Talk:Salvia hispanica

Salvia hispanica L

Why? Salvia hispanica L (Salba) is NOT the same as chia which is Salvia columbariae?? Now there is no page for the discussion and information about Salba. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.52.51.147 (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

"Salba" is just a brand of Salvia hispanica, like many other brands ("Cheela," "Sachia," "Anutra," "Chia Sage," "Tresalbio," "Purisalv," and "Mila"). Read the article. First Light (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

No Merge. Salvia hispanica L is a redundant stub and should be deleted.

Eh, I'll just redirect it and its twin then. Redirects are cheap! Melchoir 22:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

sorry for the confusion, I think we agree and I managed to restore your redirectIstvan 22:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Right! Melchoir 08:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

the picture is wrong.....wrong species of chia....the picture is of the "golden" chia

the picture is of the salvia columbariae

I don't know anything about these plants, but a google search agrees with you. It looks like both S. columbariae and S. hispanica are called "Chia", and the uploader to commons got confused. Compare the current image with this one (S. colubariae) and with the one on [1] (S. hispanica). I will remove the image, and leave a note at its desciption page. Thank you for noticing this! Eugène van der Pijll 18:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Overuse of the word "chia"

Ive removed reference to S. rhyacophila b/c it's not chia. Although oten mis-referenced as "chia", it is not the species described by this article. Salvia columbariae is correctly "golden chia", and there exist many misapplications of "chia" (perhaps because its so easy to type?) among the Salvias - but the correct one is S. hispanica. (ref Ayerza, ITIS database[2]) Istvan 14:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC) Oops -was sure I'd seen two references to it as syn. - but can find no sign of either User:SmithBlue 15:42 Thursday 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You are likely right - there are many places where the different Salvia species are mislabeled - even the USDA's ITIS database gets them mixed up sometimes. Istvan 20:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

reference in article about novel food

The definition for novel food given on its Wikipedia page gives the criteria that the considered species has not been used for food. Why, then, is salvia hispanica up for the nomination? Valerie (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Potential Misleading Interpretations of Evidence

Interesting observation. Evidence was from Wistar rats. Suggest we include that fact from the article in the interpretive sentence (i.e. ...was found to be bioavailable in Wistar rats), and then link to pages that discuss rat digestion and metabolism in contrast to humans, or don't mention it. Also, article does not contrast flax digestion, and no reference has been made to the superiority over flax. Thus it reads like marketing. Sentences in question and reference moved here from the article page. Jethero 15:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Unlike flax, chia does not require grinding before ingestion, as the omega-3 is bioavailable{{ref_label|Ayerza06|4|a}}.

# {{note_label<!--4-->|Ayerza06|4|a}}Ayerza, Ricardo and Coates, Wayne "Effect of dietary a-linolenic fatty acid derived from chia when fed as ground seed, whole seed and oil on lipid content and fatty acid composition", Annals of Nutrition & Metabolism 2007 51:27-34 (2007)

Removed Recently added Book Advertisement not actually referenced in the text

* # {{note_label<!--5-->|Davidson99|5|a}}Davidson, Alan.  Oxford Companion to Food (1999), "Chia". p. 166  ISBN 0-19-211579-0

There are a few diffrent species of Salvia called chia.

It looks like somewhere along the line the 'Chia pet' has mistakenly been assumed to be the cause of the name Chia and thus Salvia hispanica is the only species listed here under chia. The pet was named after the seeds from ONE chia species. Hardyplants 05:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Saliva hispanica is the original "chia", which comes from its Nahuatl name. S. columbariae is called "chia" because it was used in a similar fashion; "golden chia" is simply one way to disambiguate it.--Curtis Clark 13:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Clark thank you for your response, I have seeds of H. hispanica that I can photograph and add to the page, I can also show the seeds after they take in water- they like many species of salvia and other genera develop a thick gelatinous coat that is interesting. I also have seeds for almost 3,000 species of herbaceous plants and have wondered if it would be worth while adding pictures of them to wikipedia, hate to go threw the work and find that they have no use. Hardyplants 19:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Learn before you Burn

Thank you to those people who promote more knowledge. It is sad that some people who admit "I don't know anything about these plants" state something "is a redundant stub and should be deleted." It reminds me of the ignoramus who deleted my Barefoot Deep Tissue Therapy (Massage) article. Maybe 15 years ago these people would have deleted flax seed articles? By the way, conversely from most foods, white chia seeds are said to have higher nutrition than black ones. Psnack 17:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the higher nutritional value of the white chia, would you have a reference? I think its an interesting fact to add to the article if it can be referenced.24.83.178.11 08:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)BeeCier

I am not so sure about white chia seeds having a higher nutritional value, i do not have a direct reference but from studies done in Arizona State with chia seeds dont prove that white chia is more nutritional but if you do have a reference please let us know--Coronado JM 14:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Chia And Sage (Salvia Officialis)

Sage (Salvia Officialis) is used as a spice. AFAIK the seeds are not used. Is the chia plant ever used as a spice in the same way?24.83.178.11 08:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)BeeCier

Chia Pets

"Chia sprouts are sometimes grown on porous clay figurines which has led to the popular (U.S.) cultural icon of the chia pet."

I removed the above quoted statement because, per the manufacturer's website, Chia Pets use S. columbariae rather than S. hispanica (http://www.jeiusa.com/chia_faqs.html).

Also, I believe that both species are sometimes referred to as "Chia seeds." Perhaps this article could provide some disambiguation around that. 67.166.99.72 (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Inasmuch as they say it's in the "watercress family" (watercress is in the Brassicaceae), I don't think their botanical judgment can be trusted. To the best of my knowledge, Salvia columbariae is not grown in commercial quantities, and all the commercially available chia seed is S. hispanica. I suspect because the company is located in San Francisco, they misconstrued the native Californian "chia" as the plant they were using.

There's a disambiguation page at Chia.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

the plant became almost extinct

The text reads : After the arrival of the Spaniards, the plant became almost extinct because of cultural and religious reasons. . Does anyone have a references or further information about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.201.197 (talk) 00:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

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) 01:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Referencing

In thousands of Wikipedia articles, this is the first time I have seen the {{ref_label}} template. I have included some "common" references, but they clearly need to be unified. Which way should we go: ref_label, cite or <ref>?dramatic (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Rationale for including section on Salba

It appears that some users regard any use of the name "Salba" as spam. I don't believe that anything I included in the section on Salba contravenes WP:SPAM, and if individual phrases or facts do, they should be edited rather than removing the entire section.

Salba redirects here. That is how I found this article. I wanted some neutral information on this food that was suddenly being promoted in all our supermarkets and via our letterbox. But there was nothing here, so I researched it. Having Salba redirect here with no specific information on it implies that Salba, chia and Salvia hispanica are synonimous. That is misleading. All Salba is salvia hispanica, but not all salvia hispanica is Salba. Both sides of the debate over whether Salba is any better than generic chia are very clear on that, and the information that Salba is a trade name for specific cultivars must therefore be in the article. Also, 'Salba' is being used as a name, not just a brand. The word 'Chia' isn't being used anywhere. (I found one NZ website promoting Chia - they had given up trying to import the seeds as the NZ agriculture authorities were either heat-treating or destroyng their shipments, being viable seeds). So, whereas "Bonita" is a brand applied to bananas from Equador, it is still used as a brand name in conjunction with 'bananas'. Salba, however, is being used as though it were the only name for the seed in some countries.

Finally, the commercialisation of any plant species is significant. That of a potentitally major "new" food particularly so. Perhaps the best solution would be for Salba to have its own article, cross-linked to this one? dramatic (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"Salba" is a registered trademark [3] for cultivars of S. hispanica; thus "Salba", "chia" and "Salvia hispanica" are indeed synonymous, except that one of the three (Salba) is a trademarked brand, and its use is de facto commercial.

The statement "all Salba is S. hispanica, but not all S. hispanica is Salba" is factually correct, but cannot be used to circumvent WP:SPAM. It's clear when you consider that the statement holds true for ANY brand/article. For example - "all Clark's (trademarked brand) are shoes, but not all shoes are Clark's(TM)" is not reason to include a section in Shoes for Clark's, (...Jimmy Choo's, Hush Puppies, etc. - despite that they are all different, are sold in different places...)

WP:SPAM allows for NPOV description of commercial entities and this is commonly done via redirect, as it is here. A casual reader researching "Salba" will be (correctly) directed to its page "Salvia hispanica". This is proper, i.e. directing from a commercial brand toward its NPOV description; but the reverse, i.e. directing from an NPOV description to a commercial brand, is certainly advertising.

Perhaps a rational solution would be to have a section (or mention) of "white chia", "white Salvia hispanica" or a sentence stating that there are selected white, black or multicolored sources of S. hispanica. István (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think Dramatic's rationale makes sense. There are articles for Coca Cola and Wheaties, and Chiquita Bananas redirects to its parent company, rather than to banana, so perhaps Salba should have an article: "Salba™ is a trademarked white-seeded variety of Salvia hispanica marketed by such-and-such company. It is claimed to have this, that, and the other thing, but studies show that it is not different from other Salvia hispanica seeds with respect to blah, blah, and blah." Certainly Salba should not redirect here unless this article mentions that it is a trademarked variety—otherwise, the encyclopedia might lead a reader to think that Salba was just another common name.--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Istvan, your argument fails to take account for the difference between a brand and a name. What you say about Clark's shoes is certainly true, because Clarks is only a brand. You would never say "put on your Clarks and socks". Crocs might have been a more relevant example, but they are still just Crocs shoes, and one of many brands. But with Salba there is an attempt to rename a substance and make its old name (Chia) disappear or be differentiated. The closest analogy is kiwifruit, which went through the same process 40 years ago: A company (in this case a producer board) responsible for marketing a developing crop created a new registered name to replace the existing name(s) for comemrcial reasons. Setting aside the question of whether the kiwifruit article should actually be at Actinidia deliciosa, by your reasoning that article should only mention the scientific name and 'Chinese gooseberry'. But kiwifruit™ has become the common English name, and Salba™ is likely to do the same in those countries where it has never been available under any other name. Also, it would most likely be wrong to define Salba as "white chia" or"white Salvia hispanica", as there may well be other white cultivars not covered by the trademark, and if not, it is feasible that someone will selectively breed a different white strain in the future. dramatic (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Please consider the above mentioned trademark (brand/name) examples (Coca Cola, Wheaties, Chiquita, Kiwi) are iconic, whereas Salba(TM) is not. "Salba" (brand) appeared in 2004 [4] and has not achieved the same status as the a.m. examples. It is up to the public, not the Wikipedia, to bestow such status.

So, "Salba" is a brand, not a name; and the correct names are "Salvia hispanica" (linnaean) and "Chia" (common).

Dramatic, you are 100% right when you wrote "But with Salba there is an attempt to rename a substance and make its old name (Chia) disappear..." I see it precisely the same. But intentions aside, Chia, not Salba, is the correct common name. The only entity associated with S. hispanica which can be considered culturally iconic (a "name") is Chia Pet and the name "chia" was recorded in the 16th century, and survives today where it is still grown (e.g. in "Chiapas", Mexico).

Promoting a 4-year-old trademark (Salba) on this page is certainly advertising. István (talk) 05:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll say it again: If Salba redirects here, this article must say something about it lest readers think it is just another common name. The only alternatives I see are to delete Salba or to change it from a redirect to an article.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, how about a "Commercial Names" section? A simple list of trademarked names may address these concerns without POV. There are currently several trademarked names being used as proxy to the common name (Salba, Anutra, Tresalbio) and there must surely be more. This removes the confusion a casual reader may have when researching the advertising associated with each of these (and other) trademarks which try to pass for unique (stretching their trademarks into quasi-patents) and WP is doing a service to its readers by pointing out that they are all the same species, while keeping it NPOV (i.e. not promoting one over the others). István (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Perfect! Does your note below somehow preclude this solution?--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, just my frustration at not getting the USPTO page to come up from the links.István (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

PS> now I see that the USPTO trademark search link doesn't function in this context, sorry. The relevant US Trademark registration numbers are: Salba-3071655, Anutra-3301408, and Tresalbio-3354430, all are from different companies, all are S. hispanica, which is also marketed under its common name "chia". István (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the article, I found the info I wanted. While I was reading it I picked out these minor problems: Can you find references for "After the arrival of the Spaniards, the plant became almost extinct because of cultural and religious reasons." and "The species was named hispanica ("of Spain") because Linnaeus described the species from cultivated plants in Spain."? Also the extinction statement is rather vague. With the statement "Chia seeds contain no gluten" I think, while the whole planet has become quite focused on gluten and it's associated problems, saying what a food source does not contain isn't really necessary. You could a include a huge list of what the seeds don't contain. Including it here in a encyclopedic article makes it sound a little like a sales pitch. Cheers jayoval (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

If your gluten intolerant, its good to know what has or does not have gluten and if its marketed as a gluten free product then some small coverage of this topic is OK. Hardyplants (talk) 17:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking strictly as a Wikipedia user, I wanted to know what the grain called 'Salba' was. This was apparent only in a throw-away comment about brands in the article. I had to search elsewhere to learn that it was a particular cultivar of Chia. Wikipedia failed me here. After finding out that it was a cultivar, I wanted to learn how that cultivar differed from others, particularly regarding the nutritional claims made about it. In this respect, Wikipedia failed me completely. So much for encyclopaedic information. I notice that the Wikipedia articles on 'Tomato', and 'Wheat' include information on their cultivars, including commercial varieties. 203.97.214.185 (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Searching Google books and Google scholar, I couldn't find a singly third-party source of information that indicated that Salba is 1. a unique cultivar, or 2. different or better than other cultivars. Searching the web, everything I found was marketing hype, and not encyclopaedic information. If you can find any research by a neutral third-party source that meets Wikipedia's standard of Reliable Sources, please post a link here, and it may be notable enough to add to the article. I have to say I was impressed with the marketing of the company. If I didn't know better, and didn't read between the lines, I would think that they had discovered or developed a new and better cultivar. And don't be fooled - it appears that some studies were done using the Salba brand chia which show health benefits (probably paid for by Salba Inc.). But none that compared Salba brand to other types of Chia. For that, the company charges three times as much per pound for their Salvia hispanica. First Light (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed from article

After the arrival of the Spaniards, like many other animal and plant crops, Chia became almost extinct because of cultural and religious significance due to persecution by the Colonial Catholic authorities in Mexico.

To me, it is clear that the reference refers to suppression of cultivation. Because the plant also grows in the wild, it is original research to state that it almost became extinct. Likewise, no evidence is presented that "many other animal and plant crops" also became almost extinct.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Curtis, Just because it was not grown by people, does not mean that any indigenous or imported populations also went extinct. The source does not support most of the text we have and if it did - we would need a more authoritative reference for these kinds of dramatic statements. Hardyplants (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Novel Food

please take off the comment about chia and EU being labeled a novel food. What does it have to do with Chia besides being attempted to be copyrighted and wasting my intelligence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.236.17 (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I totally disagree, and chia's status as a novel food must be mentioned on this article. Foods not consumed in the Union prior to 1997 are not allowed to be commercially sold unless they have gone through an application process. Since chia was not consumed significantly in Europe at that time, it was deemed a novel food. That status is in no way connected to intellectual property, nor is it a marketing tool.TDogg310 (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Folklore about chia seeds is not scholarly

User First Light makes the case that chia seeds were important in Aztec history by citing two books, one by Kintzios, the other by Ayerza and Coates. Neither appears to be peer-reviewed and there is no supporting literature in Pubmed or other rigorous journal literature. I have a copy of Ayerza/Coates which is weakly referenced, as there is little scientific literature on chia.

The chapter cited to the Kintzios book is entitled, The Folklore ... of Salvia... This confesses that historical knowledge about chia seeds is evidently absent.

I count 9 relevant citations on Pubmed, with a history only over the last decade and half of these are by Ayerza/Coates on supplementation of chicken food.

I suggest these passages and books be removed as references for the article. They could be offered as Further Reading. --Zefr (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I have added a peer-reviewed scholarly reference for the statements supporting chia's role in precolumbian aztec culture as both a staple food and as a form of payment for tribute. If someone can find the full text of the "Florentine Codex" (Sahagun, 1585) which was a contemporary account of Aztec culture and also supports these facts, then this too may be used as reference. The issue should now be settled unless someone can produce a scholarly peer-reviewed reference asserting the opposite. István (talk) 20:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Although the Kintzios book would likely be called a scholarly effort, the subtitle of the section describing this historical reference is called "Folklore" as I pointed out above. I suggest it be removed from the Introduction for the article.

From a more rigorous scientific view -- or maybe a journalistic way of verifying facts -- I think it would be helpful to cross-reference with more original works than Kintzios or Ayerza/Coates provides. --Zefr (talk) 21:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Zefr, I agree, those previous sources were certainly lacking—especially when there are abundant scholarly sources from academic journals that cover Mesoamerican use of Salvia hispanica. While I've only used two journal sources so far, there are plenty more that discuss different aspects of this. I see that the article has a history of marketing and promotion by commercial sources, including the Aztec use. For that reason I also support using only academic journals and the best reliable sources. I've never used S. hispanica seed, and have no personal interest in that regard. I do have a strong interest in Salvia species articles, having created well over 250 of them, and edited most of the rest. This species deserves an academic treatment of its history. First Light (talk) 04:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This is nonsense, fails to satisfy WP:ELBURDEN and remains folklore. No one was present to reliably record what you're claiming.--Zefr (talk) 05:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This is referenced to academic journals - reliable sources. You cannot revert it based on "this is nonsense" and "folklore". First Light (talk) 05:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"An excellent source of omega 3"?

If Chia provides ALA rather than EPA or DHA, it's not an "excellent source of omega 3 fatty acids" because ALA converts to useful forms in the human body very poorly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.241.245 (talk) 10:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Nonetheless, ALA IS an omega 3 fatty acid and chia has the highest concentration of ALA of any plant known to mankind. I am not saying it has the highest concentration, but it has the highest known concentration of any ALA source. Plus, despite the body not converting ALA very well... the body DOES convert ALA to DHA eventually. Havabighed (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Mesoamerican usage

Drawing from the Florentine Codex showing a Salvia hispanica plant

S. hispanica is described and pictured in the Mendoza Codex and the Florentine Codex, 16th century Aztec codices created between 1540 and 1585. Both describe and picture Salvia hispanica and its usage by the Aztec. The Mendoza Codex indicates that the plant was widely cultivated and given as tribute in 21 of the 38 Aztec provincial states. Economic historians suggest that it was a staple food that was as widely used as maize.

Aztec tribute records from the Mendoza Codex, Matrícula de Tributos, and the Matricula de Huexotzinco (1560)—along with colonial cultivation reports and linguistic studies—give detail to the geographic location of the tributes, and provide some geographic specificity to the main S. hispanica growing regions. Most of the provinces grew the plant, except for areas of lowland coastal tropics and desert. The traditional area of cultivation ranged from north-central Mexico south to Guatemala. A second area of cultivation was in Nicaragua and southern Honduras.

Discussion

Moved from article. This is weakly referenced with original literature and remains unconvincing. It fails WP:ELBURDEN.--Zefr (talk) 05:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I've written that section exactly as the reliable sources stated it. There are numerous other academic journals that mention the same concepts. I've asked for neutral opinions from editors at WikiProject Plants and WikiProject Mesoamerica. First Light (talk) 05:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you are saying that it fails WP:ELBURDEN. Is it because you can't read the journal articles? That is not a requirement, though they can be provided if you are so skeptical. First Light (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

ELBURDEN applies to links in the "External links" section, and explicitly not to cited references. Secondary sources are preferred, but primary sources are not banned. The abstracts are freely available, and one begins "Salvia hispanica L. was an important staple Mesoamerican food and medicinal plant in pre-Columbian times". It seems that there's no real dispute about that, and I see no reason why this material should not be reinserted. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with those refs, they look solid to me and are enough to support the text being in the article. Regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't understand the objection to this material. It is perfectly clearly referenced with reliable literature. Whether Zefr or anyone else finds it "unconvincing" is not the issue. I have restored it as three independent editors now agree. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I've improved the two citations; this makes it clearer that both are to journals (one was set up as a web source). Peter coxhead (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Subsequent editing by Zefr

If it's the case that the article as restored now incorrectly represents the references – and I have no view on this either way – then it should be changed to represent them correctly, with an explanation of why the change was made here. Inserting words like "speculate" as User:Zefr has been doing is not appropriate and is contrary to WP:CLAIM. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone. The references state it more boldly than I even wrote it. Here is what Cahill states:

Salvia hispanica L. has a long history of plant-human interaction. In pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, the species known commonly as "Chia" was a major commodity and its seeds were valued for food, medicine, and oil (Berdan and Anawalt 1996; Bolanos 1974; Castello 1986; Duran 1994; Gonzalez 1986; Hard 1995; Hernandez 1959; Hernandez 1994; de la Cruz 1940; Sahagun 1950; Sandoval 1989). Economic historians have suggested Salvia hispanica as a staple food was as important as maize, and in some areas was even more important (Harvey 1991; Herbert 1995; Hunziker 1952; Perm 1974; Rojas 1988). The codices of 16th century Mexico provide a wealth of ethnobotanical information and indicate large areas of agricultural land were devoted exclusively to Chia cultivation. The 16th century Codex Mendoza and Matricula de Los Tributos indicate 21 of the 38 Aztec provincial states gave Chia in annual tribute and records from independent states such as Matricula de Huexotzinco also list Chia as tribute (Berdan and Anawalt 1996; Perm and Carrasco 1974). With Spanish contact and colonization, cultivation of the species plummeted, leaving only a few surviving domesticated varieties in addition to wild populations.

Much of what Jamboonsri states is from a map showing the regions, but here is the related text:

Figure 1 shows the historic geography of chia cultivation and dispersal in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica based on ethnohistorical data from Aztec tribute records, colonial cultivation records, and linguistics. Aztec tribute records include the ‘Matricula de los Tributos’ believed to be pre-contact and the ‘Codex Mendoza’ of 1541 both of which detail the amount of tribute including chia seeds and chia flour paid to the Aztec capital from throughout the empire (Berdan and Anawalt 1996; Durand-Forest 1980). More regionally specific manu- scripts such as the ‘Matricula de Huexotzinco’ of 1,560 confirm the levels of chia tribute and offer more geographic specificity on within province chia production (Perm and Carrasco 1974). The majority of provinces contributed chia with the exception of provinces restricted to lowland coastal tropics or deserts.

And the description of the map:

Fig. 1 Chia cultivation and dispersal. The area shaded in blue represents the traditional area of chia cultivation from N. central Mexico into Guatemala. A second apparently pre-Columbian cultivation area is known in southern Honduras and Nicaragua (green).

I would like to add to the article Cahill's bit about "With Spanish contact and colonization, cultivation of the species plummeted, leaving only a few surviving domesticated varieties in addition to wild populations", adding information about the differences between the domesticated and originally wild varieties, and how some of the domesticated ones have naturalized in the wild. Thank you, everyone. First Light (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I can only repeat that the key thing is to try to report as neutrally as possible what these sources say. If User:Zefr can find other sources that say that these sources are incorrect, then he is, of course, free to add this to the article in the same way. If I sound a bit cautious, it's because I have had articles like Aloe vera and Garlic on my watchlist in the past (because I added taxoboxes to Asparagales articles) and I'm only too aware that there are apparently reputable sources which seem to support all kinds of doubtful health-related claims. Chia does seem to fall into that category, to a degree, although the material you've added does not. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The Cahill reference #12 and subsequent authors listed in parentheses as used in the article are useless to the general reader and violate WP:V. Repair them or remove them please.--Zefr (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The material is from a reliable source, and meets every qualification of WP:V. The names in parentheses are only for the reader's benefit, and could simply be removed, since the Cahill article by itself meets WP:V and WP:RS. First Light (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Zefr: can you explain why the reference violates WP:V? (There's a technical problem which is my fault, namely that the "Harvard form" didn't link to the citation because I normally use {{Citation}} not {{Cite journal}} – I'll fix this.) Peter coxhead (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the revisions made to the article now. For the record, I maintain my skepticism and believe that the sources violate WP:V because they simply are not verifiable as primary or secondary information, WP:PRIMARY. The Mendoza Codex and Aztec Codices are books of drawings and symbols that do not appear to provide information sufficiently specific to support the article passages about "tributes" as written. Objectively, cited authors Cahill and Jamboonsri -- whose affiliations attest they are not historians (as we are led to believe under Mesoamerican usage) but rather plant or soil scientists -- and other authors cited in previous drafts, are susceptible to perpetuating the same myths of chia's importance as the article still implies.--Zefr (talk) 05:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point. However, the sources do not violate WP:V. I really don't mean this to sound patronizing, but I think you need to understand why we all say this, and why you are mis-interpreting the Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia editors absolutely may not express their own opinions on the veracity of sources. If a source such as a referred academic journal contains some information, then this is for Wikipedia a reliable source, whether you or I or anyone else thinks the information is wrong. In articles I've written I have had to summarize views contained in such sources, even though I'm quite sure that they are wrong. What you need to do is to find sources which can be used in Wikipedia which support your view that myths are being propagated or which are otherwise sceptical of the importance of chia. Then these can be used to provide readers with both sides of the argument. If such sources were written by historians, this can be stated, so that readers can draw their own conclusions. If there are no such sources, then there's nothing you can do within Wikipedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly right. I want to add that the Codices are indeed primary sources, so a reliable secondary source that interprets them was properly used. It's also not surprising that it is academics writing from the plant or ethnobotany perspective who are addressing that aspect of the codices. These aren't the only ones who have written about it, but it is why I asked for a reality check from WikiProject Mesoamerica editors, two of whom have supported the addition so far. I'm of course open to seeing the addition of reliable sources that dispute this interpretation, though my own research indicates that it's a rather obvious one and not controversial. First Light (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

First Light requested my neutral opinion on my talk page because of my participation in WP:Mesoamerica. After reviewing the arguments here, I would like to add my support to First Light, Peter coxhead, Stemonitis, and Simon Burchell. This section should be a part of the article, and the Cahill (2003) source is a good one.Rppeabody (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I concur with users Rppeabody, First Light, Peter coxhead, Stemonitis, and Simon Burchell in upholding the validity of Cahill (2003) and see no conflict with WP:V. In fact, WP:V is a de-facto description of this type of source - an accessible, published, secondary-source reputable-academic-journal article in English who's author's concentration is within the scope of the material (ethnobotany/ist). Any user wishing to remove this reference must present specific evidence to the contrary in order to impune this or any other reference. Reversions based on expressions of unsubstantiated skepticism and invective is simply bullyish and cannot stand as a valid reason to remove sourced material. István 17:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Nutrition

I found an online statement that chia has both omega-3 and omega-6, but I'd like a better reference. Where do we find really good nutrition information as references? RJFJR (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The USDA has published an incomplete analysis of chia omega fats from dried seeds, showing 4975 mg of alpha-linolenic acid (omega-3), 1640 mg of linoleic acid (omega-6) and 569 mg of oleic acid (omega-9) per oz.[5] (Standard Reference 23) [6] (NutritionData.com, USDA SR21).--Zefr (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

See also

Apparently a "see also" link to Chia pet is not allowed,[7] despite it being how many people would come across Salvia hispanica--Rumping (talk) 00:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course it should be there - Chia Pet became a huge pop-cultural phenomena. It's obviously trivial compared to its historical usage, but certainly merits inclusion. I've added it backFirst Light (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

p.s. I think the photo was too much. First Light (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Wrong picture again?

The top picture of the Salvia sp. looks more like something in the Eurasian group, rather than the group endemic to the Americas that S. hispanica belongs to.