This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Acacia sensu lato article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Also, a fraternity.
With the decision of re-typification of the genus Acacia validated, this page now needs a major cleaning up. Any information not relating to acacia in general or the species actually belonging to Acacia should be moved to the correct genus page. Any legume taxonomists out there in wikispace? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.47.12 ( talk) 16:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
My understanding is that only Australian acacias are to be called that from now on. Is that true?
Several australian species have edible seeds, and several are toxic if eaten in large quantities. It is an ongoing subject of investigation which are which.
I'm trying to identify the tree in this picture. I suspect it's an acacia, but I'm not sure. Does anyone have any idea? Thanks! — Amcaja 19:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't know about that picture, but someone who knows more about trees should see if we can get some good pictures to use.
156.34.181.176 (
talk) 03:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
see Australian Blackwood Paul foord 08:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Helpdesk received an email saying:
If this is true, please correct the image caption. Thank you. -- maru (talk) contribs 20:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
How does on say Acacia? HighInBC 18:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I suggest the creation of the Acacia disambiguation page. Not only is there the tree, but also Acacia Technologies, Acacia Fraternity, and the novel Acacia: The War With The Mein. Such page would help direct people to the the correct entry. I suggest we rename this page Acacia (tree) and then create the Acacia disambiguation page. -- Rick Klaw 17:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Is this what gives it its bite? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.141.136.157 ( talk) 02:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
I believe you are thinking of sasparilla. 69.2.54.228 ( talk) 09:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
According to the USDA website, the range of Acacia in the U.S. extends to Oregon. The other question is whether Oregon is the highest latitude for Acacia in the world, or just for in the U.S.
WriterHound 14:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Highest latitude is probably more interesting than listing both southern and northern most occurences. The species in Oregon is the introduced Acacia dealbata in Coos County ( [3]). There's a decent chance (with apparently a single isolated record) that the species is not naturalized; if that's the case, there may be other Acacias under cultivation even further from the equator. Also, the article currently lists the highest latitude for Acacia as 43 30 South. The highest latitude in Coos County is about 43 35 (North), but I would guess the Acacia there (if naturalized) was found close to Coos Bay (the largest city in the county), which is only at 43 22. Plantdrew ( talk) 15:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Could I suggest the word "may" be added to where it says that chemicals in acacia plants ward of animals and insects? I don't think it is conclusively proven yet.
Could anyone tell.....??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.62.138.24 ( talk) 05:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Does anybody know how old these trees can get? -- Paul Pot ( talk) 21:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
"The life spans of many of these species are not well documented. Estimates of life spans can be inferred
from anecdotal information. A. farnesiana, A. jennerae, A. pendula and A. stenophylla can live 25-50 years. A. salicina is estimated to live 10-15 years and the life span of A. visco is not known. (M. B. Johnson, personal
communication)."
I just reverted the addition of Mimosaceae as a synonym for Fabaceae in the taxobox. I see that some authorities apparently define a family Mimosaceae that is equivalent to the sub-family Mimosoidea of the Fabaceae family in other systems. Unfortunately, WP simply redirects Mimosaceae to Mimosoideae, which made the taxobox entries confusing. I hope that someone familiar with these taxons can sort this out. -- Donald Albury 10:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
See the disambiguation linking guideline here, specifically the sentence which begins, "To link to a disambiguation page..." SlackerMom ( talk) 18:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
(Half the article or so), and probably at this point should be split off to a subarticle with almost all of its photos, leaving a text summary and perhaps on representative photo behind. What do you think? As the longest subsection of the article in an overlong article, which is the one to start with, no? S B H arris 00:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It is currently stated that most species of acacia provide valuable timber. This is nonsense. A large majority of acacia species are shrubs which don't provide valuable timber, except firewood. Probably only a few dozen species are large enough to have usable timber, and that is not "most" of more than a thousand species. Eregli bob ( talk) 00:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded a new photo for Acacia ashbyae (right). Dcoetzee 04:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
based on the following info
on Page 1251 -- 222.64.223.103 ( talk) 10:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
http://jpdb.nihs.go.jp/jp15e/ -- 222.64.223.103 ( talk) 10:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
and German version http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gummi_arabicum -- 222.64.223.103 ( talk) 10:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The chemical listing for this species is wrong. Firstly, all 4 are compleatly different chemicals and each require a huge ammount of chemistry to create. Any chemist will tell you that no known plant could possibly create these together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.222.98 ( talk) 00:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
In The Fatal Shore, Robert Hughes says the early colonists called them wattles because they were so often used in the building of their wattle-and-daub buildings. I reckon it'd be a nice bit of info to be added, but I'm not sure where... Adambrowne666 ( talk) 10:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The lists of tannins, wood densities and psychoactive compounds was waaaay to much detail for a Genus level article. I've moved them to their own separate list pages: List of Acacia species used for timber production, List of Acacia species known to contain psychoactive alkaloids, List of Acacia species used for tannin production. Mark Marathon ( talk) 22:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
This is a discussion that is most relevant for Wikipedia to deal with. The article will fail the purpose of being informative if the fact that applying names to groups consisting of species that comes from several different ancestors is bad practice is ignored. That only monophyletic groups (i.e. groups of descendents from a single ancestor) should be scientifically named is the only way of keeping any information content in the scientific name. If the same name is applied to a polyphyletic group (i.e. a group of descendents from different acestors ignoring some of these ancestors descendents) you can not infer anything by using that name. Eg. applying the criteria of monophyly enables you to infer that an acacia belonging to the genus Acaciella (or Mariosousa) is restricted to the Americas, an acacia belonging to the genus Acacia is most likely an Australian species and is definitely not native to the main African continent. Even the botanists that disapprove of the re-typification embrace the fact that continued use of Acacia in the previous sense is worthless for anything but local floras... 81.224.47.12 ( talk) 18:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
There's a very popular belief in Tasmania (and probably in Victoria also) that burning wattle wood in what's called here a wood heater (like this [4], also sometimes called a "fire box") can damage the wood heater. One source says that it's because the wood burns too hot, another that the wattle wood, when burned, releases or generates something (e.g. creosote) that coats the flue & is a fire hazard. Does anyone know if there's any truth to this? Thanks very much. Ty rS 11:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
For the third time I’ve removed Original Research that makes claims about how widespread acceptance of the new classification scheme is, and whether it is accepted by Kew Gardens.
The reference provided for these claims is nothing but a list of plants currently listed with “Acacia” as one synonym. The same source also lists numerous species, such as Acacia farnesiana, as both Vachellia farnesiana and Acacia farnesiana. The source contains no information that I can see about how widespread acceptance of either scheme is, or whether any scheme is or is not accepted by Kew Gardens.
If I am mistaken, then by all means provide quotes of where in this page we might find material that directly supports the material being presented. If you are unable to do this, then the material is clearly OR.
Note that the material must be directly supported by the source. The claim to date seems to hinge upon the assumption that since Kew lists Acacia as one synonym, that shows a preference. However such an assumption does not constitute direct support for the claims made. Mark Marathon ( talk) 06:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
You still have not shown us which passage on that page directly supportsyour two contentions: that the scheme is not widely accepted and that Kew favours one scheme over the other. Until you are able to do this, the contentions remain unsourced OR and will be removed. Rather than accusing me of hysteria, can you please just quote the passage on that page which tells you that Kew prefers one scheme over the other? Mark Marathon ( talk) 20:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The fact that Kew lists species either as synonyms or "accepted" is very clearly not sufficient. Wikipedia policy is quite unambiguous: all material added must be directly supported by reliable sources or it can be removed. Since you admit the source does not directly support the claims made, I have removed it. Please do not add it again until it can be directly supported by reliable sources, as per Wikipedia policy. Thank you. Mark Marathon ( talk) 21:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
When we see some evidence that directly supports this claim, it can be included. This is not a "sky is blue" claim. It is claim that is not in any sense common knowledge. Mark Marathon ( talk) 07:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
National Geo published this article where they say ants that stay with an acacia feed only on its nectar because drinking it once disables invertase production, preventing them from digesting the sucrose found in other plants' nectar. The acacia's nectar comes with invertase, so the ants stick to it.
I'm not knowledgeable in biology to edit the "Symbiosis" section of the article, but I feel that this fact should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.175.42 ( talk) 16:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
The map is for Acacia not including the segregate genera (Acaciella, Mariosousa, Senegalia, or Vachellia), i.e. Acacia sensu stricto. Despite the ongoing debate about the retypification of Acacia, I feel that the map is appropriate to this article. Allow me to elaborate.
So, unless there is a compelling counter argument to be made, I urge you to retain the range map for Acacia sensu stricto. And, more importantly, please let's discuss this instead of making hasty reverts. Ninjatacoshell ( talk) 22:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Under Phytochemistry in the last sentence of the paragraph on Alkaloids, there is a rather bold claim- "There is some suggestion that the prophet Moses and indeed Mohammed may have ingested some brew made from the plant and thereby entered an alternative state, thereby leading them to believe that they communed with God." I followed the citation link and it's accuracy looks pretty questionable (of course), with very ambiguous evidence for the claim. Clearly this is not scientific and it should be taken out, even though it just says that there is "some suggestion". I'm not an editor so I don't know how to do that, but I figured I should say something. 98.127.128.25 ( talk) 06:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
After browsing the Wikipedia entry for Rodenticide, among the common chemicals was Sodium Fluoroacetate, which was described as a natural product in certain species of Australian Acacia. No mention is made in this article regarding its presence, the problems with cattle getting sick, nor references provided to those studies.
/info/en/?search=Sodium_fluoroacetate#Occurrence Vapur9 ( talk) 18:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page. This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.
This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link. Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.
In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive these pages.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Acacia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
The use of acacia as a fragrance dates back centuries. Dickie birdie ( talk) 21:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Here's the text as added by User:Dickie birdie:The acacia was the plant that grew over the grave of Hiram Abiff (the sprig of Acacia on Hiram's grave is found on all Third Degree Tracing Boards), the central character within Freemasonry who provided some of the builders for King Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem, [1] Craft Lectures, Third Degree, Second Section</ref> also by extension representing the purity and endurance of the soul, and as funerary symbolism signifying resurrection and immortality. [2] Samuel Prichard's Masonry Dissected (page 21, 1730) described how the Master Mason has to swear that "Cassia is my name" during the initiation ritual into that degree. [3]
Let's go piece by piece:
1. The acacia was the plant that grew over the grave of Hiram Abiff (the sprig of Acacia on Hiram's grave is found on all Third Degree Tracing Boards), the central character within Freemasonry who provided some of the builders for King Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem, cited to: http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/MADHAVAN_HiramicLegend.html and "Craft Lectures, Third Degree, Second Section"
First of all, the word acacia does not appear in the Madhavan source, nor do the words "tracing boards". Madhavan is talking about the origins of the legend. He does mention Hiram Abif, however. I will also point out that Pietre-Stones is a non peer-reviewed magazine, and the opinions are those of the authors of the papers. No Masonic scholars rely upon it. I have no idea which "Craft Lectures" are mentioned. If it's a holdover from a botched ref change, Web of Hiram has tons of primary source documents, many of which are extinct - they are there for use, not authority. We also don't reply on primary sources here at WP if we don't have to.
2. "also by extension representing the purity and endurance of the soul, and as funerary symbolism signifying resurrection and immortality." cited to: Albert Gallatin Mackey, Edward L Hawkins, William James Hughan, An encyclopedia of freemasonry and its kindred sciences, comprising the Whole Range of Arts, Sciences and Literature as connected with the Institution (New York London, Masonic History Co. 1912).
If this is an encyclopedia, what entry are we talking about? It's not mentioned, but I guess it's Acacia. The online Mackey entry on Acacia at Phoenixmasonry is lengthy. The words "also by estension" do not appear in that entry. Therefore, the text in the article does not come from there.
3. Samuel Prichard's Masonry Dissected (page 21, 1730) described how the Master Mason has to swear that "Cassia is my name" during the initiation ritual into that degree. cited to Samuel Prichard, Masonry Dissected, page 21 (1730). [5]
Samuel Prichard wrote a purported "exposure" of Masonic ritual (in 1730 in England, wherein there are over 40 Masonic rituals in use today), also available at Phoenixmasonry. He didn't "describe" anything. The pertinent part of the text simply states: "So they cover'd him closely, and as a farther Ornament placed a Sprig of Cassia at the Head of his Grave, and went and acquainted King Solomon." So it didn't grow there, but was placed, contradicting the claim made earlier in the paragraph. " Cassia is my Name, and from a Juft and Perfect Lodge I came." is an answer to a question much later on in the text. It is claimed that that is in the "initiation ritual for the third degree" but it is merely a series of questions and answers with no context. Prichard gives none.
Neither actual usage of sources nor relevance to the article has been demonstrated via these additions. Perhaps using the links above might lend some utility, as long as one keeps in mind that these sources are hundreds of years old and offer no context. Inserting context, therefore, is synthesis. MSJapan ( talk) 05:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
References
Universal. Exists everywhere universally within Freemasonry. Albert Gallatin Mackey is a recognized and respected source on Freemasonry and he just cannot be wrong about the acacia in his Encyclopedia of Freemasonry Dickie birdie ( talk) 09:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Albert G. Mackey described Acacia as "an interesting and important symbol in Freemasonry". Mackey stated that the Acacia symbolised the immortality of the soul, adding that it is said in the funeral service within the Freemasonic Order that "this evergreen is an emblem of our faith in the immortality of the soul. By this we are reminded that we have an immortal part within us, which shall survive the grave, and which shall never, never, never die." Mackey also added, "in the closing sentences of the monitorial lecture of the third degree, the same sentiment is repeated, and we are told that by 'the ever-green and ever-living sprig' the Mason is strengthened 'with confidence and composure to look forward to a blessed immortality'." [1] Mackey also described the Acacia as the "symbol of innocence" because "in the Greek language, [Acacia] signifies both the plant in question and the moral quality of innocence or purity of life." Mackey also identified the Acacia as the symbol of Initiation - concluding that it was the symbol of immortality, of innocence, and of initiation. Mackey lastly observed: "the recollection of the place where the sprig of Acacia was planted - Mount Calvary - the place of sepulture of him who 'brought life and immortality to light,' .../... and remember too, that in the mystery of his death, the wood of the cross takes the place of the Acacia, and in this little and and apparently insignificant symbol, but which is really and truly the most important and significant one in Masonic science, we have a beautiful suggestion of all the mysteries of life and death, of time and eternity, of the present and of the future." [2] Dickie birdie ( talk) 13:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
References
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Acacia sensu lato's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Kyalangalilwa":
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Reference named "rico":
Reference named "Clarke":
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Acacia sensu lato. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Acacia sensu lato. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Acacia sensu lato article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Also, a fraternity.
With the decision of re-typification of the genus Acacia validated, this page now needs a major cleaning up. Any information not relating to acacia in general or the species actually belonging to Acacia should be moved to the correct genus page. Any legume taxonomists out there in wikispace? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.47.12 ( talk) 16:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
My understanding is that only Australian acacias are to be called that from now on. Is that true?
Several australian species have edible seeds, and several are toxic if eaten in large quantities. It is an ongoing subject of investigation which are which.
I'm trying to identify the tree in this picture. I suspect it's an acacia, but I'm not sure. Does anyone have any idea? Thanks! — Amcaja 19:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't know about that picture, but someone who knows more about trees should see if we can get some good pictures to use.
156.34.181.176 (
talk) 03:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
see Australian Blackwood Paul foord 08:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Helpdesk received an email saying:
If this is true, please correct the image caption. Thank you. -- maru (talk) contribs 20:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
How does on say Acacia? HighInBC 18:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
I suggest the creation of the Acacia disambiguation page. Not only is there the tree, but also Acacia Technologies, Acacia Fraternity, and the novel Acacia: The War With The Mein. Such page would help direct people to the the correct entry. I suggest we rename this page Acacia (tree) and then create the Acacia disambiguation page. -- Rick Klaw 17:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Is this what gives it its bite? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.141.136.157 ( talk) 02:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
I believe you are thinking of sasparilla. 69.2.54.228 ( talk) 09:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
According to the USDA website, the range of Acacia in the U.S. extends to Oregon. The other question is whether Oregon is the highest latitude for Acacia in the world, or just for in the U.S.
WriterHound 14:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Highest latitude is probably more interesting than listing both southern and northern most occurences. The species in Oregon is the introduced Acacia dealbata in Coos County ( [3]). There's a decent chance (with apparently a single isolated record) that the species is not naturalized; if that's the case, there may be other Acacias under cultivation even further from the equator. Also, the article currently lists the highest latitude for Acacia as 43 30 South. The highest latitude in Coos County is about 43 35 (North), but I would guess the Acacia there (if naturalized) was found close to Coos Bay (the largest city in the county), which is only at 43 22. Plantdrew ( talk) 15:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Could I suggest the word "may" be added to where it says that chemicals in acacia plants ward of animals and insects? I don't think it is conclusively proven yet.
Could anyone tell.....??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.62.138.24 ( talk) 05:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Does anybody know how old these trees can get? -- Paul Pot ( talk) 21:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
"The life spans of many of these species are not well documented. Estimates of life spans can be inferred
from anecdotal information. A. farnesiana, A. jennerae, A. pendula and A. stenophylla can live 25-50 years. A. salicina is estimated to live 10-15 years and the life span of A. visco is not known. (M. B. Johnson, personal
communication)."
I just reverted the addition of Mimosaceae as a synonym for Fabaceae in the taxobox. I see that some authorities apparently define a family Mimosaceae that is equivalent to the sub-family Mimosoidea of the Fabaceae family in other systems. Unfortunately, WP simply redirects Mimosaceae to Mimosoideae, which made the taxobox entries confusing. I hope that someone familiar with these taxons can sort this out. -- Donald Albury 10:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
See the disambiguation linking guideline here, specifically the sentence which begins, "To link to a disambiguation page..." SlackerMom ( talk) 18:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
(Half the article or so), and probably at this point should be split off to a subarticle with almost all of its photos, leaving a text summary and perhaps on representative photo behind. What do you think? As the longest subsection of the article in an overlong article, which is the one to start with, no? S B H arris 00:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It is currently stated that most species of acacia provide valuable timber. This is nonsense. A large majority of acacia species are shrubs which don't provide valuable timber, except firewood. Probably only a few dozen species are large enough to have usable timber, and that is not "most" of more than a thousand species. Eregli bob ( talk) 00:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Uploaded a new photo for Acacia ashbyae (right). Dcoetzee 04:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
based on the following info
on Page 1251 -- 222.64.223.103 ( talk) 10:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
http://jpdb.nihs.go.jp/jp15e/ -- 222.64.223.103 ( talk) 10:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
and German version http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gummi_arabicum -- 222.64.223.103 ( talk) 10:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
The chemical listing for this species is wrong. Firstly, all 4 are compleatly different chemicals and each require a huge ammount of chemistry to create. Any chemist will tell you that no known plant could possibly create these together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.222.98 ( talk) 00:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
In The Fatal Shore, Robert Hughes says the early colonists called them wattles because they were so often used in the building of their wattle-and-daub buildings. I reckon it'd be a nice bit of info to be added, but I'm not sure where... Adambrowne666 ( talk) 10:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The lists of tannins, wood densities and psychoactive compounds was waaaay to much detail for a Genus level article. I've moved them to their own separate list pages: List of Acacia species used for timber production, List of Acacia species known to contain psychoactive alkaloids, List of Acacia species used for tannin production. Mark Marathon ( talk) 22:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
This is a discussion that is most relevant for Wikipedia to deal with. The article will fail the purpose of being informative if the fact that applying names to groups consisting of species that comes from several different ancestors is bad practice is ignored. That only monophyletic groups (i.e. groups of descendents from a single ancestor) should be scientifically named is the only way of keeping any information content in the scientific name. If the same name is applied to a polyphyletic group (i.e. a group of descendents from different acestors ignoring some of these ancestors descendents) you can not infer anything by using that name. Eg. applying the criteria of monophyly enables you to infer that an acacia belonging to the genus Acaciella (or Mariosousa) is restricted to the Americas, an acacia belonging to the genus Acacia is most likely an Australian species and is definitely not native to the main African continent. Even the botanists that disapprove of the re-typification embrace the fact that continued use of Acacia in the previous sense is worthless for anything but local floras... 81.224.47.12 ( talk) 18:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
There's a very popular belief in Tasmania (and probably in Victoria also) that burning wattle wood in what's called here a wood heater (like this [4], also sometimes called a "fire box") can damage the wood heater. One source says that it's because the wood burns too hot, another that the wattle wood, when burned, releases or generates something (e.g. creosote) that coats the flue & is a fire hazard. Does anyone know if there's any truth to this? Thanks very much. Ty rS 11:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
For the third time I’ve removed Original Research that makes claims about how widespread acceptance of the new classification scheme is, and whether it is accepted by Kew Gardens.
The reference provided for these claims is nothing but a list of plants currently listed with “Acacia” as one synonym. The same source also lists numerous species, such as Acacia farnesiana, as both Vachellia farnesiana and Acacia farnesiana. The source contains no information that I can see about how widespread acceptance of either scheme is, or whether any scheme is or is not accepted by Kew Gardens.
If I am mistaken, then by all means provide quotes of where in this page we might find material that directly supports the material being presented. If you are unable to do this, then the material is clearly OR.
Note that the material must be directly supported by the source. The claim to date seems to hinge upon the assumption that since Kew lists Acacia as one synonym, that shows a preference. However such an assumption does not constitute direct support for the claims made. Mark Marathon ( talk) 06:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
You still have not shown us which passage on that page directly supportsyour two contentions: that the scheme is not widely accepted and that Kew favours one scheme over the other. Until you are able to do this, the contentions remain unsourced OR and will be removed. Rather than accusing me of hysteria, can you please just quote the passage on that page which tells you that Kew prefers one scheme over the other? Mark Marathon ( talk) 20:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
The fact that Kew lists species either as synonyms or "accepted" is very clearly not sufficient. Wikipedia policy is quite unambiguous: all material added must be directly supported by reliable sources or it can be removed. Since you admit the source does not directly support the claims made, I have removed it. Please do not add it again until it can be directly supported by reliable sources, as per Wikipedia policy. Thank you. Mark Marathon ( talk) 21:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
When we see some evidence that directly supports this claim, it can be included. This is not a "sky is blue" claim. It is claim that is not in any sense common knowledge. Mark Marathon ( talk) 07:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
National Geo published this article where they say ants that stay with an acacia feed only on its nectar because drinking it once disables invertase production, preventing them from digesting the sucrose found in other plants' nectar. The acacia's nectar comes with invertase, so the ants stick to it.
I'm not knowledgeable in biology to edit the "Symbiosis" section of the article, but I feel that this fact should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.175.42 ( talk) 16:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
The map is for Acacia not including the segregate genera (Acaciella, Mariosousa, Senegalia, or Vachellia), i.e. Acacia sensu stricto. Despite the ongoing debate about the retypification of Acacia, I feel that the map is appropriate to this article. Allow me to elaborate.
So, unless there is a compelling counter argument to be made, I urge you to retain the range map for Acacia sensu stricto. And, more importantly, please let's discuss this instead of making hasty reverts. Ninjatacoshell ( talk) 22:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Under Phytochemistry in the last sentence of the paragraph on Alkaloids, there is a rather bold claim- "There is some suggestion that the prophet Moses and indeed Mohammed may have ingested some brew made from the plant and thereby entered an alternative state, thereby leading them to believe that they communed with God." I followed the citation link and it's accuracy looks pretty questionable (of course), with very ambiguous evidence for the claim. Clearly this is not scientific and it should be taken out, even though it just says that there is "some suggestion". I'm not an editor so I don't know how to do that, but I figured I should say something. 98.127.128.25 ( talk) 06:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
After browsing the Wikipedia entry for Rodenticide, among the common chemicals was Sodium Fluoroacetate, which was described as a natural product in certain species of Australian Acacia. No mention is made in this article regarding its presence, the problems with cattle getting sick, nor references provided to those studies.
/info/en/?search=Sodium_fluoroacetate#Occurrence Vapur9 ( talk) 18:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page. This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.
This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link. Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.
In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive these pages.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Acacia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
The use of acacia as a fragrance dates back centuries. Dickie birdie ( talk) 21:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Here's the text as added by User:Dickie birdie:The acacia was the plant that grew over the grave of Hiram Abiff (the sprig of Acacia on Hiram's grave is found on all Third Degree Tracing Boards), the central character within Freemasonry who provided some of the builders for King Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem, [1] Craft Lectures, Third Degree, Second Section</ref> also by extension representing the purity and endurance of the soul, and as funerary symbolism signifying resurrection and immortality. [2] Samuel Prichard's Masonry Dissected (page 21, 1730) described how the Master Mason has to swear that "Cassia is my name" during the initiation ritual into that degree. [3]
Let's go piece by piece:
1. The acacia was the plant that grew over the grave of Hiram Abiff (the sprig of Acacia on Hiram's grave is found on all Third Degree Tracing Boards), the central character within Freemasonry who provided some of the builders for King Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem, cited to: http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/MADHAVAN_HiramicLegend.html and "Craft Lectures, Third Degree, Second Section"
First of all, the word acacia does not appear in the Madhavan source, nor do the words "tracing boards". Madhavan is talking about the origins of the legend. He does mention Hiram Abif, however. I will also point out that Pietre-Stones is a non peer-reviewed magazine, and the opinions are those of the authors of the papers. No Masonic scholars rely upon it. I have no idea which "Craft Lectures" are mentioned. If it's a holdover from a botched ref change, Web of Hiram has tons of primary source documents, many of which are extinct - they are there for use, not authority. We also don't reply on primary sources here at WP if we don't have to.
2. "also by extension representing the purity and endurance of the soul, and as funerary symbolism signifying resurrection and immortality." cited to: Albert Gallatin Mackey, Edward L Hawkins, William James Hughan, An encyclopedia of freemasonry and its kindred sciences, comprising the Whole Range of Arts, Sciences and Literature as connected with the Institution (New York London, Masonic History Co. 1912).
If this is an encyclopedia, what entry are we talking about? It's not mentioned, but I guess it's Acacia. The online Mackey entry on Acacia at Phoenixmasonry is lengthy. The words "also by estension" do not appear in that entry. Therefore, the text in the article does not come from there.
3. Samuel Prichard's Masonry Dissected (page 21, 1730) described how the Master Mason has to swear that "Cassia is my name" during the initiation ritual into that degree. cited to Samuel Prichard, Masonry Dissected, page 21 (1730). [5]
Samuel Prichard wrote a purported "exposure" of Masonic ritual (in 1730 in England, wherein there are over 40 Masonic rituals in use today), also available at Phoenixmasonry. He didn't "describe" anything. The pertinent part of the text simply states: "So they cover'd him closely, and as a farther Ornament placed a Sprig of Cassia at the Head of his Grave, and went and acquainted King Solomon." So it didn't grow there, but was placed, contradicting the claim made earlier in the paragraph. " Cassia is my Name, and from a Juft and Perfect Lodge I came." is an answer to a question much later on in the text. It is claimed that that is in the "initiation ritual for the third degree" but it is merely a series of questions and answers with no context. Prichard gives none.
Neither actual usage of sources nor relevance to the article has been demonstrated via these additions. Perhaps using the links above might lend some utility, as long as one keeps in mind that these sources are hundreds of years old and offer no context. Inserting context, therefore, is synthesis. MSJapan ( talk) 05:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
References
Universal. Exists everywhere universally within Freemasonry. Albert Gallatin Mackey is a recognized and respected source on Freemasonry and he just cannot be wrong about the acacia in his Encyclopedia of Freemasonry Dickie birdie ( talk) 09:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Albert G. Mackey described Acacia as "an interesting and important symbol in Freemasonry". Mackey stated that the Acacia symbolised the immortality of the soul, adding that it is said in the funeral service within the Freemasonic Order that "this evergreen is an emblem of our faith in the immortality of the soul. By this we are reminded that we have an immortal part within us, which shall survive the grave, and which shall never, never, never die." Mackey also added, "in the closing sentences of the monitorial lecture of the third degree, the same sentiment is repeated, and we are told that by 'the ever-green and ever-living sprig' the Mason is strengthened 'with confidence and composure to look forward to a blessed immortality'." [1] Mackey also described the Acacia as the "symbol of innocence" because "in the Greek language, [Acacia] signifies both the plant in question and the moral quality of innocence or purity of life." Mackey also identified the Acacia as the symbol of Initiation - concluding that it was the symbol of immortality, of innocence, and of initiation. Mackey lastly observed: "the recollection of the place where the sprig of Acacia was planted - Mount Calvary - the place of sepulture of him who 'brought life and immortality to light,' .../... and remember too, that in the mystery of his death, the wood of the cross takes the place of the Acacia, and in this little and and apparently insignificant symbol, but which is really and truly the most important and significant one in Masonic science, we have a beautiful suggestion of all the mysteries of life and death, of time and eternity, of the present and of the future." [2] Dickie birdie ( talk) 13:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
References
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Acacia sensu lato's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Kyalangalilwa":
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)Reference named "rico":
Reference named "Clarke":
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Acacia sensu lato. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Acacia sensu lato. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)