Talk:Sequoiadendron giganteum

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sequoiadendron giganteum article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 12 months

Plants High‑importance

	Plants portal 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.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

California High‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Genome Section Added

The sequoia genome sequence was completed in 2020, providing new genomic insight into the species. Very exciting for purposes of conservation and restoration, and a tremendous technical achievement given the complexity of the genome -- many times bigger than that of humans. I was excited to see news coverage and peer reviewed articles on the subject which I used to research this section and submit to the main page. Guywelch2000 (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endlicher's Sequence citation - needs clarification by an expert

The link is to an out of print (?) monograph from CNPS, so I have to assume that the citation page number, quotation, and general content are correct. However, this same information was also published in 2012 in CNPS' journal Fremontia, vol. 40: "Endlicher's Sequence: The Naming of the Genus Sequoia", article by Gary D. Lowe. It might be simpler to confirm information about the etymology by using this article as a source instead.

Another source related to this topic is: https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/13111854 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xoxua (talk • contribs) 13:33, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timaru

The tree in Timaru was felled yesterday (this article says there were three trees in this location but there was only one). Schwede 66 04:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Sequoiadendron giganteum MHNT.BOT.2004.0.191 (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers

The lede claims that only 80,000 specimens survive. That is the figure for California - globally there are far more than that. Ef80 (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead now also says there are 500,000 in the UK, this is contradictory. Desertarun (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified. --Ef80 (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

800,000 in UK?

I'm hoping someone will pick this up, as I don't have the expertise. I believe the figures comparing California and the UK are wrong, from the BBC and the Guardian misunderstanding their sources.

As I understand it, the figure of 80,000 in California are for genuine giant sequoia. The figure of 500,000 trees in the UK are a mixture of a few giant sequioa and coastal redwoods, grouped under a catchall "redwoods". 2A00:23C4:27C5:C801:D55B:DD8:90DA:E8E6 (talk) 15:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is almost correct, the UK has 500,000 giant sequioa and coastal redwoods. The sources do say this and don't split up the numbers. Desertarun (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was also surprised to see the 500,000 figure in the Graun report. That's a lot of trees. The Victorians did plant quite a few, but those were mostly specimen trees in urban parks and large private estates, not large tracts in plantations. I guess we have to go with what the WP:RSs say though, until different info becomes available. --Ef80 (talk) 10:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This does need removing. It has been widely quoted that there are 500,000 Sequoiadendron giganteum and Sequoia sempervirens. They are different species, so we shouldn't be using this combined number in the article. Desertarun (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done — hike395 (talk) 13:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]