Talk:Longleaf pine

message: I'm surprised at MPF's edit, since he is normally a very good editor. But in deleting a needed addition, he was POV and discourteous. This tree is an American tree and should have American units of measurement. I noticed they were absent and added them, but also kept the metric. I am pro-metric, and hope the US will someday accept the system for all measurement, but not by ramming it down people's throats. Showing both units of measurement is NPOV; showing only metric, especially for an American species is not. Edit away, Mike; you usually are very level headed; but don't REQUIRE everyone to use your system, and ONLY your system. Pollinator 22:05, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)
:In editing, I changed quite a few of the figures to accord with the references I added (both American, both metric!) and added some new data as well. That would have left over half of the measures with no imperial, a few with, which looks silly, so I tidied the others out. I can add the imperial stuff if you think it is necessary, though it is tedious to do all the calculations. An American tree yes, but it is first and foremost a science article, so should have scientific measures in first place. - MPF 22:54, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done; I think it makes the page very cluttered and difficult to read though. - MPF 23:05, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The Longleaf pine can be found as far south as northern Florida. Thus the correction. See sources at article bottom. Noles1984 20:43, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longleaf found further south 

message: Wozniak says that the resin/sap of the southern yellow pine has a unique property that could lead to efficient heating/cooling.  Does anyone have info on this?  See   216.160.20.207
I will answer back to say that Longleaf is not regarded as being native, or having been native to Maryland.  You are thinking of loblolly pine, which is native an abundant in Maryland and parts of Delaware. 
-jdh245  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.144.226 (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melting point of southern yellow pine resin? 

message: The article says that the trees only grow to 28" in diameter, but they formerly grew to 47".  This is by no means a scientific fact.  There are physical examples of longleaf pines in the Congaree National Park that are probably 36" in diameter right off the trails.  These trees may or may not still be alive... I know that Hurricane Hugo in 1988 caused a whole lot of irreparable damage, killing trees that were over a hundred years old.  However, I do believe at least a few of these trees survived the hurricane and can be seen towering over the rest of the forest.  I know it took at least three people to wrap around the circumference of the tree, and just guessing, that's about 3' in diameter.167.7.17.3 (talk) 12:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: disputed size

message: I would edit out the incorrect writings, but this article is no longer editable by regular people.  
The restoration section contains completely wrong information which is contrary to every other piece of credible information which can be found on longleaf pine.  The article states that longleaf was not present in the North Carolina Piedmont, and that it is now present in large quantities.  Also, it is stated that this is at the expense of native species.  First, longleaf pine is not loblolly pine, which is now present in large quantities in the Piedmont. Longleaf pine is no longer abundant over most of the southeast, and the North Carolina Piedmont is no exception.  Second, longleaf was present in the Piedmont of North Carolina, but in generally limited areas around the fringe of that physiographic province.  There were and are native pines in that area, and loblolly is and was a primary species.  Large areas of loblolly are planted and harvested in plantations, and this does occur at the expense of other native hardwoods and herbaceous plants, but longleaf is not used and it is not an aggressive seeder.  Who ever wrote the incorrect information confused longleaf for loblolly, and does not realize that loblolly is a native species which was found on the piedmont prior to white settlers, however it is one which is being used in an unnatural commercial manner today.  The information found in the restoration section is incorrect, misleading, contrary, and should be removed to restore this article to some level of credibility. As it exists, the article is lying, and has no credibility.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.144.226 (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Information- incorrect, misleading and contrary. 

message: I noticed a lot of the discussion and bad information found in the article is based on a confusion between longleaf and loblolly pines. I suggest people learn to differentiate between them, and that they review the range and silviculture of them.  This article has some discrepancies based on confusing the two pine species, and the discussion further confuses them by talking about longleaf, when it is loblolly, in Maryland and the Congaree.75.171.47.169 (talk) 14:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm! I don't see any identification of which species of pine is being discussed in the cited source for the paragraphs you removed, so I agree with the removal. There may indeed be reliable sources for longleaf pines (particularly in plantations) replacing other plant communities, but such weren't cited. -- Donald Albury 16:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loblolly and Longleaf 

message: Bolding has been removed from the scientific name in the lead. But pinus palustris is the target of a redirect (as a result of the recent page move), and WP:R#ASTONISH advises, "It will often be appropriate to bold the redirected term." So, would it be appropriate to bold pinus palustris in the lead? - Donald Albury 20:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the MOS scientific names that follow a bolded common name as the title are not bolded. Pagliaccious (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

text: It's a standard formatting convention not to bold the scientific name unless it's also the actual article title. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  To bold or not to bold 

message: I have again removed the phrase, "which are the largest of any pine tree common in Florida", from the sentence "The nuts, which are the largest of any pine tree common in Florida, can be eaten raw or roasted" in the Uses section, as this article is about the species across its entire range in the Southeast, and I believe the detail comparing pine species within Florida is unnecessary and distracting detail. If it is important to discuss the use of longleaf pine nuts by Native Americans, then a reliable source addressing such use in more than passing would be appropriate. I would note, though, that in this article from the USDA on the use of the longleaf pine by Native Americans, the only mention of nuts is a comment that they were consumed by hogs brought in by non-Native American settlers. - Donald Albury 15:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nut size 

message: We should find an up to date map of its range. nhinchey (talk) 00:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: We could label it as the historic range, as it does look like the range at . Any more recent range map we can find is highly likely to be under copyright, so someone would have to create a new map representing the current range, under CC or an equivalent free license, for us to use it. - Donald Albury 02:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  range map is out of date (1971)