Talk:Cytisus scoparius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Edible?

Is any part of this plant edible?

Are the little pea pods (i.e., legumes) poisonous? Can those little black seeds inside the pods be prepared in such a way that they are safe to eat?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.177.27.28 (talk • contribs) .

If my memory serves me correctly, the seeds had no flavor when I tasted them when I was 12 years old, and you end up spitting them out. Just plain woody! Perhaps because they lack oil, which is sort of surprising if the shrub really can withstand the subfreezing temperatures of the sub-arctic and near-arctic. Still, if there is any marketable value to the seed of the broom, there ought to be some way of mechanically shaking the shrub, and collecting the fallen seeds for sale in wild birdseed. I think that the bush blooms through the summer, starting in May, but the pea pods don't ripen until late August or September.

No, the seeds are toxic. Don't eat them. NZ toxic plants Onco_p53 23:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. Are they unfit for birdseed as well?

I'm not sure, I know they are toxic to mammals, but not some insects (pod moth ect..). That would be an interesting experiment feeding them to birds, but an ethically dubious one. Onco_p53 10:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

In the Willamette Valley, Callipepla californica thrive on the seeds and the cover Cytisus scoparius provides. However, birds may help disperse the seeds of this species, a noxious and invasive weed outside its native range. In such areas, seeds should be sterilized by heating before using as birdseed. Also, feeding birds may result in concentrations that facilitate the spread of bird diseases. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scotch broom

I'm a little mystified by the comment regarding this common name, which is very widely used (at least in the USA); unfortunately I don't have the dictionary handy so I can't verify the claim that this name is offensive. (Addendum: Wikipedia's Scotch article doesn't help much.) But I have to wonder, is scotch tape* equally offensive, and thus a name to be avoided or suppressed? And what should I call my scotch and soda? MrDarwin 14:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• further addendum: I just checked the Scotch Tape article and must say I can see why the name would cause offense, not because of the spelling of the word "Scotch" but because of its derivation from the stereotype of stingy Scotsmen. MrDarwin 14:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I, too, found that comment to be unencyclopedic, but did want to create any more waves directly after the debate over this article's common name. I also mused about the "Scotch" terminology here, noting that Scotch whisky had not yet been moved because the term was offensive. Perhaps if sourced and linked to an article concerning the nature of the derisive term (perhaps wikt:Scotch?) it could stay. But as a simply matter of another common name, should a wiki article be giving out advice on which common names to avoid? That seems to be POV. --Rkitko 17:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and by sourced, I mean with the usual ref tags. --Rkitko 17:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• "Scotch Broom" is the common - and official name [1] [2] [3] - the U.S. government uses for the plant. I removed the "usage guide" section since it is mere opinion of one editor and was not referenced in a relevant way to the subject matter of the article. Davodd 09:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)