Talk:Quercus robur

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Plants Mid‑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 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Does anyone have photos of the cultivars not shown ('Filicifolia' & 'Purpurea' )?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.179.102.158 (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It is usually called the common oak in Britain. I've just put this name back in for the third time. Imc 21:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not true. The usual common name here is English Oak, with Pedunculate Oak mainly used in botanical texts. The name "Common Oak" is, at best, very rarely used. - MPF 01:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence it is called teh "German Oak" in English. I can't find it Billlion (talk) 12:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although one might expect the Royal Oak to be an "English Oak", I'm pretty sure it isn't. I've taken a few photos of the fruits and leaves of the Tercentenary Oak and the one planted for Victoria's diamond jubilee, both daughter trees at Boscobel: you can no longer get close enough to the Royal Oak itself. Both appear to be Sessile Oaks to me, with characteristic short-stalked leaves and stalkless acorns. Moreover, all the oaks in the vicinity seem to be Sessile too. I'll put a photo in the gallery for discussion, because I may well be wrong, and there's a chance these are hybrids, I suppose. I'd be grateful for comments from those more expert. I'd like to identify the Royal Oak with more certainty. Sjwells53 (talk) 16:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link here, Second successful million pound question in British Millionare history. Dunno where to add, New Trivia Section? 82.21.53.146 23:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone add information on oak growth rates - there is obviously information on maximum dimensions, but nothing on growth rates (and this is hard to track down). Growth speed is key practical information when planting new trees, and estimating age of existing examples. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.98.76.45 (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Growth rate of oak trees as for any trees is differing very much. Investigations in Latvia show that in 50 years time one oak-tree has reached 3,6 metres circumference, while others having 370 year age have nt reached 5 metre girth.--Daarznieks (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"both pruning techniques that extend the tree's potential lifespan, if not its health". Does this mean that the techniques adversely affect the trees' health? The "if not" construction should be avoided. --Wetman 14:32, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've found several mis-spellings of "robur" on the internet - including on the RSPB's site! Would anyone object to me setting up redirect pages for "Quercus rober" and "Quercus robor" ? Dom Kaos (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously nobody minds, so I'll go ahead Dom Kaos (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no scientific evidence that Stelmuze oak tree in Lithuania is 1500 years old - this is just a tale of tourist guides kept alive since the popular tradition of late 19th century to describe the size of trees just with imaginary age of trees. Experience of historical documents from Latvian trees (which grow in similar, a bit more harsh conditions) show that even the most giant oak trees exceedng the size of Stelmuze oak do not have more than 450 years age. In sites of paganic rituals in place of deceased sacred tree there always was planted a new one - thus also the fact that the tree is mentioned in old chronicles does not mean much. Where is evidence that this separate tree is three times older than other oak trees of similar size in our region? --Daarznieks (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added info about the largest Australian example, tourist attraction in Donnybrook, Western Australia.Printpost (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• 
  English Oak - from Thomé, Flora von Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz 1885.
• 
  Flowers
• 
  Fastigiate English Oak Quercus robur 'Fastigiata', Knightshayes Court.
• 
  Golden English Oak Quercus robur 'Concordia', Wilton House.
• 
  Weeping English Oak Quercus robur 'Pendula', Hillersdon House.
• 
  Crooked branches of Quercus robur, Serbia.
• 
  Large penduculate oak, Serbia.
• 
  Quercus robur f. fastigiata
• 
  The oldest pedunculate oak of the Benelux - Éghezée (Belgium)
• 
  The oldest tree in the Baltic states - the Stelmužė Oak, Lithuania
• 
  'Fastigiata' Bark in detail
• 
  'Fastigiata' Leaf clusters in a tree
• 
  Kindred Spirit Hybrid Oak(Q. robur fastigiata x Q. bicolor)
• 
  Cola-nut gall on Q.robur
• 
  Red-pea gall or Red Currant gall on Q.robur
• 
  A pine tree growing on an ancient Cadzow pedunculate oak.
• 
  Q. robur beside the laboratory at RHS Garden, Wisley
• 
  An oak near Vrena village in Sudermania, Sweden, used as a pattern for a family tree
• 
  Boscobel - acorns of the Tercentenary Oak, planted in 1651 to commemorate the escape of Charles II after the Battle of Worcester. Pedunculate or sessile?
• 
  Boscobel - Acorns of the oak planted in 1897 to commemorate the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria. Like the Tercentenary oak, this is reliably attested a daughter of the Royal Oak. But is it pedunculate or sessile?

Images moved here from a gallery section in the article. Section was entirely too large for the article. Feel free to move one or two back to the article. Let's not over do it, eh? --Rkitko ^(talk) 00:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This clearly needs rewriting by someone who knows the subject. I've looked through the history and people keep tagging it for tone, weasel words and lack of citation but the tags are removed without the article being rewritten. If someone can rewrite it? If not, I'll come back and delete it as it is poorly written and completely unverified.

Jwrstewart (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, no one has come forwards so it's about time it went.

Jwrstewart (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2012 (GMT)

I am sure I remember it used to be called Quercus pedunculata. This website says synonims include that and Quercus longaeva [1]. How is it best to include historical Latin names? I am no expert on history of taxonomy, just old enough to know Latin names changed since I was a child! Billlion (talk) 06:06, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's quite a lot of material in the culture section here, but is it specific to pedunculate oak, or should it be in the genus article? There's quite a lot of overlap between the two articles already. Also, it's quite poorly referenced, and I'm not sure it's a good idea to transfer it across wholesale.E Wusk (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

• Quercus robur → English oak
• Quercus petraea → Sessile oak

– WP:COMMONNAME Kolano123 (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The proposer has not attempted to argue the case in relation to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora). "English" oak is misleading, and although more common in a Google search than the more descriptive "pedunculate oak", not so much so that it's obvious that it should be used as an article title. The scientific names are clear and unambiguous. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Nominator comment I see many sources calling the Pedunculate oak English oak and French oak, and the most recognizable name for Quercus petraea in English is "Sessile oak". Kolano123 (talk) 18:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would prefer a common name for Quercus robur to the scientific name as an article name, but I am confused by your reasoning. You see many sources calling it English oak and French oak? How many? Many more than pedunculate oak? And then you bring in the irrelevant to this discussion point about the other species. What is the case that Quercus robur should be moved to English oak as opposed to any other common name in English? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  English oak is a common name for Quercus robur. Kolano123 (talk) 07:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it's a common name for it. But that's still not a good one or a clear one for our purposes, especially as WP has to support a somewhat worldwide audience. 'English oak' is not a distinctive name (a name used more than any other), because Q. robur is found worldwide. 'American white oak' is never called 'English oak' in the US. Now for ash trees, yes, 'English ash' for F. excelsior is a pretty common name for it in the US, as it's rare in the US. But for oaks? The US has more of it than England does. Also 'English oak' isn't a particularly specific name for it (indicating particular species), because the US term 'English oak' (when used at all) is just as likely to refer to a (locally rare in the US) example of Q. petraea – despite that (here on the English-Welsh border) being better known as Welsh oak and is hardly found in England.

But really, it's just that we use binomials for canonical names. The others are (and already are) redirects to that. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A commonly used name for anything (addressed in WP:COMMONNAME) and a common name, or vernacular, for a taxon are different. The Wikipedia guidelines for naming flora articles are at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora), shortcut WP:FLORA. WP:FLORACOMMONNAME, a part of this guideline, explains the importance of not confusing the two uses for the term "common name". There are exceptions to WP:FLORA, and the page addresses them. You would need to make a case that the pages in this move proposal qualify as exceptions to the guideline. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, the binomial is clear, unambiguous, and I see no reason to depart from the long-standing practice for flora.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanHill (talk • contribs) 18:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose 'English oak' is not a good name. But mostly this goes right against all established precedent. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ortizesp: mentioning "COMMONNAME" is not sufficient for a plant species; the case must be made in relation to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) which is what applies. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I wasn't familiar with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora). Will strike my vote.@Peter coxhead:--Ortizesp (talk) 18:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora), emphasizing that the scientific name is precise, consistent, and without question. Common names of flora are dealt with effectively by redirects and disambiguation pages, as there can be multiple vernaculars for a taxon, and a vernacular can refer to more than one taxon. I wish to particularly draw attention to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) § Don't confuse WP:COMMONNAME with common name (shortcut WP:FLORACOMMONNAME). – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose COMMONNAME does not mean "prefer any title that is not the scientific name". Scientific names are WP:PRECISE and unambiguous and are WP:CONSISTENTly used for more than 99% of plant species. Ngrams for Quercus robur and Quercus petraea versus the proposed titles don't show that the vernacular names are significantly more commonly used than the scientific names. Plantdrew (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A reliable source that this is the common name for these species may be https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/trees-woods-and-wildlife/british-trees/a-z-of-british-trees/english-oak/ and https://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/trees-woods-and-wildlife/british-trees/a-z-of-british-trees/sessile-oak/. Kolano123 (talk) 18:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]