![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
hi MPF,
My source for teh scottish origin was http://www.crescentbloom.com/Plants/Specimen/SE/Senecio%20jacobaea.htm which generally I found a reliable source.
What source do you have for removing it? TeunSpaans 19:04, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I tend to agree that it does sound unlikely. TeunSpaans 19:14, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I changed the maximum height of Tansy Ragwort to 2 meters. I am the manager of a noxious weed control program on the west coast of Canada and we commonly find plants growing to 2+ meters in height. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.58.93 ( talk • contribs)
Self-explanatory. Bibliomaniac15 00:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The main route of elimination is via the urine, mainly in the form of the parent alkaloid and a small amount in the form of the corresponding N-oxide. A smaller fraction is eliminated in the bile. The bile contains mostly reactive pyrroles and their associated products (Estep et al., 1991). A small portion of senecionine and seneciphylline was found to be eliminated via the respiratory tract (McLean, 1970; Eastman, 1982; Estep et al., 1991) Pyrrolizidine alkaloids (PAs) represent a large group of chemically diverse plant metabolites that share essentially the four necine bases platynecine, retronecine, heliotridine and otonecine. Most of the naturally occurring PAs are esters or N-oxides of these necine bases and more than 6000 plants have been identified as potential sources of PAs,
Falca, before I respond to your considerable response, could I please confirm that I have read the correct reference which you say was written by the scientific panel for the EU. The link I followed in your text led me to a site called ragwort.jakobskruiskruid.com and claims to have been authored by By: Esther Hegt and Pieter B. Pelser (Miami University - Botany department, Oxford, Ohio, USA)
Are you claiming that these authors are the scientific panel for the EU? or have I read the wrong site?
DerekSmith —Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekSmith ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
"To summarize, the available evidence suggests that ingested
toxic pyrrolizidine alkaloids are rapidly metabolized and that the excretion of unchanged alkaloid and of most metabolites is also rapid. Thus, within a few hours, only a relatively small proportion of the dose remains in the body, much of this in the form of metabolites bound to tissue constituents. It appears improbable that a significant amount of unchanged alkaloid will remain in the body after the first day."
pushing isn't acceptable on Wikipedia. The justifications posted above are very tendentious and has just been shown very easily refuted. I also agree about the cinnabar moths. If you tell an entomologist that there is a plague of ragwort because cinnabar moths nearly vanished, they laugh. ( No intention to offend but it is that strange an idea.) Neilj
The correct name is Jacobaea vulgaris I don't know how to change it correct in Wiki. The primary source for the new name Pelser, P. B., Gravendeel, B. & van der Meijden, R., (2002). Tackling speciose genera: species composition and phylogenetic position of Senecio sect. Jacobaea (Asteraceae) based on plastid and nrDNA sequences. Am.J.Bot. 89(6): 929-939 Pelser, P.B., Veldkamp, J.-F. & van der Meijden, R., (2006). New combinations in Jacobaea Mill. (Asteraceae - Senecioneae). Compositae Newsletter 44: 1-11. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falka ( talk • contribs) 21:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 ( talk) 15:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Jacobaea vulgaris → Senecio jacobaea – This plant is generally known scientifically as Senecio jacobaea, including in the most up-to-date and widely used European flora by Clive Stace ( [1]). I can't find any up-to-date use of the name currently used in the article (Jacobaea vulgaris). Richard New Forest ( talk) 10:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I went to check the relative commonness of Jacobaea vulgaris vs Senecio jacobaea in Google's ngram viewer, and found that the former doesn't get any hits (which is surprising, because if one performs a regular Google Books search for it, it does get hits). -sche ( talk) 18:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jacobaea vulgaris. 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) 05:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Jacobaea vulgaris. 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) 17:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Jacobaea vulgaris. 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) 14:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The website ‘Ragwort Facts’ claims to give ‘A UK Scientific Perspective’ on ragwort in the UK. However, the website does not observe proper scientific standards of objectivity. The author of the website, Neil Jones, claims to be a ‘scientifically minded person who loves reason and the study of scientific learning’ but gives no evidence of his scientific qualifications. The ‘Ragwort Facts’ website has not been independently reviewed or refereed therefore its scientific credibility rests entirely on the reputation and scientific credibility of the author, which, in this case, cannot be established. Even a cursory reading shows that the website is highly partisan and devoted to arguments that tend to represent ragwort as relatively benign and harmless to animals. Two examples will suffice:
First. The author claims that The British Horse Society falsely claimed in a 2014 survey that "ragwort is extremely toxic to horses." His argument is that “There is a definition that is used by scientists to identify substances that are "extremely toxic" and it is defined as something where 5 miligrams per a kilogram of body weight or less is lethal. There are one million milligrams in a kilogram so we can say that something that is "extremely toxic" is a substance where 5 millionths of the animal's weight (or less) being ingested is likely to kill it. The reality is that the lethal dose is much closer to 5 percent of the body weight. This is 5 parts in a hundred. This means that the British Horse Society is over estimating the toxicity of ragwort by around the order of ten thousand times!” This is an unscientific argument because the BHS is referring to fresh or dried ragwort whereas, presumably, the scientific definition of toxicity refers to the actual toxins contained in the ragwort, pyrrolizidine alkaloids. The BHS statement is based on a common language definition of toxicity and refers to actual plant consumption by animals whereas the scientific definition of toxicity is based on extracted and purified pyrrolizidine alkaloids. This argument confounds a comparison of the toxic effects of whole plant material with the toxic effects of the purified alkaloid toxin solely to make the spurious claim that the BHS over-estimates the toxicity of ragwort by around the order of ten thousand times. This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and is clearly intended to give the false impression that the toxicity of ragwort is somehow ten thousand times less serious than is generally thought.
Second. The author claims that ‘Ragwort poses no risk to dogs’ and says that dogs do not eat ragwort. This claim is false as all dogs will eat a certain amount of green plant material from time to time, including ragwort (personal observation). The toxic component of ragwort is highly toxic to all mammals, including dogs, therefore, under appropriate circumstances, ragwort can be a serious risk to companion animals. There appears to be little information in the scientific literature about the toxicity of ragwort in dogs but the Dogs Trust list of poisonous plants states that ragwort: ‘Causes kidney failure and liver damage which is irreversible. Minute doses fatal, often wrongly diagnosed’ (i). The known susceptibility of dogs to poisons generally and the likely lack of any natural protective mechanisms against plant toxins is supportive of the Dogs Trust therefore, the claim that ‘Ragwort poses no risk to dogs’ is both irresponsible and dangerous.
Conclusion The ‘Ragwort Facts’ website, far from presenting an objective scientific perspective on ragwort, presents a highly partisan views by a committed entomologist. As illustrated by the two examples, the website gives a highly subjective and misleading view of the evidence and deliberately downplays the dangers of ragwort to livestock and other animals. This website contains much misinformation and is not suitable to be referenced by Wikipedia as a source of objective scientific information. https://www.cdts.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/POISONOUS-SUBSTANCES.pdf NameArbitrary ( talk) 11:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
User:FalkaThe claim that ragwort is toxic to dogs is basically correct. After all, it is poisonous to all animal species, including humans. The question is whether a dog can ingest enough plant material to become acutely ill. I don't know any examples of that either. It also seems unlikely to me because PAs are not fast-acting toxins, unlike many other toxic plant compounds that act directly on the nervous system, heart or intestines. Unless a dog eats whole ragwort plants (and doesn't vomit them right away), the chance of poisoning is estimated to be low. There is no need the remove the link Ragwort Facts, it looks like a personal vendetta because there is also a contact email adres on the website ragwort facts . Don't use wikipidea for vendetta's User:Falka — Preceding undated comment added 08:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
hi MPF,
My source for teh scottish origin was http://www.crescentbloom.com/Plants/Specimen/SE/Senecio%20jacobaea.htm which generally I found a reliable source.
What source do you have for removing it? TeunSpaans 19:04, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
On second thoughts, I tend to agree that it does sound unlikely. TeunSpaans 19:14, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I changed the maximum height of Tansy Ragwort to 2 meters. I am the manager of a noxious weed control program on the west coast of Canada and we commonly find plants growing to 2+ meters in height. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.58.93 ( talk • contribs)
Self-explanatory. Bibliomaniac15 00:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
The main route of elimination is via the urine, mainly in the form of the parent alkaloid and a small amount in the form of the corresponding N-oxide. A smaller fraction is eliminated in the bile. The bile contains mostly reactive pyrroles and their associated products (Estep et al., 1991). A small portion of senecionine and seneciphylline was found to be eliminated via the respiratory tract (McLean, 1970; Eastman, 1982; Estep et al., 1991) Pyrrolizidine alkaloids (PAs) represent a large group of chemically diverse plant metabolites that share essentially the four necine bases platynecine, retronecine, heliotridine and otonecine. Most of the naturally occurring PAs are esters or N-oxides of these necine bases and more than 6000 plants have been identified as potential sources of PAs,
Falca, before I respond to your considerable response, could I please confirm that I have read the correct reference which you say was written by the scientific panel for the EU. The link I followed in your text led me to a site called ragwort.jakobskruiskruid.com and claims to have been authored by By: Esther Hegt and Pieter B. Pelser (Miami University - Botany department, Oxford, Ohio, USA)
Are you claiming that these authors are the scientific panel for the EU? or have I read the wrong site?
DerekSmith —Preceding unsigned comment added by DerekSmith ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
"To summarize, the available evidence suggests that ingested
toxic pyrrolizidine alkaloids are rapidly metabolized and that the excretion of unchanged alkaloid and of most metabolites is also rapid. Thus, within a few hours, only a relatively small proportion of the dose remains in the body, much of this in the form of metabolites bound to tissue constituents. It appears improbable that a significant amount of unchanged alkaloid will remain in the body after the first day."
pushing isn't acceptable on Wikipedia. The justifications posted above are very tendentious and has just been shown very easily refuted. I also agree about the cinnabar moths. If you tell an entomologist that there is a plague of ragwort because cinnabar moths nearly vanished, they laugh. ( No intention to offend but it is that strange an idea.) Neilj
The correct name is Jacobaea vulgaris I don't know how to change it correct in Wiki. The primary source for the new name Pelser, P. B., Gravendeel, B. & van der Meijden, R., (2002). Tackling speciose genera: species composition and phylogenetic position of Senecio sect. Jacobaea (Asteraceae) based on plastid and nrDNA sequences. Am.J.Bot. 89(6): 929-939 Pelser, P.B., Veldkamp, J.-F. & van der Meijden, R., (2006). New combinations in Jacobaea Mill. (Asteraceae - Senecioneae). Compositae Newsletter 44: 1-11. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falka ( talk • contribs) 21:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Jenks24 ( talk) 15:25, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Jacobaea vulgaris → Senecio jacobaea – This plant is generally known scientifically as Senecio jacobaea, including in the most up-to-date and widely used European flora by Clive Stace ( [1]). I can't find any up-to-date use of the name currently used in the article (Jacobaea vulgaris). Richard New Forest ( talk) 10:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I went to check the relative commonness of Jacobaea vulgaris vs Senecio jacobaea in Google's ngram viewer, and found that the former doesn't get any hits (which is surprising, because if one performs a regular Google Books search for it, it does get hits). -sche ( talk) 18:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jacobaea vulgaris. 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) 05:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Jacobaea vulgaris. 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) 17:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Missing or empty |title=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Jacobaea vulgaris. 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) 14:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The website ‘Ragwort Facts’ claims to give ‘A UK Scientific Perspective’ on ragwort in the UK. However, the website does not observe proper scientific standards of objectivity. The author of the website, Neil Jones, claims to be a ‘scientifically minded person who loves reason and the study of scientific learning’ but gives no evidence of his scientific qualifications. The ‘Ragwort Facts’ website has not been independently reviewed or refereed therefore its scientific credibility rests entirely on the reputation and scientific credibility of the author, which, in this case, cannot be established. Even a cursory reading shows that the website is highly partisan and devoted to arguments that tend to represent ragwort as relatively benign and harmless to animals. Two examples will suffice:
First. The author claims that The British Horse Society falsely claimed in a 2014 survey that "ragwort is extremely toxic to horses." His argument is that “There is a definition that is used by scientists to identify substances that are "extremely toxic" and it is defined as something where 5 miligrams per a kilogram of body weight or less is lethal. There are one million milligrams in a kilogram so we can say that something that is "extremely toxic" is a substance where 5 millionths of the animal's weight (or less) being ingested is likely to kill it. The reality is that the lethal dose is much closer to 5 percent of the body weight. This is 5 parts in a hundred. This means that the British Horse Society is over estimating the toxicity of ragwort by around the order of ten thousand times!” This is an unscientific argument because the BHS is referring to fresh or dried ragwort whereas, presumably, the scientific definition of toxicity refers to the actual toxins contained in the ragwort, pyrrolizidine alkaloids. The BHS statement is based on a common language definition of toxicity and refers to actual plant consumption by animals whereas the scientific definition of toxicity is based on extracted and purified pyrrolizidine alkaloids. This argument confounds a comparison of the toxic effects of whole plant material with the toxic effects of the purified alkaloid toxin solely to make the spurious claim that the BHS over-estimates the toxicity of ragwort by around the order of ten thousand times. This is a deliberate attempt to mislead and is clearly intended to give the false impression that the toxicity of ragwort is somehow ten thousand times less serious than is generally thought.
Second. The author claims that ‘Ragwort poses no risk to dogs’ and says that dogs do not eat ragwort. This claim is false as all dogs will eat a certain amount of green plant material from time to time, including ragwort (personal observation). The toxic component of ragwort is highly toxic to all mammals, including dogs, therefore, under appropriate circumstances, ragwort can be a serious risk to companion animals. There appears to be little information in the scientific literature about the toxicity of ragwort in dogs but the Dogs Trust list of poisonous plants states that ragwort: ‘Causes kidney failure and liver damage which is irreversible. Minute doses fatal, often wrongly diagnosed’ (i). The known susceptibility of dogs to poisons generally and the likely lack of any natural protective mechanisms against plant toxins is supportive of the Dogs Trust therefore, the claim that ‘Ragwort poses no risk to dogs’ is both irresponsible and dangerous.
Conclusion The ‘Ragwort Facts’ website, far from presenting an objective scientific perspective on ragwort, presents a highly partisan views by a committed entomologist. As illustrated by the two examples, the website gives a highly subjective and misleading view of the evidence and deliberately downplays the dangers of ragwort to livestock and other animals. This website contains much misinformation and is not suitable to be referenced by Wikipedia as a source of objective scientific information. https://www.cdts.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/POISONOUS-SUBSTANCES.pdf NameArbitrary ( talk) 11:05, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
User:FalkaThe claim that ragwort is toxic to dogs is basically correct. After all, it is poisonous to all animal species, including humans. The question is whether a dog can ingest enough plant material to become acutely ill. I don't know any examples of that either. It also seems unlikely to me because PAs are not fast-acting toxins, unlike many other toxic plant compounds that act directly on the nervous system, heart or intestines. Unless a dog eats whole ragwort plants (and doesn't vomit them right away), the chance of poisoning is estimated to be low. There is no need the remove the link Ragwort Facts, it looks like a personal vendetta because there is also a contact email adres on the website ragwort facts . Don't use wikipidea for vendetta's User:Falka — Preceding undated comment added 08:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)