Talk:Maianthemum racemosum

Roots
I hear that the roots are edible when soaked overnight in lye and then boiled. Is this true? Does anyone know why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zer0Cool (talk • contribs) 19:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

is this page right
I am concerned about the accuracy of this page.

My reference materials (Morten E. Pecks book on thte "A Manual of the higher plants of Oregon" identifies two distinct plants.

Smilacina racemosa (desf.) or Smilacina Amplexicaulis (Nutt.) which is the False Solomon's seal as photographed in this page.

this is confirmed by Pojar & Mackinnon's "Plants of the Pacific Northwest Coast" and also a publication by the Klamath Basin chapter of the Native Plant socieity of Oregon entitled "Common Plants of the Upper Klamath Basin."

On the other hand there is a "Maianthemum dilatatum" (Pojar and McKinnon) or M. bifoliium (Peck) called the "false Lily of the Valley" which has a simlar (but much smaller flower spike) which has just 1 or 2 heart shaped leaves.

It appears to me that these two plants are mixed together here.Rvannatta (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Smilacina racemosa is a synonym for what we are calling Maianthemum racemosum. I've added that synonym to the taxobox.  The distinction between Smilacina and Maianthemum, when they are separated, is not the leaves, but the number of petals in the flowers.   Recent research has shown Smilacina and Maianthemum should be combined, making a genus Maianthemum with about 30 species (more details and a reference at the Maianthemum article).  Does that clear up the confusion or are there some misplaced facts remaining? Kingdon (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that cleans up the issue. While botantists have good reasons for reclassifying plants it makes a moving target for those attempting to identify and document field findings, particularly when the presentations are made with no indication of the history. Many Handbooks are somewhat dated. The cross reference is helpful.Rvannatta (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

edible?
I've seen the berry listed as edible, but that doesn't mean it's desirable. Is there any use of the berry? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)