Talk:Hippeastrum

First post
The above heading added by Imc (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC) to make a ToC for clarity

To clarify my mangled edit summary: Amaryllis is a different genus, which is why calling a Hippeastrum an "amaryllis" would be erroneous (I know they're both lilies and very similar, but there are important differences noted at Talk:Amaryllis). I also removed Image:Flower.jpg (love the file name) because if it is indeed a belladonna lily (Amaryllis belladonna), it's not a Hippeastrum and shouldn't be included here. It's hard enough differentiating the two genera without conflicting illustrations. ;) -- Hadal 06:14, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for updating that. I'm now very confused. I was annoyed because I clicked on Amaryllis somewhere, which redirected me here. Now I see that there is not only an Amaryllis article, but I actually put the same photo there a couple of weeks ago, so there's no excuse for being sloppy here.  (Yeah, I was surprised to see the photo name--esp. surprised that there wasn't already an image with that name, too!)  If only I could remember where I was that brought me here after clicking amaryllis--which clearly had gone somewhere other than to the Amaryllis article. Argh.  Elf | Talk 18:16, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

All of my gardening books classify Hippeastrum to the family "Amaryllidaceae", not liliaceae, altough it is clear that it is not part of the genus "Amaryllis". Also there is a discrepancy between the articles Hippeastrum and Amaryllidaceae in this matter. Can somebody clarify? --Chino 09:59, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hippeastrum seed
I have several plants that appear to have viable seed. The section of the stem directly behind the flower has thickened on some and appears to have three distinct sections where as other flowers have just dropped off without any indication of a seed section being formed, even though they were on the same flower spike.

Q1	Does this mean the seeds are viable?

Q2 	What special treatment do I have to do from A)	the green seed stage to ready to plant? B)	how to plant using pots ? ie. What type of medium, how deep etc? C)	how long before a flower could be expected?

Q3 	Can someone point me to an article on the net that covers this?.

---

TRY searching on google under "amaryllis." or read starr ockenga's "amaryllis" which covers propagation in detail.

---

Question: My bulb started to produce 3 excessivley long leaves end of August. At this point, 1 leaf broke off, one is breaking and the other is fine. What is happening and what can I do to ensure my plant survives, grows correctly and blooms?

-

HEALTHY hippeastrums commonly produce leaves 36-40" in length. leaves break due to:  over-watering; under-watering; disease (look for reddish streaks on the leaves); and parasites.  anything that distresses the plant can affect the leaves negatively.

amaryllis aka Hippeastrum - nutrition
Is there a type of plant food it takes. Is orchid food any good?

No -- use regular houseplant food. or use a granulated fertilizer when inspecting or repotting the bulb in fall.

Lake Ontario
Is this a Hippeastrum? Grown outdoors. Hubert Derus 16:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's most likely a cultivar of Hemerocallis fulva. Cryptoid 05:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hippeastra ???
Do we need this fake Latin plural of a word that was not an original Latin noun?

Latin plurals in English -

Imc (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Changed hippeastra to hippeastrum(s). Imc (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Petals or Tepals
the the 'General' section the author uses the terms tepal as seemingly being the larger term including sepals and petals. In the picture, the flower is described as having red and white petals. Are the sepals not visible? Or should it be tepals instead?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Tepals would be the safer word, since it includes the other two. Rivertorch (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Pests
Hypercompe indecisa,. I removed this reference to pests. This unverified statement has been widely copied from here. While plausible in that both occur in Brasil, Hippeastrum is not listed amongst food sources of this insect in scholarly Brazilian literature. Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Gallery
Article still fails WP:Gallery. Gallery needs to go. If the images can be interspersed in the article, then they need to be, or else left in Commons where they can be quickly reached a click away. Galleries at Wikipedia have to make some kind of specific point that you just can't make by interspersing the images in the article. Just showing more examples of the article title is unfortunately not a reason that we can include a gallery. :) --Tom Hulse (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I've moved the species images to the list of species, and made the cultivar images into a "combined" image which is useful to illustrate the diversity of cultivars available. I hope this meets your valid concern. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Cultivation
This section violates WP:NOTHOW in my view. It needs to be re-written descriptively and not as a recipe. Modals like "should" are generally inappropriate as they usually constitute instructions. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination
This page has good article potential - the Spanish version has this rating. Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I will try - and have started - to raise the standard to at least that of the Spanish page Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Now has similar scope to Spanish article as part of general upgrade --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Now candidate for Good Article --Michael Goodyear (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Duly nominated Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Khazar2

 * Hey Michael, thanks for your work on this one. I'm not qualified enough in this area to give this a full GA review, but I can give you a few comments about this one after a quick glance over it. I think it looks good overall, but here are a few areas that a GA reviewer might ask for further work on.
 * All quotations need an inline citation per criterion 2b (full criteria at WP:GA?), so the quotations in "Etymology" will need sourcing
 * done --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * This may still need a bit of copyediting. For example, " but in 1795 William Curtis in his Botanical Magazine that magazine, described" seems to have extra words ("that magazine"), and it's not clear where the quotation that begins "I have named" ends.
 * done --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Judgments like "The double flowers from Japan are particularly beautiful" should probably be attributed to a particular author intext for neutrality reasons. (criterion 4)
 * Use of numerous very short sections, as in "Propagation", is discouraged by WP:LAYOUT (criterion 1b)
 * done--Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The lead should ideally provide a summary of the article's main aspects, touching on each section (WP:LEAD, criterion 1b)
 * done--Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * As a minor stylistic point unrelated to GA, there shouldn't be a space between a punctuation mark and an inline citation.
 * I don't mean any of this to sound negative, though; I really appreciate the work, and hope this becomes a GA very soon! -- Khazar2 (talk) 05:07, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I will take a look at those points --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hulse

 * Nice article!! When you get to the real GA review, I expect they'll want it organized a little more in line with the WikiProject Plants/Template.

For instance, renaming the Morphology section "Description",
 * Done --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

much of the current Reproduction section could be included in a recommended "Ecology" section.
 * Done --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Also the Flowering section could be easily separated & rolled into the recommended sections of Description & Cultivation (it would make more sense). The "Breeding & Prop" section & "Economic Importance" section should all be subsets of an overall "Cultivation" section.

The second paragraph under the current Economic Importance section is a perfect start for a new "Uses" section, as per the template's recommendations.
 * added Uses --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like a lot, but minor organizational changes really.
 * Also, the gallery has to go completely, or show some kind of logical progression that can't be mixed into the article, to bring it in line with WP:Gallery. Great work. :) --Tom Hulse (talk) 04:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Species
next step is to develop the species pages - again, English wiki lags well behind other languages --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Importance
Upgraded to high in view of the long standing taxonomic debate and economic importance --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: subsequently downgraded by another editor --Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

GA status log
GA status 1 January 2014 21 November 2016 --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * edits checked

Pre-FA feedback

 * The Etymology section is more taxonomy really - I think some of the prose is split into too-small sections and would amalgamate some.
 * We have been round and round on this - the GA template places etymology as a subsection of taxonomy --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd leave the Synonyms section/list for the taxobox and discuss significant ones in prose not a list.


 * More discussion on the relevance or lack thereof of subgenera. Section is too stubby as is.


 * Can we add somethning on relationships to other genera within the family?


 * I'd move the species list to a separate page. ✅--Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Looking promising - more later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Making a start - revamping citations first --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Image size
I reverted the Auto image box back to 940 from 700, because I had originally selected 940 to match the width of the text --Michael Goodyear (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The width of the text viewed on what? On a tablet, like an iPad? On a 13 inch laptop? On a 15 inch monitor? On a 32 inch monitor? On a mobile phone? Wikipedia is viewed more and more on mobile devices. See WP:IMAGESIZE which suggests a maximum width of a mere 400 pixels. "In general, do not define the size of an image unless there is a good reason to do so: some users have small screens ... Where size forcing is appropriate, larger images should generally be a maximum of 500 pixels tall and 400 pixels wide, so that they can comfortably be displayed on the smallest displays in common use." 400 is a bit too small for multiple images, but your 940 is terrible viewed on an iPad, which is why I first reduced it.
 * I suggest putting the images in two rows and reducing the width. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Use of images Comment
This is is a GA (Good Article) page, and choice of images should be carefully considered (see manual of Style). Images should illustrate a particular point in the text, and be placed relative to the relevant text, without distorting the overall page layout. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Description
Dear, Michael Goodyear


 * I am not engaged in edit war, your main and right concern was, that the image is without description. Keeping in mind your concern, I had added description, unfortunately without looking at the image you reverted. The image shows, clearly male and female organs of the plant.
 * If you still don't like it you may remove it, I am Not going to add it again

Best wishes

Aftab Banoori (Talk) 03:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually the image doesn't show the carpels. Hippeastrum has inferior ovaries so only the stamens, style and stigma are visible in the view shown. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:42, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that was not my primary concern, although images should always be labelled. I am sure they are perfectly good images, but the purpose of images on Wikipedia is to illustrate the text, and I don't think anyone was convinced that the images you supplied added any new information to a page that already has many carefully selected and positioned images. If your images are in Wikipedia Commons, there is a prominent link there, and readers will see them. Thank you. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Synonyms
A comment was added by Joseph Laferriere in revisions recently that the list of synonyms was 'flat wrong'. I traced the history of this section - it appears to have been imported from the Spanish GA article, which gives Amaryllidaceae.org as the source.Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on Hippeastrum. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.kew.org/Glossary/declinate.htm?prefix=d
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.kew.org/Glossary/fimbriae.htm?prefix=f
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.kew.org/Glossary/funnel-shaped.htm?prefix=f
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.kew.org/Glossary/pluriovulate.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

natural vs. bred varieties
This article seems to leave many relevant aspects unclear. It seems that the original natural varieties did have at least somewhat large showy flowers. Why did these characteristics evolve in this group of plants? Then, since 1800, they have been extensively selectively bred/manipulated for their flowers. Most people who come to this article are probably more interested in the bred varieties. It seems like maybe the article should be more clearly divided between content about the natural varieties and the domesticated? To what extent if any have the human-modified versions escaped to the wild? Have they intermingled or affected the natural varieties in any way -- are the natural varieties threatened by the domesticated?-71.174.190.122 (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hippeastrum. 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/20130520110359/http://www.kew.org/plants/springbulbs/hippeastrum.html to http://www.kew.org/plants/springbulbs/hippeastrum.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140326002311/http://reflora.jbrj.gov.br/jabot/listaBrasil/ConsultaPublicaUC/ConsultaPublicaUC.do to http://reflora.jbrj.gov.br/jabot/listaBrasil/ConsultaPublicaUC/ConsultaPublicaUC.do

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Page Problems
Much of the information on this Wikipedia page of possible interest to garden hobbyists appears to be localized to temperate climate. I have grown a variety of Hippeastrum for well over 60 years in Southern California (Mediterranean climate). I received a second variety about three or four years ago.

My bulbs are outdoors in flower pots and usually stay in leaf year round. New leaves appear at the same time as the flower scape grows up from the bulb. If I keep them watered and do not force them to go dormant, they will flower two or three times in a year.

Normal winters here are cool and wet. Frosts are expected. Winter chill (hours of temperatures at or below 45F) average 320 hours. None of this results in my bulbs going dormant. Of course, if we have a severe winter (strong winds, frequent night-time frosts, and above-average hours of chill), one or more of my bulbs might go dormant. However, I have never lost a Hippeastrum bulb because of winter weather although they remain outdoors all year.

As I am an amateur hobby gardener and have no experience with climates other than what I experience in Southern California, I am reluctant to edit Hippeastrum. I am posting this comment in hopes that someone with broader experience will update that page.

Photos of my two varieties of Hippeastrum may be seen on my Web page at http://www.rossde.com/garden/garden_hippeastrum.html.

DERoss 20:30, 30 Apr 2019 (PDT)


 * I understand your point, but we can only add material to a Wikipedia article based on reliable sources, so your experiences (or mine) can't be used directly. If there's a source that discusses growing Hippeastrum cultivars in Mediterranean climates, then definitely this topic should be included. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Help with the identification of a species
Good morning. Greetings to all the fellow editors!

I have several photographs of the Hippeastrum genus and I would like that my pictures could illustrate the articles that correspond to it's species. But since I’m not a botanist, I can’t identify it.

I have created a gallery in Commons to show the photos in question, so that some of you can help me easily: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_Hippeastrum_in_Venezuela

I thank you in advance for any support in this regard, and I hope that you are doing fine. --Sebastián Arena... 02:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)