Talk:Symphoricarpos

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 7 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aconitum napellus.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Australian snowberries not mentioned[edit]

This article should mention other fruits that are also called snowberry. These are not poisonous and regarded as a food source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaultheria_hispida — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.103.116 (talk) 22:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Poisonous?[edit]

It's written in the article that snowberry is not poisonous, but it's "common knowledge" here that it is (though mildly). In Norway it's recommended medical treatment if children have eaten more than 5-6 berries (of Symphoricarpos Rivularis, possibly another name for a variant of S. Albus).

Is it a myth that they may be poisonous to human?

Kaiolav72 01:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Changed information about snowberries being poison, as the common view seems to be they are. To humans anyway. I also read they could be fatal to some animals. Also took out bit about not being eaten by birds as information gathered says that they are important to certain birds like quail, grouse etc., and also are eaten by songbirds and deer. Kaiolav72 23:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The white, waxy-looking berries are considered poisonous by aboriginal peoples. They are given names like 'corpse berry' or 'snake's berry' in several languages. One Stl'atl'imx story identifies the berries as 'the saskatoon berries of the people in the Land of the Dead.' However, one or two berries were eaten by the Stl'atl'imx to settle the stomach after too much fatty food. Pojar, Jim and MacKinnon, Andy (2004) Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast: Washington, Oregon, British Columbia, and Alaska, Lone Pine Publishing. ISBN 1551050404 In western Washington, the berries remain on the plants well into winter suggesting that they are not the favored food of fauna that can reach them easily. I think that includes deer and perching birds. The section looks fine to me as currently written. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common Snowberry and pheasants[edit]

The article says

Common Snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) is an important winter food source for quail, pheasant and grouse,

Symphoricarpos albus is native to North America as are quail and grouse but not pheasants.

Not a big deal but something that might be clarified when the article is next edited.

62.49.59.228 14:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC) Wm ...[reply]

this sucks[edit]

this page hardly gives you information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.134.6 (talk) 06:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elf (film) content[edit]

Mapsfly (talk · contribs), a new editor, added content about Elf (film) to the article recently. I reverted that edit with the edit summary "uncited content that may not be notable and may refer to a Chiococca species".[1] Mapsfly subsequently restored his/her edit with the summary "yes it was referenced sir, the reference was the film Elf". Mapsfly may be unfamiliar with the Wikipedia content guideline on citing sources. Also, the guideline on trivia says, "It is always best to cite sources when adding new facts to a trivia section, or any other section." "Remember to challenge or remove trivia items that aren't sourced" (Wikipedia:Handling_trivia#Practical_steps). A well-sourced discussion of the genus Symphoricarpos in art and culture would be a welcomed addition to the article. A dubious reference to a single film with no history or context is unhelpful, in my opinion. If the content were referenced in multiple film reviews or a history or other scholarly work on film, that would be another matter. But, if the reference is to another genus, it would need to be added to that genus, not to this article. Also, undue weight should not be given to the usage of the genus in art and culture. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]