Talk:Pinus lambertiana

Plants Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

California Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Untitled

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The high elevation pine survey is in peer review right now, but the results are very disturbing. Basically white pine blister rust is rapidly killing the white pines in California. Many areas in the north have infection rates over 90%. White pines are being replaced by other species. I guess this isn't too surprising though as it has happened in Oregon, Washington, Idaho and Montana. I will will post the final paper results once they are complete. SierraSkier 03:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sugar cone pine

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This tree is sometimes known as "sugarcone pine" and redirects should be made for Sugarcone pine, Sugar cone pine, and Sugar-cone pine. It took me quite a while to find this page as I didn't consider the name "sugar pine". --69.226.103.55 (talk) 01:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Edit to improve sort order in category Pinus

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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 Sugar. 140.147.236.194 (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Stephen KoscieszaReply

Maximum cone length

Latest comment: 10 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I removed the claim of 66 cm / 26 in for the maximum cone length cited from Brockman 1968, Trees of North America, and replaced it with a more reliable 56 cm / 22 in from OSU and FEIS. The "26 inch" claim is oft-repeated, and dates back to Lemmon 1895, Handbook of West-American Cone-bearers (p. 21), but I've never seen any hard measured evidence to support claims of cones this long. Earlier, Lemmon had given "10 to 12, rarely 15–22 inches" in his 1888 Second Biennial Report of the California State Board of Forestry (p. 70). Whether Lemmon's change to "26 inches" is genuine, or an error, is yet to be elucidated. I've also toned down the 'longest cone of any conifer', as populations of Pinus strobiformis in Jalisco are known to produce cones to 53 cm long (measured) to possibly 60 cm (cited by Farjon, Flora Neotropica 75: 211, 215), so comes very close to the same maximum if not exceeding it. - MPF (talk) 14:39, 20 September 2025 (UTC)Reply