Jump to content

Talk:Cucurbita/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Crookneck & butternut

Cucurbita moschata is described as "crookneck squash" but redirects to Butternut squash. Yellow crookneck squash has its own article. I guess they might be the same species, but it needs to be clarified. --Singkong2005 talk 12:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I've corrected this, and also created a new page for Cucurbita moschata. Yellow crookneck squash is of many varieties of Cucurbita pepo (which I've also given a new page). -Madeleine 19:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

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 . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

Proposed etymology for cucurbitus: L. cucu(s)=?(from Gr. κόκκος=kernel, seed, grain, berry)? + orb(is)=sphere, globe round, circle + it(us)=a going (genative, fourth declension).Nimbvs (talk) 20:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Nimbvs

Old World Origins of Cucurbita

All the various articles about cucurbita indicate probable American origins. Then how come the word cucurbita is latin and cucurbita feature prominently in extant ancient Roman recipes? Do we know which particular cucurbitacea was cooked by the ancient Romans?

I also have been reading Roman cookbooks and finding reference to Cucurbitas. Culinary websites say that the Romans ate green Chinese squash. Asians have squash plants in their cuisine (chinese and japanese squash are easily found on google). It seems like there's no reference to these plants within Wikipedia, at least the English site... Jbailyn (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)jbailyn

This has been shown to be the problem of translators who used "pumpkin" instead of "gourd". Seneca et al were using old world gourds not new world gourds. HalfGig (talk) 02:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Post-GA development

How about this for the table? It's meant as a proof of concept so feel free to tweak it - I'm sure better images could be found. mgiganteus1 (talk) 19:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Common name Botanical name Image Description
Acorn C. pepo var. turbinata winter squash, both a shrubby and creeping plant, obovoid or conical shape, pointed at the apex and with longitudinal grooves, ex: Acorn squash
Cocozzelle C. pepo var. Ionga summer squash, long round slender fruit that is slightly bulbous at the apex, similar to fastigata, ex: Cocozelle von tripolis
Crookneck C. pepo var. torticollia summer squash, shrubby plant, with yellow, golden, or white fruit which is curved at the ends and generally has a verrucose (wart-covered) rind, ex: Yellow crookneck squash
Pumpkin C. pepo var. pepo
winter squash, creeping plant, round or oval shape and round or flat on the ends, ex: Pumpkin; includes C. pepo subsp. pepo var. styriaca, used for Styrian pumpkin seed oil[1]
Scallop C. pepo var. clypeata; called C. melopepo by Linnaeus)[2] summer squash, prefers half-shrubby habitat, flat or slightly discoidal shape, with undulations or equatorial edges, ex: Pattypan squash
Straightneck C. pepo var. recticollis summer squash, shrubby plant, with yellow or golden fruit and verrucose rind, similar to var. torticollia, ex: Yellow summer squash
Vegetable marrow C. pepo var. fastigata summer and winter squashes, creeper traits and a semi-shrub, cream to dark green color, short round fruit with a slightly broad apex, ex: Spaghetti squash (a winter variety)
Zucchini C. pepo var. cylindrica summer squash, presently the most common group of cultivars, origin is recent (19th century), semi-shrubby, cylindrical fruit with a mostly consistent diameter, similar to fastigata, ex: Zucchini
Ornamental gourds C. pepo var. ovifera non-edible,[3] field pumpkins closely related to C. texana, vine habitat, thin stems, small leaves, three sub-groups: C. pepo var. ovifera (egg-shaped, pear-shaped), C. pepo var. aurantia (orange color), and C. pepo var. verrucosa (round warty gourds), ornamental gourds found in Texas and called var. texana and ornamental gourds found outside of Texas (Illinois, Missouri, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana) are called var. ozarkana.[4]

Very nice, concept proven. I made the upright pumpkin image smaller so its area is similar to the other images'.Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I like it to. I centered the pumpkin. Put it in the article. Added footnotes. Added more photos. HalfGig (talk) 23:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cucurbita/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 14:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I will be pleased to review this article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

GA Table

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Readability excellent. Copyright - passes spotchecks. Spelling: ok. Grammar: ok.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Lead: maybe move refs into body of article;ok; weasel: maybe remove 'very';ok; fiction: n/a; lists: maybe use tables, see below. Probably none of these are showstoppers.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. ok
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). ok.
2c. it contains no original research. No sign of it.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Informative article.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Clear and well-focused, generally easy to read.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. No sign of bias.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. No sign of edit-warring.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Images from Commons
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. ok
7. Overall assessment. An interesting, well-written and enjoyable article and a worthy GA. It may require care with lists and medical claims, and a separate section on constituents, for progress to FA.

Comments

  • The image from Les Grandes Heures d'Anne de Bretagne should be so named, with dates. BTW not sure that a 'book of hours' is exactly a 'prayer book' as it contains a mix of materials including psalms; perhaps 'devotional book' would be better?
  • There are refs in the lead (where they're generally not needed); these might be better in 'History and domestication' where it's not clear which ref applies to the first two sentences - perhaps refs 1,2,3 are relevant there?
  • Perhaps best to avoid intensifiers like 'very', as in 'very important source of human food'.
  • I guess the list of 'Species' is adequately cited with the 3 refs in the leading sentence. It's perhaps less clear in 'Habitat and distribution' which ref applies to which variety/cultivar as there are four refs in the leading sentence and more in the list. Perhaps a table layout would make it clearer, and the column layout could be used to show small images alongside the varieties, as well as descriptions and references?
  • 'leaves alternately helically arranged on the stem'. Is that different from 'alternate'? Not totally clear - maybe provide a brief gloss or wikilink.
  • 'Other specimens can weigh over 300 kg...' - "Other" means "cultivated"?
  • 'These studies also reported the genus had "about 27" total species.' Both studies provided the same quote?
  • 'Cucurbitin is found in Cucurbita seeds.' Perhaps mention what it is used for; and is it bitter and toxic like Cucurbitacin or what?
  • treating diabetes - medical claims need to be handled very carefully. Which type of diabetes? Perhaps this claim should be supported by a quotation in the relevant citation (|quote="..."). Ref 25 does not mention diabetes so perhaps the tag needs to be moved earlier in the sentence.
  • In this article the statement in the first sentence of the first paragraph of the description states that members of this genus "[require] adequate water." That statement isn't very useful: all plants "require adequate water." Martel DuVigneaud (talk) 07:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Do we need Squash (plant)?

Now that this article is so good, do we really need the separate Squash (plant) article? What does it add? In what way is it a different topic? Peter coxhead (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Good point. It should redirect here. I did just add 4 bits of info from it to this article; but I agree, it's redundant and woefully under-referenced. It's also wrong on a few points.HalfGig (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Support merge. Nothing significant at Squash (plant) that isn't already here. ʍw 00:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Nothing significant? The article has 1) some informative illustrations with a dish of Ukoy and a ceramic from 300 AD which should go into the history, in fact I'll copy it now; 2) a table of the nutrients in a squash; 3) references which are different from those in Cucurbita, so very possibly of some value. But a merge is clearly sensible, if properly conducted. I would strenuously oppose an instant redirect without intelligent merging. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I merged several bits of info and references last night--so in my view, the merge is already done. On my computer the images you added, especially the ukoy, throw off the display of the info. I did think of the nutrition chart; but if that is added, we'd have to cut out some photos as that would throw off the display quite a bit. I thought it'd be better to add that to the winter/summer squash articles. HalfGig (talk) 10:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll admit I was looking primarily at the text (and even then, may have missed something). More references never hurt, but the images are debatable (always are), and the nutrition table should go to summer squash, if it goes anywhere. I didn't mean to suggest Squash (plant) should be redirected immediately without a thorough examination for anything that could be transferred to this and related articles; I'm not sure that's ever a good idea. ʍw 11:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for linking to all those references I added last night. I am now looking at this on a different computer and the layout looks better but the ukoy photo is still a problem. Either it needs to be cut or lots of info added to uses. HalfGig (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like we're all basically in agreement. Yes, the nutrients could go to summer squash to avoid, err, squashing up this article too much . The Ukoy can't be more than the smallest problem (why do people maximise articles, must make the lines of text horribly long?) but yes, the right answer is to add more on the many uses of this versatile family - if it's ever to go to FA it will certainly need more on that subject, with subsections on human food, animals, medicinal uses and so forth. I could almost add subsection headings now. ;-) Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Redirect made. HalfGig (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Great work! Peter coxhead (talk) 12:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Since the article now includes edible and useful squashes, but is not limited to them, it must be made clear that the group includes far more than 5 edible species. I've added a few words to the lead (and bolded the redirect target) but suspect that a bit more needs to be said in the body of the article about the variety of species, especially those that are not edible squashes. Indeed the non-edible genera seem to get rather short shrift at the moment. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:21, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I/we are far from done. I'm working Sasata's comments at the PR right now. The problem with the non-domesticated species is that is far less info available on them. HalfGig talk 20:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, and it's coming along really nicely. I just feel we need to say they exist, and if not a lot is known, to say that too. We could e.g. describe the different generaspecies briefly, how they differ etc, and pop in what few facts are known about each of 'em. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good. I'd like to finish Sasata's comments first, which may take awhile, then move onto these comments. You said different genera, did you mean different species? HalfGig talk 23:12, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:30, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Why aren't we titled Squash here?

Yes there is some very minor & very localized confusion on squash vs pumpkin, especially on the big cultivars that look like a pumpkin, but if you were to go to any english speaking region anywhere that grows these, show them a butternut squash, a zucchini, and a pumpkin, ask them "what single group do all of these belong to?", virtually everywhere you would be told "squash". Which would help explain why squash has about 60:1 the Google hits over Cucurbita. I am always arguing to keep the scientific name on these discussions, but this is truly one where the plant has, per WP:FLORA an "agricultural, horticultural, economic or cultural use that makes it more prominent in some other field than in botany; e.g. rose, apple, watermelon". Is there something I am missing here, before I formalize a name-change discussion?
Also, since Squash now redirects to a project page for the sport, we should probably have a hatnote on this page with a link to Squash (sport). --Tom Hulse (talk) 02:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Totally disagree. We should keep the scientific name. Squash should disambiguate to the sport and the plant genus. It in no way should like to a wikiproject. The FLORA rules contradict the PLANT rules. We should follow WP:PLANT. A classic case of why is why "Stinging nettle" got moved to Urtica dioica, see the talk page. Besides, "squash" does not cover the topic. "Squash" does not include pumpkins and ornamental gourds, which are also Cucurbita. And see the thread section just above this one, Squash (plant) just got redirected to this Cucurbita article. HalfGig talk 02:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

HalfGig, WP:PLANTS, by it's own admission, is a page of "suggestions" by plant editors. It is not policy. It is not a guideline. Not only that, but it does not contradict WP:FLORA on article titles, since all it does on that subject is refer you to directly to WP:FLORA. Are you confusing plant naming conventions with plant article naming conventions? Also, policy always trumps guidelines and especially trumps project pages/essays/info pages, etc. The policy at WP:MOSAT is a locked-in endorsement of WP:FLORA for plants. That's the way it's always done at Wikipedia, please, read the guideline: "Scientific names are to be used as article titles in all cases except when a plant has an agricultural, horticultural, economic or cultural use that makes it more prominent in some other field than in botany; e.g. rose, apple, watermelon." It is true in this case that squash is more important in at least two of these fields than it is in botany, just like rose, apple, & watermelon.
It is my strong impression that Squash does include all of Cucurbita, including the ornamentals (C. pepo var. ovifera), e.g. see the list of many common names for these at GRIN, most of which have the word "squash" in them. Also, a very authoritative source for common usage are the dictionaries. See Merriam Webster, Oxford World English, & Oxford American English, all of which say that squash is being used as directly equal to Cucurbita. --Tom Hulse (talk) 03:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Then why are so many articles using the scientific name? This article is about the genus, the name of which is Cucurbita, not "squash". To me calling it what it is, Cucurbita is common sense. I think you are being too rule bound. You ignore several poionts I made. This article has been here since 2002, why are you just now interested in changing the title. I still do not agree with you at all. Regards. HalfGig talk 10:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll try to answer each of points:

  • So many articles use the scientific name because that is Wikipedia policy, but there are clear exceptions that all plant editors know about, like Rose, Apple, and Watermelon; it's part of the policy. It's how it is done here, I didn't make the policy, consensus of plant editors did. This is not the place to change a fixed policy.
  • This article is not about a genus name Cucurbita excluding squash. Cucurbita is squash. They are the same. I agree calling it what it is makes common sense. It is squash. The wording in the article that uses "Cucubita" over & over is awkward. For instance this sentence: "Cucurbita began to spread to other parts of the world after Christopher Columbus's arrival in the New World in 1492. That name wasn't even used then, it was still hundreds of years from being invented.
  • Another perspective on "rule bound", or pedantic, might be to look at who wants to keep the article at the relatively unknown scientific name, because they misunderstand a rule about when to use scientific names; even when the common name is used on Google 60:1 more often.
  • I am just now interested in this article because it just came to my attention, Wikipedia is big. What is your point? Are you having feelings of ownership?
  • Sorry I missed a point above. If I could trouble you to point it out again I would be glad to address it. :) I do certainly agree with you that Squash should not redirect straight to a sport project page like it does now.

Since the policy is fixed, the only way I see this change not happening is if you can make a case about Cucurbita not being equal to squash. I gave you some solid sources about useage (OED, Merriam, GRIN). I know you can find anecdotes of individuals using different interpretations of squash, but you would need multiple sources who directly address the controversy (if there is one) with authority. --Tom Hulse (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The genus is Cucurbita not squash. I don't own it, but I think you do though you seem to have never edited it. So feel free to edit on it all you want, all the way from this to its current state. HalfGig talk 17:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I think "squash" is too imprecise a term for the scope of the content in the article. If you really feel it should be renamed, please start a requested move. It'll be important to make sure all the appropriate Wikiprojects are notified. Zad68 18:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
HalfGig, your edit was vandalism (diff) and I've reverted it. If you have a problem with me, please keep it here. There is no need to rape the article page to take out your frustration on someone else. C'mon, lets get back to discussing the best way to improve the article. I know you disagree with me, but please consider that my intentions are honorable. I'd be glad hear what you have to say about the article. :) --Tom Hulse (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Nah, I'm done with wiki and the article. All yours. You could care less about the article and what I have to say about it. And you guys wonder why the rest of the world thinks wikipedia is totally effed up and dysfunctional. HalfGig talk 18:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry you feel that way. I hope you reconsider. I do care about the article, that's why I'm here. And I do care about your opinion, that's why I'm asking for a discussion before we even have a formal discussion before we ever change anything. --Tom Hulse (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Such harsh language as Tom Hulse used does not lend credance to a claim of honourable intentions! Why would anyone care to spend their time in debate with such a barbaric individual? Yet another excellent editor is driven away from wikipedia. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:50, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Sminthopsis, I responded in the tone I was spoken to. Lighten up, dude. Nothing I said rose to the level of a personal attack, like calling someone dishonorable like you just did. You can't do that here, knock it off. Comment on the content, not the contributor. I do care about the article and what I perceive to be awkward use of the genus name as though it were a common term, and I am open to other opinions, as long as they're within WP policy, like Peter's below. --Tom Hulse (talk) 03:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Zad, do you have any sources for that? The OED & Merriam Webster seem to disagree with you, and quality sources like GRIN show that even the ornamentals are commonly reffered to as squash. So could you be more specific? What taxon(s) do you think are not squash? --Tom Hulse (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The genus Cucurbita is not the same as "squash".

  1. Look at the list of species at Cucurbita#Species. Some are called "gourds"; others are wild species with no common name at all.
  2. What I call "courgettes" (and other English speakers call "zucchini") and what I call "marrows" are Cucurbita cultivars which are not called "squashes" – at least not by those who call them by these names.
  3. Dictionaries are very poor sources for botanical information. Dictionary compilers report what they believe to be common uses. Very often these are simply wrong.
  4. @Tom Hulse: your GRIN reference is wrong; it links to C. pepo not the genus. For Cucurbita the correct link is this. It gives "pumpkin" and "squash" as common names for the genus, which is correct, in that many species in the genus have common names including either "pumpkin" or "squash". However, this isn't reversible; neither "pumpkin" nor "squash" individually nor together cover the whole of the genus. Adding "gourd" would give you most species and cultivars, but still not all. Cucurbita = pumpkin + squash + gourd + courgette/zucchini + marrow + ... + some wild species.
  5. The Cucurbita-related articles were a total muddled mess until User:HalfGig's recent sterling work (with some help from others). A large part of the original muddle was caused by editors using English names in inconsistent ways, so that articles overlapped or had incorrect information in them. This has been sorted out based on consensus – see e.g. the discussion at #Do we need Squash (plant)? There are others elsewhere; see also Talk:Pumpkin.
  6. The article has been through a successful GA review at this title. If the title were changed to an inaccurate one, then I would certainly immediately challenge the article's GA status. This is a GA as an article about the genus; it would not be as an article about "squash". An article called "squash" would have to be about those particular cultivars of those particular species of Cucurbita which are unambiguously included in this description.
  7. If there were a "squash" article, there would still need to be an article at the genus name which covered the genus as a whole. This would be pointless duplication – as was the case before HalfGig's work.

I entirely understand HalfGig's frustration. There seems to be a determined view that English names must be used at all costs, even when they clearly fail the precision test of WP:AT. Again and again the acceptance of this view has resulted in muddle and confusion whenever (as is very common) the English names do not relate in a 1:1 fashion to a genus, species, cultivar group or cultivar. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Peter, I'll take them one at a time:  :)
  1. Could you name one of the specific species you think aren't a squash? It can be a gourd and still be a squash. All of the gourds within Cucurbita are squash, e.g. C. pepo var. ovifera.
  2. Even though it is a zucchini, it is still a squash (per very good sources for common usage). Even though a coyote may look different than a domesticated dog, it is still truly a dog.
  3. I don't believe we can say that botanical/scientific info is relevant on this narrow issue. Instead this question is all about common usage on how "squash" is commonly used (only narrowly for individual species, or also for the larger Cucurbita genus). Dictionaries are an excellent source for that, since that is their sole purpose and all they do... they define words based on current usage. They are a measurer or barometer of widespread current usage; better than me or you or any individual author. I know of no better source for current common usage, do you?
  4. My GRIN link is actually correct. I linked to an example species I thought you might think is the hardest one to prove are squash, the ornamental gourds. You'll see there that most of the common names for ornamental gourds actually have "squash" in them. I didn't use it as proof, but your interpretation of what GRIN means when it says that squash is a common name for Cucurbita is different than their intent. Though imperfect, they do intend to list common names for only direct equivalent taxa, not to include all common names of all subordinate taxa.
  5. I didn't see anything in your talk links, especially consensus, that would rule out this name change. Instead I see that the squash article was no longer needed since there is nothing distinctively different about "squash" vs "Cucurbita" that warrants a separate article. To me that looks like the opposite of making your point, since I am saying they're the same and you are saying they're different. Am I missing something? If squash were truly different than Cucurbita, then it would warrant its own article, just like Pumpkin, but consensus said otherwise.
  6. Your argument about the GA status is only true if "squash" does not equal Cucurbita. You state your personal opinion on this as though it were an undisputed fact. You can see that there are reliable sources that disagree with you, so do you have some as well?
  7. Point 7 is also only true if "squash" does not equal Cucurbita. We need to resolve that first with sources.
Growing up, my mother taught me that zucchini is a type of squash, but your mother perhaps taught you that a courgette was not one of the squashes. Neither is "wrong", but which is the common view? I'm willing to consider that I'm in the minority, but I did show good references, including British English, so do you think you ought to as well? --Tom Hulse (talk) 03:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
The issue is whether "squash" is a sufficiently precise term to designate all species, cultivar groups and cultivars of Cucurbita. You assert that it is; I assert, with arguments, that it isn't.
Consider first one of your arguments; a key one for me. Even though a coyote may look different than a domesticated dog, it is still truly a dog. Ordinary language uses words in a highly context-dependent way. "Dog" may mean a domestic dog; one of a closely related set of species within the genus Canis; the genus itself; or the family Canidae. So saying that a coyote is "truly" a dog is correct if, and only if, one particular meaning of "dog" is taken. If "coyote" were in an unqualified sense truly the same as "dog", either could be used as an article title. However, this isn't the case, and couldn't be. The very broad sense of "dog" isn't suitable for an article title and isn't used as such. Nor is the very broad sense of "cat". A coyote is a dog, but a Coyote is not a Dog. "Cat" is used in the same way. A lion is a cat, but a Lion is not a Cat. The same is the case here. "Squash" in the broad sense isn't a good choice for the title of an encyclopedia article. It isn't fully inclusive and has different meanings in different contexts and in different English-speaking countries.
To return to GRIN, note again that GRIN does not say that the common name of the genus is "squash". It says "pumpkin, squash". Please look again at GRIN; I don't think you can have looked at all the species. The GRIN entry for Cucurbita argyrosperma gives five English names, none of them including the word "squash". The GRIN entry for Cucurbita cordata gives one English name, using the word "gourd". It simply isn't true that GRIN supports the idea that "squash" alone is equivalent to Cucurbita.
If Wikipedia allowed "or" titles, you could argue for "Squash, pumpkin or gourd" as the equivalent to Cucurbita, and this would be more difficult to resist. But "squash" alone is demonstrably not equivalent to the genus, without even needing to return to the issue of whether a courgette or marrow would ever be called a squash in the UK. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, 'Squash' isn't a good name for all members of this genus, as people just don't generally call (bitter) gourds squashes. Some genera have English names that suit them well, others don't. This article is rightly called Cucurbita, and no other title would be as good. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Peter modestly used two examples of Cucurbita not called "squashes" from GRIN. Not including those with no common name mentioned, here are more:
Cucurbita foetidissima
Cucurbita lundelliana
Cucurbita okeechobeensis
Cucurbita palmata
Cucurbita radicans
Hamamelis (talk) 09:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys, hold up with the GRIN stuff! :) I didn't claim GRIN says Cucurbita=squash. Look at the second post in in this discussion. He claimed ornamental gourds are not squash. I merely provided specific proof that this was false at the GRIN link I gave. On the main GRIN Cucurbita page, that you brought up, not me, I was only saying that you were misinterpreting it, not that the page proves anything (I never linked to it). Both of you are now misinterpreting it again by claiming that an absence of common names at a GRIN species page indicates the genus can't have the common name squash. C'mon, you could think of a dozen examples yourself to counter that if you wanted. Try the pine trees. Pinus maximartinezii has no common names listed at GRIN, but that doesn't prove that the genus Pinus does not equal "pine". That would be silly.
You make a good point re: coyote/dog. I disagree with the way Wikipedia has treated it, since the genus article says wolves & coyotes are part of true dogs, and the Dog article is clear it is only talking about the domesticated dog, not all dogs; but admittedly my opinion on that particular one is irrelevant compared to the consensus they must have fought over for years.
The Zucchini (courgette) page here at Wikipedia disagrees with you whether they are squash. So does the last version of our former Squash (plant) article. Same for Marrows.
Chiswick, it may be true that bitter gourds aren't called squash, but that's because they also aren't in Cucurbita; they're in the closely related Momordica.
Does anyone have any good sources that directly address what a squash is, if it is different than Cucurbita, and if my Merriam Webster & OED sources are wrong? I'm saying squash precisely equates to Cucurbita, and satisfies precision at WP:AT. How can you say that isn't true when no one else has even stated what they think "squash" is, let alone prove it with sources. --Tom Hulse (talk) 11:18, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
That's the thing with virtually all common names, they just aren't precise, really almost ever. "Horse apples" are neither horses nor apples, nor horse's apples (since they're not apples at all). If some Cucurbita aren't called squash in English common names, then that in itself would be confusing, at the very least to people who don't have English as their first language. "Gourd" can also be equal to Cucurbita in some species; the same goes with "cushaw". "Coyote-melon" = one Cucurbita (C. palmata). Ask someone who is familiar with only this species and they might say it's a kind of melon. Maybe it is. It is also most certainly Cucurbita, but maybe not a squash. I think most would agree that "squash" (without sources to back me up) are some Cucurbita, but not all. If Cucurbita is, in some respects, the sum of all its parts (i.e. species, on down) then Cucurbita cannot be definitively "squash". Using the name Cucurbita is, without doubt, the most accurate, used-in-reliable-sources name to use for the genus. I would hazard a guess that most sources that refer to squash are not referring to Cucurbita as a whole, but those that are squash-like, and not melon-like, or gourd-like, etc. I really truly believe reliance on common names for species and genera article titles, in most cases save a few, is more a cause of confusion than anything else—the very thing most proponents of common names for article titles are trying to avert. Hamamelis (talk) 12:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Precisely. We had the same problem over what a pumpkin is. Basically it seems to be any cultivated Cucurbita which looks like a pumpkin, i.e. is largish, round and orange, or which is eaten as "pumpkin" when so-called by the canning companies.
Tom, you seem to reject the evidence that doesn't fit your prior view. Look at Category:Pinus. All the non-redirect English names for pines use the word "pine". We've just shown you that if there were articles on each species of Cucurbita, and if these articles were at one of the English names in GRIN (where these exist), some would include the word "squash", some "pumpkin", some "gourd". It's perfectly clear that "pine" = Pinus. It's equally clear that the same isn't true in GRIN for "squash" and Cucurbita. GRIN is important, as a North American source, because it does seem to be the case that "squash" is used more inclusively there. If you want a British source, see this RHS list. The "cucurbits" there are described as "Marrows, courgettes and squash". If "squash" refers to all Cucurbita species, this is nonsense; it's like writing "Poodles, spaniels and dogs".
What are "squash", you ask? They are those species and cultivars of Cucurbita that reliable sources describe by this name. Different reliable sources, particularly from different countries, use different criteria, so if you make a list based on GRIN you'll get a different set from a list based on the RHS or other UK sources. This is why it would be difficult (although possible) to have a genus article at Cucurbita and another "food" article at "Squash (plant)" (just as we have one at Pumpkin although this is also a somewhat fuzzy term). The "Squash (plant)" article would cover fewer entities than the Cucurbita article. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Tom, yes, I have a source. One authoritative reliable source which demonstrates that squash isn't equivalent to Cucurbita is the Encyclopedia Britannica. Their article on squash states that a squash is a plant fruit; their content covering Cucurbita describes it as a plant genus covering 13 species. They are not equivalent terms. Zad68 14:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

However, this isn't really quite the issue. It's a standard convention in English to call the plants by the same name as the fruit, so "banana", for example, primarily refers to the fruit, but you can say "bananas grow from corms" meaning "banana plants grow from corms". Peter coxhead (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
But I'm answering a different question than the one you are addressing. Tom was asking for a reliable source that says the two aren't equivalent; I provided one. It's certainly true that editors here know squash can refer to one of several plants that produce squash fruits, but the source I'm citing does not say that. The request is to base the argument purely in reliable sourcing and policy, and that's usually a reasonable request on Wikipedia. So, I've provided an authoritative reliable source that shows they're not equivalent terms, and therefore the rename suggestion shouldn't be acted on. Zad68 18:22, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
Zad, a heartfelt "thank you!" for using sources. I do have to agree with Peter, though, that many plants commonly use the same name as their fruit. The readers are able to easily assume you are speaking of either or both, based on context; and so a source that doesn't clearly delineate fruit from plant does not prove anything. For instance see Avocado at Encyclopedia Britannica (and many others there) that also defines the article title as fruit, but no one would say that article doesn't also apply to the plant. In fact, I think Peter may be rolling his eyes, lol, since you provided another great source for me. In the terms we're speaking of here it equates squash to "any of" Cucurbita. So please add it to my list.

Peter, could you be more clear on what your point is with the Pinus categories? I'm sorry, I don't see anything there that supports your view. On the GRIN thing, no it is not true I'm just ad-hoc rejecting arguments because they 'don't fit my prior view'. Instead you were using a (accidental?) straw man argument when you said "It simply isn't true that GRIN supports the idea that "squash" alone is equivalent to Cucurbita". I never claimed it did because I know it's a poor source on that question. I only used GRIN to prove a narrow point (ornamental gourds in Cucurbita are squash). You misread, I didn't reject evidence. You, however, are still wrongly using GRIN to infer that the absence of a common name at GRIN is somehow proof that the name can't apply. Do you really think GRIN is that exhaustive, to prove something with an absence? You should really know better. Please tell me if I'm misunderstanding, I did reread it several times.
At your RHS source, please notice the "(butternut)" modifier you left out. So really they are listing marrows, courgettes and butternut squash. It's ok for only some of the species to incorporate the common name of the genus. So in your dog example, it's more like saying "Poodles, Spaniels and Portuguese Water Dogs". That makes more sense. On the "What are squash" question, you claim that different sources will give you a different list of species, is that right? So could you please give me those sources to compare with mine? Neither your RHS link nor GRIN pretend to define squash at all. You would have to do some fantastical stretching of facts & inference to get a squash definition from links you have shown.
Hamamelis, there is no imprecision unless you show it with sources. I'm willing to change 180 degrees instantly if you can show better sources than Merriam Webster, OED, & Encyclopedia Britannica on common usage.--Tom Hulse (talk) 20:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

  1. You must be looking at a different RHS document that the one I linked. Its title is "RHS AWARD OF GARDEN MERIT Marrows, courgettes & squash 2011". It then has subsections "Courgette", "Marrow", "Squash (butternut)" and "Squash (summer)". This cannot possibly be read as claiming that the RHS considers courgettes and marrows as included in squashes. The RHS would have had to have had the main title "Marrows, courgettes and other squashes" and then the subsections "Squash (courgette)", "Squash (marrow)", "Squash (butternut)" and "Squash (summer)" to show that the RHS here considers courgettes and marrows to be squashes. (It actually uses the word "cucurbit" as the umbrella term for all cultivated Cucurbita.) Your dog example is not at all the same and is quite misleading.
  2. Let me try once more to explain the pine versus squash example, which seems quite clear to me. Forget completely that you ever referenced GRIN and start from the beginning. If we make a list of the English names of the species of Pinus, based on those in Category:Pinus, they all include the word "pine". Where Pinus species have an English name made up of a qualifier and a head noun, the head noun is "pine". If we make a list of the English names of the species of Cucurbita given in GRIN, they will not all include the word "squash". Some will include the word "pumpkin", some "cushaw", some "gourd". Where Cucurbita species have an English name made up of a qualifier and a head noun, the head noun is not always "squash". On this basis, I conclude that whereas it is reasonable to equate Pinus with "pine", it is not reasonable to equate Cucurbita with "squash".
A final point, since I really have nothing further to add if you don't accept these arguments. In determining precision, it's not enough to show that some reliable sources equate "X" and "Y". You have to show that the great majority of reliable sources equate "X" and "Y" so that there is no serious likelihood of confusion. The two examples given above show that there is significant non-equivalence of Cucurbita and "squash" in reliable sources, regardless of whether other sources consider them the same. Neither on the basis of GRIN's English names for species nor on the usage of the RHS would I expect every species and cultivar of Cucurbita to be covered at "squash". Peter coxhead (talk) 12:02, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

It looks as though we will never all agree here. However, there is visibly no mandate for changing this article from its current title, and for what it's worth a clear majority against, whatever the arguments on all sides. Therefore the current title must remain. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Cheswick, it's an interesting conversation that still has plenty to go (we still need to see where this claimed imprecision is), no need to rush to close it. I would have thought that instead you might have acknowledged the blatant error of your previous post.
Peter, thank you, I see now I missed the heading, however the modifiers in the content of the article (butternut, summer, etc.) still carry some weight of the argument I made before. This is an extremely oblique angle to stretch a mere inference of a squash definition. They could have meant either way, but to see more clearly what they really meant, simply read the squash page there. Look especially at the "harvest" and "grow" tabs, where it is clear that these are all part of the local definition of squash; just as the other major, reliable sources I quoted are clear about, including the Wikipedia articles for those fruit, which say that courgettes, pumpkins, and marrows are squash. To be clear, I think that is a casual gardening site not intending to make any statement like "squash is...", so I don't consider it a source for me; only, my link shows it does not support the idea you put forth.
Thank you also for helping me understand your Pinus argument. Holly (Ilex), and its species Ilex glabra (winterberry, gallberry, inkberry) is one example (along with many others) that completely defeats this line of reasoning. Just because some of the species have common names different from the genus common name does make that genus common name imprecise.
Still I'm suprised no one has even come up with one competing definition of squash? I will certainly grant you that my sources need to be better than yours, they must, as you say, reflect "the great majority of reliable sources" to overcome the imprecision argument. But still not even one single source that actually intends to define squash? --Tom Hulse (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
First I must apologize for the other day. Wiki didn't cause me to snap, but real life stress and frustration did due to a very ill close family member. I will send details to Sminthopsis. That is no excuse, but is an explanation. Tom, you are the only one arguing your side. Please drop the stick. HalfGig talk 01:51, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Welcome back, I'm glad you're staying. :) I truly do wish for better health for your family member.
It's perhaps not great form to ask others to stop talking at the very point you may be loosing the argument the worst. I have no misconceptions about whether there will currently be consensus for a name change (I'm not that dumb, lol), but I do feel that I'm soundly winning the sources & policy argument, and I am enjoying an interesting plant discussion related to taxonomy; so no, since this is a discussion and not a vote, I won't quit quite yet. :) --Tom Hulse (talk) 05:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I've struck the minor error I made, but the position is not materially affected, and you are not "winning" anything. Also, please keep what you "feel" and "enjoy" out of Wikipedia discussions, as those things are not relevant. I'm unwatching now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

@Tom Hulse: if you want to argue that Ilex should not be at "Holly", I will agree with you. There are many plant articles at English names which should not be; this is slowly being corrected, although not as fast as I would like. This example is certainly not an argument for making another error by moving Cucurbita to "Squash".
What the RHS examples (mine and yours) show is what we already know: "squash" is not used consistently, because it's used like "dog" or "cat" – sometimes for a wide group (cultivated cucurbits), sometimes for a narrower group (roughly cultivated cucurbits which resemble some mental image of a "squash" rather than, say, a "pumpkin" or a "gourd"). Hence it is not sufficiently precise for an article title. Finding sources which use the broad sense doesn't negate the existence of sources which don't, even when the same organization does both. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
At least since I started working on this article, there's been way more effort put into arguing about the title than discussing the content of the article. It's things like this that make people leave wikipedia. One person stubbornly fillibustering to stop an overwhelming consensus agreement reminds me of dysfunctional national legislatures. Not to mention that work on the article content has been stymied. HalfGig talk 11:41, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

My vote would be for the page to remain at the genus name - I'd never thought of or considered a zucchini to be a squash...I always think of the squash things as the little yellow or pale green funny shaped ones only...hmmm. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

There's clearly no consensus at this point supporting a move, and it does seem like we've spent a lot of time (enough time, in my opinion) discussing the article title, and we can stop at this point. Further energy would be better spent on the article content (which is already pretty good!). Zad68 14:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Absolutely agree that there is no consensus supporting a move. It is time to stop this destructive discussion before any more editors give up. A book that explains the naming and the reasons for it is Phillips, R.; Rix, M. (1993). Vegetables. New York: Random House.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link), which has several paragraphs on the matter, as well as descriptions within each species of the forms that have acquired the various common names. It explains that those names are used to distinguish fruit that ripen in different seasons and have different uses, and "To add to the confusion many squashes and pumpkins are plants belonging to any of the four species: C. pepo L., C. maxima Duch. ex Lam., C. moschata (Duch ex Lam.) Duch. ex Poir., and C. mixta Pangalo."
Cucurbita is the best candidate name for this page, and "Cucurbit" is an equivalent but less well known (rather scholarly) variant, but "squash" and "pumpkin" are as inappropriate for the whole genus as referring to all dogs as "dachshund". Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
An additional source: The Encyclopedia of Fruit & Nuts (2008): "Cucurbita L. includes edible fruit known as squash and pumpkins and inedible fruit known as gourds." p. 292 Sasata (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
HalfGig, I'm a little concerned that you and Sminthopsis are misstating my position as still hoping to overcome consensus. Not at all, as I said in my last post; instead I am engaging in a mutual discussion about the article and the genus that I and others enjoy. "Stubbornly" is a pejorative in this context. So is "filibustering". Please could you consider that Wikipedia asks us to "Comment on content, not on the contributor"? You said the work on the article was stymied. Absolutely not! :) You are completely free to edit the article as you normally would, and I would invite you to do as much as you like. We got off on a bad foot, so I would also invite you to have a nice cup of tea (see the end of that page).
Peter, yes Holly is an excellent example that mirrors the differences/similarities of genus/species common names in squash. There is no difference, unless you could make a dubious argument that it has not enough agricultural, horticultural, economic or cultural use to get a common name title per WP:FLORA. The trouble with trying to read confusion where there is none at the RHS link, is that even though one tiny spot seems to say that that squashes are inside of Cucurbita (which is true! e.g. summer squash), that does not mean the common name for the genus can't be squash, like the major sources say. It's not a contradiction and it's not confusion, it's just true. Similar for Sasata's quote (thanks for using sources!!) They both say what the genus includes (common names for the species), not what it excludes. It's not a definition for squash. You postulated a definition for squash & said it like it's fact. Since it's different from the most reliable & most clear sources, where did you get it? What kind of confusion do you really think will happen if the article were named squash? Someone might be looking for Cucurbita but get directed to Squash instead; then they are so confused that they just can't read the lead which tells them squash is the common name for the genus, as all the major sources say?
Sminthopsis, you didn't notice the irony of you crying for discussion to stop, but then immediately making new contributions yourself? You just want me to stop talking, but you get to keep arguing, lol? ;)
In any case, since the article is staying at it's current name, do you all think we should at least discuss in the article how the big sources treat the common name for the genus, and contrast that with common names for the individual species? Basically an etymology section for both Cucurbita and for the common names? --Tom Hulse (talk) 09:11, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Of course we should document how reliable sources use the term "squash". Here's another one:
Michael Allaby (1992), Oxford Concise Dictionary of Botany, p.110 (under Cucurbitaceae, no entry for Cucurbita or squash): "There are many important food plants, e.g. [some Cucumis spp.], Cucurbita pepo (gourd), marrows, pumpkins, and squashes." Again note that "squashes" do not include "gourd", "marrows" or "pumpkins". Peter coxhead (talk) 17:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

This is an old discussion, but I'm glad the article wasn't retitled as Squash. Australian's do not eat squash. The idea of eating something so named is repellent to any Australians that I have asked. They eat pumpkin, zucchini, and some other vegetables in the genus Cucurbita. Wikipedia aims to take a world view, not just a North American one. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

There's a more basic reason. The article is about the genus and the name of the genus is Cucurbita, not squash. HalfGig talk 15:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Cucurbita maxima and Cucurbita moschata cultivar groups/market types

I don't know if someone is still working on this article, but I see some disbalance in the cultivar groups section. If it has a table of Cucurbita pepo groups, it should have another table for Cucurbita maxima groups and another one for Cucurbita moschata "market types" (the last one because that species is not formally recognized as divided in cultivar groups). For what I have studied, Cucurbita moschata should show "Butternut type = Bell type" (some of them have crooknecks but they are consumed mature as winter squashes), "Cheese type" and "Tromboncino type = Crookneck type" (summer squashes with long crooknecks). Cucurbita maxima should have at least the groups: Banana, Turban (excluding Zapallito), Zapallito (summer squash), Hubbard, Delicious, Marrow, Show (including Mamooth), Kabocha (including hybrids with C. moschata), and for C. pepo, probably is best to split "summer pumpkin" from pumpkin group and leave "pumpkin group" only for those that are consumed mature, and add "Spaghetti group" and "Hullness or Semihullness group (including Styria group, = "oil pumpkin" group)". References are Robinson and Decker-Walters 1997, Ferriol and Picó 2008, I was searching for photographs and you can find them here (working on "calabazas" too): https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiproyecto_Discusi%C3%B3n:Bot%C3%A1nica#Match_fotito-nombres --RoRo (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't at all agree with splitting the "pumpkin" group. As for C. moschata and C. maxima tables, I put in the C. pepo table because that species is by far the dominant food cucurbita and also the best documented. I am uncertain if the length of the article with two more tables would be a community concern or not. HalfGig talk 12:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Just a vote that two more tables seems fine to me, they aren't particularly huge tables, so I think it would be okay. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. I found the Robinson ref, but can you post the link to the Ferriol and Picó ref as I can not find it. HalfGig talk 23:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I guess it is this one. Ferriol, M.; Picó, B. (2008). "Pumpkin and Winter Squash". In J. Prohens; F. Nuez (ed.). Handbook of Plant Breeding: Vegetables I. Vol. 1. Springer New York. pp. 317–349.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Things to work on left from the Peer Review

  1. is there a better term for "domestication events"?
    Apparently not. HalfGig talk 00:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  2. I think the table would look better if the middle column were right justified and centralized (I can't figure this out. I made it look the same as the table in Cabbage.)
    Done. HalfGig talk 00:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  3. Production: might be useful to list (as a table) the production of major curcubit vegetables separately by continent (e.g. watermelon, cucumber, melons and pumpkins/squash) with totals at the bottom
    Done. HalfGig talk 00:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  4. I think the article is missing information on germination/seedling growth
    Done. HalfGig talk 00:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  5. it seems the range of flower morphologies in this group is more diverse than the "Description" section accounts for
    Done HalfGig talk 23:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
  6. which plant growth hormones are primarily responsible for determining flower gender, and which regulate fruit set?
    Done. HalfGig talk 23:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
  7. Prose needs work (i'll need help with this too)
HalfGig talk 13:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The article would benefit from a cladogram for the phylogeny of the squashes, perhaps more than one if there are alternative views on it.

Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Done. HalfGig talk 23:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I actually think the flags in the table should be left-aligned so they all line up, they look a bit messy at the moment. Just an aesthetic thing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  1. Done. HalfGig talk 00:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Questions about wording

I have been asked to participate in getting Cucurbita to the point where it could be considered for FA status. I am not a botanist, so forgive me if I show ignorance of botanists' lingo or botanical facts. I am going to focus on readability and clarity, smooth sentence flow, paragraph cohesion, etc. If you find some of my concerns too obscure or unwarranted, just let me know that you like the sentence the way it is (or some other way).

The lead

1) In the first sentence,

  • Cucurbita (Latin for gourd) is a genus in the gourd family Cucurbitaceae native to and originally cultivated in the Andes and Mesoamerica,

I wondered about "originally cultivated in..." To me, "originally" suggests that it is no longer cultivated there. I prefer "first cultivated in...."

Agreed. Change it. HalfGig talk 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Done. CorinneSD (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

2) Regarding "in the Andes and Mesoamerica", you've got a mountain chain first and a large region second. I suggest either:

  • in the Andes Mountains and in Mesoamerica", or
I prefer this one. HalfGig talk 23
20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • in the Andes Mountains in South America and in Mesoamerica".
I was about to make this change but decided first to look at the link to Andes in the first paragraph in the lead. It's interesting that the title of the article just "Andes", not "Andes Mountains". Maybe it should just stay "the Andes...". Perhaps "the Andes in South American (leaving out "Mountains") and in Mesoamerica" would be clearest, and not wordy. CorinneSD (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Mesoamerica is Central America an southern Mexico, not the same as Andes. Adding "in South America" is redundant to Andes. The article currently says "Andes and MesoAmerica", so I'd leave as is. HalfGig talk 12:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

3) The second sentence reads:

  • The Cucurbita genus is an important source of human food and is used for other purposes such as beverages, medicine, oil, and detergent,

I'm not crazy about this sentence. I wonder about "is an important source of human food". To me, it is a human food. Is it necessary to say "a source of"? If it is, then I would separate "is used for other purposes..." from that clause: "The C genus is an important source of human food."

"The Cucurbita genus...is used for other purposes" sounds odd to me. I would be more specific here and say "Some members of the Cucurbita genus are used for other purposes...."

Agreed. Pls edit as you see best. HalfGig talk 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I broke this sentence up into two sentences and added "Some members of the genus" to the second part. What do you think of it now? CorinneSD (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Good. HalfGig talk 12:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

4) The fourth sentence reads:

  • The plants, referred to as squash, pumpkin or gourd depending on species, variety and local parlance, are grown for their edible fruits and seeds.

I wondered why "squash" is in bold italics, "pumpkin" is in italics and linked, and "gourd" is in italics and not linked.

I did a search for "squash" and it ended up at a disambiguation page, but on that page I saw that there is an article for squash (plant). Shouldn't there be a link at "squash" like [[squash (plant)|squash]]? I did a search for "gourd" and it led to an article entitled "Gourd". Shouldn't "gourd" be linked here? I know it's linked at the beginning ("Latin for gourd"), but I think a lot of readers might miss that. Could it be linked in both places?

Agree they should be consistent. Please edit as you prefer. HalfGig talk 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I added a link to "gourd" in that sentence (but now there are two links to "gourd" in the article -- I don't know if that is acceptable). Regarding "squash", I noticed that there is a note to editors after it that it's a target of a redirect, so I had better not take away the bold. CorinneSD (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I unbolded "squash". We'll just have to leave the note in the body since it's a redirect. Unlinked second gourd. I am fairl sure you only need the first one linked. HalfGig talk 12:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

5) The fifth sentence reads:

  • Real (bottle-)gourds, used as utensils or vessels, belong to the genus Lagenaria and are native to Africa.

I think I have discussed this with Sminthopsis84, but I still think putting "bottle-" in parentheses like this is ridiculous. It looks bad, and it is confusing. The average reader will not know why it is in parentheses. It's either "Real gourds" or "Real bottle-gourds". How about "Real gourds, also called bottle-gourds,..."?

Agreed. "Real gourds, also called bottle-gourds," is best or even "True gourds,...". HalfGig talk 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Done. CorinneSD (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Second paragraph of lead

6) The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead reads:

  • There are five domesticated species: Cucurbita argyrosperma, C. ficifolia, C. maxima, C. moschata, and C. pepo. C. pepo includes varieties of both winter squash and summer squash, and C. moschata can be used as winter squash because the full-grown fruits can be stored for months.

I wonder about this part: "and C. moschata can be used as winter squash".

What does "can be used as winter squash" mean? Is it:

  • can be used in the same way as winter squash is used" (and what would that be, other than eating it in the winter?) or
  • can be eaten in the winter?

Perhaps "can be treated as winter squash"?

defer to Sminthopsis84 HalfGig talk 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
"Treated as" sounds good to me; I think it makes clearer than "used as" that winter squash isn't a different thing, but a way to use the fruit. I've made the change. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

7) The last two sentences of the second paragraph of the lead read:

  • There is no universal agreement on how to handle the taxonomic treatment of the genus, with the number of species being listed varying from 13–30. There is uncertainty as to the ancestors of some species.

(a) "There is no universal agreement on how..." does not sound good. It should be:

  • There is no universal agreement as to how to handle the taxonomic treatment of the genus", or
  • There is no universal agreement on the taxonomic treatment of the genus, or
  • There is no universal agreement regarding the taxonomic treatment of the genus.

(I assume "the taxonomy of the genus" is not correct; it if is, it would be more concise.)

I prefer the regarding one HalfGig talk 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Would you mind if we got Sminthopsis84's opinion on this one? CorinneSD (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

(b) I'd like to ask about this phrase: "with the number of species being listed varying from 13–30".

Is it necessary to say "being listed"? Would it be all right to say:

  • with the number of species varying from 13–30, or
  • with the number of species listed varying from from 13–30?
last one HalfGig talk 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Done. CorinneSD (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

(c) I think it would read better as "from 13 to 30", using "to" instead of an en-dash.

OK HalfGig talk 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Done. CorinneSD (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

(d) I'd like to say something about this sentence:

  • There is uncertainty as to the ancestors of some species.

There is no indication of the connection between this sentence and what precedes it. You could add "also" after "There is": "There is also uncertainty as to the ancestors of some species", but that does not clear things up much. Is this one reason why there is "no universal agreement" as to the taxonomic treatment of the genus? If so, it should be connected to the previous reason in some way.

Defer to Sminthopsis84 HalfGig talk 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I've made some changes including splitting the paragraph. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Third paragraph of the lead

8) The first sentence in the third paragraph of the lead reads:

  • Most Cucurbita species are vines that grow several meters in length, have yellow or orange flowers, and may have tendrils.

The combination of three verb phrases each beginning with a different type of verb is not the most elegant writing:

  • are...., have..., may have....

You already said it's "Most Cucurbita species", not all. Is it necessary to use the tentative "may have" for tendrils? What's the percentage (roughly) of that group -- most Cucurbita species -- that have tendrils? If it's 90-100%, then you don't need "may". If it's 50-80%, then I would separate the third phrase:

  • Most Cucurbita species are vines that grow several meters in length and have yellow or orange flowers; many [or some] of these also have tendrils.
Defer to Sminthopsis84 HalfGig talk 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I've reworked that, see what you think. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

9) The third sentence of the third paragraph of the lead reads:

  • There are two types of flowers on a plant, the female flowers that produce the fruit, and the male flowers that produce pollen.

To me, "a plant" is too general. It sounds like "any plant". I would use the name of this plant:

  • There are two types of flowers on a Cucurbita plant: the female flowers that produce the fruit and the male flowers that produce pollen. (with the punctuation just like this).
OK HalfGig talk 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Done. CorinneSD (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

10) The last sentence of the third paragraph of the lead reads:

  • Many North and Central American species are visited by specialist bee pollinators, but other insects with more general feeding habits, including honey bees, also visit.

I would say "such as honey bees" instead of "including honey bees":

"...but other insects with more general feeding habits such as honey bees also visit". (no commas)

OK HalfGig talk 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Done. CorinneSD (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph of the lead

11) The first sentence in the fourth paragraph of the lead reads:

  • The Cucurbita genus is an important source of human food and the fruits are good sources of several nutrients such as vitamin A, vitamin C, dietary fiber, niacin, folic acid, and iron.

(a) You already said that the Cucurbita genus is an important source of human food earlier in the lead. I don't think it needs to be said twice. Pick the best place.

Cut from this one, leave it in the first occurrence. HalfGig talk 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Done. CorinneSD (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

(b) You've got the word "source" and its plural, "sources", in close proximity in this sentence. Consider that as you consider where best to mention "is an important source of human food".


12) The second sentence in the fourth paragraph of the lead reads:

  • In addition, they are free of fat and cholesterol.

The pronoun "they" is ambiguous. In the previous sentence you have several plurals: "the fruits", "good sources", "nutrients", and "vitamin A, etc."

If you separate "The Cucurbita genus is an important source of human food" from "The fruits are good sources of several nutrients...," then this information can be joined to that second sentence:

"The fruits are good sources of several nutrients such as.....and are free of fat and cholesterol."

Defer to Sminthopsis84 HalfGig talk 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I've reworded that. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

13) User:Sminthopsis84 and User:HalfGig This is the only item that has not been resolved. Perhaps Sminthopsis84 will understand what I mean when s/he gets a chance to read this. If not, then I will attempt either to explain what I mean in a clearer manner or go ahead and make some edits. CorinneSD (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The last two sentences of the fourth paragraph of the lead are:

  • The plants contain the toxins cucurbitin, cucurmosin and cucurbitacin. Medical uses of the plant include treating skin conditions and improving visual acuity.

I know it's part of a summary, but these seem sort of abruptly "tacked on" after a discussion of positive benefits of the genus. Also, they mention toxins first and medical uses second, which is opposite to the order in the article. The medical uses makes for a slightly better transition from the discussion of positive food benefits of the genus, so I would put that first. Then the contrast can be highlighted a bit. (I also wonder whether the switch from discussing the fruits to "the plant" is necessary. I couldn't tell for sure from reading those two sections on Medical uses and Toxins whether parts of the plant other than the fruits are used medicinally and/or contain toxins. If it's just the fruits, then "the plant" could be changed to "the fruit" or "the fruits".) So, using "the plant", I've changed the order:

"The plant has medical uses including treating skin conditions and improving visual acuity; it also contains several toxins."

(Do the specific names of the toxins have to be mentioned here? They are mentioned in the section on toxins. This is supposed to be a summary of the main points of the article.)

I got lost on this one. Are you done changing it or do you feel it needs changed more? Sminthopsis84 is probably a better one to answer this one. HalfGig talk 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's all for now. I'll continue reading the rest of the article now. CorinneSD (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

CorinneSD--THANK YOU so much for taking this on and starting so quickly. We really appreciate it and you have an excellent talent for this. 23:20, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome. I'm happy to be of help. CorinneSD (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I tried to fix this. HalfGig talk 03:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Wording, continued

Description

1) The third sentence in the second paragraph in "Description" reads:

  • All of the above-ground parts may be hairy with various types of trichomes, and sometimes these are hardened and sharp.

In the clause "sometimes these are hardened and sharp", the demonstrative pronoun "these" is ambiguous. It could refer to "all of the above-ground parts" or "various types of trichomes".

If "these" refers to "various types of trichomes", I would write:

"sometimes these trichomes are hardened and sharp", or

re-word it as follows:

"All of the above-ground parts may be hairy with various types of trichomes, which are sometimes hardened and sharp."

If "these" refers to "all of the above-ground parts", then it has to be re-worded like this:

"All of the above-ground parts may be hairy with various types of trichomes or hardened and sharp."
Defer to Sminthopsis84 HalfGig talk 23:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I've made that change. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

History and domestication

2) The second sentence in the first paragraph in "History and domestication" reads:

  • The likely center of origin is southern Mexico and then spreading south into South America, largely in what is now known as Mesoamerica, and north to what is now the southwestern United States.

The phrase "largely in what is now known as Mesoamerica" does not make sense on the heels of "into South America". Mesoamerica is Central America, and extends only to Costa Rica and perhaps part of Panama. I'll leave it up to you as to how you want to fix this sentence.

Will do in a few minutes. HalfGig talk 23:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Your edit improved the sentence. I just made a few minor changes. CorinneSD (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Phylogeny

3) The second sentence in "Phylogeny" reads:

This sentence contains "based on" twice. Is there any way to avoid this repetition? CorinneSD (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Will do in a few minutes. HalfGig talk 23:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Habitat and distribution

4) The first sentence in "Habitat and distribution" reads:

  • Of the five domesticated species, four of them, Cucurbita argyrosperma, C. ficifolia, C. moschata, and C. pepo, originated and were domesticated in Mesoamerica whereas in the case of C. maxima this occurred in South America.

I think the last part of this sentence is a little wordy. There's also a bit of ambiguity in "this" in the phrase "this occurred". Does "this" refer to both "originated" and "were [was] domesticated" or just to "were [was] domesticated"? If it refers to both, "this" should be "these" -- "these occurred". I think the clause can be made more concise, but before I work on it I need to know what, exactly, occurred in South America regarding C. maxima. CorinneSD (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

For C. maxima, it refers to both origination and domestication, that was in S. America. The other four both originated and domesticated in MesoAmerica, which is basically Central America and southern Mexico. HalfGig talk 13:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

5) In the middle of the second paragraph in Cucurbita#Habitat and distribution, a researcher named "Paris" is mentioned. This is the first mention of this person in the article. Shouldn't the first and last names of a person be given the first time the person is mentioned in an article? I'm not sure of WP style on this point. I notice that at least this person is identified with "botanist Paris" later in this section, but still no first name. Also, another researcher, "botanist Andres", is mentioned, with no first name.

Fixed. Good catches! HalfGig talk 13:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

6) The last sentence in the third paragraph in "Habitat and distribution" reads:

  • Seeds are sown in May–June and fruit harvested from October–December.

Probably indicating the sowing and harvesting periods like this is standard for botanists, but I'm wondering if it would clearer for the non-expert if it were written like this:

"Seeds are sown in May and June, and fruit is harvested from October to December," or
This one is best. HalfGig talk 13:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
"Seeds are sown in May and June, and fruit is harvested in October and December."


Done. CorinneSD (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

7) The last sentence in the entire section "Habitat and distribution" reads:

  • These eight edible cultivated varieties of C. pepo vary widely in shape and color, and one non-edible cultivated variety:

This is not a complete sentence. I'm not sure how to fix it. CorinneSD (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. I hope. Please take a look. HalfGig talk 13:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, I have a few things to say about the last three sentences, which are:
*In 1986 Paris proposed a taxonomy of C. pepo consisting of eight edible and cultivated groups based on their basic shape and color, which varies widely. All but a few C. pepo can be included in these groups. There is one non-edible cultivated variety:
(a) The first of these sentences mentions "a taxonomy...consisting of eight edible and cultivated groups".
It's not clear whether that the table that follows these sentences is illustrating this taxonomy or not. There should be a sentence right before the table that clearly says what the table will show (and includes and does not include).
(b) If Paris proposed "a taxonomy...consisting of eight edible and cultivated groups," then what is the point of mentioning the one inedible variety (last sentence)? How does that inedible variety fit in? Is it included in the table? Yes. I see that it is. CorinneSD (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
This needs to be clarified. If you need help constructing the sentence or sentences, let me know. Just list what is true. CorinneSD (talk) 21:35, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's best you fix this one. Here's the facts: Paris' taxonomy only included the eight edible/cultivate types of C. pepo. The table includes all nine, it's about all C pepo, not just the edibles. For completeness the table should have all nine. Paris is mentioned in the text so readers know which of the taxonomies is being used (there are others but it's best to use Paris here). Paris left out the ovifera group (the ornammentals). I am all open to how you wish to fix this. Agree it is still somewhat awkward. HalfGig talk 23:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Now that I understand it, I added a sentence to introduce the table. What do you think of it? I wonder whether the table would look a little nicer if the first word in each section in the Description column were capitalized, such as "Winter squash". I think the table would look a little more polished that way. But if there is an accepted format for this type of table that uses lower-case, then I guess it has to stay lower-case. CorinneSD (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I upper cased them. HalfGig talk 01:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh, good. CorinneSD (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

8) I notice that except for the single mention of "squash" in the first paragraph of the lead (and now in bold), and the mention of winter and summer squash in the second paragraph of the lead, and the single mention of "squash beeds" in Cucurbita#Reproductive biology, the word is not used at all for quite a while until suddenly in the third and fourth paragraphs of Cucurbita#History and domestication is it used several times, and then mentioned only in the list and in the table, and then a few times in the remaining sections. I think there has to be some indication as to why "squash" is used so little at the beginning of the article, and more frequently in the second half of the article, and the relationship between Cucurbita and "squash" has to be made clear (if it's there, I have missed it).

A User:Gerda Arendt re-bolded it. I guess there's a rule about terms redirecting to the article in use. "Squash" is any member of the genus cucurbita. They're in essence interchangeable terms, but I see that being confusing too. The 4th paragraph talks about the origin of the word squash, so you have to use it. I've gone through in two edits to clear this up. If you can improve, feel free. Also note in the opening it says "The plants, referred to as squash...." "Cucurbita" tends to be used by academics and when discussing the genus. "Squash" is more colloquial and used more in everyday use and when talking about it as a food. Think of it this way...Have you ever heard someone say "Let's have cucurbita pie" or "Let's go get a Halloween cucurbita?" HalfGig talk 23:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, why doesn't the article use the word "squash" all the way through, then? And the title of the article could be "Squash". CorinneSD (talk) 01:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Because the article is on the genus. See thread above on this very page. This has been hashed out before. HalfGig talk 01:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:Cucurbita#Do_we_need_Squash_.28plant.29.3F and Talk:Cucurbita#Why_aren.27t_we_titled_Squash_here.3F HalfGig talk 01:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I see you've added a link. I'll look at it tomorrow. This is what I was typing when I got the Edit Conflict:
I'll look at the thread, but not now; I'm a little tired -- have been editing for hours. But can I ask you something? I read the sentence in the first paragraph of the lead that reads "The plants, referred to as squash, pumpkin or gourd depending on species, variety and local parlance, are grown for their edible fruits and seeds." Then I looked at the Scientific classification list in the infobox. Which word in the Scientific classification list would pertain to squash? In other words, which ones in this big family would be considered squash (for example, in the U.S.)? CorinneSD (talk) 01:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Two links added. All squashes are Cucurbita, ie, part of this article. But depending on local parlance etc not all Cucurbita are squashes OR they are ;-). In Australia there are no squashes, every Cucurbita is a pumpkin. See pumpkin; which more or less follows American usage. In America, All pumpkins are C. pepo or C. moschata. In Asia, a kabocha, which is C. maxima, is a pumpkin but some Americans call it a squash. Yes, this is all confusing and impossible to standardize, so you have to pick a methodology and just go with it. In the I tried to use Cucurbita for more academic spots and squash for more "everyday people"/food spots. Since the article (see banner on talk page) uses American English (cucurbits are from the New World after all), I'd suggest we standardize on something that makes sense in America. Let me throw in another wrinkle...in the C. pepo chart, the only called a pumpkin is that one row, this is in line with the pumpkin article. HalfGig talk 02:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes. It is confusing. You said, above, that "In American, all pumpkins are C. pepo or C. moschata." But in the picture in the article of butternut squash, it says it is C. moschata, and that definitely is not called a pumpkin in the U.S. In the U.S. every single one except the roundish orange ones (pumpkins) and the inedible gourds are called squash. (and everyone knows pumpkin is one kind of squash, too). CorinneSD (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

9) Also, I notice that the word "Cucurbit" or "Cucurbits" is used only in the caption in the illustration at the beginning of Cucurbita#History and domestication, and then, out of the blue, three times in Cucurbita#Pests and diseases with no explanation. What are "Cucurbits"? Already, two words -- Cucurbita (and "species of Cucurbita") and "squash" -- have been used. Why switch to a new word? CorinneSD (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow, you're really good at this. I think you could be a professional copyeditor, if you aren't already. "Cucurbitaceae" is a family, which includes more than just Cucurbita = "Cucurbit", another word for the family. So it depends on what you're talking about, if you are using the words accurately. Going through the use of "cucurbit" one by one: in the photo caption it's accurate, as the cucurbit family was unknown at all in Europe at the time, in the pest section I've moved the phrase "cucurbits, which is the family Cucurbitaceae.", maybe that'll help. Pests affect the whole family, not just the genus. HalfGig talk 23:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Oh...forgot...thanks for the compliment! CorinneSD (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for my interruption, I'm aware you may feel uncomfortable with it. Anyway I will try to make this contribution because I think I may clarify something. Having said why I am here: I have studied the use of the terms in order to translate them for the Spanish wikipedia and I think you have missed that "squash" refers only to 4 species of Cucurbita: C. pepo, C. maima, C. moschata, C. argyrosperma, and from them, it only refers to the edible varieties. The "ornamental gourds" of C. pepo are just gourds, not squashes nor pumpkins. Also, Cucurbita ficifolia, "the fifth species" from the Andes, is also considererd a gourd (an edible gourd) and from what I understand, the denomination of this species like "squash" or "pumpkin" has little acceptation (I have never seen it like a squash or a pumpkin, being the exception the English wikipedia entry for it). Having said that, there are not squashes nor pumpkins outside those 4 species (those 4 species are part of a mesophytic annual clade, also). Inside these 4 species, the wild varieties, as Cucurbita texana (now Cucurbita pepo var. texana) and various others, are just gourds, little, non-edible and sometimes used like rattles or decorative gourds, they are never "squash" nor "pumpkin". Also, taxonomists generally agree that "squash" sensu lato includes the (round) "pumpkins". Finally it could be good to clarify that "canned pumpkin" is in fact "canned squash sensu lato" since there are not neccesarily pumpkins in there, but the term people uses also refer to "pumpkin".
Here I have a few references:
Robinson & Decker-Walters (1997) p. 72: "Cultivars are classified as summer squash (sometimes called vegetable marrow) or winter squash, depending on whether the fruit is used when immature or mature. The term winter squash refers to the ability of the fruit to be stored until the winter months. Summer squashes are generally C. pepo, but winter squashes may be C. pepo (e.g. 'Acorn'), C. maxima ('Hubbard'), C. moschata ('Butternut') or C. argyrosperma ('Green Striped Cushaw')."
Robinson & Decker-Walters (1997) p. 77: "Commercially canned pumpkin pie mix may be made of C. pepo, C. maxima or C. moschata. Although C. pepo has a long tradition of use in the USA, fruits of the other two species produce better baked pies. Cultivars of C. moschata and C. maxima are also processed and sold as canned or frozen winter squash. Canners prefer cultivars with an orange rind; if a small piece of the skin is inadvertently included in the canned product, it is less noticeable than with green-fruited cultivars. Orange, carotene-rich fruits of C. maxima that are also fine in texture and flavour are mashed into jarred baby food."
Wang et al. (2011). J. Brent. Loy, Chapter 4 "Breedign Squash and Pumpkins", p.93: "Horticulturally, domesticated members of this genus (Cucurbita) are conveniently classified into three broad groupings: (1) summer squash cultigens, the fruit of which is consumed immature, about three to five days after fruit set; (2) winter squash, the fruit of which is harvested when mature, about 50 to 60 days after fruit set, but which may require additional storage to reach optimum sugar levels for desirable eating quality; and (3) gourd and pumpkin cultigens that are used mainly for ornamental purposes."
Paris (1989): "[About Cucurbita pepo: pumpkins, scallops, acorns, crooknecks, straghtnecks, vegetable marrows, cocozelles, zucchinis, Paris 1986] The pumpkins and acorns are grown for consumption of their mature (40 d or more past anthesis) fruits. The others are grown for consumption of their immature (generally first week past anthesis) fruits." (...) "The fruits of other C. pepo cultivars are not palatable and are grown purely for decorative purposes. These are known collectively as ornamental gourds, and they occur in a wealth of shapes and colors (Bailey 1937)."
Andres 2004 (the paper "Diversity in...") "Production statistics do not often distinguish between this species (Cucurbita moschata) and the other species of squash and pumpkin."
Munro & Small (1997) p. 172: "Canadian statistics for "squash" are not separated by individual species (C. pepo, C. moschata, C. argyrosperma, C. maxima)."
I hope this helps. Have a good day. --RoRo (talk) 03:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
This just proves my point, that we'll never please everyone on the terminology issue. Even academics don't agree on it. This keeps coming up over and over. People will never agree. In Australia there are no squash, just pumpkins, for example. HalfGig talk 14:47, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
By the definition above, summer squashes being squashy (harvested when immature), there are C. moshata members of that informal group (the cultivar of that type that I'm most familiar with is 'Tromboncino') so "Summer squashes are generally C. pepo" is not a great summary. I would also remark that during a tour of the Canadian Plant Gene Resources Centre, the group I was with pointed out that a stack of recently acquired massive Cucurbita fruit that were coming in for study and seed storage were mislabelled (as C. pepo, when they were, rather clearly by the attached stems, C. maxima). It is not surprising that people, even experts, lump these species together for practical purposes, but calling them all "squash" is going rather too far with the lumping. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
That aseveration was so USA centered, most "summer squashes" are ancestral varieties of C. maxima here in Argentina. People here don't speak English and there are no English names for them. And in some region of USA they call winter crooknecks "neck pumpkin". Lots of examples exist. What I say is that it seems to be a clear consense between taxonomists that "summer squash" is every (those 4 species) harvested immature for human consumption. May be a disagreement with popular taxonomies in some regions, but there is no way to make a consensus word that agree with all of them, because they contradict each other. It happened the same to me in the Spanish article Calabaza (lumped with Zapallo, Ayote, Pipián, Auyama), what I did was to define each word with the differences between regions in the first section of the article, and then I had to choose a "consensus word" for what English taxonomists call "summer squash" and a "consensus word" for what English taxonomists call "winter squash (and (winter) pumpkin)", and also a "consensus word" for the unedible-ornamental-decorative-gourds, because if you don't do that you can't express yourself in an unambiguous way in the rest of the article. I think if you put clearly why you are choosing those "consensus words" in the first paragraphs of the article the reader will accept them better (and you will have to, at least you may want to call all of them just "fruits"). I know thy are always resistances and perhaps other people will question the consensus decision and you may end up changing it (I did), but I it will be a little rare to read "fruit" everywhere when it looks that taxonomists agree in a degree about this. But oh well, you know your readers better. --RoRo (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Is there any FA-level article where they say something like "when we say 'squash' in this article we mean ....."? HalfGig talk 16:43, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
[In answer to the last question, not commenting on the current article at all] It's pretty risky. In Crocodilia we said "Although the term 'crocodiles' is sometimes used to refer to all of these, a less ambiguous vernacular term for this group is crocodilians." And in Sea we ended up with a crisp section on the word's definition. Yeah, it followed a lot of squabbling. It's certainly possible to define broad and narrow senses. The thing is worth doing if a definition cuts out a lot of future/futile argument. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't really see the problem here. The lead makes it clear that Cucurbita species are "referred to as squash, pumpkin or gourd depending on species, variety and local parlance", which is easily demonstrated to be true. Afterwards the article can use phrases like "species of Cucurbita" or similar, as it does now.
(The only objection I have is the use of "Real gourds" in the lead; who says they are "real"? Fruits of Lagenaria species are no more "real" gourds than fruits of some Cucurbita species – see the Gourd article.) Peter coxhead (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't really see the problem either, per Peter, but I also Chiswick's point. I think the thing to do here may be to put one of those explanatory footnote things after "referred to as squash, pumpkin or gourd depending on species, variety and local parlance", explaining how we use in the article. HalfGig talk 18:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Probably because that's the original taxon for the word, since Lagenaria was the only gourd present in Europe where English language developed. As in Spanish the word extended the number of taxa it referred especially after the contact with America. All Cucurbita and calabash trees (Crescentia and Amphitecna) and the less known amazonian Lecythis, they all are american "gourds" defined as harvested for ornamental uses due to the hardiness of its rind. Other "gourds" the word extended I suposse it was because of the similitude with the unripe edible varieties of Lagenaria that were popular in Europe before Cucurbita was known. --RoRo (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I've made a note, with a quote from a book by two academics (one a woman) from the University of Valencia, Spain, that discusses this very issue. Please everyone look it over. I've also taken the two usages of "real" gourd. HalfGig talk 23:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Good, a helpful note, quote and reference. It isn't us lot that need convincing, of course. Now that we are all clear and agreed, and the article makes the point repeatedly, we should be able to steer through reviews without *too* much trouble. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Wording, continued again

Habitat and distribution

I've been thinking about the first few sentences in "Habitat and distribution", which are now:

  • There are five domesticated species. Four of them, Cucurbita argyrosperma, C. ficifolia, C. moschata, and C. pepo, originated and were domesticated in Mesoamerica, and one, C. maxima, originated and was domesticated in South America. The exact location of origin of C. ficifolia and C. moschata is less certain.


Yesterday, to fix the problem of the singular "this", in "this occurred", to refer to two events, I had written, and saved, as it is above:

  • (A) Four of them, Cucurbita argyrosperma, C. ficifolia, C. moschata, and C. pepo, originated and were domesticated in Mesoamerica, and one, C. maxima, originated and was domesticated in South America.

But I was thinking that I should figure out a way to avoid repeating "originated and were domesticated", so I came up with the following:

  • (B) Four of them, Cucurbita argyrosperma, C. ficifolia, C. moschata, and C. pepo, originated and were domesticated in Mesoamerica. For one of them,C. maxima, these events occurred in South America.

(which is not much different from the way it was before I made any changes).

I want to know which version you like better, A or B.

I like B. HalfGig talk`
O.K. Thank you. I'll change it. CorinneSD (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, I noticed something else. The last sentence in the group of sentences that I copied above reads:

  • The exact location of origin of C. ficifolia and C. moschata is less certain.

However, in the sentence before this beginning "Four of them, ....," C. moschata is included in the group of four that "originated and were domesticated in Mesoamerica". How can both of these sentences be true? CorinneSD (talk) 15:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Think of it like this...MesoAmerica and SA are big areas. The "less certain" part means narrowing down to a smaller area. I see two options a) cut "The exact location of origin of C. ficifolia and C. moschata is less certain" entirly or b) make is something like "The precise location of origin of C. ficifolia and C. moschata within those areas is less certain". I lean towards cutting it entirely. HalfGig talk 17:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
O.K. I understand now. But I think you'll agree the sentence, especially following the previous information, was not very clear. I agree that it would be best to leave out that last sentence. (I'll bet no one is sure of the exact location of origin of any of the species.) I'll remove it. CorinneSD (talk) 19:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

2) A minor point: In the table at the end of Cucurbita#Habitat and distribution, the text in the Description column ends with a period in the Ornamental gourds section. There is no period at the end of the text in the Description column for any of the other sections. The question is, should there be a period at the end of the descriptions for all of them, or should the last one be removed, or is it appropriate for that text and not the others? Perhaps we need to look at similar tables in other articles. CorinneSD (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree should be consistent here. I'm not sure which is "proper" but since the photo captions have no ending period, I removed it. HalfGig talk 19:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The lead

3) I have a question about a sentence in the first paragraph in the lead. The sentence reads:

  • Used as utensils or vessels, gourds, or bottle-gourds, are native to Africa; they belong to the genus Lagenaria, which is in the same family and subfamily as Cucurbita but in different tribes.

I'm wondering about this part: "they belong to the genus Lagenaria, which is in the same family and subfamily as Cucurbita but in different tribes,"

and specifically this part: "but in different tribes".

Does the genus Lagenaria include more than one tribe? If so, then "in different tribes" is correct -- but not especially clear. It would be clearer to say, "but not in the same tribe".

However, if the genus Lagenaria is in one tribe -- and Cucurbita in one or more others -- then it is not correct; it would have to be "in a different tribe":

"...which is in the same family and subfamily as Cucurbita but in a different tribe [from Cucurbita]". Just checking. CorinneSD (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
A tribe is higher than a genus but below a family. Both are in the same family butt different tribes. I've already changed it to "in a differnt tribe". HalfGig talk 21:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I decided to read the article once through again. I didn't like the sound of these sentences from early in the lead:
  • The Cucurbita genus is an important source of human food. Some members of the genus are used for other purposes such as beverages, medicine, oil, and detergent. Some Cucurbita species were brought to Europe after the discovery of America and are now used in many parts of the world.
There's "The Cucurbita genus", "Some members of the genus", and "Some Cucurbita species". I think it's a bit wordy/repetitive. I'd like to make this more concise. How about this:
The Cucurbita genus is an important source of human food, beverages, medicine, oil, and detergent. Some Cucurbita species were brought to Europe after the discovery of America and are now used in many parts of the world. – CorinneSD (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Good. I changed it. When you get a chance could you copy edit the new "in human culture" section? HalfGig talk 18:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes. I'll get to it later this afternoon. CorinneSD (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
HalfGig I'm working on Cucurbita#In human culture. I've done a bit of re-wording in Cucurbita#Art, music, and literature. I wanted to ask you something about the sentence that begins as follows:
  • Until recently, the earliest known depictions of this genus in Europe was of Cucurbita pepo in De Historia Stirpium Commentarii Insignes in 1542 by the German botanist Leonhart Fuchs,...
I just wonder if you know whether it was one picture -- one depiction -- or more than one -- depictions. If it is just one picture, then I would change "the earliest known depictions" to "the earliest known depiction". If you don't know, is there a way to find out? CorinneSD (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I've seen at least two pages of cucurbita drawings from this book so I'd go with plural. I also noticed festoon needed to be plural so I changed that. HalfGig talk 01:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
2) In the first paragraph of Cucurbita#Medicinal uses is the following sentence:
  • Cucurbita seeds were used in traditional Chinese medicine to treat ascariasis and are used to treat schistosomiasis.
This is not a well-worded sentence. It switches from past tense, "were used", to present tense, "are used", with no explanation. Does this mean that Cucurbita seeds are no longer used to treat ascariasis? If so, why? Also, the addition of "and are used to treat schistosomiasis" after "were used in traditional Chinese medicine..." makes it unclear whether the use of Cucurbita seeds to treat schistosomiasis is part of traditional Chinese medicine. If these points could be cleared up, I would know better how to improve the sentence, or, of course, you could revise it. CorinneSD (talk) 01:32, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
I think we should go with "were used" or "have been used". It's not clear if they are still used for this. HalfGig talk 01:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

In Cucurbita#Culinary uses, in the first paragraph, is the following sentence:

  • Cucurbita is one of the most important of those, with the various species being prepared and consumed in many ways.

I don't understand the use of the verb "consumed" here. Why not use "eaten"? "Eaten" has only one basic meaning while "consumed" has more than one meaning. CorinneSD (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I notice that the verb "consumed" is used about two sentences below this where it makes slightly more sense. It would be good not to use the same verb twice in close proximity, so that's another reason to use "eaten" for the first instance. CorinneSD (talk) 01:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I changed to eaten. HalfGig talk 01:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

HalfGig Regarding your change from "festoon" to "festoons", if you're sure it's supposed to be plural, then the single indefinite article "a" needs to be removed. CorinneSD (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I want to read the article through once more from beginning to end, but I'm too tired now. I'll read it tomorrow. CorinneSD (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ Fürnkranz, Michael; Lukesch, Birgit; Müller, Henry; Huss, Herbert; Grube, Martin; Berg, Gabriele (2012). "Microbial Diversity Inside Pumpkins: Microhabitat-Specific Communities Display a High Antagonistic Potential Against Phytopathogens". Microbial Ecology. 63 (2). Springer: 418–428. doi:10.2307/41412429. JSTOR 41412429.
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference deckerwalters was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference decker was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ "Free-living Cucurbita pepo in the United States Viral Resistance, Gene Flow, and Risk Assessment". Texas A&M Bioinformatics Working Group. Retrieved September 8, 2013.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cucurbita/Archive_1&oldid=1253832941"