Talk:Prunus

message: It is fine to say 'some use subgenus but ITIS only recognizes Prunus ... so we just list Prunus ...' because ITIS is heavily north-american focused. I encourage people to better rely on the GRIN/NPGS taxonomy which is better informed on this point. Here is the link: http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/genform.pl -- 85.179.17.102 16:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: GRIN taxonomy is fine, but the list of species in their collections can be very poor, so please don't rely on those. The list of species for Crataegus shows this particularly well if you know the genus, Prunus has much less of a problem. The Crataegus list is just oddments that their herbarium received from other sources, and they haven't had a specialist working on the genus. Nadiatalent (talk) 14:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliance on ITIS, use GRIN! 

message: I started in to reconcile those lists and then I realized the pointlessness of having 2 lists. The box at the right suffices. Naturally it will be a long box but we don't need the left list to fill in because there is plenty to say about Prunus, especially after I start adding fossils. So I think I will create 2 sections of the right list, following the left list, and amalgamate the lists, abolishing the left list. If there are any notes in the left list you can put them under the individual species. As far as the authority is concerned, why tie the right list to any authority? Let's save some endless disputation. Mention the authorities in the text and put in the links to the databases, but make the article comprehensive. If there are any questions they can be handled in the individual articles or if there are disputed synonyms or questions of which species, the link in the right list can invoke whatever species the mention is going to be under. That way we get flexibility. I'm going to start changing this soon unless someone feels strongly enough about having 2 lists to stop me. But, if you really want to work on this, which it seems not many do, how about filling in the individual articles? There may be a lot of species but this genus has been a very critical one for man.Dave 15:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What is the point of 2 lists

message: *Prunus allegheniensis - Allegheny Plum. In the Appalachian belt.
*Prunus americana - American Plum. Most of the U.S. east of the Great Plains and southernmost Canada.
*Prunus andersonii - Desert Peach. Western U.S.
*Prunus angustifolia - Chickasaw Plum. Southeast U.S.
*Prunus besseyi - Rocky Mountain Cherry. Great Plains & eastern Rocky Mts.
*Prunus caroliniana - Carolina Cherry Laurel. Southeast U.S.
*Prunus emarginata - Bitter Cherry. British Columbia to California.
*Prunus hortulana - Hortulan Plum. Mostly Missouri and Illinois and surrounding areas.
*Prunus ilicifolia. Hollyleaf Cherry. California.
*Prunus maritima - Beach Plum. Northeast Atlantic coast.
*Prunus mexicana - Bigtree Plum. Southeast Great Plains.
*Prunus munsoniana - Wild-goose Plum. Mostly Missouri and eastern Kansas and surrounding areas.
*Prunus nigra - Canada Plum. Southeasternmost Canada west to Manitoba and northeasternmost U.S.
*Prunus pensylvanica - Pin cherry. Southern half of Canada and northernmost U.S.
*Prunus pumila - Sand Cherry. Southeast and south-central Canada and northern U.S. west to Wyoming.
*Prunus serotina - Black Cherry. Southeasternmost Canada and most of U.S. east of Great Plains, also found in Arizona and Guatemala.
*Prunus subcordata - Klamath Plum. Oregon, California.
*Prunus virginiana - Chokecherry. Southern Canada and most of eastern U.S. except for deep south.Dave 15:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: North America:

message: The "Modern" section twice contains the word contemporaneous.  The word means "of the same time".  The first use appears to be a two-dollar word for 'modern', and the second is completely obscure.  Tell me why I shouldn't remove both.  —Tamfang (talk) 06:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Contemporaneous is a perfectly good word meaning contemporaneous with you. It's a synonym for modern, except modern goes also a little further back. Contemporaneous is right now. Choice of words however is a subjective judgement. Two writers seldom have the same judgement. You seem a little unsure. Still not quite fluent? Anyway the way it is right now and at this very instant even as I type (woops! I haven't checked for a minute or two - maybe I need a split screen) is fine. We could define it in relativistic terms but it hardly seems worth while unless you are planning to go through a worm hole to the land of perennial cherries.Dave (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  contemporaneous with what? 

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 20:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cherry pie is certainly delicious and is a food or drink (more food I hope).Dave (talk) 13:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: Currently the article says that the original Roman name was prūnus, with a diacritic mark over the   first 'u'. This diacritic is not a feature of Roman Latin, though it may be an accurate modern transliteration of that syllable in the Greek name προύμνη . Any reason to retain it in the article? Imc (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what was there but thanks for fixing it. Wikipedia keeps improving in capability and really has to be updated frequently. I did some reformatting and condensing on that section putting the sources in note format.Dave (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

text: It's customary in philology to write Latin with length marks, though vowel length was not expressed in ancient Latin writing, because the descendants of /u/ and /uː/ often differ in Romance languages – but that concern is irrelevant here. —Tamfang (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: The Roman name Prunus

message: Another common name for this is Western Sandcherry.  The Agricultural College at North Dakota State University has posted a good description at http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/trees/handbook/th-3-45.pdf (link viable 2009-05-30), a good starting reference for an article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.187.67 (talk) 00:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, that is where it belongs. No one has done it yet - volunteers? Let's get these articles filled in.Dave (talk) 13:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Prunus besseyi''

message: It appears as though the big list was once multi-column and was reverted. Why did you do that? as far as I know multi-column is legit. We could put it in a multi-column table. One very long list looks unfinished - books are not laid out that way. When I get to it I will be using multi-column on this unless you can find a policy that says we are not using multi-column.Dave (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Narrower columns → More columns → Less scrolling. If any new names wrap, widen the column. User-duck (talk) 07:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Multi-column

message: Someone commented this is not about the flowers only about the cherry trees. Well. How can it be about the whole and not about the part? Human anatomy is not about the hands so we better cut that material from the human articles. Cherry flowers are just what it is about, in part. Let's keep that in mind.Dave (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Not about flowers?

message: Hello Nadia. Well, so you're a botanist and you jump from Wikipedia to Wikipedia? Why then do you not put in the requested reference yourself? I'm not going to make any such statement as, women! Instead I am going to try to answer your request. But anyone, you know, can edit Wikipedia, which, if you jump around Wikipedias, I presume you know. And who better qualified than a botanist? Dear me. If you are looking for contention you will not find it here. Instead I will presume you must have tunnel carpel syndrome and cannot type and therefore will assist you if I can.Dave (talk) 02:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A little more civil, please. The only reference I had to hand that makes this statement is Trelease's winter botany, which is hardly the best source to cite. Nadiatalent (talk) 03:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: of course. I gave it a try and had no problem finding numerous references. I picked out two that seemed to support what we want to say and rewrote the paragraph. In the process I saw this: "unsupported statements (often false) that various plants are poisonous have been proliferating, so 'generally known' isn't good enough." It may be academic at this point but I cannot really understand what you mean here. We didn't make any statements regarding toxicity but now that you mentioned it some such statement seems warranted. But, that is not a reason for asking for a reference for the previous statement. And anyway you have to admit most plants are fairly toxic. In my part of the world you can't just go out and start chewing berries and leaves or you may end up dead in fairly short order. Nature is bountiful but only to those who know how to avoid toxic plants. In any case in looking at possible references I noticed that the plants we are talking about are cyanogenic rather than cyanic so I had to rewrite it. I presume that, what you mean by "not good enough" is not some uncivil emotional epithet but an indication that you, as a botanist, find that this statement did not summarize in the most accurate manner the relationship of HCN to the Prunus genus. Great, I accept. I see that English is not your first language, which might lead to some hesitation on your part. Why don't you look it over and if you find that it is not botanically accurate or something more relavant to a summary article might be said, go ahead and say it and don't worry about the English. I'm a good English-fixer. There is no reason why I personally must determine what is said in this article just because I contributed. I'm perfectly happy to let botanists take over if any can be found willing to work on Wikipedia. Oh, for references, The Internet is your best bet. We don;t necessarily need the top scientists on this; it is a general article and not a professional one. But of course, if any can be found to write it and can write as well as know botany, all the better.Dave (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Enough with the unfounded statements about gender, native language, whatever; your imagination is running wild and risks becoming seriously offensive. Encyclopedias should be a source of facts, only. "unsupported statements (often false) that various plants are poisonous have been proliferating, so 'generally known' isn't good enough." means that silly vandals have been adding "this plant is poisonous" to many Wikipedia pages. Most editors don't know enough about the plants to recognize which ones are false and remove them. Therefore, such statements, if true, should be supported by a citation. Your additions seem fine, if a little larger than needed. Nadiatalent (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Hydrogen cyanide

message: This is a quick revisit of this article by me. Thank you for all your contributions since I last seriously worked on it, especially that fine picture. I helped you with the formatting you were trying to accomplish but not succeeding. In one case by popular demand I rewrote a paragraph. Where do we go from here? That is up to you. I am sure there is more basic material that can be said, such as the earliest record in history, the history of the cultivars, ecological considerations, etc. It is up to you. Wikipedia only enforces certain standards. There is one general issue that is on the horizon. I looked at Wikispecies and I was flabbergasted at the humongous number of Prunus species, many more than what appear here. No matter how many Prunus articles you write there are yet more to write. So, at some point we will have to decide, and will have to have a standard for deciding, what should be listed in this article. Au revoir, until the next revisit. You can always collar me by message.Dave (talk) 12:30, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with proliferating Prunus species illustrates why scholarly books are a better source of botanical information than the Web is (as yet). Experts on different groups of plants very seriously consider which species names should be considered as synonyms of other names, and their species lists tend to be shorter. Nadiatalent (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found a authoritative-looking website at The Plant List--Search results for Prunus, which lists accepted names and synonyms. There were 286 accepted species when I checked. Seems doable! Leopoldhausen (talk) 19:33, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Article revisit

message: The species list needs common names. The current list is useless to readers who are unfamiliar with the binomial nomenclature of the species.  ♆ CUSH ♆ 11:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a real problem with common names. There is no standard accepted list of common names . The same common name may refer to different species in different countries. Prunus species  from non-English speaking countries and hybrids and cultivars  may be given names when they come into horticulture but many different names may be given to the same specie, hybrid or cultivar  by horticulturists in different countries. This is a mine field that can best be dealt with at article level where verifiable common names can be listed. Similarly disambiguation pages can provide some clarity where needed.  Velella  Velella Talk   12:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Velalla! I'm adding common names. I think that a good goal would be to eventually have at least one common name in English (since this is the English version of Wikipedia) and one local common name. Leopoldhausen (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Species list 

message: Leopoldhausen is adding common names. This was brought up in 2016. Should they be added? I personally think they should be in the article for the specific species.User-duck (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. I'm adding common names because when I look at other genus pages such as Brassica, Helianthus, Penstemon, Mus, or whatever, they have common names. I didn't realize it was controversial until I started reading this talk page. Leopoldhausen (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common names 

message: This article is about Prunus, the whole genus. Ornamental varieties is just part of the genus, flowering cherries is just part of the ornamental varieties, AGM is just part of the flowering cherries. I removed the incomplete list of AGM awarded flowering cherries, referred to complete list article. It is interesting that there is no list of AGM awarded Prunus fruit trees.User-duck (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  AGM Flowering cherries. 

message: Now that a List of Prunus species article exists, the list of species in this article will be mercilessly pruned. A secondary source will be required to demonstrate "importance". Abductive (reasoning) 03:49, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important species