Talk:Cucurbita moschata

WPFood Assessment
Assessed as a low importance stub covering a small set of cultivars of the gourd family. --Jeremy ( Blah blah... ) 03:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Calabaza
This species includes calabaza, does it not? Badagnani (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Evolutionary History
"Evolutionarily speaking the genus is relatively recent in origin as no species within the genus is genetically isolated from all the other species."

This is not necessarily true - as well as "recent" being unqualified a lack of genetic isolation does not necessarily mean a genus is younger than one in which species are isolated.

"C. moschata acts as the genetic bridge within the genus and is closest to the genus' progenitor."

The idea of extant species being closer to the common ancestor of a genus is not valid - all extant species are equally closely related to their most recent common ancestor. The source only calls C. moschata the "putative ancestor of the group" without giving much evidence for it. Iacobndg (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * If there were evidence with a date range provided, it could be said that the diversification of species within the genus was relatively recent, which, I agree, is not quite the same as saying that the genus is relatively recent in origin. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:01, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to re-write what the source says in more modern terminology without distorting the original meaning. The source does suggest that C. moschata may be closest to the most recent common ancestor of the genus, but its position in the cladograms given doesn't support this. If you're not happy with my attempted re-write, then just delete this material; it's based on a pre-molecular phylogenetics source and isn't central to the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)