 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Anybody who is familiar with the tamarix (salt cedar) is likey familiar with its classification as an invasive species and a problem in the South West. I know little about this plant but am familiar with it as it thrives in many areas where I enjoy hunting, particularly along the Colorado River.
The reason that I am writing this is that I have read and heard about attempts to erradicate these plants by treating them with herbicides, spraying them with enzymes, and importing beetles that damage the plant. None of these seem ideal and obviosly are either costly or just plain risky. If that were not the case the problem would have been solved.
In addition to being a conservationist, I am a business man and believe strongly that the best way to eliminate a resource is to establish an economic value for it and allow business to exploit it wholesale. That said, I challenge the scientific community to focus some of its attentions away from the plants weaknesses and on to its strengths. For example, I have read that the plant is fire adapted. If this means that it is less likely to burn than other woody materials pehaps a use for it can be found in the building materials industry.
It is likely that I am not the first to consider this approach but out of all the websites I have visited the focus is on how to exploit its weaknesses and I just thought I would drop this note here where someon more qualified than myself could run with this idea.
Thanks
Stephan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.179.48.21 ( talk) 17:37, 15 June 2005 (UTC)
- 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) Natg 19 ( talk) 01:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Tamarix →
Tamarisk – Per
WP:COMMONNAME.
Tamarisk currently redirects here. Tamarisk is not an obscure localized name, but the usual name in English.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4] —
the Man in Question
(in question) 23:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
- I disagree. Tamarix is a name which identifies every single member of this genus to botanists and horticulturalists throughout the world. A genus can never have more than one legitimate name at any given time. For a genus name to be changed, it has to be subject to international agreement, and this name is given authority by the scientists who have studied it and determined its relationship to other plants. Those authors become the authorities for that name. It's published by all the respected databases (listed in the taxonbar). For this reason, the Latin name is preferred by Wikipedia in the vast majority of cases. Personally, I would prefer that every single plant name should be referred to by WIkipedia under its Latin name (obviously with links from the common names).
- On the other hand, more than one common name can be applied to a plant. Some plants have many common names. This could lead to confusion where individual species or variants have completely different names in different places. It's also possible that the name "tamarisk" could be applied to a plant from a different genus, purely on the grounds that it looks like a tamarisk. There are many such cases of mistaken identity in the plant world. For instance, the name "lily" is assigned to hundreds of species - purely on the basis that somebody at some point thought they vaguely looked like lilies. Darorcilmir ( talk) 06:13, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose. Tamarix species are known by other names outside of USA as well as inside, i.e. "salt cedar". Leo Breman ( talk) 16:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
- 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.
To add to this article: a photo of the wood, or an object made from the wood. 173.88.246.138 ( talk) 07:22, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
The opening statement, "They are evergreen or deciduous shrubs or trees...", needs clarification. It appears to conflict with Wikipedia's statement in its entry on the word "deciduous" that "The antonym of deciduous in the botanical sense is evergreen." Deciduous is the opposite of evergreen.
If this statement is intended to convey that the plant may behave as either an evergreen OR a deciduous tree, depending upon the climate or the species, then that should be clarified. "Tamarix species can be either deciduous or evergreen, depending on the specific species and environmental conditions," would be more clear. The current phrasing implies that the terms are interchangeable, when they are antonyms.
"They may be either evergreen or deciduous..." would provide similar clarification. 76.184.182.200 ( talk) 17:47, 5 November 2023 (UTC)