Talk:Camassia

Plants Low‑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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Oregon Mid‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon 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.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

There are a variety of words being used interchangeably to refer to Camas (I have used camassia quamash, camas and blue camas in the edits I have posted). This isn't incorrect (based on my understanding of the topic), but it may be confusing to readers. This page could benefit from some etymological clarification if anyone feels up to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabdandr (talk • contribs) 23:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help! I evidently did something incorrectly and the image is not attached. Can someone help with this? The image is Camassia-quamash.jpg I appreciate any guidance.

Robbie Giles 16:38, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

Please clarify about edibility of Quamash.

Questions

The range given in the first sentence doesn't include the range for Cammassia scilloides given later. Which is right? Also, which species does the subsection on "ornamental uses" apply to? —JerryFriedman 04:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Camas Hyacinth"?

As a resident in the Pacific NW, I've never heard this referred to as a hyacinth. The common name for these are "Camas lilies" -- which seems to be indicated by the otherwise non sequitor about Camassia being once considered part of the Lily family. -- llywrch (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

The line "Historically, the genus was thought to belong to the lily family (Liliaceae), sometimes narrowed down to the families Scillaceae or Hyacinthaceae" doesn't make sense to me, and I'm wondering what is actually meant? How can one family be "narrowed down" to another (or even to 2 others)? Is there actually a Scillaceae family, or is the sentence referring to the Scilloideae subfamily? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. I've edited the relevant bit and it's now accurate and I hope clear (tho' should probably have a reference showing the earlier placement in Liliaceae). Peter coxhead (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peter, that is clearer now, although why have you used the word "sometimes" when describing where Camassia was placed after Liliaceae was split? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was a bit of improper evasiveness pending finding some references. Historically when the old Liliaceae was split, different systems were used by different people (see List of systems of plant taxonomy). Dahlgren put it in Hyacinthaceae (e.g. [1]), of which Scillaceae is a synonym. Kubitzki put it in Agavaceae, which APG3 reduced to subfamily Agavoideae of Asparagaceae. I haven't been able to find out (yet) what the Thorne system did, and maybe it doesn't matter. I've done a bit more copy-editing and added references. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The wording's pretty clear now, thanks. As an aside, I confess I hadn't realised that there were so many different taxonomic systems that were concurrent with one another. I was aware of various named systems, but had naively assumed that at any one time taxonomists agreed on which system should be used. I suppose it would be hoping too much to think that the introduction of DNA analysis has resulted / will result in greater agreement? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered on your talk page. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Camassia. 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/20111120181632/http://www.idaho.gov/aboutidaho/county/camas.html to http://www.idaho.gov/aboutidaho/county/camas.html

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) 10:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]