Talk:Malus sylvestris

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 carefull 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) 18:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Illustration of Malus domestica
Why is the primary illustration for this page an image of Pyrus malus, or Malus domestica? Is there some reason to believe that M. sylvestris was the subject of that illustration? Nadiatalent (talk) 21:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Replaced.Nadiatalent (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Needs fixing
Instead of disputing the grammar, you ought to be reconciling the information. ''In the past, M. sylvestris was thought to be an important ancestor of the cultivated apples (M. domestica), but these have now been shown to be primarily derived from the central Asian species M. sieversii[citation needed]. However, another recent DNA analysis[1] showed that M. sylvestris has contributed to the ancestry of M. domestica.''

"...now been shown..." and "However, another ....analysis...." Please put these two sentences together in a way that incorporates the information of both, without being contradictory. If the main ancestor of the domestic apple is M. sieversii, then state the fact. If it is proven that M. sylvestris was also and ancestor, then state this fact. If the recent DNA testing indicated that M. Sylvestri was the main ancestor, then state that fact. As it stands now it looks as if the writers of the article really don't know what they are talking about.

FYI: the singular "cultivated apple" and "that" (not "these") is correct in this sense.

Amandajm (talk) 01:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * This really isn't a contradiction; however the wording could contribute to confusion, as you suggested. I made a few small changes that, hopefully, clear up the relationship between M. sylvestris and M. sieversii. I also fixed the plurals. rowley (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Edible by humans?
Is the fruit palatable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.147.156 (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not very, but it can be used to make jelly. Nadiatalent (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)


 * This topic — culinary uses — ought to be covered in the article. Some varieties of crabapples are sweet and juicy and, though small, quite palatable. rowley (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * According to cider, the crabapple was originally used to make cider. The roots of the name for apple go way back in Old English and Proto-Indodeuropean, so one may assume that people have been eating (or drinking) crabapples for long time.
 * Kortoso (talk) 02:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Contradiction
"In the past, M. sylvestris was thought to be an important ancestor of the cultivated apples (M. domestica), but these have now been shown to have been originally derived from the central Asian species M. sieversii.[1] However, another recent DNA analysis[2] showed that M. sylvestris has contributed to the ancestry of M. domestica very significantly. The study found that secondary introgression from other species of the Malus genus has greatly shaped the genome of M. domestica, with M. sylvestris being the largest contributor. It also found that current populations of M. domestica are more closely related to M. sylvestris than to M. sieversii. However in more pure strains of M. domestica the M. sieversii ancestry still predominates."

This is a contradiction. It apparently appeared in Malus sieversii as well, but was removed based on this discussion Talk:Malus sieversii

I'd like an actual botanist weigh in on this if possible, but certainly the contradiction should be removed. Famartin (talk) 03:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Anyone willing to deal with this? Its still there. Famartin (talk) 12:11, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I made some wording changes that, hopefully, removes the seeming contradiction. What the original was trying to say was that sylvestris was thought to be the main ancestor of the modern domesticated apple; but that genomic analysis confirmed that M. sieversii is the true ancestor, with important genomic contributions, as confirmed by other analyses, from M. sylvestris along the way. I've made this clearer, I think.rowley (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Need Professional
Besides for the above issues, a good and sourced description is needed. There are many photos in Wikipedia and in commons that are labeled as Malus sylvestris and are probably contradicting. However I don't know which ones are actual and which are mislabeled. Riversid (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Done -AndersenAnders (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)