Talk:Buchnera americana

numerous contradictions
This article contains numerous contradictions that significantly reduce its value and even more its credibility:

"an endangered plant that is commonly found"
 * agree. worded badly. reworded now to clarify

"A distinct feature of this plant is that it is sessile which means it remains in one place throughout its growth development." Isn't this true of all plants ???
 * I suspect this bit is part of a school assignment, but is way too generic to be of use here and hence removed.

"it can change their height and width to more easily capture food or prey" What is this??? A carnivore plant ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.177.208.193 (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect this bit is part of the same school assignment, but is way too generic to be of use here and hence removed.


 * Also came here to object to some of these.
 * "A distinct feature of this plant is that it is sessile..."
 * Right... How about
 * "A distinct feature of our voting public is that they are breathing"
 * My having two thumbs does not make me 'distinct' with regard to the rest of humanity, though having one or fewer thumbs might be a distinction. If this plant wants to thumb a ride and be 'non-sessile' *that* might make it distinct.
 * as above


 * "...due to the fact it can optimize its amount of sunlight..."
 * "Aieee! Look, that plant's stem is moving!  Relax, sunflowers aren't normally armed..."


 * "... this plant is highly attractive to ..."
 * "Oooo, what are these brightly colored tissues? They just seem to call out to me 'hello'.  'Flowers'?  I've never seen one before..."


 * All this was added in the third edit. And none of the following 30 edits thought these 'facts' might be a little goofy?  Inclusionism does not preclude review  (I thought).  And why so brutal of me?  Because this giddy gushing pap is one click from the WP front page.  Good grief, a "sessile plant" is not going to generate any 'positive' headlines for WP. 24.28.17.231 (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops. This was one of several articles contributed by students as part of a biology project. I must have been multitasking/speed reading that day. Never mind. Will get to work scrubbing it up and fixing it. More soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

"bupleurum"
Is there any real evidence that 'bupleurum' is a name used for this plant. I've seen it in some contemporary, ie, post WP, references, but no usage or even a mention in pre-WP references. I think some contemporaries are just copying WP. DCDuring (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2023 (UTC)