This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
I believe the taxobox image should show as much of the organism represented as possible. In addition, documentation of identification is important as well. Replacing an image of Morton Arboretum accessions with an undocumented closeup of a cone is replacing complete information with narrowly-focused uncertainty. Nickrz (talk) 19:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. However, the individual in my photograph is well-documented. Its location is documented with automatically generated coordinates from a GPS position log file (46.9069°,-121.5281° WGS84 at 1630 m) and may be verified. It is growing wild in a protected and largely undisturbed National Park setting. Your photograph shows a cultivar, which, being a human-selected abnormal variant, is inevitably not typical of the species, is growing in a garden outside the range of this species, and is not suitable for a taxobox if appropriate photographs of wild individuals are available, in my opinion. Additionally, my photograph shows the cone scales and leaves that are distinguishing features of this species. Photographs of the entire tree are often not distinguishable as the discussion at Talk:Alnus glutinosa shows. My photograph has been reviewed and designated a valued image on Commons. For these reasons, I am restoring my photograph.
You reverted my entire edit despite expressing disagreement with only part. May I request that you take the time to be more selective in the future, please? Walter Siegmund(talk) 16:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Wsiegmund that Wikipedia articles at the species level should be illustrated with images of wild, non-cultivar specimens if possible. This article does need a full-tree image of a wild Callitropsis nootkatensis, but I didn't see one in the Wikimedia Commons. -- BlueCanoe (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
The current view is that Nootka cypress is at the best included in Cupressus. See the references I just added. Thus the article should be moved to Cupressus nootkatensis. Krasanen (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Are you referring to citations 6 and 7? 6 is Mao et al. 2010, which as far as I can tell is fairly agnostic on the topic of what should be in Cupressus, simply choosing to refer to "Cupressus sensu strico" (i.e., the clearly defined Old World cypress clade) and "Cupressus HCX" meaning the Hesperocyparis/Callitropsis+Xanthocyparis clade. Reference 7 is just some guy running a website, who opines that there is no way to morphologically distinguish Old World from New World "Cupressus" (but there is, see e.g. Terry et al. 2016), and that using molecular data to define a genus is an "an abstract, artificial process" that he hasn't "heard of" being used to justify genera separation (which it obviously is so used, see cryptic species). It seems this topic isn't as settled as some "Cupressus" pages portray it. Amdurbin (talk)