Talk:Hosta

VirusX

I'm just curious, but why no mention of Hosta VirusX (HVX)? Is it something that should be added here or as it's own entry. Either way, it should at least be mentioned since it's becoming nearly epidemic in commercially grown plants.

There is something there now, although Hosta Virus X is currently a redlink. Lineslarge (talk) 11:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image problem

Could anyone explain why the image at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Hosta_%27%27undulata%27%27.JPG could not be rendered in the taxobox ? I cannot see any syntax problem and yet there's visibly a problem there.

It contains non-standard characters that are not compatible with file name characters. I've re-uploaded it with a new name Image:Hosta undulata.jpg - MPF 00:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agavaceae or Hyacinthaceae?

There is no mention of classification in this article. Can anyone explain why Hosta is classificed here in the family Agavaceae, but elsewhere (NCBI database) as Hyacinthaceae? NaySay 18:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hostas are in Liliaceae, sometimes divided in to subfamily Hyacinthacae. They are NOT in not Agavaceae. This is definately 100% wrong and should be changed.

-Guest

There is Hosta genus in both familys. See: Agavaceae

-Other Guest

Family-level classifications of many plant genera are in a state of flux and this has caused confusion and discussion throughout Wikipedia. I've edited the article slightly to clarify this. In a nutshell, Hosta is much more closely related to the genus Agave than to either Hyacinthus or Lilium, and is included in Agavaceae in recent classifications, particularly the influential Angiosperm Phylogeny Group system. Liliaceae as traditionally known was a huge, poorly defined and unnatural family that has been disassembled into several smaller families. This is a process that started even before the molecular phylogenies that have affected so many plant families. Please see the various family articles, where it is all explained. MrDarwin 13:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Family classification

"The genus is currently placed in the family Asparagaceae, subfamily Agavoideae"... according to some taxonomists, following one particular classification scheme (APG III). That classification is influential and widely accepted, but is not universally accepted. Wikipedia is doing a disservice to plant taxonomy by presenting one particular classification as "the" classification when this is not how plant taxonomy works. All classifications are opinions, all classifications are subjective, and all classifications are subject to change as new data become available, old data are re-interpreted, and as opinions about taxonomy and classification change. There can be two or more competing--but equally valid--classifications for the same group of plants at any particular time. 160.111.254.17 (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, all classifications supported by reliable secondary sources should be discussed in the Taxonomy section of the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, all classifications supported by reliable sources should have individual articles. Do you see what I'm saying? Agavaceae as a plant family does not cease to exist simply because one classification chooses to synonymize it under Asparagaceae. 160.111.254.17 (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you mean "classifications" but "taxa". Sorry, I don't agree. There are two different issues here. (1) The circumscription of taxa, now almost always determined by molecular phylogenetics. Only very rarely do we need articles on historically accepted groups whose circumscriptions are not supported by modern evidence. See Category:Historically recognized plant taxa. Another example, which I started, is Lilioid monocots, since although this is no longer accepted as a valid taxon, it's widely used as an informal term. (2) The name and rank of taxa. Whether the taxon should be called "Agavaceae" or "Agavoideae" is largely a matter of opinion, as you say, depending on whether you're a lumper or a splitter. Ditto Scilloideae and Hyacinthaceae or Allioideae and Alliaceae. We wouldn't have two articles, one called Scilloideae and one called Hyacinthaceae, because the difference of opinion that exists today is not over the circumscription and hence description of this group of plants, but what rank to assign it, and this can be discussed in the article.

The correct version of what you wrote above is "the taxon that if treated as a family is called 'Agavaceae' and if treated as a subfamily is called 'Agavoideae' does not cease to exist simply because its rank is changed" – indeed, and what's important is the circumscription and description of the taxon, regardless of its rank and hence name. Our articles are about groups of plants, not about names. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tolerances?

It frustrates me when looking up plants on Wikipedia that there is not general rule to include tolerances for plants. For example; it would be nice to have: Hosta tolerances: 0 to 29 degrees Celsius; prefers half to full shade; prefers pH of ??; prefers damp, well-drained soil, etc. Every plant mentioned on Wiki should have such a section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:34F0:C300:21C:B3FF:FEC6:12F7 (talk) 06:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Common names?

I grew up in Oneida County, NY (Central NY). My mom and grandma had a variegated variety of these planted at their houses. They called them "Spunky as a Marble". Has anyone else heard this name? What other names have you heard used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treena Meinos (talk • contribs) 13:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which Funk

I don't know about this edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hosta&curid=1959173&diff=1023825202&oldid=1008603283#cite_note-9 and the French source doesn't make it any clearer Invasive Spices (talk) 21:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson & Smith (1979), Plant Names Simplified says "after H. Funk, a German botanist", so the previous link is wrong. Their spelling seems to be wrong – see also the Taxonomic Literature entry. So the present link appears to be correct. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:57, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Large flowers on rare occasions?

3 or 4 times in the past 30 years, some of our hostas have made single clusters of large lily-like flowers at the top of the stems instead of smaller flowers along the length of the stem. The same plants went back to the usual flowers the next year. Anyone seen a reference to this with any explanation of what causes it? Not R (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]