Talk:Brosimum alicastrum

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Staple?

I think Dennis E. Puleston was the first to seriously propose that the bread nut was an important staple to the Classic Maya. I heard him give a presentation on the topic in Belize back in the '70s. I heard second hand that he backed away from that position after he actually ate some. I've never tried it myself, but always heard that it was something one could eat if one had to, but the taste was unpleasant. -- Infrogmation 16:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has it been established and generally accepted now that it was a staple, as the article currently states? If so, more info on this should go in the article. I have accordingly raised the importance level to "mid" if this was one of the staples of the civilization. -- Infrogmation 16:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno about more recent research on the topic, but in Coe's The Maya (4th Ed. rev. 1987) he says that "stimulating though [Puleston's idea] was, recent research suggests that the breadnut was never much more than a famine food" (p.20). FAMSI's <span%20CLASS= Botanical Research db gives essentially an account of Puleston's views, and there are references to more recent publications by Kent Flannery which might also support. Maybe someone like Chunchucmil knows of the current view? Anyway will make some amendments based on the materials I have to hand at the moment.
I wonder whether or not the article itself would be better under the common name, rather than the binomial name? If so, which common name - breadnut?
Re Puleston- there's someone we should get around to having an article on- other than his research, there can't be that many in the modern era to have unfortunately met their end atop a Maya pyramid...!--cjllw | TALK 03:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact The Breadnut or Ramon are the best names, for the article, abd it Was an Staple food, thats why it was calles the Maize tree by the Maya, actually the taste is similar to the cocoa, and it is delicious. There hve been found in Chultuns abd due to its low humidity it last longer than the Maize. mayasautenticos 22:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)Authenticmayamayasautenticos 22:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Per above discussion, moved this article to Breadnut.--cjllw | TALK 02:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

size?

Excellent article, but an indication of the fruit's size would be helpful? I suppose it is larger than an acorn...?77.162.130.139 (talk) 09:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary heading

Hello, I want to comment to infrogmation.I happen to be the widow of Dennis E. Puleston (please see www.puleston.org for published articles on the Ramon) and I can tell you that he did not back "away" from his conviction that the data on Brosimum alicastrum distribution in the Peten represented relic stands and not an ecological niche sought out by the tree. Unfortunately, he did not live long enough to tie up the arguments and respond to various critics but the reality of the data remains unchanged. Ramons favor ancient habitation sites and are not found in equal numbers on natural outcrops with conditions similar to archaeological sites.

He failed to publish the final article because he was still working on the data that would support this hypothesis and Mary Pohl took over the task of pulling it all together after his death. Unfortunately, only the wetland agricultural research in Belize ever got assembled and published. Nothing was done on the Peten.

There are those who still argue that maize was the staple diet of the ancient Maya. Lori Wright studied skeletal remains from Piedras Negras (I believe) and found that the carbon isotopes indicated that half the diet came from maize. That does not negate the Ramon thesis. It actually supports it because Dennis suggested that maize could have been an "elite" crop saved for the upper classes. No data supports any argument that milpa and slash and burn agriculture supported the Classic Maya. Maize can only be grown as a slash and burn crop or as a carefully managed intensive garden integrated crop in this environment. A tree garden intercropping edible trees and ramons with corn and other local foods is the only way the Classic Maya could have fed the large ancient populations without degrading the environment. Proof that they did not degrade their environment lies in the Peten forest itself. It did return. It was, until recently, there. Had the soil been "killed" and destroyed, the forest could not have regenerated.

Olga — Preceding unsigned comment added by Treegarden (talk • contribs) 13:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"oxalogenous" and creation of limestone slabs?

The final paragraphs of the "Associated_reforestation_and_development_programs" section make what appear to be odd assertions -- first, they use the novel term "oxalogenous" (which, when searching on Google and Bing, appears nowhere else except for this page or its copies/derivatives (see "oxalogenous" on google and "oxalogenous" on bing). Second, the wording of the final paragraph states that the trees form "limestone slabs" -- this might be a translation issue, but forming "limestone slabs" doesn't seem like something a tree would do (it's more like what an ocean might do over the course of millennia). The references given are general pages for organizations and do not actually provide any supporting information for the assertions. --Jhfrontz (talk) 16:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been somewhat resolved by EveryMorning deleting the primary questionable paragraph on 16:21, 9 August 2016 --Jhfrontz (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Oxalogenous" trees refer to trees that are known to display the "Oxalate-Carbonate-Pathway" as part of their metabolism. This metabolic pathway result in the excretion of oxalate crystals and, in symbioisis with local bacterias and fungi, their degrdatation during a chemical reaction that results in in the formation of limestone deposits. This whole phenomenon is core to the researches of Eric Verrecchia at University of Lausanne, the "discoverer" of this pathway. On their primary study model, the iroko tree in africa, there are pictures of the limestone accumulated over the life of a mature tree, which indeed looks like a porous slab.
The main article is there : www.biogeosciences.net/8/1755/2011/
picture of the slab is in the article there : http://fr.1001mags.com/parution/horizons/numero-69-jun-jui-aou-2006/page-20-21-texte-integral
The slab is shown with a swiss knife for scale (4th pic on the left) and is about 20cm thick (I have the full def pic but it's not my own so can't upload it.)
The capacities of these trees is quite unique, that's why i understadn the comment saying "forming "limestone slabs" doesn't seem like something a tree would do", but it's actually exactly the core of the interes for these trey : that they do that, and that the resulting Carbon fixation is of geological nature, and thus lasts for time spans of tipically 10 to 100 thousand years.
I consequently would strongly suggest re-inserting the deleted paragraph, and will gladly write it if needed to include the sources to the assertion, if it is accepted?
Danrodary (talk) 11:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, thanks for the additional information -- I think the word to describe the tree's unusually property might be more correctly stated as "oxalogenic" (vs. the previous "oxalogenous")? Even "oxalogenic" (perhaps defined as "possessing the ability to engage in oxalogenesis"?) seems to be a neologism, but at least there appear to be lots of instances of this word in scientific papers (per google, anyway).
Similarly interesting is the tree's potential for supporting limestone generation (though I think the magazine article refers to a different tree?). I think, though, that I would call the results of this process to be limestone "deposits" vs. limestone "slabs"; "slab" conjures the image of something quite solid/dense (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_slab).
It sounds like this limestone-generation process (the first step of which is oxalogenesis, right?) merits a mention in Biomineralization if not a complete wikipedia entry of its own.
I'd be glad to help with any of these updates -- feel free to contact me at User_talk:jhfrontz or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/jhfrontz --Jhfrontz (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Brosimum alicastrum. 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:

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) 10:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Brosimum_alicastrum"