|WikiProject Plants||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Not too sure but should the sentence read pyrethrins attack the nervous system instead of Pyrethrum? Dmsar 18:54 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Yes, I think so too. Reworded. Now can someone fill in the details of synergised pyrethrins? All I know is that some compounds enhance the effects of pyrethrins, and that some pyrethrin formulations take advantage of this... Malcolm Farmer 18:58 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Ok, Malcom, isn't this becoming a separate article on pyrethrins??? Shouldn't we just split it and make a link? Dmsar 19:20 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Perhaps. I think there's more that can be said about pyrethrins (a chemical srtructure drawing, and I'm curious about how they work), and the pyrethrum article could use a photo of the plant, but we don't have that at the moment... Hey, this is Wikipedia - be bold and split the article if you want. If anyone objects they'll revert it (I won't) -- Malcolm Farmer 09:14 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- I used to live in Kenya, and my parents farmed Pyrethrum. I heard that the difference between Pyrethrum and pyrethrins was that Pyrethrum had both right and left-handed (molecules ??) but only one was effective. Synthetic pyrethrins only contain one-hand - the correct one, naturally. Sorry to be so vague .. Wizzy…☎ 08:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Well if I knew a nursery or a place, I'd run out and use my digital camera and make it so. It seems to work ok here on the articles I've written. Dmsar 09:20 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Thanks, Heron. I over-read the colors in my zeal to add info. the « was just me trying to be cute and experimenting. The misspelling wasn't mine, but I did miss it. Dmsar 21:49 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Fine. I did wonder for a moment whether there was some chemical significance in those brackets. :-) -- Heron
“Ah, the glory of typographer's quotes… ” It's
’. See if you can find the other two special charectors I used in this post :) –Wulf 03:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC) In the Cronenberg movie Naked lunch this Bug killer is featured and the Pytethrum entry could benifit from including this infornmation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KAOSKTRL (talk • contribs) 04:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Use in organic farming
Yes, could use a photo
I'd like to see some of the different kinds there are. I spoke today with a former distributor of 100% pyrethrin powder and she said about a year+ ago the EPA sent them a letter saying they either had to fork over some bucks for the EPA to do testing or they had to give up their license to sell the stuff. So out went the license. The powder worked really well. In my search today I only found .5% to 6% pyrethrin items for sale, not the pure ground up flowers. Looking to grow my own flowers to stop fleas. Kristinwt (talk) 07:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Still in use
Why does it say "Pyrethrum was used for centuries as an insecticide, and as a lice remedy in the Middle East"? It's widely used in the US today as a lice remedy, under the brand name RID. Kendall-K1 (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Toxicity in humans
I do not wish to get into an editor war. Perhaps someone more diplomatic than I am might add to the section on human toxicity. Source #3 is some gardener's blog. When I looked up (on Google) pyrethroid toxicity, I found good information from the University of Florida Agricultural Extension (USA). Reference: . Rat and rabbit LD-50 levels are very high for most (= very safe), with doses in some cases of about 1% of the animal's body weight required to cause significant mortality. So we humans can probably eat it in quantities of many grams without harm (other than for allergic reactions, of course). All my edits to Wikipedia have thus far been minor copyediting. To change this would be more than a minor edit. Perhaps someone might email me with a good way to begin such edits, without doing damage to the product or to feelings. Eugen Hamerle (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I find it interesting that this article exists in its present form. The first sentence starts out by basically saying "this is the wrong title for this article" by saying "Pyrethrum was a genus of several Old World plants now classified as Chrysanthemum..."
Well, if that is true, then the article should be entitled "Chrysanthemum" and there should be a redirect for "pyrethrum" that takes people to the "Chrysanthemum" title.
There is a "Chrysanthemum" article (where Pyrethrum is barely mentioned), so perhaps "pyrethrum" needs to be a subsection under the "Chrysanthemum" article. I don't know what the correct/best solution is, but I think it is pretty ridiculous to have an article basically calling itself out right from the start.
Perhaps it is a semantic or classification artifact? If that is the case, it should be clarified then to make it clear WHY this article with the title "Pyrethrum" exists. Beside that, does Wikipedia allow listing articles that are historical in nature (i.e., not contemporarily accurate)? It is not clear to me how this should be handled, but it seems clear that some digging and discussion is warranted. Thanks. Jdevola (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2016 (UTC)