Jump to content

Talk:Adansonia

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

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cgndiaye0324.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Origin myth

[edit]

I removed the following story inserted by an anonymous user, without context or attribution. It's sounds familiar to me, though. Maybe it could be reinserted as a story rather than literal fact, if somebody knows where the story came from.

The Baobab was the biggest of all the trees in the bush and he used to brag to all the other trees and wildlife. God heard his bragging and said to the baobab because you're boasting about your size i'm going to turn you upside down to punish you. And that is why the baobab looks like it's roots are on the top.

— Pekinensis 12:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above is familiar to me too. It's African folklore about the origin of the tree, though I am not familiar with the source of the actual quote. Lendorien 14:29, 4 November 2005

I deleted the reference to the baobab being the national tree of Madagascar because it's not! The traveller's palm (Ravanala madagascariensis) is.

According to this, baobab is the national tree - MPF 10:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's common knowledge, the story of God shoving the tree back in the ground upside down, within African folklore... so probably okay to leave it. BUT..

Answers.com takes a lot of its information from Wikipedia, so I don't think that its really plaigerizing.

I'm gonna be asking for a review on this whole article. Seems someone has been plaigerizing, not sure if it's them or us here, but I've seen a good chunk of this in two other places, one other online Encyclopedia and at http://www.answers.com/topic/baobab --JT 05:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grantkruger 19:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC) I edited the page before seeing the above discussion, but the information is good regardless. To the following,[reply]

The baobab is occasionally known colloquially as "upside-down tree" (from the Arabic legend which claims that the devil pulled out the tree and planted it upside down).

I added,

This is likely derived from older African lore. The story goes that after creation, each of the animals was given a tree to plant and the stupid hyena planted the baobab upside-down!

I'm from South Africa and I've heard this story from several tribes in South Africa and Mozambique. It is often credited to the bushmen who are amongst the world's oldest people, though their older history is of course oral, rather than written.

When I checked the article just today, I noticed the "upside-down tree" was not even mentioned in the text anymore, even the upside down tree redirects to this page. I have added the following in the lead:
"The baobab is also known as the "upside down tree", a name that originates from several myths."Wickens, G. E.; Lowe, P. (2008). The Baobabs: Pachycauls of Africa, Madagascar and Australia. Springer Verlag. ISBN 978-1-4020-6430-2. OCLC 166358049.
Please review, it could get treated better (in a separate section) then this, but I will leave that to someone else. Wiki-uk (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peer Review?

[edit]

Not sure if this is the best way to get this looked at, but given that I've seen a LOT of the content of this article in two different places, it'd probably be good to be sure it's not lifted.

--JT 05:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the template to the top. Meanwhile, since Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia is a free encyclopedia, people are free to duplicate the content elsewhere as long as they adhere to the licenses. Answers.com is one such place. There are other places that do the same, and some even mirror User pages as well. If you do a Google search for "User:Kjoonlee" I'm sure you'll find places other than Wikipedia. --Kjoonlee 06:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi JT - good that you are looking out for potential copyright violations, but you needn't worry in this case, answers.com is copied from here (and they do, as required by the GFDL licence, cite wikipedia as the source: "This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia") - MPF 01:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The myth of the punishment of the Baobab tree is a legend among the Kamba tribe in Kenya and possibly other tribes in eastern Kenya. It is true that these people held this legand in ancient times. Note by Steve Van Nattan-- Lived in Kenya for about 12 years68.47.162.154 23:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Insert non-formatted text here[reply]

Evolutionary explanation?

[edit]

Is there a historical explanation for the distribution of baobabs in Africa and Australia? Have they existed since before the continents were separated? (This seems unlikely, as both varities are still classified in the same genus.) Were there ever baobabs in Asia, that could explain the radiation from Africa to Australia? --Saforrest 20:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, "dispersal between Africa and Australia occurred well after the fragmentation of Gondwana and, therefore, involved over-water dispersal" [1] - MPF 11:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

[edit]

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

referring to baobab's age

[edit]

I removed this statement from the article, since it seems misleading at best:

Few botanists believe these claims of extreme age; current evidence suggests they rarely exceed 400 years.[1]

The statement "few botanists" would seem to suggest that the entire botanist community collectively believes claims of extreme age to be false, when the cited article makes no such claim. With the statement retained, the overall impression one gets is an unwarranted skepticism for radiometric dating. And I hate to be snarky here, but when I hear skepticism for carbon dating, I hear a Creationist subtext. A different article [2] goes into some detail on how they determined the age of several trees reputed to be over 1000 years old (skip down to "Aging Baobabs" in the link given). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petzl (talk • contribs) 20:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Wilson, R. T. (1988). Vital statistics of the baobab (Adansonia digitata). African Journal of Ecology 26 (3): 197-206.

Merging Baobab fruit with Adansonia?

[edit]

A merging of baobab fruit with this article has been suggested. However, keeping the separate article could facilitate reference to it for cooking/cuisine, nutrition, and other purposes. --A12n (talk) 13:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles should be merged but the one on baobab fruit nutrients is completely unreferenced and would not presently qualify to be used as fact. --Paul144 (talk) 13:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Doesn't look like there is much useful in the Baobab fruit article. Whatever is salvagable can be merged here, but that won't be much. It almost reads like spam for some food supplement. --Crusio (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Youall might like to consider merging baobab fruit with Adansonia digitata, rather than Adansonia. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also this page Lavateraguy (talk) 19:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Units?

[edit]

up to 120,000 liters or 32,000 US gallons)

Its not completely clear to me from the WP:UNITS ; should articles like this one state non-SI units for given figures? it says International scope: Wikipedia is not country-specific; unless tackling region-specific topics, use international units , but further examples it gives merely speak of giving them priority, using them along with others? --78.0.228.98 (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's covered by Conversions to and from metric units and US or imperial units should generally be provided. That's why the convert template exists. Eeekster (talk) 23:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, thx --78.0.228.98 (talk) 00:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

baobab in india

[edit]

The page states that baobab is found in africa and australia. But a large no of baobabs are found in india. Could it be that the baobab is foreign to india. Any information on history of baobab in india is solicited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.196.178.163 (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baobab (Adansonia digitata) is an introduced species in India. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uses

[edit]

This book says Adansonia baobab leaves are used as a spice. --Una Smith (talk) 05:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tenuous cultural ref worth having?

[edit]

As of 22:16, 7 July 2010 User:Nbarth added "The Senegalese band Orchestra Baobab is named for the Baobab Club in Dakar, which in turn takes its name from the tree."

Seems a bit tenuous adding the band but not the club if the band is named after the club not the tree? I'd remove but only with more agrement. Trev M  ~  23:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section on notable specimens?

[edit]

Is a section on notable specimens worth creating? Trev M  ~  21:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diameter

[edit]

Hi. I was intrigued by the expression "average diamater", which would mean an estimate of the diameter along the trunk, from its biggest diameter at the base to the diameter just below branching off. Looking for clarity, I went to the cited source, but there is no mention whatsoever of any diameter. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising

[edit]

The following advertising is moved here because it is not appropriate for the article page (per WP:EL):

Where to buy it?
  • Mighty Baobab Limited seem to be the global supplier of Baobab fruit pulp and Baobab Oil. The company is based in the United Kingdom, however they supply globally, for bulk and retail customers.
  • http://www.mightybaobab.com

Nadiatalent (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lore and myths section?

[edit]

There seems to be a lot of lore and myths around the tree. A section may be appropriate to compare them. Insomesia (talk) 13:09, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The dried fruit powder contains about 12% water?!

[edit]

In the Fruit section it says "he dried fruit powder contains about 12% water and various nutrients..." which makes no sense. How is it a dried fruit powder can have 12% water in it. Last time I checked the words dried and powder mean it has no water. If this sentence is incorrect then it should be fixed or if there is an explanation as to how it can be true then it needs to be rewritten to clarify the confusion. --67.103.38.162 (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Must have been a mixup. When drying the fruit, 12% weight (water) will be lost in the process. Fixed! --77.8.151.145 (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All dried fruit and fruit powders still retain some water content, and for baobab powder, this source says the dried powder has 11% water. Dried blueberries are 15% water and banana powder is 3% water. I re-established the water content to the powder section. Zefr (talk) 03:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baobabs in India - they were introduced

[edit]

Baobabs were introduced to India by the Portuguese or Arab traders.

Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baobab Adansonia digitata.jpg

[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Baobab Adansonia digitata.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 8, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-06-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baobab
Adansonia digitata is a sub-Saharan African species of baobab tree. The genus, scientifically known as Adansonia, consists of nine species native to Madagascar, Africa, Arabia and Australia, and can reach heights of 5 to 30 m (16 to 98 ft) with trunk diameters of 7 to 11 m (23 to 36 ft).Photograph: Muhammad Mahdi Karim
Archive – More featured pictures...

Uses - 1 billion USD

[edit]

Hi. It says under uses that there is a potential market of 1 billion USD. There is a ref attributed to "experts" followed by a quote by someone who uses baobab products - "Experts estimate the potential size of the international market at a billion dollars a year. “Baobab is moving from cottage industry into the mainstream,” says Malcolm Riley, of the Yozuna jam company in England. He now counts a large chain of British food stores among his customers. “It’s got mass potential.” ". However, I am not sure that this enough to sustain such a claim. It is a lot o money for a product derived from trees that anre not cultivated, go sparsely and take forever to reach maturity. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adansonia kilima

[edit]

Hi guys. Is this discorey not being taken seriously by the scientific community yet? Must it still be 'officially' recognised as a new species? Any reason why we don't have an artile on it yet? Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1 May 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Adansonia → Baobab – The lead sentence of the article, presently, is Baobab is the common name for each of the nine species of tree in the genus Adansonia. Given WP:COMMONNAME, the article title should be "Baobab" rather than the far more obscure, "Adansonia". — soupvector (talk) 21:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this proposal. Encyclopedia users are likely to search for baobab, the more recognizable name per COMMONNAME. --Zefr (talk) 21:38, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The NCFLORA guideline states, The guiding principle of this guideline is to follow usage in reliable sources. In the vast majority of cases, this will be the current scientific name. This is because the vast majority of plants are of academic interest only to botanists, and botanists almost invariably use scientific names in their published works. On the other hand, when a plant is of interest outside botany—for example because it has agricultural, horticultural or cultural importance—then a vernacular name may be more common. When I search Science magazine's scientific (not news) content for "baobab" and "adansonia", "baobab" returns more than twice as many references as "adansonia". Similarly, when I search Nature the former (baobab) returns more than three times as many results as the latter. The baobab is quite prominent culturally, so the usage seems to satisfy the principle of NCFLORA as an exception (in line with that guideline, I'm not searching the horticultural literature, but rather the general scientific literature). — soupvector (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Baobab" is more commonly used for the species Adansonia digitata as far as I can tell from searches. The opening sentence should say "Baobab is part of the name" rather than that it is the name. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It does appear that only Adansonia digitata is most commonly called "Baobab," while the others include a qualifier: "Grandidier's baobab", "Madagascar baobab", etc. The first sentence of the article is quite incorrect in saying that every single species is called, simply, "Baobab." Also, keep in mind that COMMONNAME refers to the most commonly used name and not the vernacular name of a plant. Finally, one of the species, Adansonia gregorii, is most commonly called "Boab" rather than "Baobab." First Light (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Moving would be a step backwards for precision. In geographical contexts outside of southern Africa and Madagascar, "baobab" refers to a single species. The majority of links to baobab have a geographical context and could safely be retargeted to a more precise title (usually Adansonia digitata). Plantdrew (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Adansonia. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 11:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology?

[edit]

This tree is known as the 'boab' in Australia. According to guides in the Kimberly region, this means 'many seeds' in a local Aboriginal language. However, if the name is derived via the African 'baobab' - I have to doubt this. In fact the word is first attested in medieval times in Europe as 'bahobab,' possibly from the The Arabic 'bawaaba' ('gate'). Certainly many baobabs have hollows and gaps in their bases (often made by elephants looking for the wet pulp) that can be used as doors into the trunk's interior. It is likely therefore that the word is of Arabic origin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:34F0:C300:21C:B3FF:FEC6:12F7 (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Baobab trees are a cause of major concern for the title character of The Little Prince, a world-famous classic. There is ample coverage of the relationship between these 2 topics. It suffices to do a basic search. So I've added an "in popular culture" section to the article, but another user keeps reverting it (https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Adansonia&type=revision&diff=821616665&oldid=821515990) and I'd like to know what the best thing to do is. Thank you in advance DrVogel (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts? DrVogel (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"In popular culture" sections regularly get filled with trivia, so there needs to be a good connection with the species and in particular its nature/properties. Consider an article like Spider, and consider the outcome if every well known work that made more than a passing reference to a spider or spiders were added to a popular culture section in this article. If a plant is poisonous, and is used to poison someone in a well known work, then I can see why it would be relevant to add this, since it relates directly to the plant's properties. In The Little Prince the supposed behaviour of baobab trees is supposedly used as a metaphor for Nazism, although I don't find the metaphor claim very well supported in the article. So on present evidence, I'm inclined to agree that this should not be included, although I could be persuaded. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peter, thanks for answering. I think the difference between spiders and baobabs, is that we all know what spiders are, but many people only know that baobabs exist because of The Little Prince. DrVogel (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suggest you construct a well sourced short paragraph that explains the significance of the baobab in the book, put it here, and see what other editors think then. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought I had done, but then another editor kept deleting it instead of discussing it, and I didn't want to start an edit war.DrVogel (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The edit you linked above shows a single sentence that simply states that baobabs are in the book, nothing more. The one secondary source you provided (which incidentally is a condensed excerpt from this essay) explores the baobab as a symbol in the book, which is a good starting point, but it doesn't discuss the way the book has changed the baobab's place in the broader culture, which is what WP:IPC encourages us to explore. That's nothing to say of the baobab's importance in the literature of the cultures resident to the tree's natural range, which is due more coverage than a single work of European fiction. Ibadibam (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a child I learned about albatrosses from The Rescuers, and Ireland from Lucky Charms, and yet Albatross has no mention of the Disney film and Ireland has no mention of the cereal. Nor should they. The essay you want to read is Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. Ibadibam (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Albatrosses are mentioned in lots of books. Ireland is mentioned in lots of books.
Baobabs are mentioned in The Little Prince, and a lot has been written about that particular fact. Please try a search and you'll see. DrVogel (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your response makes me think you have yet to read the essay I linked for you. My point is that the appearance of a topic in a work of fiction does not necessarily warrant mention in the encyclopedia outside of the article covering that work of fiction. As to what has been written about this particular topic, I did a search and only found a few essays summarizing the book. If there's more substantial coverage than that, the burden is on you to provide it directly. Remember that our goal here is high-quality, encyclopedic content. Ibadibam (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing with Ibadibam, this is a piece of WP:TRIVIA only of limited regional interest. --Zefr (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ibadibam, I have actually read the essay, and I believe it passes at least questions 2 and 4 of the given criteria.
Also, have a look here [[3]]
May I also add, that being patronising and/or talking to people like they're stupid is not helpful. DrVogel (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have to chuckle that you feel patronized yet presume a fellow user doesn't know how to use Google. As I said, I did a search and didn't find anything. Give us some specific links. That will then satisfy criterion #2. I look forward to your expanding your case for criterion #4 (why baobabs as opposed to any other tree). Ibadibam (talk) 07:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please The Little Prince. Thewriter006 (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Adansonia digitata which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:30, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 10 August 2018

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 19:17, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adansonia → Baobabs – In the plural, the common name will be the "Baobabs" and thusly it will make sense more so than the scientific Adansonia to more people. Many more have heard of Baobabs than Adansonia and in the plural it works to refer to many types of Baobabs. That is all. Except to say that the previous talk Talk:Adansonia#Requested_move_1_May_2016 was yet failed but is now stale so we can pursue this exciting new change with renewed vigor. Bod (talk) 20:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Oppose As per the previous discussion, the English name is used for one species in particular, and for the genus as a whole, so is ambiguous. Changing to the plural does not fix this, apart from not being the usual form for titles. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Reversing my inadequately-educated 2016 position, I agree with Peter that baobab has a geographical context and could be redirected to A. digitata. I also recommend that Bodhi Peace raise such issues first on the talk page for general discussion, rather than going to a renaming or redirect proposal. --Zefr (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:
  • Comment Instead of changing the name of this article, I'd like to change the name of the genus. Can anyone help me with the process to go about changing the name of the genus in the literature. Wouldn't you all agree it would be better if the genus name was "Baobab"? Bod (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's impossible. The scientific names of organisms are decided by the Principle of Priority. Their suitability or desirability is utterly irrelevant. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:31, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Further reading

[edit]

Moving the further reading content to Talk as redundant and unnecessary. --Zefr (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adansonia&oldid=1194715341"