Talk:Shorea

Looks to me as if there is considerable dublication with Dipterocarpaceae. Maybe move all the timber groups there? Brya 16:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there is considerable duplication and confusion within the Dipt pages. I think the best idea is to move the trade name table to a seperate page and link to that page (already Done). I haven't had time to edit this table - it contains many Synonyms and some grouping that don't agree with the literature. Sepilok2007 23:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

How does the shorea disperse its seed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.9.237 (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Sections and Species list

This Genus page gives a list of sections, each of those sections then takes us to an incomplete list of species based on a Flora of Sabah and Sarawak list. It does not include Shorea species that occur only outside Sabah and Sarawak. There are c.196 Shorea species, the "list of Shorea species" shows about half of that. Should we remove the misleading Section tags and merely have a List of Species tag, should we remove the List page and just have a list on the Shorea page or what?203.176.129.223 (talk) 02:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC) sorry hadn't logged onBrunswicknic (talk) 02:34, 5 September 2012 (UTC) Consulted The Plant List and Angiosperm Phylogeny Group, this genus and the family are in a massive state of uncertainty, Shore obtusa for instance is not recognised as a name or as a synonym, at the moment I believe that we have to wait for the botanists to sort things out within Dipterocarpaceae before lumping and splitting, so I advise that we leave pages as they are, with indications of the current scientific uncertaintyBrunswicknic (talk) 02:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Brunswicknic for looking at these pages. RE: Not including species outside of Sabah/Sarawak - actually that is only partially correct - as some of these sections don't occur in Borneo e.g. Section Pentacme & Section Doona, but the ones that do occur are based on the TFSS as they are the species I am familier with. When I have time I will add in Peter Ashton's account in Flora Melsiana.

RE: Plant List - unfortunately some of the entries on the Plant List are incorrect, e.g. Dryobalanops aromatica is listed on the Plant List as a synonym of Dryobalanops sumatrensis and Dipterocarpus megacarpus is listed as an accepted species -whereas it is a synonym of Dipterocarpus elongatus, to name a couple of errors. I took this up with the Plant List author (Rafaël Govaerts) and he has correct this on the WCSP, the underlying dataset of tpl - but these won't appear until they release the 3rd edition of tpl.

RE: Taxonomic uncertainity - generally the species in Borneo are okay. Peter A revised them in 2004 and is currently revising the West Malaysian species for Flora of Pensinuslar Malaysia. The biggest problem is recent molecular work has shown that Shorea is a paraphyletic group and Shorea may ultimately be broken up into a range of genera. However none of the Dipterocarp tanonomists are keen to do at this stage.Sepilok2007 (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sepilok2007, I don't have access to a decent library, am in Phnom Penh at present. The shake up that molecular phylogeny is carrying out is causing a lot of revision at the moment and 8 years have passed since Ashton published his major work. I do not mean that the information at species level is going to be extensively revised, but above that taxonomic level is at the moment problematic and I believe we should advise readers of the known uncertainty. What do you think? I will continue to add info at a species level, but when Wikipedia has a page for Shorea obtusa a taxonome that is not currently recognised as a name by Plant List, it does disheartenBrunswicknic (talk) 07:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Oops, catching up with myself, I don't have a problem with Ashton's work on Sarawak and Sabah, but I do find it frustrating that a Wikipedia page titled list of species does not include species that already have Wikipedia pages, and is not in alphabetical order. So, if I want to include species that are not in Sarawak and Sabah, such as S. obtusa and S. farinosa, then where do they go. I believe that a list of species should be that, a discussion on super-species taxonomic ordering should be another pageBrunswicknic (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

S. farinosa is an Anthoshorea (Ashton 1982). S. obtusa would supposedly fall into the Section Shorea subsection Shorea but it isn't cover in Flora Malesian Volume 9 (which is available as a free PDF from Flora Malesian website). The split of Shorea will probably result in most of the sections been raised into genera according to Koichi Kamiya (pers comm.) Koichi did the last molecular attempt at working out the Phylogeny of Shorea see Koichi et al (2005) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21652457. But agree that we should advise readers of the known uncertainty — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sepilok2007 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Used in Guitar

Looking at guitars just now and noticed the sides of one particular guitar were made of "Meranti". Came here, found out actual name is "Shorea", and then noticed under "Uses", the use of the wood in guitars is not mentioned. I could try to add this to the article (seems safe), but want to get a green light from someone who has worked on the article first, to avoid wasting time.Tym Whittier (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Conservation Status

Under the heading of Conservation Status the page says "The Shorea species page gives threat classifications".

But it doesn't! There's nothing on the Talk pages either here or there that indicates why not?

Given the climate crisis, I think this matters.

New work on Polyphyly of Shorea genus

Hello, it seems like new molecular analysis has found Shorea to be polyphyletic, and has moved several species out of Shorea and into older synonyms, for example rubroshorea negrosensis for shorea negrosensis, and pentacme contorta for shorea contorta. This is the current taxonomic ordering used in the Kew Gardens Plants of the World database (to be fair this new work by Ashton was published in the Kew Bulletin). I would just like to ask if this is definitive enough to rework this page and the pages of all affected species, or is this new taxonomic ordering still somewhat contingent? I am just an amateur, so to me, the fact that Kew Gardens has updated its database with this new work seems pretty definitive, but I do not have the requisite background to feel comfortable making that call unilaterally.

If so though, I'd be happy to start reworking things slowly, and anyone else is obviously welcome to using this source to get started as well.

Servus-a-manu (talk) 07:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)