Talk:Arecaceae/Archive 1

Archive 1

Need more scientific information

This entry is strongly influenced by the Bible of which there is no breakdown of scientific value.

Agreed. I have added more information on the characteristics of palms and evolution. SCHZMO ✍ 14:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Removed Sago Palm reference

Sago Palms are Cycads, not real palms. See Cycads for citation. --Thresher 13:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

There is also a true palm used for sago (Metroxylon sagu), that is what was discussed here - see further details at Sago - MPF 14:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Scottish palm trees

Arent there palm trees on the scottish coast becuase of the warming effect of the gulf stream? you can see them in the film the wicker man I think —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.2.179.168 (talk • contribs) .

That is true. The planted palms in Scotland are probably Trachycarpus species, most likely Trachycarpus fortunei which is hardy in Scotland (zone 7). SCHZMO ✍ 23:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, mostly Trachycarpus fortunei, though a few other species are grown to a small extent. Western Scotland is zone 9. - MPF 23:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Cultivation before Civilization

Hey that sounds kind of cool!  :-) While reading this article it seemed wrong to me that it seemed to say that the cultivation of the date palm took place after the start of civilization and history. Mostly it is the other way around. For instance the Incas first cultivated the potato, then their civilization arose, then they started to write history. I found an article that puts the first cultivation of the date palm 1000 years earlier than is said here. I am going to add the information to the cultivation section but will not change the introduction to the article now. Wishing everyone a palmy day.Steve Dufour 17:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Good call, go ahead! - MPF 12:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Antarctica refernce inappropriately worded?

The page states that Palms are abundant throughout the tropical regions of every continent except Antarctica. I, for one, have never heard of a tropical region of Antarctica that was not abundant with palm trees. If you know of a tropical region of Antarctica that lacks palm trees, please do provide an example with citation... -- zaphraud

Fixed.Steve Dufour 16:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"Palmaceae"

The family name "Palmaceae" is illegitimate because both Arecaceae and Palmae are conserved over other names for the family. I have not been able to trace the earliest use of "Palmaceae" so have not been able to determine whether it is truly derived from the genus Palma Miller, was used in error for Palmae, or was the result of trying to force the name "Palmae" to conform to the -aceae convention of most other plant family names. For whatever reason, it is to be rejected in favor of Arecaceae (or Palmae). MrDarwin 03:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the "illegitimate" name should be removed from the introduction. It's really a distraction and not that important. Besides it has nothing to do with the trees themselves. The information could be given later on in the article if it is important.Steve Dufour 16:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It's in the introduction because "Palmaceae" is in common use, and redirects to "Arecaceae". Anyone looking for an article on "Palmaceae", and finding themselves on "Arecaceae", may be confused if "Palmaceae" is not listed as a synonym early in the article. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 19:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

o.k. that's a good reason. I still think a person reading the article to learn about the trees will be distracted by having to wonder why a scientific name is "illegitimate".Steve Dufour 05:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and substituted 'botanically (in)correct' for '(il)legitimate' to make it clearer for readers who are not familiar with the usage in taxonomy. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 15:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest a different wording because "botanically correct" and "botanically incorrect" don't really mean anything and just confuse the issue. If you're going to talk about botanical nomenclature, it's usually best to use the language of botanical nomenclature. What on earth does "botanically correct" mean? You could argue that the family name Palmaceae is botanically correct if it's based on the genus Palma. But it's the wrong name to use for a specific reason under the Code. MrDarwin 16:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If you feel you can improve the wording, please do so. My preference would be to take the whole business out and just list 'Palmaceae' as another synonym. The business about what is 'legitimate' or 'not legitimate' is confusing to readers who are not familiar with taxonomic terminology. 'Palmaceae' is in common use, so we should acknowledge it. We are writing for non-specialists (like me) here, so let's keep it simple and on topic. -- Donald Albury^(Talk) 18:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ceroxylon height

The article states that "Ceroxylon quindiuense, Colombia's national tree, is the tallest monocot in the world, reaching heights of 70 meters." This is surely an exaggeration and the cited reference was written by a class of elementary school children! The best documentation I've found in various references is that this palm grows up to 50 m tall, possibly to 60 m but the taller heights seem to be strictly anecdotal. MrDarwin 20:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Done - MPF 21:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

theres no way there are 8000000 billion trillion genera... is that even a real number???

"There are roughly 8000000 billion trillion currently known genera"

I don't think this is correct... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.57.135.252 (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Palms in Europe

Is it correct that no palms are native to Europe, and that they were first introduced by Arab settlers in Al-Andalus? --GCarty 17:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Chamaerops humilis is a European native.--GazMan7 (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Growth rates in California?

Central and southern California, especially the latter, are synonymous with palm trees. How fast are these growing, I mean what is their average growth rate? Are they mostly one variety? --98.232.182.66 (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Redundant?

" palms also inhabit nearly every type of habitat within their range" - isn't a species' 'range' defined by the habitats where it naturally lives - so obviously the palm, and every other species, inhabits every type of habitat within its range. If it doesnt live in a particular habitat, that habitat is not a part of its natural range.

I don't have expert information on this. But it strikes me that the "range" probably refers to the geographical extent. The "habitat" probably refers to the various particular sorts of conditions within that habitat. 140.147.236.194 (talk) 13:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza

Merger proposal

Completing a tag for a merger discussion that was not processed. I have no idea on the validity of the merger until I red a bit more...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Not sure - how do we deal with families that consist of a single genus? Guettarda (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Generally, put them at the genus name (Ilex and Welwitschia are two examples). Kingdon (talk) 04:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Family names are more stable and recognizable than order names, even after APGII, so if an order only has one family, I think it should be at the family.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support (under the family name). Having separate articles just encourages information to be split in arbitrary ways, with little benefit. Kingdon (talk) 04:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have performed this merge. Kingdon (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

History?

To say palms have been important "throughout much of history" must certainly be an understatement. History only evolved once people started writing, several thousand years ago. Is it conceivable that coconuts and dates, not to mention palm fronds, only received our attention after that? Surely they've been important to us human beings for a million years or more. Unfree (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Exotic

"Their exotic appearance" makes no sense to those who live surrounded by palms. Isn't it sufficient to say they're used in landscaping? Unfree (talk) 03:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

uni- or bi-what?

Aren't uni- and bi- prefixes? How can they stand alone? Unfree (talk) 03:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Including

"Some species form pure stands in areas with poor drainage or regular flooding, including..." Is the species mentioned found only in areas with poor drainage or regular flooding, but not both? I suppose that makes sense, but it's confusing. If I've got the meaning right, I'd replace "or" with "and". Unfree (talk) 03:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Groups

"Some indigenous groups living in palm-rich areas..." Groups of what? In what way are they indigenous? Are they native? Displaced? Exotic? Migrant? Invasive? Unfree (talk) 04:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Dead link

I tried to follow the link to the footnote on hearts of palm, and found it dead. Is it true that the palm hearts industry poses a threat to palms? Are the farmers trying to undermine their own livelihoods? Unfree (talk) 04:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the dead link (at least partially; I don't know if the full book is online). According to Heart of palm, it is often harvested from the wild (although not always, so perhaps wording such as "when harvested from the wild" or something would be called for). Kingdon (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Bogus Statistics

The most northern palm is at 44 degrees in France? The whole article is so blatantly contradictory of itself, all stemming from two supposed limits of latitude. Seattle, Washington, USA is home to dozens of species of palms - all cultivated I would suppose, but nonetheless....Seattle sits at 47 degrees north! Someone already pointed out that there are palms on the Scottish coasts. Inaccurate snippets of information, no matter how small the snippet, can ruin the integrity of an entire article! If anyone else has a valid statistic that addresses the extreme reaches of the palm, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poppapo (talk • contribs) 10:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This is talking of the natural range of palms, not where they are cultivated but not naturally occuring. The bit about Chamaeops humilis in Switzerland is misleading in my opinion because I'm pretty sure it does not naturally occur there and this information is given in a paragraph about the natural range of palms. I believe the extreme northerly distribution of palms naturally is Chamaerops humilis on some islands off the Mediterranean coast of France. Booshank (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I just changed that in the article, citing the same FOA source that is used for the southern limit for a natural range of a palm. If someone can find a reliable source for a higher latitude range, they can add that to the article. -- Donald Albury 00:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No mention of Arecaceae

Surely Arecaceae, the title of the article, should be mentioned in the first sentence? As it stands, it's not even mentioned anywhere in the lead! mgiganteus1 (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I just poked through the page history. Arecaceae was replaced by "Palm" by an ip edit in Nov 2008 and never returned, and "Panamea" was added in Feb 2009 by a 2 edit count user who vandalized at the same time. I have readded Arecaceae as the lead word and removed "Panamea" --Kevmin (talk) 07:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Palm Roots

Palm Roots are they all long & cable like? At least the ones I am familiar with have the capacity to hold on to unstable terrain due to those magnificent long numerous cables —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.4.82.40 (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

General Description

What are the characteristics of the palm tree?

Well the picture of a cross-section of a palm leaf base is not of a palm. To me it looks like a cross section of a leaf base of a Strelitzia or a Ravenala but is most definately NOT a palm.

What can be done to change this picture?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.235.253 (talk) 07:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Scottish Palms

There are indeed Palm trees in Scotland on the West coast at at least 57.3 degrees North in plockton and I think further North as well. Comments like saying France is the Northernmost place where palms grow kind of destroys the validity of the whole article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdw860 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the one in the garden of Scourie Lodge is possibly the furthest north? That's about 58.2 degrees North. 87.246.103.137 (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Palm handcrafts

An entire handcrafts art has developed around the use of palms. This article could benefit from a section on this. Mercy11 (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Arecoideae

Currently, the link to Arecoideae in the subfamilies list points back to Arecaceae. Is this a design choice or is it just that the article for Arecoideae was not been done yet?Ordinary Person (talk) 04:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 7 February 2015

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Arecaceae → Palm
• Palm → Palm (disambiguation)

– The common name for plants of Arecaceae is "palm" or "palm tree". This article uses "palm" ten times as often as Arecaceae, which is an unfamiliar and thus surprising term to most readers. The first (primary?) definition of "palm" in the OED and Merriam-Webster is the tree. (As it is at Wiktionary.) We have no article on the other common meaning of "palm" (the inner surface of the hand). No other meaning on the disambiguation page is comparable to the tree. A hatnote can easily accommodate both the disambiguation page and a link to hand. Srnec (talk) 03:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll add that we should use English. Most people know what a palm is. Few have heard of Arecaceae. Srnec (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose the palm is a part of the body, hence the derivation "palmtop" for PDAs, the former PDA/Phone OS "Palm OS", the former PDA "PalmPilot", the derivation "palmprint", the practice "palm reading" etc. Clearly, the part of the hand is highly significant, and likely the primary topic, instead of the plant. If we move the disambiguation page, then "palm" should point to hand. Instead, this article can move to palm (plant) -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• I dealt with this in the proposal. A hatnote is as convenient as the current setup. There is no article for the palm of the hand. Srnec (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• No you did not. You did some handwaving about hands. If "palm" should have a primary topic, it would be the hand topic. Therefore, "palm" will not be the plant, so whatever happens to "palm", the plant article should not move to it, and it should redirect to an anatomy article, if it is not a disambiguation page. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 22:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• If "palm" should have a primary topic, it would be the hand topic. Says who? At least I cited the dictionary. Who's hand-waving? See these image results for what kind of "palm" DuckDuckGo thinks you're looking for. Try it with Google. Srnec (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Image search? You're picking and choosing search results. Clearly then it isn't the primary topic. Note that "primary topic" is not the same thing as "primary article" either, so whatever your problem is with anatomy, the topic is covered in articles on Wikipedia, and can be a primary topic without having a separate article. Just because a topic has an article does not make it the primary topic, if other topics are covered in other articles. You can have a hatnote at the anatomy article instead. The plant can be referenced through a hatnote at an anatomy article, where "palm" would redirect to. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:43, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• There is no evidence provided that the palm of the hand is the primary topic. None. I have provided evidence that the plant is primary (the dictionaries, the image search). Srnec (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• To begin with, the Arecaceae is the palm family. So even without the problem of other meanings of the word palm, there's the problem that it's a family. If there's an English term that maps to this one, it might be "palms and rattans" or "palms, rattans, and some other stuff". Not "palms". So oppose. Guettarda (talk) 05:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Our article on rattans begins by telling us they are palms. So what's the issue? Srnec (talk) 05:46, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• You mean other than using unsourced statements in Wikipedia articles aren't reliable sources for usage in English? Sorry, I don't even know how to reply to that. Guettarda (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Rattans are commonly classed as palms, since palms are often defined as members of Arecaceae. See Oxford's A Dictionary of Environment and Conservation for one source. Or the OED, or Merriam Webster. A rattan is "a [type of] climbing palm". Srnec (talk) 06:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Dictionaries define less familiar words in terms of more familiar words. You can't use a dictionary to delimit a plant family. Guettarda (talk) 06:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Let me try this again. There are three distinct concepts here

1. Palm
2. Palm tree
3. Palm family

The premise of this move request is that a dictionary definition shows that usage of #1 (palm) means #3 (palm family) and not #2 (palm tree, which includes non-members of the family, but which does not include lianas or scramblers, and only dubiously includes acaulescent palms). Guettarda (talk) 06:49, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

"Palm" can be and often is used as a synonym for "palm tree" and "member of the palm family". The fact that some trees sometimes called palms are not members of the family is irrelevant. There are dogs that are not Canis familiaris and yet that article is at dog. Srnec (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, other dogs are members of the family Canidae, and that is the name of that article, just like this family is at its Latin name. So, since your example argues against your premise, are you now voting to follow your example? If, so, I think you can just close this. MicroPaLeo (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Determining the primary topic based on how it is listed in a handful of dictionaries is a poor, invalid reason. If that were the case, there would be a primary topic for, for example, Mercury (the example used at the top of Wikipedia:Disambiguation) -- which would essentially mean you might as well just throw out most of WP:D. How is it listed may be an editorial decision on the publishers (especially if a dictionary is tied to only one national variety of English, and thus has no concept of the WP:ENGVAR and WP:VNE rules we have here), not necessarily based on anything with respect to global usage or long-term significance, or anything else related to WP:PRIMARYUSAGE and WP:COMMONALITY. Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

As for whether there is actually primary topic, when I do a specific google search for "palm", it takes me a while to get a result that relates specifically to the tree, so I still cannot support this proposal. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

We have no article on the palm of the hand. A hatnote would suffice. None of the other meanings of "palm" are remotely close to the tree in significance. Did you try an image search? Srnec (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Arecaceae is not equivalent with the concept "palm." As User:Guettarda pointed out, Arecaceae is the palm family, not a palm itself. Your dictionary definitions even make a point of this by noting the members of Arecaceae are the palms, not that "Arecaceae is a palm." There may be a need for a proper set-index article at palm similar to the way we distinguish between legume and Fabaceae. Rkitko ^(talk) 15:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• See Shrew and Soricidae. Yet, "Soricidae is not a shrew". The legume/Fabaceae distinction is made because of the culinary uses of legumes, and the importance difference between a plant and its fruit when the latter is a common food. Srnec (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• And if plant families had "official" common names like animals do, that might be a comparison worth making. But they don't. So: see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Guettarda (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Srnec and the observation that other animals called dogs are at Canidae. Although, the example given was they are at "dog," Wikipedia topnote says they are at Canidae. So, let us follow the example Srnec gives. So, other members of the palm family look to belong here. MicroPaLeo (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to say. The point was that an article titled "Palm" does not have to exhaustively cover everything that can be called a palm. Follow the shrew/Soricidae example, instead. Srnec (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Above, you said, "There are dogs that are not Canis familiaris and yet that article is at dog. Srnec (talk) 16:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)" Yes, there are other dogs. But, no, that article is not at dogs. Those other dogs are at the article on the family. Its name is Canidae. So, by your example, the other trees known as palms should be right where they are, at the article on the family. And its name is Arecaceae. So, by its current title and your example, this article is exactly where it should be. MicroPaLeo (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I was responding to Guettarda, who was arguing that there are palm trees (i.e., trees commonly called palms) which do not belong to Arecaceae and that therefore "palm" does not mean "member of the palm family (Arecaceae)". So, there are some plants called palms that are not in Arecaceae. I pointed out in response that there are some animals called dogs that are not in Canis familiaris, yet we still take the most common meaning of dog as controlling and we don't title our article by the scientific name. The "other trees known as palms" that you refer to are not members of Arecaceae, so they don't belong here. In the example, Arecaceae parallels Canis familiaris, not Canidae. My difference with Guettarda is apparently that I don't believe the other non-Arecaceae palms are significant. I have cited an academic journal issue below to make my point: even the professionals do not treat palm as ambiguous. Of course, I already cited the dictionaries, which is where the uncertain layman would turn. Srnec (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Read the topnote at dog. People use common names differently. The Wikipedia article uses it one way, but you jumped to use it a different way. Below, the academic journal uses "Palm Family," not "palms." This article is about the family, not about the palms you beleive are significant. It isn't about familiar trees called palms, it is about a taxon, hen e the title. MicroPaLeo (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is proposing to change the scope of the article. It will still be about Arecaceae. Srnec (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, as per comments above (Arecaceae = the palm family; palm/palms is not the primary topic for this article). Peter coxhead (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

How, if Arecaceae = the palm family, are palm/palms not the primary topic for this article? Srnec (talk) 12:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Please read the comments above. You know, the ones you replied to. The answer is there. Repeatedly. Guettarda (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

"From 6–8 April 2005, a meeting entitled ‘The Palms – An International Symposium on the Biology of the Palm Family’ took place at the Linnean Society and the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew." From the Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, Volume 151 (2006), Issue 1. This contribution is online, although I'm sure you have access to the journal. Since professionals use plain old "palm" so breezily, perhaps we could pity our poor readers and just use "palm"? Srnec (talk) 14:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

They did not use "plain old "palm"", they used "Palm Family," which is a synonym. MicroPaLeo (talk) 15:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Palm family is not the same as palm. Cat family is not the same as cat. Oak family is not the same as oak. Guettarda (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Arecaceae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060621031419/http://www.palms.org:80/palmsjournal/2001/landscaping.htm to http://www.palms.org/palmsjournal/2001/landscaping.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060506005013/http://www.fao.org:80/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/X0451E/X0451e03.htm to http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/X0451E/X0451e03.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060621003136/http://arboretum.arizona.edu:80/palms.htm to http://arboretum.arizona.edu/palms.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061110143616/http://www.nps.gov/fomo/2_History/FOMO%20RevWar%20Exhibit%20Text.pdf to http://www.nps.gov/fomo/2_History/FOMO%20RevWar%20Exhibit%20Text.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217121617/http://www.treeworld.info/attachments/f29/8774d1227613501-diagnostico-visual-de-arbolado-y-palmeras-psb54-4-short.pdf to http://www.treeworld.info/attachments/f29/8774d1227613501-diagnostico-visual-de-arbolado-y-palmeras-psb54-4-short.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

what is the tall palm tree in Los Angels

What is the tall tree of LA? I cannot find them in other place. https://hongsshop.com/santa-monica/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wzm2hong (talk • contribs) 03:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Palm Pathology?

Many diseases plague cultivated palms, particularly in the tropics. This article says nothing on that subject.--Quisqualis (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arecaceae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060105052552/http://www.fairchildgarden.org/palmguide/ to http://www.fairchildgarden.org/palmguide
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926221259/http://www.kew.org/cgi-bin/web.dbs/genlist.pl?PALMAE to http://www.kew.org/cgi-bin/web.dbs/genlist.pl?PALMAE

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Are palms "true" trees?

While the definition of "trees" varies widely, I favor an interpretation that palms can be "true" trees.

This is based on the following:

A. Palms are among the most-ancient form of plants sometimes referred to as "trees".

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/world-s-first-trees-grew-splitting-their-guts

The above is a scientific study, not opinion.

In short, if palms are not "true" trees because they don't grow by annualized growth rings, then neither are the most-ancient trees.

Second, if we understand that the original and most simple meaning of a tree is a plant that uses a woody stem or stems to obtain a height advantage in the reach for the sun, and that trees (as opposed to bushes), generally grow taller and with a solitary stem (as the most-common/normalized definition for a "tree"), then many species of palms certainly meet this definition. Many species, such as washingtonia palms, attain great heights.

Moreover, some palm species, such as royal palms, also exhibit secondary trunk growth (fattening), though not on an annualized basis.

B. Palms can attain great height...as high as 197 feet have been measured. No "bush" or grass has attained this height (although bamboo has reached 121 feet, and its status is also a matter of semantic opinion).Ryoung122 05:11, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

C. The definiton of a "tree" does not have a biological basis for it...it is, rather, a descriptive form (such as "vegetable") that varies with varying definitions. Thus, what is "true" or not is ultimately a matter of opinion, not something that can be solved with clade diagrams.Ryoung122 05:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Dates on date palm.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Ornamental

Hello @Kevmin: You should have used Talk: or edited the text instead of continuing to revert. In any case what is promotional about that phrasing? Invasive Spices (talk) 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I was following wp:BRD. Its very specific, and promotional, to call out palms as making a "resort like" setting, given that the source used is citing incarceration facilities in of an arid tropical climate. Such areas are going to almost exclusively have palms for the tallest plants that thrive. Its like calling out that incarceration facilities in northern climates will have maples or pines, and not palms--Kevmin § 18:03, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

BRD is not BRRD. Anyhow: What? That was not understandable. Invasive Spices (talk) 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Correct, you should have taken it to talk after my initial removal. Boiling your addition down, its not notable to the family of plants, as its in essence say, these trees are planted by people to look pretty. --Kevmin § 16:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Correct, you should have I see. You're a comedian. Very funny. not notable ... planted by people to look pretty In other words "ornamental". Yes. Invasive Spices (talk) 22 December 2021 (UTC)

That is not a reply to the issue that the inserted text is not a notable feature unique to the family.--Kevmin § 22:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Neither is Morphology, or Arthropod pests, or genera... or even palmate Morphology. Kevmin can you explain why you think an article should only list unique features of a subject? Invasive Spices (talk) 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually all of those sections are on palm tree specific detail, relevant to the family.(Articles are always considered to be about the topic only, eg uniquie fetures, this is why WP:coatrack is a thing).--Kevmin § 19:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

That's obviously not true. Your reply makes no sense. Invasive Spices (talk) 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Additionally the ONLY mention of palm trees in the source you use is this There are golf carts and palm trees and an Olympic-sized pool at the Mohammed Bin Naif Counseling and Care Center, a sprawling complex on the outskirts of Saudi Arabia's capital, Riyadh., which does not at all support the specific wording you inserted into the article. It literally only mentions palms once in passing alongwith a swimming pool and golf carts.--Kevmin § 16:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Kevmin can you explain why you think a source must solely be about the subject? Invasive Spices (talk) 1 January 2022 (UTC)

A single passing mention in the first sentence of the article you are using doesn't in any way meet the WP:REF standards, especially with the expanded rational that you gave with the inserted prose. None of the statement in your prose is actually backed by the source.--Kevmin § 19:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

What part of WP:REF did I violate? Invasive Spices (talk) 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The SYNTH/OR that you added when you took a single mention of palm trees to a specific distinct purpose of the trees in the text you inserted.--Kevmin § 17:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

The use of examples is normal and widespread. You have simply come up with a new excuse every time you have replied. Here are other newspapers emphasising the importance of the use of ornamental palms: [1][2][3][4][5] and note that the AFP story was widely syndicated I simply didn't copy them all. @Jay942942: Do you have an opinion of how we should shape the Ornamental section? Invasive Spices (talk) 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the wording here is part of the problem

Palms can also add an attractive and resort-like atmosphere to encourage criminal rehabilitation, as in an extreme example of the Mohammed bin Nayef Care Rehabilitation Center.

• "Palms can add" is far too vague for a family with 2600 species. There's nothing "resort-like" about a tangle of Desmoncus.
• "an attractive and resort-like atmosphere" - this isn't the kind of thing we can state, as a fact, in Wikipedia's voice. For some people a resort is a neo-colonial imposition that displaces local people and converts natural habitats into a Disneyfied caricature of natural beauty.
• "to encourage criminal rehabilitation" - there's a lot to unpack there. Is this something that's been demonstrated through research and properly critiqued in the literature, or is it some anecdata from a prison warden? Guettarda (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I will not defend my exact wording. That is unimportant. I am not remotely familiar with writing about palm placement for resort landscaping. Do you have a better wording to suggest? Specific replies:

• Every family article includes characteristics that are common across the family despite a few exceptions. This always includes ornamental uses if there are any. If there is a lower taxon that is the only ornamental one within the Arecaceae then I will support moving the paragraph there however I am unaware of one.

• If we cannot even mention characteristics of subgroups no one would add most of Morphology, all of Range and habitat, Selected genera (in stead it should be all of them), Evolution (because they obviously do not share the exact same evolutionary history, there has been radiation since the LCA), Uses, Endangered species (just the name and we know this is a list of some but not every), Arthropod pests (surely they do not all have known arthropod pests - this is an especially good parallel because Desmoncus could be used in an ornamental manner but perhaps no one has developed that yet), Symbolism is another good example given the wide variety of morphologies, and most obviously Other plants. There would be almost no article remaining. Anyhow certainly nowhere would there be any room for an Ornamental paragraph!

• [[Arecaceae]] should not cover politics in any way.
• to encourage criminal rehabilitation This is the purpose according to the sources I provided. Invasive Spices (talk) 5 January 2022 (UTC)

This is the purpose according to the sources I provided. Seems like you missed the point of my question, which was Is this something that's been demonstrated through research and properly critiqued in the literature, or is it some anecdata from a prison warden? Which source addresses the issue of the issue from an expert or scholarly perspective? Guettarda (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I have never seen ornamental uses deleted because they were only backed by actual documented use but not peer reviewed sources. Can you point us to a page where that happened? Invasive Spices (talk) 28 January 2022 (UTC)

You're being needlessly obtuse. This isn't about "ornamental uses" it's about your claims about rehabilitation. Guettarda (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I see. We're still talking about different things: I am making no claims about rehabilitation. I have citations to show that humans try to use palms to create a nicer environment. We need nothing more. If my phrasing is giving the idea that palms work then we can change that. I have no familiarity with whether they work or not. Invasive Spices (talk) 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Not true. These are the words you are adding: They can also produce an attractive atmosphere to encourage criminal rehabilitation. Guettarda (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I invited you to suggest more limited phrasing and you are refusing to do so. I am going to cease responding to this. Invasive Spices (talk) 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Also I don't understand what you mean by Desmoncus could be used in an ornamental manner but perhaps no one has developed that yet. Can you elaborate on this? Guettarda (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

An example to illustrate that we can have sections without filling them out completely for every species yet. WP is a work in progress. Invasive Spices (talk) 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, this makes no sense. You're saying Desmoncus could have used as an ornamental. What's your basis for this claim? What's the relevance of the claim? Guettarda (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I have already responded. I am going to cease responding to this. Invasive Spices (talk) 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello @Peter coxhead: You reverted without providing a reason. Do you have a reason or are you continuing a conflict into this page from other unrelated pages and matters? Invasive Spices (talk) 28 January 2022 (UTC)

5 citations is overkill, especially since some of them only support palms being present at this particular detention facility (and not palms facilitating rehabilitation via providing a resort-like atmosphere). Ski resorts are a thing. It's unfortunate that there aren't any other citations in the ornamental use section. What we should be saying, in my opinion, is something along the lines of "palms are evocative (iconic?) of tropical settings and planted ornamentally for that effect" (obviously a citation would be needed). Plantdrew (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

(This reply is later but higher for more readable threading.) Reading again I see I did not reply to: (and not palms facilitating rehabilitation via providing a resort-like atmosphere) I make no claims about efficacy merely intent. Someone has been arguing against a position I do not take. In any case I have asked [6][7] how we can completely take that out of my edit and get completely away from that implication so that is not a concern. Let us see what the reply is ... Invasive Spices (talk) 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Both Kevmin and Guettarda complain above of insufficient citations and it's 6 not 5. I thought 1 was sufficient. Ski resort More precise phrasing is welcome - palms are planted in some locations but not others yes. Can you agree we should have an example/examples? Invasive Spices (talk) 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I never said you needed more citations, you need better citations. Not a collection of trivial mentions. Guettarda (talk) 00:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Replied above: I do not mean to make any claims about efficacy. Therefore all I must establish is that a notable prison was intentionally sited with palms to create its atmosphere, which these citations do. If I have phrased it to give a different/larger impression then we should change that. Invasive Spices (talk) 29 January 2022 (UTC)

"all I must establish is that a notable prison was intentionally sited with palms to create its atmosphere" No, that's not "all you must do". A reliable source that says that palms are planted at the Care Rehabilitation Center might be adequate to include that information in the article about the prison. But there are probably many thousands of sites where palms have been planted and where that fact could be established through reliable sources. If we added anything that we could reliably source, the article would be overrun with trivia.

Look at what your sources say about palms. NPR: "There are golf carts and palm trees and an Olympic-sized pool". That's all it says. The Hindu article: "the palm tree lined complex". The Hindustan Times: "palm tree-lined complex". The Times of Israel is a reprint of the same article. (The Daily Star article won't load properly for me, but it's written by the same author, as the other two, which points to it being a reprint as well.) The World: "with palm trees and pools". The word "palm" is used once per article. They aren't about palms. They aren't about any specific use of palms - they're just background colour. No way this belongs in the top level article about the entire Arecaceae. Guettarda (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Wait, I think we're missing the big picture here. The text you're adding says:

They can also produce an attractive atmosphere to encourage criminal rehabilitation, as in the case of the Mohammed bin Nayef Care Rehabilitation Center on the site of a former resort.

The sources you're using do not support the claim. Not even kinda. Using these sources to support this text is a clear violation of WP:NOR. Guettarda (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

? Invasive Spices (talk) 30 January 2022 (UTC)

First you wanted to inject WP:FRINGE politics[8] into the page, objected to a generality about some Arecaceae being ornamental because some are not, questioned the epistomology of knowing things, and tried to bog us down in questions of efficacy that belong on a page about prison psychology. I have already replied: We cannot do politics on this page, a Family article needs generalities, we use sources to tell us what's what, and we cannot do psychology on this page. Then WP:IDHT with the same answered objections again[9][10] and again.[11] Along the way I have invited you to suggest phrasing and you have refused. Now do you sincerely not understand that when a source lists palms in a sentence about aesthetic elements that means they are an aesthetic element or is this WP:IDHT? Especially It's housed in a walled compound that used to be a holiday resort. There are two parts to the facility: the administrative side, which still looks like a resort, with palm trees and pools... I will ask the same question I asked of someone else: If you are sincere then why not delete the Ornamental paragraph and proceed to delete them from every article in the encyclopedia? None of the rest of the Ornamental paragraph has any citation atall. Invasive Spices (talk) 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Invasive Spices: I advise you to stop being so confrontational. Several experienced editors have advised you of problems with your edits to this page. Take their advice to heart. - Donald Albury 00:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Replied elsewhere. I have asked repeatedly how to fix said problems. Invasive Spices (talk) 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Economic importance

Hello @Plantsurfer: Please explain your reversion. My edit is what the source says. Invasive Spices (talk) 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The only mention of Arecaceae in the article is in this: "some 80% of plant-derived foods originate in just 17 botanical families (of a total of 416 families); several of these are major contributors of domesticated species, including the Poaceae, Fabaceae, Apiaceae, Brassicaceae, Rosaceae, Arecaceae, and Zingiberaceae." The non-alphabetic order of the families supports the view that the families are arranged in order of importance (certainly the first four are "major contributors"). The removed content said "This family is unusually suited to food production, providing a large number of the plants domesticated by humans." Nowhere in the source does it say that Arecaceae is either "unusually suited to food production" or that it provides "a large number of the plants domesticated by humans". At best the source would support a statement like "Arecaceae is one of the top seven families that have contributed to domesticated species". Peter coxhead (talk) 16:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Exactly.Plantsurfer 16:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

That is a strange set of families to highlight for food importance. I've seen various efforts at ranking families by food importance and can think of several metrics for doing so (number of domesticated species, calories, cash value, area cultivated, etc.). While Poaceae and Fabaceae would come out on top under many metrics, I can't think of any metrics that would produce that set of seven families in that order (Solanaceae should be there under many metrics, and cash value is the only thing I can think of where Zingiberaceae would rank very highly (but probably still not top 7)). Plantdrew (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I have a source. Does anyone else have a source? "unusually suited to food production" That is what the source says. "a large number of the plants domesticated by humans" I think this is a good paraphrase of plant-derived foods … major contributors of domesticated species so it is unnecessary to belabour the paraphrase. This can be removed entirely if anyone has a source which shows few domesticated species from this family however that is improbable totalling up Elaeis guineensis, Cocos nucifera, Phoenix dactylifera, Toddy palm, Areca catechu ​and every other species in Arecaceae#Selected genera (which is not a complete list of food species). Invasive Spices (talk) 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The phrase "unusually suited to food production" is absent from the source, so your assertion is false - it is very clearly not what the source says. Your text "a large number of the plants domesticated by humans" misrepresents the source, since it refers to "this family", meaning Arecaceae, thereby ignoring the importance of the 17 other families referred to by the source that are, by any objective criterion, far greater contributors to world food production. Plantsurfer 23:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

The phrase "unusually suited to food production" is absent from the source, so your assertion is false I see. You are misunderstanding how WP works because you are taking this idea from someone's statements in the above section. It is odd that that person is both an admin and a WMF employee and yet believes so sincerely – very sincerely of course – that we must say what the source says. That is not true. In fact saying what the source says is illegal. That would be a copyright violation. We may not copy exactly what the source says. Even close paraphrasing is not permitted in some cases. In stead we must say the samewhat asthe _source ^says. We must paraphrase and generalise with attribution. What I attempt to do with this text is to paraphrase a simple and easily understood source statement which has a limited number of potential paraphrases.

thereby ignoring the importance of the 17 other families referred to by the source This is the Arecaceae article. We cannot cover other families in preference to this one because that would be WP:UNDUE here. It would also be UNDUE anywhere because Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.

that are, by any objective criterion, far greater contributors to world food production. The source says to the contrary. Listing this family #6 of 17 is easy to understand.

All of this is very basic to the way WP works however and debating this is very unusual. (WP:V) Additionally here are further sources saying the same thing. Invasive Spices (talk) 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Of course we must say what the sources say, given that the opposite is saying what the sources don't say. We just mustn't say it in a way that would cause copyright violations. The issue here is whether "unusually suited to food production" is an accurate account of what the sources say. I believe it isn't. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be retaliation for my attempt to talk to you just a few days ago.[12] I have repeatedly attempted to resolve what ever your problem is towards me and you have repeatedly refused – over several years – most recently just days ago. This is the second time on this page alone that you have inserted yourself questing for a dispute with me. In any case this is distinction without a difference and so is disruptive. Invasive Spices (talk) 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Plantsurfer: Here are yet further citations for the same claim. Invasive Spices (talk) 29 March 2022 (UTC)

References

@Invasive Spices I think you are missing the point here. Nobody is denying the importance of palms to humankind. The Tregear paper you cite above starts by saying that Arecaceae are "... one of the three most important plant families in terms of human usage ...". That is fine. What you said is that the family is "unusually suited to food production", phrasing that is contentious and not in line with the sources you have cited. The word "unusually" departs from neutral tone, sounds like WP:Editorial or mild WP:puffery. It is the job of editors to present the objective facts without introducing the reader to their opinion or editorial synthesis Neither Tregear or your cited source says that Arecaceae are unusually suited to food production, whether directly in those words or not. Equally it is misleading to say that Arecaceae "provides "a large number of the plants domesticated by humans". This is likely to be misinterpreted by the reader as meaning a major proportion of domesticated plants, which is false. Plantsurfer 11:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Pretty much this^^. Could also say that the Arecaceae are among the 17 families that provide 80% of plant-derived food. Guettarda (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Not arguing that Arecaceae will be somewhere in the group, but where did you source that number 80% of plant derived food from? And 80% means 80% of what exactly?? That is pretty much the kind of vague statement that the source cited by Invasive Spices makes, but their criteria for inclusion of families such as Zingiberaceae while excluding families such as Solanaceae are also completely obscure. In the article Agriculture the table entitled "Top agricultural products, by individual crops" using FAO 2011 data cites Potatoes (Solanaceae) in 5th place out of 10 by tonnage, and tomatoes (Solanaceae) in 9th place, thus placing Solanaceae in second place to Poaceae. Food products from Arecaceae do not appear in the list. So here is the challenge: by what reliably-sourced objective criterion should Arecaceae be included among the top food-producing plant families, and where would they appear in the list? Plantsurfer 17:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Agricultural economics RfC

Are 7 sources sufficient to establish that this family is larger – in both species number and dietary contribution – in the human diet than most plant families? Invasive Spices (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Hufford, Matthew B.; Berny Mier y Teran, Jorge C.; Gepts, Paul (2019-04-29). "Crop Biodiversity: An Unfinished Magnum Opus of Nature". Annual Review of Plant Biology. 70 (1). Annual Reviews: 727–751. doi:10.1146/annurev-arplant-042817-040240. ISSN 1543-5008.
• Roncal, Julissa; Zona, Scott; Lewis, Carl E. (2008). "Molecular Phylogenetic Studies of Caribbean Palms (Arecaceae) and Their Relationships to Biogeography and Conservation". The Botanical Review. 74 (1). New York Botanical Garden (Springer): 78–102. doi:10.1007/s12229-008-9005-9. ISSN 0006-8101.
• Johnson, Dennis V. (2010). Tropical Palms. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. ISBN 978-92-5-106742-0. OCLC 712674911. Retrieved 2022-03-24.
• Macía, Manuel J.; Armesilla, Pedro J.; Cámara-Leret, Rodrigo; Paniagua-Zambrana, Narel; Villalba, Soraya; Balslev, Henrik; Pardo-de-Santayana, Manuel (2011). "Palm Uses in Northwestern South America: A Quantitative Review". The Botanical Review. 77. New York Botanical Garden (Springer): 462–570. doi:10.1007/s12229-011-9086-8. ISSN 0006-8101.
• Fehr, Vincent; Buitenwerf, Robert; Svenning, Jens‐Christian (2020-08-25). "Non‐native palms (Arecaceae) as generators of novel ecosystems: A global assessment". Diversity and Distributions. 26 (11). Wiley: 1523–1538. doi:10.1111/ddi.13150. ISSN 1366-9516.
• Tregear, James W.; Rival, Alain; Pintaud, Jean-Christophe (2011). "A family portrait: unravelling the complexities of palms". Annals of Botany. 108 (8). Annals of Botany Company (OUP): 1387–1389. doi:10.1093/aob/mcr269. ISSN 1095-8290.
• Eiserhardt, Wolf L.; Svenning, Jens-Christian; Kissling, W. Daniel; Balslev, Henrik (2011-06-28). "Geographical ecology of the palms (Arecaceae): determinants of diversity and distributions across spatial scales". Annals of Botany. 108 (8). Annals of Botany Company (OUP): 1391–1416. doi:10.1093/aob/mcr146. ISSN 1095-8290.

Invasive Spices (talk) 20:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Note that an addition yesterday[13] to the same section has not been challenged in the same manner despite weaker sourcing. In general the entries in this section have no sources and yet remain unchallenged. This illustrates the level of scrutiny this section normally receives. Invasive Spices (talk) 20:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
• I'm getting the impression that the discussion above is about the use of particular phrasings that may be perceived as overstatements or SYNTH - not about the bare fact that the clade is important in human diet. That is beyond dispute and already well covered in the article. Are you proposing a specific phrasing here? If not, I'm not seeing the point of this RfC...? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Beyond dispute. How lovely. This will be easy then. The phrasing[14] is

This family is unusually suited to food production, providing a large number of the plants domesticated by humans.

Invasive Spices (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

There is still no source for "unusually suited". This family provides a large number of the plants domesticated by humans is fine. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

If the intention is to use unusually suited, then I agree that will only work with a good reference for the literal phrase. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

The original edit was cited with

• (listed 6th of 17 families)

In Talk above I added

• (comparable only to the that of grasses and legumes)
• (An example is the massive expansion of industrial oil-palm plantations for food or bioenergy in the past 10 years in Southeast Asian countries. … Since ancient times, humankind has derived an impressive assortment of products from palms for food, construction, fibre and fuel.)
• (The main uses of palms in north-western South America were in the categories Human Food (70%) and At the country level, the categories Human Food, Construction, Utensils and Tools and Cultural Uses were, in this order of importance, the ones that presented the highest percentages of useful species, …)
• (Palms have been widely introduced beyond their native range for ornamental purposes, food and other uses (Byg & Balslev, 2001, 2006; Campos & Ehringhaus, 2003; Martins, Filgueiras, & Albuquerque, 2014; Sosnowska & Balslev, 2009), resulting in the spread of many palm species (Figure 1).)

This is far more than necessary for my original edit and can support several other uses, including text already in the page which for some unknown reason the above editors do not see fit to revert and argue over, or even tag with a {{cn}}. Invasive Spices (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I like the sentence "comparable only to grasses and legumes", which gives a sense of scale without making absolute claims about the crop's importance. I think adding that part at the end of the sentence proposed by User: Peter coxhead would be a good way to describe this. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I am not attached to any exact phrasing. What absolute claim do you mean? "comparable only to grasses and legumes" and "unusual" are vague while "sixth of all families" is specific. All are supported by the sources above. Invasive Spices (talk) 19 April 2022 (UTC)

in the article on Arecaceae in Plants of the World Online the following statement occurs:

The most important angiosperm family for resources extracted from the wild, unbeaten by any other family for its multiplicity of uses.

The statement appears to be sourced to Neotropikey and Baker, W.J. (2009). Neotropical Arecaceae. I have been unable to find that original source, but you may have better luck. However, that source, if it can be properly cited, may be a solution to the problem. There is consensus that Arecaceae are among the top few plants that have contributed resources for human use. However, food does not major among these resources, except perhaps at local scale. For example, I know of no reliable source that includes Arecaceae among the top 10 food sources. The phrase "unusually suited to food production" remains unsupported. Plantsurfer 18:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi covert nonsense or overt nonsense. Certainly I am pleased with this turn of events. Invasive Spices (talk) 21 April 2022 (UTC)

References