Talk:Passiflora

Plants Mid‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tennessee Low‑importance

	Tennessee portal Passiflora is within the scope of WikiProject Tennessee, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Tennessee and related subjects in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, and even become a member. [Project Articles] • [Project Page] • [Project Talk] • [Assessment] • [Template Usage]TennesseeWikipedia:WikiProject TennesseeTemplate:WikiProject TennesseeTennessee
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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): AH547113.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion?

"Blue Passion Flower (P. caerulea) is holding its own in Spain these days, and it probably needs to be watched so that unwanted spreading can be curtailed." Why such hate for Blue Passion Flower? It's just a plant. This seems like sloppy writing. 192.33.240.95 (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pollinators

Mikkalai, I believe you that bumblebees would be good passion flower pollinators, if they are present. But I am skeptical about hummingbirds, because the flower is not shaped like a typical hummingbird-pollinated flower, nor have I ever seen a hummingbird visit one, though hummingbirds are common around here. Have you some backup of the claim? Pollinator 02:47, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Some species are quite tube-shaped, and are indeed pollinated by hummingbirds. Others are pollinated by bats. See this photo essay on Passiflora pollination from the Missouri Botanical Garden. Does that quell your skepticism? -- Hadal 03:08, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In fact, I have Passiflora amethystina in my backyard, in Silicon Valley. Hummingbirds are all over them. And their flowers are not tube-shaped. And there are plenty of fruit, too. And I wouldn't want carpenter bees by my wooden house. I'll try to take a picture. Mikkalai 05:29, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Passifiora quadrangularis

There is a flower article here : Passiflora quadrangularis, but I don't know if this name is archaic or not because it was taken from the 1911 encyclopedia. Any ideas? Should this article link to it? --DanielCD 03:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken care of it. --DanielCD 14:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Passiflora protest

On 30/07/2005 a group of people from Israel did demonstration against the Passiflora because it start the manufacturers start put this fruit in every product.

Passiflorafobia - afraid the Passiflora will take control of our life/world.

(The demonstration was cynical of course). here is the group site: http://www.pharsh.com/ here some pictures from the event: http://www.pharsh.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=11

I've deleted this section because it really did not belong here. It may have been a fun joke, but it is non-encyclopedic and not really a significant event. Besides, this is the article about the Passion FLOWER, not the FRUIT. --woggly 18:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Usages

What parts of the plant do you brew in a tea for its medical properties? How effective is it for pain? (better or weaker than Aleve?) Can it be used along with antidepressents like Lexapro? Thanks --Moop stick 21:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

passionfruit

I feel that some effort should be made to indicate this flower's relationship with the passion fruit that grows on the same plant. A link to the passion fruit article should also be provided.

If you smoke p., the effect is a little bit like cannabis. Also it helps a little for sexual aropusal. It is good by simple sleeplessness and give you lively and pleasant dreams. --Fackel 20:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of passion fruit, I would say that not all passion fruits are passiflora edulis. There are about fifty species of passiflora which have edible fruits - only five are grown commercially (it is true that virtually all sold in supermarkets would be passiflora edulis). I have put in the information on this on the talk page of passion fruit. So, I would be in favour of changing the section under the sub-heading "fruit" to make clearer that not all passion fruits are passiflora edulis. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Article Rename

I would like to do a little work on the Passiflora articles, but I see the first thing that needs to be done is a rename of the main article, and I would appreciate your consensus. The current article name, "Passion flower", represents a common usage name incorrectly used for a taxon article per Wikipedia naming conventions. Occasionally an exception is made where an article is split into separate plant-taxon and plant-product articles, such as Malus domestica and apple, because they do represent different parts or portions of the same whole. Similarly it is appropriate that we have Passiflora/Passion-flower in one article and Passion fruit in another. However Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) says that "When a decision is made to treat them separately, the taxon article should use the scientific name", so I propose a name change of the main article to "Passiflora", to be more in line with the thousands of other genera articles on Wikipedia. Please let me know what you think. Tom Hulse (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It's actually just a question of reversing the redirect directions heh. --Obsidi♠n^Soul 01:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Also, my to do list has "Passiflora and related pages. Add taxonomy section. Fact check the species articles, which have had a lot of inaccuracies." I seem to already added a taxonomy section, but I haven't been through the species articles. (Last year we had the "Singapore tropical fruit editor" - a IP user with a non-static IP - who was at best reckless about the accuracy of his edits.) Lavateraguy (talk) 08:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per 'nomination' reasons.—Look2See1 t a l k → 19:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bla, bla, bla :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.129.231.62 (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confused by Symbolic Interpretation

Minor point, but if the 3 represents the '3 nails', how can the 5 represent "the wounds (4 nails + 1 lance)? 212.139.110.183 (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)twl212.139.110.183 (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This hotly contested theological point ("Triclavianism" - were 3 nails or 4 used at the crucifixion) was a point of division (or arithmetic) between the Albigenses and the Waldenses, so you should link the article to the relevant Wiki page at <http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Triclavianism>. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.110.183 (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How far north are they in the US?

I'm confused by the phrase "found from Ohio to the north". Does this mean "found as far north as Ohio" or "Ohio is the southern limit"? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing information about natural presence

There are two discrepant information in the article. First, it is said that Passiflora is absent from Africa what means there are no species originating from Africa not there are no cultivating of it there. Secondly, at the bottom of the article there is category "Flora of Africa". It is clear that such category indicates group of cultivated plants that have African descent. Maciek.Wikipedysta (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to resolve this with some slight rewording and removal of the category. Deli nk (talk) 12:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation of Content and Quality

Content Evaluation

The material on this article is broken down well. The organization of information allows for easier reading and understanding the information. It covers many topics about the genus, although overall it gives an extensive amount of information some sections were brief such as the 'Chemistry' but it's still informative. The article does have references, 11 references are listed and when going through and checking them I found two links didn't open properly and one only tells the name of the species which is helpful but contributed only a small amount of information. It seems like some information could have been assumed or already known. Because this is a plant that is continuously being researched there are many thing that can indeed be added to this article BUT as research continues we can more information for medicinal usages as well as information from studies about the genus itself not just a predominant species.

Content Quality

The article's introduction is very important due to it ability to draw the reader in and this one specifically was good to read. It is short and spoke briefly on the morphology and differentiation between its common name and how many species are out there. It also clearly states "further study is needed" which allows you to know that there is always more information that can be added or changed with the help of ongoing research. There are several headings and I think there is plenty information covered. All the images benefitted the article and pertained to the topic researched. The legends below the pictures is helpful in distinguishing between the species as well as in the 'Ecology' section showing the relationships with other organisms. The image in the 'Chemistry' section is helpful as well in summarizing a simple point in the paragraphs below. There are many footnotes included in the article that can be referred back to the references. The coverage is scientific and seems unbiased. Some references are reliable and some are unobtainable. AH547113 (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are important facts that are not covered in this article. For example: 90% aprox of the species are found in tropical America (Ecuador and Colombia), but when you read the article you find all kind of photos and descriptions to the 10%. This is not a fair representation of the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editor111869 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Passiflora. 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) 02:47, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More recent sources about P. caerulea's invasiveness/effect on ecosystems in Spain?

I rephrased a sentence about blue passion flowers as an invasive species in Spain and added a more specific citation than just "Dana et al [2001]". That 2001 article says it may be a danger to ecosystems in future, with another from Dana et al saying it is "suspected to [threaten ecosystems] in the near future", but since both of these are from around 2001 this statement seems likely to need updating based more recent sources. AKiwiDeerPin (talk) 08:39, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

I propose merging Hollrungia into Passiflora, as evidence suggests that it is now a synonym of Passiflora. Per Krosnick et al., "Recent phylogenetic analysis of the Old World species of Passiflora has indicated that two monotypic genera in the Passifloraceae, Hollrungia and Tetrapathea, are strongly supported as belonging to the genus Passiflora" and "The single species of Hollrungia, H. aurantioides, is transferred to Passiflora subgenus Tetrapathea as P. aurantioides." Ornithoptera (talk) 04:44, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ornithoptera I agree with merging and have turned the page Hollrungia into a redirect to Passiflora. Since the article was practically empty, no significant information is lost. Conan Wolff (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]