Talk:Actaea spicata
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Leaf size?
[edit]The article states leaves are 40cm long and 30cm broad. Given that the overall plant is only 30-60cm tall, this would make the leaves almost as large as the plant. I am sure from photos that the leaves are not 15 x 12 inches! I suggest that the cm should read mm - 40mm x 30mm makes much more sense. Ptilinopus (talk) 10:12, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Ptilinopus: there are no references in the article that give these sizes. I've consulted six of the Floras that I have on my shelves, ranging from the old Flora Europaea to the current New Flora of the British Isles and, annoyingly, none gives a measurement for the leaves, only saying things like "large" or "broad". However, the illustration in one Flora does suggest that the leaves may be almost as long as the flowering stem. The leaves are described as pinnate, so if you look at the right-hand leaf at File:Illustration_Actaea_spicata0.jpg, which has two pairs of lateral leaflets and one terminal leaflet, the leaf length appears to be more than half the total length of the flowering stem. See also this photo, remembering that what may look like leaves are leaflets.
- But we do need a source with actual measurements! Peter coxhead (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
- I quote from the article. “It is a herbaceous perennial plant growing 30–60 cm tall. It has toothed, bipinnate compound leaves up to 40 cm long and 30 cm broad.” To be sure the compound leaves are large, but hardly comparable to the height of the total plant. Ptilinopus (talk) 10:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- @Ptilinopus: I assumed the central stem in File:Illustration_Actaea_spicata0.jpg was the base of the cut stem with flowers and leaves. Then the total height of the plant as measured on my laptop screen was about 17.5 cm. The total length of the right-hand leaf from the base of the petiole to the tip was 10.5 cm. So the leaf length is 60% of the height. For the maximum plant height of 60 cm, this gives a leaf length of 36 cm. So although the dimensions given are a bit odd, they are not totally implausible.
- However, more importantly, there's no source that I can find for the size, so the text should be replaced with sourced information, which I'll do. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- I quote from the article. “It is a herbaceous perennial plant growing 30–60 cm tall. It has toothed, bipinnate compound leaves up to 40 cm long and 30 cm broad.” To be sure the compound leaves are large, but hardly comparable to the height of the total plant. Ptilinopus (talk) 10:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
