Talk:Conifer cone

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

Plants High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[branch#branchlet|branchlet]] Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Shouldn't the title be singular, as in "Conifer cone"? I would have moved it, but there is already a redirect at "Conifer cone". However, this should redirect there, not as it is. I just don't know how to move it without misplacing the edit history. --DanielCD 18:06, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It should really be, yes, but I've always felt it is more bother to move than it is worth, as the page is only ever linked in a piped link as [[conifer cones|cone]] (since cone inevitably has to be a disambig page) - MPF 10:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the article : "The photo (right) shows mature male pine cones shortly after pollen release." Title of the picture : "Pine cones, immature male.jpg" I don't know which is right.

They are mature, after pollen release; note how the scales are open and dried-out. For comparison with immature male cones (not yet shedding pollen), see Image:Pineflower9538.JPG - MPF 10:43, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's elaborate on how the scales flake back when the cone becomes dry.

na stuff that, lets eat it and get a mickie d's while we're at it.!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.121.152 (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence should be reworded. The term "cone" is applied to strobili in general, not just those of conifers. --Schzmo 20:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a sentence talking about strobili. What do you think? Gary 21:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. Since this page is only a subtopic of strobilus, I would like the first sentence to say what a cone is, without seeming to say that the word "cone" is unique to conifers. --Schzmo 12:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find the title for this page to be very awkward, given that no one uses the phrase "conifer cone" when speaking of the cones of conifers. Why not simply call this page "Cone" or "Cone (botany)", and specify its context in the disambiguation page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.252.190 (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something, but "Pinecones can also be used for various things such as scrapbooking" seems incredibly strange and random. It's been here for a while, so I'm hesitant to remove this sentence, but I'd propose that, if it's going to stay, someone elaborate (how is a pinecone used for scrapbooking?) and move it to somewhere other than its current placement, which seems arbitrary. Yes i agree

Fogster (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is pathetic! Aren't there any sites with zillions of pictures of every kind of pine cone? -74.75.213.191 (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some mention of pine nuts should be made here. After all, they are a major reason for human interest in the cones (if I may be forgiven for taking myself as representative). I'm not sure how this should be done, though. 87.70.171.112 (talk) 10:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is a pine cone a fruit? A pod? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.118.100 (talk) 07:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither; it's a strobilus, commonly called a "cone".--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A black & white photograph was recently added with the caption "A pine cone (Israel)", but with no species identification. Another editor added a "tag" requesting species ID. It seems extremely unlikely that anyone could identify the species from a 2-dimensional photograph with no scale to indicate the size of the cone and no needle characteristics. I would also question where the photograph was taken; even if the photographer was from Israel, that does not confirm that the pine cone is native to that area of the World. I propose that the photograph be deleted for lack of information. The photograph is already shown on another page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Tal. 74.240.50.159 (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some other photos of unidentified specimens in this page as well (a few of them are of quite low quality compared with this one):

Home-made pine cone cow

A pine cone covered in ice after an ice storm

Male cones of a pine

Immature female pine cone -

So an equal criteria should be applied anyway. True, the specific cone is not identified (yet), but one should consider the overall contribution of photo (if any) before deleting it. I have already put some other photos without knowing the exact terminology (e.g. swan - A feeding Mute Swan in ice-covered pool, Hanover), which were later identified by the expert Wpedians. Patience, pls. Etan J. Tal 13:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etan J. Tal (talk • contribs)

User:MPF identified this specimen as An Aleppo Pine cone. Hope this settles the issue... Etan J. Tal 15:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etan J. Tal (talk • contribs) [reply]

I've just had a look at this page to see whether I can recommend it; on the whole, yes, but I've a few points: in Pinaceae, surely the bracts subtend the seed scale, not the other way around as written; perhaps they mean gametes, not gametophytes; In Araucariaceae, the bract and seed scale aren't nesessarily fully fused (in Araucaria, for example); in Taxaceae I'm not sure that it's universally accepted that the aril is derived from the seed scale. Hope I haven't offended good form here, Pete Michna.131.111.119.26 (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The page as it stands doesn't seem to have a clear explanation of the biological function of the cones, and how they achieve it. It's implicit in lots of the discussion (the mention of male and female cones, the pollen dispersal, the brief mention that dry weather is a good time for wind-based seed dispersal). Would it perhaps make sense to have a section before the discussion of the different types of female cone of this? That was the reason I just came to this page, and I think I've gleaned enough (particularly from the Pinaceae cones section), but I don't feel confident to write the new section myself. Story Weaver (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hey wondering if anyone has any good information about pine cones and their connection to the pineal gland. there is reference to this is many cultures. not sure if this would just need it's own page or if it could be a section under conifer cone. cheers

I was surprised to find that the "Cultural uses" section was lacking any mention of the many uses of conifer cones throughout history as esoteric or occult devices, such as the thyrsus, or as an artistic motif, such as with the the Fontana della Pigna. Surely some mention of the pineal gland and its etymological, figurative and metaphoric ties to the pine cone would also be appropriate. Bricology (talk) 20:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Conifer cone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100913223636/http://cws.huginonline.com/P/134112/PR/200010/886184_2_12.html to http://cws.huginonline.com/P/134112/PR/200010/886184_2_12.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A good-faith editor added a dictionary-like definition as the lead paragraph. I reverted for now pending discussion. A particular point is how cycad cones should be handled in this article. Defn. added:

>>>Seed-bearing organ on gymnosperm plants. A type of fruit, usually woody, ovoid to globular, including scales, bracts, or bracteoles arranged around a central axis, especially in conifers and cycads. <<<

Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i deleted a type of fruit as only angiosperms fruit 193.119.80.98 (talk) 09:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Botanically that's not correct however. Invasive Spices (talk) 13 July 2022 (UTC)