Talk:Dogwood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Dogwood is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

See note at Talk:Cornus - MPF 00:50, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Etymology

I question the accuracy of this statement recently added:

It is called "dog" because of its deemed uselessness to human (not edible or lumber).

Dogwood was a highly prized wood for making the shuttles of looms; for tool handles, and other items that required a very hard and strong wood. Pollinator 12:34, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's from OED. Dogwood's etymology says, "see dog-tree". Dog-tree says "see Dog-berry". Dog-berry says "See dog, definition 21". And Definition 21 says "applied to plants...unworthy to humans..inedible...". Etymology doesn't always (or usually) makes sense. That's why I intentionally used the adjective "deemed". It's an antiquated POV. --Menchi 19:34, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Interesting...thanks. Pollinator 00:02, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Two reputable sources I checked give the derivation as from dag wood, a dag being a wooden skewer, as in a dagger - MPF 22:16, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pollination

Menchi posed this question on the page. I moved it here, at least temporarily: It is (ususually?) beetle-pollinated.

I have been curious about dogwood pollination for many years. The flowers are typically very barren of any insect activity, so it must yield little nectar. In many years I have never seen a beetle on a dogwood blossom, so it must also be pollen-poor. Rarely, I see andrena bees and skippers visit the blossoms. Once (and it was notable because it was only once in many years of observation) I saw a honeybee working the blossoms. It could well be that they are self fertile and maybe even self pollinating, considering the rarity of insect activity. I will continue to watch (they are blooming right now). Pollinator 13:48, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Any possibility it could be night-flying insects? - MPF 22:16, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
My question is not whether dogwood is bettle-pollinated, but if it's usually so. It does happen. Biology of Plants by Raven et al (6th ed) says "The flowers of beetle-pollinated plants are either large and borne singly...or small and aggregated in an inflorescene, such as those of dogwoods, elders, spiraeas, and many species of the parsley family." (page 531). I have flowering dogwoods in my neighbourhood but almost never seen any beetles here. So I cannot attest to frequency of such pollination either. --Menchi 06:33, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ridiculous move

Some fool has turned Dogwood into a disambiguation page, in order to accomodate some punk band in LA. Thus ever reference to a dogwood will have to be linked as Dogwood (plant). Too many twelve-year olds at Wikipedia. --16:30, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) {unsigned by User:Wetman (Niteowlneils 17:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC))}

Agreed wholeheartedly. Let's get it put back, a.s.a.p. I'll do what I can, but suspect it'll need admin assistance. - MPF 16:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
It's not "promotion", my intent was not vandalism, and attacks against my age are childish. Dogwood (the band) should be included in Wikipedia, as they are a very influential Christian punk band. It seemed to me that the best way to add the band would be by adding a stub band page, adding a disambig page, fixing the link to the plant, and then fleshing out the band page. I apologize if I was wrong in these steps, but there's no need to be rude. Jpers36 17:34, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you were wrong. The simple fact is that the term "dogwood," used to mean a plant, is much more common than the same word, used to mean a Christian punk band -- no matter how influential you say it is. By the way, Jpers36, I checked out your page on the band, and you might want to include a few more sources if you want people to actually believe that the band is influential. You can't just write that and hope that people believe it. (Also, a quick grammatical note for Jpers36: commas and periods are always placed inside of quotation marks.) ask123 19:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Acacia

The Australian dogwood- is not, as far as I can tell, a dogwood, it's an Acacia or something very similar.--nixie 11:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fable of the Dogwood is not Apocrypha

The Fable of the Dogwood is not Apocrypha, as someone noted in an edit to that section. Apocrypha are scriptural writings that are not in the Biblical canon. This is not a scriptural writing (as far as I know) and is not listed among New Testament apocrypha. Therefore, I conclude that it is merely a fable. If curious, see the fable article. Cheers, ask123 15:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

http://www.answers.com/apocrypha&r=67 apocrypha = "Writings or statements of questionable authorship or authenticity." originally the word was used for things that were not for general circulation and later was used for when statements or writings were regarded as of doubtful origin, false or spurious, and only after the 5th century did it take on a meaning in relationship to the non-canonical books of the bible. This happened after Jerome erroneously used the word to describe those books. Hardyplants 17:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
If you want apocrypha to mean that here, then you shouldn't link to the Wikipedia article, Apocrypha, that primarily describes the word in relation to Christian scripture (it mentions the other definition as a sidenote). Also, the dogwood story goes beyond "questionable authorship or authenticity." There is no question of authenticity here. With George Washington and the cherry tree, for instance (used as an example on the Wiki apocrypha page), there was a question of authenticity. But, this story entirely strains credulity, placing it outside the boundaries of apocrypha. It is entirely absurd and inconceivable (without a total suspension of disbelief). Also, I think there is a tendency to overuse the word apocrypha to describe any and all Christian stories of this nature. Just because it's commonly done, does not mean it's correct. Cheers, ask123 17:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The story is apocrypha because it has a hidden meaning, namely the change in the morphology of the Dogwood that is revealed in the story, the story was never taken as real...its in reality a teaching story or vehicle used to illustrate the Crucifixion, I suppose those ignorant of this type of illustration would worry about the "truthfulness" of the story. Hardyplants 18:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

But the definition of apocrypha says nothing about hidden meaning and has nothing to do with hidden meaning. Apocrypha, when not relating to Christian scripture, refers to a story of questionable authorship or authenticity. Therefore, to be apocrypha according to the dictionary definition (not a colloquial usage definition), it must adhere to the aforementioned limitation of being credulous. To be questionable, a story must be, at the very least, credulous. If it wasn't, it would simply be unbelievable.
Of course this story is a teaching vehicle, as is story of Washington and the cherry tree. The key point, though, is that some teaching stories come from true events, while others come from fictional myths, fables, etc. There are many teaching stories, whose premises are credulous. And some of those credulous stories turn out to be of questionable authenticity -- these are apocrypha. The dogwood story, however, is clearly (without a doubt) made-up. As you note, perhaps someone ignorant to this type of narrative vehicle (or a young child) might take it as true. But that would be an exceptional case. The point here is that I made the edit based on the dicitonary definition of the word. ask123 21:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
It is called the "legend of the Dogwood"; lets stick with what the sources use, instead of creating a new name for the story. 18:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoever wrote this article is intiarly stupid!!! He/ she are telling of how, in the first paragraph, Jesus changed the dogwood tree so that it would no longer be used "for the construction of crosses." In the second paragraph, though, he/ she says "the modern dogwood is typically too small and twisted in trunk and branch for such a task as cross construction." Duh!!! And even more of a DUH is when they say "although the point of the story is that it isn't good for cross construction anymore." FIX IT if you don't want to look STUPID. 74.242.105.47 (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)