Pinus

Houtadviesburo Dipteryx dipteryx at FREELER.NL
Tue Jul 17 10:57:05 CDT 2001


> At 12:46 PM 7/16/01 -0400, Christian Thompson wrote:
> >As an aside to those botanist read this stream. Do the Linnaean genera,
> >like Ulmus (elms), Quercus (oaks), Acer (maples), Pinus (pines), etc.,
> >remain in use in their broad sense that I as a zoologist think of them?
Or
> >have they too been split?
>
> These genera you mention seem very "natural" -- Linnaeus seems to have
> delimited clades.  For other Linnaean plant genera, this is not true,
> though in many cases, the splitting was done within a generation or two of
> 1753 and so does not cause problwems today.
> Thomas G. Lammers, Ph.D.
>

Actually the history of Pinus is more complicated. In his 1753 work Linnaeus
described Pinus in a wide sense, including Abies, Larix and Picea, and in
the 2nd edition in 1763 he added what is now Tsuga. So it may refer to a
clade, but not what is now Pinus. Note that initially (1737) Linnaeus did
keep them separate.

What is referred to as pine now worldwide is indeed just about any tree with
wood suitable for making shipmasts. (Leaving aside US "Australian pine")

Cedar is a tree with fragrant, spicy wood
- Cedrus
- many Cupressaceae
- Cedrela sensu lato (including Toona)

Hope this helps,
Paul van Rijckevorsel




More information about the Taxacom mailing list