Talk:Cavendish banana

Merge

I will begin merging Cavendish into Dwarf Cavendish soon. They are synonymous as evidenced by its accepted name.

Other types of AAA group bananas, should also get their own articles, not share this one. That includes Giant Cavendish. There is no specific cultivar called 'Cavendish', it is a generic term used in western nations to refer to AAA group cultivars (including Gros Michel bananas) and even the AA group cultivar Lacatan.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Guys, the stages are not mentioned anywhere, but there is a sudden reference that the bananas are sold around stages 3-4?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.192.18.109 (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

proposal to move this article to Dwarf Cavendish banana

There should be a banana article by cultivar subgrouping. bananas are most similar to each other by this grouping. that way any cultivar of the the popular true plantains can be distinguished from any banana of the cavendish group. These two are the most popular classifications available in most markets. This article is about Dwarf Cavendish bananas and the title should also reflect that. Cavendish occupies cultivars under it.

The distinctions between banana types has been complicated and dividing the groupings by cultivar subgroups is the easiest and clearest way to define them. Sidelight12 ^Talk 00:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I was just coming to the talk page to say this. I was confused by the Grand Nain article which says that variety is the most commercially important Cavendish. This article seems to be about Dwarf Cavendish specifically, so should not be titled with the name of the larger Cavendish cultivar subgroup. Plantdrew (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

And now that I look further, maybe Dwarf Cavendish should be split into a new article (reversing the merge mentioned above). It's not real clear what exacly "Cavendish" covers (all AAA bananas? or just some of them?), but it's the most important and well known modern banana "variety". There are a large number of incoming links here. Plantdrew (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I split the articles, based on the revision before the merge and on the current article. I hope the split is not too bad. Someone with expertise may want to improve it, but the task is made easier. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 09:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I oppose the split. I was the previous merger under my old username. And I initiated it because the old article erroneously treated "Cavendish" as a distinct cultivar from 'Dwarf Cavendish'. Which is what this article is doing again after splitting, regardless of the fact that all of the descriptions here actually pertain to 'Dwarf Cavendish' (the height of 6 – 8 ft should be enough clue). And that is simply wrong.

"Cavendish" is the colloquial name for the fruit of what is formally known as the 'Dwarf Cavendish' cultivar (all other members of the subgroup are usually known by more specific/market names, e.g. 'Grand Nain' is known as "Chiquita bananas"). Because no, there are no 'Regular-size Cavendish' cultivars. The 'Dwarf Cavendish' IS the original source and the namesake of the Cavendish bananas. It was the original cultivar named after Lord Cavendish, and is the first of the subgroup to be described (as Musa cavendishii).

While I agree that it is often used to refer to other members of the Cavendish subgroup (usually as "Cavendish bananas", "Cavendish cultivars", or "Cavendish type"), the subgroup itself derived its name from the 'Dwarf Cavendish' cultivar. Not the other way around. It's a common enough practice for cultivar subgroups to be named after the most popular cultivar under them. The previous version of the article dealt with this by stating that 'Cavendish' was also used as a name for the larger subgroup.

Also regarding a list of cultivar subgroups, there is. And it's far more complex than simply distinguishing "true plantains" from Cavendish bananas. See List of banana cultivars. I propose that instead of further confusing the names: anything which in context refers to the subgroup (including Cavendish subgroup) be redirected to List of banana cultivars#AAA Group; this page should be returned to its previous state or else moved in its entirety to the Dwarf Cavendish title if necessary. Hatnotes or disambiguation pages would take care of the rest.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 13:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

8 of the 13 references in the version of this article from 7 July 2013 treat Cavendish as a broader entity (calling Cavendish a group/sub-group, talking about Cavendish cultivars/varieties in the plural, or listing something besides Dwarf Cavendish under Cavendish). Some of these 8 references might also be appropriately cited in an article about Dwarf Cavendish, but the 7 July version of the article is still mostly about a broader Cavendish concept. There may not be a "regular" Cavendish, but there is a Giant Cavendish. Gran Nain also grows 6-8 ft, so the height given in the article doesn't necessarily indicate that the subject is Dwarf Cavendish (although presumably that height is not accurate for Giant Cavendish).

Arguing that because Dwarf Cavendish is the original Cavendish nothing else (or a broader entity) can be properly called Cavendish is an etymological fallacy. Cavendish is a group of several cultivars, including Dwarf Cavendish (which itself, according to one source may comprise multiple clones). Chiquita notes that "kind you’re most likely to see in your supermarket is the Cavendish"; Chiquita seems to consider Grain Nains to be Cavendish (or would you take this as evidence that Grand Nain is no longer the Chiquita banana)? Plantdrew (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see Ploetz et al., 2007. Take special notice of which of the members of the Cavendish subgroup were previously called Musa cavendishii (hint: it's only ONE cultivar). Also note the list of "also known as" after each cultivar and figure out which of the cultivars were also known as 'Cavendish' (hint: again, it's only one cultivar).

'Dwarf Cavendish' was "composed of multiple clones" only in the sense that it was confused with various other short-pseudostemmed bananas (which didn't even belong to the Cavendish subgroup) back when it was still called Musa cavendishii. But 'Dwarf Cavendish' IS the cultivar on the Canary Islands. Unless you somehow think that bananas routinely grow together in groups of different cultivars? What part of the fact that these are clones isn't obvious yet?

Chiquita in that context refers to its cultivar as Cavendish only in the sense that it belongs to the subgroup. That is all. It's the same way that people may refer to 'Prata Aña' as a "Pome" (despite being a separate cultivar from 'Pome') or 'Lowgate' as a "Gros Michel" (again despite being a separate cultivar from 'Gros Michel'). 'Prata Aña' is not 'Pome', just as 'Lowgate' is not 'Gros Michel'. These subgroups (Pome and Gros Michel subgroups) are eponymous, hence such usages. But it DOES NOT mean that we should now lump together wildly different cultivars under the same name just because they belong to the same subgroup do they?

And nothing says widly different more than the Cavendish cultivars. The article talks about it like it was a single cultivar. That is idiotic, to say the least. Yes 'Grand Nain' can be 6 - 8 feet (but it is usually larger than 'Dwarf Cavendish', hence why it's called "Large Dwarf" in the first place). 'Giant Cavendish' (which was itself retroactively named, like 'Grand Nain' was, in comparison to the height of the original 'Dwarf Cavendish') however is 10 - 16 feet. 'Red Dacca' does not "turn yellow when it ripens" (hint: it's called "Red" for a reason). 'Robusta' is not exactly "stable, wind-resistant, and easier to manage" because it is short (it is not short at all). 'Masak Hijau' is not called "Klue Hom Kom", "Pisang serendeh" or "Canary banana". 'Valery' is not a "variety".

The entire article is a mess that is confusing multiple cultivars as the same thing, simply because they share the same subgroup name that also happened to be eponymous. Are you planning to do the same to Gros Michel, Mysore, Pome, Monthan, Bluggoe, etc.? Because like Cavendish bananas, they're all subgroups named after one cultivar (or more accurately, they're cultivars that gave their names to their subgroups). -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 20:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Also note that I did write another article on another commercially important subgroup. One thing I didn't do though, is treat it as a single cultivar or confuse the part for the whole. See East African Highland bananas.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The article needs a lot of work and the quality of the sources poor. The use of "Cavendish" for the subgroup is rampant in the literature, not just this article. I',m pretty sure the FAO is using "Cavendish" for the subgroup, not "Dwarf Cavendish". Chiquita seems to be using "Cavendish" for the subgroup. When the New York Times calls Cavendish "a single variety" it's because the writer is understandably confused. The people who are most concerned with the different cultivars/"clones" (selection for somatic mutations in ongoing improvement efforts makes "clone" a little tricky), such as Ploetz have adopted "Dwarf Cavendish" as a unique name for that variety because Cavendish is most commonly used to refer to the subgroup (note that the other link you provided [1] lists Cavendish as an English name for several cultivars).

I'm not sure that splitting Dwarf Cavendish banana from this article was appropriate. Information on Dwarf Cavendish could easily be merged into a section here, and there's little information in Grand Nain that doesn't apply to the Cavendish subgroup as a whole. However, this article should be about the subgroup. Without the qualifier "Dwarf", Cavendish is mostly applied to the subgroup, not the single cultivar. Plantdrew (talk) 01:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I stand by my decision to split the article. Cavendish can refer to multiple related cultivars, and that should be reflected. To use Cavendish to refer to both a cultivar and a cultivar group is confusing to the reader, and it requires research on their part to figure out there are two definitions of the word Cavendish. It is simpler and less confusing to go by cultivar group, since that is how cultivars are most similar opposed to other classifications. You mentioned about other cultivar groups getting their own article, and I think cultivar groups should get their own article whenever anyone gets the chance to do that. The appropriate changes should be made to this article to make it about the group, not a single cultivar. I am not opposed to renaming the article to "Cavendish cultivar group", or something similar. To have one article that is ambiguous about whether it is talking about the cultivar or the cultivar group together as one, is confusing.

I also think Dwarf Cavendish should get its own article to distinguish it from the group and other varieties, whether or not there is enough to write more than a stub about it. Also it is natural to want to add a taxobox to an article, and everyone sooner or later wants to classify a cultivar group as a cultivar they are most familiar with, which it is not. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 04:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Plantdrew: again, I do not deny that "Cavendish" is used to refer both to the subgroup and to the cultivar. And yes, it is sometimes used as a common name for members of the subgroup, but formally it referred only to the first source of commercial Cavendish bananas (the one from the Canary islands, the one named after Lord Cavendish, and the one that replaced 'Gros Michel'), and that really is the 'Dwarf Cavendish' cultivar. That's what I meant by mentioning that these are clones. They propagate vegetatively. Fyffe didn't stumble upon a grove of several different cultivars and took them all to Paxton who decided to name them all "Cavendish". He only found one distinctively short cultivar (hence the "dwarf") that Paxton then named after his employer. Both 'Grand Nain' (French for "Large Dwarf") and 'Giant Cavendish' only gained commercial importance later, a fact reflected by how their names (seemingly contradictory in the case of 'Grand Nain') are actually derived from their relative heights to the original cultivar.

Also, I disagree strongly when you say that there's "little information on 'Grand Nain' that doesn't apply to the Cavendish subgroup as a whole". That's why this article is so problematic in the first place. The Cavendish subgroup consists of several different cultivars that have completely different characteristics, history, etc. 'Grand Nain' is NOT synonymous with Cavendish subgroup. Just because Chiquita calls it a Cavendish, doesn't make it THE Cavendish.

Sidelight12: I say simply that the splitting was completely wrong, but not for the reasons Plantdrew mentioned. It should not have been split at all. The previous version of the article was talking exclusively about the 'Dwarf Cavendish' cultivar. That was the reason I merged the two in the first place. There never was an article about the Cavendish subgroup. Ever. By re-splitting them again, we are making two articles about 'Dwarf Cavendish'.

I can't stress enough how wrong that is. I have no objections to creating an article for the Cavendish subgroup (even if you name it Cavendish bananas in the same way I named the Mutika/Lujugira subgroup as East African Highland bananas) as long as you make it clear that it is talking about the subgroup. Using sources that are about the subgroup, and with information pertaining to the subgroup, without confusing it with 'Dwarf Cavendish' like this article is doing now. A hatnote to 'Dwarf Cavendish' would be enough to satisfy me and our readers.

And yes a lot of the sourcing is poor, and Musa taxonomy has always been a massive mess, but it's just a matter of picking the right ones. The taxonomic paper by Ploetz et al. is already a good starting point for creating a short article about the subgroup.

To be clear, this is what should have been done: the previous article (pre-split) should have been moved in its entirety to the Dwarf Cavendish banana namespace, and a new article about the subgroup written here. Hatnotes should be added to both, to ensure readers understand that it refers to both a subgroup and a specific cultivar.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 07:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think everyone can agree, that the Cavendish cultivar and the Cavendish subgroup can have their own articles. A Grand Nain is a type of Cavendish, it is not the Cavendish. It was difficult to know how much, if the whole, of that article was about Dwarf Cavendish from the passage or the sources. Some information can be about both the dwarf cultivar and the subgroup. One reference, 12, mentions Cavendish cultivars, not a single cultivar. It appeared as if two subjects were merged into one, and the naming was unclear. The text about Dwarf Cavendish moved to the right article can be easily fixed. If each article gets its own namespace, hatnotes will work. This is an opportunity to make the subjects clear. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 10:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Some of the sources are about the cultivar subgroup and not specifically about Dwarf Cavendish. Also there is information that might cover both subjects. The information surely about the subcultivar was moved to Cavendish banana subgroup. The content in the article Cavendish banana should be verified and put into the appropriate article. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 01:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation?

This page was recently restored from a redirect to Cavendish banana subgroup and tagged with a merge. Given discussions above, maybe it would be best to turn this into a disambiguation page for the subgroup and Dwarf Cavendish banana? Plantdrew (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Photo is upside down

The small florets of the banana, like the bananas themselves, point up rather than down toward the ground. The photo is upside down, but I do not know how to change it. Wikineer (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 5 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 08:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Cavendish bananas → Cavendish banana – Per WP:SINGULAR. It is not uncommon to encounter a single Cavendish banana. They grow in bunches, but so does the Grape. There may be multiple cultivars within the Cavendish subgroup, but there are also multiple types of Grape. The opening sentence can say "A Cavendish banana is the fruit of a banana cultivar belonging to the Cavendish subgroup of the AAA cultivar group." —BarrelProof (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Chessrat ^{(talk,contributions)} 07:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support indeed so. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

History of Cultivation

A report on BBC News claims that the Cavendish Banana was developed from a specimen which originated in Mauritius. This would seem to be an important point for this article. If anyone has any corroboration or reasons to doubt, please post. Otherwise I will add the information. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-35131751?post_id=1391329307862200_1540380699623726#_=_ Surfingus ([[User talk:Surfingus|talk) 19:30, 24 January 2016

Just plain wrong

"Because cultivated bananas are propagated by conventional vegetative reproduction rather than through sexual reproduction, each of the Cavendish clones are genetically identical and cannot evolve disease resistance." That is just plain wrong biology. Somatic mutation by single-nucleotide polymorphisms occur all the time, that is how we have sub-cultivars of the Cavendish banana. In botany the part of the plant with the morphological mutation is called a sport. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Unreferenced speculation

"As there is currently no effective fungicide against Panama disease, some have speculated about a future where Cavendish cultivars are not usable for farming. In such a scenario, a separate cultivar may be developed as a replacement (as happened with the Gros Michel)."

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cavendish banana. 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/20100608151011/http://www.innvista.com/health/foods/plucodes_abc.htm to http://www.innvista.com/health/foods/plucodes_abc.htm

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) 12:03, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cavendish banana. 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/20160314051757/http://www.peaklandheritage.org.uk/index.asp?peakkey=01001021 to http://www.peaklandheritage.org.uk/index.asp?peakkey=01001021

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) 19:12, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Grafting

is possible using root and shoot tissius (embryonic tissue). See https://scitechdaily.com/new-grafting-technique-could-combat-panama-disease-threatening-bananas-across-the-world/

Worth to mention in the article? --Ernsts (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Appears too new. I think not right now unless you have another source. Invasive Spices (talk) 28 December 2021 (UTC)