# Talk:Dacrydium cupressinum

There is a difference of opinion over the best name for this page, hence this note on the talk page to try to resolve it. Arguments for Rimu (tree) are that this is the English Wikipedia, and that as there is an English name for the tree, we should use it, and that this is the name by which this species is known worldwide (by people with varied interests, not just dendrologists). If there are reasons why scientific name should be chosen instead, please post them here. SP-KP 23:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

For consistency in page naming: all of the other Podocarpaceae are at scientific names (because most of them don't have English names at all). It makes nonsense of indexing in Category:Podocarpaceae to have one species listed out of order with the rest because it is indexed under its Maori name, rather than its scientific name. - MPF 10:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and move it, according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). The same should be done for the other trees in the family. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 18:53, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Fauna? But seriously, Rimu is most certainly the common name or 'English name'.  It should be under Rimu_(tree) IMO.  The overall convention ("if there is a common name, use that") should trump whatever has emerged with the other Podocarps.  Certainly most of them in NZ have common names (Rimu, Totara, Kahikatea, Tanekaha, Matai etc..)  Dougalc 08:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

We need an image of a whole tree (also need a commons cat and to move the existing pics there). Richard001 11:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that mast seeding should be described. Here is some draft content to consider, written by me but based on Dawson & Lucas (2011)
Rimu trees exhibit mast seeding, where there is a highly variable annual production of fruit. Seasons where large amounts of fruit are produced are known as "mast years". These can be irregular, with gaps of several years between mast years. The fruit of rimu is an important food source for some bird species, and mast years can have a major influence on breeding success. Rimu fruiting is particularly important for the breeding of the endangered flightless and vegetarian parrot, the kākāpō. The breeding cycle of kākāpō is 2—4 years on average and in areas with extensive rimu the breeding cycle is linked to mast years. The availability of a large quantity of fruit helps ensure that there is sufficient food available for the female to feed her chicks. Rimu fruit is high in calcium and provides an important nutrient for the kākāpō adults and chicks. Kākāpō appear to be able to anticipate a mast year, and begin breeding before there are clear signs of ripe fruit appearing. The mechanism by which kākāpō determine that a mast year is coming is unclear, but may include chemical signals in the plants that they eat, or visual identification of developing seed cones.

Dawson, John; Lucas, Rob (2011). New Zealand's Native Trees. Nelson: Potton & Burton. p. 65. ISBN 978-1-877517-01-3. LCCN 2011514943. OCLC 753583370. Wikidata Q134267346. Marshelec (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
@Marshelec: Hi, there is a kākāpō section in the article. This is really good content about it. Although, I think some content from this can incorporated to the main article because it shouldn't be as long as this in my opinion. Feel free to edit the article. Alexeyevitch(talk) 22:11, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I suggest that a comprehensive article about Rimu should include a bit more about its use as a timber.  Rimu timber was at one point, the most significant timber milled in New Zealand. [1] It was widely exploited because of its attractive colour, strength and easy processing.[2]. However, milling of native trees in "old-growth" forests on publicly-owned land became increasingly controversial from the 1970s, and was effectively ended by around 2002 with a change of government. Deforestation_in_New_Zealand#Recent_history. Trees on private land are still harvested occasionally for specialist applications in craft and furniture. Recycled rimu (typically recovered from demolition of older wooden buildings) is also popular for furniture manufacture. I suggest that most of these points are worth covering in an expanded section about use as timber._Marshelec (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions. I shall expand it. :D Alexeyevitch(talk) 03:03, 30 May 2025 (UTC)


### Dacrydium cupressinum
I have listed this article for peer review because I have been considering taking it to FAC, I am unsure yet, but it is a possibility. This article is about one of New Zealand's most iconic trees, Dacrydium cupressinum. Thanks in advance, Alexeyevitch(talk) 01:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Note to self regarding organization in the ecology section:
Birds
Animals
Insects
Flammability
Alexeyevitch(talk) 04:01, 12 June 2025 (UTC)


#### Marshelec
##### Occurrence and distribution
This source describes rimu as the most common and widely distributed of New Zealand's (native) conifers: [3] If this claim can be supported by another reliable source, it would be sufficiently important to be included in the lead, as well as in the Distribution section._Marshelec (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, James & Norton (2002) mentions this, and I added it to the section, will add to the lede once I rewrite it. Alexeyevitch(talk) 12:35, 1 June 2025 (UTC)


##### Mast seeding
Rimu trees are known for exhibiting Mast seeding with significant effects on species that feed on fruits and seeds.  The source Norton & Kellly (1988) listed in the article covers mast seeding in depth, but the term "mast seeding" does not currently appear in the text of the article. This topic merits significant coverage in the article._Marshelec (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Good observation. I have added a bit; more to come. Alexeyevitch(talk) 12:56, 1 June 2025 (UTC)


##### Canopy and regeneration
Dawson & Lucas (2011) states that mature rimu "rise as tall emergents above the main canopy". This is an important characteristic of the species, and it would be useful to more clearly describe rimu as a significant (or dominant) canopy tree in many native forest areas. The regeneration of rimu within a mature forest is also interesting and worth some content in the article. There is a useful description in this source [4], summarising the work of June (1983). The source describes how sapling trees may exist beneath the canopy for very long periods, and only become a canopy tree after disturbance allows sufficient light for them to grow to canopy height. A much earlier source about commercial harvesting also gives a good description of succession of rimu within the forest: Hutchinson, F.E. 1932: The life history of the Westland rimu stands. New Zealand Journal of Forestry 3: 54–61. [5]. Hutchison also describes the importance of rimu in commercial forestry at the time. A source from 2002 provides interesting coverage of regeneration, including the pattern of similar aged trees in canopies, resulting from infrequent but catastrophic disturbance events (extreme storms etc), where a large area of rimu is able to regenerate vigorously, leading to a stand of similar aged trees. See: [6]._Marshelec (talk) 22:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)


##### Height
Dawson & Lucas (2011) states that mature rimu ".. can be up to 35 m tall, and in rare instances up to 60 m, ...".  Salmon (1980) says " usually 20-35 m high but sometimes reaching 60 m." Other sources vary, but many indicate that 35 m is a typical height. Checking with the New Zealand Tree Register, of 23 trees listed, only 5 are above 40m in height.[7]. It may be helpful for the reader to modify descriptions of height to indicate that 35 m is a typical maximum height of mature rimu, but that there are rare instances of taller specimens._Marshelec (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Done. It is also mentioned in Franklin (1968). Alexeyevitch(talk) 01:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)


##### The lead section
I have reviewed the current lead section with reference to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and suggest several improvements:

remove the sentence beginning "D. cupressinum has a distinctive flavonoid glycoside profile". This is too technical and not sufficiently important to be included in the lead. See: MOS:INTRO
Ok. Alexeyevitch(talk) 09:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Similarly, remove the sentence beginning "D. cupressinum was first described in 1786 by Daniel Solander"
I think who named the species is sufficiently notable and should be mentioned. A lot of plant GAs and FAs mention it. Alexeyevitch(talk) 09:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Add content that describes the tree as "a tall species emerging above the main canopy" or similar.  This is a fundamental characteristic of the mature tree in native forest, and in my view is sufficiently important to be clearly stated in the lead
Done. I also added it usually grows in an erect and monopodial manner. Alexeyevitch(talk) 09:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Add brief content that describes the history of rimu being at one time the most significant timber milled in New Zealand, and its main uses.
Ok. Alexeyevitch(talk) 09:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Add brief content about the protests against logging of native forests from the 1970s, leading to the end of logging of rimu on publicly owned land in 2002 with a change in government [8].
I agree, but I think this can be mentioned later in more detail in the European culture section. I opted for before subsequent protection from logging under law. Alexeyevitch(talk) 09:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
Comment: In my view, there is an important story here, contrasting the history of rimu being at one time the most significant tree felled for its timber, with the major change in stance that came with the protection of all native forest (including rimu) on public land from 2002. I think this is sufficiently important to be included in the lead. For a considerable period in New Zealand's history, rimu was ubiquitous as a building timber and yet now the tree is mostly protected, and is a key part of the native forest remmants in many parts of the country. I would include a brief account of this "story" instead of the sentence: D. cupressinums conservation status was assessed by the IUCN Red List in 2013 as "Least Concern", and its population trend was assessed as "Stable", because this sentence masks the real story._Marshelec (talk) 07:39, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
I trimmed the James Cook part for more space about its use in New Zealand society. Of course, the story is important to mention, however, I think the conservation status is also important... Maybe the Richard Taylor tidbit should be removed? I will try to add as much about it as possible without it being too long to read comfortably, but great suggestions and progress. :-) Alexeyevitch(talk)


##### Legal protection
Some care is needed in describing the legal protection of rimu. As owner of public lands, Government no longer permits logging of native forest in the conservation estate. However, I am currently unclear about the exact legal mechanism of this protection. I will try to find out. On private land, the situation is different, and may vary by territorial area. In some territorial authority areas it may not be possible to obtain a resource consent for felling a rimu tree on private land. However, the restrictions will  vary between territorial authority, and in some cases private land owners will be able to fell rimu trees on their land. It is too sweeping to state that rimu is legally protected, if the implication is that it has legal protection everywhere - this is not the case as far as I know.Marshelec (talk) 09:30, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

I am struggling to find information about this... I cannot do anything now, but I will see. Alexeyevitch(talk) 08:45, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
@Alexeyevitch Here is a useful high level source about the protection of native forests that you could possibly cite: [9]. See also the two previous pages at this site. The history of the struggle for conservation of native forests is a long and complex story that warrants its own WP article. I may make this a medium term project. There is lots of great content about the history of protest about logging of native forests in the book published to celebrate the 100th anniversary of Forest & Bird: Force of Nature [10] Marshelec (talk) 08:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
@Alexeyevitch Here is a source about the constraints that apply to logging native forest on private land (in effect these only apply to forest on private land, since Government now does not allow any logging of native forest on publicly owned land). [11]._Marshelec (talk) 08:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. I will add it. Alexeyevitch(talk) 09:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Well, I have added a bit - sourcing for it is difficult. Alexeyevitch(talk) 12:09, 16 June 2025 (UTC)


##### Description of bark
I suggest a small expansion to the description of the bark, because the appearance is distinctive and there are interesting features. Dawson & Lucas (2011) p62 describes the pattern in the bark of mature rimu as "a series of parallel raised ridges that resemble the contour lines on a map". A photo caption on that page highlights the bumps between the ridges, describing these as lenticels  (pores found in the bark of gymnosperms that allow oxygen to enter the trunk).  The "contour-like" ridges and lenticels are also described at this webpage: [12]  A photo is available in Commons showing the raised ridges and lenticels: c:File:Rimu_bark.jpg._Marshelec (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, but I do not have access to Dawson & Lucas (2011). I added a bit about its pattern from Franklin (1968), but could you consider adding the other detail youself, please? Alexeyevitch(talk) 22:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Done. Marshelec (talk) 03:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)


#### Traumnovelle
Just a passing by comment in relations to this sentence: 'for example, the heartwood was known as: kāpara, māpara, or ngāpara. Its fruit was known as "huarangi", and the seed inside the fruit was known as "matawhanaunga".'
I don't understand why the first 3 words aren't given quotation marks but the latter 2 are. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Whoops, must have been a mistake on my part; it is fixed now. I have moved the content to the Māori section. Alexeyevitch(talk) 06:35, 2 June 2025 (UTC)


#### Dracophyllum
from which language/s are the epithets derived? Dracophyllum 09:54, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Derives from Greek. Added now. :D Alexeyevitch(talk) 11:11, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
D. cupressinum typically inhabits lowland to montane forests, it sometimes inhabits near subalpine scrub reword this to: ...forests, and sometimes near... Dracophyllum 12:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Done. Alexeyevitch(talk) 06:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Why do you discuss evolution papers but not mention the one that produces the cladogram? Dracophyllum 12:25, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Added a bit. Alexeyevitch(talk) 06:18, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
The fruits are particularly high in calcium and vitamins, kākāpō may have adapted to survive despite prolonged periods of limited access to calcium and vitamins. needs semi-colon and second calcium and vitamines to "these" or similar.
Done. Alexeyevitch(talk) 02:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
so kakapo are not a major disperser?
Not sure, mostly kererū and bellbirds are. Alexeyevitch(talk) 13:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
do we talk about ovules or cones being pollinated? in angiosperms we usually say flowers are pollinated, no?
Franklin (1968) mentions ovules, although I note that Norton et al. (1988) mentions that "The details of pollination are not well known". Alexeyevitch(talk) 05:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
"ripe seeds and receptacles" = fruit, right?
I think so... I used what the source said. Alexeyevitch(talk) 05:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
do rats go crazy during these masts or just beech masts?
Yes, they do. I might add it later though, because I think the ecology section is already pretty big. Alexeyevitch(talk) 10:53, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Added a bit. Alexeyevitch(talk) 07:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
with saplings under 10 cm (3.9 in) in diameter reaching up to 12 m (39 ft) tall. is this an averaged value? it should be clearer maybe: limited to 10 cm in diameter...
Oh, okay. Alexeyevitch(talk) 05:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Also no plant grows more radially (cambially) than vertically...
I added It grows in an erect, usually a monopodial manner Alexeyevitch(talk) 05:51, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
 In the South Island, it is uncommon, or not present, in parts of the eastern side of the island, it is almost entirely extinct on the Banks Peninsula, where only a single natural specimen remains. what does this mean?
Basically almost extinct on the Banks Peninsula, was once common, I mean that it is particularly abundant on the western side of the island, and is largely not present on the eastern side. I will rephrase this later. Alexeyevitch(talk) 13:13, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Rephrased. Alexeyevitch(talk) 06:12, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
how do deer and possums affect the tree? do they strip the leaves, eat the saplings...
Added a bit. Alexeyevitch(talk) 02:49, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
is 1200 years a theoretical limit, a record?...
Yup, I think it is a theoretical limit, according to Norton et al. 1988. Alexeyevitch(talk) 13:24, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
Isn't the compound called Laurenene, without the 1? Dracophyllum 23:40, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I think so, but the study refers to it as "lauren-1-ene". Alexeyevitch(talk) 01:23, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Its strobili, or male cones, are solitary or paired, terminal, and they are typically red or deep-orange in colour. This implies strobili are just male cones, and not cones in general. Dracophyllum 06:16, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Done. Alexeyevitch(talk) 09:00, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
The caption now implies all of the cones are red. Dracophyllum 11:49, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
I think it is better now. Alexeyevitch(talk) 20:41, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
Per Noleander below, here are some pics of Rimu conservation and furniture. Rimu floorboards are a classic feature of old NZ houses... cheers, Dracophyllum 00:45, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
Ah, cool  .. thanks for sharing! Noleander (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2025 (UTC)


#### Comments from Noleander
Is the tree grown for landscaping purposes outside New Zealand?  I searched the article and could not find any mention of that.
Not really a commonly cultivated tree. Alexeyevitch(talk) 22:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
... follow on:  It always pleases me to read when species are deliberately planted in arboretums around the world as a backup in case of a calamity. (I heard there are some California redwoods in NZ).  If there are any specimens of Dac. Cupr. in, say, Kew Gardens or whatever, that would be important to state in the article.
Ditto. If there are, it is probably very few, I think. Alexeyevitch(talk) 22:49, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
"fruit" vs "cone" - The article uses both words, but a lot of readers won't realize the relationship.  For example, the article says "described the fruit as "much prized" by the native" and "Fruiting takes over a year to fully mature and often coincides with the presence of young female cones."  I think this is really important information, and the narrative should  be spelled out for non-botanist readers. Here is my totally inaccurate and embarrassing suggestion, but it gives you a feel for what readers may want to hear: Individual rimu trees are either male or female. Both male and female have cones, but the cones are different: pollen from the male trees is carried by wind (?) to the female cones, where they become fertilized.  The female cones then gradually turn into orange-red fruits, a process which takes <n> months.  Sometimes, the fruits become mature at the same time the next series of female cones apppear.  When the fruits mature, they typically fall to the ground, but sometimes they are eaten while on the branch by ...[list animals]"  
I think the article has all the above facts in it, scattered.  But it would be much more engaging to lay readers if presented as a narrative (in addition to the existing, scattered, facts) such as above.
Interesting. Alexeyevitch(talk) 07:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Clarify:  As a native tree, D. cupressinum is protected from logging under law ... Exactly how does "native" mean it is protected? Is there a law that all native trees cannot be logged?  If so: maybe tell the reader that, at least in a footnote.
Ah, I read a New Zealand Herald article today, which states the goverment bans logging on "crown-owned land". Might add a footnote later. Alexeyevitch(talk) 11:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Conservation status: I'm confused because the InfoBox shows "Least Concern" but there is a sentence near the end that says qualifying them as "Endangered" under IUCN guidelines... which makes me think the status is "Endangered". Was it Endangered, then later changed to "Least Concern"?
Yes, "Least Concern" is the status, but I think that is Farjon's hypothesis. Alexeyevitch(talk)
Needs clarification:  However, some conservationists argue that threat assessments should focus on present and future conditions, making the classification controversial   That needs elaboration:  exactly what are the "some conservationists" suggesting?  DO they think the classification should be made more endangered?  or less endangered?  I cannot tell if they think the "future conditions" are going to threaten the tree more or???  Is their concern  related to climate change?
Farjon does not go into further detail about this. :-( I think I will mention that it is Aljos Farjon's hypothesis. Alexeyevitch(talk) 00:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Define "montane" ... most readers will not know what that word means, so perhaps link to WP article or define.
Added wikilink. Alexeyevitch(talk) 00:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Does this tree produce edible pine nuts? I guess not, since it produces fruit, which is in lieu of pine nuts.  Plus, it is not  a pine :-)
Um, well the fruit is edible. :-) Alexeyevitch(talk) 00:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
The article really, REALLY needs a photograph of a piece of furniture made from the lumber.  It sounds like it might look fantastic.
I added an image of the flooring, which is such a nice touch to the article! I will definitely photograph the furniture when I see it. :-) Alexeyevitch(talk) 11:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Speaking of rimu furniture:  website https://www.rimufurniture.co.nz/  says they sell rimu furniture: where are they getting the lumber if logging is illegal? Trees that fell down naturally?  or from trees grown outside NZ?  If rimu furniture-making is still an ongoing industry, that may be worth a mention in the article.
Well on "crown-owned land" it apparently is. Will consider mentioning it. Alexeyevitch(talk) 11:31, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Caption says: Its strobili, also known as cones, ... I'm not a botanist, but if there are male and female cones, then the word "cone" should probably never appear without a m/f qualifier, should it?  For example, a reader may look at that photo and walk up to a male D. C. tree, and wonder why the items in the photo never appear on the tree.  Using "male cone" and "female cone" (wherever it is significant) may help readers.
General comment about WP botany articles:  I've always thought that most botany articles in WP are too science-heavy. WP is supposed to be a general-purpose encyclopedia, aimed at lay readers.  I think this article, and many tree articles, could to with a bit more non-science content.  It is not an either-or proposition: the article can have both.   E.g. for this article, keep all the existing science info, but help the reader see the majesty, the beauty of the tree.  Legends, poems, songs, rituals, photos ... anything that conveys the magnificence.  The article can have both.
I agree with that sentiment... There is probably a connection between the types of plants that become high quality articles (being niche, of little significance) and this effect.... Dracophyllum 00:53, 7 June 2025 (UTC)
That's all I got.  Great article, I hope to see it in the FA nomination queue some day!   Noleander (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2025 (UTC)


#### RoySmith
There's a lot of technical terms which could do with a short in-line definition: dioecious, montane, flavonoid, glycoside, sesquiterpene, ovule, frugivory, monopodial.  That's just a sampling from the lead and first paragraph of the main text; I'll leave it to you to find more.
I am aware of MOS:NOFORCELINK, and this was brought up in my first FAC. I will try do something similar like I did with epiphyte (which means growing on another plant). Alexeyevitch(talk) 23:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
I have removed flavonoid, glycoside, sesquiterpene from the lede and made it a bit easier and more informative to understand... I will try to do the same with what I did with specific epithet (second part of the scientific name). Alexeyevitch(talk) 06:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Some of the grammar issues I mention below could well be due to regional English variants, so keep that in mind as reading this...

reaching heights of usually up to 35 metres (115 feet), but may reach up to 60 m (200 ft) tall with a stout trunk ... this is oddly worded; it sounds like it only the ones that reach 60 m have a stout trunk.
Fixed. Alexeyevitch(talk) 23:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Its bark is grey to dark-brown in colour, shedding in large, elongated, falling of in thick flakes ... something's wrong here, but I can't tell what.  Is there a missing noun after "elongated"?  Also, not clear what "falling of in thick flakes" means.
Fixed. Alexeyevitch(talk) 02:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
the wood is typically a dark-red colour I'd just say "the wood is typically dark red".
As is fine. Alexeyevitch(talk) 02:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
has an estimated lifespan of 600–800 years, although it may live as long as 1,000–1,200 years consider adding short descriptions of how these estimates were arrived at.
Done. Alexeyevitch(talk) 02:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
In adult specimens, there are fewer branches, spreading, with slender, pendulous branchlets I can't parse this sentence.
Fixed. Alexeyevitch(talk) 23:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Subadult leaves are ascending ... and is rhomboid inconsistent tense
Fixed. Alexeyevitch(talk) 23:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
Adult leaves are similar ... and are triangular in character drop the second "are"
As is fine. Alexeyevitch(talk) 02:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
As a conifer, D. cupressinum does not have flowers I think what you mean is "Like all conifers ..."
Done. Alexeyevitch(talk) 23:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
but instead has cones (strobili); male and female cones are first seen on subadult specimens I'm make that "has cones (strobili), with male and female examples first seen ...".
Done. Alexeyevitch(talk) 05:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
cones are solitary or paired, terminal, measuring 5–10 mm, and are oblong (tectangular) in character -> "cones are solitary or paired, terminal, 5–10 mm long, and oblong (tectangular) in character".
I kinda like it as is. Alexeyevitch(talk)
Its ovules are solitary and are positioned terminally I've seen this construct a few times, where you repeat the verb.  I suppose it's a matter of style, but whenever both the subject and the predicate in a clause are the same as in the previous clause, there's no need to repeat either.  Just list all the things: "Its ovules are solitary and positioned terminally".
Done. Alexeyevitch(talk) 02:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
red or deep-orange in colour, as above, no need to say "in colour"; that's implied "red or deep-orange".
I kinda like adding it. Alexeyevitch(talk) 06:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
are oval to oblong in shape similiarly here; just say "oval to oblong"; including "in shape" doesn't add any information.
Ditto. Alexeyevitch(talk) 06:18, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Fruiting takes over a year to fully mature I would have said either "Fruiting takes over a year", or "Fruit takes over a year to mature".
Done. Alexeyevitch(talk) 02:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
less fine leaves why not just "coarser leaves"?
Ok... done. Alexeyevitch(talk) 02:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
There are twelve known sesquiterpenes ... but none of which show any structural similarity I'd leave out the "but".  Or rephrase it as "... but none of these show ..."
Done. Alexeyevitch(talk) 02:31, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
(I'll pick up with Taxonomy another time)

would even climb trunks to collect up to 500–600 g (18–21 oz) of ripened fruit for a single chick every day I think you can cut the details of how much fruit per chick is collected; that would be interesting in an article about the birds, less so in an article about the tree.
Ok, removed. Alexeyevitch(talk) 06:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Its seeds are dispersed by gravity and by frugivory The last subject mentioned was "the kakapo", so "its" implicitly refers to that (clearly not the case, but that's how it parses).  So clarify that.
Reorganized. Alexeyevitch(talk) 05:53, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Its seeds are dispersed ... well-adapted to be dispersed ... the primary birds that disperse reword to be less repetitive.
Done. Alexeyevitch(talk) 07:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
feed on the fruits fleshy receptacles fruits -> fruit's
Done. Alexeyevitch(talk) 23:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
The timber has a uniform texture, it is durable and resilient "... texture; it is durable and resilient ..."
Done. Alexeyevitch(talk) 23:10, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
As a native tree, D. cupressinum is protected from logging under law this is at odds with the previous statements that it was used for timber.  I'd clarify this with something like "Although previously harvested for timber, it is now protected ..."
Done. Alexeyevitch(talk) 07:22, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
That does it for me.  Overall, I think this is in good shape.  RoySmith (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions! This will keep me busy for a while, and will tell you when I've addressed them. Alexeyevitch(talk) 21:11, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
Pretty sure all suggestions  have now been addressed. Alexeyevitch(talk) 06:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Thank you all, for the suggestions and comments. Alexeyevitch(talk) 06:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Do these really need explaining? (Particularly when they are bluelinked? MargaretRDonald (talk) 03:51, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I have made many changes. Have I made them in the wrong spot? MargaretRDonald (talk) 03:53, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

]IPNI describes the first publication of the name as invalid and in a further reference describes the plant name as being validly published in 1806. Your second date of 1803 is apparently wrong. (In this ridiculous edit war I am only trying to improve the article). MargaretRDonald (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Done. Alexeyevitch(talk) 04:44, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
The date is now correct but the words around the fact remain incorrect. In 1786, the name was published, but not validly, according to IPNI. Both POWO and IPN| give the first valid description as 1806. I believe the words I wrote, but which you reverted, tell a more appropriate story. In taxon articles, it is usual to give a reference for the synonyms in the taxonbox. It is also usual to give an online database such as POWO as a reference for both the authority and the date, and I always try to put in the name of the original publications together with links to them. The article would be much improved if these basic facts and their sources were included. You reverted the names of the original papers, and although I had found links to the original texts (in BHL), I was unable to put them in, because of your reversions. MargaretRDonald (talk) 06:18, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
Added. Thank you. The wording is better now. Alexeyevitch(talk) 06:46, 7 August 2025 (UTC)
It is, thank you. (But it remains inadequately referenced. To reference it properly, why not put it into the taxonomy section?) And could you fix the synonymy? It currently looks awful, with the font getting smaller and smaller. And it really should be referenced. (like every fact stated in Wiki.) MargaretRDonald (talk) 08:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)