# Talk:Trillium grandiflorum

"for decades, Ontario schoolchildren were told that picking Trillums was illegal. This was never the case."
Besides the incorrect grammar, this contradicts Trillium: "...in many areas, e.g. British Columbia, Michigan, New York, Ontario, Oregon, and Washington, it is illegal to pick trilliums." No references in either case. So which one's right? - Shoryuken 10/09/05, 21:28 UTC

all I know is that when a schoolchild in ontario I was told that picking trillums was illigal. A student picked one, but failed to be arrested... pretty flimsey evidence, but that's the extent of my knowledge on this case. Pellaken 22:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
God damn, I always thought that picking trilliums was illegal. I'll see if it is. TostitosAreGross 14:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
This has been resolved. See the Cultural_usage section of the main article. Tom Scavo (talk) 11:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

The article says the large-flowered trillium is the state flower of Ohio, but the Ohio article says it's the scarlet carnation.  There seems to be a disagreement here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Schepler (talk • contribs) 23:19, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

It's the state wild flower (with that spelling in the statute). The list needs to account for the cultivated/wild split that other states already have. Circeus (talk) 04:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I have also read that Trillium is the state flower of Michigan.  I do not know a reasonably certain way to research all state flowers, so i did not offer an actual edit, but Circeus, maybe you do know how to look this up?   Dan Timmel (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
This has been resolved. See the Cultural_usage section of the main article. Tom Scavo (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it is my perspective as a botanist in training, but I think it's important that that bract and leaf issue be clarified. It's not so much a matter of the leaves being considered bracts, but rather they are bracts, and this is what gives the trilliums' foliage whorls such a distinctive look. They are different in a number of ways other than morphology. Leaves and bracts are regulated by different genes, for example. Petals, sepals, carpels and stamens are all modified leaves, but it would clearly be a misnomer to refer to any of them as leaves. So despite them being superficially similar to leaves, I personally feel it's important that they are referred to as bracts as soon as they are first mentioned, especially in the description section. ^_^ DJLayton4 (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not versed enough in botany to quite understand the scope of the distinction (alas, I am but an amateur naturalist), but I think the word "leaves" needs to appear somewhere because otherwise it will confuse any reader not distinctly familiar with the technicals of "bract". Otherwise, I'll happily defer to whatever copyediting you want to subject my version to. Circeus (talk) 04:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh I agree that we can and should refer to them as leaves, I just meant that it was important that we clarify the distinction from the first mention. Everything's looking great by the way. Your speed is uncanny! ;P DJLayton4 (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It was a stub with no refs this morning, now it has 20+! DJLayton4 (talk) 05:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

In the description, what does "they" refer to when it states "they persist after fruiting"? It was unclear to me when reading.
Did I mess up any of the refs in the description or are they still referring to the right bits of information?
In the ecology section, does the book referring to their preference for beech-maple forests say that this is in particular region or across the entire range. I believe many areas in the range don't have beech-maple forests.
I'm going to break up the "Interaction with humans" section. Let me know if these changes looks ok.
Above pointsDJLayton4 (talk) 02:42, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"They" referred to the stamen, I obviously didn't watch closely as I twiddled the section.
Maples or beeches are the only trees mentioned, but they do specify "in the northern part of the range". I'll add that.
The split looks alright, although "cultivation and culture" makes for a very odd header to me, and I'm not too happy with the deer section having only one paragraph. Lamoureux expounds at length on the fact that deers will seek trilliums in general, and this species in particular in the spring (given that she is a keen conservatist, it's a bit unclear to me how mych spinning might be involved), so maybe I can add a paragraph there on deer impact on trilliums (rather than the reverse use of trillium to determine deer density).
Circeus (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea to me. I used "cultivation and culture" just because other articles often have "cultivation" and "culture" sections, but since they would have been very short separately, I combined them. Feel free to change it back. ^-^ DJLayton4 (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Done adding/copyediting. It's just the header that looks weird, though I'd be quite challenged to find another formulation... Circeus (talk) 04:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't help thinking there's something odd in the pink picture. The petals just seem too narrow and not overlapping enough, but maybe that's just the angle? The only other species that appear to produce distinctly pink flowers is T. pusillum, and the leaves definitely don't match (if it's a hybrid, which I couldn't tell, it's not T. grandiflorum either.). Circeus (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I am 95% sure its T. grandiflorum. First of all, T. pusillum is quite rare and is only found in areas south of Virginia, which is apparently nor where the Flickr user lives (though that's not to say he didn't visit, of course). Second, the leaves are, like you said, definitely indicative of T. grandiflorum and not T. pusillum. Third, I don't think petal width is a particularly good character for IDing them as it tends to vary, but the figure is 1.5–3 × 0.5–1.5 cm for T. pusillum and 4–7.5 × 2–4 cm for T. grandiflorum. It's hard to tell if they are 1.5 vs. 2 cm or 3 vs. 4 cm long, but to me the petals seem too big for T. pusillum. Given the the fact that the petal size almost overlaps between the two species, I think the leaves are the better character. Also, see the pink form here (T. pusillum is not in Connecticut). DJLayton4 (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
What it probably is is one senescing to the point where the petals are turning pink rather than a distinctly pink form.  DJLayton4 (talk) 21:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Alright that makes sens.Circeus (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow! This is a very well written article, and is obviously GA status. It's both accessible to the educated layman but still professional. Images, prose, grammar, broadness, and citations are all present. I really have nothing to suggest fixing other than explaining Reid's paradox a bit more. Perhaps an article could be created? bibliomaniac15 Do I have your trust? 05:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:White Trilium 01.JPG
I am in the process of uploading some older digital photos of mine and came across one of wild White Trillium. I am not sure of the cultivar (found in the wild at the base of a mountain next to a stream). Useful for the article? Tevonic (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Cultivars are not found in nature (if they were, they wouldn't be cultivars!). In fact, this is almost certainly a Trillium undulatum, not a T. grandiflorum. Circeus (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Great. Thanks for the help. Tevonic (talk) 00:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at a number of other refs (e.g. Tamura in Kubitzki, Fam. Gen. Flower. Pl. 3:444-451, 1998) before making the change back to leaves, and found no one else who explicitly analysed these aerial leaves as bracts. I don't dispute that the rhizome would have scale leaves (that's part of the definition of a rhizome, IIRC), but Case seems to me clearly in the minority in characterising the aerial ones as bracts. This also feeds into perennial conceptual problems regarding how to actually define bracts, and Case is also in the minority in defining whorled bracts: virtually all definitions I've seen have allowed only one bract at a time to subtend another organ (when I've seen bracts referred to as "whorled", it involved an epicalyx). Circéus (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure they are a true whorl in the sense that you are using it or are the leaves joined to point that is compressed, there a number of species that often have 4 "leafed" plants.  I will have to do some research to see if there are any other recognized authorties on the genus, if there is disagreement then maybe that should be included in the article and on the genus article also. Hardyplants (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I have found that they are called bracts by a number of others, [1], [2],[ http://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/plant-of-the-week/trillium_catesbaei.shtml], [3] Here is a source from Asia [4] Hardyplants (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I note that the Forest service remarks "most authors refer to them as leaves". As I noted above, the issue of defining bracts remains a thorny problem, and virtually all authors I've seen addressing the issue define bracts explicitly as modified leaves (cf. to name two: Bell, Pl. Form, ed. 2, 2008:84-86; Simpson, Pl. Syst., 2008:357-359, and I'm fairly sure the detailed glossary in Zomlefer, Guide Flower. Pl. Fam., 1994 did too), not to mention that Case & Case themselves acknowledge a lack of differences (Trilliums, p. 23) and use "leaf" throughout their book!
I'm still not convinced that putting that much emphasis on this issue (which the way I see it is mostly terminological and indelibly linked to the conceptualisation of "bract") is necessary. I have found little good working definitions of "bract" to begin with. Those that don't characterise them as a type of leaf seem to define them in term of "phyllome" (e.g. Prenner et sl., Trends Pl. Sci. 14(6):302-309    ), of which I have found even less defining statements, but seem to essentially replace "leaf" when defining... modified leaves (cf. Khan, Pl. Anat. Physiol., 2005:165)! Circéus (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Bracts vary considerably, some are scale like and others are very leaf-like, their definition is more related to the position they develop on the plant (flower parts also start out as leaf-like primordia).  Do you have a source the disputes that the leaves of Trilliums are bracts? Hardyplants (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
I have plenty of sources that define bracts as types of leaves, and virtually none that defines them as not being leaves. If we cannot specify WHY the leaves of trilliums cannot be called leaves, then by all mean let's do a duck rule and just call them frickin' leaves! (for comparison, the same volume of Fam. Gen. Flower. Pl. makes what seem to me like a comparable duck argument in favor of applying "petiole" to the leaves of mnocots, if only to cut through a messy thicket of confusing and contradictory terminology). Circéus (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Trillium grandiflorum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080706111906/http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/Rare_Plant_Status_Lists_2007.pdf to http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/wildlife_pdf/Rare_Plant_Status_Lists_2007.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Trillium grandiflorum. 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/20070420164718/http://www.ofa.gov.on.ca/english/commun-flag.html to http://www.ofa.gov.on.ca/english/commun-flag.html
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) 17:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I've started to edit the section on taxonomy. Further thoughts listed below. Comments welcome.

T. grandiflorum f. roseum is not an accepted name so this paragraph may be moved. Moreover, the photo labeled as such is probably not of that form.
The fact that variants of T. grandiflorum have green markings has nothing to do with taxonomy so this content may be moved.
T. grandiflorum f. polymerum is not an accepted name and so the content on double-flowered forms may be moved.
The comment on hybridization has nothing to do with taxonomy and so this content may be moved.
In the end, the section on taxonomy will be short or nonexistent. Tom Scavo (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Michaux did not describe Trillium grandiflorum in 1803 (as claimed in the Taxonomy section). Rather he described a form of Trillium erectum local to the mountains of North Carolina. I claim it was Salisbury who first described Trillium grandiflorum in 1805. Tom Scavo (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Trscavo: according to IPNI, the basionym of Trillium grandiflorum is Trillium rhomboideum var. grandiflorum Michx. (1803); Salisbury elevated the variety to the species Trillium grandiflorum (Michx.) Salisb. (1805). The type of the species Trillium grandiflorum is the type of Trillium rhomboideum var. grandiflorum, and this was first described by Michaux. Conventionally, this is what is meant by "described" in botany – to describe a taxon only requires describing the type of the taxon. So it's correct to say: "Michaux first described the species in 1803 as the variety grandiflorum of Trillium rhomboideum (a species now regarded as a synonym of Trillium erectum var. erectum). It was raised to the rank of species in 1805 by Salisbury." Peter coxhead (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
You can argue that IPNI is wrong, but if so, you need to present its view, with the present IPNI refs, and then separately an alternative view with new refs, to maintain a neutral point of view. What I have put there now represents what the IPNI entries say. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: There are two names in the IPNI database: Trillium grandiflorum (Michx.) Salisb. and Trillium grandiflorum Salisb. You seem to be basing your taxonomical argument on the former but note that there is no link to POWO on that IPNI page. Only the latter IPNI page links out to POWO, and POWO likewise links to the latter IPNI page. However, POWO still displays the former name, and so it seems as though POWO is making a transition from Trillium grandiflorum (Michx.) Salisb. to Trillium grandiflorum Salisb.. Tom Scavo (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
UPDATE: I just received an email from the POWO editors suggesting the IPNI entries are incorrect. In the email, the editors cited the USDA PLANTS database as authoritative. Tom Scavo (talk) 10:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
@Trscavo: so the USDA entry has "(Michx.) Salisb.", agreeing with IPNI's main entry. There are many entries in PoWO and IPNI that differ in details of the authorities. IPNI also has many cases of multiple entries for the same name with slightly different details, because it has obtained them from different sources. In my experience PoWO is more often right than IPNI when they disagree, but we need a source that explains why "(Michx.) Salisb." might be incorrect. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:25, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead: The short answer is: I'm happy with your most recent edits to the main article. I am not pushing for any substantive change. Tom Scavo (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
UPDATE: Last night the IPNI editors made a breaking change: Trillium grandiflorum (Michx.) Salisb. (such that Trillium grandiflorum Salisb. no longer exists in the IPNI database). I edited the main article to reflect this change. Tom Scavo (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)