Sequoites dakotensis cone cast fossils

• ... that in 1935, when Sequoites dakotensis (pictured) was first described as a member of the genus Sequoia, it was common for such species to be known only by their fossilized cones?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Shabbos Kestenbaum

Pbritti (talk) 05:12, 13 February 2025 (UTC).

• This is currently at the wrong taxonomic placement, see here and the affinity is uncertain as of 2002 [1]--Kevmin § 16:09, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
  • @Kevmin: Those are helpful sources and will be utilized to further improve the article. Regarding the wrong taxonomic placement, I'm seeing Sequoiites dakotensis, though this seems to be the use of an accepted alternative name for early examples in the genus Sequoia. Am I mistaken here? This is not my area of expertise, so I will be wholly deferring to your judgement. Thanks for digging those sources up! ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
    • A 2014 North America Research Group publication appears to agree with the Sequoia classification of Sequoia dakotensis as Sequoia. So the 2002 paper is contradicted by a more recent publication https://propagationnation.us/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Lowe2014_GeologicHistoryGiantSequoia.pdf --Bubblesorg (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
      • @Pbritti: Sequoites is not an alternative name for Sequoia, it is a fossil genus name, and currently the species is still placed in it by the Internation Fossil Plant Names Index overseen by paleobotanist Alexander B. Doweld. @Bubblesorg: NARG (North America Research Group) is an ameture fossil club in the Pacific North West, it does not qualify as a reliable source for wikipedia--Kevmin § 14:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
        • Counter, the NARG is made up of reliable advisors. Gary D. Lowe is indeed a real specialist in redwood trees and has many more reliable papers. Also, NARG thing was cited by a peer reviewed paper-https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10806-024-09942-0.
          • @Kevmin and Bubblesorg: While I am familiar with amateur botanists writing reliable sources, I am going to defer to peer review publications and a taxonomic database on this. I have moved the page and made changes to indicate that the currently accepted name is Sequoites dakotensis and that the status of the plant is uncertain. I don't know how to fix the taxonomic infobox so that the genus Sequoites functions, but I can give that a shot tonight. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:00, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
            • Gary D. Lowe is not a amateur botanist, he is a real specialist. Also not, do not move the thing. It is not the accepted name. There is still a link for Sequoia dakotensis (https://www.ifpni.org/species.htm?id=C5C500AA-BA29-4A36-B914-5696D1B33A65). Please do not move anything around. I just reversed the change. Bubblesorg (talk) 15:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

He may be a specialist, but a taxonomic authority prefers Sequoites. The link you provided above considers Sequoia dakotensis a synonym of Sequoites dakotensis. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• The website is just a taxonomic names list, it does not speak to a consensus per say. Also, it does not confirm synonyms here, it just puts this as saying that some authors consider it a synonym or basionym. https://www.ifpni.org/species.htm?id=C5C500AA-BA29-4A36-B914-5696D1B33A65. Bring me papers and books. Actually the Sequoites dakotensis discussion should be seperate from this discussion. Sequoites is not the same thing as Sequoia from a paleobotanical sense. Bubblesorg (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
  • @Kevmin: I was not expecting a long-dead tree to cause such disruption! I'm requesting a stay on this review until the taxonomic issues are sorted out. @Bubblesorg: multiple taxonomic authorities superior to a non-peer-reviewed amateur book reject the Sequoia name. The plant has been reassigned and remains somewhat uncertain, per Kevmin. Cut-and-paste moves are disruptive. We can discuss this further on the talk page. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

What multiple papers? Most papers either suggest Sequoia or Parataxodium. Only parts of the plant are assigned to Sequoites. You did not have any consensus here to change it. I only used the Gary point to respond to the other person when they questioned the reliability of the source, I am not using it here to keep the name as Sequoia instead of Sequoites. Bubblesorg (talk) 15:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Pbritti agreed, we should reach a stable version of the article and correctly cover the taxonomy issue (some authors fully and wrongly ignoring Bell) before we continue the nom here, I'll have to step out from reviewing as I have now added notable information to the article.--Kevmin § 15:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Bubblesorg This discussion needs to be at the article talk page. The IFPNI listing at Sequoia dakotensis specifically links it to Sequoites dakotensis as a jr synonym, and notes it as the older name. I also just added a summary from Kevin Aulenbacks book on the Horseshoe Canyon Formation, where he specifically also uses Sequoites dakotensis, connects it to PArataxodium and links several other organ taxa into a larger whole plant reconstruction based on foliage, ovulate cone, pollen, and pollen cone morphology. All that we now seem to be missing is a formal paper making the official moves and synonymies.--Kevmin § 15:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

He linked it to many genera not just Sequoites. Bubblesorg (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Question, does the Saurian field guide count as a reliable source? Probably not. Bubblesorg (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

new reviewer needed as I have substantially added and edited the article now, also the page move of the nomination here is creating editing access issues wit the nomination templates.-Kevmin § 15:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)