Talk:Pinaceae

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nicolepotter728. Peer reviewers: Sanjana Inala.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Defense Mechanisms and Background Information

Hi, I'm a part of college biology class that is working to help add information to Wikipedia articles. I have chosen to add information to this article and I have found some primary resources concerning defense mechanisms that Pinaceae has. I have also found a few resources on background information of the plant family, such as its lifecycle. I will include the sources below and am open any advice concerning this information!

Resources on Defense

Cherubini, P., G. Fontanta, D. Rigling, M. Dobbertin, P. Brang, and J. L. Innes. 2002. Tree-life history prior to death: two fungal root pathogens affect tree-ring growth differently. Journal of Ecology 90:839-850.

Franceschi, V. R., P. Krokene, E. Christiansen, and T. Krekling. 2005. Anatomical and chemical defenses of conifer bark against bark beetles and other pests. The New Phytologist 167:353-375.

Franceschi, V. R., P. Krokene, T. Krekling, and E. Christiansen. 2000. Phloem parenchyma cells are involved in local and distance defense response to fungal inoculation or bark-beetle attack in Norway spruce (Pinaceae). American Journal of Botany 87:314-326.

Lewinsohn, E., M. Gijzen, and R. Croteau. 1990. Defense mechanisms of conifers. Plant Physiology 96:44-49.

Zulak, K. G. and J. Bohlmann. 2010. Terpenoid biosynthesis and specialized vascular cells of conifer defense. Journal of Integrative Biology 52:86-97.

Resources on Background Information

Eckert, A. J. and B. D. Hall. 2006. Phylogeny, historical biogeography, and patterns of diversification for Pinus (Pinaceae): phylogenetic tests of fossil-based hypotheses. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 40:166-182.

Gruwez, R., O. Leroux, P. De Frenne, W. Tack, R. Viane, and K. Verheyen. 2012. Critical phases in the seed development of common juniper (Juniperus communis). Plant Biology 15:210-219.

Harcombe, P. A. 1987. Tree life tables. Bioscience 37: 557-568.

Just, T. 1948. Gymnosperms and the origin of angiosperms. Botanical Gazette 110:91-103.

Walters, D. R., D. J. Kell. 1975. Vascular plant taxonomy. Kendall/ Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa.

Nicolepotter728 (talk) 04:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Defense Mechanisms

Hello, so I have decided to only add a defense mechanisms section to the Pinaceae article. I want to add information constitutive and induced defenses mechanisms that Pinaceae have. Nicolepotter728 (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Abietaceae into this article, (Pinaceae). The content in the Abietaceae article is minimal, but as a synonym of Pinaceae, the information should be placed here instead. Loopy30 (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move, I would say move to Abietoideae and rework the page into a much needed subfamily article, which can touch on the information that is already present in the page and cover the fir subfamily in detail.--Kev min § 15:47, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Loopy30: Thoughts?--Kev min § 16:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, proposing to merge Abietaceae to the family article (Pinaceae) would have been an immediate action taken only until such time that a better choice became available. If the subfamily article (Abietoideae) was to be written, then that would be a good target for the merged material. Loopy30 (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Abietoideae and rework. We don't need to redirect no longer recognized taxa strictly on the basis of synonymy. If there is a recognized taxon with a similar circumscription, but a different rank, the no longer recognized taxon should point there (as is done with Asclepiadaceae). When a former taxon doesn't correspond well to any current circumscription, we can have an article for it (Flacourtiaceae). When a monotypic family is no longer recognized, the redirect should go still to the genus, not the synonymous family (Malesherbiaceae). I see Hippocastanaceae does need merging with Hippocastanoideae. Plantdrew (talk) 18:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Plantdrew: I put a merge tag on Hippocastanaceae over the weekend.--Kev min § 16:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew and Loopy30: Since there was no other commentary or action on this I was bold and moved the page to Abietoideae and did some quick and dirty conversion work on the prose.--Kev min § 17:14, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Future additions to this page

Since there hasn't been much work on this page in the past few months I wanted to add some potential future topics.

Conifers such as Loblolly pine and Norway spruce are huge commercial timber trees for the US and Germany specifically. Adding a bit about their economic value may increase awareness for how important these species are. Because they are so important, there are many tree improvement studies that are conducted to increase timber production and drought resistance. Research in one genus can be applied to the whole family, so I think that information could be useful here. Maybe something like a notable species portion.

A bit about conifer history would be cool. Gymnosperms are very unique and different to the classic angiosperms that people are familiar with. Conifers were some of the first trees in the world, and are also some of the oldest trees.

This article is very pine dominated. More info should be put about other conifers like larches, cedars, and spruces.

Good article, just wanted to note some possible improvements.

Vernacular names

@Chiswick Chap: - I'd still disagree with your latest edits: 'keteleeria' is in use as a vernacular name for species in the genus, see e.g. Rushforth 1987, Conifers, pp.134-136, or here or here, or here, as is cathaya, ditto, p.93. Also, douglas-fir should not be capitalised as a genus, just like fir, spruce, etc.; but as a species it should be (e.g. Bigcone Douglas-fir; as formal species names are proper nouns). But Wikipedia's inane rules on not capitalising vernacular names apply here too, just the same as they do for other vernacular names derived from people's names, like 'yulan magnolia' (after Pierre Magnol) or 'California torreya' (after John Torrey) are not capitalised here (they should of course, but that is beyond my control!). The important thing here is to have consistency and uniform treatment in the table, and not have some capitalised and others not; that looks plain messy. - MPF (talk) 21:01, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plantdrew has pointed out we already have the vernacular names in the tree. We don't need to give ourselves a double-update problem by having them in a redundant list as well, so let's drop them from the messy list. I could argue about the details -- I did check actually -- but frankly I can't be bothered. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap OK thanks! - MPF (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lockwood phylogeny

Separate query: could you add another family phylogeny based on the one I added at spruce from the Lockwood ref.? Ideally to the left or right of the Stull one, but above or below if left isn't feasible. When published phylogenies differ, I think it is important to show the differing options, but I don't know how to type them out (the one at spruce, I copied the Stull one and played around with the lines until I got it!). As well as differing in the placement of Cathaya, it also has a different placement for Pseudolarix. - MPF (talk) 00:31, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The placement of Pseudolarix seems to be the same in the cladogram in Lockwood? (temp tree in my sandbox) - Chiswick Chap (talk). In any case, Lockwood is only glancing at the Pinaceae context in passing as he studies Picea: for instance, he's only looking at one species in each group, or should I say outgroup. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap thanks! They have Pseudolarix as basal to (Abies, Keteleeria)(Nothotsuga, Tsuga), rather than to just (Nothotsuga, Tsuga). Not a huge difference perhaps, but somewhat more parsimonious, given the close structural similarity in Pseudolarix and Keteleeria cones. - MPF (talk) 09:54, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. I've noted that this breaks up Pseudolariceae. We ought to get confirmation of this from a better/more recent source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap thanks! Abieteae takes precedence over Pseudolariceae on nomenclatural priority, so Nothotsuga and Tsuga join Abies and Keteleeria in Abieteae in Lockwood's phylogeny, though they don't use tribe names. I'll look to see if there are any others; they'll probably be different yet again. - MPF (talk) 11:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]