Talk:Camellia sinensis

Japanese variety?

I recall reading somewhere that the Japanese green tea is made of a special variety of Camellia Sinensis, something like var Japonica or a similar addition. I will look it up later. --Gabi S. 20:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

This kind? It redirects you to the "Camellia" page but it's on the list. --Moop stick 21:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I looked it up. The Japanese variety is seldom mentioned (for example here), and it is indeed confusing that the Camellia japonica is ornamental and not used for tea. This page says that there is no such thing as an independent Japanese variety, and the erroneously-depicted Camellia sinensis var japonica is actually a subspecies of the Camellia sinensis.

By the way, someone here says that the Cambodian variety is often considered a hybrid of var sinesis and va assamica (only two varieties are listed in the plants classification guide). So the Cambodian variety is also a subspecies, and the article should be corrected accordingly. --Gabi S. 08:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

HK Variety?

This article and the main tea article list four botanical types of the tea plant (china, cambodia, assam, hong kong), but almost everywhere else the number is listed as three (china, cambodia, assam). Yet this article also implies that the HK variety is incorrect or really part of the china variety. If this is true, then HK should not get a full heading, and the number should be listed as "3". As for other varieties *such as japanese), there are apparently hundreds of hybrids, and moreover, just within the china variety there are six main sub-categories and hundreds of individuals types of tea plants.

Caffiene

Does Camellia sinensis have caffiene in it? All of the articles say nothing on this subject or I am just missing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.4.136.120 (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes it does, although only half as much as coffee

Source: the back of my Dilmah teabag. 203.184.3.99 (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The article has been rearranged to accommodating a section of....

Nomenclature and taxonomy. In addition to that, whoever can access to the following articles, please add relevant infos to this article.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=camellia+sinensis+taxonomy&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1 --222.64.16.233 (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1&q=allintitle%3A+camellia+sinensis+classification&btnG=Search --222.64.16.233 (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

According to IPNI (international plant name index) the basionym of this plant is Camellia thea, and not Camellia chinensis (which appears to be a later synonym) Any opinions on this one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.211.171.228 (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

A section of Cultivars....

has been added too, based on the following infos http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=camellia+sinensis+cultivars&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_allsubj=all&hl=en&lr=&newwindow=1 --222.64.16.233 (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There are 480 cultivars listed here, and that is not even nearly an exhaustive list: https://www.worldoftea.org/cultivar-database/ Perhaps this section should be edited to represent that. As it is now, its a little misleading as it implies there are only a few cultivars used globally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.64.25.63 (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, the list of cultivars is anything but extensive or comprehensive. I added just a sentence about there being hundreds of cultivars, citing the above link. But this is a temporary fix. Somebody (maybe I will) should make a more comprehensive list.Waliy Sherpa (talk) 02:01, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Cultivation in UK - history

[cross posted to Tea]
There is a note in Curtis's 4275 (1847) on the attempts to smuggle the plant and seed into England.

Many are the disappointments and delays of Science! It was not till after Tea had been used as a beverage for upwards of a century in England, that the shrub which produces it was brought alive to this country. More than one botanist had embarked for the voyage to China,–till lately a protracted and formidable undertaking,–mainly in the hope of introducing a growing Tea-tree in our Greenhouses. No passage across the Desert, no Waghorn-facilities, no steam-ship, assisted the traveller in those days. The distance to and from China, with the necessary time spent in that country, generally consumed nearly three years! Once had the Tea-tree been procured by Osbeck, pupil of Linnaeus, in spite of the jealous care with which the Chinese forbade its exportation; and, when near the coast of England, a storm ensued, which destroyed the precious shrubs. Then, the plan of obtaining berries was adopted, and frustrated by the heat of the tropics, which spoiled the oily seeds and prevented their germination. The Captain of a Swedish vessel hit upon a good scheme; having secured fresh berries, he sowed these on board ship, and often stinted himself of his daily allowance of water, for the sake of the young plants; but just as the ship entered the channel, an unlucky rat attacked his cherished charge and devoured them all! ... the facilities of communicating with foreign countries are very different now from what they were in the days of Linnæus and of the first importation of the Tea-Shrub!

I see several facts that could be included, if someone elects to improve the article they might be able to verify these with other sources. cygnis insignis 10:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Both tea and coffee are crops requiring high man hours to harvest. Tea leaves also need drying and close inspection for a day or so. By necessity both must be grown commercially in third-world countries.210.185.75.105 (talk) 09:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Very Primitive Article

For example, which varieties have red flowers? Which can be grown in containers? How are they cultivated?

Nothing on the opium-tea trade. (By the way, there is no such thing as a "native" variety of Assamese tea, all come from China which forbade the export of the plants and seeds, the major cause of the so-called "Opium War" -- The Chinese used its tea monopoly to drain the world of silver, but refused to buy anything but opium. After they addicted the British to tea, Chinese officials destroyed the opium, forcing the British to fight or drink coffee. They fought.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.71.197 (talk) 04:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

POV nonsense

Many high quality teas are grown at high elevations, up to 1500 meters (5,000 ft), as the plants grow more slowly and acquire a better flavour.

Because of the specific growing conditions Darjeeling tea is considered by tea lovers[which?] to be the finest of the Indian teas.

This POV rubbish unsupported by citations. Darjeeling and Assam are very different teas. They are different varieties, grown in different parts of India, at very different elevations. These differences produce very different results. Some people prefer Darjeeling but this tea-lover prefers Assam, I doubt I am alone.

When I saw this first I went about editing it, but I didn't see an easy way to make it a NPOV whilst retaining the information about Darjeeling. If anyone else would like to try, I encourage you. Otherwise I'll come back later after a few more cups of Assam and my brain in gear!

At any rate I just wanted it noted that this not just a fact missing a citation but an opinion that can never have one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meltyman ( talk • contribs) 11:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've been getting the Swedish Wikipedia up to speed on a lot of tea articles. I find this information to be quite valuable, yet hard to find good sources for. I suggest doing as I have on the Swedish Wiki, and instead of citing crude sources (which most people never check) luring readers into not questioning what's written I would write the above as following.

"Many high quality teas are grown at high elevations, up to 1500 meters (5,000 ft), this is believed by many to make the plants grow more slowly and thus acquire a better flavour."

"Because of the specific growing conditions Darjeeling tea is considered by many tea lovers to be the finest of the Indian teas."

I realise this is just adding weasel words to the article, but as most of this is speculative "tea lore" shared between tea lovers (and relevant to people wanting to know more about tea), I think it's better than the alternatives 1) adding non-credible sources just for the sake of adding sources; 2) Leaving it as is; 3) Removing it.

I can see that this has now been removed, I suggest adding it again. *oolong sip oolong sip* --Kaminix (talk) 21:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The proposed solution is not better, because we do not know if ðese opinions are held by many or by a few…

— 189.61.24.117 (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You can change any subjective superlative (e.g. better, finer or tastier) to different and everyone can agree.

Binomial name authority and history

Would it not be ðe case ðat Linnæus named it Þea sinensis, and Kuntze shifted it to ðe Camellia genus? Ðe story given at Camellia siensis#Nomenclature and taxonomy does not seem consistent wiþ ðe auþority given in ðe name of Camellia sinensis (L.) Kuntze, which seems to imply Linnæus first named it someþing oðer ðan Camellia. Or did I read it wrong?
— 189.61.24.117 (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Boston Cooking School Cook Book, 1896, Pages 36 and 37

The tea plant is referred to as Thea, not Camellia, in the book: "All tea is grown from one species of shrub, Thea, the leaves of which constitute the tea of commerce. ... First-quality tea is made from young, whole leaves. Two kinds of tea are considered:- Black tea, made from leaves which have been allowed to ferment before curing. Green tea, made from unfermented leaves artificially colored." 198.151.130.37 (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Possible error in chemical structure pictures

IS the picture for Epicatechin gallate incorrect? please check, i suspect it is

It looks correct to me. What do you think is wrong with it? -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The top right ring has 3 double bonds whereas there is 2 in the top right ring of -Epicatechin

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Camellia sinensis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060821182008/http://www.uniklinik-saarland.de:80/med_fak/physiol2/camellia/register/species/spec_rs.htm to http://www.uniklinik-saarland.de/med_fak/physiol2/camellia/register/species/spec_rs.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:02, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Misleading comma

In this sentence, in the cultivation section, "Two principal varieties are used, the small-leaved Chinese variety plant (C. sinensis sinensis) and the large-leaved Assamese plant (C. sinensis assamica), used mainly for black tea" the comma makes it a bit hard to tell if both varieties are used for black tea or just the second one. (there is no tilde on my keyboard!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.145.193.135 (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Camellia sinensis. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20041118023414/http://sun.ars-grin.gov:8080/npgspub/xsql/duke/plantdisp.xsql?taxon=198 to http://sun.ars-grin.gov:8080/npgspub/xsql/duke/plantdisp.xsql?taxon=198

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 18:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Needs more botanical information

While Camellia Sinensis is obviously most important for its use in producing tea this page really needs more botanical information. Especially about the growth (size etc.) of the plant when it is NOT being cultivated for tea (or is 'wild' cultivated as in some pu-erh production where the tea is harvested from trees which are not pruned and are grown mixed with other plants in a semi-natural state). For example, the article says that the tree is usually pruned to about 2m for ease of picking, but not what height they would reach if they were not pruned. Please someone with better information on this add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.234.119 (talk) 02:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Camellia sinensis

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Camellia sinensis's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Sen":

• From Tea: Colleen Taylor Sen (2004). Food Culture in India. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-313-32487-1. Ironically, it was the British who introduced tea drinking to India, initially to anglicized Indians. Tea did not become a mass drink there until the 1950s when the India Tea Board, faced with a surplus of low-grade tea, launched an advertising campaign to popularize it in the north, where the drink of choice was milk.
• From History of tea: Colleen Taylor Sen (2004). Food Culture in India. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-313-32487-1.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

green tea plants

I wanna know about green tea plants 103.121.225.53 (talk) 05:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Tea crop

None 103.147.208.49 (talk) 14:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)