Talk:Simarouba glauca

This article clearly does not discuss what it is supposed to (a tree species), and it appears to have been vandalized. I undid the vandalism and the article now talks about trees again. Sorry if I didn't do this the best way- I'm new to editing pages but this was such an egregious case that I had to do something. Milicia (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "Environmental impact" section does not describe any qualities unique to this tree species. All plants convert "solar energy into biochemical energy" and have the capacity to counteract global warming. Most plants will provide the same benefits of reducing soil erosion, supporting soil microbes, improve ground water retention, and shade the soil. Some species specific benefits should be added or the section removed. 24 September 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.94.54.211 (talk) 17:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

I've flagged part of the lede as dubious. It claims that the S. glauca taxonomy is outdated and that it has been absorbed into S. amara. I'm no botanist, so I wouldn't know where to look for the proper source on this. A quick search didn't deliver anything, so I was hesitant to mark it as needing citation either. It just doesn't sit right with me, though. --ElKabong888 (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]