dead link in the external links section removed— Precedingunsigned comment added by24.17.176.77 (talk) 03:02, October 10, 2005
How to recognize trees from quite a bit away. No.1 The Larch, THE Larch. And now, no.1, The Larch, THE Larch.— Precedingunsigned comment added by66.218.11.8 (talk) 03:09, June 7, 2006
- Darn, someone beat me to it!Totnesmartin17:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- should we have a link to Monty Python or a small part about Monty Python's larch?Casvdschee (talk)08:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though I have no actual authority in what happens, I would enjoy to see this added.The Graceful Hobo (talk)01:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Larch is not native to Scandinavia, so maybe Scandinavia shouldn't be mentioned in conjunction with Russia and Canada as one of the areas with immense larch forests?— Precedingunsigned comment added by193.44.1.80 (talk) 12:13, April 15, 2015
Larch is today being used to produce attractive, high grained cutting boards. For more information contact the Larch Wood Enterprises in East Margaree, Nova Scotia. They can also be contacted at www.larchwoodcanada.com— Precedingunsigned comment added by24.149.92.13 (talk)14:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
About the graph in the "Species and Taxonomy" section
[edit]In the graph in the "Species and Taxonomy" section, the "L. cajanderi" species redirects to the "L. gmelinii" wiki page. I searched the species on Google and they are apparently different species (with the L. cajanderi species having the common name "Kajander Larch" and the L. gmelinii having the name "Dahurian Larch")Peter Jinbin (talk)00:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Not different species according toPlants of the World Online – seehere; GBIF – seehere; or GRIN – seehere.Peter coxhead (talk)10:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Peter Jinbin, @Peter coxhead . . . which leavesLarix gmelinii seriously paraphyletic in Stull's phylogeny. With multiple other contradictions between Stull's, and other published phylogenies (reference citations 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 in theversion of the page as of today), Stull's phylogeny needs to be treated with caution: either it should be removed, or the other phylogenies similarly presented, to make it clear that Stull's is not "The[one and only acceptable] Phylogeny ofLarix" as is implied at the moment.
- As an aside I've noticed the same problem on several other genus pages with phylogenies cited from Stull's paper. Onewas removed recently fromCedrus by @Elias Ziade; I think quite properly, as it was frankly weird(!), totally different to both other published results, and expected biogeographicalparsimony. The one presented atPicea is grotesque, too. While Stull's work does look reliable (in accord with other studies) for higher ranks (families, orders, etc.); but within genera, its fine tuning is dubious, to say the least. Should this one, and the one atPicea, go, too? -MPF (talk)17:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is ratedC-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
