Talk:Daylily

I can't edit captions under "Commons" images: Hemerocallis fulva (typo "dailily") is shown in its double mutation sometimes called flore-pleno.This is a garden form, not the species. A good caption might note that. --Wetman 15:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have made the change. JoJan 16:19, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I renewed the main photo of a daylily. The original was slightly out of foucs, and the new one shows more detail of an example of the flower. --liquidGhoul 00:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

when do day lilys bloom?

Yeah, what time(s) of the year are they supposed to bloom (I noticed the article said sometimes they bloom again later, but when is later, heck, "when" is the 1st time even?? Also, is there any good links that show daylilys (daylilies?) along with some other plants that look very similar and/or are commonly mistaken for them? I think BOTH of these things should be included in this article. 173.16.124.196 (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

This website: http://www.fehd.gov.hk/safefood/report/toxin_veg/012006_index.html

[edit: updated link: http://www.fehd.gov.hk/safefood/report/toxin_veg/index.html - 75.165.87.106 (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC) ]Reply

says that the buds and roots are mildly toxic. Is this true? Here's the text:

"Fresh Jin Zhen - It is the floral part of a plant harvested before it was in blossom. Fresh Jin Zhen has been used in dishes as fresh vegetables. A natural toxin known as colchicine is concentrated in the root of the plant and it is also found in the floral part of fresh Jin Zhen. Poisoning may be resulted from consumption of fresh Jin Zhen which has not been soaked well in water and cooked thoroughly. Symptoms of poisoning may include gastrointestinal discomfort, such as abdominal pain, vomiting and diarrhoea. However, colchicine in Jin Zhen is destroyed during cooking and processing and therefore commercially processed Jin Zhen and Jin Zhen in the dried form are non-toxic (photo)." Badagnani 01:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply

Another link: http://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/200006/19/0619265.htm -75.165.87.106 (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have added a small cautionary text about being careful to get the right species due to the toxicity of some. Observer31 (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

The toxicity is debatable. Some vets still maintain the toxicity to small pets in large quantities, but for the most part toxicity is virtually unknown in humans. There is a great deal of confusion because for a very long time Day Lilies were actually considered to be part of the True Lily Family. The fact remains though, that all day lily species I have come across are completely edible from flower to root tip--and quite delicious! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.35.254.12 (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

This article has been mangled by the uncited (and probably unfounded) mentions of "toxic" daylilies. It now also warns of dangers from confusion with "some forms of lilies" that might be toxic, although daylilies do not belong to the lilium genus. Even the links provided on this page are no longer active, so I can find no credible reference claiming that daylilies are toxic (though I have found such references that refute that point: http://agriviet.net/20577-are-daylilies-toxic/). That's probably because daylilies are edible, and they are not known to be toxic in humans. I sincerely hope that the editors of this page will excise this misinformation. The page is less correct and less readable because of it.Jmedlong (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I have removed a medical use and a toxicity claim not supported by any sources; see WP:MEDRS before adding such information. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Is it correct that American Indians formerly used daylily flowers and bulbs as a traditional food? Badagnani 17:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can't say for sure but I doubt it, unless they learned such use from the European settlers (in which case it would hardly be "traditional"); Hemerocallis is a relatively recent introduction to North America as an escape from cultivation, as the genus is native to Eurasia. MrDarwin 19:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Reply

More generally, daylily flowers are definitely edible, should be lots of sources for that... though the above toxicity section raises questions about forms other than cooked or dried (I eat them raw/dried) 75.165.87.106 (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 21:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'd appreciate a section about distinguishing daylilies from lilies... 75.165.87.106 (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree, especially because of the use of the phrase:"Care must be used as some species of lilies can be toxic." Does this refer to a lilium or a day lily? Moa rider (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Added some info. So mainly, a daylily (not spelled as day lily, daylilly, or day lilly) is from a different genera. True lilies grow from bulbs, and have six petals. Daylilys generally have three petals and three sepals. Daylilies are clump-forming, with scapes and grassy-looking leaves, while true lilies have leaves along the entire stalk. Nora Editor (talk) 14:13, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

All professional daylily organizations and societies use daylily, not day lily. It is a little arrogant to contradict them in favour of a term that at worst is incorrect, and at best is a vernacular term. Nora Editor (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've consulted several dictionaries (among them OED, Webster's, Longman and Collins) and they all write the name as "day lily" (in two words). A move to "Day lily" seems to be in order, unless there are objections. JoJan (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I strongly oppose this change. I'd really prefer the article to be at Hemerocallis, which is unambiguous, but "Day lily" suggests that daylilies are lilies, which they are not. WP:AT requires a number of criteria to be balanced in choosing an article title, one of which is precision. "Day lily" is much less precise that "daylily". Also Google ngrams suggest that the forms without a space are more common. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you both. It should be "day lily" as that is the correct "word"; and the article should be at Hemerocallis because that is unambiguous. With appropriate redirects, of course. Huw Powell (talk) 04:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely not, day lily may be a general misspelling used by the public, but daylily is sactioned by the American Daylily Society, the Canadian Hemerocallis Society, the Russian Interregional Daylily Society, the Australian Daylily Society, the British Hemerocallis and Hosta Society, and hundreds of respected professional breeders and daylily gardens. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nora Editor (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

To me the two most interesting things about this section are the fact that on average once every three years someone decides to write a reply to messages left years before by one or more editors who more likely than not will never see the response, and the fact that JoJan, having suggested a move "unless there are objections" did not make that move, even though there were no objections in over 2 years. Here are some of my other thoughts on this.

• As Peter coxhead rightly points out, there are a number of criteria to be balanced in choosing an article title, but being the word that we think logically should be used is not one of them. Generally speaking, how a word is actually used takes precedence over how we think it should be used. Personally, I agree with Peter that "day lily" suggests that daylilies are lilies, and therefore I don't like the name at all, but whether I, Peter, or even 1000 Wikipedia editors think the plant should not be known by that name, it is known by that name. It is no part of Wikipedia's remit to try to prescribe how things should be: we seek only to report how they are.
• Likewise, being in some sense the "official" name for something does not feature in the criteria for article titles, and does not take precedence over other considerations, such as what that thing is in practice commonly called. Thus we have, for example, articles on Ringo Starr not Richard Starkey, Dog not Canis familiaris or Canis lupus familiaris, and Lewis Caroll not Charles Lutwidge Dodgson. Even if we regard societies for people interested in a particular subject as somehow "official" (which is open to question) it does not follow that their preferences automatically take precedence over how other people use words.
• I don't understand why Peter seems to think that writing the name without a space between the two components in any way reduces the problem of suggesting a lily. To me "daylily" just as much suggests a type of lily as does "day lily". Nor do I understand how "daylily" is more "precise" than "day lily": both checking online dictionaries and checking the first 30 hits from a Google search for "day lily" I found not a single use of the expression to mean anything other than a plant of the genus hemerocallis, so it seems that the expression does mean precisely that and nothing else.
• Huw Powell says that "day lily" is the correct "word", but Nora Editor describes that as a "misspelling". Who is right? For many languages there is an official government body to decide what is "correct" usage, but for English there is no criterion other than how speakers of English use the language. If I use the word "cat" to refer to a whale then I am using English incorrectly, because that is not how other people understand the word, not for any other reason; if I use a word in a way in which other people do understand it, then no matter who may decree that I am using it incorrectly, there is no objective criterion for saying so.
• I was astonished to find that the opening of the article neither stated that a "daylily" is not really a lilly nor mentioned that it is also written "day lily". Not making it clear right from the start that the plant in question is not a lily is ridiculous, as it is likely to be misleading, and when, as in this case, more than one form of a name is in common use, it is natural to mention the fact, no matter which word the writers of the article personally prefer, and no matter which one is used for the title of the article. I have supplied both those pieces of information.
• Well, after all that, which title do I think the article should have? I really really can't imagine why anyone should think it matters, as long as there are redirects from the other titles, so anyone searching for those will find the article (and there are) and as long as the other titles are mentioned right at the start of the article, so that readers will know that they are the same thing. JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 18:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

"Daylily" is the more common form in Ngrams and Google Trends. Plantdrew (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

• I added the words "or day lily" to the lead of the article. It didn't for a moment occur to me that might be in any way controversial. Whatever one's view on what the title of the article should be, since both forms of the name are in reasonably common use, it makes sense to also mention whichever one is not the title of the article. However, some editor anonymously removed the alternative name, with the edit summary "This has been discussed at length in the talk pages". No it hasn't: the title of the article has been discussed, but not the mentioning of the other form of the name. Has either the editor who removed the content or anyone else got any good reason why both forms should not be mentioned in the lead?
• If the editor who removed the content has also edited this article, or elsewhere in connection with this article, using an account, then he or she needs to be aware that switching between logged-in and logged-out editing in that way is contrary to Wikipedia's policy on sockpuppetry. JBW (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

@JBW: I personally don't think it's worth mentioning the minor spelling difference between "daylily" and "day lily" in the first sentence, but if you really want it there, you could add '(also written as "day lily")'. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

A gallery might be a better way to display the various cultivar images, especially if it is below the Awards section, which the thumbnails are sort of messing up. Huw Powell (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Is this mentioned in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.180.175.48 (talk) 04:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Food use of the flower if very popular in Chinese cuisine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.180.175.48 (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

The second paragraph of the Uses section is about Phormium tenax (NZ Flax/harakeke) which is in a different genus. It's not justified by past classification, either: Phormium tenax used to be in Agavaceae and doesn't seem to ever have been in Hemerocallis

Deleted. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply