Talk:List of Quercus species

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Plants Mid‑importance

	Plants portal 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.

(external link previously given here expired, so removed)

Please Do Not Redirect

Please do not redirect "White Oaks" to this page. White Oaks is also a famous town in Lincoln County, New Mexico that sprang-up during the gold rushes of the 3rd quarter of the 19th Century. (Possibly try: Plant|White Oak ?) WB2 (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

changed redir -> disamb; Dick Bos (talk) 08:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Q. devia and Q. tuberculata

Two mexican oaks; anyone know which section these species belong to? Tom Radulovich 04:33, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The latter is a variety of Q. coccinea (Scarlet oak), so it would be in section Lobatae. I am not sure about Q. devia. Schzmo 00:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Q. glauca?

Where to put Q. glauca, the 'ring-cup oak'? There is a drawing at Image:Quercus_glauca_Bra65.png which is from D. Brandis, Illustrations of the Forest Flora of North-West and Central India, 1874 -- Rwst 09:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclobalanopsis glauca as per Flora of China - MPF 15:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quercus dilatata

Quercus dilatata is listed both in the white oaks section and separately at the bottom as unknown subgenus. Is white oak correct?

Flynnbar 17:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quercus costaricensis?

Anyone know where Quercus costaricensis fits in the list? 84.9.109.62 19:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Q. afares, Q. ithaburensis, Q. lusitanica

Anyone know where to place these? Quercus afares appears to be a stable hybrid of Q.suber from section Cerris and Q. canariensis from section Mesobalanus. Don't know where Quercus ithaburensis (Mt. Tabor Oak) and Quercus lusitanica (Portuguese Oak) belong. Tom Radulovich (talk) 06:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that it's probably best to leave Q. afares out of the list until it's relationship is more fully understood, or perhaps list it under Cerris with notes about it's relationship to Q. canariensis since it's suggested that it's genetically more Q. suber than Q. canariensis. Q. afares is an odd one for sure and even if it is a stabilized hybrid of Q. suber and Q. canariensis, isn't that just another way of saying it's a young species for all intensive purposes? Especially since it seems to maintain it's ecological, morphological, and genetic distinction from both supposed parent species(as much as any other Quercus species) while growing in the same geographic area with them both.

Q. ithaburensis should be placed in the Cerris section and Q. lusitanica (Gall Oak or Lusitanian Oak, Quercus faginea is Portuguese Oak, I believe confusion between these 2 species has caused confusion with the English common names as well) should be listed under the Quercus section. Kmanblue (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Tom Radulovich (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tribu13 (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Q. lusitanica = Q. fraineto (Flora Iberica vol xx, Amaral-Franco). The smallest Quercus in Europe. It is a bush in Spain, but it can reach tree status in some Portuguese locations. Q. canariensis, Q. faginea, Q. lusitanica and Q. pyrenaica should be grouped with Q. pubescens, Q. robur, Q. petraea.... (Petit et al., 2002 For. Ecol. Manage.)[reply]

Best Pablo Tribu13 (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is Q. macrolepis a synonym for Q. ithaburensis and Q. aegilops? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.82.56 (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quercus aegilops is a synonym name for 4 different Oak species, so it's a noma confusa and not accepted. Q. macrolepis is either a good species or a subspecies of Q. ithaburensis depending on which authority you follow. Q. ithaburensis is a good species and accepted by all authorities.Kmanblue (talk) 07:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quercus infectoria

Any idea where Q. infectoria (Aleppo Oak, Cyprus Oak) belongs? Tom Radulovich (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quercus infectoria is in the Cerris section. Glad to help out! Kmanblue (talk) 11:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Q. dalechampii, Q. polycarpa

I didn't find them in the list:

Quercus dalechampii
Quercus polycarpa

They're southeastern-european species. No other data. 91.120.137.129 (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quercus dalechampii should be on the list, I'll add it.
Quercus polycarpa is a synonym for Quercus petraea subsp. iberica so it shouldn't be added.

Kmanblue (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources?

Which is the source of the list here? I want to use it in the German WP. Maybe you can help me. Thanks and Regards --IKAl (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Q. boissieri, the Levantine variant of the Q. infectoria

Where does it belong to? Named after Pierre Edmond Boissier, 19th-century Swiss botanist who covered Europe and the Middle East from Turkey to Lybia. The problem is, many more trees are called after him, including some oaks! Many sources mix it together with Q. infectoria, a very close relative with slightly smaller leaves, named in English Aleppo / Cyprus / Asian / Dawny / Gall / Gall Nut Oak. Thank you, Arminden (talk) 08:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Arminden[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Quercus species. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

# means what? Is it common practice?

I followed a link to the white oaks section, and there was unexplained uses of #. It doesn't look like these uses are errors, because skimming the following sections I see it throughout. Please add an explanation and consider adding one to those sections that have free direct to directly to them. Sorry all I can do is raise this question! —Geekdiva (talk) 10:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see the problem. The information about the number sign was in a section that was called Notes but wasn't linked to as a note. I'm going to try to address this problem, ~~but as I randomly pass out I might fail to hit Publish before then, so please feel free to address this if you wish!~~

Done

Still needs answer: Also is this notation a common practice or something that someone just came up with when creating this list page? It's kinda ugly. Thanks! —Geekdiva (talk) 11:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus on how to lay out a list of species page, and given that it is a thankless task even by Wikipedia standards, I don't know if any Wikiproject will ever tell an editor that they laid out a page wrong. Abductive (reasoning) 05:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The # was a handy symbol to indicate the species is evergreen, as is still clearly indicated in the text of the page, though the symbols have all been deleted. Perhaps the editor should have bothered to read the article before complaining about and defacing it, as now there is no way to discern which species are evergreen. Perhaps the editor should find a better use of their time than destroying Wiki articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.121.80 (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinked species as of 23 August 2020

@Abductive: I'm not sure we want articles on all the hybrids, but I'm working on updating this article. My work list is currently at User:Peter coxhead/Work/Quercus. There are names, sometimes with articles, not accepted by PoWO, as well as vice versa. Also the classification here needs updating. I've already fixed section Virentes. (Where PoWO gives the parents, you can often deduce the section.) Peter coxhead (talk) 11:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I generally don't create articles on hybrids, unless I figure out that they are available commercially or something that would make readers want to look them up. Abductive (reasoning) 11:52, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Abductive: I've listed below the non-hybrid species accepted by PoWO that are still red-linked, with the section placement in Deng et al. (2017), Appendix 2.1. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Quercus sanchezcolinii – ? Lobatae
Quercus schultzei – ? Lobatae
Quercus baniensis – Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus blaoensis – Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus breviradiata – Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus chrysotricha – Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus ciliaris – Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus conduplicans – Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus dilacerata – Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus donnaiensis – Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus eumorpha – Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus fuliginosa – Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus gaharuensis – Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus gracilenta – Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus kerangasensis – Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus kinabaluensis – Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus lenticellata – Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus liaoi – Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus meihuashanensis – Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus nivea – Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus oidocarpa – Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus percoriacea – Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus pinbianensis – Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus platycalyx – Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus pseudoverticillata – Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus ramsbottomii – Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus semiserratoides – Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus steenisii – Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus thomsoniana – Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus tiaoloshanica – Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus valdinervosa – Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus vestita – Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus xanthoclada – Cyclobalanopsis
Quercus baronii – Ilex
Quercus cocciferoides – Ilex
Quercus dolicholepis – Ilex
Quercus engleriana – Ilex
Quercus fimbriata – Ilex
Quercus gilliana – Ilex
Quercus handeliana – Ilex
Quercus kingiana – Ilex
Quercus kongshanensis – Ilex
Quercus lodicosa – Ilex
Quercus longispica – Ilex
Quercus marlipoensis – Ilex
Quercus monimotricha – Ilex
Quercus oxyphylla – Ilex
Quercus rehderiana – Ilex
Quercus senescens – Ilex
Quercus tarokoensis – Ilex
Quercus tungmaiensis – Ilex
Quercus utilis – Ilex
Quercus yiwuensis – Ilex
Quercus acatenangensis – Lobatae
Quercus acutangula – Lobatae
Quercus aerea – Lobatae
Quercus charcasana – Lobatae
Quercus chimaltenangana – Lobatae
Quercus crispifolia – Lobatae
Quercus floccosa – Lobatae
Quercus gracilior – Lobatae
Quercus ignaciensis – Lobatae
Quercus panamandinaea – Lobatae
Quercus aculcingensis – Quercus
Quercus alpescens – Quercus
Quercus chartacea – Quercus
Quercus chinantlensis – Quercus
Quercus congesta – Quercus
Quercus juergensenii – Quercus
Quercus kotschyana – Quercus
Quercus manzanillana – Quercus
Quercus monnula – Quercus
Quercus ningqiangensis – Quercus
Quercus opaca – Quercus
Quercus rekonis – Quercus
Quercus shennongii – Quercus
Quercus shingjenensis – Quercus
Quercus sororia – Quercus
Quercus supranitida – Quercus
Quercus toxicodendrifolia – Quercus
Quercus tsinglingensis – Quercus
Quercus vallicola – Quercus
Quercus baolamensis – unplaced
Quercus barrancana – unplaced
Quercus bawanglingensis – unplaced
Quercus bidoupensis – unplaced
Quercus breedloveana – unplaced
Quercus dongfangensis – unplaced
Quercus ghiesbreghtii – unplaced
Quercus gussonei – unplaced
Quercus honbaensis – unplaced
Quercus ichnusae – unplaced
Quercus liboensis – unplaced
Quercus meavei – unplaced
Quercus melissae – unplaced
Quercus mongolicoides – unplaced
Quercus obconicus – unplaced
Quercus obtusanthera – unplaced
Quercus orocantabrica – unplaced
Quercus pauciradiata – unplaced
Quercus protoroburoides – unplaced
Quercus pseudosetulosa – unplaced
Quercus sarahmariae – unplaced
Quercus shangxiensis – unplaced
Quercus tatakaensis – unplaced
Quercus trungkhanhensis – unplaced
Quercus xuanlienensis – unplaced
Quercus yongchunana – unplaced

"Swap" Mesobalanus & Virentes

Should we include sect. Mesobalanus into sect. Quercus proper and give series Virentes section-status (and perhaps series-status to Mesobalanus instead)? As I understand it this would better reflect the current understanding of internal oak phylogeny. AndersenAnders (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AndersenAnders: yes, we should update to the 2017 classification used at Quercus. Currently the two articles are inconsistent. See my comments above and below. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead thank you for your work AndersenAnders (talk) 09:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updating to 2017 classification

I'm working on updating this article to be consistent with Quercus, which uses the 2017 classification, and also to use the species accepted by Plants of the World Online. As noted above, there's a work page at User:Peter coxhead/Work/Quercus – but this is not guaranteed to be correct (e.g. spelling differences between Denk et al. (2017) and PoWO can cause mis-matches). I'm also ignoring hybrids at first.

Assistance welcome, but please note on the list below that you are working on a section. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checks

Section Cerris – Done, except for the issue discussed at Talk:Quercus × hispanica
Section Cyclobalanopsis – Done
Section Ilex – Done
Section Lobatae – Done, the list has been updated and all articles have the section in their taxobox, but not all have it in the text
Section Ponticae – Done
Section Protobalanus – Done
Section Quercus – Done, the list has been updated and all articles have the section in their taxobox, but not all have it in the text
Section Virentes – Done

Uncertain status Mexican oaks

Thanks for doing this, Peter. I have been writing or improving articles on Mexican oaks, and found three treated differently by POWO, WFO, and IUCN. Curious if you have any insights on how to treat them here.

Quercus rubramenta Trel. Mexico (GRO, OAX) redirect to Quercus salicifolia (Stub). Treated as a separate species, native to Sierra Madre del Sur of Guerrero, by iucn and powo. Treated as synonym of Q. salicifolia Née by WFO
Quercus sartorii Botteri ex A.DC. (NL, TAM, SLP, QRO, HGO, VER, PUE, OAX) redirects to Quercus acutifolia (Stub). Treated as a separate species by iucn, and as a synonym of Q. acutifolia Née by powo and WFO.
Quercus trinitatis Trel. Mexico (HGO, VER, OAX, CHS), Guatemala, El Salvador. Redirects to Quercus laurina. Treated as a separate species by iucn, and as a synonym of Q. laurina Bonpl. by powo and WFO.

Tom Radulovich (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom Radulovich: of the three (PoWO, WFO, IUCN), PoWO is generally the most up-to-date. WFO still has stuff left over from TPL. IUCN still has species not assessed since 1998, and also suffers (in my view/experience) because assessments are often done by local botanists who use local names for 'their' species and are unaware of synonymous species in other countries (so, e.g., you get one name said to be endemic to China and another name said to be endemic to Vietnam, names which PoWO and other more global lists regard as synonyms). So I decided to go with PoWO for the lists here, unless there were very good recent sources that disagree.

It's worth noting that there were a substantial number of duplicate articles under synonyms listed in the sections I've worked on, and I suspect there are as many in the others. So I've had to do quite a bit of moving/merging/redirecting. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's very helpful! Based on that it sounds like Q. rubramenta ought to be treated as a species, and Q. sartorii and Q. trinitatis as synonyms. Tom Radulovich (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom Radulovich: however, doi:10.1111/nph.14773 notes that Mexico is a centre of high diversity for oaks, and that "c. 24% of species in our sample .. are not strictly monophyletic". doi:10.1111/nph.16162 also suggests that there are undescribed species, with some named species not being monophyletic. So it's a tricky area to work in!

The following may or may not be of relevance to you. I learnt from Plantdrew to be careful when synonymizing names used by the IUCN: sometimes the synonym is said to have a small range and be threatened but the accepted name is given a larger range. In these cases, Plantdrew pointed out that the status entry in the taxobox shouldn't be copied over. I've tried to create a Conservation section in such cases, with wording like that at Vincetoxicum anomalum, for example. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use of #

There was a discussion above about the use of # to mean "evergreen". My concern is different. ~~Although it needs to be made more clear,~~ The section lists are now sourced to the intersection of Plants of the World Online and Denk et al. (2017), App. 2.1, unless otherwise indicated. The English names aren't sourced, which I regard as an issue, but which is common in other species list articles. But what is the sourcing for the # markers? If there isn't one, then I am inclined to delete them. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]