Talk:Puya chilensis

POA

Please change category, poales is related with grass family not with Bromelias --Penarc 12:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image

I consider this image is better tham older, whose leaves or flowers are dead --Penarc 19:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation

The citation for the BBC article is self-referencing, no actual data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.222.39 (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statement about "carnivory" existed in the article prior to the BBC account (in fact it was added when the article was created), but without any citation; with no credible sources whatsoever I would consider it extremely dubious (or at best greatly exaggerated), and it's quite possible that the BBC picked up the "information" from this Wikipedia article in the first place. 160.111.254.17 (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good grief, unless somebody can come up with a better reference this does not belong in the article at all. The BBC story--which credulously reports this with no references or citations whatsoever--is NOT a reliable source, and the sentence that was in the article previously likewise had no citation. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the BBC just ain't it. As mentioned above I'm guessing that they picked it up from this article, which would make the "citation" entirely circular. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.23.114 (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I came here to check if the BBC article was correct or if it was repeating misinformation, but instead I find a reference to the very article that I'm checking the credibility of. 174.91.32.152 (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Huffington Post article is not much better. -AfadsBad (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a "reliable" source for the claim. Mabberly's Plant Book is a good source for botanically information, but I'm still skeptical about the claim, which he repeats uncritically (albeit with some weasel words). I have yet to find any further sources making this claim (beyond sites quoting Wikipedia, or recent news articles about the flowering in Surrey). I think the claim is worth mentioning as a piece of folklore about this plant, but I remain skeptical about the truth of the claim (it's bird pollinated; surely trapping it's pollinators would do more harm than good). Plantdrew (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The inflorescences rise to a substantial height above the plant and birds hover around them, so the basal rosette of sheep-killing swords are probably not too hazardous to birds. We grew them in our back yard for a while, and I just don't remember their fearfulness, only their beauty and unusual color. -AfadsBad (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added another reference which discusses the outward pointing spines as being an adaptation to prevent herbivores from reaching the center of the plant. I also found a blog ([1] in Spanish) that talks about this function of the outward pointing spines and also mentions the possibility of animals being trapped by the inward pointing spines. Not an RS, but at least it mentions animals being trapped. Plantdrew (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the evidence for this claim is spotty at best. However, this photograph of a BBC interview with the Royal Horticultural Society's expert is priceless: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BNRKIJeCcAA4acd.jpg ...evidently, the Royal Horticultural Society's expert is agreeing with the "sheep eating" claim - but the photo makes you wonder with what seriousness the interview was conducted.

That said, I wonder if we can find something from them that we could cite them as a WP:RS for this?

SteveBaker (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a guide

I've removed the cultivation section for now, as it was nothing more than a guide on how to keep the plant. Per WP:NOTAGUIDE, this is not our place. Information on it's use as a house plant may be added, along with any farming information that exists. Thanks. drewmunn talk 07:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]