Talk:Camassia

There are a variety of words being used interchangeably to refer to Camas (I have used camassia quamash, camas and blue camas in the edits I have posted). This isn't incorrect (based on my understanding of the topic), but it may be confusing to readers. This page could benefit from some etymological clarification if anyone feels up to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabdandr (talk • contribs) 23:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Help! I evidently did something incorrectly and the image is not attached. Can someone help with this? The image is Camassia-quamash.jpg I appreciate any guidance.

Robbie Giles 16:38, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

Please clarify about edibility of Quamash.

Questions
The range given in the first sentence doesn't include the range for Cammassia scilloides given later. Which is right? Also, which species does the subsection on "ornamental uses" apply to? &mdash;JerryFriedman 04:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"Camas Hyacinth"?
As a resident in the Pacific NW, I've never heard this referred to as a hyacinth. The common name for these are "Camas lilies" -- which seems to be indicated by the otherwise non sequitor about Camassia being once considered part of the Lily family. -- llywrch (talk) 19:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Taxonomy
The line "Historically, the genus was thought to belong to the lily family (Liliaceae), sometimes narrowed down to the families Scillaceae or Hyacinthaceae" doesn't make sense to me, and I'm wondering what is actually meant? How can one family be "narrowed down" to another (or even to 2 others)? Is there actually a Scillaceae family, or is the sentence referring to the Scilloideae subfamily? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:03, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Good points. I've edited the relevant bit and it's now accurate and I hope clear (tho' should probably have a reference showing the earlier placement in Liliaceae). Peter coxhead (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Peter, that is clearer now, although why have you used the word "sometimes" when describing where Camassia was placed after Liliaceae was split? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It was a bit of improper evasiveness pending finding some references. Historically when the old Liliaceae was split, different systems were used by different people (see List of systems of plant taxonomy). Dahlgren put it in Hyacinthaceae (e.g. ), of which Scillaceae is a synonym. Kubitzki put it in Agavaceae, which APG3 reduced to subfamily Agavoideae of Asparagaceae. I haven't been able to find out (yet) what the Thorne system did, and maybe it doesn't matter. I've done a bit more copy-editing and added references. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The wording's pretty clear now, thanks. As an aside, I confess I hadn't realised that there were so many different taxonomic systems that were concurrent with one another. I was aware of various named systems, but had naively assumed that at any one time taxonomists agreed on which system should be used. I suppose it would be hoping too much to think that the introduction of DNA analysis has resulted / will result in greater agreement? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:04, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've answered on your talk page. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Camassia. 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/20111120181632/http://www.idaho.gov/aboutidaho/county/camas.html to http://www.idaho.gov/aboutidaho/county/camas.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) 10:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)