Talk:Agapanthus

Comments

What good is the enormous "selected cultivars" list? (And does this imply that some names were actually left out???) In reality only a very few of these are commercially available. I would suggest deleting the entire list except for those few that are well-known or widely grown.

The "selected cultivars" listed are not all of the 650 plus cultivars available worldwide. Many deciduous cultivars are available in Europe where as it is the evergreen varieties which are predominant in Australia and New Zealand. What is widely grown in one country is not necessarily available in another country so why delete any at all. Maybe it should be added to listing which cultivars are available on each continent.

That doesn't answer my question: what does the list add to the article, except for the fact that there are lots and lots of cultivars in this group? Where and how can I get more information on any particular name? Where does this list come from? How accurate is it? How reliable is it? Are any of these names synonyms of others, are all of them "good" cultivars, are any extinct? I am skeptical of all such lists (even lists of species under genera) unless they are sourced and at least somewhat verifiable. MrDarwin 14:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the cultivars are available from Hoyland Plant Centre in South Yorkshire UK website http://www.somethingforthegarden.co.uk/catalogue.pdf San Marcos nursery in California USA website http://www.smgrowers.com/search/basesearch.asp?strSearchText=agapanthus Pine Cottage Plants in UK website http://www.pcplants.co.uk/PlantShop/browse/index.cfm Beeches Nursery in UK website http://www.beechesnursery.co.uk/ Maleny Agapanthus and Clivia in Australia Website http://malenyagas.com.au/ Pine Mountain Nursery in Australia is breeding new bicolour cultivars Website http://www.pinemountainnursery.com.au/category12_1.htm A good website with information on agapanthus is http://www.agapanthus.org.uk/uk/agapanthusfreunde.html A lot of info about care, cultivars and history can be found at http://www.agapanthus.nl/eng from Piet Zonneveld. If you really want good information on Agapanthus get the book Agapanthus A revision of the Genus by Wim Snoeijer ISBN 0-88192-631-0 21 March 2006

I've deleted the list (to see it look in the history) because it looks HORRIBLE. A good idea would be to make a separate page and LIST them out. Having them how they used to be is pointless.--TheAlphaWolf 00:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge tag

The page was tagged for a possible merge with "Agapanthaceae"; this family isn't recognized by APG III so such a merge isn't relevant and I removed the template. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly about the merge, though I am chary of such merges. However in this case, in the light of the confused situation in the taxonomy, I suggest that the subject be put on hold until there is some clear opinion on which family or subfamily is the appropriate one. JonRichfield (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a different merge than the one I commented on in January 2012 – that was with the family "Agapanthaceae", this is with the subfamily Agapanthoideae. As we use APG III in the English Wikipedia which recognizes this subfamily, and as the subfamily is monogeneric, this merge should take place. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. OK then. JonRichfield (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge completed – there was actually very little different information at Agapanthoideae. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Agapanthus. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104085302/http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/publications/researchpubs/Fecundity_of_dwarf_Agapanthus.pdf to http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/publications/researchpubs/Fecundity_of_dwarf_Agapanthus.pdf

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) 10:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spathe valves / bracts

Sources say that the umbel has two "spathe valves" (see e.g. p. 15 here) at its base. These are described as "deciduous", i.e. they may fall off. Images and personal observation suggest that the umbel is initially enclosed in a spathe, which splits, supposedly into two parts, but I think that sometimes (in some cultivars?) there's only one split producing only one part. However, we can only put in the article what sources say, and I can't find a source for this. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link - I previously had that paper and couldn't find my copy. Yes, that is what it says but definitely one part on the plants we have. It also says the bract(eole?)s subtending the pedicels are persistent, on our plants these are deciduous. Oh, well. Pcrooker (talk) 03:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]