Talk:Camelina
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Link to German Wiki Site + Update Industry News
editPlease link also to the German Wiki http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leindotter You can also update the site with the help of http://www.forexpros.com/fundamental/analysis/biofuels-potential-to-transform-the-global-economy-91729 Thanks, 78.42.6.224 (talk) 07:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I have serious doubts about this claim: "Studies have shown camelina-based jet fuel to reduce net carbon emissions from jets by about 80%." If we don't consider how the fuel is produced, but just the results of burning the fuel in the jet engine, this claim would imply that the fuel has less carbon, and therefor more hydrogen, which make it much more volatile, and therefor not jet fuel. It would be something else, like methane.
If we consider how the fuel is produced, the engine driving farming equipement, the electrically powered processing equipment which uses electricity produced by fossil fuel generating machines, the claim is even less believable.
And then there is the "study" itself. What study? Done by who? Published where?
All this smacks of politics.
Charles Pergiel Silicon Forest www.pergelator.blogspot.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.226.160 (talk) 19:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
December 2012
editHello guys!
I was working on camelina sativa page to add some content about cultivation for example. And I could notice that information about the species camelina sativa was shown in two pages: under "camelina" (genus, this page), and another one named "camelina sativa".
In order to gather the info about the species I propose two new pages: "camelina" with info about the genus only and a second one "camelina sativa" including info about the species only.
I think it will be clearer.
Also I tried to includes all the previous content in my new version.
If I receive not comment in the next days I will load my new entry. Let me know if you would like to change something.
See below my proposition for "camelina" (genus). Proposition for "camelina sativa" is on the talk page of the current "camelina sativa".Vtheubet (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
| Camelina | |
|---|---|
| |
| Camelina sativa | |
| Scientific classification | |
| Kingdom: | |
| (unranked): | |
| (unranked): | |
| (unranked): | |
| Order: | |
| Family: | |
| Genus: | Camelina
|
| Species | |
|
Camelina alyssum (Mill.) Thell. | |
Camelina is a genus within the flowering plant family Brassicaceae. The Camelina species, commonly known as flase flax are native to Mediterranean regions of Europe and Asia. Several species, classified under the genus Camelina, have been little studied with the exception of the specie named Camelina sativa, historically cultivated as oil plant. Heinrich Johann Nepomuk von Crantz was the first botanist to use the genus Camelina in his classification works in 1762.
Etymology
editThe name Camelina comes from the Greek for "ground" and "flax", alluding to its being a weed which suppresses the vigour of flax crops.[1]
Botany
editCamelina plants are annual or biennial herbs. Their leaves are simple, lanceolate to narrowly elliptic. The flowers are hermaphroditic actinomorphic, grouped in racemes and yellowish colored. The seeds are formed in dehiscent siliques.[2]
Species
editFour common species are presented below. However, at least two databanks indicates that more species may exist.[3][4]
References
edit
ar:كاميلينا
ca:Camelina
da:Dodder
de:Leindotter
et:Tuder
es:Camelina
hsb:Hryst
pam:Camelina
lt:Judra
hu:Gomborka
ja:アマナズナ属
pl:Lnicznik
pt:Camelina
ro:Camelina
ru:Рыжик (растение)
uk:Рижій
zh:亚麻荠属
June 2014
editIn the second paragraph of the Genetics section, I have difficulty parsing this phrase; "terrestrial sustainable sources of fish oils". Fish oils, by definition, come from FISH...right? 184.77.211.121 (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Promotional article needs more than a rewrite
editArticle consists of nothing but good news of the Pie-in-the-Sky variety. It's almost entirely speculative, promising good things to come. Given that I came across several adverts today soliciting investors of the senior-citizen variety to invest in this "miracle plant", our current article will only help to push those retirees into giving their money to what appears to me to be a scam. I'm not saying the genus lacks notability, but this Camelina article is an advert written by a cheerleader. Anyone?-- Quisqualis (talk) 04:27, 22 May 2023 (UTC)