Talk:Exocarpos cupressiformis

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Australia: Biota Low‑importance

	Australia portal Exocarpos cupressiformis is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

I suspect that the early botanists thought that the proximal swollen, succulent, red pedicel was a true fruit and that the true fruit, the distal nut, was actually its exposed seed; hence the name Exocarpus. After studies revealed the true botanical nature of the combined structure (a fruit-like pedicel with a hard, true fruit nut) the generic name was slightly modified to Exocarpos.A full historical taxonomic and nomenclature study would clarify this assumption. Botanists are very specific and pedantic when taxonomy and nomenclature are studied, and so thorough notes are kept. Whipstick (talk) 05:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the generic name was originally 'Exocarpos' ascribed by Labillardiere in his original description in 'Relation du Voyage à la Recherche de la Pérouse'Tjuringa (talk) 00:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hovenia dulcis

Is there a point to the link? It doesn't seem obvious what the relationship between the species might be (it doesn't seem to be taxonomic). --Urilarim (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]