Talk:Meliaceae

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was externally reviewed on December 14, 2005 by Nature. It was found to have 3 errors.

Sadly, they don't say what they are (neither did their reviewer correct them!) - MPF 09:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Errors ID'd by Nature, to correct

The results of what exactly Nature suggested should be corrected is out... italicize each bullet point once you make the correction. -- user:zanimum

• Actually flowers are usually cryptically unisexual although they do indeed look bisexual and much of the literature refers to them as such.
• Most species are evergreen, only a minority are deciduous.

No problems on these two - MPF 22:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Inaccurate geography (e.g. S. macrophylla is not the Honduras mahogany and it does not occur in C America, just in S. America; the Honduras mahogany is S. humilis and that is what occurs in C. America; Khaya ivorensis is the "Ivory Coast Mahogany", but this is not a trade or common name that I have ever come across.

The geography of Swietenia is clearly open to dispute; the DANIDA Forest Tree Seed Leaflets (pdf files) Swietenia humilis and Swietenia macrophylla provide an alternative (and convincing) view, with S. humilis as a strictly Pacific Coast (drier climate) species, not occurring on the Caribbean side of Central America, and S. macrophylla as present in the wetter Yucatan (Caribbean Mexico) and Central America as well as South America. I am of the opinion that the DANIDA source is reliable (having seen some of their other work on conifers, a group I'm more familiar with) - MPF 22:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Please find at least a second reputable source to back this up. Errors can sometimes slip into publications, and Nature supposedly consulted a specialist on Meliaceae; we need to be sure of this. —Steven G. Johnson 19:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The DANIDA leaflets are well referenced, and consistent between the three papers. See the references cited by the DANIDA leaflets - MPF 12:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Danida miscopied from their reference and the error was duplicated in all of their leaflets. Why not just go to the sources cited by Danida in order to double-check? Right now we have two reputable sources (a Danida leaflet and a Nature-selected specialist, albeit an anonymous one) that disagree, and some extra checking is warranted. —Steven G. Johnson 00:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The last point on Khaya ivorensis - a reputable source using this common name is Gledhill, D. (1972), West African Trees. Longman ISBN 0582604273 - MPF 19:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)