Talk:Musa (genus)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Picture is upside down[edit]

The picture of the flower spike is upside down. Can we invert it somehow? (On second look it appears this may be correct for this species/cultivar. Bizarre.)

Improvements[edit]

At a time when most comments are to flame somebody's stupid remarks it's refreshing to be able to comment favourably about the improvement that's been done in this article. Although I did some of the early work on this article, he's proven that I was in well over my head. Too bad the contributor is anonymous; we need more like him. Eclecticology 17:29 Nov 28, 2002 (UTC)

Please repair cut-and-paste move[edit]

Musa was moved by cut and paste to Musa (Musaceae) by anonymous user 195.7.55.146 in November 2004 and replaced with a redirect to Musa (disambiguation). This is an unsatisfactory state of affairs because the history is missing from the article. There are two possible solutions to this, given below. I'd be happy with either solution.

  1. Keep the article on the genus at Musa (Musaceae) and merge the histories; move Musa (disambiguation) to Musa.
  2. Move the article on the genus back to Musa and merge the histories; leave Musa (disambiguation) as it is.

Gdr 14:23, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

Done what I can for now. There is some history left at Musa (Musaceae)/history that will be merged in when technically possible. violet/riga (t) 23:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. Gdr 19:44, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

OK, all fixed up now. Noel (talk) 20:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Appropriate place for species[edit]

where should Musa sumatrana go in the lists of species?Erudy 17:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

It is actually Musa acuminata ssp. zebrina. M. sumatrana is an obsolete name used in horticulture. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Edible Banana Species[edit]

The edible banana section is good but it only mentions a few botanical names. I've decided to make a list of all the EDIBLE-FRUITED species on the talk page, including commercially non-viable species, using botanical names where possible:

22:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Seedless Banana - Musa X paradisiaca.
Not a valid name.
  • Common Banana - Musa acuminata.
Usually "bananito" or "apple banana"
  • Japanese Fiber Banana - Musa balbisiana.
Probably too small fruits to be eaten to any extent
  • Blood Banana - Musa sumatrana.
Not a valid name. Probably too small fruits to be eaten to any extent.
  • Fe'i Banana - Musa troglodytarum.
Not a valid name.
  • Pink Banana - Musa velutina.
Probably too small fruits to be eaten to any extent
  • Burmese Blue Banana - Musa ?.
Needs checking. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 05:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Musa As Lepidoptera Larval Foodplants[edit]

Some confusion over taxonomic names exists in various sources, and I was wondering if it would be possible to provide some hints as to the true identities of various species of Musa cited as being utilised as foodplants by assorted Brassolid butterflies (most notably Caligo species but also species in genera such as Opsiphanes). This site lists Musa sapientum (elsewhere listed in the same database as Musa paradisiaca var sapientum) as a foodplant of Caligo eurilochus for example, but none of the two names for that foodplant appear in the list of valid Musa species on the main page. By way of a double check I've looked at the Natural History Museum database of Lepidoptera larval foodplants (main index page for this is here) and that database mentions "Musa x paradisiaca", which suggests a cultivar of some sort (the complete page for larval foodplants of members of the genus Caligo I generated and examined - this link whould take the curious to the requisite page). Looking at the comment above on edible bananas, it would seem that 'paradisiaca' is indeed a cultivar, but of course more work needs to be done on this (it's notable that several of the Caligo species on the page from the NHM database also have Musa acuminata listed as a larval foodplant). Presumably the NHM source is a reliable one (they are just up the road from Kew Gardens, one of the world's leading botanical research facilities, and presumably exchange information on a regular basis) so I would venture to suggest that information about the use of Musa by Brassolids be updated with information obtained therefrom, with taxonomic named corrected where required in accordance with the latest phylogeny. Any takers? Calilasseia 23:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Japanese banana cwp.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Japanese banana cwp.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


Corrections to Page[edit]

The picture of M. troglodytarum is actually of a 'Cuban Red' banana. We took the image and a banana expert recently correct us.

Also the main image on this page looks like a Strelitzia, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.91.6.39 (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The pic in taxbox should be replaced, because the plant now pictured is a hybrid between a Musa species and a species from another genus. Hardyplants (talk) 23:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

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 carefull 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) 18:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now removed this tag. This article and Banana have been sorted a bit, so that the Food and drink stuff is really at the latter. This is more botanical, with a brief bit on cultivated bananas. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

top picture is from the wrong family[edit]

The top picture is of Strelitzia, which is not from the botanical Family Musa - it is from Family Strelitziaceae. As such it is not representative of any of the Family Musa plants.

The appropriate picture would be from Genus Musa - Musa paradisiaca was the first Linnean name for a banana and is therefore technically the "type species" for the genus Musa and would be an appropriate example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.80.41 (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Saba and burro[edit]

Neither the saba or burro are mentioned in this article. According to [[1]], the burro is the orinoco, which is not mentioned, either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakablogger2 (talkcontribs) 21:39, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Another good link: [[2]]. Wakablogger2 (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Red bananas[edit]

The red banana should be included in this article. Wakablogger2 (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Musa banksii or M. acuminata subsp. banksii[edit]

Regarding this edit; I realize a cited source says the opposite, but please see the pages below, as they all accept M. banksii over M. acuminata subsp. banksii:

  • Musa banksii at the Australian Plant Name Index (APNI) (— M. acuminata subsp. banksii is listed here as "nom. illeg.")
  • M. banksii at the Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN)
  • and, taking GRIN's word for it, so does the Australian Biological Resources Study (ABRS).(— I couldn't find a listing thus far from the ABRS web site, but GRIN mentions it on their Musa banksii page, linked to above.)

I am not a botanist, and so do not know which should be the accepted name, but it looks as though a clear consensus hasn't been reached by botanists on this, and so the information should still be on the Musa species list, in some form or another. More clarity would be helpful on this, if a few botanists can add to the discussion. Just trying to get it right. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 03:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hm yeah, didn't notice the nom. illeg. on GRIN, I was using Ploetz et al. 2007. Not a botanist either. No idea why it is nom. illeg. under article 52 of the Vienna ICBN though. If anyone can kindly explain why Simmonds listing Musa × paradisiaca subsp. seminifera as a synonym made the name superfluous heh. ICBN is worse than legalspeak. :P
DNA studies by Racharak & Eiadthong, 2007 and Simmonds and Shepherd, 1990 say it is the most distant genetically from the other subspecies, though they still classified it as one of the eight subspecies usually assigned under M. acuminata.
The main modern source of the species status seem to be Häkkinen & Väre, 2008. It mentions the division between authorities who consider it a separate species and those who consider it a subspecies of M. acuminata (with which it hybridizes readily), but does not mention illegitimate status of the name M. acuminata subsp. banksii. He cites Simmonds (the authority who originally demoted it to a subsp.) and Shepherd among those who consider it a species but a later papers by Shepherd contradicts this (he readily refers to it as M. a. ssp. banksii). Häkkinen also puzzlingly uses an entirely different classification system from the one used in this article it seems. Musa amboinensis and M. angcorensis for example are cited as valid but are far more readily treated as synonyms of M. textilis and M. rosea respectively.
I also found an explanation from a nameless webpage. To quote:
"Simmonds 1956 treated this taxon as a subspecies of Musa acuminata but Argent 1976 considered that it is "premature to assume a cline linking M. banksii with [Malaysian] forms of M. acuminata" and gave it specific status. A numerical taxonomic study by Simmonds and Weatherup 1990 tends to support Argent's contention that M. banksii is best treated as a species. However, Shepherd (1990, p. 158) considers that Argent's separation of M. banksii was made on "quite erroneous" grounds and treats it as a subspecies of M. acuminata. This is accepted for example by Daniels et al 2001."
And yes, I'd also welcome input from botanists on this. It basically comes down to whether or not M. a. banksii is nomen illegitimatum or not. If not, then that levels the playing field so to speak and I'd favor treating it as a subspecies like a lot of 21st century authorities. My own google searches on journals give the impression that the overwhelming majority treats it as a subspecies, Häkkinen being the only prominent one recognizing a species status.
If it is actually nom. illeg. then we should adopt the GRIN and Argent's/Häkkinen's taxonomy, I think. Otherwise, I'd treat it as a subspecies under M. acuminata given the disparity in the amount of scientific literature using M. a. banksii over M. banksii.-- ObsidinSoul 04:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Nice researching, Obsidian Soul. If you haven't already done so, I'll post to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants, to draw botanists' atten. here. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
M. acuminata subsp. banksii is illegitimate (fide GRIN) because an earlier name (M. ×paradisiaca subsp. seminifera) was given as a synonym in the original description, the implication being that the author should have selected the name M. acuminata subsp. seminifera - the dates are 1864 (M. banksii F.Mueller), 1957 (M. acuminata subsp. banksii N.W.Simmonds) and 1790 (M. seminifera Lour., basionym of M. ×paradisiaca subsp. seminifera).
TROPICOS cites Flora of China as treating M. seminifera under M. balbisinana.
Whether M. banksii is a species, or a subspecies (under what name?) is not clear, but the Kew World Checklist of Monocotyledons accepts the species. On the face of it it appears that the consensus is the Simmonds was incorrect in his opionion that banksii and seminifera were conspecific. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Ah. That settles it then, treat as species in the absence of valid publication as a subspecies. :) Gotta say though, Musa synonymies are a mess, heh. Updating affected articles. Thanks Hamamelis and Lavateraguy.-- ObsidinSoul 10:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)