Talk:Ravenala
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Ravenala was copied or moved into Ravenala madagascariensis with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
It is unreasonable to at first call this plant a banana, then to call it a member of the bird-of-paradise family. Then later the article explains that it used to considered part of the banana family, but it is not any more. It is clear that it is not a banana if it is more like a Strelitzia. pechaney (talk) 05:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Trunk?
[edit]My guess is that the "trunk" is probably a pseudostem--just as in bananas. In that case, it might be called a trunk, loosely, but it's not really a woody trunk. If I'm right, then I think that should be mentioned. 140.147.236.194 (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Stephen Kosciesza
Not Unreasonable... User Pechany's observation is uninformed. All the named genera were once classified within the Musaceae (Banana family); "Bird of paradise" and "traveller's plant" have since been placed into a newly created separate family (Strelitziaceae). But it remains reasonable to refer to them all commonly as "bananas"... it is a perfectly valid usage (and which acknowledges the close relationship of the families.) Let us all relax about this matter! Meecher — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meecher (talk • contribs) 08:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Stephen, of course you are right and it is a pseudostem. It is shocking to find the term "TRUNK" here. It feels as though the article was compiled by one who is unfamiliar with botany, in particular the Zingigerales and Musaceae/Strelitziaceae. I am sure you agree that anyone with a passing interest in botany is arrested by the bizarness of the giants of this group- they are NOT trees and have no trunk or woody tissue despite their imposing scale. Yes, this article is very sloppy and annoying: in that Pechany and I are in agreement! Let me shout to anyone who can hear: Ravenala is an unbelievable and unforgettable sight- this fact ought to be mentioned in any discussion about it! Nothing prepares you for the structure and scale of it- which is as majestic as it is improbable! You see, there is nothing else like it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meecher (talk • contribs) 18:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
- Having seen the plant for myself while in Madagascar, I would have to agree with you. It's unfortunate that this article is in its current state. Hopefully someone with a passion for botany and a skill at writing high-quality Wiki articles will come along soon and give this subject the treatment it deserves. However, it should be noted that statements about it being an "unbelievable and unforgettable sight" cannot be made in the article unless directly quoting a published source... and for good reason. (See Wikipedia:Peacock terms.) – VisionHolder « talk » 22:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)