Talk:Agave americana

Century plant

Actually "century plant" is right for English speakers - go to a nursery in the US, you'll them listed as "century plant", not "maguey". Stan 22:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Changes

The second paragraph reads "It has a spreading rosette (up to 9 m wide) of gray-green leaves up to 2 meters (6 ft) long...". This is mathematically impossible. I assume the rosette is 4 m wide, or that the plant can form mounds of rosettes up to 9 m. across. Which one was meant here? --NoahElhardt 21:38, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Most reports give a diameter of about 12 ft, which translates close to 4 m. I've made the change in the text. JoJan 06:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Flowering Plants

Other than flowering plants, what other groups of plants are there in the Plantae Kingdom?

(66.30.174.172 20:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC))

This is explained in the article Plant. JoJan 08:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Life Span

"The average lifespan is around 10 years", what is there to back this up? I own one that is going on thrity years old. I always thought they lived up until a hundred hence the name century plant Cillian flood (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Image of Agave americana L. by Thomas Medland 1799

Is the Agave americana L. by Thomas Medland 1799 really appropriate for the article? It is questionable whether it is even the same species as discussed in the article. An image of the species in bloom would be much more appropriate, especially since the strikingly large flower is the principal characteristic most people remember the species from. PPdd (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I entirely agree. I have replaced the image; the one I have used may not be the best, so feel free to replace it with a better one showing the inflorescence. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Confused about the use of the term maguey

So what is maguey? On this page it says that tequilana americana is maguey and on the agave tequilana page it says that that too is called maguey (but not any ohter variety of agave is aclled maguey). Your comments please on this name/word — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perfection161 (talk • contribs) 12:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Questions about Istle or Ixtle

Istle redirects here but the word "Istle" does not appear at all on this page. Likewise Ixtle. I'll say "istle" covering both to begin with here. In my opinion, if any term is given a page but that page is just with a redirect, the page redirected to should always at least mention this term, if only to say how it relates. Here, if nothing else is added anywhere, this page should say how istle is connected to the species Agave americana. For example: "This species is one of the sources of the fibre istle." However, any lengthy text about what istle is — how the term is defined and how the product is related to Agave americana — is problematic because this species is far from the only source of such fibre:

• Cassell Concise Dictionary (CD-ROM): istle is "a species of Mexican agave or the tough wiry fibre of its leaves, used for cord". Concise Oxford says something similar.
• Chambers Dictionary: istle is only "a valuable fibre obtained from Agave, Bromelia, and other plants".
• Collins Dictionary: istle is also obtainable from Yucca plants and used for making carpets etc.
• Wictionary has for istle "Alternative form of ixtle." However
• Wictionary has for ixtle "(1) A variety of Agave rigida, furnishing a strong coarse fiber (2) The fiber itself." So according to our Wiki sibling, A. americana is the wrong species anyway.

Cassell and Concise Oxford do not list ixtle at all and Chambers and Collins say for it "see istle.

And so on. The origin of the word is always given as Mexican Spanish ixtle from Nahuatl ichtli so the product is closely tied to that country and its plants, but all that clearly could be written about the fibre and products made from it can't go on this page. So we have two problems:

• Istle or ixtle is not obtained solely from Agave, so it is probably not appropriate to go into any detail about it on pages for any of these plant genus names, certainly (as I say) not the page for just one species of one of them (even if it was the correct species, and it may not be) which is the scope of this page. So the redirect to here must be inappropriate (but doubly so as it is never mentioned here).
• Neither this page nor those for the genus Bromelia or the genus Yucca mention the word Istle at all; the fact that it can be got from various plants in three genera suggests that its own page should not just redirec, but instead should be written at some point describing the fibre, how it is got from plants it is got from, and the full range of ways it is used; and it should just link the names of these genera (or for Agave perhaps the species on this page if it is the only Agave species that is important for Istle production) to their pages.

And finally, how many other plant species — maybe in other genera, — should be mentioned as being sources of this fibre? I think the readers should be told ... I am unable right now to attempt this. Iph (talk) 08:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

It seems clear that the redirect here is wrong. As another source to those above, M. Allaby (1998), A Dictionary of Plant Sciences has under Agave: "Several Agave species provide fibres (e.g. sisal hemp and istle fibre)." I'll create a stub for the time being. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Poisonous?

After a Chinese health blogger had to go to the ER after eating what was described as "poisonous" Agave americana live on video [1], I was surprised there was no mention whatsoever of the potential negative health effects here? - CompliantDrone (talk) 01:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@CompliantDrone: I agree with you. See my complaint below. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 05:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Toxicity

Today I added a sentence saying:

The sap of Agave americana contains calcium oxalate crystals, acrid oils, saponins, and other compounds, and can cause purpuric agave dermatitis.

This was immediately reverted by Darorcilmir with the comment "The information in this database is intended only for scientific exchange. It has not been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for publication nor does it have any official status".

I think that reversion is unjustified. We don't care whether that reference has official status! It's just a convenient reference for a well-known fact that is mentioned in the articles in the Wikipedias in other languages.

Does anyone support my view?

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

That was not a comment by me, but an actual quote from the actual website. They make it very clear that we should not be using it as an official source.

This is a popular plant that is sold commercially. The claim that it contains toxins is a serious one, and needs an authoritative source to back it up, in my opinion. I did try to find one, but without success. Darorcilmir (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Just to note that I agree entirely with Darorcilmir's action. Yes, if the sap is indeed problematic as the addition said, it should be mentioned in the article, but it needs a reliable source. Other language wikis are not reliable sources. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Darorcilmir, that quote does not at all make it clear that we should not be using the source. The facts are true, whether it's "official" or not. Peter, I'm not saying the other language Wikipedias can be used as references, but that's where I found this reference. Most of the Wikipedias I looked at mention the toxicity, so it's well known. I can certainly provide another reference saying that Agave americana has raphides (needle-like crystals of calcium oxalate). And there are several articles talking about skin problems caused by it. This is another case where people enforce their interpretation of "the rules", to the detriment of Wikipedia. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 05:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Providing a reliable source is a fundamental policy on Wikipedia. I tried to find one, but couldn't. If A. americana really is as toxic as you say, there would be plenty of reliable data online. Not a dodgy archive from FDA, a website which - IN ITS OWN WORDS - should not be used as a source. Darorcilmir (talk) 08:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

@Eric Kvaalen: if there are sources for the presence of calcium oxalate, then add this information with the source. There are easy to find sources to say that oxalates are poisonous in sufficiently high doses, but the dose matters in relation to toxicity. If there are sources about skin problems, then add this information with these sources. It's not detrimental to insist on sources that meet the requirements of WP:RS, etc., but a fundamental policy of Wikipedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Obsolete Reference

The book "Handbook to Life in the Aztec World" is no longer available on archive.org. I found a PDF of the book, but the bot doesn't like me citing it; however, I will provide a link here for anyone interested: https://images.wikia.com/warrior/ru/images/d/d0/HandbooktoLifeintheAztecWorld.pdf

IntenseSwelling (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2021 (UTC)IntenseSwelling

"Sentry" Plant

This is obviously a mondegreen, if you google the first page of hits is all just copy-pastes of this Wikpedia line. If anything, Wikipedia is probably now responsible for the majority of instances of this being on the internet. Either a strong, pre-wikipedia-mention citation (from a reputable source and not from some random, unremarkable website) should be provided, or it should be removed. Iroll (talk) 22:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Went ahead and WP:BOLD removed it for now. We can always re-add it if a source is found eventually (doubt it), thanks for the tag! YuriNikolai (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Flowering -> death?

The article currently states:

"Although it is called the century plant, it typically lives only 10 to 30 years."

"Towards the end of its life, the plant produces a tall, branched stalk adorned with yellow blossoms, which can reach a height of 8–9 m (25–30 ft).[citation needed]"

"The common name "century plant" stems from its semelparous nature of flowering only once at the end of its long life. After flowering, the plant dies but produces adventitious shoots from the base, allowing its growth to continue."

That last sentence, in particular is contradictory. In what sense does the plant "die" after flowering? Why is the death of an individual growth point regarded as the death of the whole plant, when the plant clearly continues to keep growing? An Agave plant can be more than just one rosette. Agave, like many, many plants, has a terminal inflorescence that ends the growth of that particular meristem, but the entire plant continues and grows into a large clump of stems. Trees and bushes also contain multiple growth points and many of those may terminate in an inflorescence, but we don't regard them as clusters of individual plants that die when flowering. Agave just branches when it flowers, like most perennial plants with a terminal inflorescence. 120.22.171.220 (talk) 10:17, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the article should say that the rosette that flowers dies, which may or may not mean the death of the plant depending on whether it has produced offsets. Need a reliable source that says this, though. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)