Talk:Papaver nudicaule

I removed vandalism from this page.--Auric (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

If you ask me, it is still vandalized, by pro-FDA-policy spin control; Icelandic poppies are not poisonous, per se. They are not as directly medicinal as P. somniferum, but using the word 'poisonous' is misleading. Almost all drugs are poisonous when consumed from their natural sources in the volume required to count them as nutritive, but we call them drugs or medications when prescribed by a physician in minute quantities. The silly reality is the state of being 'high' is literally 'intoxication' -- to be poisoned. So the plant should be called "less medicinally valuable," not "poisonous." Dfruzzetti 01:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfruzzetti (talk • contribs)

The picture at the top of the page with tha taxbox is a different species, Papaver miyabeanum, and the picture is clearly named as such in wikimedia. The article contains misleading information on the distribution of the species and provides no clear taxonomic information. Furthermore the article claims definitely arguable synonym status for Papaver miyabeanum and P. nudicaule along with a number of other species without citing a reference.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.9.94 (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

See Genus Papaver on GRIN taxonomy and you will see that P. miyabeanum is a synonym of P. nudicaule. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 17:31, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Merger with Papaver croceum?

Some sources claim that these are synonymous but others deny it, we should either merge the pages or address the controversy somehow. Crom daba (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I suggest keeping them separate but linking them at the top of the page with template:see also until there is more definitive evidence one way or another. Klbrain (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

If we were to merge them the evidence should be quite definitive. If sources contradict each other the best call would be to keep them separate. Trialpears (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Closed, with disambiguation hatnote added. Klbrain (talk) 08:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

Why is the first picture Papaver miyabeanum? It is not P. nudicaule. I think this has caused some other confusion on sites online as well.

The picture of Papaver miyabeanum should be removed from discussion of P. nudicaule. I don't think they are synonyms. Ithebotanist (talk) 16:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Plants of the World Online puts both species in Oreomecon (see here), but doesn't treat them as synonyms, so if the image is indeed of Papaver miyabeanum, it should be removed. It appears that they have been treated as synonyms, but may not be in some more recent sources. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

However, I'm pretty sure that the picture labelled "Papaver miyabeanum" is not of a native occurrence of that species, which according to PoWO is native only to the Kuril Islands, whereas the picture appears to have been taken in the European mountains. The identity of the species in Papaver sect. Meconella ≡ Oreomecon appears to be highly confused, particularly because hybrids are cultivated as short-lived alpines reproduced from seed. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)