Jump to content

Talk:Pinus longaeva

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Age

[edit]

The referenced article says "Although a single tree trunk can become at most about 600 years old, the spruces had survived by pushing out another trunk as soon as the old one died...." This sounds like a colony-type plant like Pando. The Bristlecone pine trunks are assayed to 4000+ yrs age. Dan Watts (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a botanist, but it doesn't strike me as quite the same thing as Pando. The oldest root has itself been dated to about 8000 years old. I would call a root a part of an individual organism, even if the trunks are more temporary. What defines a tree? Granted, the trunk is what we supra-surface organisms notice most of the time, but isn't a root an important part of a tree? And so wouldn't a root that has been growing and maturing for 8000 years represent a single organism rather than a colony? In the case of Pando, by contrast, I don't think anyone's claiming that any given root has persisted for thousands of years. I tried to get at the difference in my revision by means of the word individual to honor the trunk-centric human conception of trees. Jbening (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
O.K., that sounds convincing. I will not challenge that again. Dan Watts (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jbening, you seem to be aware of the fact that this tree is not a clonal colony, yet you have reverted my changes to the section that mentions the Norway Spruce. This tree is not part of a "cluster" or "colony" of trees which is why I have made the changes that I did. Yes, there were other trees with old roots found in the same area, but they are genetic individuals and should not be grouped together as a colony would be. I think the confusion here was my use of the word "clonal" which did not mean to imply a colony which is why I also used the word "individual" in conjunction with clonal. Yet you reverted my edits with an edit summary stating "The Norway Spruce is not a clonal colony" which contradicts the changes that I made to the article. I hope this has cleared up any confusion over my edits. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 18:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, and we do indeed appear to agree on substance. Why use the term "clonal individual"? I'm concerned that having "clonal" in there could lead to confusion, even though you do say "individual" rather than "colony". I don't know if this is what you're getting at, but I personally wouldn't refer to the sprouting of new trunks as cloning, but again I'm not a botanist. Jbening (talk) 21:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm reading the reference correctly, the implication is an ancient underground mass that has evidently sent up many trunks over time; the single trunk that remains is 600 years old. The primary differences between this and Pando (or your average spreading bamboo) are that in the case of the spruce, the lateral extent of the underground mass is much smaller, and the trunks seem to be sent up primarily sequentially, rather than simultaneously.
The term "clonal colony", although in common use, is somewhat misleading, since these organisms are genetic individuals, and to a greater or lesser extent also physiologically integrated. I see the point of calling it a "clonal individual" to make the distinction, but that term could also be taken as meaning an individual produced by clonal reproduction (for example, a hydra budded off an older one). I think the key point in the description is that, although the trunk is 600 years old, the underground parts are over 90 centuries old.--Curtis Clark (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jbening, I suppose I do consider the sprouting of new trunks as "cloning". Perhaps "regeneration" would be more appropriate? Either way, I was the principal author of the article Old Tjikko, and I was simply parroting what others had said regarding the tree. If you read the references used in that article, you will see that the man who discovered the tree even calls it a clone. I would not be opposed to changing the wording used, as long as the changes can be considered accurate and descriptive. I'm not one to argue over semantics. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 12:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me! If a botanist calls it cloning, I'm not going to dispute it. Thanks for the cogent reply. Jbening (talk) 01:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]

Edited for categories

[edit]

I just edited the way this shows up in the category "Pinus." It had been set up to alphabetize there under the common name, "Great Basin Bristlecone Pine." But this didn't make sense since it showed on the list with the binomial (scientific) name. So I changed it to realphabetize it that way. But I added the Redirect page to the Category. So now, the common name does show. 140.147.236.194 (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza[reply]

Citation option

[edit]

For the "Citation Needed" in regards to the sentence about a thin strip of living tissue connects to the roots, here is an option: https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2011/04/21/methuselah-bristlecone-pine-thought-be-oldest-living-organism-earthRyoung122 15:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]