Talk:Wisteria

message: :direction of twining is an important aid in identifying the species of wisteria.  I added this explanation and the reference to Peter Valder, an authority on wisterias.Wisteriagarden (talk) 00:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Dubsed - what other options do the authors think there are? The direction of twining should be pruned from the sentence.  B^) Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

text: ADDENDUM: Unless the authors meant to say that the vine twines either clockwise or counter-clockwise, depending on the variety? Yours, 24.47.173.120 (talk) 03:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Twining

message: Deleted spam link Dominicanpapi82 00:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted spam link

message: It says here the genus was named after Daniel Wister who helped underwrite the voyage of the American commercial vessel Empress of China.  However, I LOVE YOU it seems the botanist Thomas Nuttall named the genus Wisteria in honour of Caspar Wistar.  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspar_Wistar_%28physician%29  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.87.70 (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Previous versions of this page also attributed the name to Caspar Wistar, and the mention of Daniel Wister was made by IP. Given the original precedent, the lack of a citation, and the anonymous nature of the editor (if I dare), I'm going to restore the original text and hide the Daniel one. I quickly googled one supporting reference that isn't appropriate for the article . - Draeco (talk) 02:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Another suitable text supporting attribution to Caspar Wistar can be found here Occasional Papers from the RHS Lindley Library (Vol. 16, p. 38) in the paper "The RHS Reeves Collection: what’s in a name?" by Kate Bailey and Charlotte Brooks (p. 33 ff.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.106.140 (talk) 15:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genus 

message: I understand/accept that wisteria is native to Eastern U.S. but shouldn't something be said for it thriving naturally in Southern regions (like Louisiana, Texas, etc)?  Perhaps some maps could be added which identify regional growth of this plant.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.3.17.37 (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locations? 

message: The article says that the seeds are poisonous. Are the seeds still poisonous after fried or boiled? What poisons do the seeds have and what are the symptoms when eaten raw or cooked? --Queenmillennia (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Seeds

message: Where is the scientific classification that accompanies most plant entries in Wikipedia - usually right below the picture in the right corner, from Phylum all the way down? This is indispensible or at least delightful. Ken M Quirici 15:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific classification?

message: Is anyone really likely to confuse Wisteria with Listztomania?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.83.1.242 (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion?

message: The sentence that says, "However, specimens grown from seed can take decades to bloom; for this reason, gardeners usually grow plants that have been started from rooted cuttings or grafted cultivars known to flower well." can be cited utilizing this page: http://web.extension.illinois.edu/dmp/palette/100425.html , about halfway down. It's the Extension section of the University of Illinois. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{Citation needed}} tag now fulfilled. 

message: 2A02:A03F:1878:9F00:F896:558A:2940:9742 changed an "E" with an accent to a plain "E". I am no expert at all, but is that author an expert? Wouldn't that change alter the pronunciation of the plant name? As for the "?" following the Japanese characters, can someone who knows how to add them properly please fix it? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 02:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't know if they were an expert in any sense, but they happen to have been right. No standard transliteration of Japanese uses acute or grave accent marks, and there's not much reason to use a nonstandard transliteration here. The question mark is also correct as-is; it's a link to technical help for displaying Japanese characters. (And, as the image caption notes, the plant name is fuji; musume is the "maiden" part of that painting's name.) —Twice Nothing (talk) 09:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undid change. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Wisteria. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6434030.ece
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: With the specific term "bine" used in the introduction, is there any justification to use the (apparently-incorrect) term "vine" twice in the description? Steve8394 (talk) 11:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made the suggested changes, plus one or two other minor ones ("wisteria" is in common use, therefore no need for italics unless referring directly to the genus). In the UK we use the catch-all term "climber" with no attempt to distinguish between types. I must say I was unfamiliar with the term "bine", but reading the description it is a useful distinction. I will therefore be using it henceforth, and confusing my fellow horticulturalists! Darorcilmir (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vine? 

message: "All parts of the plant contain a saponin called wisterin which is toxic if ingested and may cause dizziness, confusion, speech problems, nausea, vomiting, stomach pains, diarrhea and collapse.[17][18] Wisterias have caused poisoning in children and pets of many countries, producing mild to severe gastroenteritis and other effects.[18][19]" 30/7/2017 
I don't have full access to these sources, I'm not spending $100+ on an outdated book of toxicology and a subscription to NCBI(universal health care FTW) so I can't verify the claims; it'd be great if someone could verify them. However I'm very skeptical of these claims based on 3 reasons.
1) a world renowned plant sold across my street is poisonous from root to tip; really? Surely they'd atleast label the thing as "poison, do not eat" if not forbid the masses from outright buying the thing. 
2) the Rondeau article's abstract discusses only the seeds of the plant, there's nothing about the stems, leaves etc of the plant being poisonous. Surely, such a dangerous plant would have these characteristics mentioned in the abstract!
3) https://plants.ifas.ufl.edu/plant-directory/wisteria-sinensis/, this credible article doesn't mention even a word on the notion that "all parts of the wisteria are poisonous". No, Wisteria Sinesis is only mentioned as being poisonous in its pods and this is the exact same fact I keep on finding every time I visit an academic website/article on "poisonous wisteria" eg Rondeau's abstract and https://plants.ces.ncsu.edu/plants/all/wisteria-spp/; the NC state university article even specifically states the "poisonous part" as being the seeds, nothing else.
Conclusion: The claim that wisteria is poisonous from root to tip is unsupported and evidence from academic institutions supports the contrary. I leave it to someone with more knowledge on wisteria to make a judgement on whether or not to edit the claim that "all parts of wisteria are poisonous" --> "only the seeds...)". Frankly, I think its bullshit but who am I to edit a wikipedia page? :-) Rattional (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The text seems to be fairly specific as to the nature of the toxins involved, and provides citations. According to the RHS website, "All parts may cause severe discomfort if ingested". Whether this is just received wisdom I have no idea, nor do I have any desire to test its veracity. IPNI doesn't mention toxicity. Re your other arguments, there are plenty of garden plants which are supposed to be toxic to varying degrees. I guess the assumption is that gardeners have more sense than to start munching their ornamentals! My preference is to leave the text as it stands. I would hate for Wikipedia to be blamed for some poisoning accident. Darorcilmir (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given as how crude you speak, how you don't even bother to check that one of the citations is freely readable on google books (and the other was available through my university for free), how you ignore the citations that do support it, and how you somehow even got to the NCBI website, totally misunderstood what it was, assumed you needed a "subscription" to it, while insulting it, I'd say your entire assessment is incorrect. NCBI is an indexing service, and universal healthcare has NOTHING to do with journal access. How you even got to NCBI, since it wasn't cited, is beyond me. Furthermore, you make the argument that it should be labeled as poisonous, and since it's not, it mustn't be, while there are plenty of ornamental plants that are very deadly (e.g. oleander, foxglove, rhubarb, jasmine, azalea, yew, bleeding heart, flag, lily of the valley, mistletoe, elephant ear and so on). Even liquorice contains saponins. Saponins can also be used as medicine. As mentioned, foxglove contains poison, but it's used to treat heart conditions. No where does it say "Eat one part of this plant and drop dead." It also states it only contains the saponin in those parts. Perhaps the concentration in some parts is too low to be an effective poison. You also insinuate that you must be an expert to do research on something so simple, which is not the case. Just because no one feels the need to repeat research that's been done on one of the countless plants doesn't mean it's false for being old. While not freely available, this article seems to intimate poison in roots as well: http://hyoka.ofc.kyushu-u.ac.jp/search/details/K003349/thesisList_e.html  http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00000155/00001/55x?search=wisterin&vo=11&vp=850,850 https://books.google.com/books?id=6PYodXn5eAUC&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&dq=wistarin+saponin&source=bl&ots=_BA9WiN-e8&sig=gpADTzJ_w57YUCwPThjE2vbKtkE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MoxnVfTmCsWYsAWC6YH4DQ&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=wistarin%20saponin&f=false These were found in a cursory look. So really the only bullshit, as you so in-eloquently put it, is what you said. SanctuaryXStop talking in codes 15:14, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  critique of wisteria's poison 

message: Fowler (Revised Third Edition, 1998, p. 852) under 'wisteria' says that wisteria is the much commoner form, noting that the R.H.S. Gardeners' Encyclopedia of Plants & Flowers, 1991 printing, lists only Wisteria. The assertion in the article that Fowler is decisively for the "wistaria" spelling is patently not true. --87.113.106.140 (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fowler on wisteria/wistaria 

message: This comment wasn’t doing much where it was, but somehow “bine” should be mentioned in the Description section. Invasive Spices (talk) 20:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Bine