Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconPlants Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Improvements I[edit]

I have recently noted several problems regarding this genus article. It would be very interesting to hear some opinions about some of the issues below. I plan to introduce corrections for them in the short term, so insights are more than welcomed.

-The contents are not well structured; article lacks sections or subtitles. Moreover,

-there is an excess of information related to some usages a)timber trade in USA, b)medicinal. That information should be abridged; even if we may be tempted to include it since pharmacological features have been rediscovered lately. Anyhow this is not a pharmacology article, such in depth info must be avoided.

-Since there is no such thing as a "national genus" tagging Tabebuia as Venezuelan National Tree is a gross mistake. Such thing would mean the national tree could be any specie within a genus, even those nor native nor existing in the given country! That is quite absurd.

-In my opinion, the Lapacho article should be merged either to Tabebuia genus or one or several of its species. Excepting the case it does relate to lapacho (infusion); as used in Coffee (beverage) - Coffea (genus). Abestrobi 22:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Taxonomy follows Gentry (1980) Flora Neotropica - Bignoniaceae Part II Guettarda 17:07, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Species and lapacho[edit]

I have a box of Tabebuia Impetiginosa purchased from a Chinese medicinal shop and labeled as "Lapacho". So name "lapacho" seems to be applied to more than one species.

-- Don't believe everything you read on the label: are you sure this shop got its facts right?

Also, from the side of the box is the following information;

Based on the reports of analysis conducted at the U.P. Natural Science Research Institute and the Merck Index, LMM Lapacho Herbal Tea chontains ; Lapachol 40.0 mg/g

-- 22:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

two compounds from Tabebuia impetiginosa show anti-inflammatory activity

Antioxidant activity and characterization of volatile constituents of Taheebo (Tabebuia impetiginosa Martius ex DC).


Constituents from the bark of Tabebuia impetiginosa.]

Selective growth-inhibiting effects of compounds identified in Tabebuia impetiginosa inner bark on human intestinal bacteria.

This is quite common, and it is one of the problems associated with herbal remedies. Guettarda 02:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

added herbal therapy info[edit]

hi, my name is paul and i added a portion to the text of the 4th paragraph. one thing i couldnt seem to get to work is the internal like for "gelatin Capsule" i think that this is best linked to:

to help the reader understand more about the typical coatings of the pill

also i have "generic" dosage info (pill size, amt. / day... etc.) about the pill form but decided not to include just yet... what do u think?

also i was careful to add the info "in my own" words to avoid copyright junk ill check back here to see what u guys/gals said hopefully i added something of value and in no way intended to vandalize or crap on some one's elses work, heh -pauly 22:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trumpet tree[edit]

The trumpet tree is linked to the Tabebuia article. This is wrong: actually, the trumpet tree is Cecropia peltata, a native american tree, a nice example of pioneer vegetation. See Yagrumo in the Spanish WP. --Fev 03:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taxonomic change[edit]

I revised the article to follow the classification of Grose and Olmstead (2007). This is obvious to anyone who reads the article, or even anyone who reads only the leader. I would like to know why some people keep adding Tabebuia impetiginosa to the species list. 30 species, including T. impetiginosa, have been moved to Handroanthus.

If someone would like to follow a different taxonomy, it should be discussed on the talk page. I followed Grose and Olmstead (2007), because the overwhelming majority of botanists believe that all taxa should be monophyletic. When i revised the article, i expected that there would be hardly any disagreement on this point. That is why i went ahead without discussing it here first.

What else needs to be said? I see no point in repeating here what is clearly explained in the article. (talk) 08:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Taxobox image[edit]

I removed the taxobox image because it was of a species that in all taxonomic treatment since 2007, is placed in Handroanthus. I will leave the replacement of this image to someone with more knowledge than i of markup language and online searching. (talk) 08:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tabebuia. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Medicinal use[edit]

If the wood of this genus is used for medicinal purposes, why is this not mentioned even a single time in the current version of this article? That doesn't seem very encyclopedic! (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What reliable sources are you aware of that support the use of the plant for medicinal purposes? Everything in a Wikipedia article must be verifiable from a reliable source. - Donald Albury 12:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]