Talk:Potentilla indica

Potentilla vs. Duchesnea

Despite the recent paper suggesting inclusion of Duchesnea in Potentilla, I would hesitate to do so, and as far as I know this classification has yet to be widely accepted. From what I've seen, Duchesnea seems to be no more close to members of Potentilla as is Fragaria, and to me it seems arbitrary to change one and not the other. And yet changing the genus of such an important group of species as Fragaria would be quite drastic and probably unpopular, particularly in the horticultural world. Personally, I think the problem is not so much that Duchesnea and Fragaria belong in Potentilla, but that Potentilla is an overly-broad genus that really should be broken down into several genera (this has been done before, and many have still placed Duchesnea within the more limited Potentilla, but as with so many issues of taxonomy at some level it begins to boil down to matters of personal taste. Anyway, I don't feel strongly enough to change the article, just noting my thoughts on the subject. Elakazal 20:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The USDA still lists it as Duchesnea as well. http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=DUIN SB Johnny 11:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Essential reading: Mabberley, D.J. (2002). Potentilla and Fragaria (Rosaceae) reunited. Telopea 9(4): 793-801 (downloadable from here). Note the inclusion of Fragaria, as well as Duchesnea, in Potentilla. The conclusions are robust; it is only the "political" considerations to be overcome. I consider we should follow Mabberley (maybe if not now, then when the new edition of The Plant Book comes out later this year) - MPF 09:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an old discussion, but I just looked at this page and I object to calling this plant Potentilla. The decision may be political, but on WP, we should follow the standard usage, with perhaps a discussion of the alternative name. The new version of the Jepson Manual maintains Duchesnea. This one paper, no matter how robust is not enough. Potter et al. (http://biology.umaine.edu/Amelanchier/Rosaceae_2007.pdf), for example do not combine Fragaria and Potentilla, noting that if they followed Mabberly's suggestion the genus would become polyphyletic. They do support Duchesnea in the latter genus, but again this is their opinion. The point is, it is not our decision. We need to follow the general usage of standard reference sources. None of these I found uses the genus Potentilla for this plant.Michaplot (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The Complete Wilderness Training Book" by Hugh McManners says that Duchesnea (mock strawberries) "can be fatal" if eaten. Is this true? In the article they are described as edible, but tasteless. Vultur 01:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read Hugh McManners' book and I believe it repeats a common urban legend. I have tasted a few small berries myself. I'd love to see a better source on this. G. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.16.62 (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've eaten mock strawberries on multiple occasions, and as of yet, I've had no fatal reactions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishibbard7 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have it as a weed in my yard, and frequently eat it. It is insipid, but apparently not fatal.Michaplot (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What happened?

wow, what happened to this article? it once had quite a bit more information, and a gallery of photos showing teh rest of the plant...was there a copyright violation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.18.47 (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The history of the article doesn't seem to show much shrinkage. The photo gallery can be accessed from the "wikimedia commons" link near the bottom of the page. Nadiatalent (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source for the noxious weed status

http://snr.unl.edu/invasives/documents/Invasive%20Plant%20and%20Insect%20Field%20Guide%20-%202.pdf

Someone should cite it properly because I don't know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MonkeysOnThePatio (talk • contribs) 03:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 April 2020

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

The result of the move request was: Moved. Sceptre (talk) 07:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mock strawberry → Potentilla indica – Plant is commonly known by many different vernacular names. Move to the accepted scientific name, Potentilla indica. — Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 14:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)—Relisted. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperik - Why wouldn't it be Duchesnea indica? -- Netoholic @ 20:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded the article with a few additional references. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 02:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per Google ngrams, "Duchesnea indica" does seem to be the most common name. "Potentilla indica" doesn't even show up.[1]

Oppose - With the literature so split on the taxonomy, I'm not inclined to side with one or the other. The proposed title does not seem to be the most WP:COMMONNAME. --Netoholic @ 17:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ Support, ~~this is the common name and, more importantly, the most recognizable name in English~~. [EDIT: changed after the good research below. although the term "Mock strawberry" seems much more recognizable in English than the proposed name.] Randy Kryn (talk) 13:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also "Don't confuse WP:COMMONNAME with common (vernacular) name" at WP:FLORA. Note that if anyone is using Google to compare names, there is something strange going on with certain searches, at least on my end, showing only a few results in some cases:
- Google
  - "mock strawberry" -wiki - 45 results (repeat with omitted results: 47,200)
  - "Indian strawberry" -wiki - 14 results (repeat with omitted results: 23 results?? clearly incorrect)
  - "false strawberry" -wiki 33,000 results
  - "Duchesnea indica" -wiki - 78,300 results
  - "Potentilla indica" -wiki - 68,300 results (note: not a large difference vs. Duchesnea)
- Google Ngrams most common name - Duchesnea indica
- Google Scholar
  - "mock strawberry" - 245 results
  - "Indian strawberry" - 368 results
  - "false strawberry" - 131 results
  - "Duchesnea indica" - 4,640 results
  - "Potentilla indica" - 378 results

Movement from Duchesnea to Potentilla has been a bit slow on the uptake, as it normal for plant taxonomy, but the up-to-date, reliable sources used for plant taxonomy, such as Plants of the World Online and the other sources in the article, place it in Potentilla. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 16:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support The scientific name better satisfies the WP:AT criteria of PRECISION and CONSISTENCY. This is a fairly common weed, but doesn't rely rise to meet the exception from using scientific names given at WP:NCFLORA. Vernacular names may be more recognizable than scientific names, but from what I've seen on social media plant ID groups, there a significant contingent of people who call this "wild strawberry" or "snakeberry". The "wild strawberry" folks are disappointed in the flavor and don't realize that the people who find wild strawberries flavorful are eating Fragaria species. The "snakeberry" folks know that this isn't a Fragaria, but munched on them as kids in spite of their disappointing flavor. Plantdrew (talk) 02:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

History of taxonomy

Besides the question of genus there is also the question of priority. I have added Mabberley^[1] and then come here to find it was discussed years ago but not added to the page. Is this not a good source? It is certainly cited as if it is. Anyhow Mabberley gives a very different set of naming priorities, ascribing the very first to Jacks for Fragaria indica. At no point in the chain is Andrews mentioned. This is taxonomy however so this is all Latin to me. Invasive Spices (talk) 10 March 2022 (UTC)

References