Talk:Acer saccharum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Acer saccharum is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Food Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

Help me identify the Sugar Maple

The notches on the leaves between the 3 lobes \|/ are shaped like the space between your forefinger and thumb \_/ , like a U.

The Norway maple has a similar leaf, so be careful. The stem of the sugar maple is red with three terminal buds. The Norway maple's buds are much larger (and purple), and the stem is more gray.

Contents

[edit] Incorrect information.

When some one who is better at editing this get to it.. please correct that this is the largest of all maples, The Oregon or bigleaf maple is also a very large maple! It grows in western Canada.

Here is my source : http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/documents/treebook/bigleafmaple.htm

Size of the sugar leaf maple : http://www.atl.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/index-e/what-e/publications-e/afcpublications-e/maritimetrees-e/sugar-maple-e.html

[edit] Merge

Anyone want to say why they thought silver and sugar maple should be merged? They are two completely different species, both with decent pages -ChristopherM 01:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree—these are definitely two distinct species. Why is there a merging suggestion? Mr.absurd 05:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Common Name

The lead sentence of any species account should take note of and provide disambiguation of any common names. This sentence should be clear and direct and to the point. Considering the fact most people reach the articles on species' epithets by redirect after researching common names, an explanation of their redirect to (perhaps) unfamiliar territory is directly in order.

Common names are notoriously variable and, well, uncommon. There are almost always local, vernacular, or colloquial expressions for certain plants or animals which others, unfamiliar with the term, will reject outright as unacceptable, if only due to their unfamiliarity. Common names mentioned in an article may be a bone of contention, but I have faith a consensus will be reached, perhaps by attrition, as has happened in the lead paragraph of this Acer saccharum article. I think we can all agree "sugar maple" is the one common name for this species, n'est ce pas?

Writing "Acer saccharum, the sugar maple is a species of maple tree" is convoluted, redundant, and explains nothing. One shouldn't seek to define one item by referencing the same item a second time.Nickrz 13:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia style is to have the Latin name first, and most common English name(s) right after. The introductory sentence should also be definitional (Wikipedia:Lead section).
If the part about common names being "notoriously variable and, well, uncommon." refers tomy removal of the A. leucoderne, A. barbatum A. nigrum, then the statement was wildly misleading. The names with "sugar" are not only not the most widespread amongst authorities, but saying that these species are "called sugar maple" is misleading. They may have alternative names that contain sugar, but they are not called "sugar maple" (The only one commonly called by the "sugar" variant is A. barbatum). This confuses the taxonomic issue (whether they are treated as subspecies or not) and the English nomenclatural issue (what English names are/should be used). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Circeus (talk • contribs) 15:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I was not object your removal of the other "common" names or the assertions acompanying them. I have no knowledge of those other maples or their common names; I leave that decision and edit to your judgement. I was clarifying my wording of the first sentence and why I believe it should be so, seeing also as it agrees with Wikipedia policy.Nickrz 16:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As for the wording of the opening sentence, "The tree species Acer saccharum is commonly known as the sugar maple" reads better to me than "Acer saccharum, the sugar maple is a species of maple tree.". Wikipedia:Lead_section says that the bolded mentions should be in the first sentence and "at the earliest natural point in the prose", which seems to me is met by either wording. Anyway, enough wikilawyering. I'd rather leave this one on The Wrong Version than discuss it further. Unless there was something other than the wording at issue. Kingdon 21:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conservation status

I have updated and corrected the "conservation status" and acquiesced the use of the reference (4) cited. Please, when insisting data is supported by reference, check to see if the reference you are citing agrees with your contention or exposition. In this case, the NatureServe website lists Acer saccharum as "G5", their designation for globally, demonstrably secure, widespread and abundant.

The image removed also lists this same website and article as its "source" - hence its removal. The map does not reflect its citation, and offers no other reference(s).Nickrz 16:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Global "secure" rating does not prevent rarity in subdivision. Far from it. See Eurybia divaricata for an example. Also, the source clearly support the assertion, if you'll look at the entire page, specifically the "distribution" section and the actual status codes used for those subdivisions ("Georgia (S3)", "North Dakota (SH)", "South Dakota (S4)"). Circeus 16:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The map is essentially meaningless, as its data are incomplete, and directly contradict other assertions made at the same source. By which I mean "Natureserve.com." (Which is not, I might add, affiliated with The Nature Conservancy as cited in the same reference. That needs correcting as well).

If you visit the cite and expand the "Conservation Status" heading, (which is, after all, the exact heading and wording in question here) the source clearly an unequivocally states: "Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 20Jan2006
Global Status Last Changed: 09Feb1984
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons:
Widespread, abundant tree species of the eastern and midwestern United States, often becoming the dominant or co-dominant tree in the forest canopy over large areas, particularly in the Appalachians and the Midwest.
Nation: United States National Status: N5
Nation: Canada National Status:N5

Let's use Occam's razor here, and stop picking flypoop out of black pepper. The sugar maple may not grow in the state of Montana, but perhaps it does; your map ignores the vast majority of the real estate in North America, including the majority of United States in which it is known to be growing and secure.

"Rarity in subdivision" is another name for reductio ad absurdum. Certainly local populations of sugar maple may be in transistion, but that is true of any organism; I submit a neutral point of view would not present such a sweeping generalization, such minutae, in an encyclopedia article.Nickrz 18:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the wording "Conservation Status: Secure; common, widespread and abundant throughout its natural range" wording doesn't sound right (that is, the "throughout its natural range" does not apply to the very edges of its range - which is true of almost any species). The source says various things - it mentions the large number of plants, contrasts threats from agriculture versus development, discusses genetic diversity among the population(s), and other details. I doubt either side will find their version is "proved" by this or any other source. It is more a matter of what the best brief summary is. Maybe something like "The sugar maple is widespread, and is considered secure (except at the edges of its range)". I'm not sure I follow what is controversial about the map - I like it (largely because it does double-duty as showing what the range is, not because I think it is really all that important for wikipedia what the exact status in North Dakota or Georgia is).
If we really want to dial up the flamebait, we can talk about what global warming will do to the southern edge of the range (but I'd rather not).
One more comment: both of you are dangerously close to violating WP:3RR (or maybe you already did; I didn't count). You both need to change "revert first, argue later" to "calm down first, explain second, ask for clarification third, bring in an uninvolved party fourth, and so on". Which I see has started. Kingdon 22:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Seeing no objection to the wording proposed above, or other suggestions, I've made that change. I have not restored the map as I now see that we already have a range map (in the infobox). Kingdon 20:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)