Talk:Salvia hispanica
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page. | |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | |
No Merge. Salvia hispanica L is a redundant stub and should be deleted.
- Eh, I'll just redirect it and its twin then. Redirects are cheap! Melchoir 22:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
the picture is wrong.....wrong species of chia....the picture is of the "golden" chia
the picture is of the salvia columbariae
- I don't know anything about these plants, but a google search agrees with you. It looks like both S. columbariae and S. hispanica are called "Chia", and the uploader to commons got confused. Compare the current image
with this one 
(S. colubariae) and with the one on [1] (S. hispanica). I will remove the image, and leave a note at its desciption page. Thank you for noticing this! Eugène van der Pijll 18:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Overuse of the word "chia"
Ive removed reference to S. rhyacophila b/c it's not chia. Although oten mis-referenced as "chia", it is not the species described by this article. Salvia columbariae is correctly "golden chia", and there exist many misapplications of "chia" (perhaps because its so easy to type?) among the Salvias - but the correct one is S. hispanica. (ref Ayerza, ITIS database[2]) Istvan 14:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Oops -was sure I'd seen two references to it as syn. - but can find no sign of either User:SmithBlue 15:42 Thursday 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- You are likely right - there are many places where the different Salvia species are mislabeled - even the USDA's ITIS database gets them mixed up sometimes. Istvan 20:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Potential Misleading Interpretations of Evidence
Interesting observation. Evidence was from Wistar rats. Suggest we include that fact from the article in the interpretive sentence (i.e. ...was found to be bioavailable in Wistar rats), and then link to pages that discuss rat digestion and metabolism in contrast to humans, or don't mention it. Also, article does not contrast flax digestion, and no reference has been made to the superiority over flax. Thus it reads like marketing. Sentences in question and reference moved here from the article page. Jethero 15:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
Unlike flax, chia does not require grinding before ingestion, as the omega-3 is bioavailable{{ref_label|Ayerza06|4|a}}.
# {{note_label<!--4-->|Ayerza06|4|a}}Ayerza, Ricardo and Coates, Wayne "Effect of dietary a-linolenic fatty acid derived from chia when fed as ground seed, whole seed and oil on lipid content and fatty acid composition", Annals of Nutrition & Metabolism 2007 51:27-34 (2007)
[edit] Removed Recently added Book Advertisement not actually referenced in the text
* # {{note_label<!--5-->|Davidson99|5|a}}Davidson, Alan. Oxford Companion to Food (1999), "Chia". p. 166 ISBN 0-19-211579-0
