Talk:Astragalus mongholicus

message: Is this the same plant?  
Photo of Astragalus Membraceus
AJStadlin 13:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions

message: Needs a taxo box.  WLU 01:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Taxo box

message: The Encyclopedia linked to from this article is totally one-sided and uncritical with regards claims made for Astragalus. The wikipedia article itself is also unbalanced.
And what's with "reputed to"?? I could say that Astragalus was reputed to make women give birth to bright blue triplets - doesn't mean there's any truth in the statement. Can we make this article more balanced, please? Squid87 15:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, both links are suspect as the second is a blog.  I'm removing them both.  WLU 17:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncritical References

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) 11:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: Talk:List of plants used as medicine#The common name and synonyms of Astragalus membranaceus may need to be harmonized.... for the clarification of the synonyms--222.64.215.108 (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  see my comment at.... 

message: Collagen...???  The root is full of jelly like component
--124.78.208.251 (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't collagen limited to vertebrates? David Marjanović (talk) 14:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the relationship between the plant root and.... 

message: I would like to know how much cycloastraganol is in the root compared to other parts of the plant, say for instance the leaves.  Do the leaves also contain cycloastraganol or have medicinal properties? Havabighed (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  How much cycloastraganol is in the root? 

message: The article says that medicines are derived from A. propinquus, but later says the medicines are derived from a different species, A. membranaceus.  Which is it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.177.1.210 (talk) 18:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: They're both the same species (see the argument about it further up the talk page), so there is no contradiction. 207.228.62.109 (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

text: It is a taxonomy battle, that some people fight out here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.109.226.67 (talk) 14:51, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Astragalus propinquus. 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/20170525105020/http://www.forest.go.kr/kna/special/download/English_Names_for_Korean_Native_Plants.pdf to http://www.forest.go.kr/kna/special/download/English_Names_for_Korean_Native_Plants.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722105441/http://jpdb.nihs.go.jp/jp15e/JP15.pdf to http://jpdb.nihs.go.jp/jp15e/JP15.pdf
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) 01:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There are many similar species of Astragalus. Astragalus membranaceous is NOT a synonym, it's a different species.  A. propinquus is considered to be one of 8 adulterants of A. membranaceous (Huangqui).Chemical analysis of Radix Astragali (Huangqi) in China: a comparison with its adulterants and seasonal variations.--JaneVenture2 (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: do you have a reliable secondary source for this assertion? The Catalogue of Life here and The Plant List here, both apparently based on ILDIS here agree with the article, as does PFAF here and Tropicos here. The Flora of China here treats both A. membranaceus and A. propinquus as synonyms of A. mongholicus. Now these are all based on somewhat old sources, so the taxa may since have been separated. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: My primary source is Kerry Bone and Simon Mills, 2013. Principles and Practice of Phytotherapy: Modern Herbal Medicine. 2 Edition. Churchill Livingstone. p382 which states under Adulterations: "Astragalus propinquus, A. lepsensis, A. aksuensis, A. hoantchy, A. hoantchy subsp dshimensis, A. lehmannianus, A. sieversianus and A. austrosibiricus have all been identified as adulterants of Astragalus membranaceus, whilst Hedysarum polybotrys is a substitute. Astragaloside IV is normally used as a marker for quality control. In the Japanese Pharmacopoeia 1996, substitutes including A. chrysopeterus, A. floridus, and A. tongolensis are officially permitted, but these are not accepted in China...."  but perhaps the taxonomy has changed since publication.  JaneVenture2 (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  for botanical classification, herbal medicine texts and pharmacopaeias are not as authoritative as botanical sources. The question is whether these taxa are accepted as different species of Astragalus or as variants at some lower level, and we would need a reliable botanical source to establish this. It can be said that herbal medicine sources separate out more species, but not that this is the right way to do it. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A. propinquus is an ADULTERANT of A. membranaceus 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Astragalus propinquus. 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/20140413143823/http://www.ildis.org/LegumeWeb?version~10.01&LegumeWeb&tno~16104&genus~Astragalus&species~membranaceus to http://www.ildis.org/LegumeWeb?version~10.01&LegumeWeb&tno~16104&genus~Astragalus&species~membranaceus
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041115120643/http://sun.ars-grin.gov:8080/npgspub/xsql/duke/plantdisp.xsql?taxon=140 to http://sun.ars-grin.gov:8080/npgspub/xsql/duke/plantdisp.xsql?taxon=140
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) 09:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: , I read your discussion above about the correct name for this species. Kew's Plants of the World Online taxonomic database has A. propinquus Schischk. (and A. membranaceus Fisch. ex. Bunge (but NOT Astragalus membranaceus Moench)) as a synonym for A. mongholicus Bunge. I think we should follow their lead. The current taxonomic authority cited for the synonymy, LegumeWeb, itself cites only a 1993 personal communication with Dieter Podlech in support of the name A. propinquus Schisck. We can assume that Podlech has since changed his mind, because his 2013 book, A taxonomic revision of the genus Astragalus L. (Leguminosae) in the Old World, coauthored with Shahin Zarre, reduces both A. propinquus Schischk. and A. membranaceus Fisch. ex. Bunge to synonymy with A. mongholicus Bunge. This seems to be the basis for POWO's use of A. mongholicus Bunge. as the correct name. This would also bring us in-line with the Flora of China treatment. Doppelbrau (talk) 17:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a proposal to conserve A. membranaceus Fisch. ex. Bunge, which was rejected (if I'm reading correctly) at the Shenzen IBC (go here and search for Astragalus). There was some uncertainty that was resolved by having the proposal rejected. Plantdrew (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was conserved against the earlier Moench name; see , bottom of first page. If so, the IPNI entry at  which says "nom. illeg." is wrong. Since A. membranaceus Fisch. ex. Bunge and A. mongholicus Bunge were both published in 1868, which has priority depends on which came first in that year. I assume it must be A. mongholicus. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I think you're right. Proposals and Disposals gives the wrong page number in Taxon. Not finding it there, I went to IPNI to check, and was influenced by what they had. Plantdrew (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll ask IPNI for further information. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:19, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The public view of IPNI hasn't changed yet, but they will apparently correct the "nom.illeg." The e-mail I had from them says that A. membranaceus Fisch. ex. Bunge dates from March 1868, whereas A. mongholicus was published in April 1868. So given that A. membranaceus Fisch. ex. Bunge is now conserved, if both are synonyms of A. propinquus, A. membranaceus Fisch. ex. Bunge is the earliest name. But we need this to appear in at least one source to make the move. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to change the name to ''A. mongholicus'' Bunge