Jump to content

Talk:Astragalus mongholicus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Questions

[edit]

Is this the same plant? Photo of Astragalus Membraceus
AJStadlin 13:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC) The Toxicology section makes this question look important. Some clarification is badly needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.210.124.27 (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taxo box

[edit]

Needs a taxo box. WLU 01:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uncritical References

[edit]

The Encyclopedia linked to from this article is totally one-sided and uncritical with regards claims made for Astragalus. The wikipedia article itself is also unbalanced. And what's with "reputed to"?? I could say that Astragalus was reputed to make women give birth to bright blue triplets - doesn't mean there's any truth in the statement. Can we make this article more balanced, please? Squid87 15:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, both links are suspect as the second is a blog. I'm removing them both. WLU 17:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proof needed

[edit]

What is the proof that this very well known species has had its name changed? By whose authority is this now the "accepted" name and when was this changed, and for what reason? Badagnani (talk) 01:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ILDIS LegumeWeb. It's a great site. Check it out.
WriterHound (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't answer the question "for what reason." Badagnani (talk) 23:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what reason: Plant articles should always be under the plant's accepted name. After all of the research that I've done on this plant, however, I'm still not convinced now that Astragalus propinquus is the accepted name for Astragalus membranaceus, even though ILDIS is normally the golden standard when it comes to legume taxonomy. If you find any more information on this, please let me know.
WriterHound (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nomenclature is a mess, and both ILDIS and TROPICOS (the other source I consulted) are missing some info that would make it clearer. The relevant names (chronologically; older names always take precedence) in this puzzle are: (Astragalus trimestris Linnaeus 1753) (Egypt) Astragalus membranaceus Moench 1794 (?) Phaca membranacea Fischer 1822 (?) Astragalus membranaceus (Fischer) Bunge 1868 (Dahuria; i.e. Eastern Siberia) Astragalus mongholicus Bunge 1868 (Mongolia) Astragalus propinquus Schischk 1933 (Siberia?) Astragalus membranaceus var. mongholicus (Bunge) P.G. Xiao 1964

Moench described a plant he called A. membranaceus in 1794. Fischer described (a different plant he called) Phaca membranacea in 1822. In 1868, Bunge described A. mongholicus and also decided that Fischer's P. membranacea should be in the genus Astragalus rather than Phaca. Unfortunately, Moench's earlier A. membranaceus made Bunge's transfer of Fischer's plant into Astragalus illegal (Bunge should've changed the species name so it wasn't a homonym with Moench's A. membranaceus) . Apparently nobody noticed this until 1933 when Schischk finally published a legal name for the this species. In 1964 Xiao decided that Bunge's A. mongholicus was a actually just a variety of (Fischer/Bunge's) A. membranaceus. Also, it appears that Moench's A. membranaceus is actually an (illegal) attempt to rename Linnaeus's A. trimestris (even if Moench's A. membranaceus was illegal, it still makes Bunge's later A. membranaceus illegal as well).

The big question is whether the plant this article is about (the one used in Chinese medicine) is Moench's A. membranaceus, or Fischer/Bunge's A. membranaceus. Looking at various sources on the web, I see the medicinal plant attributed to both Moench and Bunge. This is probably because the people writing about Chinese medicine don't understand the importance of the author in this case and are citing it blindly. It appears that Fischer/Bunge's is the medicinal plant from China, and that Moench's probably grows in Egypt. ILDIS doesn't mention Moench's A. membranaceus. TROPICOS currently accepts Moench's A. membranaceus, although I believe this is also wrong due to the A. trimestris issue. Based on citable sources though, Moench's name is A. membranaceus is legal, and no matter what, Fischer/Bunge's A. membranaceus is illegal.

Assuming the medicinal plant is Fischer/Bunge's rather than Moench's, possible legal names for it are A. propinquus, or A. mongholicus. If A. propinquus and A. mongholicus are assumed to be the same species, this species must be called A. mongholicus. If they are assumed to be different species, A. propinquus should be used since Fischer/Bunge's A. membranaceus was illegal. It's also possible to consider propinquus and mongholicus to be separate varieties/subspecies in the same species. Xiao did this in 1964, but he used the illegal A. membranaceus. If they are treated as distinct varieties, the names should be A. mongholicus var. mongholicus and A. mongholicus var. membranaceus (except that these names haven't been published; nobody currently thinks of them as distinct varieties). Phaca membranacea would be legal, but current taxonomic opinion holds that this is the wrong genus.

Long story short, unless the medicinal plant is Moench's A. membranaceus, which it appears not to be, it should be A. propinquus and/or A. mongholicus. I see web sites on Chinese medicine that state that both species are used medicinally. Wikipedia could follow ILDIS which treats the species as separate, or it could follow TROPICOS and the Flora of China project (http://www.tropicos.org/Name/13026420?tab=synonyms) and lump them together as A. mongholicus. Given that this page talks about the medicinal use, and both propinquus and mongholicus are used medicinally, I would be inclined to lump them which would require changing the page name to Astragalus mongholicus. 192.104.39.2 (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ with your assertion that "even if Moench's A. membranaceus was illegal, it still makes Bunge's later A. membranaceus illegal as well". Moench's name is indeed illegal, as he applied the name to an Egyptian species previously named by Linnaeus (A. trimestris). But since it was illegal, it does not preempt Bunge's use of this name for a different species, the Chinese one first named by Fischer. Abusus non tollit usum. Thus the proper nomenclature is A. trimestris for the Egyptian species, and A. membranaceus for the Chinese plant that is the subject of this article. Freederick (talk) 09:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Abusus non tollit usum"? Is that so in botanical nomenclature??? In zoological nomenclature it's not; junior homonyms of a junior synonym, whether a subjective (botany: "taxonomic") or an objective ("nomenclatural") synonym, are just as invalid as any other junior homonyms. The only way to validate them is for to the Commission to conserve them in an Opinion. David Marjanović (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to consider the pragmatic aspect as well. Bunge's membranaceus is widely used in science other than taxonomy. While propinquus/membranaceus might be a hot debate in some quarters, for the rest of us, propinquus is either unknown (my case), or a different (though closely related) species, or even adulterant of membranaceus (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14582964). You can mention the taxonomy controversy in the article if you wish, but do not confuse the rest of us by changing the name until the dispute is over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kokot.kokotisko (talk • contribs) 14:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

see my comment at....

[edit]

Talk:List of plants used as medicine#The common name and synonyms of Astragalus membranaceus may need to be harmonized.... for the clarification of the synonyms--222.64.215.108 (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the relationship between the plant root and....

[edit]

Collagen...??? The root is full of jelly like component --124.78.208.251 (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't collagen limited to vertebrates? David Marjanović (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How much cycloastraganol is in the root?

[edit]

I would like to know how much cycloastraganol is in the root compared to other parts of the plant, say for instance the leaves. Do the leaves also contain cycloastraganol or have medicinal properties? Havabighed (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--124.78.208.251 (talk) 11:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

[edit]

The article says that medicines are derived from A. propinquus, but later says the medicines are derived from a different species, A. membranaceus. Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.1.210 (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're both the same species (see the argument about it further up the talk page), so there is no contradiction. 207.228.62.109 (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a taxonomy battle, that some people fight out here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.109.226.67 (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Astragalus propinquus. 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:

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) 01:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A. propinquus is an ADULTERANT of A. membranaceus

[edit]

There are many similar species of Astragalus. Astragalus membranaceous is NOT a synonym, it's a different species. A. propinquus is considered to be one of 8 adulterants of A. membranaceous (Huangqui).Chemical analysis of Radix Astragali (Huangqi) in China: a comparison with its adulterants and seasonal variations.--JaneVenture2 (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JaneVenture2: do you have a reliable secondary source for this assertion? The Catalogue of Life here and The Plant List here, both apparently based on ILDIS here agree with the article, as does PFAF here and Tropicos here. The Flora of China here treats both A. membranaceus and A. propinquus as synonyms of A. mongholicus. Now these are all based on somewhat old sources, so the taxa may since have been separated. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My primary source is Kerry Bone and Simon Mills, 2013. Principles and Practice of Phytotherapy: Modern Herbal Medicine. 2 Edition. Churchill Livingstone. p382 which states under Adulterations: "Astragalus propinquus, A. lepsensis, A. aksuensis, A. hoantchy, A. hoantchy subsp dshimensis, A. lehmannianus, A. sieversianus and A. austrosibiricus have all been identified as adulterants of Astragalus membranaceus, whilst Hedysarum polybotrys is a substitute. Astragaloside IV is normally used as a marker for quality control. In the Japanese Pharmacopoeia 1996, substitutes including A. chrysopeterus, A. floridus, and A. tongolensis are officially permitted, but these are not accepted in China...." but perhaps the taxonomy has changed since publication. JaneVenture2 (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JaneVenture2: for botanical classification, herbal medicine texts and pharmacopaeias are not as authoritative as botanical sources. The question is whether these taxa are accepted as different species of Astragalus or as variants at some lower level, and we would need a reliable botanical source to establish this. It can be said that herbal medicine sources separate out more species, but not that this is the right way to do it. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Astragalus propinquus. 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:

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) 09:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to change the name to A. mongholicus Bunge

[edit]

@Peter coxhead:, I read your discussion above about the correct name for this species. Kew's Plants of the World Online taxonomic database has A. propinquus Schischk. (and A. membranaceus Fisch. ex. Bunge (but NOT Astragalus membranaceus Moench)) as a synonym for A. mongholicus Bunge. I think we should follow their lead. The current taxonomic authority cited for the synonymy, LegumeWeb, itself cites only a 1993 personal communication with Dieter Podlech in support of the name A. propinquus Schisck. We can assume that Podlech has since changed his mind, because his 2013 book, A taxonomic revision of the genus Astragalus L. (Leguminosae) in the Old World, coauthored with Shahin Zarre, reduces both A. propinquus Schischk. and A. membranaceus Fisch. ex. Bunge to synonymy with A. mongholicus Bunge. This seems to be the basis for POWO's use of A. mongholicus Bunge. as the correct name. This would also bring us in-line with the Flora of China treatment. Doppelbrau (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was a proposal to conserve A. membranaceus Fisch. ex. Bunge, which was rejected (if I'm reading correctly) at the Shenzen IBC (go here and search for Astragalus). There was some uncertainty that was resolved by having the proposal rejected. Plantdrew (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was conserved against the earlier Moench name; see [1], bottom of first page. If so, the IPNI entry at [2] which says "nom. illeg." is wrong. Since A. membranaceus Fisch. ex. Bunge and A. mongholicus Bunge were both published in 1868, which has priority depends on which came first in that year. I assume it must be A. mongholicus. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think you're right. Proposals and Disposals gives the wrong page number in Taxon. Not finding it there, I went to IPNI to check, and was influenced by what they had. Plantdrew (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask IPNI for further information. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The public view of IPNI hasn't changed yet, but they will apparently correct the "nom.illeg." The e-mail I had from them says that A. membranaceus Fisch. ex. Bunge dates from March 1868, whereas A. mongholicus was published in April 1868. So given that A. membranaceus Fisch. ex. Bunge is now conserved, if both are synonyms of A. propinquus, A. membranaceus Fisch. ex. Bunge is the earliest name. But we need this to appear in at least one source to make the move. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Astragalus_mongholicus&oldid=1209686941"