Talk:Ficaria verna

Celandine image on Wordsworth's grave

It would be useful to have sight of the source of the statement made. None of the images retrieved by Google show anything other than simple text on the grave-stone in Grassmere churchyard. The memorial inside the church appears to have some decoration but nothing resembling a celandine. Unless this statement is verfied, I propose that it is deleted. Velela 16:21, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi,

My source for this information was Flora Britannica by Richard Mabey (p 49). The book refers to his "monument at Grasmere" and also his "tomb in the Lakes". Turns out that the image is not on his tombstone in the graveyard but on a memorial plaque inside the church of St. Oswald in Grasmere. Here's a picture of it:

http://www.artandarchitecture.org.uk/images/conway/77a86c67.html?ixsid=UQ3TqS9Evl1

There's a daffodil on the left and, sure enough, a greater celandine on the right.

Will update the article. Thanks for pointing this out.

Ramin

Weeds

I have changed the term used in the text, describing the lesser celandine as a "weed". Please define the term when using it of this plant. As far as I am concerned ,it is a welcome harbinger of spring and not a weed at all. I am deliberately encouraging this lovely plant in my own garden. 86.158.177.52 (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think the term "weed" should only ever be used in sentences such as "...it is regarded as a weed of agriculture in country x where it it is troublesome in fields of Y". A plant is never just a weed especially in areas where it is native and part of the expected flora. This usage is confirmed in the opening paragraph of Weed. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with this change. It is a well-known fact that the same plant can be seen as both a desirable garden plant and an undesirable weed by different people. Consider, for example, dandelions, which were brought to North America as a source of food, and have become a noxious weed, at least in the more temperate areas where they grow well, for example in my area of the US. Dandelions are less likely to be considered a weed in Arizona, where they are less able to invade due to the dryness of the climate. Being called a weed is not an absolute judgement against a plant, and the article, before you removed the word weed, acknowledged this fact by saying that the plant is "seen as a ... weed". It did not say "is always a weed in every situation" or "is not ever a desirable garden plant or wildflower" or "is never liked by anyone". By saying "seen as", it acknowledges that this is an opinion of certain people, and other people's opinion may be different. It is certainly true that it is seen as a weed by some people, and therefore the original wording should not have been changed. I understand that your personal opinion of this plant is that it is desirable, and I am inclined to like it when I see it as well, but Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect not only our personal opinions, but also those of other people, especially opinions that can be found in reliable sources. — Eru·tuon 21:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with the change. Reading this 2 years later I'm surprised the word "weed" was r, and by an unregistered user at that. that. This is a highly aggressive, invasive pest plant in it's non-native range. I believe references to this plant as a weed should be re-added to the article. I'm also wondering why this article is not titled after it's scientific name as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora). --MCEllis (talk) 04:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the word "weed" from the page was an unjustified action. The word adds factual information to the page, especially considering the number of peer-reviewed articles in the world across several continents, including in it's native range that describe this species as weed. I have re-added it to the article along with other updates.--MCEllis (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A weed is a plant in the wrong place.Osborne 15:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Celandine phenology

"It was said" by whom?? The first part of the OED's claim is approximately correct - celandines do flower in April/May, about the time the swallows arrive, but the second claim, that they fade when the swallows depart is nonsense. The duration of flowering is about 35 days, done by end of May, while the swallows remain all summer, not departing until September/October. Wikipedia is obliged to use sourced material, but is not obliged to quote sources which are clearly in error. OED are specialists in English language but not in biological science.Plantsurfer 09:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I've moved the etymology to Chelidonium (greater celandine), but here's the quote from the OED: "In reference to the name, ancient writers stated that the flower appeared at the time of the arrival of the swallows, and withered at their departure. The story of the use made of the juice by swallows (see quot. 1601 at sense 1a) was probably suggested by the name. For the intrusive n compare messenger, passenger."

The question of whether these "ancient writers" are correct about the theory that the greater or lesser celandine's life cycle corresponds with the migration of swallows is a separate one from the question of whether the OED is correctly reporting what the ancient writers say. If the ancient writers really had this theory (a folk etymology), it's worth reporting. The OED isn't necessarily a good source for biological science, but it's a good source for etymologies, even implausible folk etymologies.

Also, as you say, it would be best to say specifically which ancient writers these are; regrettably, the OED doesn't say. Other sources might have information on this, but I don't have any books on celandines.

We certainly should mention that the folk etymology is implausible given the actual life cycle of the celandine. Personally, I'm not sure precisely what "withered at their departure" means: withering of the flowers, or of the leaves in the fall? From personal experience, I know the greater celandine is semi-evergreen, so its leaves never really wither; not sure about the lesser celandine. If it's withering of the flowers, that might be true of the greater celandine, which can flower off and on all year, till the fall (autumn), especially if you deadhead it, but I don't know about the lesser celandine. — Eru·tuon 21:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a summary of the situation. We know that the word celandine comes from the Greek word for "swallow", but we don't know why. Ancient writers say it's because of swallows' arrival and departure, but that is implausible, as you say. But this implausible theory is mentioned by the OED, and therefore is notable enough to include in the article. If another reliable source provides a more plausible theory, this theory should certainly be mentioned as well. — Eru·tuon 01:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are two main issues - the first is the question of which taxon the OED refers to. The second is the accuracy of the observation that the plants fade as the swallows depart. I find this particularly problematic because it does not work for either of the species we are considering. In the case of Ficaria verna (syn. Ranunculus ficaria) the leaves precede the arrival of swallows, the flowers first open before the swallows and are fully open as the swallows are arriving, but both are long gone by the time of the swallows' departure. In the case of Chelidonium majus the leaves are just showing around the time the swallows arrive, but the flowers are probably 6-8 weeks away, and flowering is again over before the swallows depart. I acknowledge the notability of the OED's etymology, but if we use it at all in either article I think it is important to make it clear that there is doubt about which taxon is being referred to. On the statement of the date in this article, the mean first flowering date of Lesser celandine in Britain during the period 1891-1948 was February 28, with a standard deviation of 11.5 days. That data is extracted from The Phenological Reports (1891–1948) of the Royal Meteorological Society of London. Plantsurfer 10:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree about those two issues, but just one correction. The etymology went this way: Greek > Latin > Late Latin > Old French > Middle English > Modern English. So, presumably the name chelidonion from chelidon, "swallow", was given in Greece, and any connection between the plant and swallows had to exist in Greece. So the relevant question is which celandines are native to Greece, when they sprout, bloom, and wither in Greece, and when the swallows arrive in and depart from Greece, not Britain. I'm not sure how to find that information myself, regrettably. — Eru·tuon 19:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Common name as the title?

I'm wondering why this article is not titled after it's scientific name (Ranunculus ficaria) as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora). Seeking discussion and other views. --MCEllis (talk) 08:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it just never got moved when WP:FLORA was adopted. There doesn't seem to be any compelling reason for it to be at the common name. I'm aware of another couple dozen plant articles that seem to be at the common name mostly due to inertia. I've gotten out of the habit of filing move requests though. One issue complicating matters here is that WCSP has this species as Ficaria verna, but we don't have an article for Ficaria. I haven't looked into the matter in detail, but we may need to split Ranunculus up. Plantdrew (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Plantdrew: I can't find Ficaria verna or Ranunculus ficaria on the WCSP website, are you referring to ThePlantList WCSP (in review) entry below?

"Ficaria verna". World Checklist of Selected Plant Families. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew – via The Plant List. Note that this website has been superseded by World Flora Online

In any case, I will attempt to update the article to Ficaria verna. I'm also not sure if we have other pages that need to me moved to Ficaria.--MCEllis (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MCEllis:, yeah, I meant The Plant List (WCSP in review). We don't have articles for any of the other species that TPL places in Ficaria, and they aren't listed on the Ranunculus page. So the updates that would be needed would be in this article, creating a page for Ficaria, removing R. ficaria from the Ranunculus page, and adding Ficaria to Ranunculaceae if we go that route. Recognition of Ficaria may perhaps be based on this 2005 paper. The paper states "As suggested by many previous authors [Ficaria] is well supported as a separate genus by other distinct features...". Plantdrew (talk) 17:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Historical herbal use

This section is a disaster. There are not enough citations. The claims are not backed up by medical literature. This section used to be called Medicinal uses but that is an inappropriate title considering no actual medical evidence. I suggest deleting this section if citations are not added soon. --MCEllis (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've attempted to fix this section and to neutralize it's claims. I also added a Toxicity section.--MCEllis (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

illustrations of dormant phase

Need better pictures/illustrations of the "whole" plant, the shape it has from the side. And of the way a plant and a whole bed looks as it goes dormant, dies back (can look like a mass-tangle of long white sprout-stalks) -- gets yellowed and all wilted and flattened!-71.174.183.90 (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ficaria verna. 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:

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) 08:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Calculation error

In the article, we can read this:

(...) and ground is left barren and susceptible to erosion, from June to February, during the plant's six-month dormancy phase.

From June 1st to February 28th, it's not six but nine months. From mid-June to mid-February, it's still eight months. So, if the dormancy phase goes from June to February, it's clearly longer than six months. There is a contradiction between the two parts of the statement. -- Martinus KE (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]