Jump to content

Talk:Acacia sensu lato

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled

[edit]

Also, a fraternity.

Cleaning up needed

[edit]

With the decision of re-typification of the genus Acacia validated, this page now needs a major cleaning up. Any information not relating to acacia in general or the species actually belonging to Acacia should be moved to the correct genus page. Any legume taxonomists out there in wikispace? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.47.12 (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name change?

[edit]

My understanding is that only Australian acacias are to be called that from now on. Is that true?

From a scientific stand-point YES (almost)! The scientific name Acacia was re-typified (a process that decides the modelspecies for the genus) with an Australian species by a vote at the 17th International Botanical Congress in Vienna, 2005. This was a very debated decision and several papers have been written about it (even in law journals!), but the decision was again confirmed recently at the 18th International Botanical Congress in Melbourne, 2011 (there are six years between deciding congresses). The result from such a move are that several species are re-named (or should be re-named), in this case in the genera Vachellia and Senegalia, as well as the newly described genera Acaciella and Mariosousa. A re-typification is usually done to change as few scientific names as possible, but in the case of Acacia, the result is still that several hundred names need to be changed. The genera Acaciella and Mariosousa are confined to South America, Vachellia and Senegalia to the Old World, and Acacia more or less to Australia, Madagascar and Malesia (so not exclusive to Australia, but most species are confined to that continent). The intricacies of scientific classification will for now wreak havoc on pages such as this, but in the end it will lead to better understanding of the biology of acacias (spelled with lower case and plain font to indicate a vernacular use for leguminous trees with small ballshaped yellow flowers, already often in other genera such as Mimosa...). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.47.12 (talk) 09:37, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More uses

[edit]

Several australian species have edible seeds, and several are toxic if eaten in large quantities. It is an ongoing subject of investigation which are which.

Additionally, I understand (but have not yet found evidential sources to this effect) that in ancient times, the gum of the acacia was used to seal and preserve dead flesh as an embalming unguent used in funereal mummification.
For this reason, the acacia has been considered a symbol of immortality (as in Masonic symbolism), and its name was, at least popularly, supposed to derive from α- (not)+ κακος (bad), i.e., it would prevent carrion from going off.
Nuttyskin (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acacia image?

[edit]
What kind of tree is this?

I'm trying to identify the tree in this picture. I suspect it's an acacia, but I'm not sure. Does anyone have any idea? Thanks! —Amcaja 19:15, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a typical Acacia - the deep invaginations in the trunk are more common in Boscia, Maerua, Balanites, Securidaca.... Paul venter (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


I don't know about that picture, but someone who knows more about trees should see if we can get some good pictures to use. 156.34.181.176 (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Blackwood article has been created

[edit]

see Australian Blackwood Paul foord 08:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Erroneous image?

[edit]

Helpdesk received an email saying:

"In the article about Acacias, the picture of Acacia melanoxylon is not that species. It appears to be A. verticilata. -Tim Bodley"

If this is true, please correct the image caption. Thank you. --maru (talk) contribs 20:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pronounciation

[edit]

How does on say Acacia? HighInBC 18:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The most common ways to pronounce the scientific name are "ah-kah-see-ah" or "ah-kay-see-ah". 81.224.47.12 (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Create Disambiguation page?

[edit]

I suggest the creation of the Acacia disambiguation page. Not only is there the tree, but also Acacia Technologies, Acacia Fraternity, and the novel Acacia: The War With The Mein. Such page would help direct people to the the correct entry. I suggest we rename this page Acacia (tree) and then create the Acacia disambiguation page. --Rick Klaw 17:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So we have an important genus of plants found worldwide, with hundreds of links coming in to this article, vs. three ultra-obscure things with "Acacia" in the name? Leave this article where it is, and add the usual {{otheruses}} to a disambig page. Stan 19:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Rick Klaw 00:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Used in Barq's Root Beer

[edit]

Is this what gives it its bite? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.141.136.157 (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I believe you are thinking of sasparilla. 69.2.54.228 (talk) 09:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. 'ACACIA' is listed as the last ingredient on this diet Barq's root beer can I'm holding. (heh heh... original research) 198.110.105.234 (talk) 03:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Most Acacia Species

[edit]

According to the USDA website, the range of Acacia in the U.S. extends to Oregon. The other question is whether Oregon is the highest latitude for Acacia in the world, or just for in the U.S.

WriterHound 14:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Highest latitude is probably more interesting than listing both southern and northern most occurences. The species in Oregon is the introduced Acacia dealbata in Coos County ([3]). There's a decent chance (with apparently a single isolated record) that the species is not naturalized; if that's the case, there may be other Acacias under cultivation even further from the equator. Also, the article currently lists the highest latitude for Acacia as 43 30 South. The highest latitude in Coos County is about 43 35 (North), but I would guess the Acacia there (if naturalized) was found close to Coos Bay (the largest city in the county), which is only at 43 22. Plantdrew (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add "may" as it occurs in source

[edit]

Could I suggest the word "may" be added to where it says that chemicals in acacia plants ward of animals and insects? I don't think it is conclusively proven yet.

"These plants contain a variety of chemical compounds that help defend them from consumption by insects and other herbivores such as deer and domestic livestock." -- Chemistry of Acacias from South Texas (Article Reference Note #1).
WriterHound 17:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones are African origins...???

[edit]

Could anyone tell.....??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.62.138.24 (talk) 05:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One way to check is by going here: ILDIS LegumeWeb
WriterHound 14:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lifespan?

[edit]

Does anybody know how old these trees can get? --Paul Pot (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a .pdf file for a footnote in the Acacia salicina article which states:

"The life spans of many of these species are not well documented. Estimates of life spans can be inferred

from anecdotal information. A. farnesiana, A. jennerae, A. pendula and A. stenophylla can live 25-50 years. A. salicina is estimated to live 10-15 years and the life span of A. visco is not known. (M. B. Johnson, personal

communication)."

Since there are about 1350 species of Acacia, there is probably more variation in life spans. If you find any more information regarding this, please let me know and/or please add it to the article. :-)
WriterHound (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mimosaceae vs. Mimosoideae

[edit]

I just reverted the addition of Mimosaceae as a synonym for Fabaceae in the taxobox. I see that some authorities apparently define a family Mimosaceae that is equivalent to the sub-family Mimosoidea of the Fabaceae family in other systems. Unfortunately, WP simply redirects Mimosaceae to Mimosoideae, which made the taxobox entries confusing. I hope that someone familiar with these taxons can sort this out. -- Donald Albury 10:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the classification system you are using. Mimosaceae is not a synonym for Fabaceae - it's an alternative. Someone I know that saw the article thought it was incorrect, so I changed it in an attempt to show both systems. --Surturz (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have to pick one system for use in the taxobox (hopefully, the most widely supported one), although all classifications that have at least some support among specialists in the field should be mentioned in the body of the article. Someone who knows the field needs to write an article for Mimosaceae, so that it doesn't just redirect to Mimosoideae. -- Donald Albury 15:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As said - it is a question of classification used. The legume plants can scientifically be known as Leguminosae Juss., type genus Faba Mill. (=Vicia L.), but as this is inconsistent with the current rules of naming plant families there is an alternative name (in my view preferred due to conformity): Fabaceae Lindl., with the same generitype. However, as in most classifications there are several views on how many families there are for the legume plants. If they are split into three families (which is common in some old classifications, but violates the modern criteria of monophyly) the families become Papilionaceae Giseke, still with the same generitype, Caesalpiniaceae R.Br. with the generitype Caesalpinia L., and Mimosaceae R.Br. with Mimosa L. as the type genus. There is not a straight equivalence between these segregate families and modern subfamilial treatments... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.224.47.12 (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wattle (disambiguation) in hatnote

[edit]

See the disambiguation linking guideline here, specifically the sentence which begins, "To link to a disambiguation page..." SlackerMom (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find that section somewhat less than crystal clear, but I won't argue it. -- Donald Albury 22:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it isn't written very clearly, but this is a practice that helps editors who clean up misplaced dab links. It makes deliberate links to dab pages easy to identify. Thanks. SlackerMom (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phytochemistry is getting a bit long

[edit]

(Half the article or so), and probably at this point should be split off to a subarticle with almost all of its photos, leaving a text summary and perhaps on representative photo behind. What do you think? As the longest subsection of the article in an overlong article, which is the one to start with, no? SBHarris 00:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a "B" rating, which is good, so maybe we should find out how such a change might affect the article rating by asking the people who do the rating.
Is the article really considered long per Wikipedia standards?
WriterHound (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Truthfully, by simple KB, no. It's 49 kB which is merely the upper recommended limit (50 kB). What makes it much longer on the reader are the many photos, and they're mostly in the phytochem section. I think length "on page" should count, but doesn't.SBHarris 01:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support moving the tables into another article. They seem too detailed (per-species) and technical. eug (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Most" acacias don't have valuable timber

[edit]

It is currently stated that most species of acacia provide valuable timber. This is nonsense. A large majority of acacia species are shrubs which don't provide valuable timber, except firewood. Probably only a few dozen species are large enough to have usable timber, and that is not "most" of more than a thousand species.Eregli bob (talk) 00:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case, then change it, but make sure to add a citation.
WriterHound (talk) 06:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New photo of Acacia ashbyae

[edit]

Uploaded a new photo for Acacia ashbyae (right). Dcoetzee 04:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please add synonyms, if there are any....

[edit]

based on the following info

http://jpdb.nihs.go.jp/jp15e/

on Page 1251 --222.64.223.103 (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://jpdb.nihs.go.jp/jp15e/ --222.64.223.103 (talk) 10:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and German version http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gummi_arabicum --222.64.223.103 (talk) 10:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Acacia berlandieri

[edit]

The chemical listing for this species is wrong. Firstly, all 4 are compleatly different chemicals and each require a huge ammount of chemistry to create. Any chemist will tell you that no known plant could possibly create these together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.222.98 (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reason Australians call them wattles

[edit]

In The Fatal Shore, Robert Hughes says the early colonists called them wattles because they were so often used in the building of their wattle-and-daub buildings. I reckon it'd be a nice bit of info to be added, but I'm not sure where... Adambrowne666 (talk) 10:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of lists

[edit]

The lists of tannins, wood densities and psychoactive compounds was waaaay to much detail for a Genus level article. I've moved them to their own separate list pages: List of Acacia species used for timber production, List of Acacia species known to contain psychoactive alkaloids, List of Acacia species used for tannin production. Mark Marathon (talk) 22:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy, classification and the scientific name

[edit]

This is a discussion that is most relevant for Wikipedia to deal with. The article will fail the purpose of being informative if the fact that applying names to groups consisting of species that comes from several different ancestors is bad practice is ignored. That only monophyletic groups (i.e. groups of descendents from a single ancestor) should be scientifically named is the only way of keeping any information content in the scientific name. If the same name is applied to a polyphyletic group (i.e. a group of descendents from different acestors ignoring some of these ancestors descendents) you can not infer anything by using that name. Eg. applying the criteria of monophyly enables you to infer that an acacia belonging to the genus Acaciella (or Mariosousa) is restricted to the Americas, an acacia belonging to the genus Acacia is most likely an Australian species and is definitely not native to the main African continent. Even the botanists that disapprove of the re-typification embrace the fact that continued use of Acacia in the previous sense is worthless for anything but local floras... 81.224.47.12 (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are several complexities to this issue, and treating them properly will greatly complicate the article. I would strongly argue that it is sufficient to state that there is controversy about which group the name Acacia should be applied to, and that therefore some botanists have decided to use the sensu lato designation. Whether paraphyletic groups (note that paraphyly is not the same as polyphyly) should be named is one issue (do we have to refer to birds as dinosaurs?). Citing some rather old Hennigian articles about cladistics is not really appropriate to a page about a plant genus. It is also the case that the exact number of genera that should be divided out of the old Acacia is not yet certain. Nadiatalent (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But ignoring them will make the information content useless. The "complexities" of this issue as presented in the article relates to views of a group of botanists well aware that their views are not in accordance to the rules of the botanical code. If Wikipedia has any aspiration to be factual and not based on views. the fact is that Acacia is almost completely an Australian genus (2 species on Madagascar and a handful in Asia) and the other species need to be placed in other genera. Again in accordance with the botanical code that regulates scientific names these genera at present are Senegalia, Vachellia, Acaciella and Mariosousa - that there might be more changes to species previously treated as Acacia is not unique to this situation and has no bearing on the re-typification consequences as such. A lot of plants change their names in accordance with the code every year! By stating the argument of these unhappy botanists you need to also state the argument of those unhappy botanists that accept the consequences of the re-typification (as I doubt there are any truly happy botanists around this issue anymore). The argument of "birds as dinosaurs" are a question on how much extinct taxa should influence the naming of clades for extant taxa and is not appropriate in this case - there are no extinct groups of mimosoids that brings the question of monophyly into play. Neither is the old-sense acacias paraphyletic unless you want to include a lot of other mimosoids... Anyway you look at this problem stating the controversy needs the counter-argument (now ratified by two consecutive botanical congresses!) that acacias belong to (at least) four different genera. The remark that the cited articles are old is beneath the argumentation as that position will invalidate the entire Linnean hierarchical approach to botanical (and zoological) classification as those principles were put to paper already in the 18th century. So if you want to take the argument for the split of the genus out (an argument that through the International Code for algae, fungi, and plants is factual), you need to take out the statements that some botanist will ignore this (an argument that is wholly subjective).81.224.47.12 (talk) 08:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Australian wattle wood bad for fireboxes (wood-heaters)?

[edit]

There's a very popular belief in Tasmania (and probably in Victoria also) that burning wattle wood in what's called here a wood heater (like this [4], also sometimes called a "fire box") can damage the wood heater. One source says that it's because the wood burns too hot, another that the wattle wood, when burned, releases or generates something (e.g. creosote) that coats the flue & is a fire hazard. Does anyone know if there's any truth to this? Thanks very much. TyrS 11:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Victorian of mature years here, who has been in many premises with such heaters. Never heard of that belief. HiLo48 (talk) 11:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original research concerning the new classification scheme

[edit]

For the third time I’ve removed Original Research that makes claims about how widespread acceptance of the new classification scheme is, and whether it is accepted by Kew Gardens.

The reference provided for these claims is nothing but a list of plants currently listed with “Acacia” as one synonym. The same source also lists numerous species, such as Acacia farnesiana, as both Vachellia farnesiana and Acacia farnesiana. The source contains no information that I can see about how widespread acceptance of either scheme is, or whether any scheme is or is not accepted by Kew Gardens.

If I am mistaken, then by all means provide quotes of where in this page we might find material that directly supports the material being presented. If you are unable to do this, then the material is clearly OR.

Note that the material must be directly supported by the source. The claim to date seems to hinge upon the assumption that since Kew lists Acacia as one synonym, that shows a preference. However such an assumption does not constitute direct support for the claims made.Mark Marathon (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kew is not a trivial centre of taxonomy and the fact that they list all African species of Acacia under 'Acacia' and tag them as 'accepted', should not be lightly dismissed. In addition, the articles on African Acacias on Wikipedia remain under 'Acacia'. Have you even paused in your hysteria to wonder why that is so? If Kew changes its mind about Acacias, I will gladly join in adopting the new names, but until then I should be pleased if you would stop your reverts. Paul venter (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You still have not shown us which passage on that page directly supportsyour two contentions: that the scheme is not widely accepted and that Kew favours one scheme over the other. Until you are able to do this, the contentions remain unsourced OR and will be removed. Rather than accusing me of hysteria, can you please just quote the passage on that page which tells you that Kew prefers one scheme over the other?Mark Marathon (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do find the necessity of repeating myself extremely tedious. No, the Kew site does not say in so many words "we prefer this system over the other" - the fact that they list species either as synonyms or "accepted" is sufficient. Kindly refer this matter to the administrators' noticeboard, but stop this revert war. Paul venter (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph of the article itself refers to "Acacia nilotica" which is an African species. Paul venter (talk) 12:44, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that Kew lists species either as synonyms or "accepted" is very clearly not sufficient. Wikipedia policy is quite unambiguous: all material added must be directly supported by reliable sources or it can be removed. Since you admit the source does not directly support the claims made, I have removed it. Please do not add it again until it can be directly supported by reliable sources, as per Wikipedia policy. Thank you. Mark Marathon (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BLUE Paul venter (talk) 06:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do recall some unhappiness at the retypification of the type of the genus. Will have a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When we see some evidence that directly supports this claim, it can be included. This is not a "sky is blue" claim. It is claim that is not in any sense common knowledge.Mark Marathon (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming late to this discussion, but would note that there are many cases of a taxon being listed as a species under BOTH of two different genera, in each case indicated as "accepted". This is certainly the case with many of the species in Senegalia and Vachellia, which appear as "accepted" in both those genera and in Acacia. (In truth the "Plant List" is full of muck and mud like this and should be taken with a grain of salt, Kew's reputation notwithstanding...) 160.111.254.17 (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Acacias hook up ants on nectar

[edit]

National Geo published this article where they say ants that stay with an acacia feed only on its nectar because drinking it once disables invertase production, preventing them from digesting the sucrose found in other plants' nectar. The acacia's nectar comes with invertase, so the ants stick to it.

I'm not knowledgeable in biology to edit the "Symbiosis" section of the article, but I feel that this fact should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.175.42 (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Range Map

[edit]

The map is for Acacia not including the segregate genera (Acaciella, Mariosousa, Senegalia, or Vachellia), i.e. Acacia sensu stricto. Despite the ongoing debate about the retypification of Acacia, I feel that the map is appropriate to this article. Allow me to elaborate.

  1. I also created maps for Acaciella, Mariosousa, Senegalia, and Vachellia. Since these all have their own Wikipedia pages, there is only one place left to put the Acacia sensu stricto range map: here. In order to avoid confusion, I have updated the label for the map.
  2. The verifiable source for all of these maps is listed on their respective description pages on Wikimedia Commons. The source does not provide a range map for Acacia sensu lato (and, in light of the ongoing debate, it wouldn't necessarily be any more appropriate than the map I created for Acacia sensu stricto). If I were to combine the maps from this source for Acacia sensu stricto, Acaciella, Mariosousa, Senegalia, and Vachellia to create a map for Acacia sensu stricto this could be considered original research.

So, unless there is a compelling counter argument to be made, I urge you to retain the range map for Acacia sensu stricto. And, more importantly, please let's discuss this instead of making hasty reverts. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not include all four range maps here? Especially since the article considers Acacia sensu lato (as do many biologists).Mukogodo (talk) 18:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is worth discussing. I would argue against it since the right side of the article is already cluttered with images and adding four more range maps would only exacerbate that problem. What if we remove the range map for Acacia sensu stricto from the taxobox and add it to the section Geography of Australian acacias? It would be relevant and would also avoid implying that the map represents the range of Acacia sensu lato. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for taking so long to get adress this, since it was my revert that kicked this off. First off. kudos for creating the maps. My problem is that the map as presented is misleading and confusing in this article. This article is about Acacia sensu lato. 99% of readers of an encyclopaedia article are not going to have a clue what "sensu stricto" means. A prominently placed map of sensu stricto, in lede that states that this article is about acacia in the broadest sense, is therefore going to confuse most readers. We should remember, one of the chief goal of an encylopaedia article is to be accessible. Adding information that we know that the vast majority of our readers won't understand is at odds with that.
As far as the solution. The first is simply to create the page Acacia (sensu stricto) and put the map there. We really should have done that years ago, but I am lazy. We should also now really make Acacia a disambiguation page and rename this page Acacia (sensu lato), since there are at least two articles with equal claim to the name in addition to Robinia, Luecaena and other species that are commonly called Acacia. But that's a debate for a separate section. Creating Acacia (sensu stricto) is something that sorely needs doing.
The second solution is to produce an Acacia (sensu lato) map. While WP:OR is a concern, it can be easily avoided by using another RS, (eg. http://www.anbg.gov.au/acacia/). There is no policy that says we have to use exactly the same source for all maps.
While this will take some more work, it is is work that should be done anyway. And I'm really not comfortable with the current map, particularly in the lede of this article which is explicitly Acacia (sensu lato).Mark Marathon (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doubts about the claim that Moses and Muhammad were taking this as a psychoactive drug

[edit]

Under Phytochemistry in the last sentence of the paragraph on Alkaloids, there is a rather bold claim- "There is some suggestion that the prophet Moses and indeed Mohammed may have ingested some brew made from the plant and thereby entered an alternative state, thereby leading them to believe that they communed with God." I followed the citation link and it's accuracy looks pretty questionable (of course), with very ambiguous evidence for the claim. Clearly this is not scientific and it should be taken out, even though it just says that there is "some suggestion". I'm not an editor so I don't know how to do that, but I figured I should say something. 98.127.128.25 (talk) 06:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right. In fact the whole section seems like a a load of bollocks. It's certainly not supported by anything. Not sure how this survived for so long. I;ve rmeoved the whole lot pending some serious references. Mark Marathon (talk) 06:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Acacia noted as producing Sodium Fluoroacetate

[edit]

After browsing the Wikipedia entry for Rodenticide, among the common chemicals was Sodium Fluoroacetate, which was described as a natural product in certain species of Australian Acacia. No mention is made in this article regarding its presence, the problems with cattle getting sick, nor references provided to those studies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_fluoroacetate#Occurrence Vapur9 (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's because it's a minor property of a small number of species, not a significant property of the entire genus. The genus produces tens of millions of different chemical compounds, many of which are toxic. We don;t, and shouldn't, mention them all. Mark Marathon (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble archiving links on the article

[edit]

Hello. I am finding myself repeatedly archiving links on this page. This usually happens when the archive doesn't recognize the archive to be good.

This could be because the link is either a redirect, or I am unknowingly archiving a dead link. Please check the following links to see if it's redirecting, or in anyway bad, and fix them, if possible.

In any event this will be the only notification in regards to these links, and I will discontinue my attempts to archive these pages.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Acacia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John 12:3

[edit]

The use of acacia as a fragrance dates back centuries. Dickie birdie (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

| In the New Testament John 12:1–10, six days before the passover Jesus arrives in Bethany. In Bethany, Mary, sister of Lazarus uses a pint of pure nard to anoint Jesus's feet. No mention Acacia there. Mark Marathon (talk) 03:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Freemasonry Acacia edits

[edit]

Here's the text as added by User:Dickie birdie:The acacia was the plant that grew over the grave of Hiram Abiff (the sprig of Acacia on Hiram's grave is found on all Third Degree Tracing Boards), the central character within Freemasonry who provided some of the builders for King Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem, [1] Craft Lectures, Third Degree, Second Section</ref> also by extension representing the purity and endurance of the soul, and as funerary symbolism signifying resurrection and immortality. [2] Samuel Prichard's Masonry Dissected (page 21, 1730) described how the Master Mason has to swear that "Cassia is my name" during the initiation ritual into that degree.[3]

Let's go piece by piece:

1. The acacia was the plant that grew over the grave of Hiram Abiff (the sprig of Acacia on Hiram's grave is found on all Third Degree Tracing Boards), the central character within Freemasonry who provided some of the builders for King Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem, cited to: http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/MADHAVAN_HiramicLegend.html and "Craft Lectures, Third Degree, Second Section"

First of all, the word acacia does not appear in the Madhavan source, nor do the words "tracing boards". Madhavan is talking about the origins of the legend. He does mention Hiram Abif, however. I will also point out that Pietre-Stones is a non peer-reviewed magazine, and the opinions are those of the authors of the papers. No Masonic scholars rely upon it. I have no idea which "Craft Lectures" are mentioned. If it's a holdover from a botched ref change, Web of Hiram has tons of primary source documents, many of which are extinct - they are there for use, not authority. We also don't reply on primary sources here at WP if we don't have to.

2. "also by extension representing the purity and endurance of the soul, and as funerary symbolism signifying resurrection and immortality." cited to: Albert Gallatin Mackey, Edward L Hawkins, William James Hughan, An encyclopedia of freemasonry and its kindred sciences, comprising the Whole Range of Arts, Sciences and Literature as connected with the Institution (New York London, Masonic History Co. 1912).

If this is an encyclopedia, what entry are we talking about? It's not mentioned, but I guess it's Acacia. The online Mackey entry on Acacia at Phoenixmasonry is lengthy. The words "also by estension" do not appear in that entry. Therefore, the text in the article does not come from there.

3. Samuel Prichard's Masonry Dissected (page 21, 1730) described how the Master Mason has to swear that "Cassia is my name" during the initiation ritual into that degree. cited to Samuel Prichard, Masonry Dissected, page 21 (1730). [5]

Samuel Prichard wrote a purported "exposure" of Masonic ritual (in 1730 in England, wherein there are over 40 Masonic rituals in use today), also available at Phoenixmasonry. He didn't "describe" anything. The pertinent part of the text simply states: "So they cover'd him closely, and as a farther Ornament placed a Sprig of Cassia at the Head of his Grave, and went and acquainted King Solomon." So it didn't grow there, but was placed, contradicting the claim made earlier in the paragraph. " Cassia is my Name, and from a Juft and Perfect Lodge I came." is an answer to a question much later on in the text. It is claimed that that is in the "initiation ritual for the third degree" but it is merely a series of questions and answers with no context. Prichard gives none.

Neither actual usage of sources nor relevance to the article has been demonstrated via these additions. Perhaps using the links above might lend some utility, as long as one keeps in mind that these sources are hundreds of years old and offer no context. Inserting context, therefore, is synthesis. MSJapan (talk) 05:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [[1]]
  2. ^ Albert Gallatin Mackey, Edward L Hawkins, William James Hughan, An encyclopedia of freemasonry and its kindred sciences, comprising the Whole Range of Arts, Sciences and Literature as connected with the Institution (New York London, Masonic History Co. 1912)
  3. ^ Samuel Prichard, Masonry Dissected, page 21 (1730). [[2]]
The comments by MSJapan represent panic and nothing else. Dickie birdie (talk) 09:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I'm so frightened that you're going to give away a "Masonic secret" from an encyclopedia that's been published online and been in print for anyone to buy in any bookstore for 140 years that I provided an actual link to the entry online. The problem is, you have a conclusion you want to push, and the sources you are using do not support those statements. You are not allowed to do that here, period. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but that's what policy says.
It's the same reason you can't remove sourced material from Rennes le Chateau because you think it's not true, and why you can't say Mackey's Encyclopedia of Freemasonry was never published in two volumes and then say it was in 1912. MSJapan (talk) 16:23, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sprig of Acacia on Third Degree Tracing Board

[edit]

Universal. Exists everywhere universally within Freemasonry. Albert Gallatin Mackey is a recognized and respected source on Freemasonry and he just cannot be wrong about the acacia in his Encyclopedia of Freemasonry Dickie birdie (talk) 09:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. Mackey's not saying it's universal, he's saying it exists as a symbol. Don't write what you want based on what other people say. That's either original research or synthesis depending on how far it goes. MSJapan (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acacia - Symbol of Freemasonic Initiation

[edit]

Albert G. Mackey described Acacia as "an interesting and important symbol in Freemasonry". Mackey stated that the Acacia symbolised the immortality of the soul, adding that it is said in the funeral service within the Freemasonic Order that "this evergreen is an emblem of our faith in the immortality of the soul. By this we are reminded that we have an immortal part within us, which shall survive the grave, and which shall never, never, never die." Mackey also added, "in the closing sentences of the monitorial lecture of the third degree, the same sentiment is repeated, and we are told that by 'the ever-green and ever-living sprig' the Mason is strengthened 'with confidence and composure to look forward to a blessed immortality'." [1] Mackey also described the Acacia as the "symbol of innocence" because "in the Greek language, [Acacia] signifies both the plant in question and the moral quality of innocence or purity of life." Mackey also identified the Acacia as the symbol of Initiation - concluding that it was the symbol of immortality, of innocence, and of initiation. Mackey lastly observed: "the recollection of the place where the sprig of Acacia was planted - Mount Calvary - the place of sepulture of him who 'brought life and immortality to light,' .../... and remember too, that in the mystery of his death, the wood of the cross takes the place of the Acacia, and in this little and and apparently insignificant symbol, but which is really and truly the most important and significant one in Masonic science, we have a beautiful suggestion of all the mysteries of life and death, of time and eternity, of the present and of the future." [2] Dickie birdie (talk) 13:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Albert G. Mackey, An Encyclopaedia of Freemasonry and Its Kindred Sciences, page 7, Philadelphia: Moss & Company, 1874.
  2. ^ Albert G. Mackey, An Encyclopaedia of Freemasonry and Its Kindred Sciences, pages 8-9, Philadelphia: Moss & Company, 1874.
And? You're simply reposting material I linked to already. Doing so won't make it match the statements any closer. There's also a lot you've left out of that entry, but I'll deal with what you have here. So we have it mentioned by Mackey as being used in a "funeral service" and "a monitorial lecture" Where does he say it appears on a tracing board or in an initiation? Where does he say it grew on the grave of Hiram Abif? By the way, Mackey didn't identify it as a symbol of innocence - he stating the Greeks did. what you are failing to notice is that, like this encyclopedia, Mackey is not an originator of thought, for the most part; he is compiling what others have said.
Speaking of, from his entry on "allegory" - "The sprig of acacia is a symbol of the immortality of the soul. But this we know only because such meaning had been conventionally determined when the symbol was first established. It is evident, then, that an allegory whose meaning is obscure is imperfect. "
Mackey does say An interesting and important symbol in Freemasonry. Botanically, it is the acacia vera of Tournefort, and the mimosa nilotica of Linnaeus, called babul tree in India. The acacia arabica grew abundantly in the vicinity of Jerusalem, where it is still to be found, and is familiar in its modern use at the tree from which the gum arabic of commerce is derived. He also says that others have identified it as the shittim tree, that First. The acacia, in the mythic system of Freemasonry, is pre-eminently the symbol of the IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL--that important doctrine which it is the great design of the Institution to teach.
He's also smart enough to cite your "universal use of "my name is Cassia" to one manuscript and one alone: "Hence we see the propriety of placing the sprig of acacia, as an emblem of immortality, among the symbols of that degree, all of whose ceremonies are Intended to teach us the great truth that "the life of man, regulated by morality, faith, and justice, will be rewarded at its closing hour by the prospect of Eternal Bliss as in the manuscript of Doctor Crucefix quoted by Brother Oliver in his Landmarks (11, 20). So, therefore, says Doctor Oliver, when the Master Mason exclaims, "My name is Acacia," it is equivalent to saying, "I have been in the grave, I have triumphed over it by rising from the dead, and being regenerated in the process, I have a claim to life everlasting" (see Landmarks 11, 151, note 27). so he in no way claims that it is a universal statement, nor does he claim it appears in an initiatory context.
Mackey also says "Secondly, then, the acacia is a symbol of INNOCENCE. The symbolism here is of a peculiar and unusual character, depending not on any real analogy in the form or use of the symbol to the idea symbolized, but simply on a double or compound meaning of the word.
Lastly, Mackey says, "But, lastly, the acacia is to be considered as the symbol of INITIATION. This is by far the most interesting of its interpretations, and was, we have every reason to believe, the primary and original ; the others being but incidental. It leads us at once to the investigation of the significant fact that in all the ancient initiations and religious mysteries there was some plant peculiar to each, which was consecrated by its own esoteric meaning, and which occupied an important position in the celebration of the rites. Thus it was that the plant, whatever it might be, from its constant and prominent use in the ceremonies of initiation, came at length to be adopted as the symbol of that initiation."
So basically, the acacia has three ideas, none of which are peculiar to Freemasonry or originate in it, and nowhere does he say that Acacia is initiatory in Freemasonry; rather, he concludes, "Returning, then, to the acacia, we find that it is capable of three explanations. It is a symbol of immortality, of innocence, and of initiation. But these three significations are closely connected, and that connection must be observed, if we desire to obtain a just interpretation of the symbol. Thus, in this one symbol, we are taught that in the initiation of life, of which the initiation in the Third Degree is simply emblematic, innocence must for a time lie in the grave, at length, however, to be called, by the word of the Great Master of the Universe, to a blissful immortality."
I'd keep going, but again, my point is that you are using sources to support your point of view when those sources do not support that point of view. Mackey, on the other hand "universalizes" nothing; he sources everything to someone or something, which is why he's useful. MSJapan (talk) 16:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Acacia sensu lato

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Acacia sensu lato's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Kyalangalilwa":

  • From Senegalia: Kyalangalilwa B, Boatwright JS, Daru BH, Maurin O, van der Bank M. (2013). "Phylogenetic position and revised classification of Acacia s.l. (Fabaceae: Mimosoideae) in Africa, including new combinations in Vachellia and Senegalia". Bot J Linn Soc. 172 (4): 500–523. doi:10.1111/boj.12047.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • From Acacia (Vachellia): Kyalangalilwa B, Boatwright JS, Daru BH, Maurin O, van der Bank M (2013). "Phylogenetic position and revised classification of Acacia s.l. (Fabaceae: Mimosoideae) in Africa, including new combinations in Vachellia and Senegalia". Bot J Linn Soc. 172 (4): 500–523. doi:10.1111/boj.12047.
  • From Vachellia: Kyalangalilwa B, Boatwright JS, Daru BH, Maurin O, van der Bank M (2013). "Phylogenetic position and revised classification of Acacia s.l. (Fabaceae: Mimosoideae) in Africa, including new combinations in Vachellia and Senegalia". Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society. 172 (4): 500–523. doi:10.1111/boj.12047.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Reference named "rico":

Reference named "Clarke":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Acacia sensu lato. 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, 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) 03:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Acacia sensu lato. 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) 18:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acacia_sensu_lato&oldid=1197880664"