Talk:Begonia

Cultivation
This section seems like it has useful information, but it's a little technical. What does overpot mean for instance? There isn't any trace of it in Wikipedia or Wiktionary. What is a light pit? What country/latitude are these instructions for? I live in southern Australia and doubt they have much relevance for me.

I have done a little wikification, but I think this article could use the assistance of a true begoniac. &mdash;Moilleadóir 04:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Still learning by making mistakes
As everyone can see, I forgot to log in before making those edits as 67.162.3.88. Begonial 23:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC) (=Kingsley)

A topic of ....
Begonia pedatifida has been added based on the following http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Begonia_pedatifida --222.64.210.25 (talk) 02:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

and http://www.bioinfo.cn/db05/KmzwSpecies.php?action=view&id=1806 --222.64.210.25 (talk) 03:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

plus

Begonia palmata http://www.bioinfo.cn/db05/KmzwSpecies.php?action=view&id=1803

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+Begonia+palmata&btnG=Search --222.64.210.25 (talk) 03:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed a poor citation, but ...
I've removed the following from the page because the source is not a good one and terms such as "variety" are misused: "Binomial terms such as Begonia grandiflora, Begonia multiflora, and Begonia pendula do not refer to accepted species, but rather varieties of tuberous begonias.1er Jardin"

Perhaps some editors here might be interested in a discussion about a related matter at Template talk:Infobox cultivar. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Name
"Begoña" is a female Basque name. Could this be where "Begonia" came from? FinnHK (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Species number conflict
The first two paragraphs have conflicting data. The intro says:

″The genus contains 1,795 different plant species.″

Whereas the first sentence in the description says:

″With 1,839 species, Begonia is the fifth-largest angiosperm genus.″

This second instance has a citation so it seems to be the correct one. It seems kind of redundant to mention the number of species twice so soon, so perhaps get rid of the first instance (with "1,795")?

Robisodd (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2018 (UTC)