Talk:Acacia sensu lato

message: With the decision of re-typification of the genus Acacia validated, this page now needs a major cleaning up. Any information not relating to acacia in general or the species actually belonging to Acacia should be moved to the correct genus page. Any legume taxonomists out there in wikispace?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.47.12 (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleaning up needed

message: My understanding is that only Australian acacias are to be called that from now on. Is that true?
:: From a scientific stand-point YES (almost)! The scientific name Acacia was re-typified (a process that decides the modelspecies for the genus) with an Australian species by a vote at the 17th International Botanical Congress in Vienna, 2005. This was a very debated decision and several papers have been written about it (even in law journals!), but the decision was again confirmed recently at the 18th International Botanical Congress in Melbourne, 2011 (there are six years between deciding congresses). The result from such a move are that several species are re-named (or should be re-named), in this case in the genera Vachellia and Senegalia, as well as the newly described genera Acaciella and Mariosousa. A re-typification is usually done to change as few scientific names as possible, but in the case of Acacia, the result is still that several hundred names need to be changed. The genera Acaciella and Mariosousa are confined to South America, Vachellia and Senegalia to the Old World, and Acacia more or less to Australia, Madagascar and Malesia (so not exclusive to Australia, but most species are confined to that continent). The intricacies of scientific classification will for now wreak havoc on pages such as this, but in the end it will lead to better understanding of the biology of acacias (spelled with lower case and plain font to indicate a vernacular use for leguminous trees with small ballshaped yellow flowers, already often in other genera such as Mimosa...).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.47.12 (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change? 

message: Several australian species have edible seeds, and several are toxic if eaten in large quantities. It is an ongoing subject of investigation which are which.
:Additionally, I understand (but have not yet found evidential sources to this effect) that in ancient times, the gum of the acacia was used to seal and preserve dead flesh as an embalming unguent used in funereal mummification.
:For this reason, the acacia has been considered a symbol of immortality (as in Masonic symbolism), and its name was, at least popularly, supposed to derive from α- (not)+ κακος (bad), i.e., it would prevent carrion from going off.
:Nuttyskin (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More uses 

message: I'm trying to identify the tree in this picture. I suspect it's an acacia, but I'm not sure. Does anyone have any idea? Thanks! —Amcaja 19:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a typical Acacia - the deep invaginations in the trunk are more common in Boscia, Maerua, Balanites, Securidaca.... Paul venter (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acacia image? 

message: see Australian Blackwood Paul foord 08:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian Blackwood article has been created 

message: Helpdesk received an email saying:
:"In the article about Acacias, the picture of  Acacia melanoxylon is not that species. It appears to be A. verticilata.  -Tim Bodley"
If this is true, please correct the image caption. Thank you. --maru  (talk) contribs 20:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Erroneous image? 

message: How does on say Acacia? HighInBC 18:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The most common ways to pronounce the scientific name are "ah-kah-see-ah" or "ah-kay-see-ah". 81.224.47.12 (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  pronounciation 

message: I suggest the creation of the Acacia disambiguation page.  Not only is there the tree, but also Acacia Technologies, Acacia Fraternity, and the novel Acacia: The War With The Mein.  Such page would help direct people to the the correct entry.  I suggest we rename this page Acacia (tree) and then create the Acacia disambiguation page. --Rick Klaw 17:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So we have an important genus of plants found worldwide, with hundreds of links coming in to this article, vs. three ultra-obscure things with "Acacia" in the name? Leave this article where it is, and add the usual  to a disambig page. Stan 19:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Done --Rick Klaw 00:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Create Disambiguation page? 

message: Is this what gives it its bite? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.141.136.157 (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no. 'ACACIA' is listed as the last ingredient on this diet Barq's root beer can I'm holding. (heh heh... original research) 198.110.105.234 (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Used in Barq's Root Beer 

message: According to the USDA website, the range of Acacia in the U.S. extends to Oregon.  The other question is whether Oregon is the highest latitude for Acacia in the world, or just for in the U.S.
WriterHound 14:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northern Most Acacia Species 

message: Could I suggest the word "may" be added to where it says that chemicals in acacia plants ward of animals and insects? I don't think it is conclusively proven yet.
:"These plants contain a variety of chemical compounds that help defend them from consumption by insects and other herbivores such as deer and domestic livestock." -- Chemistry of Acacias from South Texas (Article Reference Note #1).
:WriterHound 17:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add "may" as it occurs in source 

message: I just reverted the addition of Mimosaceae as a synonym for Fabaceae in the taxobox. I see that some authorities apparently define a family Mimosaceae that is equivalent to the sub-family Mimosoidea of the Fabaceae family in other systems. Unfortunately, WP simply redirects Mimosaceae to Mimosoideae, which made the taxobox entries confusing. I hope that someone familiar with these taxons can sort this out. -- Donald Albury 10:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on the classification system you are using. Mimosaceae is not a synonym for Fabaceae - it's an alternative. Someone I know that saw the article thought it was incorrect, so I changed it in an attempt to show both systems. --Surturz (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We have to pick one system for use in the taxobox (hopefully, the most widely supported one), although all classifications that have at least some support among specialists in the field should be mentioned in the body of the article. Someone who knows the field needs to write an article for Mimosaceae, so that it doesn't just redirect to Mimosoideae. -- Donald Albury 15:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  As said - it is a question of classification used. The legume plants can scientifically be known as Leguminosae Juss., type genus Faba Mill. (=Vicia L.), but as this is inconsistent with the current rules of naming plant families there is an alternative name (in my view preferred due to conformity): Fabaceae Lindl., with the same generitype. However, as in most classifications there are several views on how many families there are for the legume plants. If they are split into three families (which is common in some old classifications, but violates the modern criteria of monophyly) the families become Papilionaceae Giseke, still with the same generitype, Caesalpiniaceae R.Br. with the generitype Caesalpinia L., and Mimosaceae R.Br. with Mimosa L. as the type genus. There is not a straight equivalence between these segregate families and modern subfamilial treatments...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.47.12 (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mimosaceae vs. Mimosoideae 

message: See the disambiguation linking guideline here, specifically the sentence which begins, "To link to a disambiguation page..." SlackerMom (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I find that section somewhat less than crystal clear, but I won't argue it. -- Donald Albury 22:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it isn't written very clearly, but this is a practice that helps editors who clean up misplaced dab links.  It makes deliberate links to dab pages easy to identify. Thanks. SlackerMom (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wattle (disambiguation)]] in hatnote 

message: Uploaded a new photo for Acacia ashbyae (right). Dcoetzee 04:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New photo of Acacia ashbyae 

message: based on the following info
http://jpdb.nihs.go.jp/jp15e/
on Page 1251
--222.64.223.103 (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please add synonyms, if there are any.... 

message: The chemical listing for this species is wrong. Firstly, all 4 are compleatly different chemicals and each require a huge ammount of chemistry to create. Any chemist will tell you that no known plant could possibly create these together.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.222.98 (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acacia berlandieri 

message: In The Fatal Shore, Robert Hughes says the early colonists called them wattles because they were so often used in the building of their wattle-and-daub buildings. I reckon it'd be a nice bit of info to be added, but I'm not sure where... Adambrowne666 (talk) 10:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason Australians call them wattles 

message: The lists of tannins, wood densities and psychoactive compounds was waaaay to much detail for a Genus level article. I've moved them to their own separate list pages:  List of Acacia species used for timber production,  List of Acacia species known to contain psychoactive alkaloids, List of Acacia species used for tannin production. Mark Marathon (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of lists

message: This is a discussion that is most relevant for Wikipedia to deal with. The article will fail the purpose of being informative if the fact that applying names to groups consisting of species that comes from several different ancestors is bad practice is ignored. That only monophyletic groups (i.e. groups of descendents from a single ancestor) should be scientifically named is the only way of keeping any information content in the scientific name. If the same name is applied to a polyphyletic group (i.e. a group of descendents from different acestors ignoring some of these ancestors descendents) you can not infer anything by using that name. Eg. applying the criteria of monophyly enables you to infer that an acacia belonging to the genus Acaciella (or Mariosousa) is restricted to the Americas, an acacia belonging to the genus Acacia is most likely an Australian species and is definitely not native to the main African continent.
Even the botanists that disapprove of the re-typification embrace the fact that continued use of Acacia in the previous sense is worthless for anything but local floras... 81.224.47.12 (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several complexities to this issue, and treating them properly will greatly complicate the article. I would strongly argue that it is sufficient to state that there is controversy about which group the name Acacia should be applied to, and that therefore some botanists have decided to use the sensu lato designation. Whether paraphyletic groups (note that paraphyly is not the same as polyphyly) should be named is one issue (do we have to refer to birds as dinosaurs?). Citing some rather old Hennigian articles about cladistics is not really appropriate to a page about a plant genus. It is also the case that the exact number of genera that should be divided out of the old Acacia is not yet certain. Nadiatalent (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  But ignoring them will make the information content useless. The "complexities" of this issue as presented in the article relates to views of a group of botanists well aware that their views are not in accordance to the rules of the botanical code. If Wikipedia has any aspiration to be factual and not based on views. the fact is that Acacia is almost completely an Australian genus (2 species on Madagascar and a handful in Asia) and the other species need to be placed in other genera. Again in accordance with the botanical code that regulates scientific names these genera at present are Senegalia, Vachellia, Acaciella and Mariosousa - that there might be more changes to species previously treated as Acacia is not unique to this situation and has no bearing on the re-typification consequences as such. A lot of plants change their names in accordance with the code every year! By stating the argument of these unhappy botanists you need to also state the argument of those unhappy botanists that accept the consequences of the re-typification (as I doubt there are any truly happy botanists around this issue anymore). The argument of "birds as dinosaurs" are a question on how much extinct taxa should influence the naming of clades for extant taxa and is not appropriate in this case - there are no extinct groups of mimosoids that brings the question of monophyly into play. Neither is the old-sense acacias paraphyletic unless you want to include a lot of other mimosoids... Anyway you look at this problem stating the controversy needs the counter-argument (now ratified by two consecutive botanical congresses!) that acacias belong to (at least) four different genera. The remark that the cited articles are old is beneath the argumentation as that position will invalidate the entire Linnean hierarchical approach to botanical (and zoological) classification as those principles were put to paper already in the 18th century. So if you want to take the argument for the split of the genus out (an argument that through the International Code for algae, fungi, and plants is factual), you need to take out the statements that some botanist will ignore this (an argument that is wholly subjective).81.224.47.12 (talk) 08:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomy, classification and the scientific name 

message: There's a very popular belief in Tasmania (and probably in Victoria also) that burning wattle wood in what's called here a wood heater (like this , also sometimes called a "fire box") can damage the wood heater. One source says that it's because the wood burns too hot, another that the wattle wood, when burned, releases or generates something (e.g. creosote) that coats the flue & is a fire hazard. Does anyone know if there's any truth to this? 
Thanks very much.
TyrS 11:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: A Victorian of mature years here, who has been in many premises with such heaters. Never heard of that belief. HiLo48 (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian wattle wood bad for fireboxes (wood-heaters)? 

message: For the third time I’ve removed Original Research that makes claims about how widespread acceptance of the new classification scheme is, and whether it is accepted by Kew Gardens.
The reference provided for these claims is nothing but a list of plants currently listed with “Acacia” as one synonym. The same source also lists numerous species, such as Acacia farnesiana, as both Vachellia farnesiana and Acacia farnesiana. The source contains no information that I can see about how widespread acceptance of either scheme is, or whether any scheme is or is not accepted by Kew Gardens.
If I am mistaken, then by all means provide quotes of where in this page we might find material that directly supports the material being presented. If you are unable to do this, then the material is clearly OR. 
Note that the material must be directly supported by the source. The claim to date seems to hinge upon the assumption that since Kew lists Acacia as one synonym, that shows a preference. However such an assumption does not constitute direct support for the claims made.Mark Marathon (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Kew is not a trivial centre of taxonomy and the fact that they list all African species of Acacia under 'Acacia' and tag them as 'accepted', should not be lightly dismissed. In addition, the articles on African Acacias on Wikipedia remain under 'Acacia'. Have you even paused in your hysteria to wonder why that is so? If Kew changes its mind about Acacias, I will gladly join in adopting the new names, but until then I should be pleased if you would stop your reverts. Paul venter (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

text: I do find the necessity of repeating myself extremely tedious. No, the Kew site does not say in so many words "we prefer this system over the other" - the fact that they list species either as synonyms or "accepted" is sufficient. Kindly refer this matter to the administrators' noticeboard, but stop this revert war. Paul venter (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The second paragraph of the article itself refers to "Acacia nilotica" which is an African species. Paul venter (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

text: See WP:BLUE Paul venter (talk) 06:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I do recall some unhappiness at the retypification of the type of the genus. Will have a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

text: I'm coming late to this discussion, but would note that there are many cases of a taxon being listed as a species under BOTH of two different genera, in each case indicated as "accepted".  This is certainly the case with many of the species in Senegalia and Vachellia, which appear as "accepted" in both those genera and in Acacia.  (In truth the "Plant List" is full of muck and mud like this and should be taken with a grain of salt, Kew's reputation notwithstanding...) 160.111.254.17 (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research concerning the new classification scheme 

message: National Geo published this article where they say ants that stay with an acacia feed only on its nectar because drinking it once disables invertase production, preventing them from digesting the sucrose found in other plants' nectar. The acacia's nectar comes with invertase, so the ants stick to it.
I'm not knowledgeable in biology to edit the "Symbiosis" section of the article, but I feel that this fact should be added.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.175.42 (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acacias hook up ants on nectar 

message: Under Phytochemistry in the last sentence of the paragraph on Alkaloids, there is a rather bold claim- "There is some suggestion that the prophet Moses and indeed Mohammed may have ingested some brew made from the plant and thereby entered an alternative state, thereby leading them to believe that they communed with God." 
I followed the citation link and it's accuracy looks pretty questionable (of course), with very ambiguous evidence for the claim. Clearly this is not scientific and it should be taken out, even though it just says that there is "some suggestion". I'm not an editor so I don't know how to do that, but I figured I should say something.
98.127.128.25 (talk) 06:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You're quite right. In fact the whole section seems like a a load of bollocks. It's certainly not supported by anything. Not sure how this survived for so long. I;ve rmeoved the whole lot pending some serious references. Mark Marathon (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubts about the claim that Moses and Muhammad were taking this as a psychoactive drug 

message: After browsing the Wikipedia entry for Rodenticide, among the common chemicals was Sodium Fluoroacetate, which was described as a natural product in certain species of Australian Acacia. No mention is made in this article regarding its presence, the problems with cattle getting sick, nor references provided to those studies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_fluoroacetate#Occurrence Vapur9 (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because it's a minor property of a small number of species, not a significant property of the entire genus. The genus produces tens of millions of different chemical compounds, many of which are toxic. We don;t, and shouldn't, mention them all. Mark Marathon (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian Acacia noted as producing Sodium Fluoroacetate 

message: Hello.  I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page.  This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.
This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link.  Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.
* http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0038-4909%2819871209%2932%3A4%3C499%3ACGIAOM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Z&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage
In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive these pages.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trouble archiving links on the article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Acacia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121018104128/http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/ad317e/AD317E05.htm to http://www.fao.org/docrep/006/ad317e/AD317E05.htm
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The use of acacia as a fragrance dates back centuries. Dickie birdie (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: | In the New Testament John 12:1–10, six days before the passover Jesus arrives in Bethany. In Bethany, Mary, sister of Lazarus uses a pint of pure nard to anoint Jesus's feet. No mention Acacia there. Mark Marathon (talk) 03:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  John 12:3 

message: Universal. Exists everywhere universally within Freemasonry. Albert Gallatin Mackey is a recognized and respected source on Freemasonry and he just cannot be wrong about the acacia in his Encyclopedia of Freemasonry Dickie birdie (talk) 09:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrelevant.  Mackey's not saying it's universal, he's saying it exists as a symbol.  Don't write what you want based on what other people say. That's either original research or synthesis depending on how far it goes. MSJapan (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sprig of Acacia on Third Degree Tracing Board 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Acacia sensu lato's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Kyalangalilwa":
From Senegalia: 
From Acacia (Vachellia): 
From Vachellia: 
Reference named "rico":
From Acacieae: 
From Acaciella: 
Reference named "Clarke":
From Acacia (Vachellia): 
From Vachellia: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Acacia sensu lato]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Acacia sensu lato. 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/20070614021602/http://www.afip.org:80/vetpath/WSC/wsc98/98wsc21.htm to http://www.afip.org/vetpath/WSC/wsc98/98wsc21.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070921100707/http://www.ilri.org:80/InfoServ/Webpub/Fulldocs/Browse_in_Africa/Chapter33.htm to http://www.ilri.org/InfoServ/Webpub/Fulldocs/Browse_in_Africa/Chapter33.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012200235/http://smallstock.info:80/research/reports/R5732/NR08UE/B1701_2.HTM to http://www.smallstock.info/research/reports/R5732/NR08UE/B1701_2.HTM
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Acacia sensu lato. 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.naturheilpraxis.de/exclusiv/nh-online/2005/nhp05/a_nh-ff02.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151110064020/http://waynesword.palomar.edu/plaug99.htm to http://waynesword.palomar.edu/plaug99.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090401222429/http://mulga.yage.net/acacia/ to http://mulga.yage.net/acacia/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.afip.org/vetpath/WSC/wsc98/98wsc21.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ilri.org/InfoServ/Webpub/Fulldocs/Browse_in_Africa/Chapter33.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://smallstock.info/research/reports/R5732/NR08UE/B1701_2.HTM
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified