Talk:Cornus canadensis

Fastest Plant Action?

The article currently states that "The bunchberry has the fastest plant action found so far". Looking at Taylor PE et. al. (2006) 'High-speed pollen release in the white mulberry tree, Morus alba L' in the journal Sexual Plant Reproduction (http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=75144776908t3624), it seems that the mulberry is faster. I edited the article accordingly to "The bunchberry has the second fastest plant action found so far" but my change was reverted. I will leave it up to someone who is more knowledegable about plants than me to make the decision whether to restore the edit. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.111.8.104 (talk • contribs) .

How about "The bunchberry exhibits one of the fastest plant actions found yet"? That way it's slightly ambiguous and still more or less correct. I think the person who reverted it simply saw an IP-only contributer who failed to comment about their edit and had a bit of a knee-jerk reaction.

Another thing is that the Rapid plant movement article does not cite the source of its information while this one does, so it wouldn't be a good idea to assume the other article is 100% correct. However, having the two articles conflict with each other isn't all that great either, which is why "one of the fastest" sounds good to me, even if it doesn't explicitly say how fast in relation to other plants. I'm not a botanist nor do I follow any publications or journals relating to the discipline, so perhaps some newer study has been done since the publication cited in this article? — Indi ^{[ talk ]} 14:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

D'oh. I need to sit back and read before I write. It would be best to cite that journal you listed in the Rapid plant movement article. =) — Indi ^{[ talk ]} 15:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Source?

This "experiences 800 times the force of the space shuttle during liftoff" seems a bit incredible. Could someone perhaps find a source for this? 68.48.230.98 05:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

force/acceleration

This article states: "the pollen experiences 800 times the force that the space shuttle does during liftoff."

I don't think "force" is the right word there. Perhaps "acceleration"?

If a tiny amount of pollen absorbed as much force as the space shuttle it would surely ionize.

And while we're inspecting this sentence fragment, "experiences" is a rather strange and vague word. Perhaps it could be worded "the pollen accelerates 800 times more quickly than the space shuttle". Not as impressive sounding... but possibly not so obviously false either.

The fastest living thing

If you compare the Nature (2005) article with the recent Sexual Plant Reproduction (2006) article, the dogwood stamen accelerates and propels pollen into the air. The pollen is subjected to 800 g's, ie. 800 x the force of gravity. Mulberry pollen is subjected to about 1 million g's, but for just millionths of a second, and remains alive. Dogwood pollen reaches a peak velocity of 7 m/s, whereas mulberry pollen is propelled to at least 237 m/s, about Mach 0.72. Thus, the mulberry flower exhibits the fastest recorded movement in the plant kingdom, and rivals peak velocities recorded in the animal kingdom, such as the current record holder (and what is commonly described as the fastest living thing), the peregrine falcon that dives to speeds of 112 m/s, and may theoretically reach speeds of 157 m/s. Abot 700 different plant species related to mulberry (all the Urticaceae, and many of the Moreae) are likely to match the performance of mulberry, but they have not been measured. In the plant kingdom, seeds may be rapidly emitted from the plant, and the sandbox tree, Hura crepitans, proples seeds at up to 70 m/s. The discharge of fungal spores can reach 35 m/s. The striking appendage of the mantis shrimp exhibits motions of up to 23 m/s. The chameleon projects its tongue to speeds of 6 m/s. Also, on a power to weight ratio, the Sexual Plant Reproduction article shows that the mulberry stamen is the strongest living structure yet recorded. Thus, the motion of the dogwood flower is much slower than many other plants and animals.

Dwarf Cornel???

I am assuming that the name 'Canadian dwarf cornel' is a common name somewhere, but not (as far as I'm aware) in Canada. Here, I have only seen it referred to as 'Canada/Canadian bunchberry', or more simply, 'Bunchberry.' I would like to propose to move this article to "Canada Bunchberry," but I'd like to hear some feedback first. --chris 19:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm french-seaker myself, but I can point that Dogwood refer to this and C. Suecica as Dwarf Cornels. Try asking at WP:PLANTS. Circeus 02:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

As an anglo Canadian from the prairies I've never heard it referred to as anything but bunchberryHalogenated 05:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it to the sci name (as C. suecica already is) - MPF 08:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've heard it called "crackerberry" before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.180.107 (talk) 18:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Why such an atypical picture of the berries?

Google images show that they are nearly always bright red. This is misleading.Landroo (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cornus canadensis. 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/20090729210956/http://www.herbier.ulaval.ca/specimens_types/template.php?pid=0006389 to http://www.herbier.ulaval.ca/specimens_types/template.php?pid=0006389

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) 07:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)