Talk:Opuntia

message: Opuntia is NOT prickly pear. There are Opuntias that are named not pricly pear,
The oposite is true pricly pears are Opuntia but not all Opuntia are prickly pear!
GerardM 20:40, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opuntia vs prickly pear 

message: Opuntia stricta – imported into Australia in the 1920s for use as a natural agricultural fence and quickly became a widespread weed, rendering 40,000 km² of farming land unproductive. The Cactoblastis moth, a South American moth whose larvae eat prickly pear, was introduced in 1925 and quickly almost wiped out the infestation. This case is often cited as a "textbook" example of successful biological pest control. The same moth, introduced accidentally further north of its native range into southern North America, is causing serious damage to some native species in that area. 
Pig's Arse. Prickly pear is rife in Australia moth or no moth. Sure it doesn't quite choke up farm land to such extremes, but it it i still very widespread as a desert, bush, plains, beach, garden and every-dang-elsewhere weed.--ZayZayEM 14:50, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Australia, Prickly Pears and US textbooks

message: The genus Opuntia has been split into several genera (see Taxonomy of the Cactaceae) - I don't have enough info available to split this page up in accord with that. Anyone want to tackle it? - MPF 01:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your post was incoherent. Do you mean "oak"? Please try again, with indents and a signature. Meticulo (talk) 12:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Several genera

message: Current living in the eastern US and have never seen Prickly pear here but, I grew up in the US southwest. Prickly pear flouishes in the Mojave and the Sonoran which is really easy to resource. Shouldn't the article reflect that?--Dakota ~ ε 02:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Prickly Pear cactus

message: HOW DO I WATER AND HOW DO I PLANT AND WHAT DO I PLANT THIS CACTUS IN???? EMAIL ME AT : Browneyes0811@vzw.blackberry.net   Is dirt okay??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.219.163.199 (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold text 

message: Prickly pears and similar species are also spread all over North Africa. souldn't that be mentioned in the article.
If prickly pears have become naturalized in North Africa, yes. Zzorse 12:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographical ditribution 

message: It seems that there should either be more information in the section about Opuntia as a host for cochineal harvesting, or else it should be removed.  As it is right now, it seems to confuse more than inform. Tlesher 18:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hosting Beetles 

message: Can anyone identify this Opuntia? It is the common variety predominant in Andalusia. Regards, E  Asterion u talking to me? 18:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Chumbera'' near [[Barbate]], [[Andalusia]] 

message: My mom has a bed of some kind of Prickly pear that my dad dug up in N. Georgia.  But it doesn't look like the Eastern prickly pear pictures.  It grows in a linear chaining fashion and only has the clumps of fine hairlike prickles, with no spines at all.  It produces yellow flowers and the fruit are large at about an inch long.  It spreads along the ground with only the terminal pad standing partially erect.  If I remember to take my camera, I will get a picture of it this weekend.James.folsom 15:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FNA sez "Spines often absent"  (a detail not mentioned by our article, tsk tsk), so it's probably just a spineless form of O. humifusa. Anderson mentions an O. ammophila native to Florida but not in FNA(?), but it has "1-2 spines" and is erect, up to 2 m tall. Stan 17:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FNA calls it O. humifusa var. ammophila , so we're still at one species for eastern US. Stan 17:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I finally found a picture one that didn't have spines.  I'll try to get a good picture of it, so that if can be placed on the article if it would help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by James.folsom (talk • contribs) 18:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: unknown opuntia

message: Copied from Talk:Cactus
While you may be proud of your work, Staplegunter, please do not keep inserting this picture. It is more appropriate for the tree cholla (Opuntia imbricata) article and has been removed by at least 3 separate editors, indicating that there is no consensus to include it. pschemp | talk 04:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The plant in this picture is overexposed and difficult to see on a computer screen, so the image is probably not appropriate for another article, either.  Also, it's a landscaped specimen of a common plant, so time to get an excellent image is available.  Please feel free to reshoot and upload, if there is a place and space, to the article pointed to by User:pschemp, as it is a common landscaping plant in certain areas of the United States.  Thank you.  KP Botany 04:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tree Cholla picture

message: I removed the fact tag that was apparently meant for the verification that Opuntia tomentosa's common name is  woollyjoint pricklypear. I found a USDA website to back it up here. I also removed a fact tag on Opuntia littoralis after verifying its common names on several apparently reputable websites. However, I do not think that it is appropriate to put these as references in the article. Unless there is a reason to question its accuracy or if it is controversial, I do not think that such things require references. If all 41 species and sub-genera in the list had to have its own reference listed (perhaps more than one if the reputability of the sources is questionable or if there is more than one common name), we would never get anything else done, the article would be full of reference numbers, the article would be hard to edit, especially if the new style of references is used (author, date, publication, editor and such are all listed right in the middle of the article), and the references section would dominate the article. Sure, it would be nice if there were a single reliable source with all of the information, but those sources are rare, in my experience, especially with online sources. (This USDA page with links to pages on six species of Opuntia is probably the best website as far as reputability. However, this page has many more species and seems to be of adequate reputability. Perhaps I will give it as a reference after checking to make sure that it agrees with the information we have. Update: I checked many of the species and they checked out. I put it as a link at the bottom of the list for now. I do not have time at the moment to check all of them.) A lack of references is perhaps the largest problem about most Wikipedia articles, but some people can be excessive about references. Those who have seen a lot of graduate student papers can back me up. ;-) Sorry for the long delay in posting this message. It wrote it at the same time that I made the edits to the article, but I started trying to verify all of the species names, had to stop and did not get back to this browser tab until now. -- Kjkolb 11:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact tags 

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 . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: Which sp. is the xoconostle? kwami (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  xoconostle  

message: The opening sentence reads: Currently, only prickly pears (also known as nopal or nopales, from the Nahuatl word nōpalli for the pads, or nostle, from the Nahuatl word nōchtli for the fruit; see below) are included in this genus of about 200[1] species distributed throughout most of the Americas. I've read this sentence several times and I'm not sure what it means. Can someone reword it please? Is it saying that the Prickly Pear is the only species of Opuntia in the Americas, but there are about 200 species worldwide? Thanks. -- Andrew Parodi (talk) 08:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewording necessary?

message: I"M boggled that these are found as far north as the Beatton River, given that area's subArctic climate...but maybe not all that surprised.  Because, some kind of prickly pear, I suppose it must be Opuntia fragilis var. fragilis, is very common in southern British Columbia, in the Thompson Plateau, Thompson Country, Okanagan and Fraser Canyon areas.  I found this article after linking Prickly pear cactus on Thompson Plateau and just wanted verification for what it looks like - the type I'm familiar wiht, form around Lillooet in the Canyon, is a kind of ground-creeping variety, with very small "pears" in "fans" sprawling on the ground...often beneath grass and sage where you can't see it...damn stuff can pierce leather boots....very, very common.  Does this sound like the right species, or might there be another in this region?  No pictures handy, if needed I'll ask someone to get some (I'm not in those parts lately).  Presumably it's the same time as in the Okanagan, although I'm pretty sure that transplanted saguaro and monstrosus have been used in private landscaping there....Skookum1 (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Range of ''Opuntia fragilis var. fragilis''

message: The picture identified as Opuntia pinkavae appears to be O. fragilis.  The picture below, currently identified as O. polyacantha, is more likely the picture intended to represent O. pinkavae.
Tfrates (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opuntia image identification 

message: I removed the claim for treatment of "diarrhoea, and stomach ache", since these claims are dubious have been unreferenced for a year. -- Beland (talk) 02:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical claims 

message: Is the last bit about Jews and the random picture from an Israeli comic museum supposed to be there...? 68.44.229.194 (talk) 22:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The information about the origin of the word "sabra" does seem relevant to me, although I don't see the direct relevance of the cartoon image. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The image is related to something related and so should be removed from this article. Invasive Spices (talk) 19:40, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  image at the end. 

message: "Circa Opuntem Opuntia ' est herba , etiam homini dulcis ; mirumque e folio ejus radicem fieri , ac sic eam nasci."
Google Translate gives: "About Opuntum Opuntia is a herb, sweet even to man; and it is surprising that a root should be made from its leaf, and thus it should be born." Nomen ambiguum (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The identity of the plant known to the ancients by the name opuntia isn't clear, other than that it was a spiny plant found near Opuntus, according to the books on the origin of plant names I have on my shelves. There's a discussion of Miller's choice of Opuntia as his new genus name at . (The "Indian fig" used as the English name was possibly Ficus benghalensis. Certainly Theophrastus (who Pliny copied in parts) knew about this plant and included it in his Περὶ φυτῶν ἱστορία (Historia plantarum).) In general, it's difficult to match many ancient plant names with modern species names; John Raven's Plants and plant lore in ancient Greece is good on this. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pliny's Opuntia