Talk:Tephrosia apollinea

Which plant is this?

The taxonomy is difficult to figure out. www.tropicos.org lists two plants called Tephrosia apollinea, and IPNI lists those two plus one more. The Plant List accepts the one that began as Delile's Galega apollinea, but seems to have chosen De Candolle's later publication of the name. I've put my best guess so far onto the page, but it could be wrong. I think the taxonomic confusion needs to be discussed at some length, if it cannot be resolved. The name due to Guill. & Perr. was published in 1831, and that due to Klotzsch was published in 1861, but are these the same plant, and is Tephrosia apollinea the correct name of the plant that the other literature on the page refers to? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that Tephrosia apollinea Klotzsch is the Tephrosia apollinea auct of AFPD, which is Tephrosia (villosa subsp.) ehrenbergiana. This is a potential problem, as it would be difficult in some cases to identify which species is being referred to in a particular work. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Just clarifying for other readers that APD refers to African Plants Database, and the record is here. I think it means that Klotzsch and those who follow his work are the auct (authors) who are in error. Klotzsch wrote a lot about plants, and the documents are hard to access. Perhaps it was in Philipp Schoenlein's botanischer Nachlass auf Cap Palmas, or Species novae et minus cognitae horti regii botanici berolinensis or the appendices thereto or Icones plantarum rariorum horti regni botanici berolinensis or Abbildungen und Beschreibungen zur Erkenntniss officineller Gewächse, none of which I seem to have access to. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

According to IPNI Klotzsch used the name in Naturw. Reise Mossambique [Peters] 6(Bot., 1): 47. 1861. It is available at archive.org. He writes very little, but seems to say that A. Richard (also) misapplied the name. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

A half-shrub with rose-red flowers isn't saying much, indeed. Perhaps Klotzsch never discussed it at length elsewhere. I don't think A. Richard is likely to be mistaken from lack of effort, since he discusses it at some length and says that he has studied specimens from Delile and DC. He discusses extreme variability, though, so perhaps he was lumping. He places Tephrosia anthylloides Hochst. as a synonym of T. apollinea. IPNI reports that Tephrosia anthylloides Hochst. wasn't properly published until Webb validated it. Tropicos accepts Tephrosia anthylloides Hochst. ex Webb, though TPL says that Tropicos had it as a synonym of Cracca anthyllodes (Hochst. ex Webb) Kuntze when it assimilated Tropicos. Now that we have Kuntze in the mix, things could get really fraught. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This is rather alarming in the case of such a poisonous plant, unless the various possible misidentifications are all equally poisonous. As an aside, it seems odd to me that nobody seems to have got around to calling this one locoweed, perhaps because it is rarely identified correctly, because it seems to have plenty of potential to spread as a weed. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

What's the view on LegumeWeb's listing here? It has Tephrosia apollinea (Delile) DC. as per the Plant List rather than our current (Delile) Link. In theory the ILDIS World Database of Legumes should be a reliable source for this plant. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I first suspected that as being in modern terms a comb. superfl. - de Candolle overlooking that Link has made the transfer earlier. However there is the alternative that there was something technically wrong with Link's publication. However, looking at Link's work (p. 252), he neglects to specify the basionym. Instead he has Delile aegypt. Sieb. exsicc., so perhaps Link's name is a nom. inval. (We need a ICN lawyer.) On Google Link outnumbers DC. as the authority by about 5:4. Databases, floras and other literature are mixed in which authority is used. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

IPNI also has Tephrosia apollinea Guill. & Perr. from the early 1830s. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I think Link is fine. He says "T. apollinea. Delil. aegypt.". Article 41.3 says that pre-1953 an indirect reference to a basionym is fine, and article 38.14 defines an indirect reference as "a clear (if cryptic) indication, by an author citation or in some other way, that a previously and effectively published description or diagnosis applies.". So he's well inside the "if cryptic" area by referring to Delile's Description de l'Égypte in that latinized way without mentioning a volume or page or plate number, but the example that follows article 38.14 is even weirder. I'm convinced at this point that De Candolle's combination is superfluous. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

So APD lists Tephrosia villosa subsp. ehrenbergiana (Schweinf.) Brummitt in Boletim da Sociedade Broteriana Ser. 2 41: 225 (1968). BHL doesn't have such recent volumes, and I don't have access to that journal here. The subspecies is not listed in IPNI (which seems strange with the author having been at Kew). If anyone else has access to that journal, perhaps there would be useful discussion in the paper. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Sminthopsis84, per your earlier comment, one source, Bhardwaj 1985, does mention it as a weed; I added a short quote in a citation that contains this, though did not add it to the article body. (I was just tidying up citations, and added short quotes for two cites where the full text isn't available online, for convenience/clarity about a source rather than necessity). Agyle 20:10, 9 April 2014‎

Status of article for WP:PLANTS

This article may be a GA just viewed as an article, but it can't be a GA plant article when we don't know for certain what species is meant in the sources used. Tephrosia apollinea is clearly a confused name so far as we can tell at present. So I'm going to be bold with the price of some inconsistency and change the WP:PLANTS rating to C. If there is some rule that our rating must be the same as the article rating, please revert me! Peter coxhead (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Vernacular name

This is one of the plants (another is Indigofera caerulea) known as Egyptian indigo in the 19th century. However I have find no evidence that this is a current usage. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you think it could be included for its historical use (e.g. "The plant and the indigo dye derived from it were referred to as Egyptian indigo in the past")? Google Books shows uses ranging from 1855 to 1914, in addition to its modern use in coverage of archaic terms. Mirriam-Webster still lists it as a term both for the dye and for the plant (note that you have to get to that URL via Google for it to work, or subscribe to their site): "Egyptian indigo noun. Full Definition of EGYPTIAN INDIGO. 1: an indigo yielded by a shrub (Tephrosia apolinea) of southern Europe. 2: the shrub that yields Egyptian indigo". Or would you want an authoritative source specifically mentioning that it's no longer in common use?

I only saw I. caerulea called Egyptian indigo in a single 2007 source, and I. argentea called Egyptian indigo in a single 2012 source, both in Indian publications, and would not consider such isolated uses reliable. I have seen references to "Egyptian indigo" where it wasn't clear whether it meant "Egyptian indigo" as a specific term, or as an indigo that came from Egypt. (They were discussing several indigos). There were definitely Indigofera-based indigos from Egypt (e.g., here (1840)), and even older descriptions that don't list a scientific name for the herbs, so it's quite plausible that that an indigo could be described as an Egyptian indigo, without referring to a specific dye or species.

Another non-English vernacular name I've seen used for T. apollinea is "Amayok", used in Sudan, according to [Flora of Sudan (book) and this "working paper", though neither are strong sources. Agyle (talk) 21:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Cultivation

While the source cited for it being cultivated did not say that, as (before synthetic indigo took over the market) the plant was used as a source of indigo, there is a good chance that it used to be cultivated. I haven't found a source, but I haven't looked hard. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I've found a mention of cultivation in Nubia, which I have added to the article.--Melburnian (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Taxonomy

Apart from APD treating this as Tephrosia purpurea subsp. apollinea, The Plant List accepts Cracca apollinea (Delile) Lyons, following Tropicos (except the Tropicos doesn't accept it), which is also based on Galega apollinea. Wikipedia VI has articles for both vi:Tephrosia apollinea and vi:Cracca apollinea. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Flora della colonia Eritrea has Tephrosia apollinea sensu Chiov. as being Tephrosia vicioides sensu A.Rich., which according to TPL is not the true Tephrosia vicioides, but instead Tephrosia uniflora. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Flora Nigritiana suggests that Tephrosia apollinea Guill. & Perr. ("the Senegambian T. apollinea") is also Tephrosia uniflora. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

A sentence has been added to the description citing a Flora of Ngamiland (in Botswana). This is almost certainly one of the instances in which the name was misapplied. Furthermore half of the sentence was a statement that should have been under distribution (and habitat) rather than description. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Were you mentioning this for people who might be interested, or as a suggestion to modify the article? What do you think of listing "Cracca apollinea (Delile) Lyons" as a synonym in the article, citing Tropicos and Lyon's 1900 book^[1] on which it's based? Both sources list G. apollinea Delile (from 1813 Flore d'Égypte) as the basionym. UBio and The Plant List list it this way, IPNI (International Plant Names Index) lists it with an "A." as "Cracca apollinea (Delile) A.Lyons" (same basionym) and GBIF does it the same way, citing IPNI. Lyon himself uses one L in the species (i.e. Cracca Apolinea), which was done by others in the late 19th and early 20th century, but he did the same with G. Apolinea and T. apolinea. The general alternate apolinea spelling would probably bear mentioning in the article text somewhere, for people trying to search for information on the species, but since modern references correct it to Cracca apollinea, it seems reasonable to do so with this synonym.

One question on Tropica's use; it lists "Tephrosia apollinea Klotzsch" as the accepted name, "Tephrosia apollinea Guill. & Perr." as a hominym, "Galega apollinea Delile" as the basionym, and "Cracca apollinea (Delile) Lyons" as a "combination" of the basionym, which I'm taking to mean another type of synonym, but I don't know why they might refer to it as a combination rather than simply a synonym (i.e. I'm not familiar with what "combination" means in botany or taxonomy).

Also, how about listing "Tephrosia purpurea subsp. apollinea (Delile) Hosni & El Karemy" as a synonym, based on based on Hosni 1993,^[2] and mentioning that this alternative classification as still in use in the Taxonomy section? It's certainly not dominant, but IPNI seems to prefer it, Arctos multi-museum database seems to accept it as well (it's used in Ville de Genève's museum site), it's listed in the global names bank, and it's used in this book and around 10 journal articles.

• ^[1] Lyons, Albert Brown (1900). Plant Names: Scientific and Popular, Including in the Case of Each Plant the Correct Botanical Name in Accordance with the Reformed Nomenclature, Together with Botanical and Popular Synonyms ... Detroit, Michigan: Nelson, Baker & Company. p. 120.
• ^[2] Hosni, H. A.; El-Karemy, Z. A. R. (1993). "Systematic revision of Leguminosae in Egypt. 1. Tephrosia Pers". Sendtnera. 1: 245–257. ISSN 0944-0178.

––Agyle (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It's Cracca apollinea (Delile) A.Lyons (bare Lyons refers to Israel Lyons) - see IPNI author search. Correction of the misspelling is, as far as I understand, required by the IC(B)N.

I think that the general feeling is that Wikipedia is NOT a nomenclatural database; and only notable synonyms are needed.

Combination is a combination of genus (name) and (species) epithet.

The bits of data are provided to assist critical evaluation of the sources (something I would have thought was necessary for a good article), and as pointer to citations for a reinsertion of statements about the misapplication of the name. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations Lavateraguy. :-) C. apolinea & C. apollinea were rarely used without also mentioning another classification as well, so that does seem less notable. I'm adding Hosni & El-Karamy's synonym, as it does seem more significant, and is used on its own in recent publications, though I'll note that it's not included in other databases. Do you consider the newer redescriptions listed in current databases non-notable (e.g., Tropicos lists T. apollinea as described by Guill & Perr., and by Kotzch, while The Plant List lists it as described by "DC")? Agyle (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned, the DC. name is a comb. superfl. - de Candolle was unaware that Link had already transferred the species to Tephrosia. The instances of the name ascribed to other authors, including the Tephrosia apollinea auct. of African Plant Database and the uses by Chiovenda and N.E. Brown and A. Richard, are misapplications (errors, I think, rather than intentionally lumpings) of the name. I think the history of misapplication is notable, but the individual occurrences aren't except in so far as the illustrate the former. Lavateraguy (talk) 07:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it better to write Tephrosia apollinea sensu Klotsch, rather than Tephrosia apollinea Klotsch, etc., to indicate that it's a misapplied name rather than a later homonym. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Isolated trivia

Isolated trivia, not important, but perhaps a couple points may warrant inclusion:

• Two 19th century books geared toward doctors and druggists list its common name as silver leaved senna (or silver-leaved senna), and mention that the leaves are used as senna.

Given more authoritative works (apart from the one previously miscited for the cultivation of Tephrosia apollinea, see here) describing Tephrosia apollinea as a contaminant of senna, I would be skeptical of claims that it was/is used as senna.

It is not the only plant that has been called silver-leaf senna. I fear that to document Egyptian indigo and silver-leaf senna as (implicitly current) vernacular names would be erroneous, and to document them as past vernacular names would be original research. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• It has 22 chromosomes, containing 11 basic chromosomes. journal link

You misread the paper; it says that it has 44 chromosomes (4 copies of a haploid set of 11). The text further down the paper says that a diploid (2n=22) cytotype has previously been reported. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep...or to be honest, I didn't read the paper. Thanks. :-) ––Agyle (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• External link suggestion: Photographs of dried specimens from the Royal Botanical Garden of Edinburgh, from source or from Encyclopedia of Life.

• "Locality – Jhal Jao area. Vernacular Name – māĭrō. Uses – To relieve constipation in children, and as laundry soap. Treatment and Procedure – The root bark is removed and crushed into a mash. A small quantity of it is swallowed in the morning and again in the evening, and the constipation passes. If necessary, this treatment can be continued for two or three days. For a laundry soap, the aerial portions of hte plant are crushed, then pressed, and the extract is used to wash clothes.

Locality – Turbat area. Vernacular Name – mātkē nōk. Use – To help relieve dehydration and associated fatigue, particularly during the hot summer months. Treatment – Approximately 250 g of fresh aerial parts are chopped into fine pieces and soaked overnight in a bucket of water. The following morning the extract is strained and used as bathwater. This procedure is repeated on three consecutive mornings." link

• T. apollinea one of many sources for indigoten pigment. link

• Butterfly Colias croceus (dark clouded yellow or common clouded yellow) feed on it. link

I think including mention of the study on the plant extract's effect on cancer cell lines would be discouraged by WP:MED, which favors waiting for secondary sources on many medicinal issues.

––Agyle (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Another possible limited use as a fungicide, of dubious importance, is mentioned in an article: "Four prenylated flavonoids, isoglabratephrin, (+)-glabratephrin, tephroapollin-F and lanceolatin-A were isolated from Tephrosia apollinea L. growing in Egypt. … The isolated flavonoids showed considerable antifungal activity against four phytopathogenic fungi, namely Alternaria alternata, Helminthosporium sp., Colletotrichum acutatum and Pestalotiopsis sp. in a dose-dependent manner using the agar well-diffusion bioassay. … The study recommends the use of the test compounds as rational fungicides of natural origin."

• Ammar, Mohamed I.; Nenaah, Gomah E.; Mohamed, Abul Hamed H. (2013). "Antifungal activity of prenylated flavonoids isolated from Tephrosia apollinea L. against four phytopathogenic fungi". Crop Protection. 49: 21–25. doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2013.02.012. ISSN 0261-2194.</ref>

––Agyle (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Description

Delile's original description (as Galega apollinea) is good by early 19th century standards. It could be translated and paraphrased to provide an improved description (use eFloras Pakistan and the Sendtnera paper at Biodiversity Heritage Library for sanity checks); note that translating the corolla colour as blue would be an error. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Why would "blue" be a mistranslation of "bleue", and how would you translate it? Can't we use entirely different descriptions in this article, or should the basic facts stick to the 1813 description? There are a lot of little differences between the archaic Wikipedia description and modern texts, like the number of seeds in the pod listed in 1813 as 6-7, now often listed with different ranges from 5 to 9, or the leaves being described as silky, while many later sources mention that the underside of the leaves are silky while the tops are glabrous. Other details, like the max height of 15 inches in the Wikipedia article, seems based on a single later collection in a Ngamiland location at 3300 feet elevation, which I do think is improper, but there are numerous sources that list its height as anywhere from 30 to 70 cm, and that seems useful even if Delile never mentioned it. Also, given the confusion between this and similar species, perhaps some of the distinguishing features used in later keys to differentiation should be mentioned (e.g., spacing between seeds, vein patterns on the leaves, etc.)? I typed in some of the 1813 text, and cleaned up a Google translation, which I'm posting here in case it's of interest:

C'est un sous-arbrisseau rameux, en touffe, dont les tiges anciennes sont cylindriques, ligneuses, un peu brunâtres. Les rameaux s'élèvant de 3 à 4 décimètres [un pied], et son grêles, un peu en zigzag, anguleux, striés, couverts de poils fins, couchés. Les feuilles sont ailées, à deux ou trois paires de folioles avec une impaire. Le pétiole commun est strié, long de 35 millimeters (16 lignes), accompagné à sa base de deux stipules subulées. Les folioles sont soyeuses, argentées, ovales-alongées, un peu cunéiformes, émarginées sans pointe moyenne, brièvement pédicellées, rayées de nervures fines, obliques. Les fleurs viennent en grappes droites, solitaires, opposées àux feuilles vers le milieu des rameaux, ou dans l'aisselle des feuilles terminales. Les fleurs peu nombreuses ne garnissent que le sommet des grappes: elles sont brièvement pédicellées, solitaires ou réunies dans l'aisselle de petites bractées subulées. Le calice est campanulé, soyeux, à cinq dents étroites. La corolle est bleue. L'étendard est ovale, en coeur, relevé, soyeux en dehors. Les fruits sont linéares, foiblement courbés en dessus, longs de 35 à 40 millimètres [17 lignes], renfermant six à sept graines brunâtres, presque sphériques, dont le hile est blanc, fort petit. La membrane interne des gousses se soulève en un feuillet très-mince, appliqué autour de la graine, et caduc lorsque les valves se séparent.

Le Galega apolinea croît dans les champs cultivés auprès du Nil à Erment à Edfoû, ancienne Apollinopolis magna, et dans l'île d'Eléphantine, en face de Syène.

Slightly cleaned up from google.translate:

This is a branching, tufted sub-shrub, whose older stems are cylindrical, woody, slightly brownish. Branches rising from 3 to 4 decimeters [1 foot], and slender, slightly zigzag, angular, striated, covered with fine hairs, lying. The leaves are winged, two or three pairs of leaflets with an odd number^(???). The common, striated petiole is 35 millimeters long (16 lignes), together with its basis of two subulate stipules. The leaflets are silky, silver, elongated-oval, slightly wedge-shaped notched averaged peak shortly pedicellate, striped fine ribs, obliques. The flowers come in leaf-opposed to the middle of the branches or in the axils of the terminal leaves straight clusters, solitary. The few flowers that will adorn the top clusters: they are short stalked, solitary or united in the axils of small subulate bracts. The calyx is campanulate, silky, five narrow teeth. The corolla is blue. The standard is oval, heart, raised, silky outside. The fruits are linear, weakly bent over, 35 to 40 mm long [17 lignes], containing six to seven brownish seeds, almost spherical, the hilum is white, very small. The inner membrane of pods raises a very thin sheet, applied around the seed, and lapsed when the valves separate.

The Galega apolinea grows in cultivated fields from the Nile to Edfu Erment, old Apollinopolis magna, and the island of Elephantine, opposite Syene.

Agyle (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Line is an archaic unit of length. Here it is presumably the French ligne rather than the English line that is used.

"with any odd number" means that there is a terminal leaflet as well as the pairs of lateral leaflets - in jargon imparipinnate, bi- or tri-jugate.

Pictures show a plant with a purple flower. Either the line between blue and purple differed in that time and place from current English usage, or he was misled from working from dried material.

The original description was (presumably) from a single collection, and would not capture the full range of variation of the species; obviously critical evaluation of sources would take into account later descriptions. I suggested starting with Delile's because it's more detailed that the typical description of a plant. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I've copied the text and discussion to a subpage Talk:Tephrosia_apollinea/Description so that we/you(all) can work on producing something to place in the article. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Medical uses

The current Uses section says: "The plant has significant anti-bacterial properties; the leaves and the root can be used to treat bronchitis, cough, earache, wounds and bone fractures.[32] The ground leaves of Tephrosia apollinea can also be inhaled to reduce nasal congestion and boiled with water to make eardrops,[32] and when boiled the smoke of such plants can also be used to treat rheumatism.[15]"

Citation [32], Ghazanfar 1993, seems possibly based on this sentence: "Tephrosia apollinea (Delile) Link/dhafra/leaves; root/bronchitis; cough; earache; wounds and bone fracture/ ground leaves applied to the nose and inhaled to relieve nasal congestion; leaves boiled with water which is then used as eardrops; powdered leaves applied on wounds or heated with water to make a paste which is then applied to bone fractures/tephrosin, delguelin and quercetin have been isolated in related species of Tephrosia; these compounds are anti-bacterial for Gram+ bacteria (Ghoneim 1990)/Ghazanfar 678." (I did not read the full article, and extracted this excerpt from scholar.google; note that "delguelin" presumably meant "deguelin", and may be an OCR error by Google.)

If the Ghazanfar 1993 quote from was the basis for the Wikipedia article's anti-bacterial claim, it should be noted that only "related species of Tephrosia" were mentioned in this regard; deguellin and quercetin are found in T. nubica, for example. Several recent articles and theses listing Tephrosia compounds note other Tephrosia sources, but do not include them among T. apollinea‘s. Two review articles, for example:

• Touqeer, Saad; Saeed, Muhammad Asad; Ajaib, Muhammad (2013). "A review on the phytochemistry and pharmacology of genus Tephrosia" (PDF). Phytopharmacology. 4 (3): 598–637.

• Chen, Yinning; Yan, Tao; Gao, Chenghai; Cao, Wenhao; Huang, Riming (2014). "Natural Products from the Genus Tephrosia" (PDF). Molecules. 19 (2): 1432–1458. doi:10.3390/molecules19021432. ISSN 1420-3049.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

I think it would be okay to describe how a plant was used in traditional medicine, without making any efficacy or scientific claims, but the current wording "can be used to treat" suggests to me that this is being claimed as an effective treatment. I'm not sure about the context of the Ghazanfar 1993 quote above, but the introduction to the article discusses traditional medicine in the Sultinate of Oman; "In northern and central Oman, knowledge of herbal medicine is generally not written but is passed from one generation to the next by learning from elders." If that's the source of the described uses, it should be clarified (e.g. "Practitioners of traditional medicine in Oman are reported to use X to treat..."). I should note that even my more cautious view on including traditional uses has been challenged by editors who insist on removing such facts, arguing that WP:MEDRS precludes this if there aren't conclusive studies supporting the use. ––Agyle (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS is irrelevant if sources document the use; whether or not it's effective is immaterial. Eric Corbett 22:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Eric Corbett, do you mean the current "used to treat bronchitis" etc. is ok, even if untested? That doesn't seem right. Agyle (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It's only "not right" if it's untrue that it's used to treat bronchitis and so on, but the source seems to be a reliable one. Tamiflu is used to treat influenza, but it appears that's ineffective despite all the testing that was done on it. We're not offering medical advice or making medical claims, we're simply relaying the facts. Eric Corbett 13:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

While it's a fact, it's presented with no context or details. The Oseltamivir (Tamiflu) article does provide details. I think the lack of context here somewhat implies the uses are widespread, mainstream medical treatments. As I said, I'm not suggesting the information be removed, but that it be qualified: if it is documented to be used in these ways only in Omani traditional medicine, it should say that (note that I haven't read the study). Dr. Blofeld, since you presumably have the source article, would you consider doing this? By the way, someone today changed the wording from "is used" to "have been used", which is one way of dealing with the source being 20 years old, and continued herbal usage being uncertain. Regarding WP:MEDRS's relevance, its opening refers to coverage of "biomedical information in all types of articles". Agyle (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

How do you boil smoke?

"When boiled the smoke of such plants has been used to treat rheumatism." And I don't understand what's meant by "such plants". Other boiled plants, other species of Tephrosia? Eric Corbett 13:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The cited work says that another plant ("tabas") is burnt so that the smoke can be used to treat rheumatism. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I wasn't sure which plant it was referring to, best that we leave it out I think, although a number of sources clearly state Tephrosia is used to treat rheumatism, but not specifically this species as such. I'm sure a source can be found somewhere though..♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Distribution

A CSJB web page has a map of collections showing the plant, as a subspecies of T. purpurea, growing in northwestern Chad, in addition to African distribution that agrees with other sources. (Source: Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques & South African National Biodiversity Institute, on Ville de Genève's museum website, Musinfo). It may not be considered a reliable source, and its listing under Hosni's redescription may be a problem. What do others think of adding Chad to the plant's distribution?

A bit of distribution trivia is that T. apollinea is listed in [The wild flowers of Kuwait and Bahrain], page 125, as occurring on Gunnam Island, but I can't find Gunnam Island's location (I'm guessing the name is no longer used). Agyle (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't find Gunnam Island either so I've asked at the Reference Desk.--Melburnian (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It might be a variant transcription (Google Maps has Ouha for what Wikipedia has as Auhah). With that possibility in mind I've looked at Google Maps, and the best(ish) candidate is Jinan Island in Bahrain. Lavateraguy (talk) 07:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

This would be unverifiable "original research", but it could refer to a 19th-century-named "Gunnum Island" of Oman (Oman is already included in the species distribution). It's described in an 1880 pronouncing geographical dictionary as "an island at the entrance of the Persian Gulf, about 4 miles long and 1 mile broad." This 1826 sailing directory has a detailed description, and places it at 2 miles southwest of 26° 23' 54" N 56° 27' 32" E, which on google maps is just off the Musandam Peninsula of Oman; it also describes it as 12 miles southwest of Oman's Quoin Island (Persian Gulf) (or Isla As Salama on Google Maps). Google maps shows an unnamed island that fits the 1826 description, with minor human habitation including an airstrip.

Any opinion on whether the specimens from Chad should be included to expand the distribution in the Wikipedia article, or not unless it's included in a more traditional published source like a journal article? Agyle (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

User:MilborneOne came to the same conclusion at the reference desk regarding "Gunnam Island", the island that fits the 1826 description is presently referred to as Jazīrat Umm al Ghanam. Regarding Chad, the CSJB map appears to be a plotting of raw data from various sources, and there are no links to check these sources. I think Chad should only be added to the distribution if a reliable text source can be found.--Melburnian (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, sounds sensible. Agyle (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)