Talk:Euphorbia

message: Some of the text reads like a children's book, or is patronising or stilted, especially but not exclusively the section about 'not being cacti'. Needs radical editing for style.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 09:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  English style 

message: Should this be Spurge or Euphorbia? I really think this article should be moved (back?) to Euphorbia. It is about the genus Euphorbia. Not all Euphorbias are called a spurge (such as crown of thorns) and that can leave some confused. --Dara 18:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Spurge" is right. For example, the Jepson manual lists "spurge" as the common name of the whole genus. It's not unusual to have a common name that is not a modification of the common name of the genus, so that's not a strong argument. Stan 19:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: which is it then?  "Members of the family and genus are sometimes referred to as Spurges" implies that Spurge = Euphorbiacaea, whereas "Like all members of the family Euphorbiaceae, all spurges have unisexual flowers" implies that Spurge is a subset of Euphorbiacaea (Spurge = Euphorbia).  One of these sentences will have to be rewritten.  --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

text: Euphorbia obtusifolia Poiret 1812 (nom. illeg. art. 53.1) is synonym to Euphorbia lamarckii Sweet 1818. This species however is restricted to SW Morocco. The "Euphorbia obtusifolia" of the Canary Islands (Tenerife, Gomera, La Palma) is actually Euphorbia broussonettii Willdenow 1828. These species and their relatives caused some confusion in the past! References: - Bramwell, D. & Bramwell, Z. 1990, Flores silvestres de las Islas Canarias, Madrid, Spain, Editorial Rueda; - Carter S. in Eggli, Urs (Ed.): Sukkulentenlexikon Band 2: Zweikeimblättrige Pflanzen (Dicotyledonen) Eugen Ulmer Verlag, Germany 2002.  Ies 06:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: I reverted this edit because there is no explanation for the removal of information about the common name, and the order on the names was fine, already, and the common names should be bolded and explained where possible.  Feel free, of course, to add catapuce back, properly bolded.  It's not as frequently used today, but it's fine in the article, but it doesn't require deletion of information about the word "spurge."  --KP Botany (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversions 

message: Is Euphorbia useful as a potential fuel source? Or as an an alternative source of rubber? I seem to recall reading somewhere of a proposal to plant it in SW U.S....  TREKphiler hit me ♠  13:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Fuel state

message: I reverted Weepingraf's edits to the version by Anomalocaris that said that there are about 2160 species, undoing the change that (1) said that there are exactly 2003 species, sourced to a kew.org web page, and (2) provided a kew.org reference page that claims to be "World Checklist of Malpighiales: Euphorbia", but when you actually click the link, it's not a Euphorbia page. 
(1) The source page does not directly state that there are exactly 2003 species. Even if it is possible use the source reference page to generate a species list and count them manually, there is no reason to believe that the count is complete and contains no duplicates and no subspecies, varieties, forms, and cultivars, especially ones that this database may call species but other authorities may consider duplicate names or subspecies, varieties, forms or cultivars. Also, the definition of species is fuzzy, especially among plants, which can often hybridize within and across genera, so when the species count is over 2,000, exact species numbers are necessarily somewhat a matter of opinion, and Wikipedia should use the word "about" unless there is strong reason to believe that a species count is complete and contains no duplicates and no entities of taxonomic rank lower than species. Additionally, Weepingraf's edits included an improper space before <ref>. Further, there should be a comma in a four-digit number (2003) that can easily be confused for a year.
(2) The External link linking to kew.org is mislabeled, and not about Euphorbia per se, and was included most likely to support Weepingraf's assertion that the number of Euphorbia species is exactly 2003. —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omit exact species count 

message: Hi, Here is an answer to the exact species count
(1)From WCSP you get the exact number of species by using the "Build a checklist" option  select family "Euphorbiaceae" and Genus "Euphorbia and click "create a checklist". Under the genus entry for Euphorbia it will say "2003 Species". The WCSP species count is exactly that, not including hybrids or infraspecific taxa, that is why it is so usefull for large genera (try it for a small genus if you doubt the accuracy). 
I do of course agree that it is impossible to say how many species of Euphorbia "God Created". But by citing the date this search was done, at least you have a referenced peer reviewed source of the number based on actual species counts rather than a guess. I agree the wording should perhaps reflect that this is one count of known species at one particular point in time. However this could be said about any species number. There may be only one species of Ginkgo know today but that does not mean there may be another species as yet undiscovered. Perhaps the more important question is why "2,160" ?
(2)The external link World Checklist of Malpighiales: Euphorbia is about the order Malpighiales, to which Euphorbia belongs. You can type "Euphorbia" in the quick search or use the "Build a checklist" option to get the exact number of species (at that point in time).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weepingraf (talk • contribs) 10:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Euphorbia numbers 

message: The Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milkweed Latex Gasoline discussion may or may not be interesting to those familiar with this subject. Freakshownerd (talk) 02:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Fuel source?

message: I just made a change to the introduction, where it said earlier that Euphorbia is one of the largest and most diverse plant genera along with Senecio and Rumex. I thought I should add a little discussion in here, as the edit history showed some controversy about this. I only noticed this after submitting my edit.
The reference is a paper on Hibbertia, a genus with a large range of chromosome counts, and it refers to another study which said that the three genera (Euphorbia, Senecio and Rumex) have a larger range yet.
This is one aspect of diversity, but diversity can be measured in many ways (species diversity, gene diversity or morphological diversity to name some obvious ones), chromosome numbers are a single aspect of it only. The cited paper, rightly, does not claim that these are overall the most diverse genera, it is only talking about chromosome numbers. I changed the wording to reflect that the source talked about chromosome number diversity alone.
Whereas the diversity could be debatable, it is certainly false to claim that these three genera are among the largest (as the original wording strongly implied). Senecio is a very large (and morphologically diverse) genus, yes, but even it is "only" tenth on the list, well behind Euphorbia. Rumex, with just 200 species (most of which look very much alike!) is not a large enough genus to warrant attention.
I would ask that the change will not be reverted without due discussion. The remarkable chromosome diversity could be discussed somewhere else on this article in more detail, I left it in the introduction partly to appease the contributor - it certainly is a highly interesting fact!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.182.196.156 (talk) 17:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#Discrepency_regarding_Euphorbia_and_List_of_the_largest_genera_of_flowering_plants. FloraWilde (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The biggest and most diverse plant genera 

message: This long list of references was removed without an edit summary, but likely as being far too long for inclusion an encyclopedia article. But it is a good list. So I am putting it here on the talk page for others (including me) to use as references. 
* Airy Shaw, H. 1975. The Euphorbiaceae of Borneo. H.M. Stationery Off., London. 
* Bateman, and J. A. Hawkins, eds. Developmental Genetics and Plant Evolution. Taylor and Francis, London.
* Baum, D. A., H. S Yoon, and Oldham, R. L. 2005. Molecular evolution of the transcription factor LEAFY in Brassicaceae. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 37:1-14.
* Benedí, C., J. Molero, J. Simón, J. Vicens. 1997. Euphorbia L. In: Castroviejo, S. et al. (eds), Flora Iberica VIII (Halogoraceae-Euphorbiaceae): 210-286.
* Boissier, P.E. 1862. Euphorbiaceae, Euphorbieae. Pp. 1-188 in A. de Candolle, ed. Prodromus systematis naturalis regni vegetabilis 15(2). Masson and fils, Paris. 
* Bruyns, P. V., R. Mapaya, and T. Hedderson. 2006. A new subgeneric classification for Euphorbia (Euphorbiaceae) based on molecular data. Taxon 55: 397-420.
* Buddensiek, Volker (2005): Succulent Euphorbia plus (CD-ROM). Volker Buddensiek Verlag.
* Burch, D. G. 1965. A taxonomic revision of the genus Chamaesyce (Euphorbiaceae) in the Caribbean. Thesis (Ph.D.) University of Florida. 244 pp. 
* Carter, Susan (1982): New Succulent Spiny Euphorbias from East Africa
* Carter, Susan & Eggli, Urs (1997): The CITES Checklist of Succulent Euphorbia Taxa (Euphorbiaceae)
* Carter, Susan & Smith, A. L. (1988): Flora of Tropical East Africa, Euphorbiaceae
* Dressler, R. L. 1957. The genus Pedilanthus (Euphorbiaceae). Contributions of the Gray Herbarium 182: 1-188. 
* Edqvist, J., and I. Farbos. 2002. Characterization of germination-specific lipid transfer proteins from Euphorbia lagascae. Planta 215: 41-50. 
* Eggli, Urs (ed.) (2002): Sukkulentenlexikon (Vol. 2: Zweikeimblättrige Pflanzen (Dicotyledonen)). Eugen Ulmer Verlag.
* 
* Govaerts, R., D. G. Frodin, and A. Radcliff-Smith. 2000. World Checklist and Bibliography of Euphorbiaceae (and Pandaceae). The Royal Botanical Garden, Kew. 4 vols. 
* Haevermans, T. 2003. Pp. 384-391 in Goodman, S. M. and J.P. Benstead, eds. The Natural History of Madagascar. University of Chicago Press. 1728 pp. 
* Haevermans, T., P. Hoffmann, Lowry, P. P., Labat, J.-N., and E. Randrianjohany. 2004. Phylogenetic analysis of the Madagascan Euphorbia subgenus Lacanthis based on ITS sequence data. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 91: 247-259. 
* Hargreaves, B. J. 1987. Succulent spurges of Malawi. Roma, Lesotho. 
* Huft, M. J. 1979. A monograph of Euphorbia section Tithymalopsis. Thesis (Ph.D.) University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 276 pp. 
* Johnston, M. C. 1975. Studies of the Euphorbia species of the Chihuahuan desert region and adjacent areas. Wrightia 5: 120-143. 
* Koutnik, D. L. 1982. A taxonomic revision of the Hawaiian species of the genus Chamaesyce (Euphobiaceae). Allertonia 4: 331-388. 
* LaFon, R., H. Schwartz, and D. Koutnik, eds. 1983-1996. Euphorbia Journal. Vols. 1-10. Strawberry Press, Mill Valley, California. 
* Mayfield, M. 1997. The Systematics of Euphorbia sect. Poinsettia (Euphorbiaceae). PhD Thesis. The University of Texas at Austin.
* Molero, J., T. Garnatje, A. Rovira, N. Garcia-Jacas, and A. Susanna. 2002. Karyological evolution and molecular phylogeny in Macaronesian dendroid spurges (Euphorbia subsect. Pachycladae). Plant Systematics and Evolution 231: 109-132. 
* Noltee, Frans (2001): Succulents in the wild and in cultivation, Part 2 Euphorbia to Juttadinteria (CD-ROM)
* Oudejans, R. C. H. M. 1990. World catalogue of species names published in the Euphorbieae (Euphorbiaceae) with their geographical distribution. Published by the author, Utrecht, Netherlands. 
* Park, K.-R. 1995. Monograph of Euphorbia sect. Tithymalopsis (Euphorbiaceae). Edinburgh Journal of Botany 55: 161-208. 
* Pritchard, Albert (2003): Introduction to the Euphorbiaceae .
* Pritchard albert[2010] "Monadenium" cactus & co . 
* Schwartz, Herman (ed.) (1983): The Euphorbia Journal Strawberry Press, Mill Valley, California, USA
* Simón, J. and J. Vicens. 1999. Estudis biosistemàtics en Euphorbia L. a la Mediterrània Occidental. Institut D'Estudis Catalans, Barcelona.
* Singh, Meena (1994): Succulent Euphorbiaceae of India. Mrs. Meena Singh, A-162 Sector 40, NOIDA, New Delhi, India.
* Aditya Soumen [2010,Apr.]A revision of geophytic euphorbia species from India. Euphorbia World journal. Vol.6-No.1,ISSN 1746-5397
* Steinmann, V., and J. M. Porter. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships in Euphorbieae (Euphorbiaceae) based on ITS and ndhF sequence data. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 89: 453-490. 
* Theissen, G. 2001. Development of floral organ identity: Stories from the MADS house. Current Opinions in Plant Biology 4: 75-85. 
* Turner, Roger (1995): Euphorbias—A Gardeners' Guide. Batsford, England.
* Vindt, J. 1953. Monographie des euphorbiacées du Maroc. Dessins de R. de Brettes. Tanger. 
* Webster, G. L. 1994. Synopsis of the genera and suprageneric taxa of Euphorbiaceae. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 81: 33-144. 
* Wurdack, K. J. and E. A. Zimmer. 2003. CoxI intron evolution in Euphorbia s.l. (Euphorbiaceae s.s.). Botany 2003 meetings, Mobile, AL. Abstracts. 
*Wurdack, K. J., P. Hoffmann, and M. W. Chase. 2005. Molecular phylogenetic analysis of uniovulate Euphorbiaceae (Euphorbiaceae sensu stricto) using plastid rbcL and trnL-F DNA sequences. American Journal of Botany 92: 1397-1420.
Anyone who wants to add to it, please just stick any additions into the list, in alphabetic order, without worrying about changing my edit. FloraWilde (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reading list 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Euphorbia. 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/20040430135948/http://www.itis.usda.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=28032 to http://www.itis.usda.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=28032
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060703114434/http://www.rbgkew.org.uk/efloras/multisearch.do%3Bjsessionid%3D07C81D07C1A0198276E32A03DEAA5A6D to http://www.rbgkew.org.uk/efloras/multisearch.do%3Bjsessionid%3D07C81D07C1A0198276E32A03DEAA5A6D
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) 16:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article is rated C by the China Project, which happened more recently than when it was rated as a Start class by the Plants project. I think it deserves a C by now, but I'd like some consensus first, I suppose.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prometheus720 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Any special reason for Euphorbia to be part of the China Project? The genus is cosmopolitan. Tylototriton (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality Classification--Ready for C-Class in Plants Project? 

message: Chamaesyce now corresponds to Euphorbia sect. Anisophyllum, as explained and supported by references in the Chamaesyce article. I suggest merging Chamaesyce into Euphorbia. Tylototriton (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In zoology (I don't know botany) one normally awaits a formal publication of a new combination.  Publishing a result that genus X is embedded within genus Y is not enough.  For example, the Scaptomyza-Drosophila merger still hasn't happened because the results would be so messy.  Have the appropriate hoops of botanical nomenclature been jumped through in this case, and are the new combinations in current use? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Closing, on the grounds that it is too soon to be sure that a merge is appropriate. Klbrain (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Chamaesyce'' merge discussion

message: There should be SOME MENTION OF THE RANGE of Euphorbia of the world. World wide? Say it. World wide but for Antarctica? Say that. None of that is mentioned. Pretty important point!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:642:4100:A1A0:88F3:EC39:202D:269A (talk) 18:09, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently I forgot to add a title 72.78.138.69 (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native range not mentioned. 

message: What I wrote before. But this time with a title so my entry does not get shoved into topic Native range not mentioned. Like it did last time. Sorry Native range not mentioned.
The 1st paragraph of the article says
 "Euphorbia" is sometimes used in ordinary English to collectively refer to all members of Euphorbiaceae (in deference to the type genus), not just to members of the genus.
I think that
# The sentence is unnecessarily complex
# The claim is not true
# The reference cited does not support the claim
The URL for the reference leads to a valid definition of Euphorbia
 any of a large genus (Euphorbia) of herbs, shrubs, and trees of the spurge family that have a milky juice and flowers lacking a calyx and included in an involucre which surrounds a group of several staminate flowers and a central pistillate flower with 3-lobed pistils
 
 broadly : SPURGE
But the definition
# says about the family only that the genus is a member of the family
# never mentions the formal name of the family
# says that Euphorbia is a genus, not sometimes a genus and sometimes a family
I looked at several other dictionary definitions, including the definition in the unabridged Oxford dictionary, the   Oxford English Dictionary (OED). None of the definitions mention that Euphorbia can refer to the family, Euphorbiaceæ.
Has anybody used Euphorbia to refer to Euphorbiaceæ? Have you heard anybody else use Euphorbia to refer to Euphorbiaceæ?
If nobody has heard of using Euphorbia to refer to Euphorbiaceæ, then barring my laziness, I will delete the sentence claiming that Euphorbia can refer to Euphorbiaceæ. If somebody has heard of using Euphorbia to refer to Euphorbiaceæ, then barring my laziness, I will reword the sentence.
72.78.138.69 (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bring the Family!