Talk:Vegetable ivory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Vegetable ivory 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. | |
| 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. | |
 |
It has been suggested that this page or section be merged with Tagua nut and Phytelephas aequatorialis (Discuss) |
I would propose merging this with the article on Phytelephas aequatorialis - the tree and its product are so inextricably linked that separating them seems counterproductive. The lifted lorax (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. All three articles should be combined into Phytelephas aequatorialis. Wilhelm meis (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I strongly oppose this merger, since the Taqua nut is not the only source of material called "vegetable ivory".
- Further, for the sake of argument, if the merger made sense, I would question whether the article should be under the botanical name, which only botanists would recognize.
-
- It's not? What else is used for "vegetable ivory"? Yes, I think it makes sense to retain the article under the botanical name, and of course informal names, including Tagua, Tagua nut, and Vegetable ivory would be redirected to that page. Wilhelm meis (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Aha, so I see. But then, Phytelephas Macrocarpa doesn't have an article of its own. If P. Aequatorialis is the primary source of vegetable ivory, I think this is still a workable solution. Wilhelm meis (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Nearest I can tell, vegetable ivory is derived from the nuts of any species within the Phytelephas genus. Are all the trees within the genus known as "Tagua Palm"? Perhaps we should leave Phytelephas aequatorialis alone and instead take Tagua nut and Vegetable ivory into Phytelephas. Any thoughts? Wilhelm meis (talk) 16:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
