Talk:Syzygium smithii

message: Is "the common turkey" vandalism, a typo, or an actual plant? Maybe an aborted editing attempt, given the lack of final period? If it is a plant, please provide a page for it and a link, or at least some more information along the lines of "the common garden perennial known as the turkey (Somethingia somethingus)." If it refers to the "turkey bush," Myoporum deserti, that belongs to a different family Myoporaceae and is thus hardly "closely related."
Also, the article does not mention that Acmena smithii is an Australian plant. Range information should be added, by somebody that knows it more precisely.Mglg 23:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Accrding to Harden, McDonald and Williams' Rainforest Trees and Shrubs  this plant, and many other Acmenas have been reclassified as Syzygiums. Peter1968 22:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's a Syzygium now? 

message: According to the taxonomy database http://www.uniprot.org/taxonomy/178174 there is no Syzygium smithii.  Syzygium smithii is listed as a syn. for Acmena smithii.  I suggest that Sysygium smithii be referred back to Acmena smithii.Agathis australis (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They have it now --Melburnian (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syzygium smithii vs Acmena smithii 

message: In most other trees of the Syzygium  variety that I've seen so far in Wikipedia (and I assume most plant/tree pages), it's stated in the first section where the tree is found. So, did this tree originate in Australia and has now become a pest species in New Zealand, or did it grow naturally in New Zealand? Is it found elsewhere? May I encourage this entry be made consistent with other trees/plants pages which usually include that information in the introductory paragraph. I don't know what's needed or what references are required to clarify this. I assume that information has already been sourced and confirmed. I don't know how you go about doing this, so I'll leave it for the more experienced people to update.
---------------
In the introductory paragraph it states: "It is planted as shrubs or hedgerows…  Unpruned, it will grow about 3–5 m (9.8–16.4 ft) tall in the garden." Then in the description it states: "...Syzygium smithii grows as a tree to 20 m (66 ft)..."
Now I know that trees can be controlled by pruning etc, but it states that "Unpruned, it will grow about 3–5 m" So which is true? That it only grows to 5m or as it says in the description - it grows to 20m? I found this to be confusing. If it's unpruned, why wouldn't it then grow to 20m? Surely in a garden situation where it's more likely to be fed with proper nutrients, it's likely to grow to its natural height? How is this verified and does this need to be corrected/updated?
---------------
In the Ecology section I note a reference to the moth “Agriophara horrid.” i.e."… Other moth larvae that feed on the leaves include the species Agriophara horrida, Cryptophasa pultenae and Macarostola formosa.[15]"
There is no Wikipedia page for “Agriophara horrid,” and I was unable to confirm the moth's existence on any other website except a reference in this one: https://dynamarkofwesternpa.com/2020/05/14/a-very-appealing-website-with-terrific-write-ups-2/
I went to Google books for the book referenced at [15] "Moths of Australia" by I.F.B. Common and searched for “Agriophara horrid,” but it said there was no reference to “Agriophara horrid” in that book.  I don't know if that means it's not actually in the book or if Google books didn't actually check the entire book.
The reference to “Agriophara horrid” then is unclear - should this be removed? How do we determine if it ever existed or if its name has been changed to something else?
-----------------
There are various sources that confirm that this is a "bush tucker" plant/tree. On this page it's noted in the "Uses and cultural reference" that:
(a) J. H. Maiden in 1889 recorded that "The fruits are eaten by the aboriginals, small boys, and birds. They are formed in profusion, are acidulous, and wholesome. They are white with a purplish tint, and up to one inch in diameter."[29] The mildly acidic fruit have been described as somewhat lacking in taste; and
(b) The fruit and leaves of Syzigium smithii were featured on a 49c Australian stamp, one of a bush tucker set, in 2002
As on other Wikipedia pages on Australian plants/trees that are "bush tucker" plants, it's usually noted under a section on their page "See also" that it's a "bush tucker" plant/tree with a link to the "Bush Tucker" page. "Acmena smithii" is listed on the "Bush Tucker" page but not Syzygium smithii, so I would suggest adding that note in under "See also" with a link to the "Bush Tucker" page, then add it to the "Bush Tucker" page. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tucker) NB It's also already linked to "Bushfood" at the bottom of the page.
Are these really different plants though? I've seen a couple of webpages where people state that they still prefer to call it "Acmena smithii" rather than "Syzygium smithii" and that most nurseries still call it "Acmena smithii."
Tzali (talk) 15:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is it found? How tall does it actually grow? Should the reference to Agriophara horrid be removed? Add note and a link to "Bush Tucker" page