|WikiProject Plants||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject Psychoactive and Recreational Drugs||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
innoxia vs. inoxia
I changed all the relevant instances of "innoxia" to "inoxia". I left the "nn" spelling in the file names of pictures, and in the sentence that says it "is often cited as Datura innoxia". That sentence really didn't make any sentence when the "nn" spelling was already being used throughout the article (although not in the title). The "nn" spelling is certainly worth mentioning; there are more Google hits for this spelling than for "inoxia". However, every authoritative online reference I've checked (TROPICOS, IPNI, USDA PLANTS, ARS-GRIN) uses the single "n" spelling. Unless somebody can come up with a nomenclaturally authoritative reference for "innoxia", "inoxia" should be the spelling used in the article. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 17:15, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
-- Taxonomic names can change over time. But without doubt I can say at this moment in time, the species name of this is taxon is definitely "innoxia" not "inoxia". Two major authoritative sources for plant taxonomy agree on this: The Plant List http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/kew-2757799 TROPICOS: http://www.tropicos.org/Name/29600166
The original author of the name (Philip Miller) made a spelling mistake and this has been retrospectively corrected under Article 60.1 of the ICBN http://www.bgbm.org/iapt/nomenclature/code/saintlouis/0065Ch7OaGoNSec1a60.htm see also http://www.tropicos.org/Name/29600687 which explains why "inoxa" is not the accepted name anymore. Metacladistics (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's a general statement, but not a specific citation for a name change. The name "inoxia" is used by a specialty books like Preißel, U., & Preissel, H. (1997). Engelstrompeten : Brugmansia und Datura (2., völlig neu gestalt. und erw. Aufl. ed.). Stuttgart: Ulmer. ISBN 3-8001-6614-3 The given source also links to a further says that says "Remarks: as "inoxia"", so the source book used by that website uses it also, apparently. Hekerui (talk) 20:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Misleading name? Ornamental varieties?
From what I've read of this wildflower, it's not exactly 'inoffensive'. Swallowing or inhaling this is about as dumb as sucking on a Euphorbia cactus, sap-laced thorns and all. You know, the ones they use to kill fish. Some people are thick as bricks, I guess. :/ A good question to answer for the article is how often this is grown for ornamental purposes.
"It has also been planted throughout the world as an ornamental plant for its attractive large leaves, large white flowers, and distinctive thorny fruit. However, the plant is now considered an invasive species in several locations. For example, because of the similarity of its life cycle to that of cotton, it is a pest in cotton fields. It is also a potential seed contaminant." This really needs expansion.