Talk:Digitalis purpurea
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
I found a new version of Digitalis purpurea and I have documented the flower at:
special version of Digitalis purpurea
Please let me know if I should add these pictures to the article.
Johannes.Richter (talk) 15:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think this is a form of fasciation. If so, it is unlikely to recur. The picture may be appropriate in that article however. Imc (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- The picture shows an old cultivated form that was called Digitalis purpurea monstrosa, which was common a 100 years ago and the condition was consistently transmitted from one generation to the next. Hardyplants (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- A German company still sells seed of this form. It has one giant monster flower at the top of the inflorescence. Apparently it is caused by a simple recessive mutation, so it should breed true after a self-cross. It was possibly first documented in 1869 in the book Vegetable Teratology, although the picture looks different than the modern versions.[1][2]
- The picture shows an old cultivated form that was called Digitalis purpurea monstrosa, which was common a 100 years ago and the condition was consistently transmitted from one generation to the next. Hardyplants (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Context of image?
Does anyone know what the text "Giant flower (pseudo peloria)" means as the caption to one of the images in this article? I can't find any reference to it in the article, which inclines me to think that either the caption should be changed/improved/explained, or there should be some explanatory text included in the article, or the image and caption should be removed. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- I think Floral symmetry might explain the context of the image. So maybe that will help to add some text. –anemoneprojectors– 10:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've changed the caption and added a link to demystify it a bit, but wonder if such an image really belongs in the gallery section (as it's showing something non-typical, which may confuse people)? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- I didn't even see the gallery! I would say put both images in the gallery (in fact the other one is already in the gallery as well). I think there are too many images there though, there's a link to Wikimedia Commons if people want more images. –anemoneprojectors– 13:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- I've changed the caption and added a link to demystify it a bit, but wonder if such an image really belongs in the gallery section (as it's showing something non-typical, which may confuse people)? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Reference which might be used
This book was used to source something at D. lanata, which it didn't contain. I added a link to the online version. Pg.s 103, 108, 111 & 162-167 contain bits about Digitalis breeding, harvesting, chemistry, et cetera, but nothing super useful. Should someone want to use it, however, I'm leaving it here.[3] Leo Breman (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/28712007
- ^ https://www.kew.org/read-and-watch/weird-and-wonderful-foxgloves
- ^ George Edward Trease (1961). A text book of Pharmacognosy. London: Bailliere, Tindall and Cox. p. 513.