Talk:Datura innoxia/Archive 1

innoxia vs. inoxia

I changed all the relevant instances of "innoxia" to "inoxia". I left the "nn" spelling in the file names of pictures, and in the sentence that says it "is often cited as Datura innoxia". That sentence really didn't make any sentence when the "nn" spelling was already being used throughout the article (although not in the title). The "nn" spelling is certainly worth mentioning; there are more Google hits for this spelling than for "inoxia". However, every authoritative online reference I've checked (TROPICOS, IPNI, USDA PLANTS, ARS-GRIN) uses the single "n" spelling. Unless somebody can come up with a nomenclaturally authoritative reference for "innoxia", "inoxia" should be the spelling used in the article. 192.104.39.2 (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

-- Taxonomic names can change over time. But without doubt I can say at this moment in time, the species name of this is taxon is definitely "innoxia" not "inoxia". Two major authoritative sources for plant taxonomy agree on this: The Plant List http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/kew-2757799 TROPICOS: http://www.tropicos.org/Name/29600166

The original author of the name (Philip Miller) made a spelling mistake and this has been retrospectively corrected under Article 60.1 of the ICBN http://www.bgbm.org/iapt/nomenclature/code/saintlouis/0065Ch7OaGoNSec1a60.htm see also http://www.tropicos.org/Name/29600687 which explains why "inoxa" is not the accepted name anymore. Metacladistics (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

That's a general statement, but not a specific citation for a name change. The name "inoxia" is used by a specialty books like Preißel, U., & Preissel, H. (1997). Engelstrompeten : Brugmansia und Datura (2., völlig neu gestalt. und erw. Aufl. ed.). Stuttgart: Ulmer. ISBN 3-8001-6614-3 The given source also links to a further says that says "Remarks: as "inoxia"", so the source book used by that website uses it also, apparently. Hekerui (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Hekerui has found one source from an old "speciality book" that calls the species "inoxia". This book is old and is not considered an authoritative source on issues of nomenclature. As I have already mentioned, commonly referred-to taxonomic databases run by knowledgeable academics have the accepted name for this species as "innoxia" at this current time. TROPICOS, The Plant List v1.1, and the Catalogue of Life http://www.catalogueoflife.org/col/details/species/id/f78459611a04e57ef4ee69db20086be1 all have this species as "innoxia" at the moment. Although as I have said before, names do change. At the moment I am extremely confident that the proper accepted name for this species is "innoxia". Perhaps in the 1990s it was "inoxia" but that is not the accepted spelling now. Metacladistics (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

@Metacladistics: This spelling controversy has bothered me for a long time, but until now I hadn't dug into it. I just added a Nomenclature section to the article, which I think might put things to rest. But I'm not an expert on botanical names, etc., so I'd appreciate your looking at it and giving some feedback here. Lou Sander (talk) 15:53, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

@Lou Sander: Thanks Lou. That's an excellent addition to the article and like you say, I think it makes clear the confusion over the name and that yes, there are many instances of it spelt with just one 'n'. I capitalised the genus name Datura but aside from that there was nothing else I changed Metacladistics (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Metacladistics: Note the additional stuff on nomenclature provided by @Nomen ambiguum:. I modified his original edit, hopefully to make things clearer. It's a puzzlement. Lou Sander (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

From the article:

Modern authorities state that the inoxia form literally means "not noxious", which certainly does not seem to apply to the highly poisonous Datura.

This is not in the references given and it really makes no sense. "Inoxia" is simply a misspelling; it's not a separate word. Even if it were, and this was the right interpretation, it would have the same meaning as "innoxia": "not noxious", "inoffensive", etc. "Noxia", meaning "harmful", etc., is the adjective being modified by "in-". If "inoxia" were an actual word, then "in-" would modify "oxia", which is not a Latin word—the closest it would come would be to words (derived from Greek) that refer to oxygen: anoxia, hypoxia, e.g. The next reference by Miller just explains why the species was named "inoffensive". WP Ludicer (talk) 00:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Misleading name? Ornamental varieties?

From what I've read of this wildflower, it's not exactly 'inoffensive'. Swallowing or inhaling this is about as dumb as sucking on a Euphorbia cactus, sap-laced thorns and all. You know, the ones they use to kill fish. Some people are thick as bricks, I guess.  :/ A good question to answer for the article is how often this is grown for ornamental purposes.

"It has also been planted throughout the world as an ornamental plant for its attractive large leaves, large white flowers, and distinctive thorny fruit. However, the plant is now considered an invasive species in several locations. For example, because of the similarity of its life cycle to that of cotton, it is a pest in cotton fields. It is also a potential seed contaminant." This really needs expansion.

2601:1:9280:155:9A9:9FCA:C8D7:C2FA (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2014 (UTC)