Talk:Aristotelia serrata

Scientific name vs common name

(discussion meved from User talk:Bogdangiusca)

Why did you move the Wineberry (New Zealand) article to Aristotelia serrata? Is it not more appropriate that the article is listed under its most common name? Alan Liefting 07:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For less known species, instead of disambiguation, it's recommended to use the scientific name. bogdan 08:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it is well known in New Zealand under that name. There is no official policy on plant names so I feel that the move was not justified. Alan Liefting 17:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stick in support for using the sci name here - I know what Aristotelia is as a genus, but to me, 'wineberry' means a species of Rubus. Even in New Zealand, the common naming appears split according to the article, with the Maori name in use as well. More good case for the sci name. - MPF 20:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are many common names for plants that bear no relation to the scientific name. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) says the wineberry should be used. Makomako is rarely used so wineberry is a clear choice for the article name. It is time that a plant name guideline in produced. In the interim I am putting categories in the redirect pages for the common names. This makes the categories are readable for the non-specialist. Alan Liefting 09:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, why "Aristotelia serrata (New Zealand)"? Isn't the scientific name unique??? --Russ Blau (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it back to Wineberry (New Zealand): it's an English, unambiguous, commonly used name, so there's no reason for it to be here instead. —Nightstallion (?) 09:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aristotelia serrata. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Hi User:An anonymous username, not my real name. Thanks for your interest in the article. I wanted to note that having the image gallery below the description has been very helpful to me, and very likely many other people, that are trying to ID a species. The images are additionally more tidy that way, and benefit the reader more. This format is used in many species articles, e.g. carrot and onion. Even lesser known species articles use it, e.g. Alnus glutinosa and Fuchsia excorticata. Alexeyevitch(talk) 06:41, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to note, not all articles use it, and some articles use it a lot. I have just briefly read through Eucalyptus rhodantha and Ornithogalum umbellatum. Alexeyevitch(talk) 06:52, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexeyevitch, I see your point. Should it be a subtopic of description if it's meant to aid the description via the use of visual examples? This would help on mobile, for instance. — An anonymous username, not my real name 21:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I guess? I don't mind either way. Alexeyevitch(talk) 22:06, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

Passed. AxonsArachnida (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Aristotelia serrata/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Alexeyevitch (talk · contribs) 23:52, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: AxonsArachnida (talk · contribs) 07:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]


I may as well do this one as well. As per usual I'll add comments incrementally and you're welcome to address them as they pop up, but also I'll ping you when they're done (it'll probably take 2-3 days). AxonsArachnida (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexeyevitch Mostly just some minor nitpicks. I doubt it'll take you too long. Have fun. AxonsArachnida (talk) 05:08, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@AxonsArachnida: Thanks. I've adressed most things. Alexeyevitch(talk) 09:32, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Misc comments

  • Copyvio is very low.
  • All images have suitable copyrights.
  • All images have alt text.
  • On my particular screen, the gallery appears as two rows which looks rather untidy. I assume it doesn't look this way for you? There's probably nothing that can be done about it, but I feel its worth making you aware of it regardless.
I'm not experiencing the same issue on my end
  • The lead should mention its uses and habitat.
Added a bit about habitat
  • I recommend using peer reviewed stuff over books where possible, just since books generally aren't scrutinized as much.
Ok

Description

  • "Several other scientific compounds and enzymes" It seems odd to describe something as a "scientific compound". I'd just say "compounds and enzymes".
Ok
  • " 5 cm–12 cm × 4 cm–8 cm (2 in–5 in × 2 in–3 in)" -> 5–12 cm × 4–8 cm (2–5 in × 2–3 in)
I can't format it like that
  • "A. serrata has been described as "fast-growing" and "short-lived"" I don't see where on page 2 of Majid & Silva either of these statements are supported.
Corrected page for one of them... the other one is from the He Puāwai book
  • This might fit better under "uses", but you could mention in phytochemistry that the leaves contain anti-butyrylcholinesterase (Majid and Silva). The paper states it could potentially be used to assist in treating memory problems some day (but I'd be careful with how you word that)
I think I'd pass on that, at least for now
  • " including ethyl acetate and methanol." I think you've misunderstood this. From my reading, I think these were used to extract compounds from the leaves. "Methanol and ethyl acetate were of chromatography grade and obtained from ECP (ECP laboratory research and chemicals, New Zealand)".
Removed

Taxonomy

  • "synonymss" is misspelt.
Fixed

Ecology

  • You say "Aristotelia serrata's fruits are dispersed by fruit-eating animals (frugivores), such as birds.". When you say "such as birds", does this imply other animals feed on the fruits? To the best of my knowledge the only other native frugivores are bats and geckos. If only birds are known to feed on the fruits, you could just say they are "dispersed by fruit-eating birds"
  • There's a endemic species of aphid that appears to only be known from A. serrata (and also its sister species). On a related note, you may already know of this, but Plant-SyNZ is a bit of a hidden gold mine for plant-herbivore interactions. It's definitely worth a look for your species work.
Added
  • From McGlone et al. (2004): "They both have moderate leaf and bud frost resistance of c. -5°C, and intermediate drought-resistance, tolerating low soil moisture for 0.18 and 0.15 of the growing season, respectively". It was be good to mention that this species has these properties.
Added a bit
  • All three paragraphs start with "Aristotelia serrata", which looks a little odd. I'd suggest rewording one of the paragraphs (probably the middle one) to prevent this.
Changed words for the last one
  • "The leaves contain large amounts of phenols which make them especially attractive to introduced possums. The leaves are also freely eaten by cattle, deer, and goats." Does Crowe indicate which paper this is from? I'm not sure how speculative the statement is.
He doesn't cite the source on the page, instead, he lists the articles which he might have used at the end. Nonetheless, I've been satisfied with his extensive work on ecology and accuracy in comparison to other sources.

Distribution

  • "Its 2023 conservation status in the New Zealand Threat Classification System was "Not Threatened".[2] Its assessment in the IUCN Red List in 2025 was "Least Concern", and its population trend was evaluated as "Unknown"". NZTCS also lists its population trend as "stable".

Uses

  • I wonder if Andrew Crowe is notable enough to be red-linked?
Added
  • "and then the infusion produced was soaked to treat burns and sore eyes." You don't really "soak" an infusion. Infusions are used to "soak" something.
Fixed
  • "The fruits also produce a blue-black coloured dye." The source says that the bark does this.
Fixed

References

  • "Aristotelia and Vallea, Closely Related in Elaeocarpaceae" Genus names aren't italicized.
Fixed
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wineberry_(New_Zealand)