Talk:Eucalyptus

The previous version of this article linked to two empty pages - Mountain Ash and Eucalyptus regnans - the common and the botanical name for the same species. I've added an entry to desribe the Australian Mountain Ash under E. regnans and adjusted the links to fit. However there are at least two other trees called "Mountain Ash" - the American Sorbus americana and the European Sorbus aucuparia. I guess the obvious solution is to have a page "Mountain Ash" which is more-or-less empty and simply links to the three different species, but is there a more elegant solution? Tannin

People generally know trees by their common name, not the botanical one, so that's what they'll look for. Aren't plant articles supposed to go under the commonest English name, the same as animals? If I wanted to find an article on the Australian tree Mountain Ash that's what I'd be looking for because I'm an Australian and even I don't know the proper botanical name! So I'd make articles on Mountain Ash (Australia) Mountain Ash (America) and Mountain Ash (Europe)... KJ

Thankyou. I see that Maveric149 has already moved it while I was still dithering! I lack the knowledge to write about the other Mountain Ash trees. Tannin

---

I'd like to note here that the tallest tree ever recorded was an Australian Mountain Ash tree, and not the coast redwood as the article implies (I'm not sure who wrote it). This eucalypt was measured at Watts River, Victoria, in 1872, to be 132.6 metres in height. This compares with the tallest standing tree (which is a redwood), the "Mendocino Tree" in California, at 112.014 metres in December 1996.

This claim of a 132.6m tree has never been verified and is considered by many to be very exaggerated; the tallest ever accurately measured tree remains a Coast redwood; the tallest currently known is the "Stratosphere Giant" (112.34m; 1998). MPF 10:50, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

So far as my memory serves me, MPF, that huge tree was measured by a registered surveyer, an apparently sober, honest and practical man of good reputation. I remember reading about him and being impressed by his credentials. I have some details about it here somewhere. Nevertheless, I do not think we can afford to take it as gospel. It is intruging, given that this was not just some yobbo telling a tall story ... er ... no pun intended ... but it seems too far beyond the other known heights to accept readily. It could be true, but we will never know now. The current phrasing in the entry seems suitable to me. We know 90m plus. Anything taller is just speculation. Tannin

Thanks Tannin! - Michael MPF 17:51, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Illustration of this article

There seems to be a number of pictures accumulating which are just titled "Eucalyptus" The titles are a bit general and lack information as to where the image was taken and the species (or even common name). I am not certain the contribution that some pictures make to actually illustrating the article when they do not have this sort of information. It doesn't seem particularly encyclopaedic. There is also a certain amount of duplication. Are there any views on editing these pictures where there is duplication, or where no infomation as to place or type of tree? --AYArktos 00:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

imo, if there is some reason for there to be a photo gallery on the page, the duplicate pics up top can be moved down there; however, i'm not really sure of the purpose of the photo gallery here. makes sense for something like the sistene chapel, maybe, but a gallery of eucalyptus trees is probably unecessary. --Heah 01:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree (although I'm probably biased as most of these are my photos), I can't see any harm in having as many photos as possible (obviously if there are photos which are of really bad quality (eg. being of no higher res than the thumbnail) than they should go) to illustrate an article. Remember that a picture is worth a thousand words, and people should get as much out of Wikipedia as possible. --Fir0002 05:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Fir0002. I'm not too biased because only one of the pics on the article is mine (the English gunii in my garden). Say a schoolkid is doing a project on Eucalyptus and say he/she wants a pic to illustrate it. Shouldn't we give that person the widest possible choice? Certainly, low quality pics can go - Adrian Pingstone 08:43, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Please don't misunderstand me - I have nothing against the quantity of pictures. With about 600 species and enormous variation between those species there is plenty of scope for illustration and to my mind a gallery of pictures is probably the only way to illustrate the scope of the plant family. I am concerned where pictures are not properly annotated - a picture is not worth a thousand words if you do not explain what is being illustrated. To my mind the picture of the English gunii is titled meaningfully with both the species name and where it is located. None of the pictures are poor quality in themselves but a photo of sun shining through the branches of an unspecified eucalypt is not worth a thousand words - it does not add to one's understanding much - a picture of the shadow cast would add more to understand how the leaves hang differently and how the shade is less dense under many eucalypts ...--AYArktos 11:42, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I understand your point but disagree. What if the "sun through the leaves" pic perfectly suits someones requirements for a project? In other words why would we Wikipedians prejudge what may or may not be useful to our readers? :-) (I very much agree about detailed picture descriptions). As a matter of interest that gunii was bought by me in 1985 when it was one foot high. This year it was 80 feet high. Sadly, I had it felled a few months ago because of worry over possible root damage to my house - Adrian Pingstone 14:39, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

gaining information about care of

Hi, I am new to this website so I may be asking the wrong people this question, but I thought I would give it a try. I have recently moved into a little apt. just outside of Las Cruces, New Mexico. Actually the city is only a ten minute drive away. Anyway my landlady has 2 Eucalyptus trees in front of the apt. What I would like to know is how to care for these trees. I am guessing, but I believe they are around 30 feet tall. They have a small trunk about 8 inches in diameter. One of the trees yesterday just dropped a whole lot of leaves(they are an offwhite in color) and they also are dry and brittle. Do the Eucalyptus shed their leaves in the summer? How often do I water these trees? Do I give them a deep watering? This area has sandy soil so that will have to be taken into consideration also. If anyone can answer these questions I would be most grateful. Thanks Karen karenwtsn@yahoo.com

Without information as to what species or type of Eucalypt it is difficult to give any advice. There are about 600 species and the genus is adapted to a wide variety of conditions across the Australian continent. Generally a significant leaf drop at once is a problem. Deep watering would seem unlikely to succeed in a sandy soil. Some eucalypts neeed more water than others. I suggest the appropriate place to pursue your query is with a local gardening club. In the mean time, although Austrlaia is an arid continent it is probably safe to assume that some watering is in order as New Mexico is very dry too. Regards--AYArktos 00:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I'm probably a bit late entering this discussion, but I live in the Australian bush, and let me tell you most euaclypts are extremely hardy. They can easily withstand drought and grow in near impossible conditions (extreme slopes, extremely rocky soils). So I would only caution on not pampering the trees, don't give it too much water. --Fir0002 08:33, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. As others have mentioned, without knowing the species it's impossible to say. But a good starting point would be to water generously but infrequently - i.e., give them a good solid drink when you do water them, but don't water too often. Most eucs in the wild regularly have periods of several months at a time without rain. That's often longer than they like, but you get the idea. Tannin 13:47, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Contribution from southern England: my eucalyptus gunii reached 80 feet before I had it felled. It was too close to the house and I was worried the roots would crack the structure. This tree endured English rain (frequently in copious quantities) and thrived. It certainly never needed watering! - Adrian Pingstone 19:53, 28 May 2005 (UTC)