Talk:Dragon fruit

"Kamalam" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Kamalam. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 24#Kamalam until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 19:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Nutrient content of fruit

Currently the list of nutrients shows more than 82 grams of carbohydrates in 100 grams of fruit, that is ridiculous. You can easily feel that 82% or so of fruit pulp is water, not carbohydrates or any other solid substance. Please somebody give the true values. 81.186.20.166 (talk) 12:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that that's impossible. unsigned comment on 26 September by Invasive Spices.

As discussed in the article under Nutrients, there are no nutrient analyses by the USDA in FoodData Central for fresh (water-containing) pitaya, and there are no reliable alternate sources on the web for such data. The only available data for pitaya nutrition are from dried, branded products, one of which is shown in the table. Dry-processing fruit increases the relative contents of carbohydrates, protein, and minerals, and decreases vitamin C content from the fresh state. This is a FoodData Central search for"pitaya", showing at the top there have been 22 branded products (assume that this means substantially processed, and probably dried) in the US analyzed by the USDA. The are no "foundation foods" or "legacy foods" because fresh pitaya has not been evaluated (reasonable to assume it is a crop too minor in volume to be included as a common US food).

Our discussion here should be whether to include the table and nutrition section at all, because it is impossible to discern the dry-processing procedures of the manufacturer whose product the USDA tested, and therefore the change from fresh to a dried, processed condition causes unexpected values for nutrients in pitaya. Zefr (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

the USDA has recently updated their data with a new report. I'm updating the article to use the following data: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/2344729/nutrients smIsle (talk) 03:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I found an study on PubMed (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11246028/) that used a subtractive method to determine carbohydrate content of pitayas, finding them to range from 6.6 to 17.0 grams per 100 grams depending on variety. It can't go on the page because it's a primary source, but maybe it can point someone in the right direction. In any case it might sate your curiosity.

I would be interested in having the different antioxidant quantities listed for red, white and yellow dragon fruit, information which is also contained in this study, but don't know where to start looking for secondary sources to cite. ~2025-41840-31 (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I have a source on dragonfruit oligosaccharides and their impact on bifidobacteria numbers in the gut microbiome: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0963996923002028?via%3Dihub

There are also numerous sources that substantiate red dragon fruit having higher betacyanin content, but this one states that it also has higher phenolic content, making red dragon fruit the cultivar with the highest antioxidant activity overall: https://www.horticultureresearch.net/jah/A%20comparative%20analysis%20of%20red%20and%20white%20dragon%20fruit%20pulp%20and.pdf ~2025-41840-31 (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

There are no 'antioxidant' qualities except in a test tube, so the value of pitaya polyphenols or betacyanin applies only to the fruit pigmentation (e.g., red vs. white), as reported in the Journal of Applied Horticulture publication (Table 7) you provided. There are no micronutrients in significant content in raw pitaya (section in article). I feel we could add the results for betacyanin from this report as evidence for the color difference. Added with Special:Diff/1340474620.

This study is basically a preliminary trial (only 107 normal healthy subjects) with no conclusion possible about any immune or other physiological effects, as its quality of evidence is low - see WP:MEDASSESS, which states that a reputable review of more advanced human research would be needed. Zefr (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Dragon fruit name

Why has the ENGLISH article title been changed to the Mexican Spanish name for this fruit? Stop the politically correct revisionism. This is a dragon fruit in English. I am from the US and I don't know a single English speaking American who would call this a pitaya except perhaps in the SW or California...which is not the majority of America. Alexandermoir (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The title of this article has been Pitaya since it was created 19 years ago. Nobody has changed the name of the article. If you feel that Dragon fruit is a more appropriate name for this article than Pitaya, you may propose that change by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Since Pitaya has remained the name of the article for 19 years, I suspect there will not be much enthusiasm for changing it. Donald Albury 22:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

I 100% agree with @Alexandermoir:. This is English Wiki, the target are users looking up English-language terms. Secondary names are served by using redirects. The intro and name section clearly state that dragon fruit is the English name of pitaya and pitahaya, that is what matters on Wiki.

I have no access to my computer, working on my cellphone, and forgot the technical steps needed for "moving" (renaming) an article. Who can help? I see no need for lenghty discussions. If the naming is as stated in the article, then dragon fruit is the only logical title for the article. As long as no one has an issue with the naming as stated in the article, it's an opened-and-closed case. Arminden (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

By golly, I have no internet access at all. I do this by magic. The article is indeed very confusing. This plant does not seem to be a cactus. Wastrel Way (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2026 (UTC)Eric

@Arminden: I thought my edit summary, though pithily expressed, was clear but apparently not. Since the article is titled Pitaya, the lead should start with "Pitaya is ....". If you believe that the article title is incorrect, then you should use WP:RM. Apologies for not noticing the talk discussion but, regardless, you need to first change the title and then rewrite the lead. RegentsPark (comment) 19:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @RegentsPark:. Sorry, but I don't think you read my arguments:

"I have no access to my computer, working on my cellphone, and forgot the technical steps needed for "moving" (renaming) an article. Who can help?"

That's probably also why I didn't notice your edit summary: the phone version doesn't show it. Sorry.

However, I explained that

1. The only logical English name for the article is "Dragon fruit".
2. I currently can't do the move, so pls. someone else do it.
3. In such an obvious case, there is zero reason on Wiki for going through additional procedures. Think "bold" etc. Bureaucracy kills.

So, could you please do the move and re-introduce my edit? Thanks! Arminden (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Arminden: I reverted you merely to align the article title with the first use. Someone who knows something about this fruit will have to take the bold step of moving it without an RM. If you like, I could set up an RM discussion for you with the WP:Common name rationale attributed to you. Let me know. Unless somebody else on this thread would like to step in. RegentsPark (comment) 01:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: I would absolutely welcome that! Thank you! Arminden (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree im british and everyone knows it as dragon fruit here too 2A00:23C5:ACA5:CF01:E7EA:2238:AB:3853 (talk) 17:40, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Importance ranking

The importance of "pitaya" has recently been edited to Top Importance for 4 projects; was this on purpose? Nicholaswei (talk) 06:28, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I also question the new importance ratings. Even the previous "High" ranking for Project Plants seems too high. I'll notify the projects for input. Donald Albury 14:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I set it to High because it gets 2,980 pageviews a day, higher than wheat and maple. Abductive (reasoning) 20:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 27 October 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Given that it was not shown by those in support of this move that dragon fruit is a synonym for pitaya, with some evidence presented that in fact dragon fruit is just one variety, with the article covering many others, I can't find in favour of this move request. If more evidence is presented, a new RM could be opened down the line.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Pitaya → Dragon fruit – As editors @Arminden:, @Alexandermoir: above noted, the phrase "dragon fruit" is distinctly more popular in english than "pitaya" is, though it's understandable why it was originally named that. Google ngrams shows that pitaya or pitahaya have remained consistently popular for the past several decades, while the term dragon fruit appeared meaningfully in the 1990s and grew explosively in popularity, surpassing both other terms in 2009, to the point where in 2023 it's nearly twice as popular as pitaya and pitahaya combined. When the article was created in 2004, pitaya and pitahaya were similarly popular, with dragon fruit holding a solid third place, but now in both american and british english, the dragon fruit holds a clear dominance in the modern day.

I don't have a good citation for this, but looking around the internet, I would guess that pitaya and pitahaya have had their consistent popularity as a loan word from English-speaking Mexicans already familiar with its Spanish name, but upon being popularized (as a 'health food' or otherwise) in the 2000s in the anglosphere, most English speakers newly aware of the fruit chose the domestic term instead. And the rest is history, if fairly recent history. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 07:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC) — Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans (talk) 11:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Which means: let's move it already. The Mexican names remain as redirects and bold in the lead, and that's that.

I don't remember exactly how to remove the redirect "dragon fruit -> pitaya", which for now blocks the move (it must go through some commission, blabla), I only have my phone, so please, someone help out with this last issue and then do the move. Thanks. Arminden (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Clarification needed It's not clear to me that "dragon fruit" includes all the fruit covered by this article. "Dragon fruit" seems to be used for fruit of Selenicereus (synonym Hylocereus), whereas the article includes the fruit of a wider range of cacti, e.g. Stenocereus queretaroensis. Selenicereus and Stenocereus belong to different taxonomic tribes. So simply moving may be wrong. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The article says "The common name in English – dragon fruit – derives from the leather-like skin and scaly spikes on the fruit exterior", and it has the subheading "Dragon fruit, Selenicereus". So it's clear from the article that "dragon fruit" only applies to fruit of Selenicereus (fruits of Stenocereus don't have scaly spikes). If the present article is moved, then the material on non-Selenicereus fruit must be moved to another article. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Wrong, d.f. covers both. Just look closer into it. The top hit on Google might not be the Britannica, but see for yourselves here:

"There are actually many different species of cacti within the Hylocereus genus and Stenocereus genus that produce many different varieties of fruit with different names. However, the term “dragon fruit” has become a general term that's used to refer to any fruit produced by any of these cacti. ... The term “dragon fruit” has become more of a general term that is now commonly used to refer to any fruit in this family of fruits. So if you see the word "dragon fruit," "pitaya" or "pitahaya," they're typically all referring to the same fruit."

Posted by "Dr. Sonali Ruder", who keeps on writing that it's not the same but it is used as if, so confusing, but the conclusion is: the English term covers a range of similarly-looking fruit. QED, and what we knew already and all we need for the move. Again, this is English Wikipedia and is meant to help users primarily with common English terms. The article then has to clarify the botanical differences. Arminden (talk) 10:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a useful source for the point you are trying to make, because the website says "Dragon fruit shares many similarities with the pitaya", i.e. they are not the same. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Did you read A. my post here above and B. the rest of that article? Doesn't seem so. Found a convenient sentence and stopped there. Go all the way to the Conclusions pls. And also pls. google some more, if this art. is too inconclusive. Arminden (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

For the last 20 days, "Pitaya" got an average of 3,250 views a day in Wikipedia. The redirect "Dragon fruit" got an average of 23 hits a day, "Dragonfruit" got 13 hits a day, "Dragon Fruit" got one hit a day, and "Pitahaya" got 9 hits a day, all passing through to "Pitaya". Other redirects to "Pitaya" got much fewer than one hit per day. The number of users searching for "Dragon fruit", "Dragonfruit", or "Dragon Fruit" on Wikipedia in the last 20 days was barely more than 1% of the number who reached the article for "Pitaya". This indicates that readers are much more likely to be looking for "Pitaya" than for "Dragon fruit". - Donald Albury 12:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Donald Albury: I don't disagree that we can have an article at Dragon fruit. The problem is to be clear, with reliable sources, what "dragon fruit" means. The article currently says that it refers only to fruit of Selenicereus. So those who want to move the article need to clarify whether after moving:

• it should cover a variety of cactus fruit – in which case reliable sources are needed to show that they can all be called "dragon fruit", and the article needs significant editing so it doesn't limit "dragon fruit" to Selenicereus, which it does now.
• it should cover only Hylocereus fruit – in which case where will non-Hylocereus be covered?

Peter coxhead (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Hylocereus was recently merged into Selenicereus. In Google Scholar, which, hopefully, returns mostly reliable sources, Hylocereus, Selenicereus, and Stenocereus each return more hits containing "pitaya" than "dragon fruit" (but not by much, and that is not a valid criteria for choosing a common name, anyway). Certainly nothing to indicate that there is any difference between the common names applied to the genera. Searching for "Hylocereus pitaya dragon fruit" got about 5,100 hits. The few that I checked were mostly using the two common names as synonyms. No luck in finding a reliable source on the relative popularity of "pitaya" and "dragon fruit". Donald Albury 19:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, but please explain how the move and subsequent editing will meet WP:PRECISION, which is also necessary. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

The nuances can be explained in the article. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support the pageview data mentioned by Donald Albury is misleading and should be ignored; if you do a Google search for "Dragon fruit" or click the wikilink "dragon fruit" on Vietnamese cuisine it will show up in Wikipedia stats as a hit for "Pitaya". Google search results for "Pitaya" are a mix of unrelated topics, and pages with "dragon fruit" in their title. Per nom, Ngrams shows dragon fruit is more common, and (anecdotally) at the grocery store today it was called dragon fruit. Walt Yoder (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Walt Yoder: it was called dragon fruit: but what was "it"? My contention is that what is sold under the English name "dragon fruit" is the fruit of Selenicereus, not the fruit of other cacti. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

It looked like the one in the picture. I thoroughly reject the implication that this article shouldn't be moved because it is actually about two different topics. Walt Yoder (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Walt Yoder: I have never said there should not be an article at Dragon fruit. My request for clarification relates to how the moved article should then be edited, because it seems to me that "pitaya/pitahaya" ≠ "dragon fruit". Peter coxhead (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

As of now, we have:

Pitaya = usually Stenocereus

Pitahaya = Selenicereus (formerly Hylocereus), aka dragon fruit.

We need solid sources. Who has the E. Britannica or the Oxford ED on the shelf? Or online access to them?

Free online versions are never as reliable, but still:

Oxford Reference online has only Hylocereus, so d.f. = pitahya (Selenicereus, ex Hylocereus)(here).

Cambridge Dictionary only has the opposite, pitaya (here).

Collins online at first also has pitahia, but then widens it hugely (here): "1. any giant cactus of Central America and the SW United States, esp the saguaro [Carnegiea gigantea] ... 2. the edible red pulpy fruit of such cacti"

But maybe they just can't keep the 2 or more Mexicanos locos apart! Which is as well, meaning that "dragon fruit" is all English-speakers reliably react to.

Merriam-Webster online has both and even more ["cacti (as of the genera Selenicereus, Hylocereus, or Sternocereus)"] (here). Which means that it lists Selenicereus and Hylocereus as 2 different gena (our art. says they're the same), and misspells Stenocereus by adding an r, Sternocereus. Steno- is narrow, close, while sterno- means pertaining to the sternum :)

In the end, there's only one conclusion: dragon fruit is the only common denominator across BE, AE, dictionaries and vernacular. My point fron the start :) Cheers Arminden (talk) 21:04, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

@Arminden: Yes, "dragon fruit" is the common denominator for English speakers – that isn't disputed – but what your sources above show is that it fails WP:PRECISION as an article title, since they differ widely on what it refers to. How do you see the article being revised when it is moved? Peter coxhead (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Please read above, it's been suggested already: by being encyclopedic within the article. Meaning, by presenting reality as it is (day to day language lacks scientific precision), and we do our job by connecting common-language terms with scholarly terminology. Seems quite basic.

Concretely:

(Common English term X) covers a range of (this & that). Botanists differentiate between (term A), (term B), (term C).

And then we write separate sections on term A, B, and C.

That's what encyclopedias do. Arminden (talk) 09:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@Arminden: I understand that, of course, but my contention is that, as used by English speakers and in particular by those selling the product, "dragon fruit" does not apply to the full range of fruit currently covered in the article. It's nothing to do with botanists making distinctions, it's what the English name "dragon fruit" applies to. My question remains: can you show me a reliable source that says that fruit of Sternocereus or cacti other than Selenicereus is sold or consumed as "dragon fruit"? Merriam-Webster online cannot be taken as reliable given their mistakes over the scientific name.

I don't think it's relevant here, but it seems to me that your description (Common English term X) covers a range of (this & that). Botanists differentiate between (term A), (term B), (term C) is exactly what WP:NOTADICTIONARY forbids as an article. Our job is to determine the underlying concepts in the range of (this & that) and construct articles about them, not to explain the range of use of English words and phrases. Thus we don't have a single article at "Berry" because the English word has too wide a range of meaning, we have Berry and Berry (botany). Peter coxhead (talk) 11:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Peter, I've written everything I needed to write here already. You're quite selective in reading my replies. And quite rhetorical, too: you're not really trying to compare in full earnest the range of meanings in 'berry' and 'dragon fruit'? I've done my homework, now it's up to you and others to do theirs. Bye, Arminden (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Are the dragon fruit and Pitaya the same? Reading Beans (talk) 11:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

@Reading Beans: as I've made clear above, I don't think it's been shown that they are. "Pitaya" and "pitahaya" are Spanish words used alone or in phrases as names for a variety of cactus fruits. "Dragon fruit" appears to be used for only one kind, that of cultivated kinds of Selenicereus. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

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.

Move without consensus

Wikiediter2029 moved this article without consensus to "Pitaya (Dragon Fruit)". The discussion above shows no consensus for "dragon fruit", and the capitalized part in parentheses is contrary to all page title principles. So I've moved the article back. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, would there be anyway to revert it. According to sorces it is generally used than the current name in the page. Wikiediter2029 (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

@Wikiediter2029: You can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves. It might be more fruitful to first discuss how "dragon fruit" relates to "pitaya", as it has been argued that the names are not synonymous. Donald Albury 18:02, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

@Wikiediter2029: please review the discussion above. If pitaya and dragon fruit were synonyms, then the earlier proposal would, I'm sure, have been agreed. See in particular the first sentence of the second paragraph of the article and the sources that support it. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

A possible way forward would be to have two articles: one for the fruit of Stenocereus species, and one for the fruit of Selenicereus species. The latter could be at "Dragon fruit", I think. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

I aggree, if we could have that and thd fruit in brackets then it would be good. Wikiediter2029 (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Could this be added as it is a synonym after fact checking? Wikiediter2029 (talk) 17:20, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

To also add, this page is English and Dragon Fruit being used as a English way is appropriate. If we had Dragon fruit in Brackets it would be sorted. Wikiediter2029 (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

No changes to the article or names are needed. Common names for edible plants, like dragon fruit, are diverse (also shown in the CABI source) and adequately covered in the lede and Vernacular names section.

I suggest dropping this discussion, as concluded by the 2023 RM consensus. Zefr (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Source removal, 8 October

A literature review on the question of nutrition was summarily reverted because it was alleged to have been published in a "predatory" journal. The en.wp entry for Molecules (journal) as of this writing made no such claim. I found the article through pubmed. The article does clearly appear to be promoting pitaya, but perhaps should not have been summarily deleted without discussion on the talk page given the sources it cites. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:45, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

The section on 'strengths and limitations' of this review displays possible factors for why the article appears in Molecules - a dubious predatory (possibly "pay-to-publish") journal: 1) the nutrient data (Table 1) were taken from four different sources, with probable variation in analytical methods, geographic location, and cultivation practices, casting doubt on data quality; 2) extensive health claims made in the article are unfounded speculations from in vitro and animal studies.

Further, the article title introduced as "Nutritional Value and Therapeutic Benefits" is based on no evidence that pitaya has either of these effects. The review was seemingly written to support adoption of a pitaya growing industry in Australia.

The report states that pitaya possesses "antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anti-cancer, and anti-microbial properties", none of which are reported by or supported in mainstream science, failing WP:MEDRS. It is not a good source for the article. Zefr (talk) 01:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look at this more carefully. My original thought had been that the section on the difficulties of off-season production given Vietnamese domination of the market might be of interest, but uncollapsing the nutrition section and seeing it entirely unsourced (due to the mistaken placement of the table), I thought I'd add the article here. I believe you are correct that there is some heavy advocacy going on with this source (it is also said to be a potential miracle treatment for Covid-19 and diabetes). Now that the table has been moved to the correct section, the nutrition section no longer appears to be unsourced on mobile. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Nutrition discussion, 8 October

Concerning Special:Diff/1315829734:

1. FoodData Central supplying the USDA nutrient data for raw pitaya is the most reliable source for nutrient content. No other source provides analyses across nutrients, and updates the analysis regularly.
2. the diff statement about further research doesn't add useful encyclopedic information, so was reverted in the following edit.
3. 5% of vitamin C for the Daily Value (only 4 mg in a 100 g reference amount) is a low, negligible intake level. Raw pitaya is a significant source only of water and carbohydrates (sugars).
4. the MDPI source added in the diff edit is unreliable; the journal, Molecules, is among many MDPI publications suspected of predatory publishing. Best to avoid such sources; a more rigorous choice for publication, such as a food science or analytical journal, could have been chosen.
5. at the end of the nutrition section, user SashiRolls added the comment "See table in previous section" - on my 3 screens, the table is adjacent (not in a previous section) to the nutrition paragraph. Zefr (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

   I have fixed it for mobile users, for whom the "uses" section where the info was misplaced is collapsed by default. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:41, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Please also review "Biochemical and nutritional characterization of dragon fruit (Hylocereus species)" from the bibliography of the literature review you deleted rather than simply reverting, given that there is a banner requesting further sourcing. Thank you. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 23:46, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

The full article in Food Chemistry shows a compositional analysis intended to compare different species for orchard planning in India.

However, the report

• makes misleading claims about the levels of micronutrients, like for iron and potassium (both with low contents, but claimed to be "rich"),
• states that pitaya is "one of the ‘superfoods’ due to its nutrient richness" (it's nutrient-poor on a per 100 g basis, as shown in the nutrition table),
• makes unsubstantiated claims that pitaya can "help control chronic illnesses"... and be used in the diet for "weight loss treatment, control of diabetes, lowering the cholesterol level" (all false and misleading)
• states that pitaya provides health benefits of ingested polyphenols - often claimed to be biological antioxidants - for which there is no good in vivo evidence.

This source has no value for the article's discussion of nutrition. Its discussion is highly misleading about supposed, unproven health-promoting properties.

The "additional citations" banner was added in Special:Diff/1307257020 over the dispute about the article name (discussion above), not about nutrition. The article is rightly called Pitaya, and the banner should be removed. Zefr (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at this article in a WP:MEDRS source which did not seem very good at all from the abstract. I do believe this entry could be improved with additional sources. You mentioned mainstream articles. Please feel free to add those that you know about, especially those talking about import/export data. Best, -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 14:26, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

The "mainstream science" I was referring to in yesterday's discussion doesn't exist to support pitaya as a fruit one should eat to prevent diseases.

My point was that the Molecules source claiming that pitaya has "antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anti-cancer, and anti-microbial properties" isn't supported in the literature, and therefore is unusable in the article by WP:MEDRS disqualification.

Regarding your finding the Molecules report via a PubMed search, this simple explanation emphasizes that PubMed is only a search service, and that publications it retrieves in a search are not published by or endorsed by the US National Library of Medicine.

About PubMed and PubMed FAQs and how to use it. Zefr (talk) 17:33, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2026

~2026-12715-24 (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

dragon fruit not pitaya

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. meamemg (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Please see the previous discussion at Talk:Pitaya#Dragon fruit name higher up on this page. There was no consensus established in that discussion to change the article name. Donald Albury 19:29, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2026

This article is about pitahaya and not about pitaya that only grows in Mexico and looks different. Delete the reference to pitaya. Add that pitaya is a different fruit. This wrong post even confused the AI. ~2026-19582-73 (talk) 23:59, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want made. InfernoHues (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Edit request

Several sources (including BMC Plant Biology (2026), Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, and World Flora Online) list Selenicereus costaricensis as native to Nicaragua. Could this be reflected in the species-level description in the Varieties section? MosstlyMe (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Pitaya, name change and specificity.

Hello, I understand this has already been mentioned before, but I would like to suggest that the English wikipedia does what the spanish does. In the Spanish Wikipedia, this is split into two articles. Pitaya: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitaya, which is for fruits that are Stenocereus, and Pitahaya: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitahaya which is for Selenicereus fruits. As mentioned earlier, google shows more search results for dragon fruit, than for both indigenous terms, but Dragon fruit is a fuzzy definition.

My proposal is, we make this article for the broad range of pitaya fruits (Stenocereus), and we make a new article like the Pitahaya one(Selenicereus), but labeled dragon fruit.

Dragon Fruit is mostly a specific type of Selenicereus fruit, Selenicereus undatus, but can also be other pitahaya. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selenicereus_undatus In grocery chains across the US, when you search Dragon Fruit, this is what comes up. Example: https://www.walmart.com/search?q=dragon+fruit Walmart shows mainly Selenicereus undatus, with another yellow selenicereus fruit coming up later. Same thing with Kroger, https://www.kroger.com/search?query=dragon%20fruit&searchType=default_search with both Selenicereus fruit. On the contrary, in the US, it's a lot harder to find pitaya. To find pitaya roja, I had to go to a specific Mexican area in Chicago to get it. I understand this is more personal experience for pitaya, and a lot of this is US centric, but the main point is that Selenicereus is what should be classified as Dragon fruits, and the articles should be split like in the Spanish Wikipedia. This will help be more clear and distinguish the difference better. Thank you, signing out: PizzaHamburgerGuy (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok, to make this less US Centric, I checked TESCO, a UK supermarket as well. https://www.tesco.com/shop/en-GB/search?query=dragon+fruit&inputType=free+text Although most of their dragon fruit products are frozen, their dragon fruit is the pink Selenicereus type. PizzaHamburgerGuy (talk) 04:50, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

@PizzaHamburgerGuy: The article is certainly confused, and botanically a split between Selenicereus fruits and Stenocereus fruits makes sense. The problem is that English language sources are hopelessly confused, with pitaya, pitahaya and dragon fruit regularly not consistently distinguished (e.g. here or here). I think there are too many contrary sources to make "dragon fruit" = Selenicereus and "pitaya" = Stenocereus plausible. So it's not clear to me what titles could be used to distinguish the two kinds of fruit, other than the botanical "Selenicereus fruit" and "Stenocereus fruit", which meet WP:PRECISE but not the other criteria of WP:AT. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:34, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I would argue the English sources are confused because of the Spanish definition of the fruit. In Spanish, Pitaya is often used for Pitahaya and Dragon fruit as well.

It's like how in the US, people say possum instead of oposssum. Opossum is correct, possum is easier to say.

In the sources you gave, they point to the Spanish ambiguity. For example, your https://mexicanfoodjournal.com says "In Spanish, dragon fruit is called the pitaya or pitahaya." Since it's referring to the Spanish definition, we should follow Spanish wikipedia's split as well. Not only that, the fruit it calls a dragon fruit is a Selenicereus, as shown in the images. This goes to show how in English common use, Dragon fruit refers to mainly Selenicereus fruits.

In your other article, https://recetasmexas.com/en-us/guide/pitahaya, it also distinguishes between the two, where:

"In Mexico they are usually distinguished as: 'pitahaya' (Hylocereus) grows on tropical climbing cacti with fruits of smooth skin with scales; the 'pitaya' (Stenocereus) grows on columnar cacti of central-northern Mexico ... Larousse Cocina treats them as different species, although both terms are sometimes used interchangeably in markets."

This article is mainly talking about the Hylocereus fruit, which was moved to Selenicereus. This is what is referred to as pitahaya, and referred to as a Dragon fruit in the article.

Furthermore, when you look up "pitaya vs pitahaya", you can find multiple English language sources talking about how pitaya is Stenocereus, and pitahaya is Selenicereus. https://www.johnvenaproduce.com/blog/whats-the-difference-between-dragon-fruit-and-pitaya/ and https://mysliceofmexico.ca/2018/07/23/pitaya-and-pitahaya/ are two english sources that talk about how pitaya and pitahaya are different fruits, and even the Mexican government here: https://www.gob.mx/agricultura%7Cdgsiap/es/articulos/pitaya-y-pitahaya-no-son-lo-mismo-pero-son-igual says in Spanish that they are different.

Because English sources when using indigenous terms usually go off the Spanish definition, that's why I am proposing we split the article. Then, whenever Dragon Fruit is referenced, most sources are pointing to what in Spanish is a pitahaya, or Selenicereus fruit. PizzaHamburgerGuy (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@PizzaHamburgerGuy: Please don't get me wrong: I completely agree that there are clearly two concepts involved, and that two articles would be better. But we have to use the guidance at WP:AT to provide titles for each article – and it's only the titles that concern me, not the content. If I understand you correctly, you propose "Dragon fruit" for Selenicereus fruit and "Pitaya" for Stenocereus fruit. If so, it needs to be shown that these titles really do meet the requirements of WP:AT. The interesting Mexican government webpage you found can be read as showing that the terms "pitaya" and "pitahaya" should be distinguished but actually aren't, which makes the former at least somewhat problematic as an article title. But maybe these two titles are good enough. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:42, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Addendum: what about "Dragon fruit" for Selenicereus fruit and "Mexican pitaya" for Stenocereus fruit? Although the latter is a less common term, it does seem to be more precise. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I like Dragon Fruit for Selenicereus fruit, but both fruits are Mexican (and central american), so Mexican Pitaya would still be unclear. Would Pitaya (Stenocereus) work? If there's some other way to make clear what fruit we're referring to, then that would work. Then, we could have a pitaya disambiguation page where if someone's looking for dragon fruit, or other pitaya fruits. Then, we can have a hatnote on the Stenocereus page saying "Another fruit sometimes/often called Pitaya is Dragon Fruit", with a link. PizzaHamburgerGuy (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

^{(stalking discussion)} I agree with the article titles "Pitaya (Stenocereus)" per and "Dragon fruit" for Selenicereus (sentence-case), but that would mean that it would need to be placed in the disambiguation page AND we'd have to change the disambiguation page entirely (it refers to Pitaya as dragon fruit). I would rock hard with a simple hatnote though, like:

This article is about the Selenicereus fruit. For Stenocereus, see Pitaya (Stenocereus).

Comment: If this proposal gets accepted, who's gonna write/draft the new article(s) and find new sources? I kinda suck with sources, but I can help with tightening the prose and non-source thingys. ★ Campssitie (msg) (in solidarity, #943) 🧋🏖 03:49, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I can translate from the Spanish Article for Pitaya (Stenocereus). For Dragon Fruit, we can keep some parts of this article, and I can translate from the Spanish Article for Pitahaya. The disambiguation page you linked is for Pitahaya, which we could change the link from this article to the Dragon Fruit article. PizzaHamburgerGuy (talk) 11:42, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, that can work, but lets hear from @Peter on this too. Need all the WP:CONSENSUS we've got, and another opinion generally. ★ Campssitie (msg) (in solidarity, #943) 🧋🏖 14:46, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm content with "Pitaya (Stenocereus)" (which can be stylized as "Pitaya (Stenocereus)"). Peter coxhead (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

 Courtesy draft link: Draft:Pitaya (Stenocereus)

The Stenocereus draft is being (mostly) translated from the Spanish Wikipedia, but needs more sources to add onto right now.★ Campssitie (msg) (in solidarity, #943) 🧋🏖 06:42, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Just a note that Stenocereus lists four species with "pitaya" or "pitayo" in a common name: S. fricii, "Pitayo de Aquas"; S. gummosus, "Sour pitaya, pitaya agria"; S. martinezii, "Pitahayo, Pitayo"; and S. standlayii, "Pitaya Marismena". None of the species mentioned in the draft have "pitaya" attributed to them in the Stenocereus article. Donald Albury 18:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

This is true, but the Stenocereus article is also incomplete. For example, S. queretaroensis doesn't have a common name listed. or S. thurberi has a common name of the organ pipe cactus for the actual cactus, but when you click on it's individual article, it talks about how its fruit is locally called Pitaya dulce. I will do more research on this topic. PizzaHamburgerGuy (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Stenocereus needs work. I trying to juggle too many editing projects to take it on, so, good luck! Donald Albury 19:09, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

Oh, and @PizzaHamburgerGuy, I recommend you should be aware of WP:PARAPHRASE. ★ Campssitie (msg) (in solidarity, #943) 🧋🏖 04:26, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! It's good to avoid plagiarism, so I will work on that! PizzaHamburgerGuy (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Draft for Dragon Fruit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dragon_Fruit, in the middle of translating from Spanish Wikipedia, so will get back once it's fully translated! PizzaHamburgerGuy (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Need help with formatting and one section is weird to me. PizzaHamburgerGuy (talk) 04:32, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok, the draft article is about finished for both Pitaya (Stenocereus) and Dragon Fruit. Can we split this article now? If so, how do we do that? PizzaHamburgerGuy (talk) 08:02, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

@PizzaHamburgerGuy: given that this article seemed to be mainly about what will now be the "Dragon fruit" article, I suggest:

• move this article to "Dragon fruit" (note that it should be lowercase "f" as per MOS:LIFE), and replace the content with your draft
• start a new article with your draft at "Pitaya (Stenocereus)" (using {{DISPLAYTITLE:Pitaya (''Stenocereus'')}} to italicize the genus name)

It then needs {{Split article}} on the talk pages. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Ok, so I couldn't move the article to Dragon fruit because of the redirect having too many edits, so I put a request to move it on WP:RMTR, (request to move, technical requests. Once the article is moved, I will put my dragon fruit draft on it.

I started a new article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitaya_(Stenocereus), and on the talk page there, it has split article. I am putting the template on this page as well. PizzaHamburgerGuy (talk) 04:45, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I could probably use some technical help with splitting things. I have the template on the new page but not this one because I am unsure on how to do that. PizzaHamburgerGuy (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

I added it to the other article. I also moved Draft:Dragon Fruit to Draft:Dragon fruit. (probably not needed) ★ Campssitie (msg) (in solidarity, #943) 🧋🏖 13:04, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Bad news, the person on RMTR said it was too controversial and to move it I would need to put a formal request to move on the talk page. I will do this later. PizzaHamburgerGuy (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 23 June 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Nominator demonstrates Dragon fruit is the WP:COMMONNAME. Consensus also supports the change. (closed by non-admin page mover) Fortek67 (talk) 14:55, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

---

Pitaya → Dragon fruit – I understand this has been a recurring proposal for this article, but I think this article should be moved to Dragon Fruit. This article mainly refers to two genuses of fruit, Stenocereus, and Selenicereus. The more common fruit, Selenicereus is mentioned more in the article than Stenocereus is. This is shown with the photos in the article, and the cultivation section. This article should be split into two, Dragon fruit, and Pitaya (Stenocereus). The current name, Pitaya is imprecise (WP:PRECISE) and we could be more specific by distinguishing between the two articles.

The name Dragon Fruit is the most common name for Selenicereus fruits, as shown by Google Trends, https://trends.google.com/explore?q=dragon%2520fruit%2Cpitaya%2Cpitahaya&date=today%201-y&geo=Worldwide. Furthermore, most grocery stores use Dragon Fruit to refer to Selenicereus fruits, like Walmart, Kroger, and Tesco. https://www.walmart.com/search?q=dragon+fruit https://www.kroger.com/search?query=dragon%20fruit&searchType=default_search https://www.tesco.com/shop/en-GB/search?query=dragon+fruit&inputType=free+text. For Selenicereus fruits, the most common name is Dragon fruit, and since this article is mainly about them, it should be renamed to Dragon fruit. Pitaya is an alternative name sometimes used, but it is ambiguous with Stenocereus fruits, and not the most common name for Selenicereus fruits anyways.

This article also briefly mentions Stenocereus fruits as pitaya. These fruits are more often called pitaya, but that word is ambiguous. However, Wikipedia can distinguish between the two with Pitaya (Stenocereus), with this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitaya_(Stenocereus).

My proposal is we have Pitaya as a disambiguation page, Dragon Fruit for varieties of Selenicereus fruits, and Pitaya (Stenocereus) for Stenocereus fruits.

Thank you for your time. Sincerely, PizzaHamburgerGuy (talk) 00:30, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

• Let me Support per WP:COMMONNAME. (and MOS:LIFE?) It seems the name "dragon fruit" is more popular than "pitaya".

I can argue this article is not properly distinguishing Stenocereus and Selenicereus as a result of contrary sources. Even the term pitaya/pitahaya appears to fail WP:PRECISE, since it appears to be interchangeable with both the Steno. and Selen. varieties and generally ambiguous. The term "Dragon fruit" usually refers to the Selen. variety, and the article mainly talks about Selenicereus, so it should be referred to its most common name.

Therefore, it would benefit from the main article being renamed to "Dragon fruit" (or something similar, I don't mind) and the Pitaya (Stenocereus) article distinguishing the genuses apart.

(if my tone sounds blunt and hostile, it is unintentional, sorry!)

★ Campssitie (msg) (in solidarity, #943) 🧋🏖 07:06, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Sorry @Peter coxhead:, this request to move hasn't had many responses, and you were active earlier on the article, so I wanted to get your input. PizzaHamburgerGuy (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@PizzaHamburgerGuy: I think there's enough support to split the article into "Dragon fruit" and "Pitaya (Stenocereus)" for the two kinds of fruit. Titles can always be adjusted later; splitting is the important step. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried to change the name of this article to Dragon fruit, but it wouldn't let me because the redirect Dragon fruit had too many edits. From there, I went to Uncontroversial Technical Requests to move, but the person there denied me, saying I need to make an official Request To Move on the talk page of this article, so that's why I did this. Sorry about that! PizzaHamburgerGuy (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Sigh... There's quite enough discussion and consensus here. We just need some uninvolved editor to close the discussion and it can be moved (via swap). Peter coxhead (talk) 06:54, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

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.

Merge of Draft:Dragon fruit here

Seems good, I wonder if the attribution box on Draft talk:Dragon fruit should be copied here? All the best: Rich Farmbrough 14:19, 25 September 2026 (UTC).