# Talk:Larch

How to recognize trees from quite a bit away. No.1 The Larch, THE Larch. And now, no.1, The Larch, THE Larch.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.218.11.8 (talk) 03:09, June 7, 2006‎

Darn, someone beat me to it! Totnesmartin 17:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
should we have a link to Monty Python or a small part about Monty Python's larch?Casvdschee (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Even though I have no actual authority in what happens, I would enjoy to see this added. The Graceful Hobo (talk) 01:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Larch is not native to Scandinavia, so maybe Scandinavia shouldn't be mentioned in conjunction with Russia and Canada as one of the areas with immense larch forests? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.44.1.80 (talk) 12:13, April 15, 2015‎

In the graph in the "Species and Taxonomy" section, the "L. cajanderi" species redirects to the "L. gmelinii" wiki page. I searched the species on Google and they are apparently different species (with the L. cajanderi species having the common name "Kajander Larch" and the L. gmelinii having the name "Dahurian Larch") Peter Jinbin (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Not different species according to Plants of the World Online – see here; GBIF – see here; or GRIN – see here. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
@Peter Jinbin, @Peter coxhead . . . which leaves Larix gmelinii seriously paraphyletic in Stull's phylogeny. With multiple other contradictions between Stull's, and other published phylogenies (reference citations 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 in the version of the page as of today), Stull's phylogeny needs to be treated with caution: either it should be removed, or the other phylogenies similarly presented, to make it clear that Stull's is not "The [one and only acceptable] Phylogeny of Larix" as is implied at the moment.
As an aside I've noticed the same problem on several other genus pages with phylogenies cited from Stull's paper. One was removed recently from Cedrus by @Elias Ziade; I think quite properly, as it was frankly weird(!), totally different to both other published results, and expected biogeographical parsimony. The one presented at Picea is grotesque, too. While Stull's work does look reliable (in accord with other studies) for higher ranks (families, orders, etc.); but within genera, its fine tuning is dubious, to say the least. Should this one, and the one at Picea, go, too? - MPF (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)