Talk:Manilkara zapota

message: The Chicle article deals with the same tree just a different economic use of it. I propose that all content is merged here. Mrs Trellis 21:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose - they are two different species (Manilkara chicle, Manilkara zapota). Related, but not the same - MPF 23:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment - I agree that there are two separate species but both produce sweet edible fruit of similar appearance and taste and both produce gums from the latex sap which are similar in properties. I  have no problem with two separate articles about the two separate species. What is both confusing and wrong is to call one article Sapodilla and the other Chicle, especially when Manilkara chicle is described as  "...a species of sapodilla tree"  . Velela 21:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree on the last point, that should be changed to "a species of Manilkara" - MPF 21:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment - given MPF's objection, since there are three commercially important Manilkara species, each with its own article (we haven't mentioned Balatá here yet, but it belongs), and an article for the genus too, why not merge the three spp. into the Manilkara article as sections and have redirects from the original pages? It would have the added benefit of destubbing the Manilkara page. Kay Dekker 00:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[Chicle]]

message: :Comment - given MPF's objection, since there are three commercially important Manilkara species, each with its own article (we haven't mentioned Balatá here yet, but it belongs), and an article for the genus too, why not merge the three spp. into the Manilkara article as sections and have redirects from the original pages? It would have the added benefit of destubbing the Manilkara page. Kay Dekker 00:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counterproposal: Merge [[Balatá]], [[Chicle]] and [[Sapodilla]] under [[Manilkara]] and destub 

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) 11:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging

message: I cut the following statement, that appeared under "Description":
: In Vietnam, the most famous varieties of sapodilla are grown in Xuân Đỉnh village, Hanoi.
Even if it were supported by a reference, it wouldn't fit well into the article. The information is appreciated, but it would only be relevant if there were similar facts provided about all the other countries where sapodilla is grown, or if it supported a broader section of information about Vietnamese sapodilla production. Dementia13 (talk) 22:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut statement on Vietnamese production 

message: Some of the synonyms listed are also, according to Tropicos, synonyms for Pouteria sapota. I can't understand how this can happen, unless M. zapota and P. sapota are themselves synonymous (but Tropicos has list numerous references that insist that they are not the same). For M. zapota synonyms, see ; for P. sapota synonyms see . Achradelpha mammosa and Pouteria mammosa is listed as a synonyms for both. Tropicos lists Calocarpum mammosum, Lucuma mammosa and Achras mammosa as synonyms for P. sapota only. All 5 of these "mammosa"s share a common Linnean basionym so could be synonyms for both? I'm not really sure what's going on, but I assume the relevant experts have worked it out. Apparently Linnaeus originally distinguished Achras zapota (now Manilkara) from Achras mammosa (now Pouteria sapota). I have no idea why the synonymy is so confused. I'm going to remove all the "mammosa" synonyms listed in this article.Plantdrew (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ARS-GRIN taxonomy makes the situation a little clearer, but without getting into a massive discussion of the taxonomy, it seems safer just not to list the mammosa synonyms (which are variously applied to both Pouteria and Manilkara).Plantdrew (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a better source for synonyms, a database that is building on top of the databases that you list. It is a work in progress, and therefore sometimes doesn't give as much information as we need for wikipedia, but I'd favour it in almost all cases because it continues to be updated and corrected (as do those other databases). That's The Plant List, which gives a definite opinion about where those names belong, here and here. Tropicos tends to give more information than we want, including divergent opinions. GRIN deals only with the plants that the USDA is concerned with. TPL is closer to a definitive consensus opinion that provides a good foundation for what we need here. I think it should be cited in both taxoboxes. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: TPL is a good resource (especially so if you want definite opinions rather than the confusing even-handedness in TROPICOS). I'm not real fond of GRIN (because it's coverage isn't comprehensive), but checked there because that was where the synonym list was drawn from. Go ahead and add some of the synonyms from TPL; I'm still wary of the "mammosa"s though; different authors used this specific epithet in inconsistent ways, and I don't think it can be mapped precisely to either Manilkara or Pouteria without discussing who's sense is being followed. Note that TPL has Calospermum mammosum and Calocarpum mammosum under Manilkara, but all of the variety names within Calospermum/Calocarpum mammosum are under Pouteria (albeit with a 1 star confidence rating from TPL).15:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll make the change. A guess would be that the variety names were created when a botanist realized that what they had didn't look like the type of the species, so they made it a variety, and it has turned out to be the other genus. In any case, if there's a citation attached to the synonym list that should make it easier to check for updates. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synonymy 

message: Saw this sentence in the article: "The fruit has a high latex content and does not ripen until picked."
This is incorrect. The Sapodilla in my garden ripen naturally on their trees - and these fruits are the best tasting, of course!!! There are reasons why we may need to pick unripe fruits in advance -- 1) to ensure they aren't eaten by critters and thieving humans 2) since the ripe ones don't change color on ripening, its not easy to identify whether a fruit has ripened yet or not. Its only the outer skin that sags a bit but this is easily missed.
Further, this sentence had a citation-needed tag: "The sapodilla trees yield fruit twice a year, though flowering may continue year round."
Removed the tag as it appears to be correct.
I've mentioned the changes here in the talk page since somebody not well versed with gardening may unknowingly 'correct' them. Kindly don't.
--Krishvanth (talk) 04:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some characteristics of the fruit 

message: The article says "The seeds are black and resemble beans, with a hook at one end that can catch in the throat if swallowed."  I don't see any such hook,, only a small and shallow crest that cannot snag on flesh, and is unlikely to stop the large seed (1 inch long) if it happens to be swallowed. 179.159.188.37 (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seed hooks? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Manilkara zapota. 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/20111015030054/http://www.eoearth.org/article/Petenes_mangroves?topic=49597 to http://www.eoearth.org/article/Petenes_mangroves?topic=49597
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) 00:01, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified