Talk:Alnus glutinosa

Taxobox Image

I have reverted an undocumented specimen (image placed by someone operating anonymously at a public library computer) with an image of a documented Morton Arboretum specimen as the taxobox image for this species. I think veracity is paramount for these important pictures. Please do not revert or change image without further discussion.Nickrz (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Reverted. What makes you so convinced that people in Europe are ignorant savages incapable of identifying our own native trees? Have you no idea how offensive your actions are? The Marburg specimen is very well documented, uploaded by a well-respected Commons contributor with excellent experience, and shows the species growing wild in its native environment, which is immeasurably better than your atypical cultivated plant gowing in alien conditions in an alien country which has no relevance to the species. Kindly stop spamming your alien photos onto pages where much better native photos already exist. 84.226.67.130 (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made no such insinuations about the people of Europe, and I don't understand your vicious ad hominem attack on me. At issue is veracity, and I see none in the image you tout. The author is not identified; the specimen has no bona fides excepting your attestation, and you're acting anonymously from behind different public IP addresses each time you make your reversions. I'm assuming it's you each time; if it's not, please accept my apology for implying thus.

A status of information in a Wikipedia article should focus on verifiability. The photo I submit for taxobox use is directly verifiable to one of the premier museums of woody plants in the world, the Morton Arboretum. The photograph depicts the species for which the article is written. How is that alien or offensive? How does a photograph of the species "have no relevance to the species"? I suggest you are objecting to the location of the specimen, and I further suggest such an objection is simply a POV issue on your part and has no place in a Wikipedia article.Nickrz (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

3rd opinion - Neither of the pictures are sharp, so a new one is needed. One identified by professionals may be preferred, but is by no means required (see wp:OI). The image which provides the best and most representative image should be used. NJGW (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

4th opinion: I agree with 84.226.67.130. One could think specimens in arboretums and botanical gardens are correctly identified more likely than native specimens in the field, but this is not always the case. Arboretums and botanical gardens are full of incorrectly tagged non-native trees. Several years ago I read a book about a tree genus (maybe it was Quercus or Magnolia, I can't remember), and the book told of a study which said 40% of the specimens of the genus in botanical gardens were incorrectly tagged! One example: I saw an Alnus glutinosa tree in the Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens, and it was tagged "Alnus incana, Gray Alder", although A. glutinosa is easy to identify. I find the Marburg photo more suitable for the Taxobox because it is of a native environment. In cultivation and particularly in another continents trees have often an atypical growth form. However, in the article there is enough room for the Morton Arboretum photo as well. A suggestion for 84.226.67.130: Get a Wikipedia User Name, and your credibility is immediately much better! Krasanen (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for expressing your opinions. I defer, although I wish to state my disagreement with the logic contained therein. Why is it a tree specimen at an arboretum, a specimen examined and vetted by certified arborists at that institution, is more likely misidentified than a tree photographed with no bona fides whatever, save the photographer's word? I've heard this argument before and it makes no sense to assert that since some cultivated trees have been misidentified, all such identifications are negated. That's a straw man.

Wikipedia is thus cutting of its nose to spite its face when it comes to diagnostic images of documented plant specimens: If it's cultivated, according to your logic, it's probably atypical and not worthy of note. If it's growing somewhere other than its native range, it's probably atypical and not worthy of note. We don't care who identified it, it's probably misidentified. The primary (and sometimes only) criteria you want to use for a taxobox image is, the photographer names the plant correctly and says it's growing wild in its native range.

Nickrz (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say a specimen at an arboretum is always more likely misidentified. I meant also arboretums and botanical gardens make mistakes - more than we often imagine. Why? If you have tried to identify trees (or plants generally) in the wild and at an arboretum, you know the answer: at an arboretum there are much more possibilities. Take Alnus as an example: there are about 30 species and an arboretum with a favourable climate could have them all (or almost all). But at Germany's lowlands there is only one native Alnus species (A. glutinosa) and no naturalized Alnus species. In a botanical garden e.g. japanese A. matsumurae could be misidentified as A. glutinosa. Botanical Gardens and arboretums get seed material also from another gardens - if one makes a mistake, there is a risk the next garden doesn't check it carefully enough. However, in the case of the Morton Arboretum specimen, I don't suspect the identification: the species is naturalized in eastern US and is well known by american botanists. What is atypical, that is relative, of course: an American or Japanese gardener, who goes never in the wild, thinks perhaps that the wild specimens in Europe are atypical. I hope, that in Wikipedia the plant and animal species are natural objects more than objects for economical use. Krasanen (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

So are you saying there is zero possibility the tree in the photograph chosen for the taxobox is misidentified? If that's the case, and I defer to an expert opinion, then my objections are withdrawn. But I would also ask: how often can one make such decisive statements about specimens photographed from 50 meters, without other supporting data?

If you did not suspect my image misidentified, why did you raise this argument in the first place? As I said, I've heard this straw man argument before, generally by those convinced of the fact a cultivated specimen is always atypical or abnormal, or in some other, however ineffable, manner unworthy. Such attitude, I believe, often leads to nondescript "native" images being chosen in spite of sometimes suspect provenance.

In support of my image and documentation, the Wikimedia commons description page links to my original work, which includes detailed photographs of the bark and foliage, as well as accession tag. At the Morton Arboretum, a tag is marked with a capital "T" if the specimen has been examined and vetted by a certified arborist at the institution, for the express purpose of identity.

Nickrz (talk) 17:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Krasanen, I agree with your logic. Anon (or anyone else), could you take a sharp picture of a typical tree in the wild? Cropping the image as Bruce suggests below is also a good idea. For more tips on improving the image, check out Wikipedia:How to improve image quality. NJGW (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I might also suggest the owner of the taxobox image in question crop out some of the dead space and extraneous unrelated plants.Nickrz (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have seen thousands of A. glutinosa trees, wild and cultivated, from Finland to Iran (and even planted few trees myself), and I would say the Marburg tree is clearly A. glutinosa as we know it is in the nature of Europe. The possibility, that it is not, is not zero, of course, but I would say, it is low enough. Also the possibility, that the taxobox image in this article is incorrect, is not zero: the image is of low resolution and the trees could be Fitzroya cupressoides, Cryptomeria japonica or Taiwania cryptomerioides in their natural environment in Chile, Japan and Taiwan. So, would a small specimen in Kew Gardens be more appropriate for that taxobox? Krasanen (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course not, but you've taken to reductio ad absurdum and that argument seems purposely obtuse. It does, however, illustrate my point exactly: Wikipedia will take on faith, and present as fact, completely undocumented and possibly misidentified images in its taxoboxes. (After all, who but an expert would notice such things?) It is just such hubris that helps give this otherwise excellent encyclopedia such poor marks for veracity. Shouldn't we demand better than that? Nickrz (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

That argument seems obtuse from your american perspective. If you think the redwood cannot be misidentified, what do you say about this, this, this and this? Would small specimens in the Kew be more suitable for the taxoboxes? In my opinion not, because the current taxobox images show also a piece of the environment where the tree species occur naturally. And the Marburg image is not completely undocumented: The photographer says the tree is in Marburg, Germany, and he is located (according to the IP address) in Switzerland. We have no reason to suppose the tree is not in the nature of Central Europe, and then it is A. glutinosa. The branching pattern and the form of the nearest leaves confirm the identification. Isn't it great that Wikipedia is global, and in the community there are people who see e.g. A. glutinosa trees daily and are able to identify their local species? Krasanen (talk) 11:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Comparing giant 1000-year-old-plus redwoods ostensibly in their native range to hypothetical (tiny, by comparison, as must be by dint of age) specimens at Kew Gardens is purposely obtuse and a red herring.

2. You told me the redwood could be misidentified and I agreed with you and used that example to bolster my main argument. Ditto, I suppose, all the other examples you've just put up.

3. I suppose if you consider a user's IP address documentation then we are not talking about the same concept. If by your logic the fact a person logged onto the internet from Switzerland proves a certain picture was taken in Marburg, Germany, then I cannot argue with that.

4. I don't have any doubt Eurocentric editors would sooner die than see of one of their native trees represented by a picture taken anywhere else in the world, especially the United States, no matter how spectacular the specimen, or voluminous the documentation, or how nondescript the alternative. Just sayin'. Go in Peace.Nickrz (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

3. Of course, IP only support identification. Germany and Switzerland are neighbour countries, the same language is spoken and the countries have the same Alnus species.

4. Maybe somebody thinks so. In my mind, not Europe vs US, but rather wild vs cultivated. Krasanen (talk) 12:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

navy blue buds

Some years ago I had two Alnus glutinosa growing in my garden at Pontypridd, Wales, identical in leaf-shape, etc., and both I believe collected locally from the wild. Every spring, one had burgundy brown buds, while the other was always a dull navy blue. I have been unable to find in any sources the reason for the variant colour. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.11.173.112 (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

dyes section

The dye section repeats itself in slightly different words, refers to picking buds in "March" without referring to a country or at least a hemisphere, and has no references nor enough information to replicate/test the dye process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.82.181 (talk) 09:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alnus glutinosa/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sainsf (talk · contribs) 16:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi friend! I have got a few holidays so I can spend time reviewing this splendid article. Though almost ready for GA promotion, a few suggestions:

• In Lead, "dependant" is an obsolete spelling of "dependent".
• Tree, Frankia alni, pioneer species linked twice.
• Link adventitious roots, pustules, mordant, Laplanders, MRSA
• In taxonomy - as one of two varieties of alder Please mention the other variety as well.
• I think names of countries should be linked in "Distribution and habitat".
• It is naturalised in the Azores. Explain naturalised.
• The common alder is susceptible to Phytophthora alni, a recently evolved species of oomycete plant pathogen probably of hybrid origin. This disease is causing extensive mortality in some parts of Europe Which disease? You only say about a species P. alni, I guess it is a disease caused by it but you have forgotten to exactly name it.
• What is coppice-wood?
• Extracts from the seeds of the common alder have been found to be active against all the eight pathogenic bacteria against which they were tested,... These results suggest that the seeds could be further investigated for use in the development of possible anti-MRSA drugs. You should mention from the beginning that you are referring to a study.
• Perhaps "invasiveness" should be a subheading under "Ecological relationships".

That's all. Awaiting your replies. Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 16:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking on this review. I think I have dealt with all the points you raised. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

All other things are OK for GA promotion, but take note of the citing formats in the article. I just corrected one as an example (see this edit). I don't give much attention to these things in GAN, but it is an issue that is frequently raised in FAC. Nevertheless, I must reward your efforts; so congrats for your new GA! Sainsf <^>_{Talk all words} 03:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Why this redundancy?

The article says This nitrogen-fixing bacterium absorbs nitrogen from the air and fixes it in a form available to the tree. Is redundant. The same information could be conveyed by:

• This is a nitrogen-fixing bacterium. OR
• This bacterium absorbs nitrogen from the air and fixes it in a form available to the tree.

I am asking this rather than changing directly, because this kind of formulation is rather common in the English wikipedia. Is there a recommendation in this regard? It seems to me that the formulation is motivated by a didactic urge. the writer wants the reader to learn the scientific word. but in my perception this is not the task of Wikipedia. We are rather to convey the information sought for, in an as efficient way as possible. --Ettrig (talk) 07:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is redundant. The term "nitrogen-fixing" doesn't immediately mean to the non-specialist that it absorbs nitrogen from the air. I think this kind of formulation – a scientific term followed by a gloss – is common in Wikipedia for reasons of accuracy. The scientific term has a precise meaning, which can be obtained via the wikilink, but as it is likely not to be familiar to non-scientific readers, a gloss is added, but the gloss is less precise so doesn't replace the scientific term. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alnus glutinosa. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303172157/http://www.mluv.brandenburg.de/cms/detail.php/lbm1.c.189715.de to http://www.mluv.brandenburg.de/cms/detail.php/lbm1.c.189715.de

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

deciduous / evergreen

Article doesn't say which it is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.25.156 (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)