Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Rosidae/rosids redux
Line 937: Line 937:
Cantino's paper is a great read, but the names published therein are not validly published under any current code. Clearly the authors understand this; they are not claiming to have actually erected these names; they are merely putting forward a nomenclatural framework for discussion.
Cantino's paper is a great read, but the names published therein are not validly published under any current code. Clearly the authors understand this; they are not claiming to have actually erected these names; they are merely putting forward a nomenclatural framework for discussion.


I think we have erred in choosing article titles [[Angiospermae]] over [[angiosperms]], [[Rosidae]] over [[rosids]], etc; and I think we have erred where we have used "Angiospermae" instead of "angiosperms" in taxoboxes and article prose. These are not valid clade name, and at this stage there is no indication that they ever will be.
I think we have erred in choosing article titles [[Angiospermae]] over [[angiosperms]], [[Rosidae]] over [[rosids]], etc; and I think we have erred where we have used "Angiospermae" instead of "angiosperms" in taxoboxes and article prose. These are not valid clade names, and there is no guarantee that they ever will be.


[[User talk:Hesperian|Hesperian]] 04:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
[[User talk:Hesperian|Hesperian]] 04:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:31, 5 September 2008

WikiProject iconPlants Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page 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
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.


Archives for WP:PLANTS (Archive index) edit


Proposal

Well, it is likely that it will be difficult to write plant articles avoiding some sort of copyvio or plagiarism. Therefore I suggest to consider the idea of creating our own standard templates not only for taxonomy and conservation status, but also for morphology, distribution, habitats, uses and so on, because the implicit templates are the only things that are really original in botanical descriptions and can be copyrighted, the rest is fairly standard. Sorry if I don't explain this clear enough, I don't mean templates in the technical sense (like the taxoboxes), I mean just an implicit pattern of text structure, sort of questionnaire and standard answer options (leaf arrangement: alternate, opposite etc., inflorescence: spike, umbel etc.). If it is created by Wikipedians rather than borrowed from the sources in each particular case, it will be licensed under the GFDL. Colchicum (talk) 13:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually what the bloom clock templates do now (see v:Template:Bloom clock plant bottom... you'll need to know a bit of parser code to understand its full use), though they just add categories for machines to read, rather than text for people to read. The "stub creator" a couple of us have been using (User:SBJ/ps) actually runs off of fields in the profile templates, converting them at least in part to text for Wikipedia articles. It should be fairly to create a template that takes the entire bloom clock bottom template and creates a "physical description" section (including header), by just using the input on that template to create text (the template would be used with subst, so the only thing that would appear in the edit would be the descriptive text). Might be a good way to organize plant-descriptive input in both places, generating more than one dead bird at a time :-). --SB_Johnny | talk 14:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am writing this now because of the little laugh I just had and not too much more than that. The reason that it is a wiki is that it is easy for human beings to edit it. There are actually tons of software that create html that don't need to reach through the wiki generated html framework that is there to make it easy for humans to edit and add to html pages.... -- carol (talk) 06:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to grow a Yellowwood tree from a seed and so naturally turned to the internet for information. I found this article http://www.plantzafrica.com/plantnop/podocarplati.htm which is far far richer than the one Wikipedia has. I would like to 'get involved' with Wikipedia in such situations by contributing research such as this to enrich articles. How do I go about it without copyvio? I am also afraid of editing articles and then having my work deleted (1) without explanation from the person deleting it (2) because the person deleting it has different information and we disagree about whose information is right and whose is wrong, etc. Jkjambsj (talk) 05:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New articles by Carol Spears

Can WP:Plant editors ask Carol Spears to not create any new articles at least until all are checked? It's tedious and non-rewarding work, when I personally would rather be creating new articles in my area, but was willing to deal with this problem. [1] Now I feel that I've been had, thoroughly, because I was willing to do the grudge work to save some of these articles. Oh, the taxonomy on the ones I've checked has not been verifiable or has not been in the referenced sources. I'm sorry plant folks think hundreds of potentially inaccurate articles are valuable. --Blechnic (talk) 08:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanvitalia procumbens is an example of a type species stub. I was extremely careful to not include any information which could possibly be interpretted, perceived or evaluated as plagiarism. I have "throttled" the creation of new articles by being certain that all of the whole genus have their image instances categorically sorted for taxonomy and native location at the commons. It should not be difficult to proof the less than 30 words there for plagiarism, which is what editors are supposed to be looking for -- unless there are things I am not being told. If the latter is the case, perhaps I should be told what those things are. -- carol (talk) 08:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not adding content to any articles -- only auth initials, taxonomy things like type species and the occasional request for a citation in articles where none has occurred before. I have noticed that much of the 'checking' of my articles which is occuring and the "cleaning" that is happening is to strip text which was online in other languages -- I find it really difficult to figure out what is plagiarism from a translation of an Italian web sites content. It is perhaps a limitation in my experience and an experience and understanding which the reviewing editors know of but cannot articulate. I suggest that the best way to streamline the review process is to await for the lawyers which the offended parties will have paid to review the text instead of having qualified botanists review things for imaginary lawyers. I am from a life which is short on funding and long on regulations and restrictions though -- it might not be that efficient of a method in the long run. Most content which I have seen undergo a copyright problem online; the removal of the content when requested by the owners of the content seems to be all that is required to to satisfy the parties (people or groups) who are actually legally offended.
Then don't use Italian websites. If you don't know how to use it without plagiarizing, don't use it. It's that simple. Plagiarism is not so hard to grasp, when you're dedicated to not claiming others' work as your own. You'll gain experience in not plagiarizing by not plagiarizing.
If you want to discuss lawyers, take it to a lawyer. --Blechnic (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to add that I have checked in here on several occasions and asked for a review of what I had been doing and was given messages like "you are doing good work" and similar. I promise to only make genus and type species articles which contain no content. I have, since the block and since the inquest started, found one species which did not exist in any of the databases but was included in the genera list of species -- I think that this kind of editing is not bad(?). -- carol (talk) 08:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you stop making any new articles while others are cleaning up the mess you already made? This way, a point can be reached where people can say, "all of Carol Spears' articles have been checked. If you continue to make them, that point cannot be reached. This is simple. --Blechnic (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rosinweed to Silphium (genus)

Can the article Rosinweed be moved to Silphium (genus)? The Edit history claims that there is only one author for that namespace.

I moved the article to Silphium (genus) which was a redirect (I removed your link above as it now points to the moved page with its multiple edits). Melburnian (talk) 06:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since it happened to me, where a file was moved and the edit history may or may not have been checked -- and then I requested the same sort of move without reviewing the edit history.... It hurt when my edit history was deleted and also because of the people involved with its deletion. So, if the same hurt was felt by anyone who had been involved with Creeping zinnia and Sanvitalia the same way, I really apologize -- the edit history should be looked at before deletion and I didn't do this. -- carol (talk) 11:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That one was also just moved over a redirect so no content was lost. --Melburnian (talk) 06:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the move and I am going to believe you about the other move. I don't mind if these moves wait a few days so that people who lurk the Plants project page can (if they are being blocked for not very good reason or even if for good reasons) can have a chance to say where it can be read: "Please look in the edit history before you delete it!" -- carol (talk) 07:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C-class

For those that assess articles, you might be interested in the discussion over at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. They're implementing a new class between Start and B. The bot that takes care of updating our assessment counts will be able to recognize this new class. I haven't sifted through all the information over at the page, but I suppose the question is, should we adopt this new class rating? --Rkitko (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen an article where I would hesitate between Start- and B-class (Stub and start, now that tends to be thorny), and I voted very much against the implementation. I thought it had clearly no consensus, too. Circeus (talk) 03:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ambivalent about the issue. While I can certainly understand and agree with Circeus, I also feel that what constitutes a "B" article is a very, very large range of quality. I think the "B" range is significantly larger than any other, so there is room in "quality-space" to accomodate another category. --EncycloPetey (talk) 11:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that no formal attempt was made at defining the precise difference between C and B. All we know is that "B" is now "B" and "C". It's not even listed yet at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Until the assessment has been formally defined enough to be of actual use, I staunchly oppose its use in our articles. Besides, we have much, much more stub (24k) and start-class (2k) articles than B ones (370~), so it's not like we have much use for it. Circeus (talk) 12:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is work underway to write a definition and a bunch of other things (see Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Implementation of the new C-Class). As you point out, plants have even less need for this than some projects apparently do, so there's no rush. Kingdon (talk) 14:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aloe vera

Hi All -

I've been rewriting and referencing large pieces of the Aloe vera article with a view to moving it towards good article status. Given the widespread use of the species it's probably the Aloe article of most importance. I'd appreciate any proof-reading or contributions towards bettering the article. Cheers MidgleyDJ (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first the direct link to the page, to make it easier for people to take a look: Aloe vera. Looks like you've done a lot of good work. I'll follow up on Talk:Aloe vera with a few more specific suggestions. Kingdon (talk) 04:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

confusing text vs single sourced information vs allegations of plagiarism and Botany Intelligence Quotient measurements

Can I hear from the world of botany how exactly a "this is confusing template" is also a "this is plagiarism" and a suggestion of how to manage areas of the science which have limited sources.

Also, perhaps I am in need of taking a taxonomy IQ test (a BIQ!!), and I wonder if there is one that is available (elsewhere, of course) so I might get a handle on how much I have learned and how much is left to learn. -- carol (talk) 08:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you are looking for is a Botanical Experience Quotient (BEQ, which is also Bachelor Enlisted Quarters). Even very intelligent people can make blunders in botany, by assuming what they know of other subjects is equally operational there, and people of modest intelligence can do well through experience.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 1663 articles assigned to this project, or 5.9%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rosidae/rosids etc

The higher levels of (eu)dicot systematics need to be straightened out; presently the information is strewn about and most articles are stubs. How about merging Rosidae and rosids? Under which name doesn't matter fron this user's POV; arguably "rosids" are better under the "if there's an unequivocal common name, use it" stance, while Rosidae would avoid taxobox problems.

For most of those who'll stick to ranked taxa will simply use APG II rosids -> subclass Rosidae ("most" because there'll always be researchers who against evidence to the contrary want to promote their private taxonomies). It is unproblematic, the changes are minor. And since Wikipedia uses ranks, "our" Rosidae ought to be = APG II rosids.

Same for Asteridae and asterids.

It would be better, because all these articles are presently stubs (though they are not marked so, there is hardly any content except a list of taxa contained) and it is not likely that this is gonna change anytime. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making Rosidae = APG II rosids, like making Rosopsida = APG eudicots, would be original research. Both are sensible taxa to include in a ranked classification, but we're not supposed to generate one ourselves. (I've checked the new Heywood and it, apart from some arbitrary differences from APG II, doesn't use supraordinal ranks either.)
So unless you think the policy of don't let the rules stop you doing the right thing applies (and you can achieve a consensus in support) ... Lavateraguy (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original research problem is there whether we have merged or non-merged articles (the current, separate articles make assertions about the relationship between APG rosids and Cronquist Rosidae). Kingdon (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that an observation that most of Cronquist's Rosidae fall into the rosid clade, or an outline of those Cronquist taxa which fall into the rosid clade, rise to the level of original research. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too worried about the current wording either, but think we can find a wording on a combined article which makes the distinction sufficiently well. A redirect doesn't imply synonymy any more than having Pepys Diary redirect to Samuel Pepys means that those two things are the same. Kingdon (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we have the clade name Rosidae published we can either have Rosidae (ICBN) and Rosidae (Phylocode), or one article covering two concepts. rosids would redirect to wherever we describe the latter. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I discovered a major publication this week that formally defines several of the better-suppoerted tracheophyte clades and defines them under the new PhyloCode. The authors do not assign a rank to any of the names they've tackled, but the authors include several APGII participants. One catch: the print version is a shorter summary; the electonic edition of the journal has a version that is nearly twice as long as is the preferred version to use. The article is:

  • Philip D. Cantino, James A. Doyle, Sean W. Graham, Walter S. Judd, Richard G. Olmstead, Douglas E. Soltis, Pamela S. Soltis, & Michael J. Donoghue (2007) "Towards a phylogenetic nomenclature of Tracheophyta". Taxon 56 (3): E1-E44. (The "E" indictaes electronic version")

The paper is so significant, I printed out a copy for use at home. It includes crown-group definitions, apomorphy-based definitions, and total-clade definitions for the major clades that are well-supported by published studies, including Isoetopsida, Monilophyta, Leptosporangiatae, Angiospermae, Magnoliidae, Monocotyledoneae, Eudicotyledoneae, Caryophyllales, Rosidae, Asteridae, and many others.

With this paper, we can avoid the pitfall of WP:OR in defining some of the key high-level clades in the flowering plants. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a merge (probably according to the Cantino et al paper nomenclature, as Taxon is pretty much the gold standard and the authors seem to be active in this field, although the caveat is to be cautious about anything new). Moving some of the information to a History section (as in, say, Monera or Angiosperm) might be a good way to organize material which is not currently used in systematic papers (although Cronquist and the like are currently used in other contexts like organizing species lists, herbaria, etc). As for whether the rosid/asterid articles are destined to permanently remain stubs, if that is so, I suppose the whole thing could be merged into eudicot but I'm not sure whether I'd go quite that far (depends, perhaps, on whether there is much to say about the biology/botany of one group which is cleanly separable from the others). Kingdon (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Rosid and Asterid articles wouldn't have to remain stubs. There is significant information available, such as good synapomorphies and many published phylogenies specific to these groups. Both pages would be good places to have a nice section showing the high-level phylogeny of included taxa. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen (the electronic version of) that paper. It doesn't justify us using a subclass Rosidae. If people are happy with unranked clade entries between class and order in the taxobox, then OK this paper gives us proper names to use. We do have the issue, which wanders in the direction of original research, of deciding which ones to use - between Magnoliophyta and Malvales we have Mesangiospermae (euangiosperms), Eudicotyledoneae/Tricolpatae (eudicots), Gunneridae, Pentapetaleae (core eudicots), Rosidae (rosids), and Malvidae (malvids, eurosids II). For regular taxa we have a rule of thumb we boils down to omit optional ranks from the upper parts of the taxobox, but that isn't applicable here. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, there are two separate questions here: (1) Which clades are worth having articles for, and (2) Which groups should be listed in the taxobox of progressively narrower subgroups.
I assume you're more concerned about the second question. Since this is going to affect a very large number of taxoboxes (most angiosperms), is it possible to consider working a change in the taxobox template itself? Namely, to permit something like "nonclasis" (not class), which would display in the position of clasis, but display (unranked)? If we could have "nonclasis" and "nonsubclasis", would that allow us to select two significant groups to use on the subgroups? This approach is not without serious problems, but is it workable? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. If every species is notable, then arguably every published taxon is. I wasn't so worried about the mechanics, but perhaps I'm mistaken about the capabilities of taxoboxes. Oh, and add question (3) Can we answer question (2) without committinh original research? We've already had disputes about standardising on APG, and that scarely flirts with original research? Lavateraguy (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An unranked_classis parameter exists, see for example [2]. As for unranked_subclassis, we could perhaps (ab)use unranked_ordo (which is above order) for that (they are unranked after all....). Or maybe it would be better to change the template to add unranked_subclassis. This would just affect articles for orders; family and below would go from phylum to unranked_classis (eudicot) to order without intermediate steps (at least, that's the choice I'd make). Kingdon (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've revised Rosidae to include the Phylocode sense. (The reference needs cleaning up by someone whose on top of citation mechanics.) If people are happy we the new version a merge of rosids can be proposed Lavateraguy (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can take care of formatting the citation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We also need a bit of tweaking there and/or elsewhere to make Rosa cinnamonea link to the right place. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is: the current taxobox is completely incompatible with the PhyloCode and the rationale behind it.
Re OR - I am not sure how/if this is defined in the ICBN (that's why I asked). We don't have it in zoology, but does the ICBN extend beyond families? Because then the OR point might be relatively moot (depending on how botanists deal with such matters these days) -
if the ICBN applies its type concept at subclass rank and if botanical SOP is (as is in zoology) to strive for monophyly of taxa, then the ICBN Roside are as regards their circumscription = APG II rosids (or whatever post-APG system you like)
My rationale is that there could well be just a single place to discuss the clade of "true" rosids, which as of now seems to be well and stably delimited. Taxonomic details ("contains the genus Rosa" vs the PhyloCode definition etc) and a discussion of the classificational history, what was moved in and what was moved out and by whom and why, could be the main content of such an article. So eventually the article would outline the history of how the rosids were recognized as an evolutionary lineage, and what characterizes them.
Essentially, make the article more about the clade than about the label that gets pinned to it, while respecting all the different labels that have been pinned to it.
(From zoological experience, I would advise Wikipedia to be "actively neutral" in the ICxN vs PhyloCode issue. Bluntly, both suck for different reasons: neither is there such a limited number of evolutionary levels or things like "Reptilia", nor does evolution produce a neat tree of lineages that have no population size, no geographic distribution and bifurcate in no time. doi:10.1080/10635150600960061 ought to be mandatory reading for anyone interested in this matter.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmmm, canis soup. -- carol (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Elegant point in case, thanks! Also very well written and readable. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I agree with "Essentially, make the article more about the clade than about the label that gets pinned to it". Writing, as you suggest, about the nomenclature/classification stuff as the bulk of the article might be a good first step, although ultimately we'd want information about synapomorphies, the biology of this group, etc (which is the point of coming up with such names/concepts in the first place). (P.S. I don't think types apply above the rank of family in the ICBN, but I'd have to research it to be sure). Kingdon (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Names of taxa above the rank of family are giverned by sections 16 and 17 of the ICBN. When the name is based on an included taxon, the name is "automatically typified"; when the name is descriptive, typification does not seem to apply. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Clear synapomorphies for the rosids have not been identified, although most rosids share several morphological and anatomical features, such as nuclear endosperm development, reticulate pollen exine, generally simple perforations of vessel end-walls, alternate intervessel pitting, mucilaginous leaf epidermis, and two or more whorls of stamens, plus ellagic acid" (Soltis & Soltis, American Journal of Botany 91(10): 1614-1626 (2004)).
Also, re typification, see article 10.7 of the Vienna Code. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaf

Some help here, please. We have a new editor pushing intelligent design in the section about leaf arrangement on the stem. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If only it were ID. This is "creation science". Basically, that's why we have policies like WP:UNDUE. If creationists regularly used leaf arrangement as evidence for the existence of God, it would be appropriate to add mention of that fact in an article on leaf arrangement. But they don't. Two paragraphs in an ICR publication aren't notable enough, especially not for mention in the main leaf article. That said, the existing language needs work, and needs refs. Guettarda (talk) 04:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why the heck are the creation science people wasting their time with leaves? The proof they need is here for everyone to read and has been available for everyone to read for quite a while now.... -- carol (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Senecio cineraria

Senecio cineraria should be moved to Jacobaea maritima this edit history does not appear worth saving to me.

In the same family is Oresbia heterocarpa which I moved from Oresbia based on a feeling and without information to negate that and in the absence of information which was contrary that it is the only species which is in the genus. Perhaps someone with more resources could verify that. -- carol (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is one species (probably true at least at the moment, since the cited paper created the genus with one species in 2006), the article should be at the genus name, per WP:NC (flora). You should be able to fix that yourself (I think). Kingdon (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and I did move it. My problem is that I do not have access to anything that says that for certain; heh, even if that is for certain for the moment (or few years). To be more specific about what I had access to, it was a few urls that did not mention another species.... -- carol (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bulbostylis neglecta

Should Bulbostylis neglecta be under Fimbristylis neglecta Hemsl.? I think so, but I can't find a source on-line that says this, only sources discussing South American Bulbostylis species. My botany is not good enough to move it without a source, and for taxonomy I'm limited. --Blechnic (talk) 04:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This link [3] to the type specimen, gives the history of its name. JoJan (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This reference [4] has Bulbostylis neglecta as the current name. Melburnian (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this is fine: "Govaerts, R. & Simpson, D.A. (2007). World Checklist of Cyperaceae. Sedges: 1-765. The Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew." Thanks. I don't tend to think of Kew for African species, but should have tried that. Thanks for the help. --Blechnic (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

commons:Category:Dichelostemma and commons:Category:Brodiaea

Does any one who knows the upper level taxonomy have a problem with the way that commons:Category:Dichelostemma and commons:Category:Brodiaea are being managed via the taxonomy navigation? -- carol (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if one can say that a species belongs to regnum Plantae in the APG-II system, as that system is restricted to angiosperms. Hesperian 14:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and the same is true of Cronquist. If the text is going to purport to place a taxa according to a particular system, then it must use only terminology in that particular system. This approach has probelms in that (1) neither system classifies beyond the angiopserms, and (2) it will not permit the inclusion of a newly recognized genus. The problems become worse on commons:Category:Liliales. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't purport anything, actually. It is a navigation system and it guides people along which ever tree they are on. The lack of red category names in that navigation system is more meaningful than the potential fact that one or the other must exist but not both. (the fact is, they both do exist and coexist there peacefully and without interfering with each others branches). I read earlier here (on this Plants Project talk page) that it is the wikipedia taxonomy box which cannot work that way, not that it was not allowed. -- carol (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I had a problem with using both systems. The problem is when the front end of the classification line claims "APG II", but then includes classification items that are not part of the APG II system. The label is misleading, and is including things that it shouldn't. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I did not invent nor populate the navigation sets from my mind, imagination, experiences nor political preferences -- I either pasted them from the next level up there at the commons or I populated them from the taxonomy that was here in the next level up and also not made by me but by (I assume) the Plants Project or sometimes I look to see what wikispecies did. I got the inspiration for the templates from them, btw.
Do you have a reliable source for me not making the mistakes that you are mentioning here which are apparently embedded into several other similar presentations? -- carol (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you need is something along the lines of:

Domain: Eukaryota • Regnum: Plantae • …

APG II Classification: … • clade: angiosperms • clade: eudicots • clade: core eudicots • clade: liliopsids • clade: euasterids II • Ordo: Asparagales • Familia: Themidaceae • …
Cronquist System: … • Divisio: Magnoliophyta • Classis: Liliopsida • Subclassis: Liliidae • Ordo: Liliales • Familia: Liliaceae • …

… • Genus: Dichelostemma Kunth

Hesperian 01:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And APG II Classification consistently starts with a 'clade'? -- carol (talk) 01:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The APG II paper explicitly refers to "orders", "families", and "genus"/"genera". These ranks are included, but all other ranks are omitted (those above order, or between order & family, etc.). The basic APG II (2003 article) adheres to the ICBN for the ranks that it covers. Higher (deeper) taxa are referred to only as "clades".
However, the above listing was wrong since it put the Asparagales in the euasterids, that in the liliopsids, etc., which is just wrong. Using the supplementary paper in Taxon (2007), and using Geranium as an example, APG II would present the (node-based crown group) classification as:
APG II Classification: … • clade: Angiospermae • clade: Mesangiospermae • clade: Eudicotyledoneae • clade: Gunneridae • clade: Pentapetalae • clade: Rosidae • Ordo: Geraniales • Familia: Geraniaceae • …
Taxa in the Lamiidae or Apiidae would require an additional 3 clade levels before ordo, and some families (like Buxaceae) would require fewer and would have no ordo listed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles being stripped for contradictary reasons

My articles are being stripped for contradictary reasons. Some chat page somewhere has assigned a mentor or something. It seems like the time for assigning a mentor was back in January this year -- to me at least. It is starting to have the smell of a scam and it really stinks.

When people with administrative strength only use it on mostly innocent individuals, it doesn't help the scent.

I have another instinct which is telling me that I should be mentoring people on how to reference their pages, not waiting for some clown, assigned by a bunch of musical comedy experts to verify my edits. Especially not while so many articles are sitting there in sad shape.

Is admitting when you do not understand the upper levels of the taxonomy considered to be a weakness? I always considered it to be a strength when people knew what they could do and not.

The contradiction is this. The articles are being stripped because they need verification but stripping them makes it so they cannot be verified.

I have experienced administrative strength from people who proudly display their involvement in this project. What is that strength used for? -- carol (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viburnum trilobum

Is this a valid species, I do not know were to stick my picture - here or on Viburnum opulus I have it on V. trilobum now because its the "American" plant. Hardyplants (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There often isn't a clear answer to this sort of question. In general I'm not sure how we resolve this type of issue, but in the case of American plants perhaps following the USDA plants database is a suitable rule of thumb. In which case it's Viburnum opalus var. americanum.
There's a similar problem with Senecio squalidus; Carol Spears incorporated an image of what is probably Senecio rupestris. I'd suggest that when there's any doubt as to taxonomy only pictures of the taxon in the narrow sense should be used, uncommented, in the taxon's article. (I.e. don't add a photograph of the American plant to the Viburnum opalus article.) Lavateraguy (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want a single source, I'd pick Flora of North America, at least for those families for which the relevant volumes have been written, over PLANTS (which is sometimes a good source, but often out of date). Photographs can be a tough case, although in the case of Viburnum trilobum and opalus, it seems pretty clear. Put American/European photos on V. trilobum or V. opalus pages, respectively (unless someone wants to try and merge the articles, which strikes me as probably more trouble than it is worth, as long as the articles describe the differences in classification, which they do). Kingdon (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Lavateraguy and Kingdom for you responses, I will leave the picture on V. trilobum. I checked with FNA, but they do not have the volume covering this genus up yet, and i do not currently have the time for a detailed hunting trip to clarify the issue, maybe later when I have time I will work it. Thanks again. Hardyplants (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrachne and Leptopus

I don't know whether this is a high priority for the project or just the latest of a thousand problems with synonymy, but both Andrachne and Leptopus claim Andrachne phyllanthoides. PLANTS and ITIS call this plant Leptopus phyllanthoides and treat A. phyllanthoides as a synonym. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 13:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vorontsova et al, Molecular phylogenetics of tribe Poranthereae (Phyllanthaceae; Euphorbiaceae sensu lato), Am. J. Bot. 94: 2026-2040 (2007) (paywalled) looks as if it might answer the question. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R. Syn.

Does anyone have any idea what publication R. Syn. refers to? The reference I'm trying to make sense of is in an 1811 publication, so predates the rollout of standard abbreviations for authors and publications. In those times the abbreviations were usually of the form "Author Publication", so "R." may refer to an author, and "Syn." to a title, probably one that begins with Synopsis.

This reference is listed in the context of some other authors, all of whom were already dead in 1811 e.g. Morison, Sibthorp, Scheuchzer, Relhan; so "R." seems likely to refer to someone of similar antiquity - 18th century or even late 17th.

IPNI has failed me. Google turns up "R. Syn. [ed. 2]" and "R. Syn. IV", suggesting a multi-volume set that ran into multiple editions.

That's all I've got. :-(

Hesperian 13:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess John Ray, and Synopsis methodica Stirpium Brittanicorum. But if you give us more context a more informed answer might be possible. (Also, a list of citation abbreviations may be present at the front or back of the work.) Lavateraguy (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict/agree) After searching through for the terms here [5], I assume R. syn = Raii syn. = Raii Synopsis [methodica] stirpium Britannicarum = Synopsis methodica stirpium Britannicarum by John Ray Melburnian (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That book is available at Gallica. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, will save Hesperian £380 [6]-Melburnian (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Google Books mentions a more recent reprint, which hopefully could be obtained at a lower price. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the specific link, while we're at it. Circeus (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You guys rock! Hesperian 23:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW did you guys know that John Ray was gay?... according to Wikipedia.[7] Hesperian 23:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for straightening that out...so to speak Melburnian (talk) 00:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Supposedly Chamisso and Eschscholtz were lovers, but I've never found any references. ipni.org is silent on the matter.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not so blatant, but an IP inserted the same grafitti into 11 articles, including two plant articles, on the 14th June. Only one was reverted, until I stumbled across this yesterday. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

plug

I may as well use this opportunity for a plug. My R. Syn. question pertained to a Wikisource transcription.

Many of my dearly beloved collaborators at Wikisource have, I think, missed the point. They add texts without seeing the value-add of using a wiki. I get the value-add because botanical texts are densely linked. See, for example, Wikisource:Characters of a new Liliaceous Genus called Brodiaea. which begins

"I have had occasion, in treating of the distinctions between a calyx and corolla, Introduction to Botany, 263, to advert to a new genus of the liliaceous family, furnished with internal petals."

The brilliant thing about this wiki stuff is you can click on the "263", and go straight to the page in Chapter 19 of An introduction to physiological and systematical botany where Smith's "advert to a new genus" appears:

"I cannot conceal a recent discovery which strongly confirms the opinion of my acute and candid friend. Two species of a new genus, found by Mr. Menzies on the West coast of North America, have beautiful liliaceous flowers like an Agapanthus, with six internal petals besides!"

I think that use of a wiki is almost as fantastic as this here Wikipedia thingo, and I wish that I would see more of you over there more often. Hesperian 01:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The value of a well-done Wikisource document is underestimated. My favorite Wikisource test is Romance of the Three Kingdoms, which is a 14th century Chinese novel. The editor has goen to enormous lengths to neatly lay out the original Chinese and the English translations side-by-side. Each Chinese word is linked to its entry on Wiktionary, so that you can see exactly what each word means and its usage. There are maps, notes, and beautiful illustrations from Commons throughout. It's an inspiring work of wikilove. --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More names - Anogeissus leiocarpus

Is this name correct? Or should it be Anogeissus leiocarpa (maybe) which is in IPNI, although I've not used it or seen it? --Blechnic (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin words ending in -us are usually masculine nouns of the first declension (e.g. Daucus - the carota of the crop species appears to be a noun in opposition, and not a feminine adjective), and the corresponding epithets in a botanical name would commonly also end in -us. But there's a large group of exceptions, including several genera of trees (e.g. Fagus, Malus, Populus, Prunus, Pyrus, Quercus, Sorbus) which are feminine. I don't know the etymology of Anogeissus but when you look at the other species of the genus, it appears to be being treated as feminine, which would make leiocarpa correct. AFPD agrees with IPNI on this point. (OTOH, Google finds 6 times as many usages of leiocarpus than leiocarpa.) Lavateraguy (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is the source of my confusion. The most recent source I read was an African traditional medicien article that uses "us," so I've put it under that. I will check Taxon, but if anyone finds an authority they can quote to keep or move, please do. Thanks for looking, though. --Blechnic (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did reply that I was fairly sure that it was leiocarpa, but couldn't prove it, but I seem to have neglected to save that edit. However the original publication has just appeared at Botanicus. That uses the spelling leiocarpa, which conforms with the feminine usage for the other species. Not absolute proof, but it seems that leiocarpus is an error which has got in general circulation. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

  • The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
  • The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
  • A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author abbreviation Spin. ?

Hi all, I have just started a stub for Ficus coronata and am baffled by who Spin. is. Anyone know? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems as if it's Marquis de Spin. --Rkitko (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, sounds like a DJ really...thanks. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

template botanist

I was looking at Pieter B. Pelser thinking about how to fix the wording (e.g. the miscalling of Senecio as a species), and noticed that there was a reference to a 1992 book (Brummitt, R. K.; C. E. Powell (1992). Authors of Plant Names. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. ISBN 1-84246-085-4.) for the standard abbreviation of this individual as an author of botanical names. Since he didn't publish any names until 2005 this would appear to be incorrect.

Would it be better if the template referred to the IPNI or Harvard databases? Lavateraguy (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a new edition, but replacing with a guaranteed source is pro'ly a good idea. Circeus (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, the ICBN refers specifically to Brummitt and Powell, so we can amend it, but not deprecate it.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about the following from Article 46, Recommendation 46A, of the Vienna code?
Note 1. Brummitt & Powell's Authors of plant names (1992) provides unambiguous standard abbreviations, in conformity with the present Recommendation, for a large number of authors of plant names, and these abbreviations, updated as necessary from the International Plant Names Index (www.ipni.org) and Index Fungorum (www.indexfungorum.org), have been used for author citations throughout the present Code.
If so, this seems to not only allow use of updated resources like IPNI, but encourage it. Kingdon (talk) 02:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The St. Louis Code didn't mention IPNI, iirc. It has always been a superset of Brummitt & Powell, and now that it is explicitly mentioned, we may as well change the ref.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's another issue with the template that some of you may be aware of. There has been a recommendation to remove the second parameter in favor of having a DEFAULTSORT in every article. That is IMO the correct way to go (these are biographies, after all), but there are several hundred articles that lack the DEFAULTSORT, and as discussions on that page point out, there is no way to reliably create it algorithmically.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Given the ridiculous inconsistency in applying DEFAULTSORT, removing the element is just asking for trouble. Circeus (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tussock (grass)

Tussock (grass) has had a number of reverts due to a difference of opinion as to the content. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the subject of the article? Is it tussock vegetation? or is it just a list of grasses with tussock in the name? Hardyplants (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing the matter here. I've responded at Talk:Tussock (grass). Kingdon (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plant ID needed

  • Unknown flower
    Unknown flower

I'm after an ID for the plant above. The photo was taken in Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia in September 2007 (Dry Season). Bidgee (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reminds me of Ixora coccinea Lavateraguy (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, appears to be an Ixora but I don't think it's coccinea [8]. I think there's a good chance that it is one of the many hybrid cultivars of this genus rather than a particular species. --Melburnian (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm not very cluey on Tropical plants. Bidgee (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dendrosenecio

I've made a start on the process of cleaning up the Dendrosenecio articles. As part of this I am aiming to have the species articles all as Dendrosenecio x, rather than mixed between that and Senecio x. I've hit a slight snag: I can't move S. battiscombei to Dendrosenecio battiscombei, because the latter already exists as a redirect to the former. Could someone with more familiarity with the mechanics, or with access to suitable tools, do the honours please.

There might be more Dendrosenecio species in this situation. I'm also under the impression that Jacobaea species are inconsistently under Jacobaea and Senecio. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D. brassiciformis and D. keniensis are in the same state. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of the ones listed, but only Dendrosenecio battiscombei required admin tools for the move. I removed a copyvio section on Dendrosenecio brassiciformis, but Dendrosenecio keniensis still needs to be checked. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately you seem to have had a mishap with keniensis; the article ended up at Dendrosencio keniensis (note missing "e" is generic name) Lavateraguy (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And it turns out that S. keniodendron also needs a move. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. That will teach me to copy and paste the bolded title in the lead for the move target without double checking it! --Rkitko (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Magnoliidae and magnoliids

These articles were created separately. The reasoning at the time (Brya's, I believe) was that Magnoliidae would be an article about the taxonomic name. The article for magnoliids was separate because the clade was in no way associated with the formal name Magnoliidae. While this reasoning was valid at the time, the paper by Cantino et al. published in 2007 (Taxon 56(3): E1-E44) formally assigns the name Magnoliidae to the APG II magnoliids under the PhyloCode. In the past week, we have discussed the idea of incorporating the Cantino et al. nomenclature into our articles in order to make the articles primarily about the plants rather than their names, and have experimented with doing so on the Rosidae.

I propose that we try out the idea wholesale with the merger of Magnoliidae and magnoliids. (Note: as an admin, I can do that in a way that will preserve the edit history of both.) If we like the results, we can do the same for other such situations. If this doesn't work, we can separate the articles again. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No objection, but what happened to the proposed merge of (1) rosid and Rosidae or (2) asterid and Asteridae? Kingdon (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that will continue. I have made the specific proposal here, because I intend to carry it through much further than either of those mergers have gone thus far, in an attempt to explore what the finished product might look like. I don't know as much about the rosids and asterids, and prefer (personally) to start with magnoliids because it's a smaller group (under the current definition), and will therefore be a bit easier for me to manage. If this works out, I'll tackle a big one like monocots or the monilophytes. It's purely coincidence those all start with "M" --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3% of angiosperms turns out to be a fairly large group. That would be 15,000 species. Using what links to the 4 APG orders gives an estimate of about 1,500 articles, but for most of those a bot tweaking the taxobox would, I hope, be sufficient. (There are a few articles using non-APG orders in taxoboxes, such as Aristolochiales). Lavateraguy (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up Aristolochiales, except for Flora of Romania, which uses Cronquist or something similar. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uh... but Aristolochiales is a redirect to Aristolochiaceae ( in class! "Magnoliopsida"), and Aristolochiaceae is in turn listed as in "order Piperales", which is placed in (unranked) "magnoliids". Aristolochiaceae is listed with "Division Magnoliophyta", but Piperales has no division listed. These aren't consistent at all, and that's why I want to start working with a small clade. Every single taxobox and taxobox link for every included taxon has to be checked. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I suggested setting up bot off to produce a CSV (or equivalent) table of taxobox contents. If we had that it would be easier to see what the inconsistencies are.
Is there a place for a Taxonomy Work Group to try to move WikiPedia closer to consistency on plant taxonomy. (With multiple authors working from multiple sources we can't really expect perfect consistency; and we have 100 times as many taxa to worry about as the Mammals or Birds Projects.) Lavateraguy (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea to me. It could also include a list of key resources, links to the most useful online references, and a guide to which publications present the classification system(s) we're using. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aristolochiales now stubbed. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um... why? I thought we had proposed merging articles for synonymous circumscriptions, so the Aristolochiales would be included in the Piperales article. Am I wrong? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC) OK, a stub for the "obsolete" taxon name. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall any such discussion, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. However, if you thinking of discussion of the handling of monotypic taxa (which I infer existed because I've seen reference to the conclusions), I don't think that it is applicable to this case. For further elucidation of my opinions I'll start a new heading, since the indentation's getting a bit deep. Lavateraguy (talk)
The discussion I'm thinking of is at the end of #Rosidae/rosids etc above, about making the pages more about the clade and less about the label. I'm just wondering how far we want to take that, since it would mean a major change in the way we've been thinkking about articles. The zoological folks use that philosophy, but then again, they haven't had to contend with the many major re-classifications that botanists have had. The major classes and phyla of animals aren't all that different from when I was in school, but the major plant classes and divisions certainly have changed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This all looks like an improvement. I did expand the lead of Magnoliidae with some text from Angiosperm and the order articles. One thing: how attached are you to having Mesangiospermae in the taxoboxes? If they go directly from angiosperm to the subclasses, then that is only 8 groups directly under angiospermae, which seems manageable. My reluctance to include Mesangiospermae is, I guess, twofold: (a) it is an obscure concept in a world where most reference works still organize by about monocots and dicots, so just going directly from angiosperm to monocot, eudicot, or one of the other 6 groups strikes me as a good way to be up to date without placing undue emphasis on concepts which aren't needed here (the 8 main groups, however, I would classify as needed concepts), (b) I guess this is related, but Mesangiospermae includes the vast majority of angiosperms (about 250,000 species), excluding only 171 species.
The biggest problem with what I am suggesting is what rank to give the 8 groups: unranked_classis, class, subclass, or some of each. Kingdon (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not attched to Mesangiospermae particularly. The reason I include it is that (1) the Taxobox-use guidelines want a class to be included, (2) If no class is included, someone is going to come along thinking it's a mistake and add one, (3) for groups other than the Magnoliidae, there are suitable other choices to use, but Mesangiospermae is the only named node/taxon between "angiosperms" and the subclass. There is no reason why any monocot or eudicot group should use this label, as there are other suitable choices. I really wish that the APG folks had used a class name for this, since the majority of angiosperms would them fall into three classes (magnoliids, monocots, eudicots), but they didn't.
So, I would agree that Mesoangiospermae should not be used generally, but including it on the Magnoliidae, Chloranthaceae, and Ceratophyllales will fill a gap in the hierarchy that would otherwise be blank, and would allow for linking to a page that could explain why it is that not all flowering plants are classified as either monocot or dicot anymore. Of course, there will still be three basal angiosperm clades for which even this isn't an option, but do you see my reasoning? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I've left Magnoliidae with "Class: Mesangiospermae" for the moment, but have tried an alternative approach on pages like Austrobaileyales, where I have used "Class: see text". What do you think? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in the sense that none of the choices are quite tidy in every respect, I see the reasoning. I'm not going to argue the fine points of "Class: Mesangiospermae" versus "Class: see text" versus unranked_classis = Magnoliidae versus (I'm sure there are other possibilities), as I'm just glad to get dicotyledon out of the taxoboxes. Kingdon (talk) 02:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

handling of Aristolochiales

As I see it there are four possible ways of handling Aristolochiales

Consider it not notable, and have no article on it.
Redirect to Aristolochiaceae.
Redirect to Piperales
Create a short article covering it.
  • Rules of thumb about what taxa are notable is a question that the suggested Taxonomy Work Group could consider. My suggestion is that all classes, order and families published in mainstream botanical works after specified dates (after ICBN?) are notable (but not all subclasses, superorders and suborders). If this is agreed then the first alternative can be discounted.
  • Aristolochiales isn't necessarily a component of Piperales; there's been too much overlap of ordinal, etc., circumscriptions for technical synonymy to be useful rule of thumb for redirecting articles. (Where would Dillenidae or Hamamelidae redirect?) Per WP:NOR and WP:NPOV it is not our role to identify the one true classification (but the use of taxoboxes and categories forces us to compromise on that to a degree, as agreeing on a consensus for use in those circumstances it preferable to having that stuff inconsistent). The APG system and derivatives are neither the final word on classification, nor mandatory on botanists. For example the new Heywood et al doesn't follow the APG family classification (replacing Malvaceae by, IIRC, 10 families), and for all I know has divergences in the handling of orders as well. Personally, I would be tempted to make the four major asterid clades superorders, and split Ericales into several orders, resurrecting Theales etc. Someone else might do the same for Piperales, creating an order Aristolochiales consisting of Aristolochiaceae ± Asaraceae, Lactoridaceae and Hydnoraceae
  • So, by elimination, I conclude that there should be an article for Aristochiales (also for Annonales, etc). The principle objection I see to this is that the article will never have enough information to get far up the article class category. I'm sufficient of an inclusionist not to see that as a problem; the same probably holds for article categories like villages in France or rivers in Romania. (Wikipedia is not a paper encylopedia applies.)
I can see and agree with some of your reasoning on Aristolochiales, particularly as it is an order in both the Cronquist and Thorne systems, but am baffled by some of the arguments as well (isn't necessarily monotypic?), and I note that Annonales was not used in either the Cronquist or Thorne systems. I won't put forward more than that, since it's a bigger issue that, as you say, could use some good focussed discussion to determine how we want to do that, and here may not be the best place for that discussion. Should this be a PLANTS subgroup, or something done together with the other TOL groups? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps "not necessarily monotypic" would have been better phrased as "not monotypic in all systems".
When you note that Annonales was not used in either the Cronquist or Thorne systems, I presume that this is implicit support for a restricted conception of notability for flowering plant orders. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I reserve my opinion to be both presented and shaped by a larger discussion. This issue impacts many more people than just the two of us. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polygonum, Persicaria, etc. (it's a maaaaadhouse!)

I was flipping back and forth between Wikiversity, Wikibooks, Commons, and here, and was hoping someone could help work through the mess here while I'm floating about in outer Wikimedia. The Persicaria article in particular seems to be just a chunk cut out from the Polygonum article, but I think a lot of careful redirect creations (as well as moves to binomials) are going to be required (with the ensuing redirect fixes, etc. Anyone have some good sources for double-checking the current status of these genera? Good refs would be especially good to have when moving commons galleries and categories about. --SB_Johnny | talk 22:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant subfamily is covered in the on-line FNA. They do recognize Persicaria, though I can't say which species they include, as I wasn't aware of the nomenclature change until you posted. Their page on Persicaria says that "opinions vary widely", but they do list two publications in particular that they relied upon for the volume. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No way! You're not going to sucker me in on another massive hunt-the-species exercise like I self-suckered myself for Eupatorium. But especially for things like classification and species lists there seems to be a fair bit of material at efloras.org (Flora of North America and Flora of China, at least). Also look at Bistorta and Aconogonon. Kingdon (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to remind people, we already have Senecio and List of Senecio species to worry about. (If anyone has access to Pelser's Taxon paper from last year ...) Lavateraguy (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So it's one genus at a time? --SB_Johnny | talk 10:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't intend that implication.
Returning to the original subject, coincidentally I was looking at this topic a few days ago, related to filing my digital photograph collection. There's a new paper available at the Donaghue Lab. I've only skimmed it, but it seems that the choice is to abandon monophyly, abandon traditionally recognised genera such as Fagopyrum and Koenigia, or recognise Persicaria, Bistorta and Aconogon. The abstract to the Lamb-Frye and Kron paper from 2003 suggests that it would also be helpful; perhaps one could infer the essentials from FNA. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plant IDs

Since the frequency with which plant ID requests seem to find WP:PLANTS, does anyone think it prudent to create Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Identification requests and add a note at the top of this page? I suppose the frequency isn't enough to disturb the flow of discussion on other topics, but I thought I'd throw the idea out there. --Rkitko (talk) 00:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the creation of a subpage is inevitable in the long term, but I think, as you've mentioned, that the frequency is not yet a problem. I personally prefer that the IDs have the exposure to the many knowledgeable people who view this page, as I consider the correct identification of the photographs in our articles as a key factor in our article credibility. Melburnian (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And hopefully all editors willing to provide a discriminating eye on photographs would be sufficiently notified when we do split off a subpage for IDs. --Rkitko (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if there couldn't be some way of centralizing this more... we have this project, commons:Category:Unidentified plants, and v:Bloom Clock/Unknown Plants, with probably many more on other 'pedias. The commons category in particular has hundreds (if not thousands) of images hiding in the subcategories. I had the thought of trying to set up an identification project at beta.wikiversity (which is a multilingual hub project), and using templates there to alert bots that could in turn ping on the relevant-language projects (eliminating the multiple watchlist problem while also allowing for cross-language collaboration)... anyone interested? --SB_Johnny | talk 10:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK potential Pteridomania

The article on cushion plants on the main page DYK was nice and got the second most clicks for the month of June; it was also accompanied by a nice picture. Although I started the article I was in no way responsible for the final produce on the main page, which was the collective effort of some plant editors.

Someone just created an article on Pteridomania. I haven't reviewed the article at all, but I think it's an excellent topic that could make a nice article with an interesting hook and fun image that a lot of Wikipedia plant editors could contribute to. I need a serious wikibreak, so I won't be working on it, and I realize all have their own projects, but the cushion plant article was a nice small group effort that produced a useful article. This could do the same, if on a less important topic. But a fun topic. I've wanted a fern house almost all of my life. --Blechnic (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. New plant articles are fertile ground for DYKs...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I especially liked the quote "wrangling over unpronounceable names of species (which seem different in each new Fern-book that they buy)". Some things haven't changed in the intervening 150 years (for ferns or various other plants). Kingdon (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dame's Rocket

Can I get an admin to correct the page name for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dame%27s_Rocket and any redirects needed, thanks. Hardyplants (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've also eliminated all double redirects. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you EncycloPetey, that was quick. Hardyplants (talk) 06:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Western Red Lily

I have been thinking about working on this article, as I have some excellent photos and info available, being from Saskatchewan. Before I started, I wanted to check if the article should be under the name Lilium philadelphicum. I must admit, I wasn't sure if the naming conventions specified in the project page were for new articles, or if old ones should be redone as well. Thanks for any help. leafschik1967 (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the move! leafschik1967 (talk) 03:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

new category

FWIW - I made Category:Plants used in bonsai Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration

OK, I have cleared the collaboration to start again, as there was some cautious support for it about a month ago before I got sidetracked. Now folks a good one to do maybe is something a bit hefty with a few facets for different folks to get stuck into. It would be great if wikipedia got a few high profile or large FAs, have a look at King Arthur for a recent collaborative effort. Yes I know he is not a plant. Gingko went down like a lead balloon but you neer know....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Plant ID

I've got a feeling that this is a type of Hawaiian hibiscus but unsure. Bidgee (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd overlook it as a cultivar of Hibiscus rosa-sinensis (I'd be very surprised if it's not something in section Lilibiscus), but the fringed petals suggest some Hibiscus schizopetalus in its ancestry. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(If anyone would care to link a new image from commons into Hibiscus schizopetalus ... ; the image previously there wasn't that species. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks for that. I just found an image on commons for Hibiscus schizopetalus and have added the image. Bidgee (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silly redirects

Please make Neelix (talk · contribs) stop creating silly plants-related redirects. Colchicum (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This one] in particular. Colchicum (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a comment about redirecting the species name to a genus or to a floristic list. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He's also been creating disambiguation pages for <letter>. <epithet>., e..g. L. maritimus. IPNI's down, so I can't gather any data on how large such disambiguation lists would be if complete, but it doesn't strike me as a good idea. Looking at this contribution history he seems to be a bit redirect-happy. Lavateraguy (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be huge, because the list would not be limited to just plants. Consider that C. elegans is both a model-organism nematode and the type species for mariposa lilies! (Aside: I've always wanted to present at a major biological meeting a talk entitled "Current research in C. elegans" just to see how many people would get up and walk out once it became clear I was talking about a flower. ...with the first five minutes of the talk suitably ambiguous, but with the occasional "odd" comment to leave the nematologists in the audience confused.)--EncycloPetey (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I'd suggest to add lists of plant names you guys are concerned with, if you have them handy, to your watchlists (via "edit raw watchlist"). This is how I discovered the redirect of Bolboschoenus maritimus, which would probably go undetected for months otherwise. The new articles bot doesn't pick up redirects. Colchicum (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may also wish to comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 July 14‎ (under Mermessus proximus). --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serviceberry species

There seems to be a slow-motion edit war going on at Amelanchier, basically delinking species articles because, I guess, some people think that the taxa are invalid or synonyms or something. There have been so many edits back and forth now that I've completely lost track - anybody want to try to make sense of it? Some protection and/or blocking may be in order too. Stan (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Campbell Lab at the University of Maine is referred to for the various species. The information there seems to correspond to the new Flora of North America. The IPs who have been removing the wikilinks are addresses at the University of Maine. I don't think the claim (except perhaps for A. lamarckii and A. stolonifera) is that the species are invalid. Perhaps someone thinks that the Wikipedia articles on the species are no good, and readers would be better reading the University of Maine pages. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe someone just thinks the red links are ugly and so removes them. Some editors are so bothered by the appearance of red that they start new articles, but others delink to "solve" the "problem". --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this case they're bluelinks, not redlinks. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So they are. I've protected the page for 93 days from anon edits. This is longer than I normally would do, but there seems to be a long time between the edits. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a related point, it seems that we should be merging Amelanchier stolonifera with Amelanchier spicata (discuss) Lavateraguy (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects on "G. species" disambiguation pages

Please see this discussion so that we can come to a conclusion about redirects used on "G. species" disambiguation pages.

Thank you, Neelix (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Identification of a flowering tree needed

For Image:Pair of tui in flowering tree.jpg. The shot was taken in Coromandel, New Zealand (see the geocoding), though the species is likely to be introduced. It looks familiar but I'm not confident enough to make a guess (so ignorant about plants...) Richard001 (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be Prunus campanulata. Seems that tui like to hang out in them.[9]. Melburnian (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought; we have some of them on campus at my university. Cheers! Richard001 (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another one of my juvenile questions: How about this one ? Richard001 (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Melia azedarach? Hesperian 23:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How confident are you on that one? There are several more photos of the same sort of scene at Commons and on Flickr, where the photos were taken from, if that's any help. I don't think any of them identify the tree (it's annoying when people think it is adequate to describe/categorize pictures like these based on the animal in them, but not the plant. Of course, they may just not know the tree, like me. Richard001 (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How confident? Not particularly. Hesperian 01:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confident, they appear on the menu as well [10] (introduced species) Melburnian (talk) 04:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So they do; I have added it to the description and category. Thanks. Richard001 (talk) 02:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agapanthus

I recently took pictures of many Agapanthus, and went to look up information about the species, assuming of course that I had A. africanus. Imagine my horror when I came across this website in South Africa that states that most plants sold and cultivated as "A. africanus" are actually A. praecox! According to the site, A. africanus is actually very difficult to grow outside of a Mediterranean climate. This (sadly) does not help me make my idnetification, since I was photographing in a Mediterranean climate, but it may impact the identification of most of the other pictures we have on Commons and the article on Agapanthus africanus.

So, is there anyone out there with definitie characteristics or access to a South African Flora or guide that can give physical characteristics to distinguish the species? The South African website relies primarily on distribution in South Africa, which is no help to me, and the physical characteristics are described as "variable". The site also descibes the leaves of A. africanus as "leathery", but does not describe the leaves of A. praecox for comparison. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia, the widely cultivated/weedy variety is referred to as Agapanthus praecox subsp.orientalis[11][12] The same plant is referred to as Agapanthus africanus in older plant books. Here's a description [13] Melburnian (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance request for Aloe vera

Hi All -

I've been working towards getting Aloe vera to good article status and have had it reviewed. I'd appreciate any assistance WP:PLANTS members can offer to help get this article up to scratch. It's close, but it's a big topic given the amount of material available on this species. I'd particularly appreciate any content fixes (as some of the sentences don't flow together too well yet) and alterations to make it more accessible to non-scientific readers. Any assistance would be most welcome! MidgleyDJ (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation status update

Hello. I need help finding the current conservation status for the following seven species of endemic flowering plants of Hawaii:

  1. Charpentiera elliptica
  2. Charpentiera obovata
  3. Charpentiera ovata
  4. Charpentiera tomentosa
  5. Nototrichium divaricatum
  6. Nototrichium humile
  7. Nototrichium sandwicense

If I had to guess at the answers, they would be the following:

  1. Least Concern (current Wiki article claims "Endangered", need verification)
  2. Unknown
  3. Least Concern
  4. Least Concern
  5. Critically Endangered
  6. Endangered
  7. Unknown

Thanks in advance for any insight you can offer. Viriditas (talk) 13:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of these plants appears on the IUCN Red List, which means that none of them appear on the Nature Conservancy list either, since the latter's rankings have now been imported into the former. The only one that appears on the Endangered Species Act list is Nototrichium humile, which is ranked as "Endangered".[14] Hesperian 14:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does Hawaiian Vascular Plants at Risk: 1999 help? Lavateraguy (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does, but can anyone tell me why these plants aren't listed on IUCN? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if I judge by what our article on the IUCN Red List says in its opening summary, it's because they're not birds or other kinds of animals. Reading that introduction leads me to believe the list is primarily about animals. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only a few plant groups (Pinophyta and Araceae IIRC) have been completed for the redlist. Circeus (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genisteae

Genisteae had a lot of incoming redlinks, and while missing from Wikipedia EN was present, fide Wikipedia ES, in 15 other language wikis (in actuality some of those covered Genista instead). I started an English language Genisteae article based on the Spanish one, but then discovered a similar article at broom (shrub). I've made Genisteae a redirect, and copied the list of genera from Wikipedia ES to the broom article. However brooms seem to be a narrower group than Genisteae, which also includes Laburnum, Lupinus and Ulex, fide Wikipedia ES. Should the article be split? or moved to Genisteae? or ...? Lavateraguy (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you group broom and Genisteae together your going to confuse a lot of people that will look up broom. As you have already pointed out, broom is a subset of species, there is a lot of interest in growing them and some have become weedy. I think separate articles or a major subheading under genisteae is called for, but if the term is used through out the Genisteae article it will confuse. Hardyplants (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And then, of course, the taxobox at broom (shrub) should be removed since it's not an article on a specific taxon. I'd agree with your assessment that they should be separate articles. --Rkitko (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More grist to the mill; most of the genera in the broom taxobox redirect there, but Genista has its own article, and Spartium redirects to Spartium junceum, as Spanish Broom. Teline is considered by some to be a broom, and appears to be closely related to Genista if not nested therein, but has no article, and is not mentioned at broom, or at the Spanish article on Genisteae.
Broom (shrub) might correspond in some circumscription of subtribe Genistinae. The wide circumscription includes inter alia Laburnum and Ulex, but there are narrower circumscriptions. Some literature refers to a Cytisus-Genista complex. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied the page over to a Genisteae subpage in user space, to be worked on.
I presume that the intention is that in the long run all the genera will have their own pages. When that happy state is reached, is there any role left for broom (shrub), except as a few lines in broom (disambiguation)? Lavateraguy (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So then all the different common names, like Scotch and Portuguese broom, will be redirects to the corresponding species, some of the hybrids might be a challenge, they can be dealt with when the time comes I guess. Hardyplants (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out that I need a citation for Genisteae having priority over Cytiseae. the Flora Iberica project says that Adanson's 1763 publication of Genisteae is invalid, and INSPV says that the first (1820) publication of Cytisieae was also invalid. I infer that the first valid publication of either of these names was Genisteae (1827-9). Lavateraguy (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed community ban of User:CarolSpears

CarolSpears has had a lot of support from plant editors, so I am notifying you that I have proposed a community ban of her, to include blocking her talk page.[15] --Blechnic (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion over there seems to have closed, but I support the ban. Kingdon (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject notification bot

There is currently a proposal for a bot that would notify WikiProjects when their articles have entered certain workflows, e.g. when they are nominated for deletion or for Good article reassessment.

The question is whether a relevant number of wikiprojects would be interested in using such a bot. You can find details of the functionality, and leave your comments, at the bot request page.

I am posting this message to the 20 largest WikiProjects (by number of articles), since they would be the most likely users. Thanks, --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hypophysis

Hypophysis was a redirect to Pituitary gland; I have made it a disambiguation page, but perhaps it should be made into an article within scope of this project, with a dablink at the top. --Una Smith (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, or a mention in Plant embryogenesis or maybe a more specific article for eudicots (or dicots, whichever makes sense). Trying to have one article per term probably, for the most part, doesn't work as well as somewhat broader articles. Kingdon (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the dab page is better now. Has a link to Hypophysis (plant embryogenesis), which is a redirect to Plant embryogenesis, which now mentions hypophysis. Thanks. --Una Smith (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If someone has the time/knowledge, there is plenty of room to expand/improve the Plant embryogenesis article (for example, better tying hypophysis into the rest of embryogenesis). But this is a good start. Thanks. Kingdon (talk) 04:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of culinary fruits

There is a discussion here about the organization of List of culinary fruits. The current situation is a mess. An editor has suggested an arrangement by climate and geographic origin, to help readers determine whether a specific species could be grown in their area. I pointed out that the article title refers to culinary fruits, not cultivated fruits, and that perhaps an arrangement into culinary categories might be more appropriate, but neither of us have expertise in that area (I've asked for advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink). Another approach might be to move the article to List of cultivated fruits. As is the case with most list articles, it doesn't have a lot to offer. If any of you are interested, please take a look and give us your viewpoints.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amend taxobox for Kakabeak

The taxobox for Kakabeak needs changing from species to genus. I have little experience with taxoboxes so could someone with the skills please help out. See Talk:Kakabeak. thx. Nurg (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Melburnian (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Melburnian. Nurg (talk) 11:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stafleu

Can it be so? Do we really not have an article on Frans Stafleu?! Hesperian 13:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a job for the Frans Stafleu fan club - Melburnian (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you just {{sofixit}} me? :P Hesperian 00:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who me? :P Fortunately, Curtis has come to the rescue. Melburnian (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is even more astonishing that neither nl.wikipedia nor de.wikipedia have articles. I made a stub.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I knew the JSTOR access was because of my library, but for some reason it never occurred to me that the Springer link was, too. I won't be able to add much more until later this week; if anyone else is interested, email me through my WP link and I'll send you some information.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Machaerium nyctitans??

Machaerium nyctitans has an article on Portuguese Wikipedia:

O bico-de-pato (Machaerium nyctitans (Vell. Conc.) Benth.) é uma árvore da família Fabaceae.
Sinonímia [synonym] botânico: Machaerium nictitans (Vell. Conc.) Benth., Nissolia nyctitans Vell. Conc.

This species is not listed on English Wikipedia Machaerium.
Should it be? Is it a synonym of something else?
-- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Species lists in genus articles are commonly not exhaustive. As Machaerium nyctitans is listed as an accepted species in ILDIS it would be reasonable to add this species at Machaerium. Lavateraguy (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've now created a stub for the species and added it to the species list. Melburnian (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New medicinal herb template

There is a new template at Template:Medicinal herbs & spices. I believe it to be unworkable, as basically all culinary herbs in the Template:Herbs & spices template may also be used for medicinal purposes, and there are thousands of herbs used for strictly medicinal purposes. Badagnani (talk) 02:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of sequenced plastomes

I've been meaning to put together a list of plastomes for a while. I've now decided it might of well be on Wikipedia as anywhere else, so I've made a start. Anyone else is welcome to pitch in. Lavateraguy (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amomum

Hi, can any skilled editors evaluate the newly added species (do any need to be lumped together?), and add articles for any of them? Many thanks, Badagnani (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Amonum costatum and Amomum subulatum should be set up as redirects to Black cardamom, with a view to the last eventually being an article on the spice, and there being separate articles on the species. Any views? (PS: I've made some changes based on the bold assumption that the rest of Wikipedia is reliable.) Lavateraguy (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorting Amomum Names doesn't agree with several elements of that list (ex Wikispecies?) Lavateraguy (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flora of China gives a recent view on the Chinese species. Lavateraguy (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flora of China doesn't agree that Amomum compactum is Alpinia nutans. I'm also wondering if Sorting Amomum Names is wrong and Amomum zerumbet is Alpinia zerumbet, rather than Zingiber zerumbet. Lavateraguy (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.tropicos.org/NameSynonyms.aspx?nameid=34500581 Hardyplants (talk) 07:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buchanania

Thanks for help at Amomum above. Now, I see that Buchanania lists only 3 species, but this website has many more. Can someone help? Badagnani (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help with this? It would be greatly appreciated. Badagnani (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone kindly help with this? Badagnani (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 1993 edition of Mabberley's The Plant Book says there are 25 species in Indo-Malaysia and the western Pacific. Unless the genus has been reworked to synonymize most of the species, or unless a splinter genus has been broken off, then the site listing more species is probably correct. All our article says is that it "includes" those three species. The genus article was created by Polbot from a list of rare and endangered species, so only species of conservational concern were included in the initial page creation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banana production in Côte d'Ivoire

I need botanical intervention with this article. I started an article on Cocoa production in Côte d'Ivoire in which I copied and pasted useful, although not yet checked, information from other articles on Wikipedia to cover the basic botany. However, bananas are beyond me. What I know about bananas is nowhere in Wikipedia, and I can't figure out the basics about banana botany. (I know they're a monicot, but I need specific cultivars, links to the correct species articles, what's a plantain, versus a banana, botanically speaking, and the parent of the dessert banana.) Bananas are a large, valuable, and well-studied export crop for Côte d'Ivoire, so detailed information about bananas in Côte d'Ivoire is available, but the general botany for bananas is not easy for me to find. Can someone add some basics about the botany of production to this article, and I will write the economics, agricultural details, and diseases around this? The help would be appreciated. --Blechnic (talk) 08:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a fair bit of botany at Banana and especially Musa (genus). As for where to find more, a google scholar search for "musa banana" gets a lot of hits but I don't really have a more targeted suggestion. Kingdon (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are problems with the article which leave me confused, and I am having trouble finding better information. The article says the dessert bananas are "species Musa acuminata or the hybrid Musa × paradisiaca, a cultigen," but then the Musa acuminata article mentions nothing about it being the parent species for the cultivated dessert banana, and in fact is so short as to be useless, hence confusion. There is no Musa × paradisiaca article for some reason, hence more confusion, it should be important, but maybe the name is different for cultivars? The Cavendish banana article is tagged all over with fact needed, but I did use it for my redirect from banana to the actual cultivar most used. I'll add a see also to the Gros Michel article, since I mention Panama disease, but this article is also practically useless. The article goes on to say that Musa x paradisiaca is also the name for the plantain, leaving me simply confused. The Musa (genus) article is too sparse in areas I need to be usable.
I can and will improve some of these articles on the agricultural and economic aspects of bananas, but google searches on the botany of bananas overwhelmed me. If someone could find me a single review article, I could get the information myself, but I can't find an article that discusses the cultivated banana, its parents, the cultivated plantain, its parents, and their relationship within the genus Musa, including what sections include edible fruit. There is too much information, and I'm not a botanist, so I can't enter the correct parameters to limit the search properly. Thanks for the feedback, though. Maybe someone else knows something already about bananas? --Blechnic (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Musa x paradisiaca is Musa acuminata x Musa balbisiana, fide Flora of North America. Musa acuminata is an AA diploid, Musa balbisiana a BB diploid; other bananas are AAA, AB, AAB, ABB, AAAB, AABB or ABBB (BBB is apparently not found). Try this for an overview of the taxonomy.
Most cultivated bananas are selections and hybrids of M. acuminata and M. balbisiana, but the 'Fei' bananas of the Pacific are also eaten.
My impression is that the distinction between plantains and bananas is rather like that between cooking and eating apples, and is of little botanical significance. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also Biodiversity International. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.sbmp.org.br/cbab/sisartigo/pdf/1(4)%202001/1(4)_399-436p-2001.pdf. Hardyplants (talk) 09:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two categories for pears

There seem to be two categories for pears (Category:Pears and Category:Pyrus) and there is a lot of overlap between them. Since I'm unfamiliar with how plants are categorised on Wikipedia, I thought I'd come here before going to CFD. Which is the standard category title in this case, and which category should be merged? Thanks, –Black Falcon (Talk) 23:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I want to rationalize the two after the fact, Category:Pears seems to be for pears which are eaten by people, and Category:Pyrus for all pears (thus making the first a subcategory of the second). With a few exceptions, such as Callery Pear being double-listed (when it would just be in Pyrus according to the above), this seems to be the current practice. Now, we could change this, and even if we don't do that should at least explain (for example, via a sentence at the top of each category) what each category is supposed to contain. Kingdon (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we had an article like Pear pudding, Pear liqueur, or Pear tart, plant people always remove it if we add a genus category, but those would work under a "Pears" category. Similarly, we have at Category:Chicken dishes category. Badagnani (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Bollwyller Pear existed (the article is a Shipova, rather than x Sorbopyus, and there's no redirect) that would be another one which would might go under Category:Pears and not Category:Pyrus. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I understand now. Thanks, –Black Falcon (Talk) 01:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need help

Is the proper genus Carum or Trachyspermum? Trachyspermum roxburghianum seems to also be called Carum roxburghianum , and I don't know which is most correct. We have both genera under Apiaceae, but I don't know if both genera still exist or if one has replaced the other. Can someone help sort this out? Badagnani (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't necessarily a right snswer to the question. This paper has both Carum and Trachyspermum as polyphyletic, so there's a good chance that both generic names should be recognised, but that doesn't help with your Trachyspermum roxburghianum. However Flora of China (warning 4.5Mb) treats this species under that name. While I don't agree with everything in Flora of China, it's probably as good a source as you're going to get on this topic. (I had a look at Plants India, but they don't seem to have completed their Umbelliferae list, and have both names in their raw data.)
The key character separating the genera in Flora of China is "Fruit oblong-ellipsoid or ellipsoid, base rounded" (Carum) vs "Fruit ovoid-globose, base often cordate" (Trachyspermum). Lavateraguy (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sago palm

Sago, about the starch extracted from the palm Metroxylon sagu, has several paragraphs about how sago is extracted also from the cycad Cycas revoluta (highly unlikely), followed by several paragraphs about how Cycas revoluta is extremely toxic (true). Both palm and cycad are often called "sago palm" in English, resulting in much confusion. Please help clean up this article. --Una Smith (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely? Perhaps. True? Evidently [16][17][18][19][20][21] (just in the first two pages of results for googling cycas sago starch food). This is not necessarily surprising; Aesculus seeds were used by several native American groups both as a fish poison and as a food, the latter after leaching, and castor oil and ricin come from the same seeds.--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Curtis, but I was hoping for something a little more scholarly. The first two Google hits you cite are to documents that conflate the palm and the cycad. The palm is monocarpic; the cycad is not. The palm flowers and dies at age 7-15 years; the cycad can live far in excess of 100 years and by age 15 most won't have any stem above ground. --Una Smith (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200113/000020011301A0425142.php Hardyplants (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Hardyplants. Una, you should know that a drive-by googling is much quicker than scholarly research, and can still frame the issue. Also, I don't see any evidence of conflation in the first two references; they are both explicitly about the cycad.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The conflation is where sago cycads are described as an important source of starch. I can find no reliable source re any cycad being a current commercial source of starch. Historically, there was one (see Florida arrowroot), and a few very traditional indigenous cultures still harvest cycads for starch, but primarily (only?) in times of famine. --Una Smith (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cartilage in plants

Recently I've come across mentions of certain plants or plant parts being "cartilaginous". I hope one of you guys knows enough about plant tissues to tell me whether this sense of the word "cartilage" is the same as is used in the article cartilage, which doesn't mention plants at all? Hesperian 13:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daydon Jackson, A Glossary of Botanic Terms defines cartilaginous as "hard and tough, as the skin of an apple-pip". That's not unambiguous, but I would interpret the use with respect to plants are relating to the physical properties of the tissue, rather than to the composition. That's supported by material at WikiBooks that says that only animals have collagen (plus, nowadays, trangenic plants). However an article in the EMBO Journal reports the presence of collagen in fungi, so perhaps animals should read opisthokonts. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict.

cartilagenous = hardened and tough, but capable of being bent. Dictionary of Botany George usher. I can't recall ever running into the use my self, don't have to many plants with this type of tissues, but I am sure that it could be applied to many tropical and some plants from arid locations. Hardyplants (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks to both of you. Now all I have to do is figure out the difference between "follicles woody" and "follicles cartilaginous", which is apparently a different sufficient to split at subgeneric rank; and how it is possible for one of my sources to refer to the follicles of that subgenus as both "soft" and "cartilaginous". :-( Hesperian 14:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a guess, but one is hard and brittle and the other is soft and pliable. Hardyplants (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I think you're (almost) right, Hardyplants. "follicles woody" means "follicles hard and tough and brittle"; "follicles cartilaginous" means "follicles hard and tough but pliable". My second source, which is horticultural rather than systematic, has picked up only half the meaning of "cartilaginous", and mistranslated the pliable bit as "soft". Thanks again. Hesperian 23:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hemsley writes of Pyrus s.l. "Fruit fleshy, 2- to 5-celled, cells 1- or 2-seeded, cartilaginous", which makes the tough bit surrounding the core of an apple cartilaginous. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Systematic_bias

PS: there appears to be some concern over too many US-related hooks nommed at DYK...so...(hint hint) big opportunity to address that with some plant article expansions. Remember multiplying stubs by 5x.. :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ulmus apostrophes

The page Ulmus 'Morton Plainsman' contains apostrophes in the name, as did Ulmus New Horizon (formerly Ulmus 'New Horizon'). The latter I moved, but seeing several of the former in fixing redirects I wondered if it was a MOS thing for cultivars and plants that I wasn't aware of. Does anyone know? WLU (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can not comment on the MOS thing- they do some things that I do not understand, but a cultivar should have the apostrophes, thus Ulmus New Horizon is incorrect. It should be Ulmus 'New Horizon' or can be U. 'New Horizon' with in the body of any work. Hardyplants (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See cultivar. Hardyplants (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) states that scientific names are to be used as page titles, with certain specific exceptions. Where a scientific name is followed by a cultivar epithet, the epithet is correctly expressed with the initial letter(s) capitalised and enclosed in single quotation marks. --Melburnian (talk) 14:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New WikiProject proposal: Biota of the UK and Ireland

I've proposed a new WikiProject named WikiProject Biota of the UK and Ireland which would encompass all species and conservation efforts within Britain, an extremely interesting area. The project would include vegetation classification, Category:Lists of British animals, Category:Conservation in the United Kingdom, Category:Ecology of the British Isles, Category:Forests and woodlands of the United Kingdom, Category:Fauna of the British Isles and anything else to do with the flora and fauna of Britain. If anyone is interested just leave your name on the proposal page. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tissue (biology)

While I am able to provide expert input into the animal aspects of this page, it would be very useful for a botanist to provide expert input for the plant tissue section of the page. LLDMart (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of input are you seeking? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synonymy frustrations, again

I can't figure it out: is it Asteromoea mongolica, or Kalimeris mongolica? I'm afraid I made both of those pages, so this is more or less an argument with myself at the moment :-). --SB_Johnny | talk 10:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny, Daisy taxonomy is a freakin' nightmare, with only 30,000 species and rising. Many huge genera have been partly revised and some until recently were still in limbo. I am not aware of the species you mention, but giving you a heads up (groan). If I get a chance I may ferret around a bit but am a bit busy. Asteraceae ain't really my forte. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a relevant paper in Ann. MOBot. - available at Botanicus and JSTOR. I only skimmed the first couple of pages, but it looks as if Kalimeris is correct. (I'll leave it to you to read the rest of the paper.) Lavateraguy (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I've updated our Kalimeris article. I didn't read the whole paper either (at least not yet). Kingdon (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bleh. I don't want to read papers... I just want to read wikipedia and get the scoop :-). --SB_Johnny | talk 19:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Automated creation of alga articles

Hi,

I'm writing a bot which will automatically create stubs on algal taxa, from the genus level up. While this doesn't strictly fall under the juristiction of plants, any feedback on the stub articles would be very welcome. Stubs will appear over the next couple of days here; more details are available here, where any comments would be gratefully received.

Thanks, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... whose classficiation system(s) are you using? And which groups of algae do you mean? Arguably, there has been more revision of algal systematics over the last 20 years than for any plant group. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin,
That's great news! :) I went on an enthusiastic spree roughly a year ago, making articles for most taxa of the Chlorophyta and Charophyta (the green algae) at genus-level and higher, but undoubtedly I missed some and new taxa have been added in the meanwhile. You might also consider developing a bot to improve those earlier articles with a fuller description, images, more links to literature and databases, etc. I did the best I could, but I'm no expert and they were pretty rudimentary. Thanks for your good work, Willow (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I made a few templates and categories to help with the work, which you might consider? I made separate categories for each of the (major) taxonomic levels of algae: Category:Algae taxonomic classes, Category:Algae taxonomic orders, Category:Algae taxonomic families, and [[Category:Algae genera. Secondly, I made two templates for linking to taxonomic references and databases, unimaginatively titled {{Taxonomic references}} and {{Taxonomic links}}. ;) We can modify or specialize them for you, if that'd help! :) Willow (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - it should be relatively easy to expand your articles, as they appear to use a pretty consistent format. I'll bear this in mind. It might be easier to leave any further discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/anybot#Test_pages to keep it in one place. Cheers, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 20:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about avocado seeds

Illustrator LadyofHats created this diagram, and someone left her the following message:

  • "There is a mistake on your Wikipedia website about "Seed". The seed of an avocado (Persea americana, Lauraceae) does NOT contain any endosperm. The entire seed (apart from the seed coat) consists of the storage embryo with extremely short radicle and thickened cotyledons."

She would like a knowledgeable editor to confirm (or deny) this so she can change the diagram accordingly (or not).--ragesoss (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They do have an endosperm. I will post a reference soon. Hardyplants (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK that was not hard to locate after all; [22]

see page 121. Hardyplants (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the Avocado seed diagram, it looks like it might need to be adjusted though, the part marked as endosperm is not likely to be correct. Hardyplants (talk)
I'm not so sure. The image in the book is of a young fruitlet (including the flesh surrounding the seed), rather than a fully-developed lone seed. If the endosperm expands greatly, it could be correctly labeled.--ragesoss (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That my problem thus all the fudging with "might" and "likely", I do not know if the endosperm expands or is absorbed during development in avocados. I did not come across a good example of a labeled mature seed. Hardyplants (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My experience with mature avocados leads me to believe that all or almost all of the endosperm is absorbed by the cotyledons. Certainly the macroscopic storage tissue is all cotyledons. Even in the reference cited, the embryo already occupies much of the seed.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I would like to point out that the diagram i made actually disecting a avocado seed, so that what goes for the proportions i am quite sure of it. it is only the names what confuses me. becouse as far as i had understood it, the clear white section with the two arms IS the embryo and that everything else arround it was endosperm. but then again when the whole mass is not endosperm, then what is it? what would be the correct label in this case?-LadyofHats (talk) 10:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing that if you think back on your dissection, you'll remember that the surrounding tissue separated into two parts, which are the two cotyledons. Something similar occurs in peanuts, peas, and beans: the swollen cotyledons occupy the bulk of the seed, and the remainder of the embryo holds them together.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's completely contrary to my experience with avocado seeds. Most Magnoliid seeds contain copious endosperm and small embryos. The cotyledons are usually small and do not absorb the endosperm prior to germination the way that legumes do. I'm the one who recommended LadyOfHats use an avocado seed for a model based on a recent dissection. ... That said, I've looked for references or information. Most authors don't mention the embryo or seed anatomy (including FNA), and the closest I've managed to find so far is in Heywood's Flowering Plants of the World where he says of the Lauraceae that the seed contains a straight embryo and no endosperm. Cronquist concurs in his famiy description, so it looks as though the mass of tissue I had intrpreted as endosperm may be the cotyledons. What I wouldn't give for access to a microtome and decent microscope... --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A less practical option would be to germinate a seed and see if the seedling has large or small cotyledons. Or maybe find a picture of a seedling on the web. EncyloPetey, I have a good microscope (not often used any more), what would be much more practical would be a good stereoscope, I find what passes for a good substitution is a digital camera with a good macro lens, you can take a picture and enlarge it on the computer screen, the main problem is that its hard to hold the camera and a dissection probe at the same time. Hardyplants (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have germinated the seeds. The large half-ovoids remain attached to the embryo axis, and shrivel as cotyledons would.--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean for taking a photograph, I meant for examining the cellular structure of the tissues. A good anatomical invetigation might determine whether the tissue is strongly cellular, and thus unlikely to be endosperm. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You persist in mentioning that endosperm is not cellular, but that is not universally true. Commonly, endosperm has a free-nuclear phase, but cell walls form prior to seed maturation.--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The level of cytokinin activity in the endosperm is very high throughout the period that this tissue exists.

[23] and

Toward (f)ruit maturiy, the endosperm disappears and the seed coat shrivels and dies so that the pericarp and the cotyledons remain as the only active tissues in the mature fruit.

[24] Hardyplants (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry if i am a bit slow to understand this :P The avocado seed had a endosperm, but this dies slowly as the seed grows inside the fruit so that a grown up seed ( like the one in the diagram) has an embryo with two overgrown cotyledons( the mass arround the little white embryo). right? so to correct the diagram i remove the label endosperm and point the arrow of "cotyledons" to the two halfs of the seed(the big mass)..then what are the two little arms that are labeled cotyledons right now?

As Hardyplants mentions below, the little arms are probably the connectors of the cotyledons to the embryo axis, similar to petioles of a leaf. It's inaccurate to call the "little white" thing the embryo, as the cotyledons are also part of the embryo. I and others usually call it the "embryo axis".--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am really greatfull that you are taking so much work to answer my question :) and i also feel a bit embrased to interrupt you with yet another diagram -LadyofHats (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

he two "arms" might be rudimentary petioles attaching the cots to the seedling or are the leaves of the developing seedling, the cotyledons remain unmoved as the seed germinates and the seedling grows. If the seed in covered with soil, As the seedling grows it breaks the seed coat and produces a stem with true leaves and the cotyledons remain below ground. Hardyplants (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Hardyplants is correct that avocado has hypogeous germination: the hypocotyl does not elongate, and the cotyledons do not emerge above the soil. In this way it is similar to peas and different from beans.--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the diagram, still i will try to go to the bibliotec some time end this week and look for a couple of more sources :P thanks a lot for your help -LadyofHats (talk) 09:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wine grape diagram en.svg

I recently did this diagram under request from the Philip Greenspun illustration project the diagram should serve more the wine related articles, but still i tryed to make it as acurate as the sources allowed it. yet it would seem that there are some issues (especially arround the exact appearance of the locule and a disconnected vascular system on the skin )that are enough to make someone to call it a "botanical disaster" (full argument here) and i would like to know your opinion about it and which changes, if needed , have to be done to improve the acuracy of the diagram.-LadyofHats (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blechnic can be over to top sometimes in her comments, but that doesn't mean she's wrong. I don't have enough familiarity with grapes to know precisely how it should look, but it doesn't look right to me. For one thing, a locule is a cavity, so locular cavity sounds redundant. I can see how you could misinterpret this reference: it appears to be showing a collapsed locule as a thin line, the same locule that is more open in the less mature grape here. If the latter diagram were larger so I could read the labels, I could make more sense of what you should expect.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I don't know plant morphology well enough to help very much, but I would like to offer a few words of encouragement in that these diagrams are well-drawn (artistically) and are the kind of thing which I'd love to see more of, to illustrate some of these concepts (once we can make sure they are accurate, that is). Kingdon (talk) 05:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well i brought a kilo grapes yesterday so i will spend the day disceting them :P-LadyofHats (talk) 09:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help now becouse for starters the grapes i got have no obvious cavity [25], i got clear grapes becouse i was hoping i could realise more of the content of the fruit. but seeing them against the light didnt help much [26], i can recognise the 4 seeds and how they conect but no cavity as such, at must a darker area in the idle of the fruit [27]. but this one seems to be more line nerves than actually a tissue or a clear division. And actually it is far more visible when the grape berry is cut in the horizontal way [28] there one can also recognise that are like 3 lines.

is it posible that my grapes have not 2 but three locules? . anyway later on i desided to make thiner cuts to see a bit ore of detail [29],[30]. it was then when i realised that there was some sort of tissue that would divide the seed from the fruit [31]. and i was thinking this may be.. or?.. actually this whole thing with cuting grapes got me far more confused than i was. can you help me in this please? -LadyofHats (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're confusing grapes. Cultivated varieties often deviate from what one would expect in the wild species; for example, cultivated tomatoes usually have more than the two standard carpels. I see several things in these photographs that may be of use to you:
  1. The locules do indeed close as the fruit matures. I believe that the darker lines in grape4yd5.jpg that extend ± tangentially may be the collapsed remains of the locules.
  2. That same photo may very well represent a tricarpellate grape, with seeds in only two of the carpels.
  3. There are prominent axial vascular bundles in grape2ae3.jpg that extend to the stigma (this is expected). There are also peripheral bundles visible in that photo and also seen very clearly in cross section in the part of grape4yd5.jpg where the two halves are joined.
  4. The parts marked with red arrows in gape3gs0.jpg seem to correspond to the darkish lines around the center in grape4yd5.jpg.
Transillumination is indeed a useful technique for imaging many plant organs. I'd suggest getting some other grape varieties to increase your sample size. If you slice thick sections, and place them on a transparent or translucent flat background for the transillumination, you can even use dark varieties, since the pigment is in the outer layers.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got some dark grapes and ade some big changes in the iage, could you please have a look to see if it is ok now? . thanks for all your effort -LadyofHats (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any issues, but others should weigh in.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grass-stub

{{Grass-stub}} and Category:Grass stubs are presently defined as intended for "grass-related articles"; note that the word grass in that sentence links to Poaceae. Yet the article grass states that "Grass is the common word that generally describes monocotyledonous green plants." and "Poaceae are the true grasses ... [but] they also include plants often not recognized to be grasses, such as bamboos or some species of weeds called crab grass." On top of all that Category:Grasses is defined as "for what are commonly called grasses", where grasses links to grass. So now I am confused about the scope of this stub. Can I safely assume that all articles tagged with Grass-stub are Poaceae taxa? Should this stub be renamed "Poaceae-stub"? Hesperian 03:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only confusion is in the article about Grass. I have never heard the term applied to all monocots (lilies, orchids, palms!). Also, bamboos are in the Poaceae as are crabgrasses. So the problem is merely confusion in the article on grass. I think the article is trying to say that most people don't realize that bamboos and crabgrasses are actually in the grass family. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think your right about the bamboo and grabegrass, but there are a number of monocots that have grass in their common name, including: Blue-eye grass, Yellow Grass, Star grass, To the average person, "grass" has been used to descried what some plant looks like. Hardyplants (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's even a dicot (Grass of Parnassus), though it doesn't look like a grass. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the same is true of any common name. Consider: A pineapple is not an apple not does it come from a pine. This doesn't make categories based on "apple" or "pine" incorrect or confusing. A starfish, jellyfish, or crayfish (or any shellfish) are not fish, but that doesn't mean that a grouping based on "fish" isn't useful. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very true, but how many people believe or confuse starfish with real fish? A cat for true grasses is very much needed, but more than once I have been asked about the "Grass with small bright blue flowers" Sisyrinchium angustifolium 'Lucerne' is an attractive perennial for gardens. Hardyplants (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More often than you might think. I know a professor at Cal who worte a nasty letter in to Science (or Nature?) when they treated "shellfish" (molluscs and aquatic arthropods) as the same group. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this discussion seems to be centring on the meaning of the word grass, I had a look at what the OED has to say. There are four definitions relevant to this discussion:

  1. "Herbage in general, the blades or leaves and stalks of which are eaten by horses, cattle, sheep, etc."
  2. "One of the non-cereal Gramineæ [i.e. Poaceae], or any species of other orders resembling these in general appearance."
  3. "In agricultural use: Any of the species of plants grown for pasture, or for conversion into hay."
  4. "Bot. Any plant belonging to the family Gramineæ (Graminaceæ) [i.e. Poaceae], which includes most of the plants called ‘grass’ in the narrower popular sense (see 1) together with the cereals (barley, oats, rye, wheat, etc.), the reeds, bamboos, etc."

My reading of this is that there are three distinct scopes:

  • the broad, pragmatic scope of the farmer, to whom grass is anything he can feed his livestock;
  • the popular view, which encompasses the "typical" Poaceae but excludes cereals, bamboo and other atypical Poaceae, and includes non-Poaceae that look like Poaceae, such as some rushes, sedges, etc; and
  • the botanical view, in which grass = Poaceae.

I think there is a bit of work to be done in various articles to get all this sorted out, but to return to the main issue for me, I think we can probably agree that {{grass-stub}} has an ambiguous title. Since EncycloPetey created this template, it is certain that it was intended to circumscribe the Poaceae and only the Poaceae. Therefore I propose to move this template to {{Poaceae-stub}}. Hesperian 00:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't see that there's significant ambiguity here to merit all the work to do the change. Two of the four definitions in the OED are Poaceae-specific. Of the other two, one is arguably Poaceae (source of hay), and the fourth is a non-specific sense for which no category would be likely to be created. What articles have you seen in the stub category that shouldn't be there? Is this real ambiguity that's confusing people, or purely hypothetical confusion that might happen but somehow hasn't in the years that the stub category has existed? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only my own confusion. Okay, I'll assume that it is defined as Poaceae for now, and see what comes out in the wash. Hesperian 02:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is evidence of confusion between Category:Grasses and Category:Poaceae. e.g. Category:Bamboos is a subcategory of the former but not the latter! Hesperian 02:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not confusion but history. The Category:Grasses has been around for years and is where most subcategories were located. Then, in the wake of PolBot's additions, a decision was made to erect a set of taxon-based categories. So the duplicate, parallel category Category:Poaceae was created. So, this is the result of history rather than confusion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that makes sense. I'm still not entirely comfortable with Category:Grass stubs having a different semantics to Category:Grasses, but I managed to get a good night's sleep last night all the same. ;-) Hesperian 01:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the stub and category matched until June of this year, when someone decided to change the description of the category, creating a category fork. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deodar tree is in BAD need of a look at.

This is headed for DYK, but honestly, I don't know where to start with this mess. Circeus (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should it not go to Cedrus deodara or Cedrus. Hardyplants (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've proposed the merge into Cedrus deodara - there's probably something in there which is worth salvaging which isn't already duplicated at the latter.
As a matter of English usage, deodar tree is a phrase analogous to oak tree or linden tree - Deodar would have been a better article title. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion here --Melburnian (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've chipped in at Talk:Deodar tree. There's material there worth salvaging (in my opinion, anyway), but having two rather similar articles for the same species doesn't make any sense. Kingdon (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the author's talk page I discover that this is not the only questionable article. He got a DYK for Mysore mallige. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that Mysore mallige could use some cleanup. In particular, there is some confusion about the species(es) involved, for example whether it is about particular cultivars, all jasmine grown commercially in Karnataka, or what. Other room for improvement would be Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms, and shortening the text in the Geographical Indication section. On the plus side, I'm happy to see an article about this subject - unless I'm misreading the sources, there is enough for an article there. Kingdon (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arctic flora and Wikipedia:WikiProject Arctic and Portal:Arctic

Would people here be able to help out with some work on Arctic flora? I (and others) have been working on Category:Arctic and Wikipedia:WikiProject Arctic and Portal:Arctic, but we really need someone who knows about plants and the Arctic to check out Category:Arctic flora and related areas. What we really want to do is identify the truly Arctic species and where the borderline areas are. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty general request, but I do note that a lot of good work seems to be going on at the arctic wikiproject. Hopefully you will find some interested people, but if you have more specific questions, by all means ask. One question: do you want articles like Littorella, whose range extends into the arctic but which is primarily subarctic or warmer? (This is for Category:Arctic flora and/or the wikiproject). I would think it would work better to restrict it to plants which are predominantly arctic, but perhaps you have already thought about this question. Kingdon (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I might be able to help, but I am not very active on Wikipedia and don't have most of the necessary books handy right now. Colchicum (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following sources could be useful:

  • Abbott R.J. & C. Brochmann. 2003. History and evolution of the arctic flora: in the footsteps of Eric Hulten. Molecular Ecology 12 (2): 299-313.
  • Böcher T.W. et al. 1968. The Flora of Greenland. Copenhagen: Haase.
  • Chapin, F.S. & C. Korner (eds.). 1995. Arctic and Alpine Biodiversity: Patterns, Causes and Ecosystem Consequences. Berlin: Springer.
  • Hultén Eric. 1937. Outline of the History of Arctic and Boreal Biota during the Quarternary Period. Stockholm: Thule.
  • Hultén Eric. 1963. The distributional conditions of the flora of Beringia. In J.L. Gressitt (ed.), Pacific basin biogeography. Honolulu: Bishop Mus. Press. P. 7-22.
  • Hultén Eric. 1968. Flora of Alaska and Neighboring Territories. Stanford, CA: Sanford University Press.
  • Polunin, Nicholas. 1940. Botany of the Canadian Eastern Arctic. Part 1: Pteridophyta and Spermatophyta. National Museum of Canada Bulletin 92.
  • Polunin, Nicholas. 1947. Botany of the Canadian Eastern Arctic. Part 2: Thallophyta and Bryophyta. National Museum of Canada Bulletin 97.
  • Polunin, Nicholas. 1948. Botany of the Canadian Eastern Arctic. Part 3: Vegetation and ecology. National Museum of Canada Bulletin 104.
  • Polunin, Nicholas. 1959. Circumpolar arctic flora. Oxford : Clarendon Press.
  • Takhtajan, Armen, 1986. Floristic Regions of the World. Berkeley, University of California Press.
  • Thorne R.F. 1972. Major disjunctions in the geographic ranges of seed plants. Quaterly Review of Biology 47: 365-411.

and references therein

In an earlier edition Takhtajan claims that there is only one endemic Arctic genus, Dupontia (Poaceae), while in the Flora of North America Thorne mentions Arctagrostis, Arctous, Braya, Diapensia, Loiseleuria and Oxyria as well, but those are arctic-alpine rather than strictly arctic. According to Takhtajan some of the endemic species (there are more than 100 in total, mostly in Chukotka and Alaska) are Ranunculus sabinei, Papaver polare, Salix arctica, Colpodium vahlianum, Сolpodium wrightii, Puccinellia angustata. However, at least some of them also occur much further south in alpine environments, so it is a mess. Colchicum (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the first question is whether the category is for (a) the plants occurring in the Arctic (there are about 1,000 species, but most of them have no articles on Wikipedia now), (b) the plants endemic to the Arctic or (b) the endemic arctic-alpine plants (and the boundary is sloppy in many cases). Another issue is how to make sure that all editors will use the categorization system correctly and consistently. Colchicum (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Soursop

Please see and comment. There is yet another proposal afloat to merge a species article with the article about the fruit from that species. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Talk:Taraxacum officinale, although that's more genus article versus articles for each species. Kingdon (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing a little cleanup around Annona and species. I've just discovered that much of the text at Atemoya appears to be a copyvio (by a one shot IP user) - paragraphs have been taken unchanged from the reference. Anyone care to do a rewrite? Lavateraguy (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helianthus divaricatus

Right now, Helianthus divaricatus redirects to Helianthus microcephalus, but I don't think this is correct. Uncle Sam (i.e., USDA PLANTS Profiles) and Uncle Roger (... Tory Peterson) both list these as separate. Further, Uncle Roger says H. microcephalus has a small flower head (thus the name). I'm not an admin, so I can't delete the page, and blanking it seems to not be a good idea either. But I don't think I know enough about the plant to write an article. --Jomegat (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are indeed not the same species. I'll make a stub ; ) DJLayton4 (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done : ) DJLayton4 (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Jomegat (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please help identify this plant

Could someone please help identify the plant in this picture:

Silvereye
Weird. I doubt it is an oz native...(?) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a clue, but it was in a garden so it may not be. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a species of Cestrum Melburnian (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cestrum fasciculatum ? Noodle snacks (talk) 07:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Cestrum elegans or Cestrum fasciculatum or a hybid involving either species. --Melburnian (talk) 07:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) With 200 or more species, it might be best to just say "Silvereye perched on a blooming Cestrum species" on the caption for the picture...... And Melburnian now points out that there are even hybrids, so this reinforces by belief that you should not claim a species if in doubt. p.s Nice picture! Hardyplants (talk) 08:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA nom for Commelina communis

I've been working on the aformentioned article for the past few days and I think it's more or less ready for GA. If anyone would like to review, copyedit or otherwise improve it, it would be much appreciated. Thanks! DJLayton4 (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article, and it looks like you (and/or other contributors) have done a lot of good work there. Kingdon (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is still waiting for a reviewer ; ) I would prefer it if someone from the project could do it as opposed to someone who is relatively unknowledgable about plants. If anyone has time it would be great. DJLayton4 (talk) 01:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When did it become possible to conserve a species name?

Ever notice how often a genus name is conserved but the species names are not? Until this morning, I had put this down to botanists being a bunch of lazy sloths. (In my defense, I formed this opinion based on something I read on this website: "Most of Robert Brown's generic names have thus been conserved.... However, the effort of having to endure the name conservation procedure for hundreds of species names was too much and we now use Salisbury's species names.") But I have just discovered that initially conservation was only allowed for taxon at ranks between genus and family, and was only extended to species some time in the last 40 years. I wonder if anyone knows precisely when? Hesperian 01:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was the Saint Louis Code, but I googled it, and found this. It turns out that conservation of specific epithets for major economic plants began with the 1981 Sydney Code, conservation of epithets for species that are types of conserved genera dates to the 1987 Berlin Code, and evidently all restrictions were removed (species were made equivalent with genera and families) with the Tokyo Code of 1993. Man, I feel old!--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks muchly, Curtis. Your googling skills are obviously better than mine. Hesperian 04:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images in taxoboxes of taxa higher than species

As far as I can see, currently they are chosen randomly. Shouldn't we use a picture representing the species to which the type specimen belongs instead? Sorry if I wasn't clear. Colchicum (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that picking the type could be one factor among many. Others could include the quality of the various photos, whether the photo illustrates typical features of the family/genus/etc (e.g. cross-shaped stigma at Oenothera), and whether a photo depicts a well-known species. Last time this came up there wasn't much discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants/Archive10#Plant families, and I'm not aware of any official guideline (for example, Wikipedia:Taxobox_usage#Images doesn't mention it). I also tend to avoid using the same photo in more than one article (for example, although both Acer (genus) and Acer pseudoplatanus have a photo of A. pseudoplatanus, it isn't the same photo both places), although that's not a hard and fast rule either (mainly because we sometimes don't have enough photos to do it). Kingdon (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are many factors, but one advantage of using the type species is that it will always be appropriate. I'm not sure which species is the type of Scrophularia, for example, but the use of a Scrophularia species in the taxobox of the Scrophulariaceae is much more long-lasting that the Veronica here (which is now placed in the Plantaginaceae).--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should be sufficient to say "if quality is comparable, prefer an image of the type taxon". Now all we need to do is to document the types for each of our taxa... :-) Stan (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But Curtis, if the type genus is broken up, what then? I'm not talking about the simple case of splintering off new genera; I'm talking about the more complex cases that can and do occur as a result of synonymy and new research. Consider: the Linnaen type specimen for the genus Marchantia (on which all higher Marchantiophyta taxa are based) was synonymized into another taxon, leaving all ranks up to that of division with a major typification issue. And don't think that this is all that unusual. The type for Anthoceros (on which all higher Anthocerotophyta taxa are based, including the divisional name) was discovered to be published invalidly, leaving that genus with no type specimen. Two authors subsequently published papers naming new types, but their works broke the genus up into two groups where the name Anthoceros was applied to the opposite group in each publication and the second group given differing names. Proskauer's was first (and so has priority), but Schljakov's was more widely publicized by way of Schuster, and so for a period of several decades resulted in many bryophyte floras where all the hornworts had incorrect nomenclatorial combinations with incorrect generic placement. Not only that, but the correct type species for Anthoceros was used during this period as the type for a different genus. Picking the type does not avoid the problems inherent in using images of other species. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there are always issues with typification in some groups (and in other groups few issues at all). It's still better, all other things being equal, to pick a Scrophularia to illustrate its family rather than a Veronica or Mimulus.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think the same of Oxalis for its (mostly tropical) family? --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or Fagus for Fagaceae, or Malva for Malvaceae s.l. Yes. See below.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note first that not every higher taxon has a type species. After all, does anyone here know the "type species" for seed plants? Even in cases that do have type species, the type species is not always representative of the group's appearance and/or morphology. The type species for the Marchantiophyta is (of course) a species of Marchantia, but the thalloid morphology of Marchantia is an oddity and is by far a minority morphology among the liverworts, which are mostly leafy species. Also, the type for Magnoliidae (sensu Judd, Soltis & Soltis) is a Magnolia, which does not exhibit the characteristic trimerous floral morphology found in the majority of members. Types can also represent less diverse subgroups. The Salviniales is named for a species of Salvinia, a genus containing only 10 species, but the order also includes Marsilea, a genus of about 65 species. The type species of many higher taxa are the result more of publication priority than of biology. So, why should we ever choose the type species photo over a more representative one? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"10.7. The principle of typification does not apply to names of taxa above the rank of family, except for names that are automatically typified by being based on generic names (see Art. 16). The type of such a name is the same as that of the generic name on which it is based." (Vienna Code) So higher taxa are typified only trivially. I don't see any value to preferentially using illustrations of type genera for taxa above the family level. On the other hand, it's never a good idea to use species of uncertain affinities to illustrate their groups, no matter how pretty the photos are. Would Takakia have been a good example for Mosses? or Sphagnum? Are Equisetum or Psilotum good illustrations for Fern?--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how this connects to what I said above, so I assume you're agreeing with me that selecting minority group plants with "oddball" morphologies (even if it's the type) is a bad idea. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, I'm disagreeing, so let me be more clear. They're not called "name-bearing types" for nothing.
Let me be clear that I am talking about taxobox photos, of which there is ordinarily one per article. Given that other selection criteria are met (it is of adequate resolution, it is recognizable, shows diagnostic features, is attractive, etc.), there is then the choice of which species to use to illustrate a taxon that contains some amount of diversity. Let's take Family as the level, since we've used a lot of examples there. One could pick a photo of a species in a genus that has a large number of species, or that is widely distributed. One could pick a species of economic importance. One could pick a species that conforms to some perceived Bauplan of the family, rather than a morphological "oddball". Or one could pick the type species, or another species from the type genus.
All I'm saying is that the type represents the name, which is what the taxobox is about. Yes, there are issues with typification, but, all in all, if I wanted to pick a plant that would resolutely remain in the Oxalidaceae, I'd pick an Oxalis.
I'm interested by your statement 'plants with "oddball" morphologies (even if it's the type)'. How do we measure "oddball" in a typified group, except by reference to the type? I can think of only two ways that are scientific (although I admit that it's early morning here and I may have overlooked something): one could calculate the phenetic centroid of the group and measure deviations from that, or one could work out the minimum set of synapopmorphies for the group, and measure distance from the hypothetical basal member along the tree (in many families, these would give very different results). But the advantage of using the type as a reference is that it is tied to the name. That's all I'm saying: the type is, ordinarily, tied to the name.
I think in practice other criteria will govern selection of taxobox photos, and I suspect the Scrophulariaceae photo was changed from Veronica to Scrophularia about the time that the APG classification was incorporated into the article, and it seemed like the safest choice. But, all other things being equal, I honestly can't think of a reason not to use the type species or type genus (or even type specimen) in the taxobox.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The taxobox is not merely about the name; it is about the relationships. If the taxobox were merely about the name, then it would not include information about more inclusive groups containing the taxon in question, nor subgroups of the taxon. The taxobox does include the name and ideally a citation for the name, but that is all the information about the name comtained in any taxobox above the rank of species.
The article is the name. "7.2. A nomenclatural type (typus) is that element to which the name of a taxon is permanently attached, whether as the correct name or as a synonym. The nomenclatural type is not necessarily the most typical or representative element of a taxon." The (IMO correct) decision in Wikipedia to follow the codes of nomenclature does have consequences. As important as the relationships are, if the name is ambivalent they mean nothing.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the names of the articles on plant groups are the taxonomic names, the article itself is not about the name; it is about all aspects of the group covered, especially its biology. The image in the taxobox is the first image (and often the only image) used for a page about an entire group. The article should be illustrated with a good illustration for the taxonomic group, so the image must do more than illustrate the name. To pick an image solely to illustrate the name based on the type alone can do a great disservice to the reader.
I have never suggested that.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the Asparagales, which currently has an image of the type. The species Asparagus officinalis is an oddball member of the order, when one considers that most species are in the families (some APG II optional) Agavaceae, Hemerocallidaceae, Amaryllidaceae, Alliaceae, Iridaceae, and Orchidaceae. Does a picture of flowering asparagus really represent this group? No. The typical bodyplan of the order is quite different, which is why many taxonomists put the genus Asparagus into its own family in the first place.
Sorry, no, I already said that ranks above family are only trivially typified, and I'm not arguing for using their types.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Picking an iage to illsutrate the name, based primarily on wanting to "play it safe" with the nomenclature it a silly criterion. Conservation of a name, additional research, or the correction of an error can (and does) change the name of a group whose circumscription otherwise does not change. Example: The FNA volume on Asteraceae followed the latest published nomenclatorial findings and used the tribe name Cichorieae. But, Italian researchers who looked into the matter of nomenclature discovered this was an error, and Lactuceae is actually the correct name, because Cichorieae (while published first) turned out to be invalidly published (IIRC, it may have been something other than a validity issue). So, the name of the group changes, and we choose a different image, even though it's the exact same group?
I'm still not sure why you are so opposed to types, rather than being neutral about them. In the case you mention, many family names of flowering plants are conserved. The type of the Fabaceae is Vicia faba, but the family is not the "Viciaceae".--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, the argument that a type image will be more stable is spurious. The type and even the name of the group can change, even if the group's circumscription does not change.
I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong. Types are governed by the ICBN. Circumscription is a matter of opinion and consensus among plant systematists. Circumscription is much more often at issue than typification.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An additional problem I have not yet articulated is that of POV. The Linnean families were named based on taxa well-known to Europeans, so the types are typically European species. This introduces bias in illustration if we stick with using types to illustrate higher taxa.
I'm starting to detect that you are infusing the use of nomenclatural types with far more power than the ICBN does. Types establish the connection between a name and an organism. Wikipedia titles articles with names. There's nothing more to it than that. And I find it strange to refer to following the ICBN as "POV".--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding 'plants with "oddball" morphologies (even if it's the type)'. The classic example is Marchantia, whose morphology is radically and fundamentally different from the majority of liverworts in its order, class, and division. The features taught of this genus taught to students in introdroductory botany classes are the obvious ones, but they are features absent in most other members of the order, class, etc. Gemmae cups, for example, are limited to the family Marchantiaceae and one other genus. Dimorphic rhizoids occur in most members of the class, but not all, and do not occur in the other (much larger) group of liverworts. Most members of the order, class, etc. do not elevate their archegonia or antheridia on specialized stalks. In short, the genus is a morphological oddball. It would be like having Equisetum as the type genus for the ferns, or having Spanish moss be the type for the bromeliads. If Tillandsia usneoides were the type for the bromeliad family, would you want to use it to illustrate the family page? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you wouldn't object to using an image of Marchantia for the Marchantiaceae? And, without conservation of the name, Tillandsia usneoides would be the type of the "Tillandsiaceae".
I'm still having trouble understanding your hostility toward types. I've not heard you argue that taxa have any sort of mystical "essence" that determines what a representative member might be. I've mentioned some objective criteria for determining "representative" (species-rich genera, geographically widespread genera, morphological Bauplan determined phenetically or cladistically), but you haven't supported any of those or any others. So your criteria for "representative" are still unclear.
I have never argued that types are "representative". I have never argued that types are unchanging (although I continue to argue that the ICBN does have rules to deal with that). I have never argued that family articles shouldn't express the variability within the family (I hope I agree with you on that). I have never argued that an image of the type should be preferred even if images of other species are clearer, show family synapomorphies better, are higher resolution, or even "prettier". All I am saying is that using an image of the type has its own set of advantages.
If you'd like to propose a guideline that excludes the use of images of types in the taxoboxen, then I suppose there would be a reason to continue this discussion. If not, and since there is no other recommendation on the table, I'm done.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to say briefly that I value a high quality image of a representative species in which representative characteristics are clearly visible, regardless of the type status. DJLayton4 (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is way too much verbiage over something that is very often going to be case-specific anyway. Yes, there are cases where the type species is not that representative in form, or European-biased, or whatever, but image selection also has an unavoidably subjective element of aesthetics, so it's not something that can ever be reduced to formal rules. In the few cases where we're lucky enough to have multiple high-quality images for a taxon, and one of those images is of the type species, then we should favor it, unless there is a special reason not to do so, in which case we tell people to choose a better image and explain the special reason on the talk page. Done. Stan (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed about "too much verbiage" and "case-specific". I guess I'll leave it at that, since anything more I would say would worsen the "too much verbiage" problem. Kingdon (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Unidentified flowers

Please identify the flowers at Wikipedia:Unidentified flowers and delete the page once completed. Thanks. Suntag (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rosidae/rosids redux

Pardon the alliteration. I abstained from the previous discussion on his matter, because I was ignorant. I'm not anymore, and I believe the wrong decision has been made.

The PhyloCode is a draft; it has not yet been brought into effect; it states, explicitly, that clade names published before it is brought into effect will not be accepted.

Cantino's paper is a great read, but the names published therein are not validly published under any current code. Clearly the authors understand this; they are not claiming to have actually erected these names; they are merely putting forward a nomenclatural framework for discussion.

I think we have erred in choosing article titles Angiospermae over angiosperms, Rosidae over rosids, etc; and I think we have erred where we have used "Angiospermae" instead of "angiosperms" in taxoboxes and article prose. These are not valid clade names, and there is no guarantee that they ever will be.

Hesperian 04:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants&oldid=236384729"