Methodology
What we publish, what we refuse to, and who is accountable
Every fact here is drawn from a named authority and cited on the page. No entry is written or reviewed by a horticulturist or a veterinarian. The value we add is structure and consistency, not expertise.
Who writes this
ADULTPLANTS is edited and published by Tony Valcarcel. He is not a horticulturist, a botanist, or a veterinarian, and no page on this site should be read as though he were. Saying so plainly is deliberate: the common failure in this category is a byline that implies an expertise nobody behind the site actually has.
The editorial job here is narrow and specific: check that every claim traces to a cited source, that the wording is concrete enough to act on, and that a page about one species could not be produced by find-and-replacing the name of another. Those checks do not require a horticulture degree. Deciding the underlying facts does, which is why we do not decide them.
Where the facts come from
| Toxicity classification | ASPCA Animal Poison Control |
|---|---|
| Toxicity severity | Reported only where the ASPCA, the Pet Poison Helpline, the Merck Veterinary Manual, or a university veterinary school stated it |
| Care and pest guidance | University extension services and the Missouri Botanical Garden |
| Taxonomy and naming | Royal Botanic Gardens Kew (Plants of the World Online), Wikidata |
Each species carries a Wikidata identifier, so any record here can be matched against independent sources rather than taken on trust. A minimum of three sources is cited per page, inline rather than dumped in a footer.
What we will not publish
- Severity we worked out ourselves. The ASPCA lists both monstera and lilies as toxic. One causes an hour of mouth pain, the other causes kidney failure. That difference matters enormously and we are not qualified to judge it, so we report only severity a named authority has already stated.
- Percentages from surveys we did not run. Grower-report figures are the most quotable and most checkable numbers a site like this can carry, which is exactly why inventing them is disqualifying. Until a real dataset exists, our problem pages give ranked causes and diagnostic tests with no percentages attached.
- Placement advice too vague to follow. "Bright indirect light" is not an instruction. Light is given as a window direction and a distance.
- Rankings sorted by what pays us. Commission, payout, EPC and CPC are rejected as sort fields by our pre-publish check. Ordering is derived from database fields, and we do not accept payment for placement.
Checks that run before anything publishes
An automated audit blocks publication on failures a person would not reliably catch across thousands of pages: a missing citation count, an answer summary over its word limit, a toxicity page without a severity source, a colour pair below 4.5:1 contrast in either light or dark mode, a price with no source stamp, and any claimed sample size with no dataset behind it. A page that fails does not ship, including in a heavy publishing week.
Corrections
If something here is wrong, it should be fixed rather than defended. Report an error to corrections@adultplants.com with the page and the source that contradicts it. Corrections to a factual claim are made on the page and noted with the date. We would rather carry a visible correction than a quiet edit.
Standing sources
- ASPCA Animal Poison Control, Toxic and Non-Toxic Plant List
- Missouri Botanical Garden, Plant Finder
- Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, Plants of the World Online
- Wikidata, for entity identifiers on every species record
This is a reference work, not a veterinary service. If an animal has eaten something, call your veterinarian or a poison control line first.