Talk:Solanum nigrum

[Untitled]
I expanded the page slightly while I was looking for an already made article. I needed it for a text-based RPG I was on, where I teach Herbology, along with a few other things. Dragon Expert 15:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Tamil name
The 28 April edit by 65.214.154.131 changes the Tamil name from manathakkali to sundaikkai. However, the Solanum torvum page identifies that nightshade as sundaikkai. Most of the literature I've seen does so as well, and identifies S. nigrum as manathakkali (for example, (Mohan et al., 2008). So I'm reverting this edit.  If someone has a contrary reference, I'd appreciate seeing it.  Thanks!

Natarajankrishnaswami (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it really poisonous?
The IPGRI publication, listed at the bottom of the page, discusses black nightshade as a widely used food source, which seems to contradict the information given here on the black nightshade being highly poisonous.

Waitak 07:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is poisonous. Just like the potato plant and other related plants, the black nightshade contains Solanine, a very toxic substance. However, cooking may destroy at least part of this substance. bogdan 09:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Still, given that it's a significant alternate crop, it might be wise to mention that it can be prepared in ways that (like the potato, apparently!) don't put the consumer's health at risk.

Waitak 10:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I found this:
 * "EDIBLE PARTS: Ripe berries are made into jam, but do not eat raw."
 * bogdan 10:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

From what I've seen the deadliest part of the plants are the unripe berries but when they are ripe they are the least toxic and are sometimes eaten. cyclosarin 09:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

The debate has been raging for hundreds of years, but quite simply, there is not one piece of evidence that any poisoning from ripe Solanum nigrum berries (or any other allied species, such as S. ptychanthum, americanum, interius) has ever occurred. All of the references that state this either cite no source, cite other sources that cite no source, or cite a few erroneous sources. For example, there was a report in the Irish Journal of Medical Science (Towers, 1953) called "A Case of Poisoning by Solanum nigrum." This is quite obviously a case of name misapplication; the plant actually being referred to is Atropa belladonna, and the article leaves no question that this is the case. The idea that S. nigrum berries are toxic is simply a myth; the evidence that this is not the case is overwhelming, abundant, and conclusive. To say that a food is "poisonous" because it contains a toxin is a ridiculous misapplication of the term and a gross oversimplification. Almost every food analyzed contains some level of certain toxins. This in no way makes the food poisonous. Bread contains acrylamide. For that matter, in the entries there is a very different tone regarding the toxicity of potatoes, tomatoes, bell peppers, hot peppers, cherries, tomatillos, eggplants, and other foods known to contain solanine (at least with potatoes there are numerous documented poisonings, some fatal--unlike S. nigrum fruit, for which there are none). Why do people become so irrationally charged when dealing with Solanum nigrum? Wikipedia is supposed to be a source for information, not fear-mongering. Since you insist on changing reasonable language regarding this matter, perhaps you could reinsert something reasonable that is more to your liking.Arcadiansam (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I would tend to agree. Claims of toxicity in these species are ubiquitous, but almost always extremely vague.  The only real symptom generally given is mild stomach ache after eating substantial quantities of unripe fruit or eating uncooked leaves.  I experienced this symptom in my own childhood... after eating a handful of green apples!  The truth is, potatoes  can be much more dangerous, and are eaten very frequently in much of the world.    Heavenlyblue (talk) 23:51, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I beg to differ. the references to the presence of toxic glycoalkaloids are substantial:


 * - Aslanov,S.M., Glycoalkaloids of Solanum nigrum, Chemistry of Natural Compounds, Vol. 7, No. 5, p658, 1971.


 * - Solanum nigrum profile, IPCS INCHEM


 * There are more references to toxicity issues with S.nigrum, and I'm happy to bring them into the discussion if so requested. But I think that IPCS INCHEM profile has enough references to verify that S.nigrum should be considered toxic unless proven otherwise.


 * I think the confusion is with various chemovars of S.nigrum in different locations. In other words, the edible strains may be safe in those locations where it is traditionally eaten, but in other locations glycoalkaloid levels could be unsafe. Therefore, it's vitally important and responsible to take the precautionary principle when presenting information on S.nigrum, and present the toxicology information as well as the culinary and herbal traditions. And I have done so by re-instating the section on toxicity which was removed despite being substantially referenced. Thank you. John Moss (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I assume these are higher figures from more toxic local varieties. With the limited amount of one of your sources that I can see, it is not clear which parts of the plant are being measured.  Remember that no one is eating raw leaves or unripe fruit (though in some areas cooked leaves may be eaten).  A fair  comparison would be between known gastronomic strains of low toxicity and common potato and tomato strains.  (Ripe fruits and mature tubers, of course, as it is well known that green potato tubers can be substantially toxic.)  And if we are talking about vegetative parts of the plant, let's compare the uncooked leaves and stems with leaves and stems of potato and tomato.  I wonder if the difference is very great.  And, again, in regions where nightshades are commonly eaten, no one would dream of eating the uncooked vegetative parts (or, in most areas, even those parts cooked).  Of course, we must exercise due caution, so this is a very useful discussion to have.  But let's take care that we don't unfairly malign a useful food plant.    Heavenlyblue (talk) 09:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * One other point that deserves mention: While we might sit and eat a half-pound or a pound of potato in one meal, no one would eat that quantity of Solanum nigrum at one sitting.  So that fact really must also be weighed into any overall evaluation, as with any food plant.  I, myself, have numerous times eaten meals containing fifty or more ripe berries of the French cultivated strain that we grow, and have never detected the slightest hint of discomfort or any other symptom or toxicity.     Heavenlyblue (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the constructive comments Heavenlyblue. To be straight forward, the references on Solanum nigrum are a maze of contradictions. How do we as Wiki editors deal with this? I think the best way is to cite it all, but at the same time get some sense of why it is contradictory, and how to deal with it in a balanced and safe way. As a wild foody, I find the safety of black nightshades very fraught for lay people. When you eat a cultivated solanaceae vegetable (potato, tomato, eggplant etc) most people are eating a strain genetically selected for low toxicity. But when wild harvesting black nightshades there is no genetic selection, and so the wild harvester needs to understand what bitter glycoalkaloids taste like so as to avoid toxic strains, that's the level of knowledge that indigenous South Americans have in working with wild potatoes. It's fair to say that most of the people who are reading this article don't have that necessary cultural skill to deal with the variable chemistry in wild strains of wild foods. So while we acknowledge the edibility of some strains, we also have to reflect plant toxicologist warnings on black nightshades so as we don't misrepresent the facts and expose our readers to a potential toxicity risk, especially given cultural niaveness. One of the problems is that it seems that many wild food authors have simply used other wild food references without cross-referencing with plant toxicology. By the way my experience is not solely academic, I have suffered black nightshade poisoning along with my friends: we experienced headaches and disorientation after eating a small quantity of ripe black nightshade berries, which I identified as Solanum americanum. Although it wasn't S.nigrum, it's sobering to consider that the taxonomy of the Solanum nigrum complex can even be confusing for botanists. Lets stay precautionary and present all sides of the discussion. Cheers for now...John Moss (talk) 06:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

If a book writes a myth, saying children died from a plant w/o any evidence it was the plant in discussion here (or even in the same genus), is it not misinformative to keep such info. listed in wikipedia? Sources must be legit to be of any use.... Sam Schaperow, M.S. PsychologyCT.com  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:302:D7A:CF20:4D36:FA7A:5727:48BF (talk) 03:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I just became aware of this controversy. I'm by no means an expert in this plant, but wanted to show this possibly useful article to all of you: http://foragersharvest.com/black-nightshade-2/
 * That's a good article. It is very informed and cites sources from hundreds of years ago to the present day.
 * I'm afraid that the current wikipedia article only adds to the confusion, showing pictures of what might very well be two different plants. The photo https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/Solanum_nigrum_leafs_flowers_fruits.jpg/220px-Solanum_nigrum_leafs_flowers_fruits.jpg shows a plant with lobed leaves (unknown to me) and the photo https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/Solanum_nigrum_flowers.jpg/225px-Solanum_nigrum_flowers.jpg shows Solanum nigrum as I know it. I eat these berries. The plant has somewhat heart-shaped leaves resembling the leaves of a pepper, and no lobes. There may be some intraspecific variation, but not, I think, to that extent. Also, the edible berries shown in https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/62/Makoi_or_Solanum_nigrum_berries.jpg/225px-Makoi_or_Solanum_nigrum_berries.jpg are not from Solanum nigrum, which has black berries (hence the name); the article you reference suggests they are S. villosum, which has "berries that ripen to yellow or orange." Perhaps these are all the same species in the sense that they can interbreed and hybridize. The article to which you direct us says that the poisonings attributed to S. nigrum are the result of eating Atropa belladonna, which looks similar, and I tend to agree. 173.174.85.204 (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC) Eric

poison
"It is poisonous to eat, and so should be avoided by people with pets.": no pets here, so I can then eat it?

Also http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/Crops/Wonderberry.html says it is OK... --Jidanni 2006-04-15


 * "There is a lot of disagreement over whether or not the leaves or fruit of this plant are poisonous. Views vary from relatively poisonous to perfectly safe to eat. The plant is cultivated as a food crop, both for its fruit and its leaves, in some parts of the world and it is probably true to say that toxicity can vary considerably according to where the plant is grown and the cultivar that is being grown. The unripe fruit contains the highest concentration of toxins."
 * from http://www.pfaf.org/database/plants.php?Solanum+nigrum


 * So, basically, unless you know for sure whether it's the right soil, environment and cultivar, don't eat it. bogdan 12:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Are we talking about one species?
Is it possible that Solanum nigrum (Black Nightshade) and Solanum melanocerasum (Garden Huckleberry) are being conflated to some degree in this article, as they often are in popular literature? Could other species be involved, too?

It may be this, rather than regional variation, that accounts for some of the uncertainty illustrated here.

For instance, it seems vanishingly unlikely that leaves of the same species could be extremely toxic in one region and a staple food in another (even taking into account cooking). Also, how could ripe berries be toxic in one place and routinely eaten raw by children in another?

I could not help but notice, as well, that photo #1 "Solanum_nigrum" shows heavily toothed leaf margins, while photo #3 "Solanum_nigrum_flowers" features smooth margins and a clear heart shape.

The root problem here is that most of the existing literature is unclear, incorrectly overlapping, and often mutually contradictory.

Incidentally, over the course of last summer I ate probably three cups of something sold to me as "Miltomate vallisto - Chichiquelite" with not a hint of stomach discomfort or other ill effect. (They were, however, quite small and bland!) I believe this was Solanum nigrum, and it conformed in appearance to photo #1.

Good Luck, All!! Heavenlyblue (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Heavenlyblue, thank you for the prompting on this significant issue regarding Solanum nigrum. I have dealt with the issue by including the section "Taxonomy", and also in general comments in the article introduction and usage introduction.


 * In reading the literature in doing what has turned into an article review, I'm amazed how poorly handled the taxonomic issue is on Solanum nigrum, especially considering the toxicity questions. I find the taxonomic/chemistry research papers to be the best reference on this. The researchers seemed to have clarified the taxa Solanum nigrum L., but this level of taxonomic knowledge has not flowed right through to the more field based literature - perhaps because it is too complex to explain - and that's scary, especially when it comes to food and medicine uses. Where there is a strong continuing tradition of using black nightshades locally (e.g. Africa and Asia) it's probably safe because they have that continuity....and the real danger would be for wildcrafters who are experimenting with local unknown strains...so I concur with you: it's confusing on a taxonomic and toxicity level.John Moss (talk) 23:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, John! I agree.  Certainly, people should buy, grow, and eat only well-established cultivated strains from a reputable seed company with some expertise in this area.  (Try Solana Seeds in Canada.)  And this goes for all of the less-common nightshades!  And, as for the taxonomy, the article itself talks about a "Solanum nigrum complex", so that's a good indication that things may be a little muddled.    Heavenlyblue (talk) 09:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Please do not remove the toxicity section
Please do not remove the well referenced toxicity section. There are substantial academic references to the presence of toxic levels of glycoalkaloids in various plant parts of S.nigrum. It's also vital and responsible that this toxicity information is available along with the culinary and herbal use information, otherwise this article risks being a hazard to would-be wild-crafters who may not understand the toxicity risk with uncertain strains.

The toxicity section is also balanced. It doesn't necessarily contradict culinary and medicinal uses. John Moss (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I have 35 years of working with wildfoods, including on a professional level - both research and teaching. I am very familar with the toxicity issue with wild food plants. Thank you. John Moss (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

New edit on toxicity section
The new edit on the toxicity section is interesting, but is probably not objective in a wikipedia style. This edit removed nearly all the historically recent phytochemistry references that contradicted the authors assertion that there was no recent evidence of toxicity. I find that a big worry. We have to be very careful not to ignore scientific references that don't suite a particular perspective when it comes to an objective encyclopedic viewpoint. At the heart of toxicology is the phytochemistry of the plant, and regardless of whether there are no recent cases of poisoning, if the toxins are present in high enough amounts in Solanum nigrum - then it's considered toxic regardless. I will try and tease out the facts on the chemistry references, but I have to say, this new toxicity section is looking heavily biased and needs a substantial review. Also, some assertions are not supported by the reference material. However, I wont just go straight back to the previous edit, but will see how I can synthesize this new edit with with what was written previously. The only problem with this current edit is that it may be dangerously misleading, so I will indicate bias. John Moss (talk) 08:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

A primer on S.nigrum complex toxicity
It is slowly being straightened out; using DNA sequences and chromosome counts as well as a few anatomical markers the issue is becoming clearer. Briefly, after reviewing the 21st-century literature, the important species seem to be:


 * S. americanum - North America, black fruit, probably strongly poisonous and may cause harm even when fully ripe. This may be the species responsible for all black-berried nightshade fatalities reported from North America
 * S. nigrum - originally Europe and surroundings but widely introduced, black fruit, poisonous except maybe when fully ripe. Ate it myself, tastes slightly "off" (like sprouting potatoes) even when fully ripe so probably not recommended
 * S. opacum - Australia, lime-green fruit, somewhat poisonous but maybe edible when ripe
 * S. ptychanthum - Atlantic North America and Caribbean, black fruit, somewhat poisonous but maybe edible when ripe
 * S. retroflexum - originally Africa, black fruit, edible and widely cultivated as "S. x burbankii" ("wonderberry"/"sunberry"). Tasty and sweet and definitely lacks the "off" taste of true S. nigrum
 * S. scabrum - originally Africa, black fruit, probably fully edible ("garden huckleberry") but locals use the berries as dye and only eat the leaves so the berries are probably less tasty than S. retroflexum
 * S. (villosum) alatum - Europe and surroundings, red fruit, probably somewhat poisonous but possibly some strains exist which are usable as leaf vegetables
 * S. (villosum) villosum - originally Europe and surroundings, yellow fruit, maybe somewhat poisonous but as far as I can tell quite edible when ripe and very tasty and refreshing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.197.53.185 (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Solanum nigrum. 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/20120707210646/http://www.bioversityinternational.org/publications/Web_version/500/ch08.htm to http://www.bioversityinternational.org/publications/Web_version/500/ch08.htm

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) 13:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

wrong picture of the plant
Thanks so much for this very exhaustive article. However, I noticed that the first picture which you uploaded for the plant solanum nigrum appears like it is actually for another related plant, solanum incanum. Would you kindly check if that is the case?. Regards, Mado Duncan

WRONG PHOTOGRAPH
The nain photograph used for this Solanum is incorrect. Please review. 105.245.120.198 (talk) 06:37, 11 June 2022 (UTC)