Talk:Psychedelic plants

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details

Biology Portal Psychedelic plants is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. See comments. Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. Psychedelic plants 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. Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. This article is part of WikiProject Psychedelics, Dissociatives and Deliriants, an attempt to improve Wikipedia's coverage of hallucinogens. Feel free to participate by editing this article or by visiting the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Pandanus misplaced as to family. -- Bill Overal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.9.180.61 (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expert attention/Dispute warning

From a botanical standpoint alone, this page is so full of errors as to be harmful, potentially fatal. It must be reviewed; generally speaking, I found pre-1980s sources usually unreliable as regards taxonomy and often chemistry also (The 'shroomers usualy seem to get it right, funny enough as Fungi systematics is harder still than botanical). Also the layout is very bad, renders the page a pain to read. Maybe smaller sections with gallery underneath? Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"Article has 83 sources; If you find errors, please fix them" - no I certainly won't bother with these so-called "sources". "Magiska Molekylers wiki", "Bluezoo.org" and the likes are not the kind of sources needed here. From a biologist's standpoint, the entire page must be scrapped and started from scratch, with clean scholarly references especially for taxonomy. For example, of the Desmodium species listed here, most are nowadays not in this genus according to a scholarly and rather reliable source. Taxonomy changes, you need to stay on top. It's not like you can simply eat some morning glory and expect to live to tell the tale.

Don't get me wrong, my aim is that this page will help researchers to better understand entheogens and other psychedelics and I would totally rebuild this page, but it is SOOOO HUGE

So let me start with a few suggestions:

• clean up tables. Would it not be better to have:

Aizoaceae:

DMT	Delosperma (D. acuminatum, D. cooperi, D. ecklonis, D. esterhuyseniae ...)
5-MEO-DMT	Delosperma (D. acuminatum, D. cooperi, D. hallii, D. harazianum, D. lydenbergense ...)

(and I think the style is clumsy. I see sleeker tables - dont really grok tables - but they look different)

• clean up images. Anything before 2003 in Aizoaceae for example is liable to be in the wrong genus even! (You do not want to confuse your Fabaceae for example. Potent stuff. Some of it you can use to poison mice in your lab or flat.) The sheer numbers... some are bound to show not what they purport to. And in any case, images might be restricted to taxa that have no own page, because if they have you can show much more of variation in phenotype there, which is important. Might also use taxon galleries.
• galleries below family or whatnot account to show common moleculse. This would be repetitive, bout you'd be able to visualize evolution of compounds, backbones etc throughout plant biodiversity. Which is cool.
• clean up taxonomy. The only stuff that goes into italics is genus species subspecies variety form. Not subfamily, tribe, family, order ... you get the pic. Check for synonyms. I do many genus pages these days; if I do ^{[verification needed]} I usually annotate in the source why
• clean up systematics. See, we got a bright shiny thing called APG II system in case you heard not yet. See the sources at Brassicales. I am trying it on families and genera, and it works like a charm. You can trace the frickin evolution of psychedelic and other cool compunds like never before! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)