Talk:Potentilla indica

message: Despite the recent paper suggesting inclusion of Duchesnea in Potentilla, I would hesitate to do so, and as far as I know this classification has yet to be widely accepted.  From what I've seen, Duchesnea seems to be no more close to members of Potentilla as is Fragaria, and to me it seems arbitrary to change one and not the other.  And yet changing the genus of such an important group of species as Fragaria would be quite drastic and probably unpopular, particularly in the horticultural world. Personally, I think the problem is not so much that Duchesnea and Fragaria belong in Potentilla, but that Potentilla is an overly-broad genus that really should be broken down into several genera (this has been done before, and many have still placed Duchesnea within the more limited Potentilla, but as with so many issues of taxonomy at some level it begins to boil down to matters of personal taste.  Anyway, I don't feel strongly enough to change the article, just noting my thoughts on the subject. Elakazal 20:44, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The USDA still lists it as Duchesnea as well. http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=DUIN  SB Johnny 11:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Essential reading: Mabberley, D.J. (2002). Potentilla and Fragaria (Rosaceae) reunited. Telopea 9(4): 793-801 (downloadable from here). Note the inclusion of Fragaria, as well as Duchesnea, in Potentilla. The conclusions are robust; it is only the "political" considerations to be overcome. I consider we should follow Mabberley (maybe if not now, then when the new edition of The Plant Book comes out later this year) - MPF 09:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an old discussion, but I just looked at this page and I object to calling this plant Potentilla. The decision may be political, but on WP, we should follow the standard usage, with perhaps a discussion of the alternative name. The new version of the Jepson Manual maintains Duchesnea. This one paper, no matter how robust is not enough. Potter et al. (http://biology.umaine.edu/Amelanchier/Rosaceae_2007.pdf), for example do not combine Fragaria and Potentilla, noting that if they followed Mabberly's suggestion the genus would become polyphyletic.  They do support Duchesnea in the latter genus, but again this is their opinion. The point is, it is not our decision. We need to follow the general usage of standard reference sources. None of these I found uses the genus Potentilla for this plant.Michaplot (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

text: "The Complete Wilderness Training Book" by Hugh McManners says that Duchesnea (mock strawberries) "can be fatal" if eaten.  Is this true?  In the article they are described as edible, but tasteless. Vultur 01:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I've read Hugh McManners' book and I believe it repeats a common urban legend. I have tasted a few small berries myself. I'd love to see a better source on this. G.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.16.62 (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

text: I've eaten mock strawberries on multiple occasions, and as of yet, I've had no fatal reactions.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrishibbard7 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have it as a weed in my yard, and frequently eat it. It is insipid, but apparently not fatal.Michaplot (talk) 05:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Potentilla vs. Duchesnea

message: wow, what happened to this article?  it once had quite a bit more information, and a gallery of photos showing teh rest of the plant...was there a copyright violation?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.18.47 (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The history of the article doesn't seem to show much shrinkage. The photo gallery can be accessed from the "wikimedia commons" link near the bottom of the page. Nadiatalent (talk) 21:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: What happened?

message: http://snr.unl.edu/invasives/documents/Invasive%20Plant%20and%20Insect%20Field%20Guide%20-%202.pdf
Someone should cite it properly because I don't know how.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MonkeysOnThePatio (talk • contribs) 03:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for the noxious weed status 

message: Are they  Poisonous 2601:C7:8200:E3A0:4DD:21E4:13AC:1AA4 (talk) 16:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Potentilla Indica berries are edible. 96.235.140.213 (talk) 12:01, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: but tasteless, so not worthwhile Plantsurfer 13:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are they poisonous