Talk:Rafflesia arnoldii

Untitled

It appears that a majority of this article has been taken from the sites listed at the bottom of the article. Eg.

Article- "W Likened to fungi, Rafflesia individuals grow as thread-like strands of tissue completely embedded within and in intimate contact with surrounding host cells from which nutrients and water are obtained. Perhaps the only part of Rafflesia that is identifiable as distinctly plant-like are the flowers; although, even these are bizarre because they attain massive proportions and are usually reddish-brown and stink of rotting flesh. The flower is pollinated by flies attracted by its scent."

http://homepages.wmich.edu/~tbarkman/rafflesia/Rafflesia.html "While many parasites appear like normal plants, Rafflesia lacks any observable leaves, roots, or even stems (Meijer, 1993). Likened to fungi, Rafflesia individuals grow as thread-like strands of tissue completely embedded within and in intimate contact with surrounding host cells from which nutrients and water are obtained (Mat Salleh, 1996). Perhaps the only part of Rafflesia that is identifiable as distinctly plant-like are the flowers; however, even these are bizarre because they attain massive proportions (up to 3 ft in diameter) and are usually reddish-brown and stink of rotting flesh.. Although parasitic, Rafflesia species do not typically kill their hosts in spite of the drain on resources that they cause."

I would assume that there are inline citations in the Western Michigan site, it is more likely the origional text. This is just one of many examples. I do not know if the article should be scrapped, or if the offending sections cited properly, or drastically rewritten. rmosler 11:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the information for this be part of the main Rafflesia article, since this information is largely relevant to all Rafflesia species, and not just Rafflesia arnoldii? --Phytomagus 08:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Stinking Corpse Lily

Stinking Corpse Lily redirects to Amorphophallus, however, in all other references I've seen, it is in fact Rafflesia arnoldii which is known as the "Stinking Corpse Lily". Can the redirect be changed to point to this article instead? --S.Reemas, Aug. 22 '06

If this specied is endangered or threatened, it deserves a red list evaluation box thing doesn't it? Of course, that would require that we actually know what its status is, but it should definitely be looked into. --Nefabit 03:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarification needed regarding extinction status

"Many are known to be nearing extinction" -- many what? Many individual flowers? "Nearing extinction" doesn't make sense for an individual. Many species? This article is only about one species.Huttarl (talk) 19:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction

The article states "This plant produces no leaves, stems or roots", but later, it says "When Rafflesia is ready to reproduce, a tiny bud forms on the outside of the root or stem and develops over a period of a year." -- Gyrofrog (talk) 06:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

With respect to contributors

Could someone with greater relevant botanical and historical knowledge than mine translate this page? It sounds as though it has been auto-translated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maceis (talk • contribs) 07:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rafflesia arnoldii. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402234237/http://www.proxsis.com/perundangan/LH/doc/uu/F00-1993-00004.pdf to http://www.proxsis.com/perundangan/LH/doc/uu/F00-1993-00004.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

<<Possibly?

Why does the article say "It is endemic to the rainforests of Sumatra and possibly Borneo"? There is no "possibly" about it. I have seen Rafflesia lilies in Borneo. It was at Gunung Gading National Park in Sarawak. By the way, I notice that we don't have an article for that park. Kelisi (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Importance in culture

Could it be added that there is a Pokemon with the same name in French "Rafflesia" (see the pokepedia) ? This could be added as a 'importance in the popular culture' section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beausoleilmo (talk • contribs) 01:15, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Incorrect name spelling

Hi all, this is a small thing, but I think that the specific name of this plant is incorrectly spelled, as it is in a lot of resources online.

A vast majority spell it as arnoldii, but if we look at the POWO and IPNI pages, it's actually arnoldi, with only one i. Looking at a scan of the initial description, we can see it was also originally named with only one i.

I think it would be worth adjusting this, as it's a mistake that's repeated across the internet and would be good to get it up to date and accurate! LavaLampBamboo (talk) 09:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Over years, I have wondered about this myself, and checked today numerous sources which generally favor the suffix "ii", even though trusted sources like Kew use "i". The National Library Board of Singapore has a nice summary of the name origin, using one "i".

So, I asked the chatbot, meta.ai, which reported:

The species name of the Rafflesia flower is often written as either Rafflesia arnoldii or Rafflesia arnoldi. The difference lies in the Latinized suffix used to honor the namesake, Sir Joseph Arnold. In binomial nomenclature, the genus and species names are often Latinized, and the suffixes used to honor individuals can vary. In this case: The suffix "-ii" is a Latinized genitive singular suffix, used to indicate possession or dedication. So, Rafflesia arnoldii can be translated to "Rafflesia of Arnold". The suffix "-i" is also a Latinized genitive singular suffix, but it's used for names ending in a consonant other than "-us". So, Rafflesia arnoldi is also correct. Both versions are accepted, but Rafflesia arnoldii is more commonly used in botanical literature. The International Plant Names Index (IPNI) and The Plant List, a widely-used botanical database, both use the "arnoldii" spelling. So, while both are correct, Rafflesia arnoldii is the more widely-accepted species name.

Seems a reasonable explanation. Zefr (talk) 17:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

IPNI specifically doesn't use the ii suffix, though, it uses the singular i. In fact, there's even a note on the etymology at the bottom of the entry stating it is "not correctable as there is a well established Latinized form Arnoldus". If the AI summary is getting facts like that wrong, I'm not sure it can be used as a justification for using the arnoldii spelling. LavaLampBamboo (talk) 08:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't proposing the AI chatbot as a source (we shouldn't do that), but to point out its universal scan of sources produced the same confusion evident in sources for the article. And then it concluded with a statement which does seem factual when all reliable sources are considered: "So, while both are correct, Rafflesia arnoldii is the more widely-accepted species name."

The infobox entry for the scientific name (suffix with "ii") sources the IPNI, which indeed uses only "i" (this should be changed).

The archived 2011 Kew source used in the first sentence, Tropicos, Philippines Wildlife, and Britannica apply "ii", but the 2024 Kew version uses "i".

The AI chatbot reported that about twice as many reputable sources use "ii" compared to those using one "i". You could do a similar comparison, and let us know what you find here. Zefr (talk) 16:49, 7 September 2024 (UTC)