From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Life-Span

How long does this tree live? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.201.68 ( talk) 23:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Untitled

Help me identify the Sugar Maple

The notches on the leaves between the 3 lobes \|/ are shaped like the space between your forefinger and thumb \_/ , like a U.

The Norway maple has a similar leaf, so be careful. The stem of the sugar maple is red with three terminal buds. The Norway maple's buds are much larger (and purple), and the stem is more gray.

Incorrect information.

When some one who is better at editing this get to it.. please correct that this is the largest of all maples, The Oregon or bigleaf maple is also a very large maple! It grows in western Canada.

Here is my source : http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfd/library/documents/treebook/bigleafmaple.htm

Size of the sugar leaf maple : http://www.atl.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/index-e/what-e/publications-e/afcpublications-e/maritimetrees-e/sugar-maple-e.html

The above link is dead. Need a new one. 9tmaxr ( talk) 07:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC) "Acer saccharum" is an excellent article. Couldn't find a damn thing to fix, or even reword a little bit. That may be a first, for me. Congratulations, everybody who wrote this piece. reply

9tmaxr ( talk) 07:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC) reply

A reference is there now for the leaf size info. Nadiatalent ( talk) 12:26, 26 June 2011 (UTC) reply

"The seeds fall from the tree in autumn, where they must be exposed to 90 days of temperatures below −18 °C (0 °F) to break their coating down." This is simply not true, needs correcting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.2.14.206 ( talk) 17:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC) reply

Merge

Anyone want to say why they thought silver and sugar maple should be merged? They are two completely different species, both with decent pages - ChristopherM 01:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree—these are definitely two distinct species. Why is there a merging suggestion? Mr.absurd 05:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC) reply




These statements are contradictory. One from the Norway maple topic and one from the Sugar maple topic. Personally I think neither is helpful in id.

" ... the leaf lobes of Norway Maple tend to have a more triangular shape, in contrast to the more squarish lobes often seen on Sugar Maples"

" Also, the leaf lobes of the Sugar Maple have a more triangular shape, in contrast to the squarish lobes of the Norway Maple. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.151.187.136 ( talk) 00:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC) reply

Common Name

The lead sentence of any species account should take note of and provide disambiguation of any common names. This sentence should be clear and direct and to the point. Considering the fact most people reach the articles on species' epithets by redirect after researching common names, an explanation of their redirect to (perhaps) unfamiliar territory is directly in order.

Common names are notoriously variable and, well, uncommon. There are almost always local, vernacular, or colloquial expressions for certain plants or animals which others, unfamiliar with the term, will reject outright as unacceptable, if only due to their unfamiliarity. Common names mentioned in an article may be a bone of contention, but I have faith a consensus will be reached, perhaps by attrition, as has happened in the lead paragraph of this Acer saccharum article. I think we can all agree "sugar maple" is the one common name for this species, n'est ce pas?

Writing "Acer saccharum, the sugar maple is a species of maple tree" is convoluted, redundant, and explains nothing. One shouldn't seek to define one item by referencing the same item a second time. Nickrz 13:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia style is to have the Latin name first, and most common English name(s) right after. The introductory sentence should also be definitional ( Wikipedia:Lead section).
If the part about common names being "notoriously variable and, well, uncommon." refers tomy removal of the A. leucoderne, A. barbatum A. nigrum, then the statement was wildly misleading. The names with "sugar" are not only not the most widespread amongst authorities, but saying that these species are "called sugar maple" is misleading. They may have alternative names that contain sugar, but they are not called "sugar maple" (The only one commonly called by the "sugar" variant is A. barbatum). This confuses the taxonomic issue (whether they are treated as subspecies or not) and the English nomenclatural issue (what English names are/should be used). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Circeus ( talk • contribs) 15:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

I was not object your removal of the other "common" names or the assertions acompanying them. I have no knowledge of those other maples or their common names; I leave that decision and edit to your judgement. I was clarifying my wording of the first sentence and why I believe it should be so, seeing also as it agrees with Wikipedia policy. Nickrz 16:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

As for the wording of the opening sentence, "The tree species Acer saccharum is commonly known as the sugar maple" reads better to me than "Acer saccharum, the sugar maple is a species of maple tree.". Wikipedia:Lead_section says that the bolded mentions should be in the first sentence and "at the earliest natural point in the prose", which seems to me is met by either wording. Anyway, enough wikilawyering. I'd rather leave this one on The Wrong Version than discuss it further. Unless there was something other than the wording at issue. Kingdon 21:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Conservation status

I have updated and corrected the "conservation status" and acquiesced the use of the reference (4) cited. Please, when insisting data is supported by reference, check to see if the reference you are citing agrees with your contention or exposition. In this case, the NatureServe website lists Acer saccharum as "G5", their designation for globally, demonstrably secure, widespread and abundant.

The image removed also lists this same website and article as its "source" - hence its removal. The map does not reflect its citation, and offers no other reference(s). Nickrz 16:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Global "secure" rating does not prevent rarity in subdivision. Far from it. See Eurybia divaricata for an example. Also, the source clearly support the assertion, if you'll look at the entire page, specifically the "distribution" section and the actual status codes used for those subdivisions ("Georgia (S3)", "North Dakota (SH)", "South Dakota (S4)"). Circeus 16:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

The map is essentially meaningless, as its data are incomplete, and directly contradict other assertions made at the same source. By which I mean "Natureserve.com." (Which is not, I might add, affiliated with The Nature Conservancy as cited in the same reference. That needs correcting as well).

If you visit the cite and expand the "Conservation Status" heading, (which is, after all, the exact heading and wording in question here) the source clearly an unequivocally states: "Global Status: G5
Global Status Last Reviewed: 20Jan2006
Global Status Last Changed: 09Feb1984
Rounded Global Status: G5 - Secure
Reasons:
Widespread, abundant tree species of the eastern and midwestern United States, often becoming the dominant or co-dominant tree in the forest canopy over large areas, particularly in the Appalachians and the Midwest.
Nation: United States National Status: N5
Nation: Canada National Status:N5

Let's use Occam's razor here, and stop picking flypoop out of black pepper. The sugar maple may not grow in the state of Montana, but perhaps it does; your map ignores the vast majority of the real estate in North America, including the majority of United States in which it is known to be growing and secure.

"Rarity in subdivision" is another name for reductio ad absurdum. Certainly local populations of sugar maple may be in transistion, but that is true of any organism; I submit a neutral point of view would not present such a sweeping generalization, such minutae, in an encyclopedia article. Nickrz 18:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, the wording "Conservation Status: Secure; common, widespread and abundant throughout its natural range" wording doesn't sound right (that is, the "throughout its natural range" does not apply to the very edges of its range - which is true of almost any species). The source says various things - it mentions the large number of plants, contrasts threats from agriculture versus development, discusses genetic diversity among the population(s), and other details. I doubt either side will find their version is "proved" by this or any other source. It is more a matter of what the best brief summary is. Maybe something like "The sugar maple is widespread, and is considered secure (except at the edges of its range)". I'm not sure I follow what is controversial about the map - I like it (largely because it does double-duty as showing what the range is, not because I think it is really all that important for wikipedia what the exact status in North Dakota or Georgia is).
If we really want to dial up the flamebait, we can talk about what global warming will do to the southern edge of the range (but I'd rather not).
One more comment: both of you are dangerously close to violating WP:3RR (or maybe you already did; I didn't count). You both need to change "revert first, argue later" to "calm down first, explain second, ask for clarification third, bring in an uninvolved party fourth, and so on". Which I see has started. Kingdon 22:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC) reply
Seeing no objection to the wording proposed above, or other suggestions, I've made that change. I have not restored the map as I now see that we already have a range map (in the infobox). Kingdon 20:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC) reply

leaves?

I was just watching Subway (Homicide: Life on the Street). One of the last things the guy says before he dies is that the leaves on a sugar maple turn upwards before a rain to allow it to catch rainwater. Anyone know if there is any truth to that? Beeblebrox ( talk) 02:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply

Nobody seems to know here, so I've asked at the ref desk. If it can be sourced I'll add it. Beeblebrox ( talk) 00:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC) reply

New images

An OTRS submitter has contributed the following images. Feel free to use if useful. Dcoetzee 07:47, 11 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Some minor issues with the article

Problem solved (the last message left in 23 June 2015)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Greetings! Some minor issues that were removed/reported earlier have been restored to the article without an explanation. Since they seem to pop up so often, I thought it'd be better to write a small summary why they were removed earlier:

  1. Removed a link to [[America]] [1]: WP:OVERLINK (major geographic location)
  2. Removed a link to [[Midwest]] [2]: the text says "...midwestern U.S. hardwood forests." (just like the previous link, [[northern hardwood forest]])
  3. Restored a {{contradiction-inline}} [3]: the problem was not fixed as the Edit Summary suggests (the sentence is still in sharp contradiction with another part of the text)
  4. Removed links to [[violin]], [[guitars]], and [[drum shells]] [4]: WP:OVERLINK (everyday words)
  5. Removed a link to [[bowling alley]] [5]: not linking to "bowling alley"
Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 18:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  1. America is the name of the country. United States is used in referring to political situations, not maple trees.
  2. Bowling alley redirects to bowling which is the same thing.
  3. Midwestern redirects to Midwest which is the same thing. These links offer clarification to those readers who are not from America.
SW3 5DL ( talk) 21:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Hi SW3 5DL, thanks for your answer. I noticed that you fixed some of the problems mentioned earlier. Anyway, here's a short reply to your post concerning few linking issues:
  1. Bowling alley: "Bowling" is the game [6], "bowling alley" is the wooden lane used in bowling or the building having those lanes [7]. The text is undeniably pertaining to the level wooden lane, not the sports. The text is saying that bowling alleys are "...commonly manufactured from sugar maple." Similarly, we are linking to [[bowling pins]], an article that even has its own section about the pin construction. Besides, [[bowling]] as such would fall under WP:OVERLINK as an everyday word.
  2. Midwest: The text is about "...midwestern U.S. hardwood forests.", not about the [[Midwestern United States]]. Similarly, we are linking to [[northern hardwood forest|northern]], not to [[Northern United States]]
  3. You also restored [8] the links to [[violin]], [[guitars]], and [[drum shells]]. They are everyday words per WP:OVERLINK, and therefore should not be linked.
Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 09:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • There is no separate article for bowling alley on WP because it is sufficient to include it in the article on bowling.
  • Where do you think those "midwestern U.S. hardwood forests" are located?
  • I removed the vandalism that you added a note "contradiction" to instead of removing the vandalism. SW3 5DL ( talk) 22:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Exactly, SW3 5DL. There is no separate article for "bowling alley" but there is a separate article for "bowling pin". We are not linking to "bowling" (game) because it has nothing to do with sugar maple, but we are linking to "bowling pin" because the very construction comprises sugar maple. Now you are forcing a link to "bowling" (game), that is besides an everyday word per WP:OVERLINK and therefore should not be linked anyway.
  • We are not linking the location, we are linking the specific forest type. For example, we are linking to [[northern hardwood forest]], not to [[Northern United States]] even that's where the forests are located. Doing otherwise would fall short per WP:SPECIFICLINK.
  • If you are accusing me of vandalism, I ask you to retract your comment or file a case at WP:ANI instead of making ungrounded claims. The two contradicting statements very clearly expressed, and checking which one holds true is pretty damn hard when there's been no source given for either of the claims. Actually, I was wondering if you could share the source for this section [9] instead of mere copy-editing, since you seem to have been able to determine which one of the contradicting statements were true. Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 11:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Link

Hi Jayaguru-Shishya, thanks for reformatting the caption, but I'm wondering why you removed the wikilink to Romeyn Beck Hough? It would be nice to point a few people in his direction, since his bio barely gets any traffic. -- Hillbillyholiday talk 17:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Hi there, Hillbillyholiday. Thanks for your notice, I've added now a more specific link ot the destination article. [10] I hope you find this okay. Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 17:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Nice one, thanks J-S! -- Hillbillyholiday talk 17:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC) reply
No problem bro! :-) Jayaguru-Shishya ( talk) 19:03, 14 October 2016 (UTC) reply

Embarrassing that it is C-class...

...when Maple syrup, made from Acer saccharum is a Featured article. Just sayin'. David notMD ( talk) 15:44, 27 August 2018 (UTC) reply

Requested move 11 December 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved ( non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 02:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC) reply


Acer saccharum → Sugar maple – this species is very widely known by this common name, far more so than the scientific name. "Sugar Maple" is unambiguous, whereas the scientific name is easily confused with Acer saccharinum. Somatochlora ( talk) 16:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC) —Relisting.  BegbertBiggs ( talk) 22:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC) reply

There is a norther sugar maple (this species) and a southern sugar maple (Acer barbatum/ Acer floridanum or Acer saccharum var. floridanum.) Hardyplants ( talk) 21:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Is it ever called just "sugar maple" though? It seems pretty clear to me that this species is "THE" sugar maple, and that the common name is less confusing here than the latin. Somatochlora ( talk) 15:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply
I am not from the South so can't say what others call that tree, but as a general rule people leave out such things because obviously they are in the south and have no need to call it "southern". But anyway that indirectly gets to the problem, common names are mostly regional names that are in common use by certain people but not all people. In parts of Canada it is called "Hard maple" or "rock maple" and I am sure there is a French name too (Érable à sucre) but every where it is Acer saccharum. Hardyplants ( talk) 19:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support — I think "sugar maple" is the overwhelming common name for that tree, the one syrup and furniture is made out of; not "northern sugar maple", but just "sugar maple". Whereas "Florida maple" is the common name for Acer floridanum aka "southern sugar maple". Levivich  harass/ hound 06:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Oppose: I agree with Hardyplants. Latin names have been developed for a reason; to avoid confusion caused by common names, such as corn being used differently in Europe vs North America. I think the Latin name should stand for this article. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم ( talk) 06:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose: I think redirects are appropriate and suffice for vernaculars and as a "-pedia" article, the scientific name should take the lead (i.e., be the official article title). — Eewilson ( talk) 18:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, as noted there are two different species that use the name "sugar maple", combined with the most commonly used name in the literature is Acer saccharum, over sugar maple.-- Kev min § 19:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC) reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Geographical Distribution

A question that this article does not answer is why the Sugar Maple (as well as the Red Maple and Black Maple) is found only in the eastern part of the continent. The distribution is presumably not determined by climate since the north-south range is wide. If the reason is known, it would be a nice addition to the article. Bill ( talk) 20:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Acer_saccharum&oldid=1194884888"