Talk:Salvia/Archive 1

Salvia Divinorum

I love smoking salvia and laying on my bed with my eyes shut, in the dark, in total silence... its really fun! and legal in america!

Smoking in bed -- one of the major causes of house fires. Good luck! I hope that you don't live in shared accommodation. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:53, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Well, on the rare occasion that I smoke salvia, I burn the entire amount I plan to ingest at one time, and inhale all of the smoke in one breath, out of a pipe. Therefore, no smoldering embers or burning matter remain that are able to ignite something... just a tiny amount of ash.

I dunno what i did, but i think im editing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.33.93 (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, are you the one who edited the comments under "salvia divinorum"? I am new to wikipedia, was it removed for a lack of sources? The information is true, what do I need to do to contribute what I know about it to this article?

$5^{2}=25e33$

Nope, not guilty. I haven't edited the article at all. I just don't think that fire and bedclothes make a good combination. Glad to hear that there's no risk in your case -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:59, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Redirect?

Anyone want to rename this or create some sort of redirect page to the Sage (disambiguation) page? I am unaware as to what tag to add to "sage" to distinguish it as a plant (i.e. "sage (plant)" or "sage (herb)" Psyphics 02:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone heard of burning sage within a home for a feng shui purpose? I moved into a townhome & everything goes wrong here...so my sister & friend to burn sage...I can't find info on this practice!

It wild and vividly grows in my yard here in Northeast Arkansas. I love the plant very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.14.18 (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

whats salvia really?????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.190.196 (talk) 14:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Renaming suggestion

This page is about species in the genus Salvia; 'sage' can also include species in other related genera (as already noted), and not all species of Salvia are called 'sage'. I'd suggest (1) moving this page to Salvia, and (2) move Sage (disambiguation) to Sage. Then all the uses of 'sage' could be at Sage, with links to the various genera and other uses of the name (wise people, etc). - MPF 21:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Done - MPF 16:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

missing

We have a short stub on salvia glutinosa, but this species is missing in the list. TeunSpaans 21:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I added it. Its inflorescence has glandular hairs that give it a strong resin-like odour if touched, but the leaves are almost scentless. Is it correct to put between aromatic species? S. pratensis definitely and completely lacks any particular scent. Aelwyn 16:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

"Is it correct to put between aromatic species?" - I'd suggest abandoning the aromatic/non-aromatic division and list all alphabetically, until someone can get info on the botanical classification of the genus - MPF 16:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. Only I'm not sure that this genus has any particular important subdivisions, being entomophyle self-incompatible plants. My book doesn't mention anything particular, I'd suggest to list them alphabetically. Aelwyn 16:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

should salvia leucantha be added to the list? Eddietoran 21:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Medicinal uses

My kneejerk reaction is to blank the whole medicinal section and only allow line-by-line sourced statements in the future - it's just too easy for anons to pass along totally bogus stuff here. Anybody have a better idea? Stan 19:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Taxobox image

Correct or not, I've changed the image. No reason to risk. Aelwyn 14:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Good move, the current image is correct, the old image was Salvia farinacea. Salvia azurea has less upright stems and the flowers are not as crowded, the foliage has a silver cast with small silver hairs. Hardyplants 18:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Description

Fine edits, I added some obvious links. It's amazing to see how most plant articles lack any basic description. The inflorescence is not a true spike/raceme/panicle, but in fact a 'pile' of [inflorescence#simple_inflorescences|verticillasters]] (not worth specifying). Well done! Aelwyn 08:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I have been thinking about how to proceed with the description, your right that they are not truly spikes or panicles but they look like spikes, call them spike-like or Paniculate shaped. Genus level descriptions should be give I believe for all plants, they are easier to do than most family level descriptions and can touch on the variation of the species in the genus. Thanks for the encouragement. Hardyplants 08:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Needs to include a warning

I am basically an anti-prohibitionist. But In My Humble Opinion, after much research and personal interviews with individuals who have used this plant, I have come to believe that for some people, salvia use can be a very dangerous. The hallucinations are sudden and extremely vivid; much more so than L.S.D. When on acid, one knows that one is experiencing the effects of a drug, and for the most part, doesn't totally lose control of time, place and self. With Salvia this is not at all true. Salvia can cause users to hallucinate most vividly - and not always pleasantly. Users are often unaware of who they are, where they are, and WHEN in time they are residing.

In my opinion, this plant induces a state where the user is in full-dream mode, where whatever his mind conjures up (for good or bad) becomes as real as a dream is real while you're having it.

I can see some individual suddenly seeing himself attacked by a bear and defending himself against this bear only to find out later he stabbed his wife. I don't mean to sound alarmist about this, I just think that for all the support it gets, there should be some kind of warning that this is a very potent and powerful chemical that can put you extremely out of touch with reality, even if it's just for ten or twenty minutes. RexRoma (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

No Wikipedia pages have warnings on them. We have the content disclaimers at the bottom of every page.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The fact that many of the statements are unreferenced and that there's a warning in a big box about the lack of references should already be a warning to an alert reader. We cannot force people to learn about the wikipedia editing process if they lack the curiosity/interest to click around the various links. Secondly, if you can find a credible reference for this (maybe volunteer for a proper double-blind controlled test? :), then please add this in a section something like ===Side effects=== . Given the present presence of non-referenced stuff, maybe you could put this in without references but including {{cn}} after each un-referenced sentence, to make it very clear that someone needs to find some references on this. Probably people who have worked more on this page could comment on this suggestion. There may be a way to include a date, so that if the citation needed note is too old, readers and editors will both be alerted - readers can ignore it, editors can decide to delete the sentence since it's been hanging around too long without being fixed. Boud (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Salvia and Mentha articles

In salvia article it says "Salvia is a genus of plants in the mint family, Lamiaceae."

Scientific classification Kingdom: Plantae Division: Magnoliophyta Class: Magnoliopsida Order: Lamiales Family: Lamiaceae Genus: Salvia

But in Mentha article it says: Scientific classification Kingdom: Plantae Division: Magnoliophyta Class: Magnoliopsida Order: Lamiales Family: Lamiaceae Genus: Mentha

So mentha is the family or a genus? Salvias are mints but not all mints are salvias? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.252.60.152 (talk) 12:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

As you've pointed out, Mentha & Salvia are both described as genera in the same family. So, as I read it, the following should all be true:

Neither is a subset of the other. "Mint" and "mint family" are not scientific terms; they are common names used for convenience. Calling Lamiaceae the "mint family" doesn't elevate the taxonomic standing of Mentha; it merely acknowledges its popularity and historical usage.

To quote from the Mentha article: "The taxonomic family Lamiaceae is known as the mint family. It includes many other aromatic herbs, including most of the more common cooking herbs, including basil, rosemary, sage, oregano and catnip." If that had been written specifically to address your question, it might have been worded: "It includes mint and many other aromatic herbs, including ... sage, ...."

--Rich Janis (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)