This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Plants Mid‑importance 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. Pennsylvania Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania 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.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Indiana Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Indiana (assessed as Mid-importance). Alabama This article is part of WikiProject Alabama, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Alabama on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlabamaWikipedia:WikiProject AlabamaTemplate:WikiProject AlabamaAlabama articles Tennessee Low‑importance Liriodendron tulipifera is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Assessment] • [Template Usage]TennesseeWikipedia:WikiProject TennesseeTemplate:WikiProject TennesseeTennessee articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shouldn't the scientific name be in italics? And after the first mention of the genus, the genus name abbreviated to L.? 68.46.21.122 ( talk) 17:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

Yes, I believe it should. Until recently, we didn't really have the ability or consensus to italicize article titles. There's a current debate on this at the moment. On your second point, we only abbreviate the genus when it's clear in the context (as in we're not talking about other species at the same time that also have a genus that begins with L). Per our manual of style and common convention, we also don't abbreviate the genus at the beginning of a sentence, e.g. "Liriodendron tulipifera is a species..." instead of "L. tulipifera is a species..." for obvious reasons of punctuation. -- Rkitko ^{( talk)} 18:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC) reply

I see the size is mentioned, but shouldn't some mention be made that the Tulip-tree is the tallest broadleaf tree through much of its range, particularly as far maximum height is concerned? Wilhelm Ritter 22:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC) reply

This article could use some pictures of very large/tall trees. Ryoung122 02:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Was just poking around at the article, and some of the phrasing (e.g., "The trunk rises like a Corinthian column, tall and slender, the branches come out symmetrically", which I googled and found) seems to be copied from a PD book [1]. Not a copyright issue, of course, but it looks like a WP:PLAG issue because there are no quotes.

There are also no references at all in the lead. Brought this up on WT:PLANTS as well. -- SB_Johnny |  ^talk 10:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC) reply

This article could use information on potential pests, cultivation problems, or other issues that home-owners have with these trees, deer browsing etc. I find the trees to be notoriously intolerant of mechanical trunk damage, the wounds of which quickly yield to fungi that frequently cause a rapid decline in the health and structural stability of the tree. --James Hade 10:20, September 14, 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by James Hade ( talk • contribs)

Well, there's a limit to what we should include. Note that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, so it must be worded carefully. We shouldn't include instructions, cultivation tips, or guides. Any information added should be referenced with reliable sources. Cheers, Rkitko ^{( talk)} 16:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC) reply

Greetings,

Here is a list reference for the tallest tulip trees. Note it's from 2004. THe tallest tulip tree then was 177 feet.

http://www.nativetreesociety.org/bigtree/webpage_tall_tree_list.htm

More recent information indicates that the tallest tulip tree is now 178 feet. Ryoung122 04:29, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

http://www.paralumun.com/treetulip.htm

I can't be bothered with adding references, but if someone else wants to, the above is a good one. Ryoung122 04:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Shouldn't some info be added about the root system? That would be very helpful. -- Wierdox has spoken! —Preceding undated comment added 01:26, 21 September 2011 (UTC). reply

We should be careful not to be too POV about "common" or non-scientific names. Just as a "starfish" is not a fish, neither is it a star. A tulip poplar is not a poplar, neither is it a tulip. Yet who complains about it being called a "tulip" tree? So, we should be careful not to disparage common names such as "poplar." Just note that it is not a "true" poplar according to the scientific definition. Ryoung122 18:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Agreed, and I'd like to propose a modification to both the common names list at the beginning and subsequently in the article text. "Tulip poplar" appears to be the most widespread name in everyday use. I've heard it used all my life throughout the Ohio valley, and it seems to be the common name in New York and throughout the mid-Atlantic states, although I'm not sure what's the most common name in the deep south.

Since the other two common names, "tuliptree" or "yellow poplar" each include one of the two elements of "tulip poplar," I think it would be better to begin with "Liriodendron tulipfera, commonly known as tulip poplar, tuliptree, or yellow poplar..." and move other variations, such as "tulip tree" spelled as two words, and "American..." as a prefix to these names to a separate subsection of the article discussing the name. "Tuliptree, also spelled tulip tree," or something similar. That would shorten the introduction and place the most widespread name first.

Although I don't object to the use of other names in the article just for variety, I do think that as "tulip poplar" seems to be very widespread (note the use of the word "poplar" to refer to the wood of this tree, rather than true poplars, in furniture [and not just amongst lumber companies]), it should be used throughout the article (not necessarily to the exclusion of other names; it just seems odd that the most common name is more-or-less ignored after a brief mention in the first sentence. P Aculeius ( talk) 02:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Is there anything else known as a Tulip tree? If there is, it would probably throw these results off a bit.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 03:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC) reply

And yet, I can't recall ever hearing anybody call it a "yellow poplar" or "tuliptree." I've only seen those names in nature guides, scientific literature, and sources derived from those. From the statistical graph it looks as if the spikes are caused by the publication of books, and the only logical explanation for why all three terms received the same boost at the same time around 1980 is because all of them appeared together, before the author chose to use the same term repeatedly, resulting in one term being repeated more than the others in the literature. Much as in the article as it stands now. If you graph the number of appearances of the term in this article, you'll necessarily see one dominating all of the others. Does that make it more "correct?" P Aculeius ( talk) 13:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC) reply

The article describes the seeds as "samara-like carpels." Is this to say that they are not samaras? 38.109.87.242 ( talk) 18:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC) reply

they are samaras. Wasp32 ( talk) 04:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC) reply

Added minor detail about the historic range — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zjohnson98 ( talk • contribs) 03:58, 24 October 2018 (UTC) reply

I don't know why this article doesn't show Massachusetts in the range map. I live in a suburb of Boston and have an enormous tulip tree in my front yard. Magelleniccloud ( talk) 19:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC) reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Eiteljorg Museum--'Oonseentia by Gerald Clarke--20 May 2012.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Trying to figure out if I need to pull up a new tree that is growing because it is about 20 ft away from our house. I can't seem to find out what type of root system this tree has. I would prefer to leave it but I don't want to ruin my home. 68.189.169.198 ( talk) 22:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC) reply