Talk:Allium/Archive 1

Archive 1

Identification question

I got a tip that this was an allium, but when I look at other alliums I'm not so sure. Can anyone confirm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quadell (talk • contribs) 19:27, 2004 December 2 (UTC)

Looks like Allium cristophii in extreme close-up. The flowerhead is like a spherical starburst about six inches (15cm) across, or larger in a good specimen, held on a smooth, hollow stalk from one to two feet long, or thereabouts. SiGarb 21:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Polyphyly/Paraphyly

Molecular phylogenetic studies have shown that this circumscription of Liliaceae is polyphyletic. Where is the reference for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.224.252.10 (talk) 10:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Changed to "paraphyletic" to match the Liliaceae page (though I suspect that polyphyly might be the case). (The citations don't belong on this page.) Nadiatalent (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

A problem is that it's not clear what "this circumscription" means. The Allioideae weren't placed in the Liliaceae in isolation, so you'd have to look at the full set of genera included in a particular system (e.g. the Cronquist system) to decide whether it was para- or polyphyletic. (Another problem is that the definition of paraphyletic in cases where many clades are missing from what would otherwise be a monophyletic group is somewhat contentious – and not well explained in current articles.) I think it's much better to say "not monophyletic" which is clearly true, so I'll make this change. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Good idea.Nadiatalent (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Herbs such as Garlic?

I thought Garlic was a root, whereas herb were the ground up foliage of a plant. Any clarification on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrZoolook (talk • contribs) 00:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

In culinary use, herb does usually seem to exclude garlic (e.g. the New Oxford American Dictionary says "any plant with leaves, seeds, or flowers used for flavoring, food, medicine, or perfume", which excludes roots). The definition quoted in this version of Herb "any plant that is valued for flavor, scent, medicinal, or other qualities" would include garlic, BUT the quote could be said to be a bit misleading. If you look at the original source, it says: "herb ... 1. a flowering plant whose stem above ground does not become woody. 2. such a plant when valued for its medicinal properties, flavor, scent, or the like." So the correct definition from here is not "any plant" but "a herbaceous plant". This would seem to include garlic, but would exclude e.g. Bay Laurel which the article includes, whereas the New Oxford American Dictionary definition would include it. Where exactly this leaves us I'm not sure. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Garlic is a bulb, not a root. One might therefore claim that it consists of leaves ... (just to throw a spanner into the works here) Nadiatalent (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Parts other than the bulb of garlic are also eaten, notably the spring shoots and the scapes, which are both very green, so the plant would then be considered a herbaceous plant whose leaves and flower (buds) are eaten. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I guess it's an example of the difficulty (folly?) of trying to define commonly used words like "herb" which have only fuzzy meanings. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Up to a point, I think it is a useful exercise. Getting closer to precision can be more useful that having no idea what someone else means by a word. Nadiatalent (talk) 20:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Toxicity to birds

A statement was added that certain species of Allium are toxic to birds. I cannot find supporting documentation for this, in fact this web page states that although it might not be a good idea to feed Allium to pet birds, there is no supporting evidence, and they might actually be somewhat protected from its effects because their red blood cells are nucleated. Nadiatalent (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Taxobox image

It makes more sense to illustrate taxoboxes with type species. However my effort to place Allium sativum there was reverted due to poor quality - can anyone improve on this? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally the current image actually shows two species.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Michael, I'm not convinced that it does always make more sense to illustrate taxoboxes with the type species. It makes sense to illustrate taxoboxes with a typical species; the type species may be, but isn't always. Thus Allium sativum cultivars often have bulbils in the umbel, which is not typical of all alliums. Whenever the type species is in cultivation, it's quite likely not to be a good example of the species generally since it will have been selected for features useful to humans. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting idea Peter. And yes some authorities state that many type species were chosen arbitrarily. But the concept has to stand for something. At the moment I suspect taxobox images are largely chosen arbitrarily, whereas I am trying to develop at least a guidance. And how would we define 'typical'? Maybe there is room for both - add an image of a 'typical' species below the taxobox, stating why it was chosen. Since taxoboxes have a place for type species, it seemed sensible to me to at least illustrate it. an idea worth debating at WP PlantProject.

Anyway this is another page needing a lot of work, but it can probably be considered C now.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)