Talk:Schlumbergera

message: Before I edited it, the first sentence said: "... as introduced to Europe by the Kew collector, Allan Cunningham (1791-1839), in about 1816." The source for this was given as http://www.ias.ac.in/jarch/currsci/8/292.pdf. However, this source does not support the statement that Cunningham collected what is now Schlumbergera truncata. McMillan & Horobin (1995, p. 44) (detailed reference in the article) quote Hooker (1822) who says that what he called Cactus truncatus was "obtained from the Brazils in 1818", which is after Cunningham left. Various websites repeat the claim about Cunningham, but I can't find a reliable source for it. So unless and until someone does, I've removed this part of the sentence. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction to Europe 

message: A new section was added on toxicity to pets. Toxicity, both to pets and humans, is a worthwhile addition, if it can be sourced appropriately.
* The first ASPCA source used, , refers only to what is properly called Schlumbergera × buckleyi. However, it also says that "Easter Cactus" is another common name for this plant. The Easter Cactus belongs to a different genus, Hatiora. So I'm a bit doubtful as to the accuracy of the identification.
* The second ASPCA source (the pdf at ) I find confusing. The relevant section reads "Christmas cactus exposure has been reported to induce contact urticaria and rhinoconjunctivitis in cactus nursery workers. However, Schlumbergera species are not considered toxic, and ingestions are expected to result only in mild gastric upset. The most common clinical signs reported to the ASPCA APCC are vomiting, depression, diarrhea, and anorexia..." The inclusion of "depresssion" makes me wonder if the second two sentences apply to humans or pets?
So for the present I've removed the section. I'll see if I can find better sources on toxicity or otherwise. (Any such material should be added after the Cultivation section according to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Template.) Peter coxhead (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Peter. I removed the vomiting comment (which I believe applies to humans by the context the whole work at that source), since the source is only claiming it was reported to this other organization, not that it was verified, proven, or actually happened. If we included vomiting as a fact coming from this source, then we would also have to say that 'Schlumbergera causes depression' which is ridiculously unsubstantiated, and not what the source meant to present as a solid fact. --Tom Hulse (talk) 15:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Depression is something that veterinarians diagnose in pet animals; please try a web search for e.g., "depression in cats". The ASPCC deals with poison-control issues, and surely can be considered competent to state that something has been reported to them. The citation that was removed was written by a veterinarian for veterinarians, and as such is, I think, the state-of-the-art in advice about these houseplants for people who have pets. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:38, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. The reported-but-not fact idea still applies though. We can not say, from this source, that Schlumbergera causes depression in animals. It was only "reported". It could very well have been 2 erroneous reports from crazy cat ladies... that would not disagree with what this source says. So it would be a huge leap to say that one factually causes the other. In the same way, vomiting is not all intended to be substantiated by this source; it is just a list of vague possibilities based on the flimsiest of rumor. --Tom Hulse (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be possible to include something along the lines of "... has been reported to the ASPCC" but I'd rather continue searching for some more substantive information. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toxicity and pets 

message: The problem with accepting the transfer of Hatiora subg. Rhipsalidopsis into Schlumbergera, as per Calvente et al. (2011), is that in Wikipedia we are supposed to rely mainly on secondary (or tertiary) sources, as per WP:PSTS. From my searches, almost none of the main plant taxonomic databases seem yet to have accepted this transfer. The only one I can find is NCBI. Most, such as Plants of the World Online, Tropicos, GRIN, etc. still use names in Hatiora (or even older ones).
So I think we should probably not yet say that this transfer is accepted, merely say that it has been proposed. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Hatiora'' subg. ''Rhipsalidopsis''