Talk:Schefflera digitata

Improvements

The last paragraph of "Description" is missing some convert templates. Also, I think it is worth mentioning that the original description happened as part of the second voyage of James Cook. Otherwise a very decent article. Good work! Schwede66 14:49, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

GA review

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:Schefflera digitata/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Alexeyevitch (talk · contribs) 11:05, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Marshelec (talk · contribs) 19:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I am happy to review this nomination._Marshelec (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

• Good job on completing a major rewrite and expansion of this article about an important native plant. Here are few points I have noted:

Thank you for taking this GAN! Alexeyevitch^(talk) 05:01, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Sources and citations

• citation 1 DeLange (2006) currently has an incorrect url (hyphens and dashes are frustrating !). It should be https://www.nzpcn.org.nz/flora/species/schefflera-digitata/ The archive-url is OK.

Done. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

• for consistency in presentation, adjust the ISBN for Wardle ( 2011) to 978-1-877-52006-8

Done. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

The lead

• The second/third sentences needs tidying. One option would be: It is endemic to New Zealand and is found in the North, South, and Stewart Islands.

Done. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

• The fact It is the only New Zealand member of the genus Schefflera .. is currently not stated in the body

Done. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Description

• A few convert templates are needed towards the end of this section

Done. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

• The statement S. digitata's leaves contain compounds of falcarindiol. is not supported by DeLange (2006), so an additional citation is needed here. An alternative could be to move this statement into the Uses section where this fact is more relevant, and add a citation of Manaaki Whenua 2023 which mentions falcarindiol in connection with treating skin fungus.

Done. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

• The statement The leaves are similar, and are often confused with five-finger (Pseudopanax arboreus) is not what DeLange (2006) states. It says: "The leaflets of Pseudopanax species are thicker, smaller, and with larger teeth on the margin."

Dawson & Lucas (2011) and De Lange (2026) says they can be confused with Pseudopanax arboreus, but the distinguishing features of P. arboreus comes from De Lange (2026) Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

How about an alternative: "S. digitata is often confused with five-finger (Pseudopanax arboreus), although the leaflets of P. aboreus are smaller, thicker and have larger teeth."

OK. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 00:36, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

• Leaves are alternate and palm-shaped... My resident botany adviser has commented that it would be best to use the term "palmately compound" in describing the leaf. This is more precise and is commonly used in botany. It is used on page 512 of Dawson & Lucas (2011) describing this species and also appears as one of the types of leaf forms illustrated on page 25 of Salmon (1986) The Native Trees of New Zealand, in a catalogue of illustrations of leaf morphology. The term is also used in the description of the shorter form digitate, in this article: Glossary_of_leaf_morphology#digitate.

Done. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 09:36, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Taxonomy

• the statement: There are thirteen species currently accepted by the Plants of the World Online taxonomic database, all of which are found in Oceania is less precise than the source. For example, Australia is in Oceania, but Schefflera sp are not native to Australia. A possible alternative could be: "There are thirteen species of this genus currently accepted by the Plants of the World Online taxonomic database. These species are native to islands in the Pacific: New Zealand, Fiji, New Caledonia, Samoa and Vanuatu".

Done. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Ecology

• for consistency, it would be best to expand S. digitata also plays host to Glaucias amyoti and Oemona hirta. to include the short names "shield bug" and "longhorn beetle"

Done. Instead, I substituted the common names. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

• the statement S. digitata is also a primary host of the parasitic flower, Dactylanthus taylorii. is not quite right. D. taylorii is a root parasite

Fixed. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Distribution

• The source De Lange (2006) states that distribution is widespread. This is an important fact and should be included in the lead and the body.

Added. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Uses

• The statement The leaves were also used to wrap newborn Māori babies until they perspired. may attract queries. I don't have access to either of the two cited sources, but is that what they say ?

Yes. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

I will pause the review here to provide time to address these points._Marshelec (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

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.

Named for Johann Peter Ernst von Scheffler

The original source is clear that the Scheffler in question is a "Medicus et Botanicus Gedanensis", a "physician and botanist from Gdansk" who contributed plants to a book by Gottfried Reyger (see this page that clarifies the identity). Jacob Christian Schäffer appears to have no connection to Gdansk, so I find it difficult to understand why he is mentioned. —Kusma (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I think De Lange was mistaken in his revision of the plant. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 22:08, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

A couple of comments

a) Under Taxonomy, it would be better to reference Forster's publication directly rather than going with what other people say it says.

b) Under Uses, I don't understand the final clause in the sentence "The leaves were also used to wrap newborn Māori babies until they were perspired." What does that mean? It's not a midwifery or obstetrics term that I've ever come across. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:25, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:21, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Both look better to me (and I've checked the Forst. link goes to the right page as well). Thanks. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:57, 14 January 2026 (UTC)