Talk:Alliaria petiolata

Self-fertilization does not result in identical offspring

Self-fertilization is really extreme inbreeding. Simply because a plant mates with itself does not imply that progeny must inherit the same genes. The gametes of an individual are not identical, so they can combine in novel ways even in self-fertilization, in this case tending to lead to reduced genetic diversity.

This abstract represents an example in sea anemones. I quote: "However, brooded young of heterozygous individuals were not identical to their parent. but showed 1:2:1 phenotypic segregation ratios consistent with reproduction by self-fertilization." Homozygous individuals would of course be identical in that trait to the parent, since only one particular allele can be inherited. However, heterozygous individuals, upon self-mating, produce the 1:2:1 ratio expected in simple Mendelian inheritance.

This is from what appear to be lecture notes for a class from the University of Connecticut: [1]. Paraphrased: in heterozygous self-fertilization, half the progeny are heterozygous and half are homozygous.

Indeed, Mendel himself used self-fertilization. It can be used to determine whether a line is true breeding or not.

The point is that self-fertilization does not necessarily result in identical offspring. Self-fertilization- is a sexual process, not an asexual one, and therefore the progeny are different.-♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, here is the problem - not all plants or living things are same, so your lecture notes might be true for most life forms but not true in all instantacnes and not in this case particularly. This is true for many of things you learn in school. In the case of this particular plant the offspring are identically in non out-breeding populations. This is what the sources say, I can even confirm this by looking at the plants of this species growing around my part of the world. There are two distinct populations of this plant growing around here, each started from One single plant and all the resulting plants are the same size and the foliage is identically. One population has plants that grow 4 feet tall with no scent to the thick foliage, the other population is 2.5 feet tall and has a strong scent of garlic and thin leaves. These populations produce identical plants from seeds maintaining very homogeneous looking plants. Hardyplants (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If the parent plant is heterozygous at some loci, then the offspring will not all be identical. But, if the parent plant is homozygous (pure-breeding) for all loci, then the progeny will all be identical. Self-fertilization (as a life-style) tends to push breeding lines to fixation of all alleles in the line, at which point the offspring from such plants will all be identical, despite meiosis. As long as there is some outcrossing, this won't happen, but for obligate self-fertilizing plants, sooner or later it will. Though this does not mean that all breeding lines will fix to the same set of alleles, of course. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am looking over some of the lit for this plant and it seems that plants are self pollinating before the flowers open and can out cross when the flowers are open, so you can have a wide mix of different plants produced. I hate to grow more of it but I just might cross the two populations I have here and see what I get. The text could be correct to "say in some cases plants from self pollination are identical" Encycopetey is correct that this is not always going to be the case, as one source says that self pollinated plants can show great genetic diversity. Hardyplants (talk) 03:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} 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 . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Seed pods

The seed pods of this mustard are LONG - the reference gives 1.5 to 2 inches. I have roughly converted this to metric. --Dumarest (talk) 00:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sprouting seed

If I remember correctly, the seed likes to remain dormant until scarified. To speed sprouting let the seed sit for several days on moistened tissue in a closed container. When the seed coat is soft, peel or scrape the coat off carefully. Place the now white seed on wet tissue inside a clear container in the light. Be careful not to bake it in hot sun. Wait for the germination inhibitor to photodegrade. Some seed will sprout soon, some later. My Flatley (talk) 04:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

the box at the bottom of the Alliaria petiolata page places the plant in the Alliaceae family, however it's in the Brassicaceae family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.241.13.212 (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

More pictures

Please improve the article by adding pictures of the low-growing non-flowering first-year form.-96.237.1.158 (talk) 20:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Garlic - Allium - not garlic MUSTARD - Alliaria.

I notice that the article is tagged with 'garlic' and has a table of 'Allium' topics, with types of onion and garlic. Since this plant isn't in the onion family, shouldn't that be changed to the mustard family? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.233.142 (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Seed Pod fruit

Please add photos of the fruit seed-pods.-71.174.185.30 (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
It would also be good to have better photos of what the plant typically looks like, first and second year, growing and flowering.-71.174.185.30 (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alliaria petiolata. 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 http://www.webcitation.org/6VqJ46atN?url=http://www.bsbi.org.uk/BSBIList2007.xls to http://www.bsbi.org.uk/BSBIList2007.xls

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

"Skyut"

The common name "skyut" is actually made-up. This is vandalism. Please remove as soon as possible if found again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:A00:ADC4:5D85:5835:6568:B022 (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Vitamins before discovery?

As of 7 March 2019, the article claims the plant was introduced because of its vitamin content. No date is given but I think "European settlers" probably arrived before vitamins were a concern. IAmNitpicking (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 6 June 2019

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. Consensus is clearly trending against the proposal. bd2412 T 03:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Alliaria petiolata → Garlic mustard – This is absolutely the WP:COMMONNAME. A google news search for "garlic mustard" gives 12,700 results. "alliaria petiolata" gives 307 results. Of the latter articles, every one I checked also used the term "garlic mustard" (usually giving the species name once in parentheses, but using "garlic mustard" elsewhere throughout). Not only is "garlic mustard" more common in journalism, it's more common in the text of the article (Alliaria petiolata) itself. Alliaria petiolata appears only once (in the first sentence), whereas "garlic mustard" appears 13 times in the article. (It's also used in the title of a related article: Garlic mustard as an invasive species).

"Garlic mustard" also wins in an ngram search.

I will concede that the species name appears slightly more often than the common name in scientific papers, according to Google Scholar: 2,130 results for "alliaria petiolata" since 2015, vs. 1,440 results for "garlic mustard". But it's much less lop-sided than the difference in the News corpus. And the latter corpus is arguably more relevant to judging which name will be more WP:RECOGNIZABLE to "someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area". Colin M (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't see that this plant meets the criteria of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora)#Scientific versus vernacular names, which should be the basis of a case to move to the English name. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

First paragraph of WP:NCFLORA (emphasis in original):

The guiding principle of this guideline is to follow usage in reliable sources. In the vast majority of cases, this will be the current scientific name. This is because the vast majority of plants are of academic interest only to botanists, and botanists almost invariably use scientific names in their published works. On the other hand, when a plant is of interest outside botany—for example because it has agricultural, horticultural or cultural importance—then a vernacular name may be more common.

Garlic mustard is of interest outside of botany. It has various culinary uses and it's a common weed (making it of interest to gardeners - I checked this article today specifically because I had found some in my garden). Its status as an invasive species has also been frequently reported in the press. In these contexts, it's always called "garlic mustard" (e.g. CBC, Boston Globe, Toronto Star, New York Times). If we call the article Alliaria petiolata, we are not following usage in reliable sources. Colin M (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, we are certainly following usage in reliable sources, just not the majority usage in e.g. newspapers. I'm not (yet) entirely convinced that the species has agricultural, horticultural or cultural importance, but I'm glad to see that you are now making the case based on the agreed guidelines. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Support. The proposed title is the more common name, and its historical cultivation and culinary usage gives it significance outside of botany, so the move complies with our naming conventions. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose. What problem are we trying to solve here? Scientific names are used as title for 99%+ of articles on plant species. The garlic mustard redirect gets readers to this article just fine. COMMONNAME is a double dip of the WP:CRITERIA RECOGNIZABILITY. Numerous articles on Wikipedia don't use titles that are most recognizable (why is patella not kneecap)? Scientific names for species are an eminently reasonable way to target articles about species. Plantdrew (talk) 05:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • One problem I see is WP:ASTONISHment. A reader searches for "garlic mustard" and finds an article with a bizarre unrecognizable latin name. Sure, they'll figure out what's going on as they read the intro, but I'd still rather spare them the jolt of confusion. As you say, this is closely related to WP:UCRN and WP:RECOGNIZABILITY, but also WP:NATURALNESS. I'm not sure why patella isn't kneecap - if I had to guess, I'd say it was because the article's content all pertains to the field of medicine/anatomy, and medical texts use patella more commonly than kneecap. OTOH, I believe I've demonstrated that across the varied RS coverage of this topic (in contexts botanical, culinary, horticultural, and ecological) garlic mustard is much more common than alliaria petiolata. Colin M (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
    • If, as is the more usual situation, the English name were in bold in the first sentence, there would be no "astonishment". Peter coxhead (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Garlic mustard contains neither garlic nor mustard, so WP:ASTONISH arguments are not exactly valid. There seems to be no reason to change the plant from its scientific name to its nickname._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:20, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • You're gonna hate Egg cream then. More seriously though, I'm not sure I'm following your argument. Are you suggesting someone is going to search for Alliaria petiolata, be taken to an article called Garlic mustard and think 'What the heck? How did I get here, when I know for a fact that Alliaria petiolata contains neither garlic nor mustard!'? I don't think this is a realistic scenario, because I'm pretty confident that the number of English-speakers on Earth who are familiar with the term Alliaria petiolata but not garlic mustard is approximately 0. Even if the commonly recognized name for something is potentially misleading (like Egg cream, or the Hundred Years' War) I don't think it's our place to override RS usage. We go by what things are actually called, not what we think they ought to be called. Colin M (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

NPOV issues in "North America" section

The section on the plant's spread in North America is written in a clearly non-neutral tone, with open criticism of the USDA's Technical Advisory Group and general editorializing in favor of biological control. While these statements may be accurate, they're presented in a clearly unencyclopedic manner. The whole section probably needs some reorganization, anyway - the second and fourth paragraphs state basically the same exact points. Jokullmusic 13:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposal to merge from "Garlic mustard as an invasive species"

I don't see why garlic mustard needs two articles. This information should be incorporated into the article here. Ethan Bass (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Oppose: There is an extensive literature on garlic mustard invasion biology, far beyond what the separate article currently touches on, and it already goes into more detail than would be desirable in an article about the species itself. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 14:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Closing given the absence of support. Klbrain (talk) 12:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Toxicity

I realize the toxicity statements about 100ppm being toxic to may invertebrates is directly from Cipollini et al 2006, but plenty of other places like Taft 2017 call it "traces of cyanide" and clearly the mechanism for introduction was cultivation by humans as an herb.  — Chris Capoccia 💬 13:52, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• Cipollini, Don; Gruner, Bill (19 December 2006). "Cyanide in the Chemical Arsenal of Garlic Mustard, Alliaria petiolata". Journal of Chemical Ecology. 33 (1): 85–94. doi:10.1007/s10886-006-9205-x. PMID 17146719.
• Taft, Dave (11 May 2017). "Garlic Mustard: Evil, Invasive, Delicious". The New York Times.

Wiki Education assignment: Applied Plant Ecology Winter 2024

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 20 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Noodellle (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Warmedforbs (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)