Talk:Saraca asoca

Importance

Why only mid? On which basis? Actually this is an important tree in the religious, folkloric and literary traditions of the Indian Subcontinent and its adjacent areas. In Sanskrit the tree and its flowers have no less than twenty names! Xufanc (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

bio names for popular tree?

Ashoka tree is popular tree in indian subcontinent, with a name associated with it. Why is it known by its scientific name in wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbharti (talk • contribs) 16:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia often uses latin names to make sure we are talking about one single species. The article mentions that other species also have the vernacular name "Ashoka tree". Chtfn (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction and/or confusion with Saraca indica

The article Saraca indica says it is "asoka-tree, Ashok or simply Asoca" and it "can be distinguished from Saraca asoca". But this article also claims to be about Ashoka tree. Which is it? This article also uses references that are specifically about Saraca indica, not Saraca asoca. This confusion needs to be cleared up, but I am unable to resolve the problem myself. Deli nk (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Ignoring the issue of the English name, The Plant List lists both scientific names as "accepted", citing ILDIS. Only the ILDIS search page here works for me, and it confirmed that both names were accepted. However, the latest version of ILDIS, version 10, is dated 2005, so it's possible that work in the following 10 years has synonymized the two species. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the nomenclature situation here. USDA GRIN agrees that both species have the common names asoka-tree and asok (or asoka). Mabberley's The Plant Book (old, second edition) has S. asoca as the tree under which the Buddha sat. However, the two species have been lumped together: Tropicos has S. indica L. 1767 as a synonym of S. asoca (Roxb.) W.J.de Wilde 1968, citing Flora of Pakistan, which is here but has no explanation of why Linnaeus's name has been synonymised under a later name. I don't have access to Blumea from 1968 (dated 1967), which might perhaps explain, or might not since it is perhaps only moving Jonesia asoca to the genus Saraca. I can find no hint in the usual places that Linnaeus's name has been rejected or was illegitimate. Very puzzling. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Light dawns, the Blumea article is here. The true Saraca indica is from Java. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

The Plant List does accept both species, but has Saraca asoca sensu auct. in the synonymy of Saraca indica and Saraca indica "sensu Bedd., non L." in the synonymy of Saraca asoca. I don't think I've ever seen a case of reciprocal confusion of "sensu" names before. Plantdrew (talk) 18:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Nomenclatural mayhem. My hunch is that nobody has tried to lump these two species together, although they are hard to tell apart; that the synonym lists come about entirely as a result of confusion. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Confusion of identity seems the most plausible explanation. (Can't now remember the plant involved, but I've come across a similar confusion sourced to the Flora of Pakistan before; it may need to be treated with some caution, especially when one or more of the species involved isn't native.) Peter coxhead (talk) 19:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Flora of Pakistan is apparently no longer considered to be a draft, so it may not be correctable, but I've submitted feedback to Tropicos about this in the hope that they can clarify in some way online. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Tropicos has a currently hidden draft Flora of India Checklist that treats the species as separate (with the same synonymy lists as TPL, minus the "sensus"). I don't think the India checklist is being actively worked on at present, and short of publishing it, it's not clear what Tropicos could do to clarify. Add the Blumea paper as a reference? Confirm dets of the specimens? Plantdrew (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

IIRC, the previous confusion in Flora of Pakistan was with Sterculia urens and Firmiana simplex. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:19, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you've prompted my memory; thanks! Peter coxhead (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Saraca asoca. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130814044945/http://tamilnadu.com/herbs/ashoka.html to http://tamilnadu.com/herbs/ashoka.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120218113850/http://www.botanical.com/site/column_poudhia/91_sita.html to http://www.botanical.com/site/column_poudhia/91_sita.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Trees to plant

Which plant is beneficial to environment 103.89.233.254 (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

More specificity on size?

It would help if the page was clearer about the size a specimen tends to be. Just saying "short" is horribly vague. 68.188.168.60 (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2023 (UTC)