Talk:Pinus sabiniana

message: Hi there, anonymous user 82.39.129.86 - why not get yourself a username (it's free and it takes about 5 seconds) so it's easier to discuss pages?  Thanks for the commentary about the name of sabiniana/sabineana - it hasn't caught on very well yet, though - sabiniana references outnumber sabineana over 100:1 on Google.
:Got a username now - MPF
It seems a pity that "Gray Pine" rather than "Foothill Pine" is the dominant name (actually, "Digger Pine" is still the most often used, it appears) - since the tree is not obviously grey, but obviously does grow on the Foothills.  However, usage statistics agree with the edits you made, except for the Pine-Oak community where there is a 6:1 majority in favour of calling it Foothill Pine.
:Have to admit, it looks very grey to me, compared to other Californian pines! 'Gray pine' is also the oldest widely-used name (the oldest of all, 'Sabine's pine' from the Latin, is almost never used). - MPF 00:22, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: er, I think it was me! - MPF 00:22, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: comment

message: Not having the protologue at hand, it's not clear to me whether sabiniana => sabineana is correction of a typographic or orthographic error. ICBN 60.1 Ex. 1 concerns intentional spellings; sabiniana could not be corrected as a typographic error if it were intentional. It makes more sense to correct it as an orthographic error (and I have modified the article to that end), but even so, latinizing Sabine to Sabinius would result in sabiniana (cf. 60.7, 60C.2). Does anyone have a reference for the first correction to sabineana?--Curtis Clark 03:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Farjon, A. (2001). World Checklist and Bibliography of Conifers, second edition. Kew; also (2005) Pines: Drawings and Descriptions of the Genus Pinus, second edition. Brill  - MPF 09:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not having these references at hand, is there an explanation, or is the change simply made? --Curtis Clark 13:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have the 2nd ed Kew Checklist to hand (I've only got the 1998 1st ed., with the trad spelling); Pines says "the original misspelling "sabiniana" by David Douglas should be corrected under the rules of nomenclature". Farjon is a very highly respected author in matters of nomenclature, and I'd see no reason to dispute his analysis - MPF 17:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not disputing it either, absent an analysis of the protologue, but for years people spelled Eschscholzia "Eschscholtzia", thinking they were correcting a misspelling, but the rules are explicit: only typographic and orthographic errors may be corrected (the Examples include deliberate misspellings that must stand). Considering "sabiniana" to be a typographic error requires evidence that Douglas spelled it "sabineana" in other contexts. Considering it to be an orthographic error simply requires that "Sabinius" not be a latinization of Sabine's surname in common use, something much easier to substantiate.--Curtis Clark 17:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  sabineana 

message: I edited this to change the sort order on the page for the :Category:Pinus.  It had been set to alphabetize under Pine.  That might make sense for categories where there are a lot of trees and a few of them are pines; then all the pines group together.  But on the page where everything is a pine, it made more sense to alphabetize under Gray.   140.147.236.194 (talk) 13:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit to improve sort order in category Pinus 

message: I see considerable support for renaming the article to its scientific name. Labattblueboy opposes, but may have overlooked the guidance of Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of life: "In cases where there is a formal common name (e.g. birds), or when common names are well-known and reasonably unique (e.g. "Cuvier's dwarf caiman"), they should be used for article titles. Scientific names should be used otherwise." Labattblueboy's counterproposal of "Gray Pine or Digger Pine" seems to acknowledge that the common name is not reasonably unique.
The policy, WP:TITLE, states "Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources." I think that Born2cycle and Rkitko are correct that the scholarly literature, i.e., reliable sources, uses the scientific name. This is by a margin of 2 to 1. Look2See1 has added content on names used in important sources for the article. Born2cycle Look2See1 and Rkitko and I support moving the article to its scientific name, whatever that may be; please see below. Labattblueboy opposes this move, but doesn't cite policy or guidance in support of his position. Born2cycle opposes the move to P. sabineana, but has not yet expressed an opinion on P. sabiniana. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename summary

message: Please see GRIN. It uses P. sabiniana and says, "the spelling of the specific epithet agrees with Vienna ICBN Rec. 60C.2 (Sabine from "sabinus"), and thus is not correctible under Art. 60.11". This would seem to me to be a reliable source, when combined with the sources that  Born2cycle Look2See1 has compiled. I discount USDA PLANTS somewhat; it lags other similar sources. But Jepson is usually reliable and more current, in my experience. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks for the link. I should have checked GRIN. If you read the full text of 60C.2, though, there is room for interpretation ("Personal names already in Greek or Latin, or possessing a well-established latinized form"), e.g. how do you determine whether a name has a well-established latinized form? What's well-established? Regardless, I think the GRIN info is recent within the last few years and the Vienna Code is pretty young itself (2006). The text for 60C.2 is the same in the St. Louis Code (2000). If I recall correctly, User:MPF was very involved in Pinus articles and often argued for corrected orthographies. In fact, it was MPF who changed the spelling from sabiniana to sabineana in the article (diff). I'm pretty sure this is a minority view, now, and in the interim he may have changed his mind. I think sabiniana is the best bet now, since we have the reliable source GRIN to back us up. I would be happier with a few more references that discuss that as explicitly as GRIN does, though. Rkitko (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine research work Walter Siegmund and Rkitko, thank you for knowing the resource to use and determining the best species nomenclature for current usage, and also explaining the relevant Codes.---best---Look2See1 t a l k → 02:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

text: MPF was an exceptionally knowledgeable  contributor. He is greatly missed by many, I think. Unfortunately, he stopped editing on enwiki in January 2008 after another article title discussion that became somewhat acrimonious. For what its worth, it was at his suggestion that I began consulting GRIN on such matters. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific name

message: Winter 2011, Michael Taylor (co-discoverer of Hyperion) and I met a man, Frank Callahan (naturalist) in southern Oregon to look some Ponderosa Pines. On the way out of the National Forest, Frank showed us an indigenous Digger Pine about west of Merlin & Grants Pass, Oregon, a stone's throw from the Rogue River. Mdvaden (talk) 04:38, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Range includes Oregon