Talk:Douglas fir

Suggestion for those referring to plant diseases

A common mistake is to write as if a disease and the pathogen are the same thing. They are completely different. So sentences like "Fungi such as Laminated root-rot and shoestring root-rot can cause significant damage" is like a poke in the eye to a reader who knows better. One could substitute 'Diseases' or 'Fungal diseases' for 'Fungi' and be correct. (By the way, 'Laminated' should be lower-case. Disease names are almost universally written lower-case except when a genus name forms part of the disease name.)

A related error that is regrettably common is to refer to common and scientific names of diseases. Diseases don't have "scientific" names. Almost invariably the writer really means disease and pathogen names, respectively. Coniophora (talk) 23:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

References

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca young female cone - Keila.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for June 5, 2024. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2024-06-05. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) is an evergreen conifer species in the pine family, Pinaceae, which is native to western North America. The trees grow to a height of around 20 to 100 metres (70 to 330 feet) and commonly reach 2.4 metres (8 feet) in diameter. The largest coast Douglas firs regularly live for more than 500 years, with the oldest specimens more than 1,300 years old. The cones are pendulous and differ from true firs as they have persistent scales. The cones have distinctive long, trifid (three-pointed) bracts, which protrude prominently above each scale. The cones become tan when mature, measuring 6 to 10 centimetres (2+1⁄2 to 4 inches) long for coastal Douglas firs. This photograph shows a young female cone of the variety Pseudotsuga menziesii var. glauca (Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir), cultivated near Keila, Estonia.

Photograph credit: Ivar Leidus

Recently featured:

• HMS Malabar
• Laothoe populi
• Moissac Abbey

Uses: coffee substitute?

Certainly you can put the needles/leaves into hot water to make a flavored hot drink, but is every flavored hot drink a coffee substitute? I guess it depends on how you think about it, and maybe also on how badly you wish you had some coffee. :)

(When I put leaves in a pot with hot water, drink the resulting liquid, and throw away the wet leaves, I usually call it tea, but of course that's false terminology too unless the leaves are from Camellia sinensis.)

If people in the area were already drinking Douglas-fir-needle-water before they ever heard of coffee, I think that would at least come close to showing that this is its own thing. Then again, maybe I'm wrong. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers, I agree it seems weird and I took a look at the copy of Northwest Trees available online and it was not in that edition. The linked google books search turns up "coffee" in the text of a 2020 edition, but looking elsewhere online there does not seem to be a 2020 edition. I'm not sure what is going on there. I have taken the information out pending a better understanding of the context and the source. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. It may even be a good coffee substitute; it just seems like an odd claim that would do better with direct support, reasons, etc. Such as "it does taste like coffee" or "it has surprisingly high caffeine, for a pine tree" 🙂 TooManyFingers (talk) 05:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Douglas-fir vs Douglas fir

I was told by a biology professor that the reason why it is spelled with a hyphen in Douglas-fir is to indicate that it isn't a true fir. Other trees that have hyphens in the name are done for the same reason. If it was a true fir, it would be spelled without the hyphen as Douglas fir. So the spelling of this tree should be Douglas-fir, not Douglas fir as the article is titled.

The article states, "Despite its common names, it is not a true fir (genus Abies), spruce (genus Picea), or pine (genus Pinus)."

This document says: "It is not a 'true fir' – it has the honor of its own genus and actually belongs to the pine family." https://www.oregon.gov/odf/Documents/forestbenefits/DouglasFir.pdf

So, perhaps the wiki article should say instead: "Despite its common names, it is not a true fir (genus Abies), spruce (genus Picea), or pine (genus Pinus) though it belongs to the pine family."

I don't know enough on the topic to edit the article so I leave it to you all. Renegades Hang (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Interesting! Thanks for raising it on the talk page. Do you have a reliable source on the specific point of hyphenating or not? While I agree the source you provided backs up the claim in the article that it is not a true fir, it doesn’t specifically provide a source for why it should or shouldn’t be hyphenated and an unnamed biology professor unfortunately isn’t an independent reliable source! Ie it could be that the locations/style of that source prefers hyphenated for whatever reason. Also, do you know of any other sources that support the claim it is an honor of its own genus and actually belongs to the pine family? Whisky and more (talk) 23:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome! I guess I should have kept reading the wikipedia article because under the taxonomy section it concurs with what my professor said: "The common name is misleading since it is not a true fir, i.e., not a member of the genus Abies. For this reason, the name is often written as Douglas-fir (a name also used for the genus Pseudotsuga as a whole)." Renegades Hang (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I found it on wikipedia where it says Douglas-fir is in the pine family (Pinaceae):

Pseudotsuga /ˌsjuːdoʊˈtsuːɡə/ is a genus of evergreen coniferous trees in the family Pinaceae (subfamily Laricoideae). Common names for species in the genus include Douglas fir, Douglas-fir, Douglas tree, Oregon pine and Bigcone spruce. Renegades Hang (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

It could be purposeful or random why Douglas fir was selected as the article name. Usually we try to appropriate what is the most common usage, but sometimes there is no strong reason and it was just what an editor believed to be correct. In this case I find that the Oxford English Dictionary lists the entry without a hyphen and Google Book Ngram Viewer shows Douglas fir as more popular by a wide margin with the hyphenated variant only slowly increasing over the last 40+ years. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

See also the discussion at Talk:Pseudotsuga. I prefer the hyphen as it helps to show that it's not a fir, but the unhyphenated form does seem more common. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

The hyphen is informative and often used in wikitext. I think the article should be moved to "Douglas-fir" (currently a redirect). Articles for varieties like Rocky Mountain Douglas-fir don't even bother with the unhyphenated form. Thoughts? UpdateNerd (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree, but is this the consensus view? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Despite the fact that "Douglas fir" is more common I support moving the article to "Douglas-fir". The hyphenated form is clearer to readers and it is the form used in sources like Flora of North America. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 18:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

We discussed the name of the article in a move discussion back in 2013. Please see that discussion for pros/cons for the hyphen. Consensus can change, but if we're thinking of moving the article, we should open a formal RM and reping the discussants from 12 years ago (if any are still around) and notify WP:PLANTS. — hike395 (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

While there is always a case for using the scientific name, this seems to fall into "when a plant has an agricultural, horticultural, economic or cultural use that makes it more prominent in some other field than in botany" category. This supports the use of the English common name. Again, while a case can be made for Douglas-fir on technical grounds, the English language doesn't work that way. Douglas fir is far more common, used in various dictionaries (British and American) and taxonomic resources such as POWO and WFO (the IUCN uses the hyphen). So I think the unhyphenated common name is the proper article title for the species, unless a case can be made that the common name is also uses for the genus and is ambiguous, in which case the scientific name is appropriate. But it seems to me that the use for the genus is very rare.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd support a return to Douglas-fir, it is the spelling used by the majority of authoritative sources like Flora of North America already cited, and also USDA Plants, GRIN, Canadensys, etc. 'Most common' does not necessarily equal 'correct' or 'best' usage, and this is one such case where educated usage should rule over uneducated usage. - MPF (talk) 11:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I think the argument for "Douglas fir" over "Douglas-fir" remains the same as in 2013, because the five criteria for selecting an article title have not changed. Specifically: "Douglas fir" and "Douglas-fir" are the same for four of the five criteria, except for "naturalness". Readers of WP are far more likely to search for "Douglas fir" rather than "Douglas-fir". — hike395 (talk) 13:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

On 'Precision', Douglas-fir definitely wins; that's why the authoritative sources use it. "Douglas fir" (i.e., Abies menziesii) is inaccurate as well as imprecise. 'Consistency' was breached by the 2013 move, as all the related articles use Douglas-fir, this one alone doesn't. 'Naturalness' is very debatable; obviously a hyphen is not pronounced, the two sound the same in speech. Not using a hyphen is just sloppy writing, just the same as one very commonly sees e.g. "Red Winged Blackbird" for Red-winged Blackbird in social media: that it is common, doesn't make it right. - MPF (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

MPF: my interpretation of "precision" is different from yours, I think, and hews more closely to the definition presented in WP:PRECISION: titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that.. Precision has to do with the size of a topic that is defined by a title. If there were a tree you could point to that is a "Douglas-fir" but not a "Douglas fir", then "Douglas-fir" would be more precise (i.e., define a narrower topic). But, of course, "Douglas-fir" and "Douglas fir" refer to the same approximate topic (e.g., Pseudotsuga menziesii, or maybe other species or subspecies in Pseudotsuga). Because they define the same topic, they are equally precise.

I don't see where botanical correctness enters into the article naming criteria, except perhaps via Recognizability. Using the common name is actually a positive for an article title, which contradicts "that it is common, doesn't make it right". — hike395 (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Hike395 - 'If there were a tree you could point to that is a "Douglas-fir" but not a "Douglas fir", then "Douglas-fir" would be more precise' - yes; every single specimen of Pesudotsuga menziesii in existence is a Douglas-fir, and not a Douglas Fir (Abies sp.). - MPF (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Then what does "Douglas fir" refer to? Certainly it's used in formal writing (e.g., books, see here and papers, see here). As far as I can tell, when those writers use the term "Douglas fir", they mean exactly what you mean by "Douglas-fir". Unless there is evidence that it means something different? — hike395 (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

It is often misused for that, but it isn't clear as it can also refer to an Abies species. Douglas-fir is clear and unequivocal. - MPF (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

What evidence do we have that people actually use the term to refer to an Abies species? I'm scanning through the list of scientific papers (above) that use the term "Douglas fir", and here is what I'm finding

• "Ecological consequences of Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) cultivation" [1]
• "in stands of Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco) from age ten to age 100 year" [2]
• "The life history of Douglas Fir"..."A morphological, anatomical and phenological review of the reproductive cycle in Pseudotsuga menziesii" [3]
• "Here Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga taxifolia) reaches its best development" [4]
• "Previous studies of coastal Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii) have been inconclusive" [5]
• "Non-native Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) in Central Europe: Ecology, performance and nature conservation" [6]

Conversely, when I do a paper search for '"Douglas fir" Abies', the Abies term refers to another species (for all of the papers I've clicked on that use "Douglas fir"). I just can't find evidence of people actually using "Douglas fir" to refer to an Abies species. — hike395 (talk) 14:02, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

How many files showing Pseudotsuga menziesii have you moved from Commons:Category:Abies (or Commons:Category:Unidentified Abies) to any subcategory of Commons:Category:Pseudotsuga menziesii? I have moved plenty of them over the years. People do mistake the unhyphenated name 'Fir' as referring to an Abies, it is a real problem. Maybe not for article authors, but for the general public, very much yes. - MPF (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

It seems to me that you're changing the scope of who defines the terms:

• When a random person sees "Douglas fir", they might think it's an Abies.
• When an expert sees "Douglas-fir", they know it's Pseudotsuga menziesii and not a fir because of the hyphen.

But that's only 2 out of 4 cases, right?

• When an expert uses "Douglas fir", they also mean Pseudotsuga menziesii (from my poking around with Google Scholar, above)
• When a random person sees "Douglas-fir", do they know it must not be Abies? We have no hard evidence (AFAIK), but I would guess that a random person would go "Huh. A hyphen. Weird." and not know that the hyphen meant it wasn't a fir. I certainly didn't before I started editing this article on WP.

I think it's clear that Pseudotsuga menziesii is more precise than either "Douglas fir" or "Douglas-fir". But I don't see that the hyphen makes it a more precise topic (to either experts or random people). That's what I think, at least. — hike395 (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

First Branches can Start Higher off the Ground

The middle paragraph of "Description" contains the following sentence: "As the trees grow taller in denser forest, they lose their lower branches, such that the foliage may start as high as 34 m (110 ft) off the ground."

The other weekend I measured some old Douglas-fir with their lowest branches 45m (151ft) off the ground, on an easy-to-access trail in the Washington Cascades. It was a casual weekend and the location is very easy to access, with no deliberate attempt at finding Douglas-firs with higher first branches. Measurement was performed using laser two-point sine method (Nikon Forestry II Pro rangefinder; accuracy 1 foot). Although this assertion falls under "original research," it is independently verifiable (albeit physically - not remotely or electronically). So should I create an entry on a big tree registry and cite that page, or can the trees' existence and location be cited directly? My preference is for the former method. Thoughts and opinions appreciated.

The historical record for the Nooksack Giant has the lowest branch starting at 67m (220ft). Facial (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Facial It does fall under original research and so cannot be included in any form in Wikipedia until it is published by a reliable source. I am not sure if the big tree registry would count as reliable or not. It depends on if they rely totally on information sourced from the public or if they work to verify the measurements. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Facial @MtBotany Pretty sure I've seen published mention of considerably higher lowest branching, 45 or even 50 metres, on some individual trees; unfortunately I can't remember where I saw it. If I run into the info, I'll add it with the citation. Alternatively, publish your own measurements somewhere reputable (perhaps Monumental Trees? I'd think they'd appreciate your tree measurements), and then they can filter in here later - MPF (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@MPF Actually this would be the best course of action. If you can find the source, please go ahead and publish it. There are some hurdles before I can get my measurements to appear in an authoritative source. Facial (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@Facial will do, but I'm by no means sure of being able to relocate the citation! It could be quite a while . . . - MPF (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)