Talk:Amorphophallus titanum

list
I am not sure we should list every known bloom since there seem to have been a lot of them. Reading the current page, it seems like the flower has only bloomed 3 or 4 times, which is not true. Also, people keep track of the size of the different blossoms, I have not included that information here.

List of known Titan arum blooms:
 * 1889 Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (First known flowering not in the wild) http://www.rbgkew.org.uk/titan/history.html
 * 1926 Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew http://www.rbgkew.org.uk/titan/history.html
 * 1932 Botanic Garden of Wageningen in the Netherlands http://www.botanik.uni-bonn.de/botgart/amorpho2003e.html
 * August 1937 	New York Botanical Garden, NY http://www.fairchildgarden.org/blooms/amorphophallus-history.html
 * July 2, 1939 	New York Botanical Garden, NY http://www.fairchildgarden.org/blooms/amorphophallus-history.html


 * July 1996 Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew http://www.rbgkew.org.uk/titan/history.html
 * June 25, 1998 Fairchild Tropical Garden http://www.fairchildgarden.org/blooms/amorphophallus98.html

http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/2002archive/05-02archive/k052902.html
 * May 21, 1999 Marie Selby Botanical Gardens http://www.selby.org/research/titanum/titan2k1.htm
 * Summer 1999, University of Washington, Seattle
 * July 7, 1999 Fullerton Arboretum California State University at Fullerton http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/1999archive/07-99archive/k070999a.html
 * August 1, 1999 The Huntington Library, Art Collections, and Botanical Gardens http://www.huntington.org/BotanicalDiv/TitanIntro.htm
 * September 3, 1999 Fairchild Tropical Garden http://www.ftg.org/blooms/amorphophallus.html


 * July 7, 2000 Botanic Gardens University of Bonn http://www.botanik.uni-bonn.de/botgart/amorpho2003e.html
 * June 12, 2000 Atlanta Botanical Garden http://biology.fullerton.edu/facilities/greenhouse/amorphophallus/index.html
 * June 13, 2000 Fullerton Arboretum California State University at Fullerton http://biology.fullerton.edu/facilities/greenhouse/amorphophallus/index.html


 * May 7, 2001 University of Washington, Seattle http://www.fairchildgarden.org/blooms/amorphophallus01-2.html
 * May 15, 2001 Fairchild Tropical Garden http://www.fairchildgarden.org/blooms/amorphophallus01.html
 * May 2001 Marie Selby Botanical Gardens http://www.selby.org/research/titanum/titan2k1.htm
 * June 7, 2001 University of Wisconsin-Madison http://www.news.wisc.edu/titanarum2001/
 * June 27, 2001 	Fairchild Tropical Garden http://www.fairchildgarden.org/blooms/amorphophallus-history.html


 * May 1, 2002 Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew http://www.rbgkew.org.uk/titan/timeline1.html
 * May 29, 2002 University of Washington, Seattle http://www.washington.edu/newsroom/news/2002archive/05-02archive/k052902.html
 * June 1, 2002 Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew http://www.rbgkew.org.uk/titan/timeline2.html
 * June 20, 2002 Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew http://www.rbgkew.org.uk/titan/timeline.html
 * July 31, 2002 University of Wisconsin-Madison http://www.news.wisc.edu/titanarum2002/
 * August 7, 2002 Huntington Botanical Gardens http://www.huntington.org/BotanicalDiv/Titan2002/Titan2002.html
 * May 23, 2003 Fullerton Arboretum California State University at Fullerton http://biology.fullerton.edu/facilities/greenhouse/amorphophallus/index.html
 * May 23, 2003 Botanic Gardens University of Bonn http://www.botanik.uni-bonn.de/botgart/amorpho2003e.html
 * June 10, 2003 University of California, Davis http://www.magpienest.org/feathersofhope/archives/nature_and_place/
 * June 10, 2003 Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew http://www.rbgkew.org.uk/titan/index.html
 * July 2, 2003 Le Conservatoire Botanique, Brest http://www.mairie-brest.fr/brest/arum_photos.htm
 * July 23, 2003 United States Botanic Garden, Washington, DC

More Resources:
 * http://biology.fullerton.edu/facilities/greenhouse/amorphophallus/index.html At the bottom they have links to other places with the titan

I am beginning to wonder whether we should keep the list of flowerings, or move it to another article. It is clear that plenty of specimens are being grown in many botanical gardens (Kew has had 3 flowerings in 2002, 1 in 2003, 3 in 2005 and 2 in 2006 so far - and some of these are not mentioned here yet!). -- ALoan (Talk) 19:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think creating a separate article named "A list of Amorphophallus Titanum Blooms" would be useful. Then in the main article write: See "A list of Amorphophallus Titanum Blooms"

external link duplicate?
What are the criteria for determing than an external link is a "duplicate"?

Earlier this week, I added the Brooklyn Botanic Garden to the list of known blooms. Later in the week, I also added them to the list of external links at the bottom of the page. I did this because they also have a lot of information about the plant, its history, cultivation, and so on, on their Web site. This is all general information about the plant which will remain valid when the current bloom cycle completes. I also looked at some of the other external links, and the BBG pages on the plant are at least as good as the others.

Another contributor removed the external link I had just added because it was "duplicate." Other duplicates remain on the list. The University of Wisconsin, for example, has two external links listed, in addition to their external link in the list of blooms. On the same grounds, should both external links to U of WI also be removed?

I read the discussion about moving the list of blooms to their own article. I'm in favor of that. It was not so long ago that blooms of Titan Arum were infrequent worldwide. Advances in propagation and cultivation of the plant have increased the number of blooms worldwide. Still, any individual bloom is noteworthy, especially to those who may be within travel distance to see one. For most of us, this is still a once-in-a-lifetime event.

Needs disambiguation
Why isn't there a disambiguation between this and corpse flower. It even says in the article "the same title is also attributed to Rafflesia." Corpse flower and "giant corpse flower" redirect to Rafflesia. There should definitely be an option to pick which one you're looking for, because the causal reader isn't going to know the latin name; they're going to know giant corpse flower, and I'd say chances are good that *this*, not Rafflesia is what they're looking for. Freshyill 15:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I must agree; I've heard corpse flower used to describe both and have gotten very confused as a result. A Max J 23:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

smell
I love how specific the article is on this point; not decomposing flesh, not a decomposing animal, but a decomposing mammal. It seems very silly to me, but I'm reluctant to change it... in case there is a difference :D &mdash; riana_dzasta wreak havoc-damage report 16:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that also, but like you I wasn't sure. Does a rotting frog smell different than a rotting rat? --Davefoc (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The more pertinent question perhaps is whether the insects that are attracted by the flower's stench can tell whether the smell might be a mammal rotting instead of a less appetizing type of animal rotting. Whether we can smell the difference is not really relevant (at least not relevant from the flower's point of view, an insect's point of view,  an evolutionary point of view, or a botanical/entomological point of view).Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a good point. So can some insects tell the difference and is it a significant difference to the insect? Do some kinds of carrion eating insects show a preference for dead mammals as opposed to dead birds, or lizards, or amphibians? Is there any evidence that the plant smells like a particular type of dead vertebrate more than any other?--Davefoc (talk) 08:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Two about to happen
link. Perhaps they should be added to the list, or once they actually bloom in any case. Esn 08:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Image
I will park this image here, it might be some use. I will try and discover where the artist found source material. Cygnis insignis 12:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Repeated article
Hi everyone, I'm sorry because I might have missed some of the guidelines which might be required, please tell me if I forgot any, thanks. Anyway, I just wanted to tell you guys that there are 2 articles which have different titles which talk about the same subject, these two articles are Amorphophallus and Titan arum (which is this article), I think that they should both be joined together into one article. Thanks, Cpt Adham (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi all, please discard this discussion topic since it has been replied to on the Amorphophallus discussion page,

Thank you, Cpt Adham (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Requested move 2008

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no consensus for move. The apparent reason this article is so-named is because it is the common name, and not because of the phallus reference in the Latin name.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 1
Titan arum → Amorphophallus titanum — as per WP:NOTCENSORED — cygnis insignis 12:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Oppose. The appeal to not censored is a fallacy; Titan arum is the common name. (Anyway I can't imagine how the latin would be considered offensive except in parody, but that's not the issue.) Andrewa (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I fail to see a reason for rename, since the nominator failed to provide any reasoning? Is this a _joke_? procedural close 70.55.86.100 (talk) 02:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply. Amusing, but not a joke. That policy applies more than the others cited here. The citation is in the article, I assumed people would read it before voting. Other than the accepted name, it has been known most commonly as the Corpse flower. cygnis insignis 04:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply you're using not censored and have provided no reasoning. The article makes no claims on censorship. If you're using common name, and you're not, your suggested title still isnt' the common name. Using use english, your suggested title still isn't supported. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 06:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

I don't know: What's it usually called? WP:COMMONNAME. 87.114.30.31 (talk) 16:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A genuine and unambiguous English common name is to be preferred to Neo-Latin; there is a perfectly good Latin Wikipedia for the pedantic. Evidence of current usage is in order. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:23, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I guess the suggestion of censorship is from this (sourced) claim in the article: ''The popular name titan arum was invented by the broadcaster and naturalist Sir David Attenborough, for his BBC TV series The Private Life of Plants, in which the flowering and pollination of the plant were filmed for the first time. Attenborough felt that constantly referring to the plant as Amorphophallus on a popular TV documentary would be inappropriate.'' But it's no reason for a rename if, as claimed, it is now the common name. Andrewa (talk) 08:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Slashdotted
This Slashdot news update is very relevant to this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.121.34.88 (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

More on biological life
This is missing some facts: The Titan Arum lives 40 years and only flowers a few times in its life. The leaf actually makes it look like a tree. We should also get a pic of it in leaf. --DMKTirpitz (talk) 05:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 2011

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus here is that this common name is not common enough, so we should prefer the binomial. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Titan arum → Amorphophallus titanum — Previous move request used incorrect template; included no reasons for renaming. It is WP policy to use common names for article titles, but there is a clear & specific exception for plants. Please reveiw WP:FLORA ("Scientific names are to be used as article titles in all cases except when a plant has an agricultural, horticultural, economic or cultural use that makes it more prominent in some other field than in botany; e.g. Rose, Coffee, Rice"). Additionally, "Titan arum" is a relatively new name for this species, invented only in 1993 by David Attenborough, and it is not at all clear that this is the leading common name. "Corpse flower", being a traditional name with a long history, is also in the running.

I would like your consensus on this, thanks!.--Tom Hulse (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Reliable sources show much greater usage of Amorphophallus titanum. First Light (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and First Light. Clearly, the scientific name is the most commonly used name to refer to this plant in reliable sources. Rkitko (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Scientific name is more commonly used than this "common name". mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:36, 19 February 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Taxobox heading
Since my recent taxobox heading edit was reverted, I thought we should discuss the details here. This is regarding whether that taxobox heading should be the same sceintific name as the article or should be one of the common names. Mgiganteus, perhaps you are confusing plant taxoboxes with those for fauna? They do have different conventions. Plant headings should follow the same scientific names as outlined in WP:FLORA, which was the basis for the recent name change, and all other living things should use the common name. Please see Taxobox_usage. Best regards. :) -- Tom Hulse (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It was my (perhaps mistaken) impression that where there exists a single major common name this is often used in the taxobox irrespective of the article title, as this arrangement is slightly less repetitive (2 vs. 3 instances of the binomial). However, as you point out, the taxobox usage guidelines do not appear to support this. Either way, it's no biggie. :-) mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Public interest in the species
Should something be taken from this detail?

"When the Titan Arum (Amorphophallus titanum) flowered for the first time in Sydney in October 2004, the Sydney Tropical Centre was visited by 16,000 people in less than one week."

Sydney Botanical Gardens source

This is more impressive when you consider that the admission charge is about $5.

Bogus height comparison
This picture currently appears in the article captioned "Showing height comparison to a woman". But due to the forced perspective from the plant being in the foreground, it is actually impossible to easily judge the woman's height in relation to it.

If this was an advertisement or an artistic photo I'd have no complaint with it, but in an encyclopedia something that's provided for the purpose of illustrating scale should actually allow the user to see the scale.

I'm deleting the caption and substituting "With a woman", but if a similar photo without the forced perspective is available, it would be better to use that. --142.205.241.254 (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Clarity, please
Under "Cultivation", the meaning of this sentence evades me: "The titan arum is more commonly available to the advanced gardener due to pollination techniques. " Pollifax (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Amorphophallus titanum. 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/20130810221200/http://www.huntington.org/huntingtonlibrary.aspx?id=4132 to http://www.huntington.org/huntingtonlibrary.aspx?id=4132
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160209061418/https://cbs.umn.edu/conservatory/welcome to http://cbs.umn.edu/conservatory/welcome
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050215180031/http://www.callipygian.com:80/3D/corpseplant.html to http://www.callipygian.com/3D/corpseplant.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051110210407/http://www.news.wisc.edu:80/titanarum2005/bloomings.html to http://www.news.wisc.edu/titanarum2005/bloomings.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

IUCN status
I'm a bit unsure about the current status as listed in the Infobox. I didn't find an entry for the species on IUCN. Other Amorphophallus species, yes, but not this one. Perhaps I'm missing something or maybe it was listed in a prior IUCN version. It was this edit which introduced the status. Thanks Declangi (talk) 04:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Interesting. There does not seem to be an assessment for this species, neither current nor previous, and not under either of its synonyms. I wonder why - it's certainly the best known of the bunch. I've removed the unreferenced taxobox conservation note for now (& added the synonyms). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Amorphophallus titanum. 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/20081015142257/http://www.kew.org/ksheets/pdfs/o10titanarum.pdf to http://www.kew.org/ksheets/pdfs/o10titanarum.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160209061418/https://cbs.umn.edu/conservatory/welcome to http://cbs.umn.edu/conservatory/welcome
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.callipygian.com/3D/corpseplant.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news.wisc.edu/titanarum2005/bloomings.html

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) 04:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

References removed
Edits by to this article have removed numerous existing references. In particular, the IUCN reference has been removed twice now, in the latter instance after I had restored the reference. I'm restoring this reference now for a second time, as IUCN status should be supported by an IUCN reference. IUCN parameters in Speciesboxes are described at Template:Speciesbox and elsewhere.

I will leave reviewing the other removed references and those added by Issempa (really only four new references, repeated) to those who know more about this species than I. Declangi (talk) 08:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Gallery Cleanup
I am currently working on cleaning up the gallery. We don’t really need 5 pictures of the plant at the same zoomed out level do we? I’ve included the old one here in case someone wants to swap out the images.

Jake01756 🗩 🖉 06:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Jake01756 🗩 🖉 06:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Unhelpful vagueness about leaf
The leaf grows on a somewhat green stalk that branches into three sections at the top, each containing many leaflets

"Stalk" "many leaflets". Please update with the appropriate morphology and dimensions. --Pitke (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)