Talk:Magnolia

message: In the past few days,I RAN I added sections on the origin of the name Magnolia, early references, and nomenclature and classification to the article. I did my utmost best to provide good references, at the same time trying to keep the text easy to read. I'm sure many readers who are interested in Magnolia's will find the information usefull. Meanwhile I realise that I could not avoid being technical now and then. Adding explanations of every technical term would make the text very long.
If you think the item has become too specialised or too technical, please be as bold as to add links or explanations, but do not just delete the parts that up to this point do not come up to Wikipedia standards. I'd appreciate if you hint me here, on the discussion page, about how I could best improve the article, while keeping al the information available to the interested reader.Wikiklaas 23:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: new sections

message: The year '1930' for Nat. Hist was indeed a typo. I meant of course 1730. In many cases you find 1731 for the year that the first volume was issued. I'll have to check TL-2 (Stafleu, Taxonomic Literature) once more but I believe the year 1730 was on purpose. Somewhere in the back of my mind, it says that I read that Catesby's Natural History was issued in parts, and the plates that I refer to here were already issued in 1730. I'll have to check this once again. Wikiklaas 13:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Catesby's Natural History of Carolina

message: That tree in the article is not a magnolia tree. It looks like a regular oak tree. Of course, I could be wrong, its sort of blurry.
It is a magnolia tree. 68.211.33.170 15:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Tree

message: I'd appreciate more description of the traits shared by magnolias as a group, even if only in a range, (its leaves, flowers, reproductive cycle, general habitat, length of life, common diseases, best growing conditions, etc.), as very little is currently written on that facet of the plant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.168.21.149 (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description 

message: check this BBC NEWS article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6511985.stm
it says there are 245 species. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.220.79.108 (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an explanation for that in the first reference note. Magnolia#_note-0 --Dara 03:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  245 species? 

message: "The group also found that 5 billion people use traditional plant-based medicine for health care."
I realize that the article says billion, but I'm willing to bet that it's a typo for million. I don't think that "five billion people still rely on traditional plant-based medicine as their primary form of health care," considering that's nearly 5/6 of the world. We can't assume they meant million, so should that bit just be deleted? 63.252.67.60 (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 5 billion people?

message: I've removed the "Danger of Extinction" section for the following reasons: (1) the statements about Yew Trees, Hoodia, and Autumn Crocus are irrelevant in an article about Magnolias, (2) the referenced publication ("Plants for life: Medicinal plant conservation and botanic gardens", published by Botanic Gardens Conservation International) does not contain the quote attributed to that publication, (3) the referenced publication from Botanic Gardens Conservation International does not list Magnolias as being in danger of extinction, but instead lists certain species of Magnolia as "suggested as being of conservation concern", and (4) the percentage of the world's population depending "on traditional medicine for their primary health care needs" is not really relevant to an article about Magnolias (although a statistic showing how many people use Magnolia's for medicinal purposes would be relevant). AtxApril (talk) 15:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danger of Extinction 

message: I changed some of the 'medicinal uses' section.  The references were two dead links (http://www.guangsong-pharm.com.cn/Product/Magnolia.htm and http://www.supplementwatch.com/suplib/supplement.asp?DocId=2096), and looking up those links on an archiving website, they lack any evidence and merely repeat the claims of 'anti-anxiety properties' without any studies cited. 124.180.205.163 (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unverified claims 

message: The USDA explains that the fruit of the magnolia resembles a cone but is of course not a cone, since magnolias are angiosperms. However I think this resemblance may confuse a lot of people and it would be useful to explain that it's a woody aggregate fruit that dehisces, and that the seeds are in arils. Dcoetzee 17:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: More explanation of fruit

message: User 75.100.81.162 on April 21, 2010 "corrected" the statement under subgenus Magnolia which said flowers appear after the leaves. This user claimed common knowledge as the basis for the "correction". In subgenus Magnolia however, flowers do appear after the leaves, or the trees/shrubs are evergreen. Precocious flowering is a treat that occurs mainly in subgenus Yulania. Most of the Magnolia species and hybrids that are planted in Western gardens are in subgenus Yulania or have Yulania parents, which may account for the "common knowledge". It may be that non-precocious flowering in subgenus Magnolia is less-common knowledge but that's no basis to think it is less true. See for instance Figlar & Nooteboom (2004), Notes on Magnoliaceae IV. in: Blumea 49(1): 89, where they state "Mid-late season flowering in non-tropical species" in their description of subgenus Magnolia. The "umbrella Magnolias" (M. tripetala, M. obovata, M. officinalis, M. rostrata, M. fraseri and M. macrophylla are all in subgenus Magnolia and are all deciduous species. They all flower after the leaves have unfolded. The same is true for the species in section Oyama (Magnolia sieboldii, M. sinensis, M. wilsonii and M. globosa). Section Magnolia has only one temperate species (M. virginiana) which is only deciduous in its most Northern locations. It is not a precocious flowering species where it is deciduous. All other section Magnolia species are evergreen. All species in section Talauma of subgenus Magnolia are tropical evergreens. Section Gwillimia of subgenus Magnolia contains only evergreen tropical species. Section Manglietia of subgenus Magnolia is a section with a tropical distribution (only evergreen species). - Wikiklaas (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Precocious flowering 

message: We have a magnolia tree in our front yard. It's been there for a long time, but I don't know the exact age. Today (at about 3:15) it was raining moderately and I saw something I have never seen before: the magnolia was 'bleeding' this frothy bubble liquid from a small hole above the base on the trunk. Like I said, I've never seen it do this before, and I think it had something to do with the rain. I also don't know how that little crack got there or if it was there before. 
The suds were forming a sizable pile at the base, and there seemed to be pools of water around it. Was this a method the tree was using to prevent downing? That wouldn't make much sense though. Anyone know what that was? Is the tree OK? (There was also a small pile of foam on the other side, but no hole for it to come out of.) - M.K. (talk) 19:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foaming Holes? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Magnolia. 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/20130501164724/http://www.new1.dli.ernet.in/data1/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005b76_245.pdf to http://www.new1.dli.ernet.in/data1/upload/insa/INSA_1/20005b76_245.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) 01:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Magnolia. 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/20151223060505/http://www.uvm.edu/~dbarring/241/bernhardt2000.pdf to http://www.uvm.edu/~dbarring/241/bernhardt2000.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) 18:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I just moved these comments as they were at the top of the page wrapping around the template and had no heading. I hope that was OK. Maybe I should have inserted them in date order? Billlion (talk) 11:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments with no header

message: I've added information about a 2020 internal classification of Magnolia, but I'm not sure what to do about the species list, which is still organized according to the now outdated 2012 classification (based on a 2004 one). The 2020 paper doesn't list all the species in its 15 sections. It could be assumed that unless the paper explicitly says otherwise, the species transfer across as per the table comparing the two classifications; however, this is probably WP:SYNTH.
Any ideas, anyone? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  More up-to-date classification 

message: Pardon my ignorance, seems like a spam when going thru the images. Sk7fast (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whats with the stereo images of the Magnolia fruit?