Talk:Solanaceae

message: "The family belongs to the order Solanales, in the asterid group dicotyledons (Magnoliopsida)" - that is either poor and unclear English syntax, or plain wrong.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.94.86 (talk) 12:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Revision needed

message: I was wondering about one of the first sections. That the woody members of Solanaceae is healthy while the herbacious are poisonous. This seems like a rule of thumb which is a bit too broad for Wikipedia in my opinion - as the toxicity of the plants are also largely dependent on the plant part. I am of the opinion that this should be removed. Mordekai wiki (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that statement is complete nonsense, and I have deleted it. Plantsurfer (talk) 16:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

text: Don't know how that slipped in there without anybody catching it. I checked other edits by the same editor and can't be certain it was outright vandalism, but it was certainly wrong. Thanks for the heads-up. MrDarwin 03:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed the entire sentence because the information on Solanales isn't really necessary here--there is a separate Solanales article where that information can be found and where the various circumscriptions of the group are discussed. But adding information on the closest relatives of Solanaceae would certainly be relevant to this article.  You're correct that Boraginaceae doesn't belong in Solanales, but it turns out not to belong in Lamiales either; it seems to be a separate and rather isolated lineage within the Asteridae or asterid clade (see Boraginaceae and Boraginales). There's always a gray area between including information in any particular article that is related but may be duplicated or explained better in a separate article.  I guess the main question to ask yourself is how any new information is directly relevant to the article, and how it will improve it.  MrDarwin 14:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes

message: The Solanaceae are known for possessing a diverse range of alkaloidal glucosides, or simply alkaloids. As far as humans are concerned, these alkaloids can be desirable, toxic, or both, though they presumably evolved because they reduced the tendency of animals to eat the plants.
This seems to imply that "alkaloidal glucoside" is a synonym for "alkaloid" or that all Solanacae alkaloids are glycoalkaloids/alkaloidal glucosides, neither of which is true. None of the alkaloids (atropine, scopolamine, hyoscyamine, nicotine, capsaicin) currently mentioned in the section are glucosides. Solanine is a glycoalkaloid but is only mentioned in the next section.--Eloil 15:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I changed it.  Please feel free to change something of this nature yourself.    KP Botany 03:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It could be trimmed back a bit in places (and better written in many), but I don't really think the length is, on the whole, excessive.  We do want to describe what is notable about each plant family.  I think it might stand out right now because we don't have enough on ecology, cultivation, etc. (see for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template for what might go in a plant article). Kingdon (talk) 04:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alkaloids 

message: Some of the statements in the section on Nutritional information seem rather strange:
"However, the tubers may become toxic if allowed to sprout. Green areas on a potato indicate new growth, which may indicate the presence of chaconine and solanine.
Now correct me if I'm wrong, but don't green areas on potatoes usually indicate exposure to sunlight, which is generally believed to increase levels of toxines? Potatoes, at least in my fridge, often go so far as to sprout visibly, without ever showing green areas. I have never heard of this being connected to toxines, though I rather think I'll try to find out before I peel off the sprouts on another one.
:The whole topic is covered better (and with at least some references) at potato, so that's the place to go into any details.  I've removed the discussion which was here.  If people really think it is important enough to mention (not discuss at length) in the Solanaceae article, I would think it would fit better along with the discussion of the other toxic substances in this family (the previous section), rather than the nutrition section. Kingdon 21:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Useful edit and good catch.  KP Botany 21:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green potatoes 

message: Article makes some bizarre reference to people eating spicy foods (some nightshades) in order to release endorphins.  There is no citation.  A much simpler explanation is that alkaloids act as a preservative by preventing the growth of certain bacterias; that statement is in the first paragraph of the article on spice and already has a citation.  Should remove the unsourced statement regarding endorphins.66.26.82.58 (talk) 15:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous paragraph ("Capsaicin is structurally . . . for its spiciness.") is at least enough detail for this article. In other words, I agree that we should be going into detail in articles like capsaicinoid, chili pepper, Capsicum, etc, not here. Kingdon (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spices as preservatives 

message: I don't currently have time to work it in, but I think that Solanine should be mentioned.  Perhaps in the alkaloid section.  Solanine is quite common in plants of the Solanaceae family, or at least those that we interact with the most, and quite toxic.  I came to this article looking for information about the dangers of consuming plants in the Nightshade family, particularly tomato plants.  If no one else feels like editing it in to the article, I'm going to add it to the See Also section.  -Dirus (talk) 02:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads-up; I added a sentence about it.  If you have a source for which species it is found in, that would be great. I doubt that the three which I listed are the only ones. Kingdon (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solanine 

message: User:160.94.81.90 added info about chromosones, including: "Wild potatoes, of which there are approximately 200, ...". Do  you think 200 refers to species? maybe to cultivars?--NinetyNineFennelSeeds (talk) 22:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be species (see Geographic distribution of wild potato species). That whole section is turning into too much detail for the Solanaceae article.  I'd expand/clarify "a number that has increased due to polyploidy" to something like, "Many species are polyploid, and thus have a number of chromosomes which is a multiple of 12".  Then I'd try to summarize those which are not multiples of 12 like the Capsicum mentioned. Kingdon (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetics

message: can anyone tell me what this plant is? schyler (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  unidentified plant 

message: The article on rosaceae has a subheading on economic importance. For the sake of parity, do you think that there should be a similar sub-heading here? This is obviously a family of angiosperms of great economic significance. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 08:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Economic importance

message: The second paragraph of the introduction attempts to derive the etymology of Solanacea immediately after stating that it's unclear.  I'm not sure why it isn't left at "unclear"... especially since Sunberry redirects to Solanum retroflexum, not the species S. nigrum mentioned in the intro.  In fact the word "sunberry" isn't even mentioned in the entire Solanum nigrum article.
Granted it could still be a plausible source of the Latin word and the original contributor just mixed up the species, but since it's technically incorrect and would constitue OR if I changed it, I'm just going to remove that sentence.  Lime in the Coconut 19:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: So I just removed the reference to S. nigrum and left the rest.Lime in the Coconut 19:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: I'm concerned about copyright issues in the large chunk of material added by translating the Spanish article in this edit.  The material is poorly referenced in the original es:Solanaceae and was largely created by User:EnCASF (= es:User:CASF), who unfortunately has a history of inappropriate use of copyright material (see User talk:EnCASF), some of which has been sorted out in the past by User:Moonriddengirl.
I don't have time to investigate further now, so I'm not making any accusations; I just wanted to raise a concern and suggest that it needs investigating.  At the very least the material needs copy-editing and sources added, since it's currently very poorly sourced. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That would worry me, too,  Peter coxhead. I had a poke at some of the original Spanish text added in 2007, but unfortunately the farther back content is added the more difficult it can be to find original sources. Mirrors get in our way. I have some tricks that help me do this on the English Wikipedia, but they're much, much harder when I'm not fluent in the language. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright concerns 

message: Specifically, what attributes are shared by all Solanacea?  The article declares what some plants in the family share, that they are economically important in many cases, etc., but I find no actual definition.TrevorX2500 (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The circumscription of taxa these days is based on molecular phylogenetics, i.e. evolutionary history as shown by genes. It's often difficult to find actual physical characters shared by a whole family. There should, however, be an account of the phylogeny of the whole family, not just the subfamilies. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:03, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Trevor's main point above is spot on. Even if contemporary classifications are based more on genetic intricacies, there must have been an older reasoning why these were originally categorized together. Nothing in this article explains how this wide variety of plants all came to be classified together. It's a glaring omission and renders most of the full entry useful only to biologists or those with formal biological education. 69.53.80.33 (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition lacking