Talk:Acacia

Requested move 19 May 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved per discussion below.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   11:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Racosperma → Acacia – This is the name of the genus per the International Botanical Congress's 2011 decision. There is an article currently at Acacia which should also be renamed, or else merged to Vachellia. I note all the species articles (e.g. Vachellia abyssinica, Acacia abrupta) have already been renamed. StAnselm (talk) 03:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. Not sure how to best handle the page history for Acacia. Not all the species have been moved (e.g. Acacia senegal), so further moves may flow from this one. Plantdrew (talk) 06:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. You haven't said where Acacia would be moved to.  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   06:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I said we could merge it to Vachellia, which is the duplicate topic (i.e. the new name for the genus described in Acacia). Until the merge happens, Acacia (Vachellia) may be a useful way of disambiguating - our naming conventions might fall down at this point, since we have never had a situation exactly like this. StAnselm (talk) 11:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll move Acacia to Acacia (Vachellia) when moving this. Could you possibly make a list of the pages that will need moving after this (or just nominate them seperately for RM).   Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   11:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Racosperma was used by Pedley and virtually no-one else. The Australians pushed for retypification of the genus Acacia, which was endorsed internationally. Listing the species as per this reflects consensus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

. I checked the articles on the new genera, and cross-referenced Category:Acacia against [this list]. I've put together a list with some notes at User:Plantdrew/Acacia_moves. There's a fair amount of clean up needed in this article now. I'd like to work on clean up here first before bringing the others to RM, but I'm done with the Acacia mess for today. Plantdrew (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * May as well nuke the list on this page as we have List of Acacia species Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm OK with Acacia (Vachellia). I'm not OK with moving Acacia senegal, etc. JMK (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You close the discussion after 9 days after one user has commented? And the IBC is wikipedia's external authority? I think we use references here and have no external authorities. And while the previous scenario may not have conformed with the fundamental principle of NPOV, this move of a thus far stable page name does not represent it either. The move is "otherwise in conflict with applicable guidelines or policy," and belongs to the special case where other pages are affected. JMK (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * How is the page move a violation of NPOV? The fact that the previous title was stable doesn't mean very much - the naming of the genera has now changed. And yes, IBC decides what their names will be. StAnselm (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Stability went out the window when Acacia sensu lato was made into a separate article in November 2015. You did that, JMK. Before that we had a stable-for-years article about the broad circumscription of Acacia at the Acacia title. There's no requirement that we must split Acacia, and not splitting allowed us to side-step this whole controversial mess. With Acacia sensu lato, we're acknowledging the split and forced to take a position on the controversy. Plantdrew (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact the situation was precipitated by the moving of some species articles to Vachellia and Senegalia, also not consistently for those genera, and it was not done for Racosperma species. I'll accept Acacia as a disambiguation page, or the situation before those moves were made (some by Ninjatacoshell). Racosperma as Acacia (xxx) is Ok with me, as is Acacia (Vachellia). JMK (talk) 08:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you OK with Acacia sensu stricto for Racosperma? What do you want to see where you've got xxx? Racosperma? Is the parenthetical term intended to be interpreted as a subgenus, or is that just Wikipedia style disambiguation? Acacia has 2000+ incoming links. Many of them need to be changed to Acacia sensu lato anyway, but ALL of them will need to be changed if Acacia becomes a disambiguation page. That's a lot of work. Plantdrew (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Would be good if Cas Liber is included in this decision, otherwise the situation remains fluid and impacts on expansion of articles. "Acacia senso stricto" is used as such, but implies that Acacia (Vachellia) can never take that place. In short, I wouldn't mind Acacia (Racosperma), and that purely as a wikipedia way of disambiguation, with its species pages "Acacia sp." as they are. And Acacia (Vachellia) with its species pages also at "Acacia sp.". "Shriveled seed" as good or bad as "looks like a small cow" in this respect. I see the underlying matter as not soon resolved, despite taxonomists following the IBC. As to the article to be placed at "Acacia", I see your point but somewhat prefer the disambiguation page (over "Acacia sensu lato"), as it would start a likely necessary process where Acacia links are assigned more accurately, and permanently. The splitting up of Acacia likely a permanent matter and not controversial. "Acacia sensu lato" also used as such in many scholarly articles, and not controversial. JMK (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A major headache. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the consensus of what is used in the real world. In Australian literature no-one is using Racosperma as they interpret the retypification decision as a success and deal done. Hence Racosperma is Acacia and the other genera are Vachellia etc. I don't know what is happening in literature outside Australia so we should post examples below. As an Aussie nationalist I was happy about the decision but as a global humanist not so sure. When it happened many Australian botanists complained about the cost of renaming all Aussie species for stretched Aussie herbaria. I recall Lyn Craven being one Australian botanist who commented that surely subSaharan herbaria were worse off than ours and hence that this wasn't such a prudent decision after all. I think the first thing is to gather the evidence of what is done now and showing by links below. Also plotting out the history and current consensus of the Acacia sensu lato page would be good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Australian type for Acacia seems to be accepted in recent North American references. The Flora of North America volume for Fabaceae isn't published yet. The 2012 Jepson Manual (California) has Vachellia as does the 2012 draft of Flora of the Southern and Mid-Atlantic States. Flora of Missouri (2006) acknowledges an Australian type (but there aren't any Vachellia/Racosperma species in the area). There are recent floras for Michigan and Oregon, but neither include anything affected by the split. I think there's an upcoming flora for all of Texas, and there are a couple recent floras covering parts of Texas that I haven't looked at. USDA PLANTS recognizes Vachellia, even though it isn't usually very up to date. Plantdrew (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Article needs tidying - very confusing
Hi,

I came to this page to learn a bit about acacias but instead I get a very confusing, self-contradictory article.

The page title says Acacia but the name above the picture is Racosperma, even though the text says that the name Acacia was upheld over the name Racosperma. Nonetheless, the name Racosperma is used elsewhere in the text too.

Now let's look at the second paragraph: "Following a controversial decision to choose a new type for Acacia in 2005, this component of Acacia s.l. now retains the name Acacia." First of all, what does this sentence mean? Not all of us are botanists. Secondly, you mention "this component of Acacia sl" but you haven't first mentioned a component to refer to. What sloppy sentence structure. Thirdly, when I follow the link to the "Acacia sensu lato" page, it is not clear what the difference is between "Acacia" and "Acacia sensu lato". To add to the confusion, on the latter page, the opening paragraph clearly describes Acacia sensu lato as a genus but, in the information in the top right of the page, it gives the genus name as Acacia.

It's annoying because it's (a) confusing, and (b) parts of each article leave me feeling as though I ought to have a degree in botany in order to be able to understand what the hell the article writers are talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.121.123 (talk) 08:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * There is a standoff in botany about this. Will try to write it plainer. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The article was indeed left in very poor condition, perhaps an embarrassment to wikipedia. The politics in this case doesn't leave room for tidying. JMK (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)


 * There may be a standoff in botany, but that's a non-sequitur in the present situation. The opening section ought to be about introducing acacia plants ... something of actual use or interest to Wikipedia readers. The title chosen by the reader who created this section is completely apt. In the great majority of articles, any 'controversies' are moved to the bottom third of the article ... well after a description that most readers will find useful. The article is a mess and I leave it knowing little more than I did about acacias then I knew when I arrived ... nothing. IS THAT THE GOAL OF THIS PROJECT?? I think not. Disgraceful. Twang (talk) 09:55, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Acacia. 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/20151110064020/http://waynesword.palomar.edu/plaug99.htm to http://waynesword.palomar.edu/plaug99.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150505110838/http://www.naturia.per.sg/buloh/plants/acacia.htm to http://www.naturia.per.sg/buloh/plants/acacia.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:20, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Pronounciation
How is it actually pronounced? Given that it's one of the few tree types in the best selling PC game of all time (Minecraft) I'd think part of the traffic here is just kids trying to figure out how to say it.


 * uh-KAY-shuh
 * Nuttyskin (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Senegalia - Acacia
This article seems to be missing the new world Acacia's - such as the Senegalia. The statement that they are African and Australian is misleading. I am pretty sure there are also Asian and even Pacific Island species (well that were in Acacia). Article is poorly written too - really hard to follow - needs editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.242.89 (talk) 21:52, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

two million hectares of commercial plantations have been established.[4]
This article is not at all clear on WHY two million hectares are in commercial production. For what? Timber? Or just for florist and flowering or decorative uses? Which species is used for commercial production? That's what I came to find out, and this article does not answer it, like an encyclopedia should. WHAT is the demand and market side, exactly? If it is timber, a lot more of the GROWTH CYCLE should be added, too. How many years does it take to reach market size and WHERE are all these two million hectares? How is it propagated for commercial production, by seed or by cuttings? What are the key cities in the world where this work is done? Thanks to everyone for a more complete article, especially including more of the botany and more details of what the commercial side means, exactly.Starhistory22 (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the citation supporting the statement in the article about the size of commercial production is not helpful. I did find an abstract that hints at some of the uses to which commercially grown acacia is put, here. Wikipedia is entirely edited and maintained by volunteers. The breadth and quality of its coverage is entirely dependent on the editors. That means that someone has to be interested enough in writing an article on a subject to locate and summarize reliable sources on the subject. Wikipedia is still growing, but the real world is much wider than our editors have the time and energy to cover. - Donald Albury 00:28, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Acacia & the bible
"Acacia is repeatedly mentioned in the Book of Exodus, perhaps referring to Acacia raddiana, in regards to the construction of the Tabernacle." I am assuming that this refers to Vachellia and not Acacia.... Australian acacies were quite unknown to the writers of the bible. MargaretRDonald (talk) 07:30, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I note Acacia raddiana is now Vachellia tortilis. Hence this phrase should be moved to the Vachellia article. MargaretRDonald (talk) 07:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The Code of Federal Regulation 21CFR172.780 should be referenced in this article.
Pursuant to Code of Federal Regulation 21CFR172.780, acacia is defined as "(gum arabic) is the dried gummy exudate from stems and branches of trees of various species of the genus Acacia, family Leguminosae." DextroseIsCornSugar (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Can we address these fronds, please?
So I'm your typical at-home American jackass with an internet connection. I've got a landscaping book, but it does not address such particulars of acacia trees, so I'm left to look at Wikipedia for more (as this site has a tendency to mention every possible detail, at least on well trafficked pages). I kinda understand what phyllodes are as described by the phyllode article, but I'm surprised when I see these big fronds in some images of acacias! Take a look at the three photos below, for example—They were uploaded to Acacia melanoxylon all on the same day, so I thought they were an error, but as I'm seeing more images of fronds I'm thinking this is might actually be a thing. Are the subjects of these first two photos really only an Acacia sp., and if they are, can we please address the frond thing on the Acacia or phyllode article? ——JavaRogers (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm not an expert in the subject but the fronds are Glossary of leaf morphology leaves. These are mentioned in many of the species articles such as Acacia pulchella and Acacia nigricans. Accoring to the article on fronds, ..the leaves of ferns are referred to as fronds and some botanists restrict the term to this group. Other botanists allow the term frond to also apply to the large leaves of cycads, as well as palms (Arecaceae) and various other flowering plants, such as mimosa or sumac..... Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Acacia species in Iran
added a section to the article listing the species of Acacia found in Iran. I reverted that edit, and Hassan.zali has asked "What do you think is wrong with each country adding a list of its species under the genus?" here. My objection to adding a list of Acacia species for each country is that there are many countries where Acacia species are endemic, and some of those countries have a great number of Acacia species that are endemic, so that a complete listing would be very long, and not interesting to the bulk of Wikipedia readers. Note the length of List of Acacia species, and then note that many species are found in more than one country, so that a list of Acacia species by country for all countries would have many duplicate entries, and be much longer than 'List of Acacia species'. - Donald Albury 11:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Acacia wood
seems to be a fairly well used wood, lots of items sold in stores like trays, decorative items, made from acacia wood. this is not really referenced in article, only its use by local native peoples. 12.232.253.67 (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you suggest some reliable sources that cover such uses? - Donald Albury 21:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Article photo
Why is the article headed with a photograph of some species of Vachellia? 49.255.59.94 (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)