Talk:Liriodendron

Spelling

Is there a best accepted name for this tree? The article has been shuffled around. Right now google shows 9510 hits for "tuliptree", 26500 for "tulip tree", and 16900 for "tulip poplar". WormRunner 01:38, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to go for either Tulip tree or Tulip-tree. Definitely not "Tulip poplar", as that suggests it is a poplar, which of course it isn't. - MPF 18:45, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Moved to Tulip tree, as this is the most widely used - MPF 12:23, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Moved back to tuliptree. THIS IS THE CORRECT USAGE. Consult Dir or Preston or any reputable reference. jaknouse 15:51, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. Numerous references use Tulip tree. - MPF 15:57, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Just my opinion, Jaknouse, but I think "Tulip tree" has the most backing. And putting your opinion in all caps doesn't make it more right. -- WormRunner 06:20, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Jaknouse, I think you are outvoted. You're gonna have to be nice and accept the consensus, or convince us on the talk page. Pollinator 13:55, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually in the Appalachians, the most common terms are Tulip poplar or Yellow poplar, but I haven't argued for that because it is misleading. However, in either event the common usage is two words, not one. Pollinator 13:55, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I certainly know about the "poplar" thing, and certainly should have mentioned it in the article. The reason that everyone (in the scientific community, anyway) is avoiding the name including "poplar" is that poplars are a clearly defined group of trees and are very distant cladistically from the magnolias, which is the group that tuliptree falls into, so using the word poplar for tuliptree is very misleading. That is the same reason that the scientific community uses tuliptree instead of tulip tree and cucumbertree instead of cucumber tree: to clearly indicate that those are vernacular names, and that the tuliptree has NOTHING to do with tulips, and similiarly for the cucumbertree. Now, I just dug out my Gleason & Cronquist. They are universally (among the science community) regarded as THE authorities on eastern North American plants. They actually do it a little differently from me -- and from you guys; they're actually closer to me. They use hyphens, like this: tulip-tree; cucumber-tree. This, again, is a device to clearly indicate that the names are vernacular, etc., etc. Similarly, the also capitalize the name ONLY when it is at the beginning of the sentence or entry. (that is, for tuliptree they say "Tulip-tree, yellow-poplar"). So, I just went and dug out my "Atlas of United States Trees", by Elbert W. Little, published by the USDA: they use "cucumbertree" (lower-case) and "yellow-poplar" (again, lower-case). So, I went and dug out the American Forestry Association's official guide. They use "cucumbertree" and "tuliptree" (both lower-case). In fact, of the dozens of tree books I have, ALL the scholarly and reference guides either use hyphens or compound names, and all lower-case -- not ONE uses "tulip tree" or "cucumber tree". Only the cheap popular guides use those arrangements or capitalize them. jaknouse 00:27, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Facts, not opinions: The OED says tulip-tree, tulip poplar, saddle-tree. And most of its quotes are "tulip-tree". A third option it seems. --Menchi 04:26, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've no objection to Tulip-tree and Cucumber-tree. If that makes a suitable compromise, I'd be very happy with that (and am happy to do the job of sorting all the links, if it is accepted). "Cucumbertree" at least looks like it should be pronounced "cucum - bert - ree", and so reads just plain silly. I'd disagree though that 'Tulip tree' or 'Cucumber tree' implies any relationship to tulips or cucumbers; 'Tree tulip' does, but 'Tulip tree' doesn't. I'd also disagree that Gleason & Cronquist are closer to your viewpoint than mine: search engines treat hyphens as the same as a space, not no space. If you google 'Tulip-tree', the hits are the same as for 'Tulip tree', but not 'Tuliptree'. - MPF 12:38, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Jaknouse has started a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life relevant to this topic. -- WormRunner 06:09, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've queried the lower case insistence there. - MPF 12:38, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Naming controversy

I don't think Wikipedia should endorse any particular name, if there is a controversy over which variant is "right" or "official". All three seem to have their supporters.

1. Tuliptree - one word, capitalised
2. Tulip-tree - hyphenated, capitalised
3. Tulip tree - two words, capitalised
4. tuliptree - one word, not capitalised
5. tulip-tree - hyphenated, not capitalised
6. tulip tree - two words, not capitalised

Location of article

• Easy way out is to put the article under the genus name Liriodendron

I like this one.  ;) WormRunner 17:04, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• Otherwise, we should probably vote on one of the three forms listed above, and maintain redirects from the other 2 forms.

Referring to the plant

The article should mention that some folks (like The National Arbor Day Foundation spell it tuliptree and remark on how unusual that is.

Another problem with name

There is also the problem that lumber from this tree is sometimes sold as "tulipwood" but that is the name of at least four other species: Harpullia pendula also called tulipwood or black tulip wood, Dalbergia variabilis -pau rosa or tulipwood, Drypetes australasica also called Yellow Tulip Wood, and Rapanea howittiana. Rmhermen 17:00, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)

Page Move

I moved the page to Liriodendron, but I'm willing to move it back to tulip tree if that's what you guys all want.

However, I'm only going to make one more move. So please come to an agreement you can all live with. --Uncle Ed 14:55, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think Liriodendron is a good place for it. In fact, I think this is a good solution for a great many plant names. WormRunner 16:58, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Fine with me. Starting to edit all the links that still point at Tulip tree, Tuliptree, etc. - MPF 17:28, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Uncle Ed. --User:Michael Simpson

Ecotypes, Varieties, and a possible Separate Species

L. tulipifera has considerable individual variation. Some specimens are more brittle than others; some consistently produce narrow or wide-waisted leaves; some have little orange pigment (beta-carotene, BTW) in their flowers and others produce so much it's eye-catching.

A coastal plain swamp ecotype was first identified in South Carolina in 1967. It grows around bayheads and pocosins, and along streams in the company of other moisture-loving trees such as bald cypress, pond pine, red maple, and tupelo. It is more flood-tolerant than the northern upland type which forms the vast majority of tulip tree populations, but prefers sites where the water is relatively mobile. Its leaves have rounded lobes and often have a reddish or coppery blush.[1] It is drought-sensitive by comparison with upland trees.[2]

Since 2000, author William Moriaty has cultivated tulip trees from the southernmost populations near Orlando, and has found enough distinguishing features to classify them in an East Central Florida (ECF) ecotype. Their foliage resembles the coastal plain swamp lovers of the Carolinas, with rounded lobes. The lobe structure tends to become less pronounced as one travels from near Jacksonville to near Orlando. Stock from the Orlando area has a similar habitat preference to the coastal plain strain of the Carolinas, but is far more drought-tolerant and performs better all across central Florida than stock from the northwestern part of that state. These southernmost populations have very long growing periods below and above ground, can be semi-evergreen, and flower well before specimens from other provenances. They seem to have the best adaptability of all tulip trees to extremes of soil moisture.[3] There also is evidence that they adapt to differing soil conditions. Sands and peats seem to be their usual rooting medium in Florida, but a specimen is growing well on somewhat alkaline "flintstone" clay near Austin, Texas. They are so distinctive that separate species status for them seems justified.

Progress is being made in propagating the ECF ecotype, but there are a few catches: Its performance potential in colder climates remains unknown, and its foliage is so similar to the drought-intolerant Carolina coastal plain strain that trouble could develop if stock from the two sources becomes mixed. Tony 05:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)