Talk:Arbutus unedo

message: It seems to me that, given the total lack of any similarity whatsoever between this plant and the common strawberry, that at least an explanation of the common name is called for. Does anyone know? Unschool 06:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fruit when ripe superficially resembles a strawberry (round and red). This is mentioned on the Arbutus genus page, not sure if its worth repeating here. Bumper12 03:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, see Muntingia#Vernacular names. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of Name? 

message: it is real!!!!!!!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.69.121.98 (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  realness 

message: There is a Strawberry Plant growing in File:Crystal Palace Park, South London. It's between the burned out children's toilets & the Lower Lake.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acb58 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location 

message: I removed the section about this painting on the grounds that the cited reference (Warner, Marion. Fantastic metamorphoses, other worlds: ways of telling the self. Oxford University Press, 2002. 70.) states that the painting does not represent the Madroño. The deletion was reverted by other editors. Here is a retyping of the section of the cited reference, which I would say states quite clearly that the painting shows giant strawberries, and that it was a strange mistake to say that it shows the Madroño. Page 70. "And it is Sigüenza who makes the earliest reference to the Garden of Earthly Delights, in a letter consigning the painting to the Escorial of 8 July 1593, in which he calls it 'La Pintura del Madroño' (The Painting of the Strawberry [Tree]). With this designation, Sigüenza is specifying arbutus, the tree or shrub common in the Mediterranean which mimics the soft fruit, and which features, alongside the wild edible variety, in Ovid's paean to the Golden Age (see above).71
 It is revealing that Sigüenza referred to the painting in this way, because either it shows that he was following reports on its contents and writing about it before he had seen it, since as a Spaniard, he could not have mistaken Bosch's giant strawberries on which his revellers are feasting for the unpalatable arubutus; or the wording demonstrates the pervasive aesthetic preference for textual over visual reference, and his understanding of the painting as an interpretation of the famous Ovidian passage on the Golden Age." This is followed by more discussion of alternate realities. Nadiatalent (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, it only cropped up last night and from what we can tell the sources contradict each other. And yes I agree that that source is weak and does not have much crediability. Ceoil (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is a very weak source for any claim that the painting definitely shows the arbutus. Marion Warner does not make this claim. Her counter-claim, however, that it definitely does not show one, is not clear either. Warner seems to be saying that either Sigüenza gave it his title without seeing it, or that, even when he did see it, he was making a deliberate, if artificial, reference to Ovid. The only fact that needs to appear in this article is that the title of the painting was once La Pintura del Madrono i.e. The Picture of the Strawberry Tree. Other critics' views on what the fruit is can be sought, but will never “prove” the matter one way or another. To my mind the painting shows both the arbutus and giant strawberries, but that’s just my opinion. The Ovidian reference to the strawberry tree, noted by Warner, might be another addition to this section of the article, Indeed, from Warner's point of view, it might have been the original from which Sigüenza borrowed. No-one may ever know exactly what Bosch himself intended or why. But he probably knew very well that strawberries don't normally grow on trees. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Martin, I starting to think thats its beside the point. You lnow how annoying it is when editors turn up at pages and start mentioning Family guy? We are doing that now. Nadiatalent is the encumbant editor here, and we need to respect him. If he says no; end of story. For sure you found a nice lead, for the Bosch page, Well will work on that there between us, and I'm loking forward. See you on that other side, Best. Ceoil (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, well I'm not sure Ms Warner would see herself in those terms, but if Nadiatalent, or any others, think that Sigüenza's title is not relevant, that's fine by me. The tree is hardly a dominant theme in the painting itself. But I'd still welcome a section here that considered, e.g. "The Strawberry Tree in Art and Literature". Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Tks for the Lois link my friend; I assume I not the only preson who thinks shes hot with a capital h. Ceoil (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

text: God, I'm en croaching on Nadiatalent again with irrelevance to this page, but yeah, that is the way we'll go. Ceoil (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try and buff up some of the biological stuff so we can fit more piccies in :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers Cas, sound as always. Ceoil (talk) 20:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Hieronymus Bosch painting 

message: *errrr, wow - so its a weed and poisons livestock here in Oz - looks like pliny was lucky...must read more. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: what do you mean it's a weed? Doesn't have any weed potential, like aggressive spreading, it is actually quite difficult to propagate it. I will add the livestock poisoning to the page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beleriandcrises (talk • contribs) 14:22, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Invasive potential and poisonousness

message: This is because of the alcohol content of the ripe fruit. Children and women, who did not drink alcohol, got headaches eating the fruit.
Use: also in the old days in Spain for vinegar, in France for liqueur.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.84.2 (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  I eat only one 

message: In the textbox, a photo of a tree is captioned "Arbutus unedo: habit".  I changed this to "habitat", but user:Peter coxhead reverted it, with this explanation: "no, the image shows the habit ('habitus') of the tree".  I appreciate him stating that what is being depicted is not the tree's habitat, but it's "habitus".  However, the word "habit" has a very well-attested definition in the OED, and it is not as a synonym for "habitus".  If "habitus" is meant, then that word should be used, instead of confusing readers for whom "habit" means "an acquired behavior pattern regularly followed until it has become almost involuntary; customary practice or use; a particular practice, custom, or usage; a dominant or regular disposition or tendency; or prevailing character or quality". It is always best to avoid jargon.  Bricology (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is to know what is "jargon". "Habitus" is definitely jargon, and in a botanical context is just a Latinate way of saying "habit". What is meant here could be put as "growth habit": the typical or regular way the tree looks because of the prevailing way it grows, which falls within the OED definition. Although I'm not claiming it as a highly reliable source, this puts it clearly. I'm used to "habit" being used in this way for plants; it seems common in botany and horticulture. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Habit" v. "habitat" 

message: What is Chammari ? --Tpyvvikky (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Chammari" 

message: Hello  I think these are better “bunched”. I don’t think I made these but I do this frequently. These references are only used together so separating them is unnecessary. Invasive Spices (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is literally 0 advantage in having references grouped up like that, having them separated makes everything clearer (to read, to check, to maintain), it makes it easier to use the same reference multiple times as the article gets expanded, etc. I have been fixing up references for a decade and having them separated is definitely the de facto standard, I can count on one hand the times I've seen them grouped up like that. If you do this frequently you might want to rethink that. --Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are used multiple times then I agree. Invasive Spices (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate refs 

message: I have never done this in an article, I am afraid I might mess it up. But there are sources for this, and I love this fruit, I think it's worth having its nutrional value on wikipedia. It has almost 3.5 times the vitamin C of oranges for example, it's great! 613 The Evil (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can anyone add the nutritional value card for this fruit? 

message: Any source? Equinox ◑ 11:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I can find nothing that looks even vaguely convincing. I wonder when that was added? Suspect it should be removed. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like here. So perhaps Connormill72 can provide some source(s). Martinevans123 (talk) 11:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  known as "chorleywood" in the United Kingdom -- really?