Talk:Morus rubra

Morus Rubra (Asian)

This plant is not native to N. America. In fact no true mulberry plants or trees are native to the Americas. This article is part of a major error situation on most Morus entries in Wikipedia. Slowly researchers are finding the errors, but quotes from random sites that are not authoritive are cause for many of the issues. Yes Red Mulberry was an early invasive species brought from Asia, & so many people do consider it as American, the quotes about Native Americans using it...ugh. Wikipedia quotes this url; http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=233500782 As a source of N. American NATIVE proof, that is a Chinese source, China is where most Mulberry came from. Slowly most claims on various Morus forms to Americas are being removed, but Wikipedia seems to acknowledge the error by deleting the whole entries, so the name of the plant goes red with no entry. Please review all Morus articles, as many are very dangerous plants and telling various species from each other is difficult, use of the wrong Mulberry species as a medicine, when misidentified can lead to rapid death. 24.121.44.30 (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

FNA is not a "chinese source". This page explains what it is: [1]. I have never seen a reliable source claiming red mulberry (Morus rubra) was not native. Every source I've consulted, including the USDA, BONAP, and many articles in the primary literature, discuss it as native. 100.34.22.210 (talk) 15:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

You haven't convinced me. Try reading the English accounts and field reports from 1607 when they first landed in Virginia. They found it all over the place, and found the Powhatans utilizing it as mentioned. We have detailed writings from colonial botanists like Banister long before any plants could have been feasably imported from China. So what's up? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 01:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Other botanists are coming around to realize that all True Morus did not exist In North America, I have heard so many arguments about all the plants linked as being Morus, and much about whether many plants should not be called Morus at all, so I can't expect to convince anyone of anything about these disputed plants aside from certain genetic data that is coming out, which may settle some of these issues. You mentioned Banister, in his own writings before coming to North America he wrote several papers on the plants from England. He talked of the numbers of Morus Ruba in England, In fact he had one in his front yard. In those writings before coming to America he attributed Morus Ruba as being imported into England from Asia centuries before he was born. Records do show Morus ruba as having been introduced in Ireland and England before Europe "discovered" America. Morus Ruba was very likely introduced by early settlers from Europe. Even now the Majority of this plant in the wild is in Eastern North America, although it has been shown to be able to thrive in most of America. The geological spread does seem to indicate starting to spread from Eastern coast of the US and expanding westward. If Europeans did introduce this plant, that does not take away from the fact that it's "roots" were from Asia. The White Mulberry of course now is causing a decline in the Red, and that plant is of major concern. I am concerned aside from truth, that both of these trees have had a negative impact on the native plants of N. America. NOTE: I do not edit main entries in Wikipedia, so what I am presenting is only for Wikipedia Editors to consider and review, if an editor researches this data and finds need for change, they can do it. Wikipedia is not my hobby.

24.121.44.30 (talk) 05:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it likely that the English introduced the plant, because literally on their first arrival in May 1607, the native Powhatan are recorded to have feasted them with baskets full of the mulberries, which they already had a native term for in their own language. This is the plant Banister describes. But at any rate, the way it works here is, if you find a published source outlining your view of the matter, it can be accomodated in the article. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 05:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the US Genetic studies working on this lost their funding, multiple international efforts are underway to ban international movement of several Morus plants due to health issues, wish I had a link on that, but I had no luck as I just reviewed International Health Organizations. Maybe someone will review this some day & find the data. Also to not cause confusion, while Banister was from England, other European nations had also imported this plant from Asia and so the spreading of this into N. America could have included many nations, not just England.

24.121.44.30 (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The Spanish did evidently make contact with the Powhatan as early as 1559 (Ajacan), however the notion that they introduced mulberries to them at this time sounds like Original Research. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have contacted the Primary Investigator concerning the newest Morus research that had it's funding cut, asking him to add data here, he will not release that data due to lack of peer revue, but I know from prior discussions with him and 2 other researchers on the project that as least part of the reason the data will not be released is due to federal funding and oversight that disliked certain results on other Plants Morus related. This issue of Morus Rubra native home is not part of the controversial results of the research but he notes that other genetic research had already confirmed that the Asian & N. American plants of this plant were identical except for the occasional hybrid. I guess the question becomes which is most likely, did this plant start in East America or in Asia? :) If it started in America then it is very curious why it is not native to western areas of America as fast as it spreads. Although I would admit that I would have expected any movement of the plant to have happened long ago when there was said to be a land bridge to Alaska, except that too would have left western America having Morus Rubra a plenty. Alas logic may not supply the answer, finding an object in a cave in America that had been carved from Red Mulberry by native Americans 1,000 years ago would help prove one or the other. But what I have described here is not proof without someone finding the old research that was done on this genetic relationship, but the native home is not really proved, any more than the coincidence that all 3 locations I mentioned here- Alaska-Asia-America all start and end with the letter A.

This entire thread is hilarious, Morus rubra isn't even found in china. I'd love to see the research proving that it was somehow extirpated from china. Wasp32 (talk) 00:02, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Mis-ID'ed photo

The photo above, which is used as the main photo for this article, looks to be misidentified, it looks like a white mulberry to me. Note the blunt-tipped leaves (red mulberry is long-acuminate), short fruit (red mulberry is longer), clustered fruit (red mulberry is usually borne singly.)

I am going to remove this from the article. No photo is better than a mis-ID'ed photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.34.22.210 (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I doubted that it was Morus rubra in the photo. Glad to have it confirmed by someone who seems more familiar with the species (which I've never seen in person). — Eru·tuon 19:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Misuse of dioecious and monoecious

"If cultivated for fruits, male and female plants must be grown, if a monoecious variety is chosen. However, there are also dioecious varieties."

I believe the terms are being used in reverse of what they mean, as a monoecious variety contains both male and female parts whereas dioecious would have the requirement of both a male and a female plant for fruit. 2600:4040:5209:E600:74C2:652E:81E0:C0C0 (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)