Talk:Bullace
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Doubtful taxonomy[edit]
I cannot find any modern source that recognizes Prunus domestica var. nigra as a taxon. The name is not in the International Plant Names Index. Stace's New Flora of the British Isles, usually considered the definitive source for Britain and Ireland, recognizes only P. domestica subsp. insititia, which he calls "Bullace, Damson", noting that the subspecies "have been so much hybridised that [they] are often scarcely discernible". (p. 209, 4th edition)
I think this article should be merged with Damson. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Peter coxhead:, POWO has a record for "Prunus insititia proles nigra Asch. & Graebn." (it seems there is no corresponding entry in IPNI). African Plant Database has a record for "Prunus insititia var. nigra (Rchb.) Asch. & Graebn.", with a link to (apparently) the original publication where it appears as "P. insititia A. nigra". I'm not sure what the A. stands for (proles was new to me as well; it's apparently more or less equivalent to a cultivar group). POWO has Prunus nigra Rchb. as a synonym of P. insititia and cites a Geneva Botanic Garden publication (African Plant Database is also associated with Geneva). Plantdrew (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- POWO is treating Prunus insititia as a full species which I think is a recent change (the taxobox at damson has it as a subspecies). Prunus domestica subsp. italica is in the taxobox at greengage; POWO treats that as a synonym of P. insititia.
- @Plantdrew: I think what this shows is the muddle created by treating semi-domesticated and domesticated plants using ICNafp names. So it seems that PoWO now lumps all the "plums" under P. domestica, P. insititia or P. × syriaca. The last is inconsistent because it's said to be P. cerasifera × P. domestica, but P. domestica is given as P. cerasifera × P. spinosa, so P. × syriaca is actually P. cerasifera × P. spinosa, i.e. P. domestica. As with Citrus taxonomy, there seems no obvious way to sort out this mess here. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Plantdrew: it seems that, not for the first time (nor I'm sure the last time), I've missed the finer points of the relevant articles of the ICNafp. The argument is that there's a difference between treating P. domestica as originally derived from P. cerasifera × P. domestica, but now regarding it as a normal species, and treating it as the nothospecies P. × domestica. The synonomy I suggested above only applies in the latter case since the H articles in the ICNafp only apply to taxa explicitly given hybrid names. None of this makes the nomenclature easier to use here. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- Prunus cerasifera is diploid, Prunus spinosa tetraploid, and Prunus domestica hexaploid. IIRC, the genome constitutions are CC, CCMM, and CCCCMM respectively (MM is Prunus microcerasus.) If Prunus × syriaca is cerasifera × domestica then it would be CCCM. Per Stace Prunus × fruticans is spinosa × domestica (CCCMM), but Sell & Murrell treat it as a form of domestica. Lavateraguy (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Plantdrew: I think what this shows is the muddle created by treating semi-domesticated and domesticated plants using ICNafp names. So it seems that PoWO now lumps all the "plums" under P. domestica, P. insititia or P. × syriaca. The last is inconsistent because it's said to be P. cerasifera × P. domestica, but P. domestica is given as P. cerasifera × P. spinosa, so P. × syriaca is actually P. cerasifera × P. spinosa, i.e. P. domestica. As with Citrus taxonomy, there seems no obvious way to sort out this mess here. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Bullace when is correct time to pick[edit]
When is correct time to pick ? 89.243.10.180 (talk) 09:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)