Talk:Brugmansia/Archives/2020/February

Brugmansia in Sardinia

I took this picture last week: [1] It looks like the Brugmansia lives quite well in Cagliari too.

Cheers G.

Link doesn't allow access to your private file —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.134.16.93 (talk) 21:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

1 more case report, Student cut his penis off while high on this stuff

Here is the link: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-News-Archive/Article/200828512802237

I think the case reports are anedoctal and unnecessary. 71.129.172.169 (talk) 05:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

So, it's recommended for women only. Gzuckier (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

WARNING?

Is a bolded 'warning' section necessary to this article? Many other poisonous plants are common in gardens, and yet they do not have a similar section. Maybe we should add this warning to every plant section, including tomatoes, since as we all know, the leaves contain a toxic alkaloid. Apothecia (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If somebody can find a sourced warning about tomatoes, maybe we should put it in. Brugmansia is toxic enough that one of the authoritative books about it includes a pretty strong warning about eating it or even growing it. That's not something one finds every day. Lou Sander (talk) 03:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, you have a good point. I toned it down a bit by removing the bolding. Lou Sander (talk) 13:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

"Incorrect" common name

I changed the following: "known as Angel's Trumpets, incorrectly sharing that name in the past with the closely related genus Datura, commonly known as "Thorn Apple".". How can a common name be incorrect? If people are calling the plant by that name, then it is de facto correct (would be good to have a citation of the usage though). It may be confusing to call both Musa and Plantago "plantain". Calling a plant which is not in Abies a "Douglas Fir" might be botanically inaccurate. However, as long as people use these names, they are not "incorrect".192.104.39.2 (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Abads1

Abads1, I have reverted your recent edits for mistakes including improper name changes to picture headings, improper use of x hybrid symbol, improperly minimizing toxicity to equal all Solanacea, poor grammer, and superfulous added phrases. Would you consider starting your user page so that we have a place to post messages to you? I would also appreciate if you would identify yourself, since your user name associates you with ABADS, which I am a part of, but I am sure you are not. Normally that wouldn't be a problem, but you have been using your edits to hide sabatoge to links to other brugmansia forums, such as removing the BGI link and changing the Cubits forum link just a little so it wouldn't work. Tom Hulse (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverted more edits by ABADS1. These were designed to sabatoge the Cubits link so it no longer went to the Brugmansia page, and to promote the International Brugmansia Society. Please see the Wiki page on neutrality. Tom Hulse (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Abads1 did it again. Keeps pointing the Cubits page away from Brugmanisa, and to a general page, then saying that he/she was pointing it to Brugmansia. Strange business, IMHO. I reverted it. Lou Sander (talk) 11:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Pollinators

What pollinates these flowers in their native environments? Insects? Bats? This would be useful information to add. Actually I doubt bats as this plant is toxic to mammals. Nutster (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

They're pollinated by moths and hummingbirds, depending on the species. Do you think it would be more appropriate in the articles for each species, or better here also?--Tom Hulse (talk) 03:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

They are also pollinated by bees. The bees become intoxicated and fall to the ground. It appears that most of them recover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.215.115.31 (talk) 23:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Abads1 again

Abads1, I reverted your edits again for vandalism. The worst is sneaking a link to your site, Ibrugs, into the link for every single photo in the gallery section. Also removing/vandalising the link of a competitor (cubits.org), vandalising the link of another competitor (BGI) to minimize their importance next to you, rewording the registration section to make it look like Ibrugs was designated in the ICNCP as Registrar (it wasn't), and also messing up species and cultivar names with improper puctuation & capitalization. If you would only consider honorably joining the discussion and selecting a user name that isn't a fib in itself, instead of sneaking in the background with untruths & sabatoge, you might find the editors here very friendly and it might actually help your site (Ibrugs) much more. Ibrugs is a great site, but you are harming it with your dishonorable actions. Tom Hulse (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I noticed some of the same things earlier today, but didn't revert at that time. All I really saw was the improper linking of all the photos to the Ibrugs web site. I didn't look closely enough at everything to notice the other stuff. I agree with Tom Hulse that iBrugs is a worthy site, and that Abads1 is misbehaving. Perhaps it is due to ignorance rather than a desire to do harm. If so, I join Tom Hulse in inviting Abads1 to take part in this discussion. --Lou Sander (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Major rewrite

I uploaded a major rewrite to the Brugmansia page, so I would welcome your criticisms & comments. I tried to closely follow the Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template, so the sections & headings have changed, and some new ones were added. I've also removed a small amount of content, following recommendations at the Plants template, WP:NOT, and WP:EL. I've added sources for almost every significant claim in the article, but I would of course welcome your opinions regarding their reliability. The Toxicity section is much more serious in showing the harmful effects than it was, and I'm sure some will object to that, but it does IMO reflect the consensus of reliable sources; although it is of course up for discussion. I had hoped to add a comment about the relative safety of growing these as garden ornamentals, but had trouble finding a good source... please let me know if you are aware of one. --Tom Hulse (talk) 09:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Feedback from Casliber

Right -what I'd do....

• Description section needs more info on flower structure, maybe also root system. Any generalisations are good here.

• Taxonomy can be expanded a little - some detail on how different from Datura.

• Distribution and habitat section - geneally plants of poor/rich/acid/alkaline/well-drained/poorly drained soils? Any generalisations helpful. I gather they are a coloniser species..? Similarly with sun-shade - which part of habitat do they grow in, riverbanks? ridges? slopes...? Any biodiversity hotspots where several species occur?

• more on species interactions in ecology. mistletoes, caterpillars etc.

• Do they have fruit or woody seed pods? wind-dispersed? eaten?

Anyway, just some stuff to consider content-wise. Have not checked toxicology for journals etc. yet. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brugmansia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111226190913/http://www.logees.com:80/ftg/Brugmansia.pdf to http://www.logees.com/ftg/Brugmansia.pdf

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: 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) 18:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Fixed the link Darorcilmir (talk) 05:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)