Talk:Canna (plant)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


It should be noted that each of the three references individually have less information on Canna lilies than wikipedia's article. Gardening for Dummies especially is not worth the purchase if all you are looking for is information on Canna lilies--it's got barely a paragraph on them. --KQ 18:47 Sep 19, 2002 (UTC)

I love canas. Simple. easy to grow. will tolerated a wide veriety of conditions. They will do fine will a minimal amount of light, water, or nutrients. But if you can maximize it's environmental influence, they are spacatular often reaching heights of 8 or 9 feet of more. Humming birds love them. th, champaign,ill

Meters as well as feet

Mention meters as well as feet. Priority on meters too.

Recommended merge

I would suggest merging this article with Cannaceae, since the genus Canna and family Cannaceae are identical, whereas "Canna" is somewhat ambiguous (although its use as a plant name is probably more familiar than its use as an island name). "Canna lily" an atrocious common name--plain old "canna" is both simpler and more accurate, and is also fairly commonly used, at least in the United States. Canna (plant), Canna (genus) and Canna lily should all be redirected to Cannaceae. MrDarwin 17:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Canna Species

The list of species seems to be based on the work of Professor Maas. However, Dr Tanaka has subsequently produced a revised list of Canna species, including some new species he discovered in South America. Should we not be quoting that classification of species?


--Giantsshoulders 18:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC) This page has been placed in Semi-protection to stop anyone from editing it. As it is very much a page under development, still inadequate in many areas, this seems a strange and arbitary move. Can someone explain why this has been done?

Canna Category

After several hours effort I had all the Canna pages pointing at a single Cannas Category page, the same as every other major genus. I returned several hours later to see it all destroyed. This is blatant vandalism. No attempt to discuss, just arbitarilly destroyed. Why?

It looks like the page was modified by an automated bot. These sometimes do things they are not supposed to do, or perhaps you made some kind of mistake in setting up the Cannas category. I can't answer your specific question so you should ask the question on the talk page of the user who created the bot--just check the page history. MrDarwin 20:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The lead photo

The Canna Collector 18:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)The photograph is of a red Italian Group cultivar (x orchiodes), and not Canna x generalis as the text indicates. What should be done with this image?

Giantsshoulders 18:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)In addition, the use of x generalis is deprecated, and the group name should be used instead, if at all.

I have a great photograph of the world's first Canna hybrid, C. 'Annaei', will that be more appropriate?Jumping Jack Flash 19:01, 29 September 2006 (UTC) 09:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)Indica was the first species discovered, seems most appropriate.

-- 19:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Solved it for you, keep the photo and correct the description!

Cannas category

Giantsshoulders 17:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)Why has the Cannas category been removed? I found that to be a great index to the genus and other associated articles and used it all the time.

The genus is Canna not "Cannas," and you may create the category for the genus Canna and use it, if it has not already been created. It should be created, in the last case, but you don't have to be the one to do it. KP Botany 17:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Canna is a category, and it may be used. KP Botany 17:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest using "Cannaceae" as the category; this category already exists, most of the canna-related articles are already included in it, and it's rather redundant to have a separate category for "cannas". MrDarwin 19:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Apparently we're supposed to use genus level categories rather than family level, and make the genus a subcategory of the family. I disagree with this, but I'm not fighting it. Wikipedia will be one of the few plant sources that don't use families as categories, but, apparently, this is how it's supposed to be.... KP Botany 03:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Since Cannaceae is monotypic, Category:Canna would be utterly redundant. In response to KP's comment: genus-level categories are used elsewhere where there are several genera in a family where the family category would be entirely too large if they weren't separated (imagine how large Category:Orchids would be if it weren't broken down!). Generally, we're to use the most specific category we can. And it's not meant to be a statement regarding the other plant sources using families as the category. Because of the limitation of Wiki software to not display more than 200 entries for a category on one page, it is preferred to break it down when it gets too large. Genera categories are the way to do this with large families. Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 13:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Do we have this written up on WP:Plants? The limit of 200 entries is a bit difficult, because, in fact, biology did not give a nod to Wikipedia when creating the known universe. But that's another battle. If this is the case, make sure we have the policy up and get the Canna category deleted. If we don't have the policy up, let's write it, and make sure that the Canna category is deleted and only Cannaceae used. Sorry, Giants, for the inconvenience. We can get a bot to reintroduce the categories to the pages, if necessary. But let's wait until it's completely clear what we're doing, and it's in writing. KP Botany 21:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think we do have this written anywhere--it's just been the consensus I've come across, but it would be good to have a conversation about it at WT:PLANTS. I was also going to reintroduce a conversation about additions to WP:NC (flora) regarding the consensus we came to over subgenera, sections, cultivars, etc. so we can make it formal in the naming convention (See: User talk:Ptelea for the reason I want to get our convention on cultivar naming set). I wonder if TOL has any guidelines on categories? --Rkitko (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good, also the cultivars (see my comment about that). It is much easier if we have the policy written somewhere, makes page moves painless, also. KP Botany 03:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the American continent?

The origins section states several times that cultivated cannas come from "The American continent". This is only made more mysterious by a link to a page on the Americas which confirms that there are two continents that make up the Americas. Which continent does the article refer to? The introduction says that the genus is native to both North and South America. Can we get a clarification on this?Ethel Aardvark 02:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed per your request. Feel free to edit unusual encounters like this yourself. Thanks for the alert. KP Botany 02:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have cleared it up but I was a bit confused and didn;t know enough to get it right. Actually I still am confused. The introduction says that the genus is native to both North and South America while the origins section states that "Canna is a South American genus". I assume the genus is native to both continents and we can we remove references to "the American continent" and claims that it is an exclusively South Am genus. But this is well outside my normal geographic range so I'll levae it to the knowledgeable to clear up. Thanks Ethel Aardvark 02:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, everyone else is probably confused. I think you should just go with your gut, or your brain, and say, hmmmm, why does it talk throughout about the Americas, then leap to South America alone and just edit it. The section is still confusing, but not for that reason. KP Botany 02:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The section was translated from an early French book, the Americas was a common term in those days. It is right that we are more precise here. The actual range is from Northern Argenina to the southern states of the USA, taking in the islands offshore as well.Giantsshoulders 11:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Canna as biofuel

I have supplied canna rhizomes to five international and smaller companies conducting trials on various plants ability to supply energy for the future. The feedback that I have is that Cannas are the most productive producer of ethanol of all, their high starch content, the highest of all pant life we are told, means that they are in there as heavy contenders in the right climate. However, we are not getting quotable feedback on this subject. I am aware that the wikipedia statements about biofuels are unsubstantiated and I am happy to remove them from the Canna article, unless somebody thinks that we should stick-it-out until we get feedback? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giantsshoulders (talkcontribs) 19:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a policy about blog links?

I recently added links to some serious blog articles that added, in my opinion, references to material that is not dealt with in the Wikipedia article. The same day, they were removed. Why? External canna links to many of the University sites are a shambles, but never questioned; these were well researched and substantiated articles.----Giantsshoulders (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Main photo on taxo

This seems to be a very weak photograph of a genus that normally has people gasping for breath the first time they experience it. Can somebody come up with a more "dynamic" photo than these 2nd rate specimens in somebodies front garden?

Reproduction from cane cuttings?

Could cannas reproduce if you cut the cane and stick it back in the ground? Are there gels/powders which might help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No, all propogation methods have been tried, the only ones that work are splitting rhizomes with growing eyes, in vitro and seed.Giantsshoulders (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Photo not correct

The photograph that has been inserted is firstly not a species, it is a cultivar. Changing its name is also wrong. Canna 'Pretoria' is a synonym for the Italian Group C. 'Bengal Tiger', which has green and yellow variegated foliage and an orange flower. This photo is of a Crozy Group cultivar and is obviously not correctly named, and so I have removed it.Giantsshoulders (talk) 17:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I have solved the issue of the lead image by adding a photo of Canna (Italian Group) 'Italia', Sprenger 1894. This is the most historically important cultivar in the genus, and is preferable in an encyclopaedia to a pretty photo of a feral specimen. Giantsshoulders (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia had problems with the Commons image for Italia, so I switched to an existing image of Canna 'Bavaria', another historical landmark for the genus. Giantsshoulders (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Nothing to get so worked up upon. I asked a professional botanist to id the plant and she replied that it was a canna hybrida. FYI, there is a canna hybrida, see here, here, here and here. I am replacing the image since it shows the flowers in different stages and the leaves and thus the EV is higher. --Muhammad(talk) 15:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's start from square one:

Do not call other users names such as you did, Giantsshoulders. I have removed that text. For now, considering the nature of your name calling, I am asking you to step away from editing this page.

Muhammad, I will ask another user to investigate the situation with the images and resolve it, and explain it to you if necessary. Thank you for keeping your cool and bringing the matter to my attention instead of excalating the situation. --KP Botany (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

My two cents about the photos. The photo File:Canna Italia 1505.JPG is an orange and yellow blob. It does not show the plant; it shows a front end view of a flower with little discernible detail. Given the choice betwen the two photos for illustrative purposes, the photo added by Muhammad is preferrable for showing more physical features of the flower and plant. If it is incorrectly identified, that does not make the image any less valuable. Incorrectly identified flowers can be re-examined for a correct identification. For plants that are grown as ornamentals or for food, photos of cultivars can be as valid as a wild species, and in some cases ought to be preferred for the recognizeability of the taxobox image.. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
IMO File:Canna Italia 1505.JPG is not immediately identifiable as a Canna. It shows a face on view of the flower with little context. Also the flower is past its prime and the plastic pots in the background detract from the image. File:Canna sp.jpg is immediately identifiable as a Canna. It has context -shows flower, buds, stems and a portion of the leaves. and has sharp focus. There had been a previous problem with misidentification of this image and the author has sought to rectify this by making enquiries, but I think that the caption of "Canna hybrid" would suffice. Of the two pictures I believe File:Canna sp.jpg is best suited for the purposes of the taxobox. Melburnian (talk) 08:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Since there is clear consensus for my image, I am adding it as the taxobox. --Muhammad(talk) 15:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


Can Cannas be grown from the seeds that they produce?
If so, how do I do it?

Arkiegal (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Arkiegal

File:Canna sp.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Canna sp.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on January 22, 2011. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2011-01-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! howcheng {chat} 17:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Canna lily
Flowers of a canna lily hybrid. Canna lilies are members of the genus Canna. They are not true lilies, and are more closely related to the other plant families in the order Zingiberales, such as the gingers, bananas, marantas, heliconias, and strelitzias. There are nineteen known species and numerous cultivars, all of which have large, attractive foliage, making it a popular garden plant. In addition, it is one of the world's richest starch sources, and as such is used in agriculture.Photo: Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Recommended reading

The following list of "recommended reading" was in the article. To my knowledge, Wikipedia should not "recommend" references not used as references. I moved the list to the talk page. If any of these books are used as references, feel free to add them back as such. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Fang, Yang (2004). "Technique of scarifying and fermenting process of Canna starch". Southwest China Journal of Agricultural Sciences. Southwest Agricultural University, Chongqing 400716, China. 17 (2): 231–234. Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • Grootjen, C. J. and F. Bouman. 1988. Seed structure in Cannaceae: Taxonomic and ecological implications. Ann. Bot. (Oxford) n. s. 61: 363—371.
  • Kress, W. J. 1990. The phylogeny and classification of the Zingiberales. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 77: 698—721.
  • Kress, W. J. and D. E. Stone. 1982. Nature of the sporoderm in monocotyledons, with special reference to the pollen grains of Canna and Heliconia. Grana 21: 129—148.
  • Lerman, J. C. and E. M. Cigliano. 1971. New carbon-14 evidence for six hundred years old Canna compacta seed. Nature 232: 568—570.
  • Maas, P. J. M. 1985. 195. Cannaceae. In: A. R. A. Görts-van Rijn, ed. 1985+. Flora of the Guianas. Series A: Phanerogams. 1212+ volsfasc. Königstein. VolFasc. 1, pp. xx—xx69—73 .
  • Maas, P. J. M. and H. Maas. 1988. 223. Cannaceae. In: G. Harling et al., eds. 1973+. Flora of Ecuador. 5660+ volsnos. Göteborg. VolNo. 32, pp. 1–9.
  • Moore, Thomas. 1892. The Gardener's Assistant. Blackie & Son Ltd.
  • Robinson W., The English Flower Garden, John Murray, Albermarle St, London, England. 1883.
  • Rogers, G. K. 1984. The Zingiberales (Cannaceae, Marantaceae, and Zingiberaceae) in the southeastern United States. J. Arnold Arbor. 65: 5—55.
  • Segeren, W & Maas, PJM - The genus Canna in northern South America (1971), Acta Botanica Neerlandica. 20(6): 663-680.
  • Woodson, R. E. Jr. and R. W. Schery. 1945. Cannaceae. In: R. E. Woodson Jr. et al., eds. 1943—1981. Flora of Panama. 41 fasc. St. Louis. [Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 32: 74—80.]
  • Yeo, P. F. 1993. Secondary pollen presentation: Form, function and evolution. Pl. Syst. Evol., Suppl. 6: 204—208.

Canna edulis or achira

I know practically nothing about taxonomy but I would like to write an article (or include in a Canna article) information about the prehistoric cultivation for food of Canna edulis or achira in Latin America. Canna indica is apparently the accepted scientific name for achira -- but achira is commonly called Canna edulis in archaeological literature.

So, where do I insert info on prehistoric cultivation of achira? Do I create an article called Canna edulis? Do I include it in the article Canna indica? Other options?

As a comment, it seems to me that Canna edulis would be a more desirable scientific name for what is now called on wikipedia Canna indica. The plant didn't originate in India as indica would seem to indicate. Smallchief (talk 12:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

According to reliable botanical sources, such as the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families and the long list at the Tropicos entry, the correct scientific name of the species is Canna indica, regardless of what it's called in the archaeological or horticultural literature, so you add it to that article.
The epithet indica often means "of the Indies" in the same sense as "American Indian" or "West Indies". Scientific names can't be changed, however misleading they may turn out to be. Thus Scilla peruviana does not come from Peru! Peter coxhead (talk) 08:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Canna (plant)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

I have assessed this article as A-class and identified the following areas for improvement:
  • This article needs a once over or twice over and a peer review. It's very high quality.
Doug.(talk contribs) 03:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Substituted at 21:18, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canna (plant). 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:

  • Added archive to

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 06:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Talk:Canna (plant)"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA