Talk:Mitchella repens

See also Talk:Partridge Berry for discussion of common name

Adventitious roots

The flora says the stems root at the nodes, not at the internodes, on the cited page. Please quote otherwise, because I can't find it. The trait would be unusual enoug to be cited in more than one 100-y-o source, if accurate.97.215.178.177 (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the text, the article originally had internodes. There are also adjustment needed with the flower description, which says that the paired flowers are different from each other, while a source I found says the flowers are diffrent on diffrent plants. Hardyplants (talk) 05:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This wikipedia article is just poorly written. Both of the sources used for citations within this article call the plant distylous, meaning dimorphic heterostyly, a common strategy in the Rubiaceae. The 2 different flower morphs are found on different plants, and this is what the citations used for this article say. Whoever is writing the article is not reading the citations correctly or does not understand them. I cannot edit the article on this device, though, as it won't feed edit sections, but the whole article. 97.215.178.177 (talk) 07:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Fruit Type:

The fourth sentence of the third paragraph under "Description" states that "The fruit is a drupe containing up to eight seeds." The problem is that drupes are characterized as fruits containing one stone, and each stone generally contains one seed. I don't see that there is a reference to back up the claim that it is a drupe. This line should be corrected. I would correct it, but I don't know what type of fruit it actually is. --YoDeeKu (talk) 04:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)