Talk:Brassica oleracea

Broccoflower

Brief article in the local newspaper introduced me to the Broccoflower, which instantly struck me as being another variant of oleracea. More information here [1]. Probably not popular enough to deserve mention in the article, but give the organic food buffs a few years...

Broccolini

Broccolini should be mentioned in the article. Badagnani 03:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Napa cabbage

Napa cabbage is Brassica rapa according to its page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.243.63.231 (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Geography

The beginning says that Brassica oleracea is found in Europe, implying that Chinese broccoli is also found in Europe, which is confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wakablogger (talk • contribs) 05:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Chinese Broccoli is/are a group of cultivated forms of B. oleracea that was developed in the far east/China relatively recently. Still, the wild forms of B. oleracea are only typically found in Europe. This is akin to corn/maize being widely cultivated in Africa, for example, while its wild form, Teosinte, is found only in Mesoamerica. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinus jeffreyi (talk • contribs) 17:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yet there is seemingly a contradiction in the article when it says, "The Lumbee tribe of North Carolina has traditionally used the leaves of B. oleracea..." which implies that the plant is native to the New World as well. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric

Cultivar groups

Is there a reference for there being seven major cultivar groups? I would argue that (at least based on availability in US supermarkets; I realize that globally these MAY be more common) Gongylodes/kohlrabi and Alboglabra/Chinese aren't "major" cultivar groups. If there's a reference supporting the 7 listed cultivar groups as being "major", that's fine. If not, add minor cultivar groups as well (I'd like to see a more comprehensive listing including "minor" cultivar groups). Tronchuda/Costata group (not sure which name is better) is one more that should be added.192.104.39.2 (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Majorness in classification isn't based on how common things are, but how different they are . A major group is very different from other major group even if extremely rare .

77.213.200.64 (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brassica oleracea. 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/20100820092704/http://commons.wikimedia.org:80/wiki/File:B to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:B
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090227055031/http://untamedscience.com:80/biodiversity/plants/flowering-plants/dicotyledons/brassicales/mustards/brassica/wild-cabbage? to http://www.untamedscience.com/biodiversity/plants/flowering-plants/dicotyledons/brassicales/mustards/brassica/wild-cabbage

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Impact of preference

This entire section of the article has many date inaccuracies. For example, it states "By the 15th century AD, cauliflower had developed leading also to the emergence of broccoli in Italy about 100 years later" however broccoli was cultivated in Italy over 2,000 years ago and cauliflower was cultivated well before the 15th century . It also states "Further selection in Belgium in lateral bud led to the Brussels sprout in the 18th century" which is also inaccurate as they were cultivated in the 13th century . The citation for this section leads to a dead link. Div750 (talk) 06:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

References

The improvement of oleracea into these distinct classes is tangled. I've done what I could to increase the accuracy of these sections and added quite a bit of citations. Badassperson (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Medicinal Use

I think the way this section is worded can be a bit misleading as it doesn't clarify how a plant that is not native to the Americas came to be used in "traditional" Native American medicine. More information about when the plant was brought to the Americas and when it became part of Lumbee tradition is needed. This plant has been used medicinally by many people for thousands of years, and it would be good to see this section fleshed out with a more complete history. For example, in ancient times Galen and Cato the Elder wrote about the medicinal uses of broccoli. Div750 (talk) 08:18, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

References

The name: "wild mustard"?

Isn't the plant's name "wild mustard"? https://www.businessinsider.com/brassica-oleracea-broccoli-kale-brussels-sprouts-2017-5?amp

-GogoLion (talk) 05:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

"Dubious" tag in genetics section

The section tagged "dubious" in the "Genetics in relation to taste" section contains two minor inaccuracies. First, "brassica" can refer to either the genus Brassica or the family Brassicaceae, so it's not incorrect to say "the brassica family." Second, the statement that "chemical compounds do not resemble each other" is patently false. The entire concept of the pharmacophore is based on molecules being similar enough to endogenous ligands that they activate the same receptors, so in this way two different chemicals can certainly resemble each other in the sense meant here. Lumberjane Lilly (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

XKCD joke

XKCD cartoon #2827 was entirely dedicated to a joke about official changes to the topic of this article . Addressing the claims in that influential publication might be useful, however outlandish or true they may be , 77.213.200.64 (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)