Talk:Cucurbita/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Question about image

I see that a different image has been added to the beginning of this article. It is a pyramid arrangement of several different types of Cucurbita. I would just like to offer my humble opinion that it is not the best image for the beginning of this article. I think the actual fruits are too small to see the shapes clearly. The overall impression is of something decorative, like a vegetable Christmas tree. I think an image that shows several different Cucurbita up close and clearly, but different from the image in Cucurbita#Species, would be the best type of image for the beginning of this article. I also notice that there is no image of any Cucucurbita actually growing on the vine or bush in this article. CorinneSD (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

They are a little hard to see, but I like it for the Thanksgiving and Christmas seasons. It'll be a bit before we have it ready for featured nomination anyway. There is the old painting of Cucurbita fruits on the vine. I've seen few good photos of them on the vine/bush. The picture that was there is a featured picture. HalfGig talk 18:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember what it looked like, but does that mean it can't be used in an article? CorinneSD (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

We are free to put images where we want, for the most part. Personally, I'd like to finish the great copyediting you're doing first. Then do the image review. Have you looked at "culinary uses" and below yet? The best bush/vine image I have found so far is artwork, not a photo. See the image in the taxobox of Cucurbita maxima. HalfGig talk 22:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I have uploaded recently some bush plants, some of them my own work and some of them not, that I think show clearly some features, you may think some of them could be useful in this article. --RoRo (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• 
  Maturing fruit for seeds on a C. pepo "zucchini" bush plant.
• 
  6-leaved bush plant: internodes not enlarging (they enlarge after the 4th leaf in a vine plant).
• 
  6-7-leaved vine plant: internodes enlarging.
• 
  Bush plants in a row: design for improving the time used for harvest.
• 
  Primary shoot in a bush plant: short internodes. Weak little tendrils in this case.
• 
  Bush Cucurbita maxima plant. Maturing fruit for seeds.

I put all the bush plant photos I found on Commons here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cucurbita_bush_plants I don't know exactly what you have in mind about vine photos, I put them here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Cucurbita_vines I hope this helps. --RoRo (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

That's beautiful. I added two of the images at Cucurbita maxima. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

User:HalfGig In answer to your question just above, yes, I believe I finished reading the entire article. I think I may have made a few minor copy-edits in the last few sections but did not have any major concerns. Some of the sections are a bit technical, so I just skimmed those parts. I'm sure Sminthopsis84 will read it through at some point. CorinneSD (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Cucurbita seedling growth and plant sterols

I've removed some material about sterols which said that more study was needed. That work from the 1980s through 1990s has been superceded by work on Arabidopsis that has figured out the genetic control and much more of the chemical transformations involved. Cucurbita was important for a while in those studies, but the tiny plant with the 6-week life cycle has been more informative. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Good catch. HalfGig talk 15:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Dry and sensitive skin

I can't find government or university references for this. I can only find it listed as a product ingredient on sites for cosmetic firms that use it in cosmetics. I'm not sure if these are good enough sources. HalfGig talk 15:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I have found the seed oil in traditional uses, "deserving greater recognition", and in a tested sunblock lotion, these papers are very recent, from 2005 to 2014:

Deserving greater recognition. Review: Korać, R. R., & Khambholja, K. M. (2011). Potential of herbs in skin protection from ultraviolet radiation. Pharmacognosy reviews, 5(10), 164. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3263051/ "Cucurbita pepo (pumpkin) seed oil deserves greater recognition. With a lipid profile containing high levels of linoleic acid (43 – 53%), it contains two classes of antioxidant compounds: Tocopherols and phenolics, which account for 59% of the antioxidant effects. It is especially valued in the healing folklore of Eastern and Central Europe and the Middle East for its nutritious benefits and is used both topically and orally for a range of medical conditions. Due to the strong, rich aroma, it is only used in small proportions in topical formulations." This paragraph citing: Bensouilah J, Buck P, Tisserand R, Avis A. Aromadermatology: Aromatherapy in the Treatment and Care of Common Skin Conditions. Abingdon: Radcliffe Publishing Ltd; 2006.

Scientifically tested for a sunblock lotion (Cucurbita maxima seed oil). Barluado, M. J. G. (2014). Formulation and Sun Protection Factor Estimation of Squash Cucurbita maxima Seeds Sunblock Lotion. UIC Research Journals, 18(2). http://research.uic.edu.ph/ojs/index.php/uicpj/article/download/322/117 "(This) study successfully formulated a gentle, effective, and affordable sunblock lotion using squash seeds as organic active ingredient".

Traditional use. Athar, M., & Nasir, S. M. (2005). Taxonomic perspective of plant species yielding vegetable oils used in cosmetics and skin care products. African journal of biotechnology, 4(1), 36-44. www.academicjournals.org/journal/AJB/article-full-text-pdf/D493C2E9275 "Cucurbita pepo Pumpkin seed oil. The oil from pumpkin seeds has been used across the world as a treatment for sores, ulcers and other skin problems. Its high sterol and vitamins E content makes it ideal for the this purpose."

These references appear on Google Scholar, I don't know the quality of the authors or the journals though. --RoRo (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you RoRo. I added them. On Barluado the URL doesn't work and I can't get a page number though. HalfGig talk 20:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Pre-FAC comments

Some comments that will hopefully help the FAC go smoother. More later ...Sasata (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• ensure that short-form binomials have a non-breaking space to avoid unsightly line breaks
  • Fixed. HalfGig talk 13:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• be consistent with use of the Oxford comma
  • Fixed. HalfGig talk 12:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• ”Used as utensils or vessels, gourds, or bottle-gourds, are native to Africa” fix grammar
  • Fixed. HalfGig talk 22:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not ungrammatical. It started with a participial phrase. But the other version is fine. CorinneSD (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• links: family, iron, pollen
  • Fixed. HalfGig talk 03:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• ”Medical uses of the plant include treating skin conditions and improving visual acuity.” I don’t think eating curcubits for their putative effect on eyesight counts as “medical use”
  • I changed this to "a healthy eye" and added a third reference. Zad68 already looked at this section. He's very good at medical issues and medical references. I would have no issue having him look at this again. HalfGig talk 13:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is acceptable under WP:MEDRS; there's nothing special about cucurbits in relation to healthy eyes but the text insinuates that there is. I'm doubtful that some of the other medical information is sourced to the right standards (I removed a fact that definitely wasn't). Peter coxhead (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't really understand MEDRS, so I defer to those that do understand it. If sources meeting MEDRS can't be found, we should delete it. HalfGig talk 15:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

To make a medical claim, we have to cite recent peer-reviewed scientific papers. There is in vitro ('test tube') evidence that C. moschata seeds have an effect on some parasites 1 and limited tests seem to have been done on other parasites with C. maxima.2. These could be cited to say something very cautious about 'possible pharmacological effects' but they definitely aren't proof of medical usefulness, which is what MEDRS demands. It might be worth asking on the medical wikiproject if they know of better evidence. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

And not just any "recent peer-reviewed scientific papers"; my understanding of WP:MEDRS is that to support medical claims there should be at least one secondary review paper, i.e. a source that reviews primary research sources. I'm personally open to reporting "possible pharmacological effects" and have used wording of this kind in the past, but the MEDRS experts often then raise notability concerns, asking why Wikipedia should report "possible" effects. It's a very tricky area to get right in my experience. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I've asked for more input here. HalfGig talk 12:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• link node (earlier), germination, stamen, ovate-cordage
  • Fixed, stamen is linked at "stamen|staminate". HalfGig talk 03:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• ”with a 911.2 kilograms (2,009 lb) Atlantic Giant pumpkin.” needs to be adjectival (use the parameter adj=on if using a convert template)
  • Fixed. HalfGig talk 22:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• ”Cucurbita moschata acts as the genetic bridge within the genus.” what does this mean?

It's not really in the sense that "genetic bridge" is generally used, to mean that the gene flow is significant. The article says "While there are genetic barriers to hybridization between certain species such as the two xerophytic groups, digitata and foetidissima, both are compatible with C. moschata. Thus, it is possible to construct a genetic bridge between the two xerophytes using moschata as the bridging species, even though to be effective, such a bridge might have to be structured at the polyploid level." I'll reword it a bit. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• the first paragraph of “History and domestication” sounds disjointed and does not flow logically (e.g., why does having 20 pairs of chromosomes belong in this section?)
  • Fixed. HalfGig talk 03:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• the references will have to be gone through with a fine tooth comb for standardize the following:

• author name format (see “Ferriol, María; Picó, Belén” vs. “Millán R”

Fixed. Found three of the type you mentioned on your talk page. HalfGig talk 03:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• consistent title capitalization; I use sentence case for journal articles and title case for books, but it doesn’t really matter as long as it’s consistent throughout

Fixed. I made them all title case. HalfGig talk 12:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• publishers should be removed from journal publications

• done Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• ensure binomials are italicized (e.g. Glycine max)

Fixed. HalfGig talk 03:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Soltis & Soltis is lacking a publication year
  • Fixed. HalfGig talk 22:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

--Sasata 23:16, Thursday September 8 2022 (UTC)

MEDRS query

<waving hello to Sasata!> There was a post at WT:MED asking for help here (I edit medical articles and am a former delegate at WP:FAC). I looked at the Medicinal uses section here, and suggest a review for WP:OVERLINKing (cosmetics for example), and jargon (the disease names in medicinal uses were linked, but I had to go there to get some notion of what we were dealing with. I think MEDRS would require stronger sources for, or at least an examination of what sorts of medical sources are cited in the books for:

• Its seeds are treated with water and used as an anesthetic and to promote lactation in nursing women.

So far a quick search hasn't found more. HalfGig talk 02:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• and high doses of C. ficifolia have been shown to be successful in reducing blood sugar levels.

So far a quick search hasn't found more. HalfGig talk 02:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• This source should not be used at all: "Pumpkin Butter" (PDF). Carleton College. Retrieved November 21, 2013. or at minimum, be prepared to explain what makes her a reliable source (this is self-published). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I cut the butter source. HalfGig talk 02:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

The lactation and blood sugar levels text should probably be removed if you can't find MEDRS-compliant sources for them. It seems that PMID 24564589 is a secondary review, but I am unaware of the quality of the journal, and do not have access to full text. I haven't found anything by searching PubMed for lactation. There are numerous secondary reviews in PubMed that aren't used in the article (which means you have a problem with criterion 1b, comprehensive and 1c, well researched). Do a thorough search of Pubmed ... I find at least PMID 23959481 and PMID 21110905 and PMID 16758316. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Sections

The section structure has growed like Topsy and needs reorg. Phylogeny belongs with Species not (recent human) 'History'. 'Culinary uses' and 'Medicinal uses', along with the current 'Cultural aspects', belong under a heading like 'In human culture', in which case the current 'Cultural aspects' likely needs renaming or reorg - it could be split into 'Festivals' and something like 'Music, art and literature'.

There is also a relationship between 'History and domestication' and the new 'In human culture' section: food use occurs in both, and the history of art is plainly part of the human relationship to the genus. Perhaps the two should at least be side by side at the end of the article; or perhaps they should be fully merged, with history of art in the new 'Music, art and literature' section, and 'Domestication' forming the first subsection of 'In human culture'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been thinking along similar lines. I felt this should be done before we keep working on other remaining issues and have done this. Please review. HalfGig talk 21:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Super. I think we just need a short bit now on festivals from Latin America. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Cultural aspects in Hispanic America

About what HalfGig asked me on my talk page, referring the cultural uses of Cucurbita in Spanish speaking countries, I don't find we have so hilarious uses as Pumpkin chunking, regattas or grotesque lanterns, but just festivals used for exposition of squashes and pumpkins (where people shows their varieties), as in the rest of the world. It looks like Argentina is the only Spanish speaking country where one of the pumpkin festivals is a "National" one, the Fiesta Nacional del Zapallo ("Squashes and Pumpkins National Fest"), the last day they choose the Reina Nacional del Zapallo (the "National Queen of the Pumpkin", suppossed to be the prettiest girl) and there are entertaiment shows for all the family like musical or humor shows or things like that. I have never presenced one, I'm a populated-city girl. Links:

- Listed as one of the "National Fests", during the last week of June, in Ceres (Santa Fe), it has shows for all the family: La Fiesta Nacional. Fiesta Nacional del Zapallo. http://lafiestanacional.com.ar/fiesta-nacional-del-zapallo/

- This year (2014) was the 43th Fiesta Nacional del Zapallo. Newspaper Ceres online. Article on 23/5/2014. "Presentación Oficial. 43º Fiesta Nacional del Zapallo". http://ceresonline.com.ar/2014/05/presentacion-oficial-43o-fiesta-nacional-del-zapallo/#sthash.Wo7kqTt8.dpbs Newspaper El Litoral. Article on 11/6/2014. "Ceres: Presentaron la Fiesta Nacional del Zapallo". http://www.ellitoral.com/index.php/diarios/2014/06/11/regionales/REGI-02.html

Other pumpkin festivals I have found:

-There is a "regional fest" in Córdoba (Argentina). In 2013 was the 13th edition. They choose a Queen also. http://www.rh1hernando.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=13292:la-fiesta-regional-del-zapallo-camino-a-ser-provincial&catid=68:noticias-pagina-principal&Itemid=567

-Adding another regional fest in Balcozna (Catamarca province, Argentina)<ref name="ArgentinaBalcozna">{{cite web |title=Festival del Zapallo en Balcozna|url=http://www.pais24.com/index.php?go=n&id=19501|publisher=País 24|language=Spanish|accessdate=November 22, 2014}}</ref>

-Another one: Colonia Avellaneda (Entre Ríos province, Argentina)<ref name="ArgentinaBalcozna">{{cite web |title=Se realiza hoy la Fiesta del Zapallo|url=http://www.eldiario.com.ar/diario/interes-general/102905-se-realiza-hoy-la-fiesta-del-zapallo.htm|publisher=El Diario|language=Spanish|accessdate=November 22, 2014}}</ref>

- In Peru the Festival del Zapallo de Curibaya (The Squashes and Pumpkins Festival in Curibaya). It is only 7 years old. the 2014 edition is the 7th one. There were competences and they choose the "best" and the "biggest" squash. http://radiouno.pe/noticias/40045/festival-zapallo-trucha-curibaya-se-realizara-plaza-quinonez

As a term, in Argentina we use zapallo ("squash") or cabeza de zapallo ("squash head") to refer to people who can't learn well and is not very intelligent, I think the same use as in Japan or in English, because there is a movie, Memoirs of a Geisha, where the term is used in exactly that way, they use "Pumpkin" as a nickname for a geisha girl that can't learn how to be very elegant and such.

Ref in Argentina: Todo Tango. Diccionario de Lunfardo. "Cabeza de zapallo": Persona bruta. http://dev.todotango.com/spanish/Biblioteca/Lunfardo/Definicion.aspx?l=C&p=cabeza+de+zapallo

If I find anything else I'll ad it here.

Oh and I think you could add to the article the "pumpkin regattas", on Commons there are a few nice photos of the Windsor Pumpkin Regatta (Windsor, Nova Scotia) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Windsor_Pumpkin_Regatta --RoRo (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I'm sure this will help us all to improve the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh I don't know if it is of interest but there is a classic short story from an Argentine writer, "El zapallo que se hizo Cosmos" (the pumpkin that (grew until it) became the cosmos) by Macedonio Fernández, about a squash that started its life in Argentina in a pretty productive place for squashes, and well, it started to grow a bit much. It is fun to read if you are searching for material for practising your Spanish :) Here is a link: Oscar Hahn. 1998. Fundadores del cuento fantástico hispanoamericano: antología comentada. http://books.google.com.ar/books?id=QQeFeFeqHFcC&pg=PA331&lpg=PA331&dq=zapallo+literatura&source=bl&ots=kQYIfvmTdz&sig=XjvS-btmFEncVHc72F75NbjXVqQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pLNvVLq7DcuxsASOsYDACQ&ved=0CGsQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=zapallo%20literatura&f=false --RoRo (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't speak Portugese nor Italian but because they are so similar to Spanish I can understand most of their sentences with a little help of the dictionary, I just added 5 regional festivals in Italy (they are so fans of squash varieties, it looks like each town has a club of "mads about squashes" should I add that they call themselves literally mad, "locos", I forgot you won't understand the text). I'll searh now in Portuguese and French, but probably there are festivals in each region where squash is grown. At least here in Argentina is not so common in the country side to inform people though the web about those regional festivals, but if I find some more I'll add them. Now in alphabetical order :) --RoRo (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you RoRo. This has definitely made the article better. I would leave out anything about the term being used to make fun of people. HalfGig talk 15:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You may not understand the meaning in Italian of the term, 3 of the webpages about squash/pumpkin festivals are made by associations called that way: Associazione Turistica Pro Loco di Piozzo (CN) (something like "Touristic association promoting to become crazy about the city of Piozzo), the other two are Associazione Pro Loco di Venzone (the same about Venzone) and Pro loco di Salzano (the same about Salzano). I'm happy to be of help it's just a little uncomfortable if you don't understand and don't ask. Anyway I'm learning the use of that word in a non-English person sounds pejorative for you. Regards. --RoRo (talk) 17:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Ohhh I'm sorry now I understand you mean "squash head". Ok. --RoRo (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

There are places called "zapallo" or "calabaza" (squash/pumpkin). I don't know if there is an interest in have a list of them. I have found: "Parroquia Zapallo" (Ecuador), "Zapallo Grande" (Ecuador), "Los Zapallos" (Santa Fe province, Argentina), Calabasas (California, USA), "Calabazas" (Guanajuato, Mexico), "Calabazas (San Francisco del Sauce)" (San Luis Potosí state, Mexico), "Calabazas" (Badiraguato, Sinaloa state, Mexico), "Rancho de Calabazas" (Chihuahua, Mexico), "Calabazas de Fuentidueña" (Cuéllar, Spain). --RoRo (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Unclarity about geography

Two geographic statements in combination are a bit confusing: "native to and first cultivated in the Andes and Mesoamerica" and "Many North and Central American species are visited by specialist bee pollinators". Since Central America is a part of North America, but saying North America brings to mind the entire huge continent, could that latter sentence be clarified to "Many Mesoamerican species are visited by specialist bee pollinators", or perhaps can it be said that those species are pollinated by the specialist bees wherever they are cultivated throughout North America (I guess they have spread from Mesoamerica)? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the difference in where this genus arose (Mexico down to northern S. America) and where they were at the time Columbus arrived in 1492 (southern Canada, over to the Eastern N. America Agricultural Complex, to northern S. America). This is laid out in detail in the Hurd ref pages 219-221, currently ref 17, and B. Smith ref several pages, curently ref 88. HalfGig talk 23:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

I suppose that if one thinks of only two continents, Central America looks more like it is part of North America than it is of South America, but I've always heard that only Mexico is part of North America, Central America being seen as a region and as the connector between North America and South America. I've not generally heard that Central America is part of North America. I know I might be wrong about this, and perhaps these distinctions are not important for this article. Just thought I'd mention it. CorinneSD (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Geographicaly, C. America IS part of N. America. Culturally it is part of Latin America. See its own article: "Central America (Spanish: América Central or Centroamérica) is the central geographic region of the Americas. It is the southernmost, isthmian portion of the North American continent," HalfGig talk 00:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Toxins

Hi, you may be interested in adding these papers:

-Cucurbita andreana or Cucurbita maxima subsp. andreana is the wild C. maxima population in Argentina. The paper concludes that cucurbitacins of this species/subspecies have an effect of inhibition of the cellular growth and doesn't have an antiinflamatory effect. - Jayaprakasam B, Seeram NP, Nair MG. 2003. Anticancer and antiinflammatory activities of cucurbitacins from Cucurbita andreana. Cancer Lett. Jan 10;189(1):11-6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12445672

-That same species, Cucurbita andreana, was used in a time in Argentinian medicine and veterinary as a purgative. Because of its toxic effects it was suppressed in 1943 from the Argentinian Codex medicamentarius and in 1968 it wasn't used neither in horses. Ref: Millán R (1968) Observaciones sobre cinco Cucurbitáceas cultivadas o indígenas en la Argentina. Darwiniana 14(4):654–660 http://www.jstor.org/stable/23213812

Regards. --RoRo (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll let Sminthopsis84 decide this one. HalfGig talk 00:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the first article, it seems that the authors used that species for convenience. This article which is heavily cited at cucurbitacin lists where the various cucurbitacins have been found (Cucurbitin A only in Cucumis species, Cucurbitacin B in a lot of Cucurbits, Cucurbitacin C only in Cucumis sativus, ...). I don't know, particularly in view of what happened to Vioxx in 2004, whether their main conclusion is medically useful, that these cucurbitins selectively inhibit COX-2 but not COX-1. The reason for the interest was apparently that many cancers constitutively express COX-2, so stopping their production from that gene would seem to be possibly helpful. So to summarize, I don't think that article would pass the WP:OR test and the fact that it is about that particular species doesn't seem very important.

That second point seems appropriate for the Cucurbita andreana article, I think. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok. You may be interested in checking these two sentences from a book chapter: Tallamy DW, BE Hibbard, TL Clark and JJ Gillespie. 2005. Western Corn Rootworm, Cucurbits and Cucurbitacins. In: S Vidal et al. (eds.) 2005. Western Corn Rootworm: Ecology and Management CAB International. Chapter 4. http://web.missouri.edu/~hibbardb/CV_files/Tallamy%20et%20al%20chap04%20proof.pdf

(p.70-71) "Cucurbitacins are produced in at least some tissues of all members of the Cucurbitaceae (Gibbs 1974, Guha and Sen 1975, Jeffrey 1980) and a few species in other plant families (Curtis and Meade 1971, Pohlman 1975, Dryer and Trousdale 1978, Thorne 1981). In most species they are concentrated in roots and fruits, with lesser amounts in stems and leaves. Because of their extreme bitterness, cucurbitacins are thought to be involved in plant protection against herbivores (Metcalf 1985, Tallamy and Krischik 1989). Nevertheless, cucurbitacins are phagostimulants for both adults (Metcalf et al. 1980) and larvae (DeHeer and Tallamy 1991) of several luperine species in the subtribes Aulacophorina and Diabroticina (Table 4.1) and can have important ecological consequences for plants that possess them (Tallamy and Krischik 1989)." Another one. (p.72) "(Cucurbitacins have) extreme bitternes and ... ability to kill or repel most invertebrate and vertebrate herbivores (David and Vallance 1955, Watt and Breyer-Brandwijk 1962, Nielsen et al. 1977, Tallamy et al. 1997a)."

This one on medical, traditional uses. (p.70) "The biological activity of [cucurbitacins] has been recognized for centuries as a laxative and emetic and in the treatment of malaria, dysentery and dysmenorrhoea (Lavie and Glotter 1971, Halaweish 1987, Miro 1995). More recently, cucurbitacins have received a great deal of attention because of their antitumour properties, differential cytotoxicity towards renal, brain tumour and melanoma cell lines (Cardellina et al. 1990, Fuller et al. 1994); their inhibition of cell adhesion (Musza et al. 1994) and possible antifungal effects (Bar-Nun and Mayer 1989)."

--RoRo (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Other economic? practical? uses

Hi again, I don't find is mentioned in the article the characteristic of the wild Argentinian populations Cucurbita maxima subsp. andreana = Cucurbita andreana of being highly attractive upon the herbivore Diabrotica speciosa, the "Cucurbit Beetle", a plague in Argentina. Contardi (1939) was the first one to notice it and proposed to use it as an attractor in insect tramps. He mentions in that paper that Elmore & Campbell (1936) found the same effect in the system Cucurbita foetidissima and the species Diabrotica soror, D. trivillata, D. balteata, and experimented with diverse systems in order to utilize the gourd in insect tramps. References:

Contardi, GH. 1939. Estudios genéticos en Cucurbita y consideraciones agronómicas. Physis 18:331-347.

Elmore, JC, & Campbell Roy, E. 1936. Journal of Economic Entomology, vol. 29, nº 5.

Because the paper of Contardi is so difficult to obtain I copied exactly the paragraphs where he proposes it, it is in Spanish but at least in electronic and reachable format. --RoRo (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

This 2005 book chapter confirms that at least in 2005 cucurbitacins are used as a lure in insect traps. Tallamy DW, BE Hibbard, TL Clark and JJ Gillespie. 2005. Western Corn Rootworm, Cucurbits and Cucurbitacins. In: S Vidal et al. (eds.) 2005. Western Corn Rootworm: Ecology and Management CAB International. Chapter 4. http://web.missouri.edu/~hibbardb/CV_files/Tallamy%20et%20al%20chap04%20proof.pdf

(p.67) "For more than a century, researchers have noted the curious attraction of adult luperine chrysomelids in the subtribes Diabrocitina and Aulacophorina to cucurbit species rich in the bitter compounds collectivelly called cucurbitacins (Webster 1895, Contardi 1939, Metcalf et al. 1980)". "[Diabrocitina and Aulacophorina] can locate cucurbits over long distances by tracking flower and wound volatiles, and ... cucurbitacins are phagostimulants for Diabroticites that ... cause them to eat anything containing these compounds (Sinha and Krishna 1970, Metcalf et al. 1980)." (p.72) "As discussed above, cucurbitacins are phagostimulants for many luperine adults (Metcalf et al. 1980, Nishida and Fukami 1990, Tallamy et al. 1997b) and larvae (DeHeer and Tallamy 1991)".

(p.67) "Noxious effects on other insects" (Nielsen et al. 1977, Tallamy et al. 1997a)

(p.70-71) "Because of their extreme bitterness, cucurbitacins are thought to be involved in plant protection against herbivores (Metcalf 1985, Tallamy and Krischik 1989). Nevertheless, cucurbitacins are phagostimulants for both adults (Metcalf et al. 1980) and larvae (DeHeer and Tallamy 1991) of several luperine species in the subtribes Aulacophorina and Diabroticina (Table 4.1) and can have important ecological consequences for plants that possess them (Tallamy and Krischik 1989). Adult luperines can detect cucurbitacins in nanogram quantities and readily devour bitter plant material (Metcalf 1994, Tallamy et al. 1998). In addition to WCR, cucurbitacins influence the behaviour of several important crop pests, including Diabrotica balteata LeConte, the banded cucumber beetle, Diabrotica barberi Smith and Lawrence, the northern corn rootworm, Diabrotica undecimpunctata howardi Barber, the southern corn rootworm, and Diabrotica speciosa, a crop pest in Central and South America." Table 4.1 lists the beetles that are phagostimulated by each cucurbitacin analogue found until 2005 (including data unpublished).

Contardi (1939) found the significative attractive effects over cut open fruits of Cucurbita andreana, though in this paper C. maxima floral volatiles are referenced and, sightly modified, signaled as the ones used for insect lures today: (p.81) "Diabrotica spp., in general, have been associated with blossoms of varying Cucurbita spp. (Fronk and Slater 1956, Howe and Rhodes 1976, Bach 1977, Fisher et al. 1984). Andersen and Metcalf (1987)... (found they preferred C. maxima over the other species)" (p.81) "Andersen (1987) identified 22 of the 31 major components of C. maxima floral aroma. Metcalf and Lampman (1991 and references therein) evaluated them for attraction to diabroticite beetles ... Metcalf and Metcalf (1992 and references therein) (developed a 3-component blend as a highly simplified Cucurbita blossom volatile aroma). (p.83) "Metcalf and Metcalf (1992)... added a methoxy group to natural compounds (that) dramatically increased its effectiveness in attracting adult beetles. ... It is these more attractive methoxy analogues of natural compounds which are generally used as lures today".

Finally (p.83-84-85) it mentions some real lures and if they are commercially available, the most effective a new trap developed by Trécé (Salinas, California) containing buffalo gourd root powder. --RoRo (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Bitter skin in "Culinary uses" section

In the "Culinary uses" section it says, without reference: "Although the skins are often bitter". I think this is incorrect. The skin is edible if you cook it enough, for example in the Mexican traditional dessert called "Calabaza en tacha". I have tried this dessert using Argentinian varieties and is edible and tasty. I also cook the squash rind in dog food and they love it. Later in the section it says it's unedible because of the hardiness. I think this is the correct concept. --RoRo (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Added two refs and tweaked wording. HalfGig talk 12:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to insist about this topic. One of the references you added don't refer to the skin but to the whole squash being bitter, something that sometimes happen apparently spontaneously: "Question: Why would cucumbers and squash develop a bitter taste? Answer: This question quickly moved to the top of the stack when my mom recently prepared a “mess” (enough to feed an average family) of squash and they were extremely bitter. When my mom asks me a question she gets an immediate response." I don't have acces to the Chen et al. (2005) paper, ¿do they mention an edible squash with a bitter rind? Because until I know, rind is bitter when meat is bitter. --RoRo (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry again for insist, I have read you changed it for "stems and rinds more bitter than...". It looks like no stems no rinds are edible at maturity because of their bitterness. It is in fact true about stems, that's because only young stems and leaves are edible, but not about the rind. If it is true that skin has more cucurbitacins that the flesh, it is not noticeable by the human taste. That is true in English speaking people with their own varieties also. Check: "I decided, my days of squash wrangling were over. Give me a winter squash whose skin is thin enough to eat, yet which has all the rich flavor of the classic butternut. And, at Stephen’s suggestion, along came the heirloom Cucurbita pepo ‘Delicata’. " http://www.gourmet.com/food/2009/09/delicata-squash Please notice that I don't want to "impose" something I believe just because, it's just that if it is an error it is a big one for people who cooks. --RoRo (talk) 16:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

You are referring to a cooking site, whereas I have university-affiliated site saying what I have in the article. And I/the university site didn't say they aren't edible, it says they tend to be more bitter. That's not the same thing and a university site will trump a cooking site any day. HalfGig talk 16:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Please notice that I'm not doubting about the reliability of the information, I doubt about what people could extract as a conclusion by reading the paragraph the way it is. If you check the "university" (and I know what an University is) paragraphs in order to check the quantitative content of cucurbitacins in stem and skin, you may agree with me that you can't put a mature stem and a mature skin in the same concept as if they had the same cucurbitacins concentration. Please notice too that most of the time I copy "university driven" paragraphs but still people who cooks is the people who... cooks, and taxonomists ask people who cook what is edible and what not. Regards. --RoRo (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Sources for cultivar group versus variety

Currently the page has statements about groups (cultivar groups) that are sourced to papers that talk about varieties. Is it possible to find a consistent taxonomy for each whole species as cultivar groups? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I've changed this to more closely match the refs. Pls review to see if it's now acceptable. As we all know, taxonomies in this area are not consistent. HalfGig talk 12:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be an insoluble problem. Now we have "types" in the wording but that is not Type (biology). Perhaps this is a problem that will eventually be dealt with in citable literature, when the 2009 edition of the ICNCP gets more respect among people who write material for agriculturists and gardeners. It would have been nice to have named cultivar groups. Currently we have in the C. pepo table "Ornamental gourds" as a cultivar group, but that is not an acceptable name under the ICNCP. Perhaps it doesn't have a name. The source of the problem may be that there is no registration authority for Cucurbita, as shown hereSminthopsis84 (talk) 14:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. There is no solid solution to this. As mentioned in the article, there is no standard taxonomy, so I picked one of the accepted ones that made sense to me. HalfGig talk 15:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference, "cultivar groups" group plants, "market types" group fruits as found in the market. According to: Andres, T. C. 2004. Diversity in tropical pumpkin (Cucurbita moschata): a review of infraspecific classifications. In: Progress in Cucurbit Genetics and Breeding Research, Proceedings of Cucurbitaceae 2004, the 8th EUCARPIA Meeting on Cucurbit Genetics and Breeding, A. Lebeda y H. S. Paris, ed., Palacky University, Olomouc, pp. 113-118. : "Cucurbita moschata Duchesne is a highly polymorphic domesticate for which have been presented various infraspecific classifications based on fruit shape, geographic origins, and other characteristics. While there are over 120 named cultivars in North America and Europe, the center of diversity lies in the American tropics in the form of innumerable unnamed landraces. These landraces have not been adequately described and do not readily fit into a scheme of cultivar groups. One cultivated field may contain a landrace with variable fruits that fit into more than one market type or are intermediate between two market types. Furthermore, most geographically defined groups, such as Japonica, are not unique to their eponymous regions, but can be found in the center of the diversity of the species. Until a worldwide, thorough, comparative phenotypic and molecular survey of the species is done to show whether there are distinct groups whithin C. moschata, no formal taxonomic infraspecific classification should be used. Informal classifications of market types at the regional level are useful, however, in organizing and communicating some of the diversity. For example, names of market types available in the U.S.A. are butternut squash, winter crookneck squash, cheese pumpkin, and calabaza pumpkin". The same Cucurbita taxonomist that facilitated me that paper, told me that probably the most accepted classification is that of Robinson and Decker-Walters (1997), they use the cultivar groups classification of Paris (1986) for C. pepo, and a "market type" classification of fruits for C. moschata and C. maxima, the last one based on Castetter (1925). --RoRo (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we'll get away with choosing any one classification; we can't take sides. We'll need to explain what the alternatives are (with a ref for each), and ideally describe the strengths and weaknesses of each of them. If they're not clear, we should say so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the problem: "These landraces have not been adequately described and do not readily fit into a scheme of cultivar groups." The various varietites, cross-breeding, etc make this very difficult. Paris is already in the article by name and a ref. Robinson and D-W 1997 is a ref but not mentioned by name. I think it'd suffice to say, as we already do, that there is no standard and we could add something like "one of the more accepted taxonomies is Robinson...." HalfGig talk 18:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

That was I was trying to say, thank you HalfGig. I'll just add that in cultivars there is no "the one" taxonomy. Check this article of the Code (Brickell et al. 2009): "Art. 3.4. A cultivar, plant or combination thereof that constitutes part of one Group might also be designated as belonging to another Group, should such assignments have a practical purpose. Ex. 10. Solanum tuberosum ‘Desiree’ may be designated part of a Maincrop Group and a Red-skinned Group since both such designations may be practical to buyers of potatoes. It may thus be written Solanum tuberosum (Maincrop Group) ‘Desiree’ in one classification or as Solanum tuberosum (Red-skinned Group) ‘Desiree’ in another, depending on the purpose of the classification used." --RoRo (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is of use here, I have just read that according to Paris et al. (2012) there is a classification of C. pepo "gourds" in: Paris, H. S. 2000. History of the cultivar–groups of Cucurbita pepo. Horticultural Reviews 25(2001):71–170, 4 pl. It divides the ornamental gourds in 3 cultivar groups, in the Table 1 of Paris et al. (2012) they are listed as: Cucurbita pepo subsp. pepo "Round, Smooth-rinded Group" (example 'Orange', descr. "Spherical to oblate with flattened or depressed ends, smooth"); Cucurbita pepo subsp. texana "Oviform, Smooth-rinded Group" (example 'Pear', descr. "Oval to pyriform, smooth"); and Cucurbita pepo subsp. pepo "Warted Group" (example 'Orange Warted', descr: "Spherical, oblate, and others, warted"). --RoRo (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Festivals

I was looking at recent edits to the article and I saw this sentence that Chiswick Chap had moved from one place to another (which was fine). I had seen it about a week ago, too. I am really puzzled by this sentence. It is:

• The large red-orange pumpkins used for Halloween in the United States are C. maxima, not to be confused with the orange type used for jack-o-lanterns, which are C. pepo.

I don't understand what "used for Halloween in the United States" means. Besides not knowing what "used for Halloween" means, I don't understand the mention of two different colors/types of pumpkins related to the celebration of Halloween in the United States. The only things (besides competitions for the largest pumpkin and pumpkin-chucking contests) we do with pumpkins are:

• make pumpkin pie
• put them out on porches and lawns as decoration, and
• take out the seeds and carve them into faces -- I think these are jack-o-lanterns.

However, in my experience, only one kind of pumpkin is used for all three, and it is orange, not reddish-orange. I've never seen a reddish-orange pumpkin used for anything. Perhaps just for decoration, but they're unusual compared to the orange one. CorinneSD (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

If I understand your doubt, it's because there are two different "groups" of cultivars, one for each of the "Halloween" species. I should call them informal Halloween groups, no taxonomist made those formal groups. The difference is for the horticulturist, he normally wants to know with what its plant will intercross and with what not. Check this: "Cucurbita maxima 'Big max'. "These pumpkins are excellent for monster Jack O'Lanterns. This variety is often advertised as being capable of reaching 100 pounds. In my own experience, they have only reached 30 to 50 pounds, but this is still larger than your typical 20 pound Jack O'Lantern. The skin has an excellent colour, a nice bright orange. The flesh of this pumpkin is 3" to 4" thick and thus can be somewhat more difficult to carve in comparison to other pumpkins. Read more: http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/go/56630/#ixzz3Hl6onSyM " http://davesgarden.com/guides/pf/go/56630/

• 
  Cucurbita maxima 'Big Max'
• 
  The biggest Cucurbita pepo looks like this.

I'm not sure if I clarified your question. --RoRo (talk) 19:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but I don't think I've ever even seen the one on the left, the reddish-orange one. That's why I am puzzled by the sentence. The orange ones are ubiquitous here in October, and they come in all sizes and shapes, including round. CorinneSD (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't be of help about that, the literature always mentions the "monster" C. maxima varieties for that, but is also common that literature mentions tiny things in all the reviews until for the readers they become relevant ones. --RoRo (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I've changed this around. Jackolantern/Halloween pumpkins are usually C. pepo var Connecticut Field. The pumpkins used in pie are mostly C. moschata and if you're talk the Libbey's cans, the Dickenson Select variety of C. moschata, used Libbey's grows on farms near Morton, Illinois. HalfGig talk 20:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, ok, so the sentence needs to be turned round, jack-o-lanterns first. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I haven't seen a different kind of pumpkin used for pie because it always comes already prepared in a can. CorinneSD (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

A Dickinson Select looks like this, see caption, it's the photo just below the small orange one. Dickinson's are NOT very orangey. HalfGig talk 01:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow! They're almost yellow. They're just about the same color as butternut squash. CorinneSD (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry again for my.., interruption, taxonomy sources are pretty clear about that (that doesn't means that every person has to agree about the term), canners use different varieties for the puree, "pumpkin pie" it's its name, independently of what squash/pumpkin is used for that. Check:

Robinson & Decker-Walters (1997) p. 77: "Commercially canned pumpkin pie mix may be made of C. pepo, C. maxima or C. moschata. Although C. pepo has a long tradition of use in the USA, fruits of the other two species produce better baked pies. Cultivars of C. moschata and C. maxima are also processed and sold as canned or frozen winter squash. Canners prefer cultivars with an orange rind; if a small piece of the skin is inadvertently included in the canned product, it is less noticeable than with green-fruited cultivars. Orange, carotene-rich fruits of C. maxima that are also fine in texture and flavour are mashed into jarred baby food.".

In 1937 it was the same. Whitaker, Thomas W. & G. W. Bohn. The taxonomy, genetics, production and uses of the cultivated species of Cucurbita. Economic Botany 4(1):52-81. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4251961. : "The large-fruited and heavy-yielding varieties having yellow or light-colored rinds are the most desirable for canning. The green-skinned varieties are more difficult to handle so as to prevent discoloration of the canned product by green tissue that may be missed in removing the rind. To meet the requirements of the commercial canning trade a variety must be a heavy yielder, and the fruits must have flesh of the proper color and texture. Flavor is not an important factor in the selection of canning varieties as it can be controlled to some extent by the canner. Tests made in using different varieties for pie-making show that the flavor is so influenced by spices and other ingredients that the original flavor is not very important where the product is used for pies". This paragraph citing Thompson, R. C. 1937. Production of pumpkins and squashes. U. S. Dept. Agr., Leaf. 141. 8 pp

I have those two at hand but every taxonomist says more or less the same about "pumpkin pie" varieties. Please notice that it's not my interest to "impose" anything, it's just it could be a mistake to call "pumpkin" a particular variety because it is used for canning. Taxonomists could be wrong or not, this is not my thought. --RoRo (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Medical claims

I'm a bit concerned about the medical content in the article. Under Nutrients the article says Pumpkins have anti-diabetic, antioxidant, anticarcinogen, and anti-inflammatory pharmacological properties. This is quite a list of very powerful claims, is the sourcing really strong enough to support it? For example the source for "anti-diabetic" says in the abstract "Various important medicinal properties including anti-diabetic" but the primary sourcing cited is not very strong and the actual section on it concludes with "By considering all these facts, it can be concluded that pumpkin has potential anti-diabetic properties, which may suggest the inclusion of this plant in anti-diabetic regimens to treat human diabetes. However, further studies in detail are warranted to explore the mechanistic and therapeutic potential of pumpkins for diabetes." which is much more heavily qualified than the article content. The sourcing cited talks about what "local healers recommend" and cites animal and in vitro studies, I don't see any human studies at all. What's also important but missing is any kind of correlation between how much must be consumed and in what form, and what kind of health effect might result. Zad68 02:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Zad68 (talk · contribs). Thank you for commenting here. I haven't seen anything with the level of detail mentioned in your last sentence. We can cut the parts you mention. But this leads me to ask: With the medical parts already cut/commented out due to SandyGeorgia's comments above, are people at at FAC going to ask something like "Why isn't there more medical content?" and what could we do about it that will meet MEDRS? HalfGig talk

Well as SandyGeorgia noted the requirements are "comprehensive, well-researched". This doesn't mean you have to include content if there isn't good sourcing for it. If there isn't excellent sourcing available, you should be able to defend that at FAC by noting you did a comprehensive search for high-quality medical sourcing and couldn't find any, if that's the situation. That should get OK's from regulars at FAC who understand the importance of good sourcing.

With that, I'm not saying to remove the content, because it is based on an up-to-date, MEDLINE-indexed review article which checks the (effectively) necessary-but-not-sufficient WP:MEDRS boxes, but rather to reflect the quality of the evidence in the article. It could be more qualified, like "Animal and in vitro experiments suggest that..." Zad68 03:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

HalfGig, I've been too busy to get back here and follow up, but you are in great hands with Zad68 (I agree with what he has posted above, except I haven't actually had time to look at any of the sources, and have only read the abstracts). If/when you go to FAC, please ping me. If I don't respond, please email me (I am not always active). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both. I've added "Animal and in vitro experiments suggest that..." in front of that statement Zad68 noticed. Any other suggestions? I'm sorry I'm having so much trouble with the MEDRS stuff. HalfGig talk 12:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It's plainly greatly improved. You are right to be careful; and Zad68 is right to say we should feel certain a comprehensive search has been done for medical sources before we start FAC, so we (including Zad) can confidently defend whatever claims we choose to go with. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm doing a more careful search and some reading. Just wanting to let you know I'm looking into it. Zad68 02:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@Zad68: Are you still working on this? Just checking. HalfGig talk 13:17, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I got really busy towards the end of December. I intend to return to it but I've been having some time-wasting things happening eating up my Wiki-time. But at this point, please don't wait on me, sorry... Zad68 04:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@Zad68:, I understand. Before you said you were researching. Do you have notes or references you can point us to? HalfGig talk 13:34, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Not really medical

This is not "C. ficifolia is used to make soft and mildly alcoholic drinks.[8] The fruit pulp of some species, such as C. foetidissima, can be used as a soap or detergent,[3][126][127] and buffalo gourd oil, made from Cucurbita foetidissima, was also made into soap.[126]" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Agree. But is it enough to warrant it's own section or should we rename the section to "Medical and other uses"? Or can we merge it into an existing section. HalfGig talk 03:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Made a 'Cosmetics' section, and put the drinks sentence into 'Culinary'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the exact text that supports

"High doses of C. ficifolia have been shown to be reduce blood sugar levels."? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

On page 390 of ref 3 it says "C. ficifolia, has been shown to reduce blood sugar but only with high dosage (Andrade-Cetto and Heinrich 2005)." and here it is in more detail but I can't read the whole article. No access. @Doc James: If you have access that'd be great. HalfGig talk 03:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey HalfGig you can pretty easily find a full-text download of that source just by Googling the title. The source is a 2005 review article from a MEDLINE-indexed journal, but the journal is Journal of Ethnopharmacology and it seems to bridge the subjects of medicine and sociology. That current sentence Doc James identified is probably not supportable by the source, probably need to be qualified as "Herbalists in Mexico use C. ficifolia in the belief that..." Zad68 03:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Reading the source, it's citing test results in animals (rabbits, mice, rats), and only one study in humans is cited. This is generally not considered per WP:MEDRS strong enough make the unqualified claim, I'll adjust. Zad68 03:13, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey Zad68 Thank you! HalfGig talk 04:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Two concerns: 1-the culinary and medical sections are very short, only 2 and 3 sentences respectively. Will this be a problem at FAC? 2-On my computer, the Christmas tree photo sticks down to the end of See Also. HalfGig talk 12:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, the worst that can happen on those fronts is that we're asked to merge sections and move the image up a little: but it's unknowable; and nobody ever got through FAC without making some changes. We're bound to get comments at that level, at least. If that's the sum of concerns, I think we should get on with it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Alternative medicine section

You really can't call a discussion of use in alternate medicine "Medicinal uses". It's questionable whether such things are ever that appropriate, especially when, as here, there's little evidence that any of the uses are particularly widespread.

It's particularly bad when one of the sentences - the one on eye health - was, when I checked not justified by the sources. If you can show me wrong, without using WP:SYNTH, do so here; don't readd this before then. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I just checked the sources for the Traditional Chinese Medicine section. Abstract of http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-73739-8_51 : "It is not officially listed in the Chinese Pharmacopoeia."

So.. it's not actually officially used in traditional Chinese medicine, so has to be deleted, and we're left with a single sentence claim about Mexican herbalists as the only thing to have passed any sort of review so far. I think, at this point, FAC should be a bit embarrassed at their review, but let's let that pass. I don't think there's enough here to even pass muster as a section. We're basically down to "some people think it might improve blood sugar levels" - an incredibly weak claim, not appropriate to an otherwise excellent article. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hold on, the abstract actually says "The seeds of Cucurbita moschata Duch. (Cucurbitaceae) were used originally in traditional Chinese medicine as an ascaricidal agent for treatment of human ascari-asis. It was then found to be active in inhibiting the growth of immature Schistosoma japonicum and was used clinically for treatment of schistosomiasis. It is not officially listed in the Chinese Pharmacopoeia." In other words, Cucurbita seeds have certainly been used in traditional Chinese medicine, even if they aren't any more. This is perfectly mentionable in the article. I agree with you that the section should be called Alternative or Traditional medicine, but if we agree on that then there is no reason at all to remove a cited statement on the seeds. Of course we can discuss the wording of that statement if need be. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so sure: I'd like to see evidence of it being reasonably widespread. I mean, let's face it, I'm not sure I believe a source that claims simple, easy herbal cures of Schistosoma japonicum when http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=cucurbita+Schistosoma+japonicum&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp= shows, at best, a few mouse studies and a screening test back in 1960. Most of the sources making bolder claims are non-MEDRS or borderline MEDRS.

In short, it appears the source is a relatively questionable book source that just happens to be published by Springer, and we need a proper study to push it over MEDRS. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Just a note that in addition to the posting at WP:FN I also asked folks to Wikiproject Medicine to check out the article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and let me just say this here: I think that, in general, this is a very, very good article, and everyone should be praised for their work on it. But, frankly, working with alt-med sources is a specialized skill. It's not hard to find someone making very big claims for any major plant or animal, particularly in books. As such, I don't think my objection here should be taken to criticize anything outside of this short section. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Good of you to say so, thank you. I'm not quite sure, though, why we need to be so picky about MEDRS when the question is just "whether or not some seeds were once historically used in alternative medicine". I think the Springer book is actually easily a good enough mandate for that rather limited and not very medical claim. Bit like saying something was in Dioscorides.Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Quite simply, the sources being used are not evidence for what you want to say. You want to say it was used in traditional chinese medicine for the treatment of two diseases. What you have is apparently a couple dodgy sources that don't show any sort of widespread usage, and even says they are not part of the pharmacopia. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record we/I had THREE MEDRS peoples review this section before the FAC was even filed. These people were Doc J, Sandy Georgia, and Zad68. They made many beneficial edits to that section. Adam, why were you not present then nor at FAC and why is okay for you to unilaterly make these changes all on your own? HalfGig talk 18:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

That's how Wikipedia works, my good fellow. I note that no-one is suggesting the eye health statement be readded, for instance, because it wasn't in the sources. You're basically asrguing that even though one statement wasn't backed by sources, everything should be sacrosanct. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's jacked up, especially the way you went about this. You should started a discussion. I did not say anything about sacrosanct. Delete the article. Take the star away. I really don't care anymore. I'm taking it off my watchlist. HalfGig talk 23:31, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Ditto, taking it off my watch list as well. This battle about MEDRS is totally at odds with what I thought was a very well reasoned discussion at WT:PLANTShere. As HalfGig says below, the article-rating systems are seriously flawed, are a major cause of editor loss, are hurting wikipedia and should be removed. "We first must determine if it's actually in widespread use for each particular altmed to be mentioned" would require WP:OR. That's enough for me, calling it quits. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 06:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It's exceedingly easy to show that pumpkin seeds, for one, are widely used in alternative medicine (just google "pumpkin seeds prostate"). There are primary sources evaluating their use in the treatment of benign prostate enlargement (see the list under "View clinical references ..." here or this article). (Disclosure: they were recommended to me by the consultant at my local NHS hospital.) So it's not a case of "some seeds were once historically used in alternative medicine": they are used currently in alternative medicine and have been the subject of respectable research. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

That should be more than sufficient mandate to restore a suitable statement about their use in alt. med. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

But not to restore discussion of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Indeed, you still haven't given a reliable source that could be used for a prostate treatment. The problem is that every plant has probably been claimed to treat almost anything at some point by some random person. This is a WP:FRINGE issues: While it might well be appropriate in theory to mention alt med, we first must determine if it's actually in widespread use for each particular altmed to be mentioned, as a necessary prerequisite to its inclusion. Otherwise, we may as well just say that Cucurbita is used in, then copy Category:Alternative medicine, under the assumption that someone, somewhere probably used it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

On the subject of whether it should be called ==Medicinal uses==: Modern mainstream medicine doesn't have a trademark on what is, or was, "medicine". Any substance that is taken with the intent to treat a disease or perceived medical condition, no matter how pointless or even harmful it is, is being used "medicinally". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Quite simply, I'm the editor of the Signpost's Featured content section; as such, I have to review and summarize the articles in question. I was reviewing it to write a summary, found that, checked the sources, and was appalled. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Also Sprach Adam. A whole group of editors work on an article for months and one person can come along and undo all by himself on solely his opinion. So much for consensus. So much for collaboration. You didn't even try a discussion at first--just started whacking away. I regret ever having started working on this article. Let's delete the article, then there won't be anything to argue over. What a waste of time this was. I see more and more why wiki has the lousy reputation it does in the real world. HalfGig talk 23:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I think I agree with you about the prostate stuff, and about how little it matters how many MEDRS reviewers lent a hand (very kind of them, they're busy people). The new sources may well be useful, and we should use them, rather than arguing. That will lead to a different alt.med. text, not to the original one. Since the old stuff has become a controversial muddle, I've removed it for now. If we can agree a new form of words based on definite evidence, then we can put something back - I suggest complete with full quotes of exactly what is being claimed by the sources' authors. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Honestly, if we can find a decent source to show that it's a reasonably mainstream usage by any firld of alternative medicine, I'm for including it. I just don't think that bar's been hit yet. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Adam Cuerden I'd like you to step back for a minute and think. You have several professional botanists who have been working on this article for months. You have three people with a medical background review the article. You have a peer review that took weeks and an FAC review which I believe was successful. You have editors who are still willing to make minor changes in response to your concerns but others, the ones who worked the most on the article, are so upset they are considering leaving Wikipedia. Apart from the fact that you made changes to the article after all these reviews without beginning a discussion first and gaining consensus, why do you think that your point of view trumps everyone else's? CorinneSD (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

@CorinneSD: One of the sentences, when I checked the sources, literally had no evidence. There was a claim about eye health, it seemed a little bit of a stretch. I checked. Neither sources listed eyes. They did back Cucurbita having nutrients, but not the claim actually made. I'm sure this is a relic of something added to the article long before they got here. After which, I checked the other sources. They were, at best, questionable.

I'm not against Alt med being included. But an FA is held to the highest standards, and that section, as written, didn't make it. I'm a bit shocked, frankly, that simply pointing out a problem with the evidence being used in a three-sentence section of the article, for which I believe no-one is advocating for one of the three sentences anymore, is considered worthy of this much drama. I expected this to become a discussion, possibly with better evidence being provided. Instead, it became a discussion of whether it was okay to criticize an FA, which, of course, it always is, that's the fundamental premise of Wikipedia. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

There's been a few edits going on and various discussions (some not on content but folks getting hung up on this being a FA), so just for a reoritentation, what exactly is the content that's under dispute right now? I'd say Adam Cuerden has some legitimate concerns. Obviously people put a lot of work into making something an FA, but that does not mean an editor cannot come in with changes as we never consider articles perfect. At this point, it's irrelevant whether this is an FA or not as we're focusing solely on content here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that the text under discussion can be simplified as such:

• Title of the section: "Medicinal uses" is generally taken to imply mainstream medicine, "Use in alternative medicine" is more specific.
• Eye health sentence: I don't think this is under dispute, actually. Quite simply, it was unsupported by sources, which showed it was nutritious, but didn't even mention the word "eye". Pure WP:OR, or, more likely, a dodgy source was removed at some point, and no-one noticed the remaining sources didn't actually back the claims.
• Use in Traditional Chinese Medicine sentence: One source said it was not in the Chinese pharmacopia. There was no particularly good source to show it was ever a common treatment in Chinese medicine, and, indeed, the discussion Sminthopsis84 linked to points out that this sort of source is very dodgy for making such claims.
• Use in Mexican herbal medicine: I'm more-or-less fine with this, actually. The major problem with this is that a single sentence isn't really a stand-alone section, but, perhaps expanded a bit, this probably is a reasonable inclusion.
• Lead statements: it's hard to say, based on what evidence we have, that very weak evidence use in Traditional Chinese Medicine, and being one of 306 species used in Mexican herbal medicine to attempt to treat diabetes] could allow us to say it has an "important" use in medicine. Also, if the TCM use isn't accepted, we're not left with a sourced use for its seeds in alternative medicine in the article.

In short, we can do better. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I remember this being mentioned at the university at some lecture, the seeds being used as wormicide - in Europe, but than that was a lecture. We always had it pointed out at our lectures if a plant had medicinal effects or was used as a medicine, as a rutine part of the botanic studies. I also had a book that stated the same fact, can't acces it right now. I don't really know about the rest. Though, I don't expect Wikiproject:Medicine to know this, try instead Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants or something like that. Hafspajen (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with Adam's assertion that medicinal implies mainstream medicine. In fact, I rarely encounter that word in mainstream medical contexts. It's largely used by herbalists these days. (Check it out for yourself: do a search in Google Books on "medicinal". You'll get a handful of medicinal chemistry textbooks, and dozens and dozens of botanical and herbal books.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Does it matter? Your claim is that it might not be as ambiguous as it could be. "Alternative medicine" is, however, as unambiguous as we're likely to get, unless you prefer "In herbalism". Why risk confusion in the first place? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:04, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants# Fast input requested. Hafspajen (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That's very good of you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, this seems relatively easy then (not seeing where all the fuss is). On the title, I see no issues choosing something other than medicinal uses to be more specific and it seems like a good move. I'd go with folk medicine personally, but alternative is ok. There isn't really that much folk medicine info though, so I'd just lump whatever is included under Cultural uses instead for a section header. I'd agree with eye health/OR statement. No need to mention eye health, and nutrient information is already included. I'd remove the TCM claim since there isn't a source to really support it for now. Herbal usage falls under folk use and seems fine as is. In all honesty, I think the current version [1] with this content removed looks plenty fine and should be good to forward as the FA.

Otherwise, the only addition I could really see at this point is that the acaricide, etc. content could be readded without the TCM claims. It's not even needed in a folk medicine section, but simply that cucurbitine found in pumpkin seeds reduces juvenile blood-fluke survival and reduces the ability of adults to reproduce. [2] Basically this stresses that there's an interesting chemical, but not advocating any medical use. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Scratch that on TCM. The source specifically states (at least related to schistosomiasis, "Various preparations extracted from more than 1000 different Chinese plants, selected serendipitously or intentionally as the drugs had already been used in the Chinese traditional medicinal literature". So, authors are saying the plant was used in TCM. I'll put in a modified piece of content for this bit shortly, but I'll leave the acaricide content out for now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Be careful: I think that's only supported by mouse studies and initial screenings, which fails WP:MEDRS for any actual medical claims based on it. And, y'know. If it's 1000 plants, even if they're all used, that's probably going to get at least some very marginal usages in TCM. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that was carefully crafted to be MEDRS compliant and avoid the issues you were bringing up. The main thing is that we are not saying it is an actual medical treatment prescribed by doctors or science, but instead that there is a compound within that has some properties, nothing more. It is perfectly fine to mention mouse studies exactly as such when secondary sources indicate they have important findings. Per MEDRS though, we need a secondary source to say such studies are important rather than citing the primary study ourselves (we can't determine weight of a primary study as Wikipedians). We also can't extrapolate mouse studies to human health, which we don't do here. As for the 1000 plants bit, we're not commenting on the validity of TCM (it's largely pseudoscience even if they occasionally get something right by chance), but simply that the pumpkin seeds were used in TCM. Nothing more. There are definitely concerns to be had when delving into fringe territory, but they don't particularly apply to the content the way it is currently written, so I'm pretty content now in terms of WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, my issue is, for example, it's hard to find very much of anything that someone hasn't used in homeopathy. But we wouldn't want to add homeopathy to very nearly every plant in existence. So there's certainly a line to draw beyond which the use within the system of alternative medicine is too fringe even within that system to be mentioned. I'm not quite convinced that Cucurbita in TCM is on the right side of the line, given we have a source explicitly saying it's not in the Chinese Pharmacoepia (which, if anything like a Homeopathic Pharmacoepia, can actually be rather important from a legal perspective), and no source saying it ever was in any sort of such list. I would consider not being on such lists a big warning sign that something might be a fringe treatment (that shouldn't be mentioned) within that system of alternative medicine, and would want the section to be quite well sourced to get it.

Also, of course, the blood-fluke survival studies aren't really TCM, are they? It's not like any source is saying that it was used to treat schistosomiasis before that screening.

As for what I'd consider a good source for including it? Well, off-hand, and, obviously, there's going to be a lot of other good sources, Chairman Mao when setting up the barefoot doctors - which I think is pretty much the start of modern TCM - had, I believe, guides for treatments printed up for them to use. If one of those suggested Cucurbita, that would probably be, in itself enough to waive all concerns. Any other unambiguously important guide to TCM would do just as well. But if we're just searching for Cucurbita and "traditional Chinese medicine", we need to be a bit more selective, as we're rather throwing out any result that doesn't list Cucurbita from the start. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Accidentally deleted my first response so quickly; since this was a literature review, that's about as reliable of a source we get. Reviews are what establish weight of an idea, so that's exactly what we'd need in this case. If something was incorrect in the literature review, we'd need another source that says they are not used (which I don't think we'll ever find). We can't really dispute what a literature review like this says without someone basically saying they're wrong. Not being included in other sources doesn't necessarily mean that. That's the double edged sword that comes with literature reviews, so I don't see any changes that would occur at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Can I ask which source you mean? I may be missing something. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This [3]. Now that I'm logged out of my lab computer I realized that it's behind a paywall, so the content I was skimming through can't be seen by other folks if they aren't on a university computer. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That does look like a good source for this, with a bit of care to not go beyond the source in making claims about how widespread it was. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 02:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Some sources on its use in traditional Chinese medicine you might consider using -

• Essentials of Chinese Medicine
• Practical Therapeutics of Traditional Chinese Medicine
• A Practical Dictionary of Chinese Medicine
• The Complete Herbal Guide also mentions its use by American Indians
• Chinese Medicine in Fertility Disorders
• Important Helminth Infections in Southeast Asia some research in the 1950s and 60s.
• Pharmacology and Applications of Chinese Materia Medica, Volume 2 More details here including clinical studies. Hzh (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

As you can see from my edits recently made, your referencing format is atrocious and as CorinneSD points out, the verb tenses in this "improved" section is atrocious. See her talk page. HalfGig talk 21:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

TFA Date

Why is this scheduled for Sep 19? That has no connection of significance to the topic that I know of. Can we get this changed to either Canadian or American Thanksgiving?

ty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.112.128.15 (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent edit

I noticed this edit to Cucurbita: [4]. The sentence is now ungrammatical. I'll leave it to the botanists to fix. Corinne (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I tried a couple of re-writes; what's meant, I think, is that the annuals are mostly mesophytes and the perennials xerophytes. @Corinne: does it read this way now? Peter coxhead (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Peter coxhead Well, at least it's grammatically correct now, and it is clearer. I wanted to ask you about this part of the first sentence:

• Most Cucurbita species are climbing annual vines and mesophytes...

This could be understood as "Most Cucurbita species are either climbing annual vines or mesophytes", or "Most Cucurbita species are a combination of climbing annual vines and mesophytes", with mesophytes being something different from climbing annual vines. To make it absolutely clear that "most Cucurbita species are both, how about this:

• Most Cucurbita species are climbing annual vines; they are also mesophytes, plants which require...

or:

• Most Cucurbita species are climbing annual vines; they are also mesophytes, plants that require...

The rest is O.K. (I wonder why xerophytes grow in tropical areas; it rains a lot in tropical areas. Is it because the perennials grow in the dry season?) – Corinne (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Corinne: sinfully, I had only glanced at the source given for this information (Nee, 1990). Re-reading it, I don't think what was written was quite correct. The source says "Cucurbita has been divided into two groups: (1) the arid zone perennials with storage roots; and (2) the more mesophytic annuals or short-lived perennials without storage roots. ... The five domesticated species of Cucurbita have arisen from the mesophytic group." So:

• One group are mesophytes and annuals or short-lived perennials, the other group are xerophytes.
• The article seems to have interpreted "arid zone" to mean both "xerophytic" and "tropical"; the latter isn't justifiable.
• Nowhere in Nee (1990) can I find support for the idea that most Cucurbita species are mesophytes, only that most or all domesticated species are mesophytes.

So I've re-written this bit as per the source; it's then less paraphrased, which can be a problem with regards to plagiarism. Sigh... See what you think. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

Would question the recent edits made by Zefr - apart from bulldozing a featured article - the removal of material is said to be justified on the grounds that refs are not MEDRS would point out that the article is not part of the WP:Medicine project --Iztwoz (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

@Iztwoz: it's irrelevant that the article as a whole isn't part of WP:MED. If any article makes medical claims, then it's subject to WP:MEDRS – please read it. I haven't checked Zefr's edit in this case, but I've always found his judgement sound on WP:MEDRS-related issues. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cucurbita. 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/20131016003715/http://www.botgard.ucla.edu/html/botanytextbooks/economicbotany/Cucurbita/ to http://www.botgard.ucla.edu/html/botanytextbooks/economicbotany/Cucurbita/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cucurbita. 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/20150924160527/http://www.ars-grin.gov/npgs/cgc_reports/squash95.pdf to http://www.ars-grin.gov/npgs/cgc_reports/squash95.pdf
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130413065928/http://www.prolocovenzone.it/Areas/GeneralInformation/FestaDellaZucca.aspx to http://www.prolocovenzone.it/Areas/GeneralInformation/FestaDellaZucca.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130804165532/http://lafiestanacional.com.ar/fiesta-nacional-del-zapallo/ to http://lafiestanacional.com.ar/fiesta-nacional-del-zapallo/

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).

• 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) 20:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cucurbita. 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/20150924115025/http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/splist.pl?3164 to http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/html/splist.pl?3164
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129042743/http://web.missouri.edu/~hibbardb/CV_files/Tallamy%20et%20al%20chap04%20proof.pdf to http://web.missouri.edu/~hibbardb/CV_files/Tallamy%20et%20al%20chap04%20proof.pdf

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).

• 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) 18:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cucurbita. 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/20140116140049/http://www.hsc.csu.edu.au/agriculture/production/3359/plant_hormones_answers.htm to http://www.hsc.csu.edu.au/agriculture/production/3359/plant_hormones_answers.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141018144126/http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/10/12/smashing-success-crowd-watches-as-pumpkin-dropped-on-old-car--all-for-a-gourd-cause to http://www.calgarysun.com/2014/10/12/smashing-success-crowd-watches-as-pumpkin-dropped-on-old-car--all-for-a-gourd-cause

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).

• 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) 21:09, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cucurbita. 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/20141111011222/http://festivaldaabobora.pt/bem-vindo/ to http://festivaldaabobora.pt/bem-vindo/

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).

• 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) 06:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)