Talk:Eucalyptus

message: There seems to be a number of pictures accumulating which are just titled "Eucalyptus"  The titles are a bit general and lack information as to where the image was taken and the species (or even common name).  I am not certain the contribution that some pictures make to actually illustrating the article when they do not have this sort of information.  It doesn't seem particularly encyclopaedic.  There is also a certain amount of duplication.  Are there any views on editing these pictures where there is duplication, or where no infomation as to place or type of tree? --AYArktos 00:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: imo, if there is some reason for there to be a photo gallery on the page, the duplicate pics up top can be moved down there; however, i'm not really sure of the purpose of the photo gallery here.  makes sense for something like the sistene chapel, maybe, but a gallery of eucalyptus trees is probably unecessary.  --Heah 01:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree (although I'm probably biased as most of these are my photos), I can't see any harm in having as many photos as possible (obviously if there are photos which are of really bad quality (eg. being of no higher res than the thumbnail) than they should go) to illustrate an article. Remember that a picture is worth a thousand words, and people should get as much out of Wikipedia as possible. --Fir0002 05:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Fir0002. I'm not too biased because only one of the pics on the article is mine (the English gunii in my garden). Say a schoolkid is doing a project on Eucalyptus and say he/she wants a pic to illustrate it. Shouldn't we give that person the widest possible choice? Certainly, low quality pics can go - Adrian Pingstone 08:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I understand your point but disagree. What if the "sun through the leaves" pic perfectly suits someones requirements for a project? In other words why would we Wikipedians prejudge what may or may not be useful to our readers? :-) (I very much agree about detailed picture descriptions). As a matter of interest that gunii was bought by me in 1985 when it was one foot high. This year it was 80 feet high. Sadly, I had it felled a few months ago because of worry over possible root damage to my house  - Adrian Pingstone 14:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illustration of this article 

message: Why take out the part about "eco-terrorists"?  The information is in the article "Tree Wars" which is in the list of links.  Of course they are not really terrorists since trees do not feel fear.Steve Dufour 03:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one objects I'll put it back.Steve Dufour 15:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW the "eco-terrorists" were unknown individuals who killed several trees on the campus of the University of California in San Diego. Steve Dufour 08:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text: They're very popular ornamental trees, especially in Souther California, which has environments which are very hospitable to eucalyptus trees.  However, they do cause problems with their habits of shedding dead branches, as people have been occasionally injured or even killed by them (a professor was nearly killed by one in CSU Dominguez Hills a few years ago).  In some places, though, they harm the environment by drawing out water from the local water tables.--Mr Fink 01:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Eco-Terrorists"

message: I took out this:  "... by some and detested by others whose views are blocked by this densely leaved and fast-growing tree."  Why?  Because the  paragraph it was in was about positive benefits of the trees to California.  The next paragraph was about the negative things.  That's really a better style, IMO.  Besides, I thought Eucalypts were famous for not being "densely leaved" and we can not read people's hearts to know that they detest something unless they say so.  Cheers.  Steve Dufour 21:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Half sentence removed

message: I noticed this tag at the bottom of this page.  I would think that this article should have the very highest importance rating, or at the very least the second highest.  I don't know what to do about it however.  It seems like there is some kind of "Aussie Importance Committee" going through the articles so I don't want to take the tag off if this would remove the article from their attention.   Have a gummy day.  Steve Dufour 15:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unknown Importance?

message: An opinion, take with a grain of salt.
Well written. Thoroughly researched, but it seems too in-depth. This is a common problem that Wikipedia suffers from, the endless addition of tangential information. This is an article on Eucalypts, and doubtless needs information on foliage. However the depth of information on just leaves seems way over the top, particularly the glossary and diagrams. Consider that the article has barely touched on other important pertinent information such as the logging/forestry industry, environmental functions, community types, taxonomy, evolutionary relationships, the grazing industry/land clearing, reproduction, physiology and so forth. 
We are now faced with a dilemma. We devote at least as much space to those and many other sub-topics as we have to leaves, in which case the artcile will be massive and I suspect unreadable as are so many Wikipedia articles. Alternatively we don't devote as much space to those topics and end up with an article that has a disproportionate amount of material devoted to leaves.
My suggestion is that the generic leaf information, ie that which is essentially glossary and the diagrams, be joined to the existing Wiki articles on leaves. We can then link to that section from here if required. 
To me having that much generic info on leaves is no different to having a dozen paragarphs on transpiration on the grounds that eucs transpire. Useful, tangentially related, but out of place and redundnat given that there are already articles on leaves and tranpiration that we cna link to. IMO all we really need is a brief mention that most eucs exhbit dimorphism, and explanation of the basic alternate-opposite transitiona and a note that there are exceptions. Listing every possible exception and a detailed description of leaf development through the life cycle seems excessive to me. Better to add that information to the leaf article as required and link from here, rather than reproducing the information here.
YMMV Ethel Aardvark 10:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The entire "leaf characteristics" section is general information about leaves, and should go. There's no need to move it to leaf, because the material is covered amply there. If after that you still think there is too much detail, then you might consider rolling it out into a daughter article - Anatomy of Eucalyptus - but personally I think that would be going a bit too far at this stage. Hesperian 12:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need all this info on leaves? 

message: Here is an image of a gum tree that I found in Heathcote National Park. I am not sure what the bulge is but maybe this could be used some where in the article.
thumb|right|300px|What is the prob with this tree
*--Ad@m.J.W.C. 04:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Adam. Hopefully someone can identify the disease. Hesperian 04:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks--Ad@m.J.W.C. 04:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I believe they call it hemoriods?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.71.120 (talk) 10:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image of Gum Tree

message: Additional sources
*Eucalyptus Plantations in Thailand - Reungchai Pousajja, Royal Forest Department (RFD), Thailand (1996)
*Thailand: Sino-Thai eucalyptus project facing opposition (2000)
* Thailand: Massive eucalyptus plantations planned (2000) 
*WANTED DEAD OR ALIVE (1991)  
Pawyilee 15:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Thailand

message: Just came across this http://www.rirdc.gov.au/pub/handbook/eucalypts.html link, its covers the usage of the flowers and foliage by the florist industries across europe, us and aust. Gnangarra 15:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  usage for flowers and foliage 

message: I'd like to see another article started in the "see also" section, with a list of famous eucalypts, such as the Burke and Wills Dig tree, the Karri trees in WA that were used as fire patrol towers and can now be climbed by tourists, the (deceased due to vandalism) "Tree of Knowledge" in Barcaldine, the "Cazneaux" tree in Flinders Ranges, and I bet there are dozens of others that people know of.  Article should have the species, approx age (or approx germination year), the reason it's famous.  BTW, should there be a  "Eucalyptus in Australian culture" section in Eucalyptus?  (Waltzing Matilda, the black stump, art by Namatjira, Heysen and others, etc.) Many of the above already exist as Wikipedia articles, so this would be a nice way of linking them. BoundaryRider (talk) 08:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea!—but I wonder what the most famous karri is in other states ;-) cygnis insignis 09:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for those links - I've started another article called List of famous Eucalypt trees and linked it in. BoundaryRider (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: How about The Centurion? Hesperian 12:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Eucalyptus regnans#Tallest specimens lists several individual trees by name, including The Centurion, Icarus Dream, and the Ferguson Tree. Hesperian 12:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thankyou, Hesperian, I've used your info to update the table.  BTW the Centurion has a Facebook site! LOL BoundaryRider (talk) 06:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  famous eucalypts 

message: Expert tag added  in order to seek verified consensus on claims made in the particular paragraph (e.g., the ubiquity, or lack thereof, of the terpenoid smogs AKA "blue mists" over the Australian landscape). Should an expert appear, I'd also request he confirm that terpenoid smogs have nowhere near enough of an atmospheric concentration as to be flammable, as well as the probable (IMO) tall-talishness of the following line from the Fire Hazard section: "bushfires can travel easily through the oil-rich air of the tree crowns" should that actually be referring to anything other than volatiles (AKA "smoke") being driven out of cooking vegetation by an advancing wildfire.--Mike18xx (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expert tag

message: At present, the top of the article has a rather ungainly, ugly appearance with the long content list on the left yielding a large expanse of empty nothing after the header between right and left sides of one's screen (this is particularly apparent on 16x9 displays). Let's work to reflow various features to eliminate the empty white space. The most expedient solution would be to find a few generalist paragraphs which could be moved to the header portion of the article.--16:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big hole of emptiness 

message: I don't remember why I'm watching this article, but I am, and while I currently have no opinon on the issue at stake in the current edit war, I would like to alert both sides that it is very likely that both editors would be blocked for 24 hours if this matter were reported to WP:AN3. I don't know why "sic" was used in a recent edit summary, but the relevant policy is WP:BURDEN which includes "". It is well known at Wikipedia that contested material has to be referenced or removed. Resolution of something at an article like this should be relatively straight forward: on this talk page, note the text proposed to be added to the article with one or more reliable sources, and briefly explain how those sources verify the text. Then wait for comments from others, and possibly ask for assistance on the talk page of a relevant wikiproject (see top of this page). Johnuniq (talk) 07:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Another POV: I dislike the use of the word explode unless someone can really prove that there is an explosion, as distinct from a rapid growth of flame. Once, I watched tall eucs burn, using binoculars at a distance of about 1 or 2 km. There was indeed a rapid growth of flame - it took only a couple of seconds for a large bright flame to develop, and maybe 5 or 10 seconds for the flame to race up a very tall tree. This is dramatic, but not literally an explosion. The article currently uses explode and gives 2 references. I looked at the references, which do use this word. (For Santos, I had to fix the link.) I don't think either of these references proves that explode is a correct word. But given the edit war, I haven't yet removed the word. Maybe the right wording is something like, "Flame can engulf ignited trees very rapidly, and the word explode is used by some authors."(refs) But so far, the only change I've made is to fix the link to Santos. Oaklandguy (talk) 08:47, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had similar experiences and I tend to agree. The key factor is that the vaporised eucalyptus oil burns very rapidly and makes it appear that the air around a tree is burning. (I guess it is.) It's not a true explosion, but obviously some observers have described it as such. How about "Eucalyptus oil, especially in its vaporised form, is highly flammable. Bushfires can travel easily through the oil-rich air of the tree crowns. Some observers have described this phenomenon as an explosion." (With the current references, of course.) HiLo48 (talk) 11:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what is wrong with the current wording. There is no such things as a "true" explosion or "literal" explosion. If you look at the explosion article, it's simply "a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases" That seems to fit perfectly the event being described here. Rapid growth of flame - 5 or 10 seconds for the flame to race up a very tall tree. That's a rapid increase in volume, with an obvious release of energy, and it's certainly done in an extreme manner. I suspect the problem is that editors are assuming that only high explosives are explosive. Of course in the days before nitroglycerine, all explosives were low explosives of this type. The combustion of gunpowder or a fuel-air mix is certainly an explosion, but I don't see how it's substantially different to what's being described here. Mark Marathon (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm quite aware of the difference between low explosives and high explosives. Seems to me, the differences in the physics of a burning euc and the burning of black powder in a gun (low explosive) are the speed of flame travel, and the degree of increase in pressure due to confinement. I still don't like to use "explode" for burning eucs. Possible exception: perhaps someone can prove that the boiling of the sap produces sufficient steam pressure to be a significant factor in the speed with which a tree burns, or the properties of the embers produced. Oaklandguy (talk) 19:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit warring 

message: Since both Australia and NZ were once connected. Or were they introduced?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.198.169 (talk) 04:34, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: New Zealand Eucalyptus were introduced.  New Zealand and Australia broke apart before Eucalyptus trees could migrate into New Zealand.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

text: And if the identity of certain Monte Bolca fossils have not been challenged since last I read about them, the genus arose along the European coast of the western Tethys Ocean during the Eocene.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aren't these trees native to [[New Zealand]] too? 

message: I suggest having a section on Eucalyptus as a plantation species that would cover all the content from North America, California, up to Pacific Islands inclusive. Most of the text deals with the use of this genus as plantations and only a small subset refers to as effects as an invasive species. This new section would then be followed by the section on Eucalyptus as an invasive species and would include the first paragraph under the current heading, which, in fact, tackles an example of the actual problem. Uncronopio. 00:20 12 Oct 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the current section on "invasive species" is almost entirely about plantations, with mention of invasiveness.
However we don't need new section on Eucalyptus as a plantation species. We already have that. If you want to create a new "ecological issues" section under "Eucalyptus as plantation species" or"Cultivation and uses" and move most of the "invasive species" text there, I would support that.Mark Marathon (talk) 22:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggest changing subheading on Eucalyptus as an invasive species

message: I removed these from the external links section since they seemed a bit useless, and repetitive of each other:
(subhead) ===Medicinal resources, eucalyptus essential oil===
* Eucalyptus
* Oleum Eucalypti, B.P. Oil of Eucalyptus
If they are returned, they should just be in the rest of the list and formatted in a way that expresses what they lead to. Huw Powell (talk) 21:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed from External Links 

message: I took frost intolerance out of this article but it has been added in again.  Both times unsourced.  I grew up in country NSW were many many different species of Eucalypts exist and are subject to heavy frost each winter.  There are many many more species throuhgout Australia that would experience the same.  I feel that this fact is wrong and would request some citations to be added to this claim.
Thanks
Jamesbushell.au (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: All of these sources agree that eucalypts in general are not very cold-tolerant: #!, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6. WolfmanSF (talk) 02:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.  I see your point, but I think you can see mine.  Eucalypts are not tolerant of the cold climates, say in North America, but are definitely tolerant of the frosts and cold weather typical to the areas where they have grown for thousands of years.  I think that needs to be incorporated into your edit somehow.  You should add the best of the references you provided too.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesbushell.au (talk • contribs) 08:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. WolfmanSF (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Great - pleasure doing wiki with you.  Ive added a little more wording in the specific frost tolerance section, I'm hoping it makes sense to you.  Cheers.  Jamesbushell.au (talk) 07:29, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frost intolerance? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Eucalyptus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060910202158/http://www.library.csustan.edu/bsantos/euctoc.htm to http://www.library.csustan.edu/bsantos/euctoc.htm
*Added archive https://archive.is/20121212024604/http://lamar.colostate.edu/~binkley/Brazileucalyptus.htm to http://lamar.colostate.edu/~binkley/Brazileucalyptus.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060910202158/http://www.library.csustan.edu/bsantos/euctoc.htm to http://www.library.csustan.edu/bsantos/euctoc.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Eucalyptus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070726134311/http://www.robertsward.com/eucmore.htm to http://www.robertsward.com/eucmore.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110811011531/http://biomass.forestguild.org/casestudies/1001/Eucalyptus.pdf to http://biomass.forestguild.org/casestudies/1001/Eucalyptus.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060708221528/http://magazine.audubon.org/incite/incite0201.html to http://magazine.audubon.org/incite/incite0201.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131202223924/http://ifgtb.icfre.gov.in/pdf_files/enewsletter_jan_mar_2010.pdf to http://ifgtb.icfre.gov.in/pdf_files/enewsletter_jan_mar_2010.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: See here: http://www.greenwin.kkl.org.il/features/land/drying_the_swamps/
"האקליפטוסים, למרבה הצער, לא עמדו בציפיות – הם שאבו את מרבית ההשקיה שלהם ממי-תהום, ולא תרמו לייבוש הביצות."
Translation: 
"Eucalyptus, unfortunately, did not work as expected - they drew most of their water from ground water, thus did not contribute to draining swamps.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amir Segev Sarusi (talk • contribs) 17:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The trees have failed in draining swampy lands 

message: The following paragraph is copied and pasted from the source. It also does not appear to refer directly to the genus.
The aridification of Australia during the mid-tertiary period (25-40 million years ago), combined with the annual penetration of tropical convection storms, and associated lightning, deep into the continental interior stimulated the gradual evolution, diversification and geographic expansion of the flammable biota. The absence of great rivers or mountain chains meant that there were no geographic barriers to check the spread of fires. From the monsoonal 'cradle', fire-promoting species expanded into higher rainfall environments, where lightning was less frequent, gradually displacing the Gondwanan rainforest from all but the most fire-sheltered habitats.
I'm removing it from the article. Any thoughts? The mayor of Yurp (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: , I would be looking for any other use of the source for contentious statements, copyvio or not. As for relevance, eucalypt and acacia are the villains in that fairy tale version of events. cygnis insignis 20:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: , sorry I'm not grasping this, are you saying the source is fringe science? The mayor of Yurp (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: , it is not an appropriate source. You have read the piece? cygnis insignis 09:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: , I have read it and doubted its reliability. Thank you for confirming my suspicions. The mayor of Yurp (talk) 09:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: , the topic is highly contentious in this country, and this reeks of apologetics for unspeakable practices that destroy the land and endanger the life and property they are supposed to protect. An editorial defence of a two hundred year war on the environment, I'd like to think this could not be published these days. cygnis insignis 09:40, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long copy and paste in Adaptation to fire section 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Ευκάλυπτος. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ευκάλυπτος" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture :File:Sawfly larvae - Pergidae sp.jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for October 8, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-10-08. Any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be made 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! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:17, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Sawfly larvae - Pergidae sp.jpg]] scheduled for POTD 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eucalyptus&curid=49871&diff=1025128035&oldid=1023786402 this looks fine to me and MOS:EDITORIAL doesn't apply. Invasive Spices (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think this phrasing was ok 

message: What type of wood? Soft , medium ,or hard 2601:192:7F:8B20:0:0:0:BBD7 (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Softwood and hardwood are formal descriptors of types of trees, more to do with the nature of the flowers and seeds of the plants, not the nature of the of wood. Clicking on those links will tell you a lot more. Medium wood has no formal meaning that I'm aware of. Eucalyptus wood is technically hardwood. When freshly cut, and still full of sap, it is generally (but not always) quite soft and easy to bruise or cut with an axe or sharp blade. Years later, when the sap has completely dried out, it can be extremely hard. In my half century old house with eucalyptus framing, it's almost pointless trying to cut into the timber with hand tools. Power tools are the only way, and even they work hard to get anywhere. A quirk of timber labelling is that balsa, from a tropical tree, commonly used in woodworking because it is very light and easy to work with, is technically a hardwood. HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type of wood ? Soft , medium, or hard? 

message: This article claims that ignited Eucalyptus trees have been known to explode. However, the 'Exploding tree' article claims that there is no evidence of trees exploding due to fire. Only one of these statements can be correct, and one of the articles should be corrected to match the other. 2601:280:C980:8BA0:D0F1:7934:5ECF:5AC4 (talk) 07:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, and what I have seen from a long, safe distance, when a decent bushfire is underway on a suitably hot day (over say 40 degrees C), eucalyptus oil vapour in the air around a tree can explode, in the same way that a petrol vapour/air mixture explodes when ignited. (Sorry Americans, but we are talking about real gases here. I don't how to reword that for your confusing use of the word "gas" for the liquid you put in cars, but when I said petrol I meant what you call gas.) So the trees don't explode, but explosions occur in the air around the trees. So we do have explosions, just not of trees. I would love to see that described in a good source. They would probably do it better than I have. HiLo48 (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:   https://doi.org/10.2307/1934459 is your friend. And especially this ref that it cites: "McLaren, A. C. 1959. Propagation of flames in Eucalyptus oil vapour-air mixtures. Australian Journal of Applied Science 10: 321-328."  That's a defunct CSIRO journal that I don't have easy access to. Zerotalk 12:47, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. Thank you. HiLo48 (talk) 21:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction with 'Exploding tree' article 

message: Often, this article doesn’t seem to be about the genus Eucalyptus per se. It is often confused about questions like what subset of Eucalypteae the common name “eucalypt” refers to.
1. In places, without clearly saying as much, is seems to treat eucalypt as the common name of Eucalyptus. That is not true in any dialect I know of, although it might have been in the nineteenth century.
2. Elsewhere, as where it claims that “Austroplatypus incompertus makes and defends its galleries exclusively inside Eucalyptus plants” (while that beetle’s article clearly and correctly notes that it also uses Corymbia species), it seems to think that Eucalyptus is equivalent to Eucalypteae. That is simply incorrect.
3. It also states that Eucalyptus, Corymbia, and Angophora together constitute the eucalypts, which is reasonable and consistent with some specialist literature. However, it disagrees with the Eucalypteae article, for example, which states that all Eucalypteae are eucalypts – also reasonable and also consistent with other specialist literature. Here the problem isn’t an error: it’s just confusing. We’re taking both sides on a tricky issue about plant names without even explaining the issue.
Some phrasing in this article can be cleaned up, but I think the root problem is that editors are using this article for material that is more appropriate to the eucalypt article. A lot of this article seems to actually refer to that somewhat wider group – of which Eucalyptus is certainly the most important genus by many measures, but just as certainly is not the only member.
Whether the common name eucalypt refers to only the three-genus group or to all seven genera of Eucalypteae is an open question. The other four genera in Eucalypteae are species-poor and relatively rare, and therefore are not often referred to in everyday English. And experts disagree. (Citations, all from botanists: splitting, lumping, and teaching the controversy (p. 40).) So it’s not clear that there is a solid basis to state that, for example, eucalypt is (or is not) synonymous with Eucalypteae and therefore, per WP:FLORATITLES, ought (or ought not) to be combined with it.
As a starting point for discussion, here is a suite of changes to address the inconsistency and confusion around names in Eucalypteae:
1. For purposes of article organization only, accept eucalypt in the broadest sense, as the vernacular term for all Eucalypteae. Therefore, following WP:FLORATITLES, merge Eucalypteae into eucalypt.
2. Move material that is about eucalypts generally to that article, particularly from Eucalyptus.
3. Add a hatnote to Eucalyptus like: “This article is about the genus Eucalyptus; for eucalypts or gum trees in general, see eucalypt.
4. Expand the taxonomy section in eucalypt, pulling in material from Angophora and elsewhere, to describe the history of Eucalypteae systematics and the issues around common names. Those who favor a narrow, three-genus sense of eucalypt, for example, should find that perspective fully and fairly articulated here, which it is not on Wikipedia today.
5. Wherever appropriate (for example, in the seven Eucalypteae genus articles), refer to the central eucalypt taxonomy section to handle questions like what exactly counts as a eucalypt. This will tend to help keep Wikipedia using reasonably consistent definitions, and, more importantly, help readers get clear information about a potentially confusing topic. Indanthrene (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion about names (Eucalypteae, Eucalyptus, and eucalypts) 

message: Almost all Australians (where these trees originated) call them gum trees, far more often than they would call them eucalyptus trees. But the only place this name is mentioned is in a sub-section called Related genera where we say "Many species, though by no means all, are known as gum trees because they exude copious kino from any break in the bark". That does not cover the common Australian use of the term at all. And when Australians see "kino", most would think of a big lottery. I propose adding "gum tree" to the lead as an alternative name, with this as a source. HiLo48 (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with adding "gum tree" to a page about "Eucalyptus" is that "gum tree" is also applied to Corymbia, Angophora and other genera of eucalypts. The common name "gum tree" is referred to in the lead to the article about eucalypts. By all means, add the reference to that article. Gderrin (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: But most Australians call eucalyptus trees gum trees. They are not aware of the distinction you mention. HiLo48 (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry. A more complete explanation. Plants in the genera Eucalyptus, Corymbia, Angophora, Stockwellia (etc.) are all "gum trees" (as explained in the lead paragraph of Eucalypt and further explained in taxonomy). Your proposal would be like adding "also known as dog" in the article about German Shepherd, since there are many other breeds of dog apart from German Shepherds. "German Shepherd" ≠ "dog" and "Eucalyptus" ≠ "gum tree". German Shepherds are just one kind of dog, and "Eucalyptus" is (are?) just one kind of gum tree. Most Australians call eucalyptus trees, corymbia trees, angophora trees (etc.) "gum trees". Thanks for your suggestion. Happy to discuss it further here or on my Talk Page. Gderrin (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  That may be true, but we wouldn't write an article on German Shepherds without mentioning "dog". The solution is to devise wording that reports the facts in a correct way, such as "Eucalyptus trees are one of the genera commonly known as 'gum trees' in Australia". Or something like that, with a source. Zerotalk 04:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gum trees