This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Food and drink High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles 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.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: edit history watch purge To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the ((WikiProject Food and drink)) project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages. Plants High‑importance This 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.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The source listed for the statement of calories, carbs, and protein doesn't make sense. The original source claims 0.19g of fat, 1.88g of protein and 3.9g of carbs. Given carbs and protein are 4 cal/g, and fat is 9 cal/g this should be 25 calories, not the 20 calories they claim. The source is inconsistent.

In Dutch and German this vegetable is called Romanesco and also in French Chou romanesco, and it is said that its origin is in the neighbourhood of Rome, Italy. Only on the english wiki it is said that it is originating from Holland, which seems to be not true then.

Many sources (although all cited are english language) recognise broccoflower as being of Dutch origin, while non record an origin or even a passing comment of origin in Rome or elsewhere. Broccoli Romanesco on the otherhand does show evidence of roots in "Northern Italy" rather than Rome, but this could just be an anomaly owing to the fact its exact origins are somewhat unclear. Xyhfna 22:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the seed company Runåbergs' page about this seed, Broccolo Romanesco has been grown in northern Italy for hundreds of years. The name of this vegetable also implies Italian origins. Hnorbeck 07:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article states that broccoflower is a cross between broccoli and cauliflower, but other sources on the net states otherwise [1]. This need to be checked and fixed.

--nct 16:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does it state that it is a cross, it also states that it isn't. It seems to me that when it's stating that it is a cross, the intent is, perhaps, that the name is the result of a cross between the other two names, but the vegetable itself is not. Even if that is not the case, the article needs to be cleaned up as it contradicts itself.

Jbramley 11:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article also claims that it's chartreuse in colour, but shows a photo of a clearly intense green, not particularly yellowy looking specimen. Is this a case of a badly colour-adjusted photo or an inaccurate description?

Regarding the cross/not cross, the page on Cauliflower indicates that broccoflower is, in fact, a hybrid between the two. However, this is another Wikipedia article and cannot be used as an absolute reference. 69.181.120.218 20:56, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After some investigation, I'm wondering -- is it possible that there are two sources of the word broccoflower? I found [2] which indicates that Broccoflower® is a registered trademark of Tanimura &amp Antle™, sold as a green cauliflower.

Therefore, is it possible that there are two things called broccoflower, one a hybrid and the other a brand of green cauliflower? Additionally, a google image search turns up what appear to be at least two very different looking things: [3]69.181.120.218 21:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further investigation shows that there are indeed two very distinct forms of Broccoflower which would appear to be of different origins. One shows distinctive nodular conic protrusions from the fractal head, the other resembles the traditional caulifower in all but colour. It is unclear if the term broccoflower is a brandname outside of the United States (although a registered trademark does exist within the US); instances of the same vegetable (the one resembling a cauliflower) appear under the name but are not produced by Tanimura & Antle™. Two distinct cultivars are available "Broccoli Romanesco"[4] and "Cauliflower Verdant"[5], both of which would appear to be natural variations of the species both of which produce various shapes, sizes and colours (including red, purple, green, yellow and white). Xyhfna 22:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.fourmilab.ch/images/Romanesco/ is possibly useful as disambiguation information, although "original source" for this information is still unknown. Xyhfna 23:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the apparent contradiction by rewording the article and has also removed the need for one of the citations. The article should now conform to the Wikipedia:NPOV, this dosen't get us any closer to the classification of this unusual vegetable (the Broccoflower). It is becoming clear that the two "Broccoflowers" should be separated as for one, the "Broccoli Romanesco", it is simply a common misnomer. Xyhfna 16:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The picture illustrating the article is not of Broccolo Romanesco, but rather a green type of cauliflower, which is also common in Italy, e.g. something like this type. As for the colour of Broccolo romanesco, there are several different cultivars, some of them are light green, others are yellow-green. The article says "If left growing, the plant will actually turn white like the commonly known cauliflower", which is totally wrong. I've grown Broccolo Romanesco in my garden for a number of years, and they never turn white. If left growing, they develop into yellow flowers instead. One colour phenomenon though is that the heads may turn purplish if the plants are transplanted into soil which is too cold in spring. I've seen it myself, just need to refind the citation for it. Hnorbeck 07:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Various sites (for example, Fractal Food) I have come across online suggest that plant taxonomists cannot reach an agreement about wether Romanesco belongs to the Broccoli group, or Bortrytis (Cauliflower). I think this article should be edited to reflect this, and perhaps a separate entry on Romanesco (Vegetable) be created.

There are already a couple of other entries: Brocciflower and Romanescu. I added a photo to the former and the latter is a single line - it might be worth building out one or the other. Cowfish 14:47, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am no botanist, but I know contradiction when I read it, and this article contradicts itself within two paragraphs:

There are two cultivars of Brassica oleracea (the cabbage) which commonly share the name Broccoflower. It would appear that they are a result of cross breading broccoli and cauliflower.

...

The claim that the Broccoflower is a cross between brocolli and cauliflower cannot be readily substantiated, and may simply be a misconception; The plant being actually a type of cauliflower.^{[citation needed]}

Needless to say, this is highly unprofessional and unencyclopedic. While controversy about this plant's precise taxonomy may well exist, having the article contradict itself is not the way to make it NPOV.

Someone who actually knows about vegetable taxonomy should straighten this mess out and add cited facts.--NeantHumain 22:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually this is not as contradictory as you suggest.

An "appearance" is just that, i.e. what something looks like, in this case it looks like a cross between a cauliflower and a broccoli - there is no claim that is is or is not the result of such cross breading.
The statement on the other hand owes its origins to a different author, and simply states (without verification) that either, or both, cultivar(s) may really be just an unusual cauliflower.
The issue lies not in the fact someone may misinterpret them as contradictory (as has evidently been the case here), but in the ambiguity of both the language used and the origins of these unusual vegetables.
The article doesn't give any point of view, and merely states the ambiguity of the vegetables origin, therefore surely IS consistent with the NPOV policy.
The bigger concern surely is that the taxonomy section clearly labels it as a hybrid when no agreement on classification has been agreed - this is inconsistent with the NPOV as it shows bias, and this error of judgement can be seen on all the pages that have a direct relation to this page (i.e. all the pages detailing members of Brassica oleracea).
Xyhfna 15:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

just to add fuel to the fire, the article mentions "the same family as" when actually the cauliflower and broccoli are the same species. A family is a superclass of genus, which is a superclass of species. brain 13:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the pages: Brocciflower, Broccoflower, Cauliflower and Broccoli to reflect what I believe is the truth.

Brocciflower is a genetically engineered plant that appeared in the 90's. Broccoflower is a naturally occurring plant whose origins are not known. I do not think there exists two cultivars of a Broccoflower as the article states; this simply arised from confusing the natural plant resembling broccoli and cauliflower with the actual human-made cross bread. The term "Romanesco" is a synonym for the unique Broccoflower varient and cannot be realated to the human-made corss bread. XApple 00:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be some sort of wide cross but no genetic engineering was involved Nil Einne 12:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brocciflower is a misspelling that appeared in a publication^[1] about biotechnology. That article contains a mistaken description of the origin of Broccoflower.Phytism 21:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did some changes in this article before reading this discussion. Sorry! I do broccoli taxonomy for a living, so I could sort out some things that were inaccurate. On reading the comments, I think I helped in a few spots, and may have trodden on toes elsewhere.

"Brocciflower" fans, please see my comment under that heading.

Phytism 22:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you separate the broccoflower from the romanesco information? If we have a separate article for Romanesco, this page should have no mention of it barring how the two are related. I'm horribly confused by the article, to the point that I can't figure out what goes where. Your expertise would be very useful! WLU 18:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since Romanesco is what people usually mean when they say "broccoflower'" removing discussion of it from the Broccoflower article is tidy, but fails to reflect reality real. In this case, reality is messy. Please put Romanesco back in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phytism (talk • contribs)

I didn't remove any text from the article. It does indeed appear very messy, if you can add information that will clarify it further, we could put it up, or versions of it up, on the broccoli, cauliflower, romanesco broccoli, broccoflower and romanescu pages. If there is one wikipage discussing two 'things', it should really be split up, but if it is a matter of there being two wikipages which many people confuse, the appropriate ((otheruses)) template can be added to the top of the page to make navigation easier. The best thing is to explicitly clear up the confusion, but I am too ignorant to do so properly. WLU 15:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to clarify the broccoflower/romanesco broccoli as best I understand, please let me know or just correct any mistakes I've made. WLU 16:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've cleaned up the articles on broccoli, cauliflower, broccoflower, brocciflower, and romanesco broccoli to have consistent and accurate information. I've tried to reduce duplication and provide wikilinks instead. It is confusing because there are cauliflowers that are called some kind of broccoli and vice versa, plus two kinds of "broccoflower"! I hope the text is clear on these points. Brocciflower can be replaced with a redirect.

Phytism 22:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still confused by this article. I have a question on the first reference cited, Malatesta 1994, as I can see the abstract but not the full article: does it use the term "broccoflower," and say explicitly that both cultivars are properly called broccoflowers? I was under the impression Broccoflower was only a brand name, marketed in the US in 1990, of a green cauliflower. Also, what are the two cultivars the sentence is referring to? I've seen Alverda, Brocoverde, and Broccoflower itself suggested.

The Malatesta 1994 article's abstract makes reference to the EEC's Common Catalogue for Vegetables, which I think refers to what is now called the Common Catalogue of Varieties of Vegetable Species. I checked that online, and it doesn't seem to mention common or allowable marketing names. It does list the "Alverda" cultivars of Brassica oleraceae L., Botrytis group, but it just calls members of botrytis "cauliflowers" as a whole, with no common names beneath that, other than the cultivars name. (I think the USDA calls the botrytis group "broccolis" at that level, and calls italica "sprouting broccolis", so that doesn't mean much.) It didn't list a Broccoflower cultivar. The International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (http://www.ishs.org/icra/index.htm) seems like a promising source if you're an ISHS member. (I'm not.)

The part I find most confusing, I'll condense to these two sentences: "The romanesco broccoli is a sub-species of B. oleracea, often confused or erroneously referred to as broccoflower" and "The second form is Romanesco broccoli, which is characterised by the striking and unusual fractal patterns of its flower head." Does that mean that Romanesco is a type of broccoflower, or that it's referred to as a broccoflower, but actually isn't a broccoflower? If it's not a broccoflower, I think that area should be removed; the opening paragraph's explanation seems clear enough. The image of "broccoflower" in the upper right seems to be of Romanesco broccoli, and would also need changing. If it is one of two cultivars of broccoflower, the opening paragraph could use clarification.

One last point of confusion: the paragraph on cross-breeding says "Broccoli and cauliflower are closely related and fully cross compatible," and makes other uncontroversial statements. There was certainly a perception, and are plenty of articles, which describe it as a recent hybrid between varieties (botrytis and italica), as if T&A did crossbreeding. Do you know if it was or wasn't the result of modern crossbreeding? -Agyle 12:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is lots of opportunity for confusion on this topic. One thing that may help is that "broccoflower" is a word that was made up recently and applied to a couple of different things. It does not fit in any official hierarchy (ISHS, UPOV, etc.)

I'll go over a couple of basic concepts here that are probably clear to you. First, there are two meanings for the word "variety". First is the botanical variety (aka subspecies), e.g. Brassica olercea var. italica, then there is the cultivated variety (aka cultivar), e.g. 'Marathon' broccoli. The Wiki convention seems to be to use the words "subspecies" and "cultivar", and that is an excellent idea for any discussion of Brassica oleracea.

Broccoli and cauliflower have been crossed many times in the course of breeding modern cultivars. What you buy in the store as broccoli has some cauliflower parentage. Green cauliflower has some broccoli parentage. Because of this complex genetic history, Brassica oleracea is organized into "Cultivar Groups," a separate hierarchy that has the philosophy, if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. That is, if it is labelled broccoli in the store, it's broccoli.

The same idea really applies to broccoflower. If they are labelled (or referred to as) broccoflower in the store, that makes them broccoflowers (unless you do it in the US and T&A sues you for trademark infringement). I think Romanesco is becoming a cultivar group, and I think colored cauliflower in general will either become accepted variants within the cauliflower cultivar group, or one of their own, or, each color individually. We'll see how that goes. The process is about as structured as Wikipedia!

Because most modern varieties have a complex genetic background, far from exclusively B. oleracea var. italica, it seems inappropriate to make a big deal about a "hybrid" origin for a particular cultivar.

The two phenotypes called broccoflower are novelties that don't fit easily into the traditional market classes. I've chosen to use the word "form," essentially English for phenotype, to identify them. There are many genotypes in each form, and new ones appearing every couple of years. My hope is that the use of this simple word that does not imply genetics or classification will reduce the confusion.

For each of the two broccoflower forms, I've listed a couple of cultivar names as examples. Broccoflower itself is not a cultivar name.

The sentence, "The romanesco broccoli is a sub-species of B. oleracea, often confused or erroneously referred to as broccoflower" is wrong, and I changed it.

I hope that helps somewhat.

Phytism 21:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever copied information from this webpage, it is a copyright violation and can result in the page being deleted if severe enough. Please re-word and cite information from outside sources. WLU 15:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This website, though not fitting our RS guidelines completely, seems to have enough info to be worth adding to the page as a reference. WLU 17:08, 15 August 2007 (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) 21:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]