Talk:Papaver orientale

Species
you may be interested in this issue, as I know you edit articles on garden plants, and have both edited this one.

There seems to be some confusion as to the correct scientific name for the plants grown as "oriental poppies" in gardens and illustrated in the article. The facts seem to be that there are three closely related species: Stace says that (2) and (3) have unblotched petals; (1) usually has petals with basal blotches. He speculates that the three might actually be the same species, noting that intermediates occur. Various sources record hybrids.
 * 1) Papaver setiferum Goldblatt, formerly known as Papaver pseudo-orientale (Fedde) Medw. , until it was discovered that this was an illegitimate name, since Papaver × pseudo-orientale E.G.Camus was published earlier (1898) for the hybrid Papaver orientale L. × Papaver lateritium K.Koch . Goldblatt published the replacement name in 2011, but many sources haven't caught up with this yet, including the BSBI maps, although Stace's New Flora of the British Isles (4th ed.) has. This species is also referred to as Papaver orientale auct. non L.
 * 2) Papaver bracteatum Lindl.
 * 3) Papaver orientale L.

Stace regards (1) as the "oriental poppy" of gardens. The BSBI agrees, albeit under the name Papaver pseudo-orientale. PoWO on the other hand agrees with older sources that (3) is the "oriental poppy" of gardens.

So I'm puzzled as to what to do here. One possibility is to have the article at the English name "Oriental poppy", and leave the scientific name to discussion in the text. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I usually prefer Latin names for Wiki articles. However, I think you are right, Peter. There is a clear case here for an article titled "Oriental poppy". Garden cultivars are known to be a mixture of at least two different species. Interestingly the RHS now lists them all under Papaver (Oriental Group). The P. orientale article can remain as a stub. There is currently no P. setiferum article, but this could be a redirect to "Oriental poppy". Darorcilmir (talk) 12:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is confusing. I have two taxa in my garden, one a long-lived perennial that forms a large clump that remains in place year after year, and is the plant sold by garden centres in multiple colour varieties (white through pink red and purple to almost black, single/double, etc.) as "Oriental poppy". The other I have never seen offered for sale. It behaves almost like a biennial or winter annual, does not form a clump but is patch-forming, spreads around everywhere by seeds and probably also by runners, the flowering stems dying back after flowering. I think of the former as Papaver orientale and the latter as P. setiferum. However, my "P. setiferum" are invariably intense solid red, unblotched and have no bracts on the pedicel beneath the flower, thus deviating from Stace's description. Anyway, isn't it inconsistent to be calling P. pseudoorientale "Oriental poppy", thereby depriving the rightful owner P. orientale of the name? The RHS website treats bracteatum as a subspecies of P. orientale, but their Encyclopedia of garden plants suggests that most garden varieties are hybrids between bracteatum and pseudoorientale.  The Kew Plant DNA Cvalues database  lists bracteatum as diploid (2n=14) and orientale as hexaploid (2n=42) so that there are clear cytological distinctions between the taxa, but unfortunately does not quote a value for pseudoorientale/setiferum.  I suggest we continue to discuss these issues under Papaver orientale until such time as the distinctions between the taxa have been clearly resolved, but my preference would be to reserve the common name "oriental poppy" for P. orientale.  Plant surfer  13:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the issue is that the name "oriental poppy" was applied to P. orientale auct. non L., i.e. to the wrong species, which is why the 2007 BSBI list of English names applies it to P. pseudo-orientale. There are many examples of "hort." names based on misidentifications. I hadn't noticed that the RHS now uses a cultivar group name, as pointed put. That might be another way to go. At present, I can't access some of the relevant scientific papers, as they're in paywalled journals my botany-poor institution doesn't subscribe to. I'd like to see some before we decide finally. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:02, 9 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I may be able to help with the papers if you can send me details. Plant surfer  18:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Alkaloids?
Does the p.oriental contain any alkaloids like p. Somnifrum 2601:409:280:74E0:2511:B972:DA96:8F8B (talk) 10:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)