Template:Did you know nominations/Sequoites dakotensis
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cielquiparle talk 07:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Sequoites dakotensis
Sequoites dakotensis cone cast fossils
- ... that in 1935, when Sequoites dakotensis (pictured) was first described as a member of the genus Sequoia, it was common for such species to be known only by their fossilized cones?
- Source: Brown, Roland W. (October 15, 1935). "Some fossil conifers from Maryland and North Dakota". Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences. 25 (10): 441-450. JSTOR 24530142.
5x expanded by Pbritti (talk), Bubblesorg (talk) and Kevmin (talk).
Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 68 past nominations.
Pbritti (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC).
- This is currently at the wrong taxonomic placement, see here and the affinity is uncertain as of 2002 [1]--Kevmin § 16:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Kevmin: Those are helpful sources and will be utilized to further improve the article. Regarding the wrong taxonomic placement, I'm seeing Sequoiites dakotensis, though this seems to be the use of an accepted alternative name for early examples in the genus Sequoia. Am I mistaken here? This is not my area of expertise, so I will be wholly deferring to your judgement. Thanks for digging those sources up! ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- A 2014 North America Research Group publication appears to agree with the Sequoia classification of Sequoia dakotensis as Sequoia. So the 2002 paper is contradicted by a more recent publication https://propagationnation.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Lowe2014_GeologicHistoryGiantSequoia.pdf --Bubblesorg (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Pbritti: Sequoites is not an alternative name for Sequoia, it is a fossil genus name, and currently the species is still placed in it by the Internation Fossil Plant Names Index overseen by paleobotanist Alexander B. Doweld. @Bubblesorg: NARG (North America Research Group) is an ameture fossil club in the Pacific North West, it does not qualify as a reliable source for wikipedia--Kevmin § 14:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- Counter, the NARG is made up of reliable advisors. Gary D. Lowe is indeed a real specialist in redwood trees and has many more reliable papers. Also, NARG thing was cited by a peer reviewed paper-https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10806-024-09942-0.
- @Kevmin and Bubblesorg: While I am familiar with amateur botanists writing reliable sources, I am going to defer to peer review publications and a taxonomic database on this. I have moved the page and made changes to indicate that the currently accepted name is Sequoites dakotensis and that the status of the plant is uncertain. I don't know how to fix the taxonomic infobox so that the genus Sequoites functions, but I can give that a shot tonight. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- Gary D. Lowe is not a amateur botanist, he is a real specialist. Also not, do not move the thing. It is not the accepted name. There is still a link for Sequoia dakotensis (https://www.ifpni.org/species.htm?id=C5C500AA-BA29-4A36-B914-5696D1B33A65). Please do not move anything around. I just reversed the change. Bubblesorg (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Kevmin and Bubblesorg: While I am familiar with amateur botanists writing reliable sources, I am going to defer to peer review publications and a taxonomic database on this. I have moved the page and made changes to indicate that the currently accepted name is Sequoites dakotensis and that the status of the plant is uncertain. I don't know how to fix the taxonomic infobox so that the genus Sequoites functions, but I can give that a shot tonight. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- Counter, the NARG is made up of reliable advisors. Gary D. Lowe is indeed a real specialist in redwood trees and has many more reliable papers. Also, NARG thing was cited by a peer reviewed paper-https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10806-024-09942-0.
- @Pbritti: Sequoites is not an alternative name for Sequoia, it is a fossil genus name, and currently the species is still placed in it by the Internation Fossil Plant Names Index overseen by paleobotanist Alexander B. Doweld. @Bubblesorg: NARG (North America Research Group) is an ameture fossil club in the Pacific North West, it does not qualify as a reliable source for wikipedia--Kevmin § 14:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- A 2014 North America Research Group publication appears to agree with the Sequoia classification of Sequoia dakotensis as Sequoia. So the 2002 paper is contradicted by a more recent publication https://propagationnation.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Lowe2014_GeologicHistoryGiantSequoia.pdf --Bubblesorg (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Kevmin: Those are helpful sources and will be utilized to further improve the article. Regarding the wrong taxonomic placement, I'm seeing Sequoiites dakotensis, though this seems to be the use of an accepted alternative name for early examples in the genus Sequoia. Am I mistaken here? This is not my area of expertise, so I will be wholly deferring to your judgement. Thanks for digging those sources up! ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
He may be a specialist, but a taxonomic authority prefers Sequoites. The link you provided above considers Sequoia dakotensis a synonym of Sequoites dakotensis. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- The website is just a taxonomic names list, it does not speak to a consensus per say. Also, it does not confirm synonyms here, it just puts this as saying that some authors consider it a synonym or basionym. https://www.ifpni.org/species.htm?id=C5C500AA-BA29-4A36-B914-5696D1B33A65. Bring me papers and books. Actually the Sequoites dakotensis discussion should be separate from this discussion. Sequoites is not the same thing as Sequoia from a paleobotanical sense. Bubblesorg (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Kevmin: I was not expecting a long-dead tree to cause such disruption! I'm requesting a stay on this review until the taxonomic issues are sorted out. @Bubblesorg: multiple taxonomic authorities superior to a non-peer-reviewed amateur book reject the Sequoia name. The plant has been reassigned and remains somewhat uncertain, per Kevmin. Cut-and-paste moves are disruptive. We can discuss this further on the talk page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- What multiple papers? Most papers either suggest Sequoia or Parataxodium. Only parts of the plant are assigned to Sequoites. You did not have any consensus here to change it. I only used the Gary point to respond to the other person when they questioned the reliability of the source, I am not using it here to keep the name as Sequoia instead of Sequoites. Bubblesorg (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- Pbritti agreed, we should reach a stable version of the article and correctly cover the taxonomy issue (some authors fully and wrongly ignoring Bell) before we continue the nom here, I'll have to step out from reviewing as I have now added notable information to the article.--Kevmin § 15:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- Bubblesorg This discussion needs to be at the article talk page. The IFPNI listing at Sequoia dakotensis specifically links it to Sequoites dakotensis as a jr synonym, and notes it as the older name. I also just added a summary from Kevin Aulenbacks book on the Horseshoe Canyon Formation, where he specifically also uses Sequoites dakotensis, connects it to PArataxodium and links several other organ taxa into a larger whole plant reconstruction based on foliage, ovulate cone, pollen, and pollen cone morphology. All that we now seem to be missing is a formal paper making the official moves and synonymies.--Kevmin § 15:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- He linked it to many genera not just Sequoites. Bubblesorg (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- Question, does the Saurian field guide count as a reliable source? Probably not. Bubblesorg (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- He linked it to many genera not just Sequoites. Bubblesorg (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
- What multiple papers? Most papers either suggest Sequoia or Parataxodium. Only parts of the plant are assigned to Sequoites. You did not have any consensus here to change it. I only used the Gary point to respond to the other person when they questioned the reliability of the source, I am not using it here to keep the name as Sequoia instead of Sequoites. Bubblesorg (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
new reviewer needed as I have substantially added and edited the article now, also the page move of the nomination here is creating editing access issues wit the nomination templates.-Kevmin § 15:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Not seeing an actual review here, so I'll take it once I've eaten.--Launchballer 15:04, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
@Pbritti, Bubblesorg, and Kevmin: Long enough, new enough. QPQ done and Earwig is clean. I see nothing deserving of a maintenance template, but I do see that the hook needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 15:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Pbritti: I cant seem to find this statement in Brown, do you remember where you found it? If not we should come up with a different hook:
- ALT1 "... that Sequoites dakotensis (pictured) was first described from clay-filled casts and not the original cones?"
- Brown 1935 "These cones are ferruginous mud casts, the solid portion of which represents the spaces, and the cavities the woody substance of origin"--Kevmin § 14:06, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Launchballer and Kevmin: I'm not on the computer I use for most of my editing today. I'll get back to you on this late tomorrow or early Monday UTC when I have access to the JSTOR and the relevant articles. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- I support the ALT1 proposal. Once the article move goes through (it looks like a sure thing now), I think we just need a new reviewer and we're good here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Pbritti, Bubblesorg, and Kevmin: This has been moved, but I don't see ALT1 in the article.--Launchballer 02:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Launchballer: Added it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 03:06, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Pbritti, Bubblesorg, and Kevmin: This has been moved, but I don't see ALT1 in the article.--Launchballer 02:15, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
- I support the ALT1 proposal. Once the article move goes through (it looks like a sure thing now), I think we just need a new reviewer and we're good here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:40, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Launchballer and Kevmin: I'm not on the computer I use for most of my editing today. I'll get back to you on this late tomorrow or early Monday UTC when I have access to the JSTOR and the relevant articles. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Pbritti: I cant seem to find this statement in Brown, do you remember where you found it? If not we should come up with a different hook:
- Maybe it's just me, but ALT1 might be confusing as currently written. What does "cones" mean in this context? I get that it's supposed to refer to conifer cones, but it might not be immediately clear to the reader. Maybe a revised version of ALT1 is needed for clarity purposes? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:01, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5 What OTHER cone do you foresee being thought of in this context. To me the sentence is very clear.--Kevmin § 15:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'm speaking from the perspective of a layperson, and not an expert in botany like you are. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- That does not answer the question. What other cone comes to your mind. "But what if" is not an acceptable rabbit hole.--Kevmin § 15:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe the average reader would not mean what "cones" means in this context? As I said, it's referring to conifer cones, but the layperson who isn't well-versed in biology and know how conifers work may be confused by what "cones" mean (they might instead think of other kinds of cones or cone shapes). The image definitely helps, but without the image, the reader isn't immediately going to understand that the hook is talking about a conifer. Ironically, the original hook was clearer about the context than ALT1. I think adding "fossilized" before "cones" might at least make the context a bit clearer. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- Im going to honest, there is a HEAVY use of "might" in your reply, and no evidence that the average reader wont understand "cone" when used in combo with a plant. I do not feel your worry has merit.--Kevmin § 15:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Narutolovehinata5: Let's try this on for size:
- ALT2 "... that Sequoites dakotensis (pictured) was first described from clay-filled casts and not the original tree cones?"
- While I don't see a need to spell it out for the reader–the vast majority of people will be familiar with what a tree cone is–I think linking it is more than fine to ensure that any confused person might be able to "self rescue", so to speak. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- I don't understand the strong reaction to the comment when I was just making an observation. I know what a conifer cone is and even I had confusion when I first read the hook. It's a lot more confusing without the image (and it doesn't help that, with the discussion being long, the proposed hook is already quite down in this page). I don't think ALT2 solves my concern: it might be better to add "coniferous" before the subject, or at least add "fossilized" somewhere. Given possible confusion, if we do run that hook, it would be best that it run with the image as it could be confusing otherwise. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:23, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- Im going to honest, there is a HEAVY use of "might" in your reply, and no evidence that the average reader wont understand "cone" when used in combo with a plant. I do not feel your worry has merit.--Kevmin § 15:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe the average reader would not mean what "cones" means in this context? As I said, it's referring to conifer cones, but the layperson who isn't well-versed in biology and know how conifers work may be confused by what "cones" mean (they might instead think of other kinds of cones or cone shapes). The image definitely helps, but without the image, the reader isn't immediately going to understand that the hook is talking about a conifer. Ironically, the original hook was clearer about the context than ALT1. I think adding "fossilized" before "cones" might at least make the context a bit clearer. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:40, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- That does not answer the question. What other cone comes to your mind. "But what if" is not an acceptable rabbit hole.--Kevmin § 15:22, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- I'm speaking from the perspective of a layperson, and not an expert in botany like you are. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
- Narutolovehinata5 What OTHER cone do you foresee being thought of in this context. To me the sentence is very clear.--Kevmin § 15:13, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Does ALT2 look better now? I hope I didn't come off as curt earlier. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:42, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
- I think ALT2 is okay. And apologies Pbritti, my response was directed towards Kevmin rather than you. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
As I have no idea why ALT2 is interesting, I don't see how it meets WP:DYKINT, and this is past WP:DYKTIMEOUT.--Launchballer 21:53, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Launchballer: I am more than a bit frustrated by this outcome. I'm especially frustrated by the decision to do this when the hold-up was the result of an overly long wait for a move discussion to be closed followed by its rejection in a string of rapid-fire DYKTIMEOUTs. I understand the flexibility of the discretion here, but I don't believe this was the appropriate outcome. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- To clarify, I appreciate your work in this area. I'm just frustrated with being told a hook is ok only for it to get rejected on subjective grounds a few days later after months of waiting. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I disagree that the hook is uninteresting. My issue was mainly about the wording of "cones" but I didn't actually think the hook failed DYKINT. Others may have a different opinion, of course. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:25, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
- To clarify, I appreciate your work in this area. I'm just frustrated with being told a hook is ok only for it to get rejected on subjective grounds a few days later after months of waiting. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- @Launchballer: I am more than a bit frustrated by this outcome. I'm especially frustrated by the decision to do this when the hold-up was the result of an overly long wait for a move discussion to be closed followed by its rejection in a string of rapid-fire DYKTIMEOUTs. I understand the flexibility of the discretion here, but I don't believe this was the appropriate outcome. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
- I think ALT2 is okay. And apologies Pbritti, my response was directed towards Kevmin rather than you. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
