Talk:Ephedra (plant)

Comments
I was wondering about the caption of the "flowers" of the Ephedra picture at the bottom of the page. Wouldn't these structures be cones and not flowers as Ephedra is a gymnosperm? Dave 18:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Fixed--Curtis Clark 04:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * For that matter, sporophytes cannot be male (since they produce spores and not gametes) and Ephedra does not produce staminate cones, since, not being a flowering plant, it produces no stamens. Paalexan (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed the "staminate" cone legend. Sporophytes that produce exclusively seeds or pollen are often called female and male. Even though this is technically incorrect, it is in wide usage. Most botanists understand what is meant, and a nonbotanist would not find "microsporangiate plant" any more illuminating.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone figure out why the reginalia image doesn't work? We uploaded it to the commons, it should be fine. Maury 18:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What is its URL in Commons? I can't find it with a search.--Curtis Clark 04:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Image:ephedra_regalia.jpg Maury 12:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a capitalization issue; the correct link is Image:Ephedra regalia.JPG.--Curtis Clark 13:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Five years in and we still have capitalization problems! Maury 12:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Brigham Tea
FWIW, it is often called Brigham Tea as well. Might be worth mentioning in the opening sentences. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 17:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Article needs cleanup
I've suggested that a cleanup is required, the article is gathering an assortment of statements about chemical content of different species that are not properly blended with one another, and I think they should be on the Ephedra page, not here. Nadiatalent (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone that is an expert in the field should to clean up this page and the subsequent pages that this articles has linked. There are far too many pages that do not exist, but are mentioned in the species. JCoppess18 (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

?
sorry if I'm doing this incorrectly, I don't know the bbcode, anyway the picture with the caption "as used in chinese medicine" is japanese, the label on the jar and the description on the file's page are written in japanese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.137.73 (talk) 06:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Medical uses and adverse effects sections
These sections might be better replaced with something like ---

Uses
For a discussion of the medicinal uses/preparations from the plant, Ephedra, see Ephedra. See also, Ephedrine, one of the alkaloids derived from this plant. These articles have detailed discussions of the usage and the adverse effects of Ephedra supplements and of ephidrene. MargaretRDonald (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

No mention of meth manufacture?
I think the effort by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health, US National Institutes of Health that there are "serious" health risks doesn't explain the ban. Stating "there is no scientific evidence they are effective or safe for these purposes" as far as traditional uses,there's a lot of herbal rememdies ther are no scientific evidence about, I mean, the entire field of homeopathy can be dismissed this way, but homeopathic remedies haven't been banned in the U.S

Meth production is still an issue is places where the plant grows wild. undark.org/2020/05/20/afghanistan-meth-ephedra/ This needs to be addressed. The usual excuse that a government, maybe particularly the U.S. government, does these things purely in the interests of public health... That's a line that needs to be questioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.166.197 (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Organismal Diversity B
— Assignment last updated by CranberryPie 3 (talk) 06:14, 20 November 2023 (UTC)