Talk:Fir

Older comment

Hello, I added some external links on the 11.08.04 for the genus Abies. However, abies has a redirection to 'fir' and so I added them there. This is only my first time Wiking and I do not know how to change the Abies redirection so that I can add my external links to the Abies topic and not the Firs topic. If you could guide me to some instructions I would be happy to try. Mikcohen 09:03, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You'd better keep them here, since Abies is the same as "fir" and putting external links on the Abies page would mess up the redirect. SCHZMO ✍ 20:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

Just read on the new of a Fir tree growing inside a man's lung: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20090415/tod-fir-tree-found-growing-inside-man-s-870a197.html

How would you add this to the article? 129.31.41.36 (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally we try not to include WP:trivia. Rich Farmbrough, 16:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Number of species

We have 48 and a sub-sp. I have changed the article to reflect. If I am wrong, of course, revert - but please also drop me a note. Rich Farmbrough, 16:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I just made a little change in the species list regarding A. lasiocarpa and bifolia to make it consistent with the systematics used in the Abies lasiocarpa article. 83.108.38.14 (talk) 09:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Ingvar Åberge, Norway[reply]

Have also added Syrian fir to the list. 83.108.38.14 (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC) Ingvar Åberge, Norway[reply]

And Abies fargesii. Does anybody have an English name for it? (Number of living species on the list is now 47.) 83.108.38.14 (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Ingvar Åberge, Norway[reply]

Species and subspecies/varieties list

I know that there are som different views of the systematics within the genus Abies, as with many other tree genera, and there is no reason to hide this, of cource. On the other hand could we hope that the presentation in the Wikipedia articles at least in one and the same language could be internally consistent. I have done som adjustmens towards this. Two species not mentioned in the species list have been added and varieties and subspesies earlier not noted on the genus page, but mentioned in the species articles, have been added. Further has links back to the fir article been added to the respective species articles.

There is still som work to be done:

"Taiga|boreal Asia and North America": Is this supposed to be a link to the taiga article?
Do anyone have an English name for the semenovii variety of A. sibirica?
The coahuila variety of durango fir is not mentioned in the species article, yet it is i noted on the list.
Jalisco fir has it´s own species article and is at the same time treated as a variety under the article about Guatemalan fir. On the species list is it noted as a separate species and not as a variety of guatemalensis.
On the list are mentioned two subspecies of A. nordmanniana additional to the main subspecies, but in the article about the species is there only mentioned one, and this one has the names of the two subspecies in the list noted as synonyms. Could somebody please make the two articles consistent with one another?
The variety ernestii of A. recurvata is not mentioned in the species article.
The variety of A. chensiensis is also not mentioned in the article.
The article about Pindrow fir mentions another species, Gamble´s fir, but this one does not exist on the list, but could maybe be noted as a variety or subspecies? And should in such case also be that in the Pindrow fir article.
Does anybody have English names on the varieties and subspecies of A. delavayi?
How about Abies fabri subsp. minensis?

83.108.38.14 (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Ingvar Åberge, Norway[reply]

photo can be used

heres a link to a fir [i think, im no botanist !], located at Wat Doi Suthep, Chiang Mai, Thailand. Dont think its native to the area. http://www.flickr.com/photos/27789249@N05/5273227350/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 05:13, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a Spruce

The picture of the "fir" from Arcadia National Park is actually of a spruce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.167.176.222 (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, doesn't belong in this article. Removed the photo. Plantdrew (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fir vs Spruce ?

Please help me. In everyday speech, is there a difference between fir and spruce ? I'm living in Sweden and here grows a lot of them. But I'm very uncertain whether they are fir, spruce or possibly both. By the picture in Spruce article it seems to be that kind. But they can also look like some pictures in this article. Is it just a matter of taxonomy - or more "obvious" ? Google translates Swedish "gran" to "spruce" but also to "fir". Answers would be very appriciated, as I'm thinking of an article (or an image atleast) of the south-west natural boundry of such trees in northern and eastern Europe. Boeing720 (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In everyday English speech, it depends on how much a person knows about plants. In my experience, those who know very little might refer to firs, spruces and many other conifers with needle like leaves as "pines". Those who know a little more might recognize pines as having long clustered leaves and firs and/or spruces as having short unclustered leaves. If they're fairly knowledgable, they will distinguish trees with sharply pointed leaves and cones which mature with out falling apart in the genus Picea (spruces) from trees with blunted leaves and cones that fall apart at maturity in the genus Abies (firs). Plantdrew (talk) 03:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I give the foliage a feel, then look for cones. Spruces have cones which hang down, and remain intact after falling from the tree. Firs have erect cones which shatter while still on the tree, or may fall from the tree as a semi-organized collection of scales, which shatters while falling or else when it hits the ground. Firs leave behind the core of the cone, still attached to the tree branch.

As to foliage, spruces may have needles with sharp points, sometimes very sharp points. Fir needles never have sharp needle points, and may have obviously rounded ends. Those are the criteria I use, which are less useful for identifying immature specimens, which lack cones.--Quisqualis (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Candle" as terminology for new growth?

Hello, all. What began as an attempt to fix an incorrect link has made me begin to question my sanity. The section on Cones briefly refers to "Candles", a term I have long understood to mean new, often lighter-in-color conifer growth. The word candle linked to the waxy, melty variety rather than the botanical term. I was surprised to find that the disambiguation page for Candle does not include a reference to the botanical term. Further, I had trouble finding references to the term on search engines -- though I believe this has more to do with the fact that conifer-scented wax candles are particularly popular -- especially this time of year. I am not a Wikipedia wizard, but I do pop in occasionally when I find a stray mistake. I'm not quite comfortable pushing a disambig page addition myself, and as botany is only a hobby of mine I cannot attest to the widespread use of the term "candle" in conifer morphology. I have removed the link to our drippy, waxy, flammable friends. I have also clarified the term after its use in the section, as (1) I think it is a nice way to indicate the direction of growth -- worthy of keeping -- and (2) there was no better article for me to link the term to. Enjoy your evenings, tree lovers. --Dstrichit (talk) 01:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried Googling "conifer candling", and fewer attempts were made to sell me candles. I also went to the candle DAB page, and was shocked that botanical candles were not mentioned. I found that Virginia Tech has a page on candles and pruning, so will get conifer candles onto the DAB page. even if I must first add them to Pine, Thanks for the heads up. Edit: PS: the term candle only applies to pines, whose vertical new growth is not found in other genera.--Quisqualis (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]