up scientific names, lies with the authors and organizations.
The general approach followed by USDA and the Forest Service for "Douglas-fir" has been followed by many other bodies that made up English names, namely to use a "binomial" system, as described in one of the latest such lists of which I am aware, namely made-up English names for British fungi (see
[4]): "the majority of names in the published list are composed of two words; loosely, an adjective (for individual species) written first and a noun (for genus or distinguishing character) in second place". This often necessitates reducing two words to one (so in the BSBI list of the English names of plants,
Festuca filiformis has the made-up English name "fine-leaved sheep's-fescue", where "sheep's-fescue" is used as a single word for Festuca). As I noted above, it's easy to demonstrate that this approach has been used when making up English names over a considerable period of time and in different English-speaking countries for many different groups of organisms. "Douglas-fir" isn't a one-off example, but part of a worldwide, principled approach to constructing English names for organisms.
There are variations in the degree to which hyphens are used; older systems seem to me to use hyphens more, newer ones (particularly in the US?) more likely to run the words together. So perhaps if made up now the English name of the genus would have been "Douglasfir". There's a discussion of hyphenation in made-up English bird names
here.
In this particular case, what cannot be disputed, since it is well sourced, is (a) the use of the hyphenated form in reliable botanical sources that are definitive for information such as descriptions, distributions, etc. (b) the intention that the constructed English name should indicate clearly that the genus and species are not firs.
Peter coxhead (
talk) 10:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
The heading of this article includes three common names for the genus Pseodotsuga: Douglas fir, Douglas-fir, Douglas tree, Oregon pine. These same names are included in the article on Douglas fir species. Is this use of the same common names to designate a species and a genus based in some reliable source? -- Auró ( talk) 20:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)