Talk:Oak/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 14:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Untitled

I only want to add a comment to the editors...not post an edit to the web page,—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snowmanradio (talk • contribs) . — Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 4 August 2003

The images on this article look messed up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.36.56 (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2004 (UTC)

They don't appear strange to me. How are they messed up? SCHZMO ✍ 20:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Tannins

I came to this page through the "tanning" process also described on wikipedia, and wondered how tannins were historicly extracted from oak bark, and what exactly that process is called - Thanks, Florian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.42.72.45 (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2004 (UTC)

Oak tree

you never told me if this tree lives for thousands of years or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.225.236.136 (talk • contribs) .

The lifespan varies between species. Typically oaks live for 200-600 years, but the oldest Pedunculate oak, for example, is about 1500 years old. SCHZMO ✍ 11:52, 18 April 2006

Brass Screws and Oak Shelves

Boy, be careful trying to use brass screws in oak. Make sure to drill large enough pilot holes first (almost the diameter of the screws themselves) or you'll snap the screw heads right off when you try to turn the screws, even if you screw them in by hand. Trust me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.127.34.210 (talk) 09:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Untitled

This oak article doesn't tell me about how long oak wood burns and what sorts of stuff are in the sap and.....umm....stuff..I am soo dumb.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.20.143 (talk) 05:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

On oak....oak..thats well a no brainer..=P

honestly I don't get why it doesn't say in this article what kind of stuff is in the sap that makes it burn for point blank amount of time...And also why you guys are chatting about oak on an online encyclopedia...thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.20.143 (talk) 05:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

What else can we expect from our fellow humans who seem to have been absorbed by technology and forgotten about nature, then suddenly find a tree, and discuss what are trees, since they have no clue what an OAK is? Nemardent (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

How to...

I am looking for two specific pieces of information regarding trees that I am having difficulty finding:

1. Information on how to germinate tree (Oak) seeds (acorns). Maybe you could include a section on the germination process.

2. The vast listing of a given type of tree (say Oak again)...would be really nice if your experts would provide a way to differentiate (say from bark or leaf type) between Red, White and Blue and Black Oaks.

An email would really be appreciated if anyone knows this type of info

Thanks -

  1. Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a "how-to" guide. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, number 8.
  2. On List of Quercus species, there are several distinguishing features given for each section in Quercus.

--SCHZMO ✍ 20:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Height/diameter, etc.

I would like to see some information on how high oak trees grow, the diameter of their trunks, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomice (talk • contribs) 09:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I also would like to know how high these trees grow. Seems like it should be fairly typical information. Or, should I say it seems odd that there is discussion at length as to the various properties of each tree's acorn (something used to differentiate species) but nothing about the other more obvious physical property, its height, which a layman would be more likely to find interesting/useful.

--210.248.139.34 (talk) 07:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

For height information, see species descriptions. There is a list of oak species. Krasanen (talk) 11:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I know that link is in the lede section, but I also added it to the "See also" section so it would be very clear. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 08:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

oak trees cn estimated to be morethan 1000 years old — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.252.161.201 (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Fallen oak

Do we have any use for pictures of the oak that just fell over in my front yard? Actually it was a double oak which would have made a nice picture. Unfortunately we only have a few pictures before one fell over. --Metallurgist 19:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Londonderry

County Londonderry has the Oak as its symbol because "Derry" comes from the Irish for Oak - "Doire" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.200.70.203 (talk) 17:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

Why nothing will grow

I would like some idea of why nothing will grow under an oak tree. IE: grass/shrubs. Is it because of the roots, lack of sun/rain from dense over head or some organic reason. 68.85.53.4 14:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Laura W.

Oak Trees

The oak can be used as part of the common name of any of several hundred species. The oak is a decids and evergreen species. They can live in cold latitudes of the tropical Asia and Americas. Oaks have spirally arranged leaves.—preceding unsigned comment added by 72.150.218.232 (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Cultural Significance

The cultural significance section is a bit of a mess, being largely a laundry list of random items. A synthesis and rewrite is really in order. Larry Dunn (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oak versus Quercus?

It seems to me that there should be two separate articles...one for Quercus, dealing with the botanical and taxonomy stuff on the true oaks, and another for Oak dealing with cultural, historical, and ethnobotanical sorts of stuff; I am currently working on just such a split for Ash/Fraxinus.

Anyone have strong feelings on this, or can anyone point me to any pre-existing discussions of this sort of problem in dealing with cultural versus botanical issues? Note that this would help deal with Larry Dunn's issues above. --starfarmer*comm 03:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Plants that are sufficiently significant economically or culturally should be given a page describing their use, history and associations, with their common name as a page title. Example: coffee. Simultaneously, a separate page titled with the plant's scientific name should be created; this would be the place for botanical descriptions and relationships. Example: Coffea.

...so I am probably going to work on this over the next week or so.--starfarmer*comm 04:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Splitting oak and Quercus is probably necessary, given the depth of each topic. ENeville (talk) 15:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Do trees eat anything to live?

i really would like to no if the trees eat anything to live. im doing a project and need to no. my teacher told me not to come to this website because it was bad info and it sorta is. so can u tell me the habitat of oak trees. thaku ilcheak back later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.22.132 (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Cyclobalanopsis to Quercus

Somebody has written to Talk:Cyclobalanopsis:

"It is ONLY the Flora of China that treats Cyclobalanopsis as a genus. Almost all botanists incl. the ones responsible for the genus Quercus consider it a subgenus. In my opinion Wikipedia should follow the currently most common opinion and add Cyclobalanopsis as a subgenus of Quercus."

I agree on this. For example, Angiosperm Phylogeny Website (http://www.mobot.org/mobot/research/APweb/welcome.html) and any of the taxonomy databases (like http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/taxonomyhome.html/ and http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/tax_search.pl) do not support the genus Cyclobalanopsis. Krasanen (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

And my understanding is that Cyclobalanopsis is treated as subgenus also in Japan. Krasanen (talk) 06:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

TREES

I was wondering what kind od tree that you can sit under and watch water drip from it. It has leaves like an oak tree. Its not a weeping willow or willow of any type. this tree you can actually see the water drops, almost like rain drops. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.51.3.235 (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Uses

I would like to know about what are they used for as in are they used to make tables? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.235.128 (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Food Source

There are many cultures that ate acorns by boiling out the tannins and eating the nuts or grinding them into flour. This would be a very important part of the article, as well as the article on Acorns. Here are some links to start with. They are not sourced... I will come back soon and add to this article if no one else does. Just wanted to get the ball rolling.

A place to start: [1]

How it works: [2]

NittyG (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Oak wine barrels

Does the article really need so much detail about the subtle differences different types of oak barrels make to the flavour of wine? Surely that information that would be better off in an article about winemaking. 87.81.140.191 (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Average life span

What is the average life span of an oak tree? 92.149.128.113 (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

When discussing the Biological Species concept under the hybridization section, the article loses a neutral point of view and uses very biased language. The Biological Species concept is the most robust and well supported/accepted species concept.70.92.172.81 (talk) 04:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed your tag before seeing this. Have added a couple of citation needed tags to unsourced WP:OR? sentences. Vsmith (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Dead Links Gone

bpage (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hearts of Oak

The Royal Navy relied on the supply of oak trees for its ships in the Age of Sail - hence the song Heart of Oak. This is the reason that the navy's ships were sometime referred-to as 'the Wooden Walls' as they protected the country against possible invaders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.86.3 (talk) 10:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Truffles

The statement "Truffle (fungi) have symbiotic relationships with oak and beech." is all kinds of sloppy. There are hundreds of species of truffle, and while some of them do indeed have symbiotic relationships with oak, and some with beech (one does not imply the other), and others with many other types of tree. I am revising this accordingly.--Ericjs (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

No picture of a full oak tree?

I'm curious what an oak tree looks like. Is there an image of an oak tree someone can add? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.65.141 (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur. I came here specifically to see what an oak looks like and was disappointed to not find a single picture of the full tree. Glandrid (talk) 14:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
The thing with oaks is that they are quite variable in their looks. Some oaks don't even look like the "typical" oak. I think it's OK not to show it, as the article is about the genus, not a particular species. Mayor of Yurp (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The fact that there are pictures of the tree's wood and barrels made of oak to me signal that there can also be pictures of the actualy tree - any oak tree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.150.68 (talk) 06:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Section: Subgenus Cyclobalanopsis

"Flora of China treats Cyclobalanopsis as a distinct genus, but most taxonomists consider it a subgenus of Quercus."

This is a dead link and I'm unsure which page to replace it with. But from this page it seems (to a layman) that Flora of China treats Cyclobalanopsis as a subgenus of Quercus. Thanks. Spicemix (talk) 21:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

famous oaks

I have restored the section, but replaced the long and cumbersome seven sister oak text with material from the article. μηδείς (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Much improved. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Common versus scientific names

There is probably a better place to raise this, but there is marked inconsistency in Wikipedia between using common and scientific names as subject headings for biological topics. I wonder why this is not headed 'Quercus' with a re-direct from 'Oak'? I think all plants should be primarily listed under their proper names - is there any discussion on this as policy for Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.201.158.182 (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

variance of age

I have read of some in the 200 range (e.g http://www.arborday.org/treeguide/treeDetail.cfm?ID=156 California White Oak in arbor day database) but each oak specializes in different ecologies, so it varies. I read a thick book of trees that noted that breed lived a short life as Oak go, in trade it grows excellently in drought regions.

There is a famed tree that lived to about 1000 years old before a lightning storm killed it. (east coast US, "wey oak" article) One in Wales got to 1200 before storm winds killed it (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2311612/Wales-oldest-oak-tree-1-200-years-toppled-60mph-winds.html)

There is a copse in California (article from NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/05/science/05clone.html) that is either about 200 years or 13000 years, depending on your opinions on how life continues - that one clones itself.

I think the arborday database could be used somewhat, but if I were to try to make a graph of the variance by species, it would count as original research and should not be published here as first-source.

99.51.74.201 (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Starshine (yeah, I know, I'm not logged in, again.)

Oak leaf wine

Oak leaf wine is a thing, try google books. Siuenti (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Magick

The use of the word "Magick" in reference to Pre-Christian Religious Rites in Oak groves is apocrypha and misleading. In Spiritual and Religious terms the word Magic when spelled with a "k" (as in: "magick") refers, as the page the word "magick" hyperlinks to states, to "Thelema" and Alistair Crowley which are 20th Century Post-Christian Spritual Constructs, not Pre-Christian Celtic Polytheism. A rough analogy would be an explanation of a Presbyterian Synod and the hyperlink for Presbyterian Synod goes to a page describing the Catholic College of Cardinals. I would have made the change myself but the page is locked.

-Robert, Anonymous Wiki Editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.170.164 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 2 June 2014

Changed the word to magic and pipe link to Magic (paranormal). Vsmith (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

B-Class criteria checklist

The following checklist is posted with the intent of determining whether this article meets the six B-Class criteria:

References

Is the article is suitably referenced, with inline citations? Does it have has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged?

Scope

Does the article reasonably cover the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies? Does it contain a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing?

Layout and organization

Does the article has a defined structure? Is the content organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind?

Well written

Is the article reasonably well-written? Does the prose contain no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly?

Supporting materials

Does the article contain supporting materials where appropriate? Illustrations? Diagrams? Infobox?

Understandable

Does the article present its content in an appropriately understandable way? Is it is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible? Does the article incorrectly assume unnecessary technical background OR are technical terms explained or avoided where possible.

Input anyone?

  Bfpage |leave a message  02:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Oak. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Classification chapter is outdated and lacks sources

The shown classification is a mix of various not referenced sources/local traditions, probably the sources should be added.


Subgenus Quercus vs. subgenus Cylcobalanopsis (as circumscribed in the article, followed by Flora of North America and Flora of China) Ørsted AS. 1866–1867. Bidrag til egeslægtens systematik. Videnskabelige Meddelelser fra den naturhistoriske Forening i Kjöbenhavn 28:11–88.

The floras refer to second-most recent classification as main basis
Nixon KC. 1993. Infrageneric classification of Quercus (Fagaceae) and typification of sectional names. Annales scientifiques forestières 50:25s–34s.

Basis for European tradition
Camus A. 1936–1954. Les Chênes. Monographie du genre Quercus. Tome I–III. Paris: Paul Lechevalier.
distinguishing 2 sections in Europe: Section Cerris and Quercus

Schwarz O. 1936. Entwurf zu einem natürlichen System der Cupuliferen und der Gattung Quercus L. Notizblatt des Botanischen Garten und Museum, Berlin-Dahlem Bd. 13 Nr. 116:1–22.
Some reshuffling.

Menitsky YL. 1984. Duby Azii. Leningrad [St. Petersburg]: Nauka.
Translated into English in 2005:
Menitsky YL. 2005. Oaks of Asia. Enfield, NH: Science Publishers. recognising a third major group in (Eur-)Asia including all Ilex oaks, a natural group of evergreen oaks overlooked by Camus and Schwarz, formalised as a new subgenus Heterobalanus

Basis for American tradition (three sections Quercus, Protobalanus, Lobatae in North America)
Trelease W. 1924. The American Oaks. Washington, D.C.: Washington Government Printing Office.

This scheme summarises and compares the main systematic systems interchangeably used

Evolution of oak classification systems since Oersted (1871)

A more detailed tabulated comparison can be found in the online appendix to Denk et al (2017, full reference below), open access at figshare, in case needed for external link.

Included at the bottom of the doodle the most recent formal classification (i.e. in accordance with the rules of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature) published last year, the first to consider evidence from molecular-phylogenetic studies done in the last 20 years.

Denk T, Grimm GW, Manos PS, Deng M, Hipp AL. 2017. An updated infrageneric classification of the oaks: review of previous taxonomic schemes and synthesis of evolutionary patterns. In: Gil-Pelegrín E, Peguero-Pina JJ, and Sancho-Knapik D, eds. Oaks Physiological Ecology. Cham: Springer, p. 13–38. Free Pre-Print at https://doi.org/10.1101/168146 [major change: Ponticae and Virentes accepted as additional sections in final version]
Subgenus Quercus (New and Old World) includes fives sections: Protobalanus, Lobatae (fide Trelease), Quercus, Ponticae, Virentes (latter two traditional series/subsections raised to sections)
Subgenus Cerris (Eurasia only) includes three sections: Cerris, Ilex (fide Menitsky with two exceptions), Cyclobalanopsis (fide Oersted and all later monographs)
(Note: "Subgenus Cylcobalanopsis" had to be dropped as name due to priority rules of the International Code)


Background for the needed update: The traditional distinction in the two subgenera/genera as listed and still found in Flora of North America and China (Cyclobalanopsis vs. Quercus fide Oersted, Camus, Nixon; inclusion of section Cerris in section Quercus, Nixon 1933) has been long rejected by molecular phylogenetic studies starting with Manos PS, Doyle JJ, Nixon KC. 1999. Phylogeny, biogeography, and processes of molecular differentiation in Quercus subgenus Quercus (Fagaceae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 12:333-349. See also (selection) Manos PS, Zhou ZK, Cannon CH. 2001. Systematics of Fagaceae: Phylogenetic tests of reproductive trait evolution. International Journal of Plant Sciences 162:1361–1379. Oh S-H, Manos PS. 2008. Molecular phylogenetics and cupule evolution in Fagaceae as inferred from nuclear CRABS CLAW sequences. Taxon 57:434–451. Denk T, Grimm GW. 2010. The oaks of western Eurasia: traditional classifications and evidence from two nuclear markers. Taxon 59:351–366. Hubert F, Grimm GW, Jousselin E, Berry V, Franc A, Kremer A. 2014. Multiple nuclear genes stabilize the phylogenetic backbone of the genus Quercus. Systematics and Biodiversity 12:405–423. Hipp AL, Manos P, McVay JD, et al. (13 more authors) 2015. A phylogeny of the World's oaks. Botany 2015. Edmonton. http://2015.botanyconference.org/engine/search/index.php?func=detail&aid=1305. [publication of an all-inclusive tree including most oak species of the world is in preparation] McVay JD, Hipp AL, Manos PS. 2017. A genetic legacy of introgression confounds phylogeny and biogeography in oaks. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 284:20170300. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DasGrimm (talk • contribs) 09:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2020

Add to the "Oaks as regional and state symbols" section "Raleigh, Nc is known as the City Of Oaks." Nasubi3 (talk) 21:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. JTP (talk • contribs) 21:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: the etymology of the term "protobalanus." 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Plant Behavior 2022

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 17 June 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ahaney1 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Gonet99 (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Famous specimens - An Oak Tree

I have added the following text to this section. I believe it is one of the most famous oak trees, should be mentioned in the article, and that this is the correct place.

  • An Oak Tree is a 1973 conceptual work of art that turns "a glass of water into a full-grown oak tree without altering the accidents of the glass of water"♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 21:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Whatever the artist's intention, in an encyclopaedia article about a Genus of trees, I cannot see any rational reason for this piece of conceptual art. It may warrant a link in See also. Just imagine if we included every piece of work that could be linked to an article title. Very many articles would be overwhelmed by images, admittedly images that might be recognised as appropriate. In this case, even that recognition is missing. You were bold and added it. Another editor reverted and that is how it should remain until the issue is resolved. Please see WP:BRD for more on this. I have therefore reverted the second addition until this discussion is concluded.  Velella  Velella Talk   09:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Velella is correct that this article is about a genus of trees, not about artistic representations of trees. There are hundreds if not thousands of artists who have created works about oak trees. An Oak Tree does not belong in the section "Famous specimens" which is for actual notable oak trees, not for representations or interpretations of trees. Please do not re-add the An Oak Tree to this article, and I do not think it would improve this article to add it to the See also section. Netherzone (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
An Oak Tree is, as far as I am aware, the only artwork in which the artist claims to have created an oak tree. What is more, I believe it to be the most important oak tree art work created. There are lots of less important oak trees listed in that list- including the oak tree claimed falsely to own itself, Velella please reinstate my edit pointing out that that claim is false which you reverted.
There is an unimportant Courbet painting of an oak tree in the article - why do you oppose the inclusion of a more important work?♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 21:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
What is more, there are 3 images at the end of the article, including the Courbet mentioned before, leaving a white space for a fourth image.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 21:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oak/Archive_1&oldid=1178048893"