Talk:Tussock grass

Function?

Hi! Just curious: other than the name, are tussock grasses and bunch grasses the same entities? Shouldn't they be discussed under the same article? Or is this standing in as a disambiguation page for all species that contain "tussock" in the common name title, whereas they may not be the same species that have "bunch grass" in another common name? Is the purpose of this more a list of tussock grass species by country? Cheers, --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

They appear to be separate name used in different countries for a plant with the same gross morphology but different species. User:Ethel Aardvark disagreed with a previous edit of this page that I had done and redirected it to bunch grass - hence the link to it. Here in New Zealand we use the term tussock exclusively. The page is anything associated with tussocks. In New Zealand they are a large part of the landscape. If there is not a lot to say about tussocks in other countries we could split the NZ section out to a new article to avoid a geographic bias. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I'm not very familiar with how the terms differ. If they describe the same morphology but describe different species because of geographic bias (but not on restricted geographic distribution), perhaps it would be helpful if they were merged and the terms described side-by-side. Would it also be reasonable to assume the list of species will grow? Perhaps when it reaches critical mass, splitting off the list to List of tussock grasses might be useful. Just some thoughts. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 02:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems the bunch grass is an American term whereas tussock is used in New Zealand, Scotland, Australia, Falkland Islands, Antarctic area and maybe a few more. I would prefer to keep the two pages separate since they may grow into proper articles at some stage. If the article grows it can be split along country lines. As for a "List of tussock grasses" I would prefer to see that done in any individual country pages to stop this page becoming bloated. I only did NZ since that is the one which I am familiar. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Changed page yet again. The heading is "tussock grass", not " New Zealand tussock grasslands". Ecologically and scientifically a tussock grass is a perfect synonym for "bunchgrass". There are many grasses that are commonly known as "tussock grass" and they could usefully be included here as a list.

The article as it was was a fair article on New Zealand tussock grasslands, but had very little to do with tussock grasses. Even if it had then it could have been included under "bunch grass" which is, as I noted, a perfect synonym.

I'll create anew article called "New Zealand Tussock Grasslands" for the deleted information.

Ethel Aardvark (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Creation of a New Zealand tussock grasslands does not justify deletion of the species info. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

That is why I left in species information on species called Tussock grass. That is what the article is about after all. Information on species which happen to have tussock in there name, even when they aren't grasses, doesn't have any place in this article does it? Or should we include trees or aninmal with tussock in their name as well?

Nor does information tussock grasslands belong here. There is already an article on tussock grasslands for that.If you really think that information on bunch grasslands belongs in the bunch grasses article then suggest a merger of the two. But to include information on them solely under the synonym "tussock grass" is wrong on every level. These two terms are perfect synonyms and one or the other warrants only a redirect or disambiguation. Wikipedia does not allow for two separate articles on dialect terms which are perfect synonyms.

I can't help but get the impression that you think that tussock grass is a purely NZ term, and that such grasses only exist in NZ. This is NOT the case. Tussock grass is a perfect synonym for bunch grass, as I have demonstrated with references. This being the case why do you fell the need for two separate articles with different information on exactly the same subject? Ethel Aardvark (talk) 07:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion reversed

I have reverted the major deletion of material since there is no justification for it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have provided references demonstrating that tussock grass is a perfect synonym for bunch grass. If you require more simply put [grassland “tussock or bunch”] into Google scholar. This is no way controversial. Moreover even if the terms were synonymous the article concerns tussock grass, not tussock grasslands. These are completely different terms, one referring o a growth form, the other to an ecosystem. Added to that we already have an article on tussock grasslands. So this is in no way a hackjob. Please do not revert this edit unless you can provide references for your (presumed) claim that tussock grass is not a perfect synonym for bunch grass. It is grossly misleading to suggest that the terms are not considered perfectly synonomous by all ecologists, and by trying to create two separate articles rather than redirecting or disambiguating this is precisely what you are doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethel Aardvark (talk • contribs)

The names are not synonymous. We do not use the term bunch grass in New Zealand for instance. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

For the luvva Mike. Do you really not understand that just because NZ doesn't use the term does not mean that it is not a synonym? To give you an analogy, Kiwis don't use the terms burro or ass to refer to donkeys either, nonethelss those terms are perfect synonyms, and Wiki does not allow creation of separate articles for donkey, ass and burro. I have included references from peer reviewed journals showing that the ANZ term "tussock" is perfect synonym for the US bunch.Ethel Aardvark (talk) 07:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• I would suggest that the terms tussock grass is not considered perfectly synonymous with 'bunch grass' by all ecologists. In fact, I would hazard a guess that most ecologists try to avoid 'tussock' anything, except in so far as it usefully describes a growing habit, given that a species' binomial name is universally preferred by virtually everyone working in botany, ecology, etc. The reason for this is that there is no consistency to common names, and what editors appear to be in dispute over here is common names - which precisely illustrates the problem with using common names as the basis for anything, especially encyclopedic articles. My very strong suggestion is that the New Zealand material be moved in its entirety to New Zealand tussock grasslands and this article simply be turned into a list or disambiguation page of grasses and other things, such as grasslands, with 'tussock' somewhere in their common name in some parts of the world. Debate 木 07:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I might also note that there's already a massive proliferation of 'tussock' articles, most of which are a couple of sentences long, and there would seem to me to be a great deal of logic in consolidating, merging and/or deleting at least a couple, rather than creating more. Debate 木 07:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Debate, if you believe that not all ecologists consider the two terms perfectly synonomous then could you please provide refences for that claim? I've been employed as a grassland ecologist for over 15 years on three ocntinents, including Australia, and everyone I have ever worked with and every work I have ever read uses the two terms as perfect synonyms. I have provided references that state that they are synonyms in the article itself, on of them from a leading authority on NZ tussock grasslands. At this point I think perhaps those who dispute that they are perfect synonyms should be forthcoming with reputable refernces to that effect.

Beyond that I agree entirely with what you have said. This article should become simply a disambiguation page. Having said that the "bunch" page itself should become a disambiguation page, since the correct term for this growth form is "caespitiose". If we just stick to the use of the term caespitose then there can be no argument and no scope for the production of articles based on antipodean dialect terms. Ethel Aardvark (talk) 08:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I am struggling to see how your repeated replacement of a reasonably well structured and sourced article with one dramatically less-so is intended to improve this page. Really, what you need references for is not that tussocks and bunch grasses are the same, but why Poa labillardierei is so clearly not a tussock, and the photos so clearly irrelevant to the article, that any problems with them can only be resolved through deletion. In my view there's been a pretty clear breach of WP:Consensus here, if not WP:Civil as well, and if I wasn't assuming good faith I might otherwise conclude you were simply being disruptive. Debate 木 09:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Debate, I am totally mystified about your position here. You yourself suggested deleting the text, moving the usable NZ stuff to it own heading and and making it a disambiguation page/list of species. Then in the very next post you ask me why I thought it was an improvement when I deleted the text, moved the usable NZ stuff to its own heading and turned it into a disambiguation page/list of species. I have done nothing more than what you yourself highly recommended, then you ask me why I thought that was an improvemnt. the answer is: for the same resaon that you thought is was an improvement. If I was uncharitable I would say that you were sinmply trying to provoke an argument, as you name suggests.

And if you think that references tha bunch and tussock are synonyms aren't required then why did you suggest they were not synonyms and that teh issue wasn;t universally resolvfed amongst botanists? Presumably you thought it important enough and unreferenced enough to make that claim in your last post. I'm struggling to see what point your were trying to make there.

I agree it was quite a well written article. I have said as much several times. What it wasn't was a well written article on tussock grasses. It was a well written artcile on NZ tussock GRASSLANDS. Hence I moved it under an approriate title of its own. Isn't this artcile suposed to be about tusock grasses (a growth form) as the title clearly states?

Now if you want to argue that this article should be about tussock grasslands (the ecoregion) then that might be reaonable, but first you need to explain two points: 1)Why do we already have article on tussock grasslands? What material do you see going in here that isn't already in the tussock grasslands article? And 2)Why is the article called tussock grass rather than tussock grasslands, if that is the subject? If I want to write about tussock/bunch grasses where precisely should I do that?

But just to keep things clear and gain consenus, perhaps you folk could lay out quite simply what you think this article is suposed to be about?

Is it about tussock grasses? Is so then why do we have an article that is nothing more than a dialect variation on another article? This is EXACTLY comparble to having separate articles titled "donkey", "burro" and "Ass". Those three English dialect synomyms redirect to the same page, why don't the English dialect synonyms tussock and bunch redirect to a single article?

Is it about tussock grasslands? If that is so then why is there another article that is actually titled "tussock grasslands"?

Quite simply I am wondering what exactly you think belongs on this article that doesn't fit perfectly well under in either the bunch grass or tussock grasslands articles?

Ethel Aardvark (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

1. I did not suggest deleting the text, in fact, that would be inconsistent with creating a disambiguation page/list of species. (If I inadvertently implied this when suggesting that the NZ material be moved that was not my intention.)
2. I did not suggest that references to bunch grass and tussock as synonyms weren't required, I suggested that the terms were virtually meaningless. Regardless, the earlier version that you overwrote clearly indicated that bunch grass and tussock are synonyms so that entire discussion is a red herring.
3. None of your edits have done anything to consolidate the article as simply about a growth form, and since many of the species you've deleted do have this growth form your stated intentions and your actions appear inconsistent. Furthermore, you've failed to address why photos of the growth form in the wild are inconsistent with an article about the growth form.
4. If you think that the article duplicates another article then the correct process is detailed at WP:Merge. The correct process does not involve starting an edit war.

Debate 木 18:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In that case Debate I have no idea what you are actually saying. Can you please spell it out clearly? You stated quite plainly that the NZ material should be removed, and this page converted to nothing but list of words with "tussock" in their name. But now you say that you want the original text kept as well. Which is it that you are proposing:

1) a merger of this page with "bunch", or vice versa, and moving the NZ material to its own subject

or

2)keeping all the text on this page as is with no major deletionof material?

I notice that you have studiously avoided answering my simple quetsions. If I were to be uncharitable I would suggest that you are simply trying to provoke controversy.

And no, the terms aren't virtually meaningless. They describe one of the two major types of grass growth forms and there have been literally thousands of articles in addition to book sections devoted to the terms. The terms are every bit as meaningful as other common terms such as "fish" or "tree" that are also scientifically ambiguous. Ethel Aardvark (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I stand by what I have written above, which is all that needs to be said on this matter. Feel free to bend, twist, misconstrue, misrepresent and/or selectively ignore as much or as little as you wish. Debate 木 23:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this about grass names or tussock vegetation?

Copy my question to this page: What is the subject of this 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)

Well, a revision such as this seems to be the content that people are trying to figure out how to place. I know little about this subject, but my first reaction is:

• Move the lists of grass species (especially the non-New Zealand ones) to a new section "Examples" on the bunch grass article. That section should also mention New Zealand, but perhaps in a blanket way with a link to New Zealand tussock grasslands.
• Also mention relevant species on New Zealand tussock grasslands (seems to be done as of this revision. This is might the place for material on non-grasses with tussock in the name, if they are named after the ecosystem. This may require some case-by-case carefulness. For example, tussock hawkweed should be Hieracium lepidulum Stenstroem not Hieracium lachenalii, per New Zealand Journal of Botany, 1992, Vol. 30, 247-261 (page 248) (and that's just one reference, I didn't try to verify this information elsewhere). Likewise for Tussock bindweed, etc.
• Turn Tussock (grass) into a redirect to Bunch grass.
• Keep the photos and such at New Zealand tussock grasslands

As for the process, I would mention Wikipedia:Assume good faith with respect to a few of the comments on this talk page, and Wikipedia:Edit war (for obvious reasons). I fear that the history of reverts will make it harder to people to listen to other ideas about how to organize this material, but really, it shouldn't be that hard to find an organization which lets us get back to writing about these plants instead of arguing about which page is which. Kingdon (talk) 12:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Proposed bunch grass merger

I am proposing that the article bunch grass be merged into this article, "Tussock (grass)". As everyone appears to agree, the terms "bunch grass" and "tussock grass" are synonymous. A search of various academic databases, however, returns substantially more hits for "tussock grass" than for "bunch grass" - eg ISI web of Knowledge returns 2,423 hits for "tussock", 209 hits for "tussock grass", 109 hits for "bunch grass". Furthermore, a comparison of dictionary definitions suggests that "bunch grass" is an Americanism that is not in widespread use outside of that country, while tussock grass is fully understood within both America and internationally, see bunch grass and tussock. Tussock (grass) is therefore the title that the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize with a minimum of ambiguity, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions. Debate 木 19:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. At Google Scholar I got 3,760 hits for "bunch grass" and 2,660 for "tussock grass" (with quotes in both cases) but given all the vagueries in such searches, this isn't all that different from your results. There's also "clumping grass" but even in garden contexts that seems less common than bunch grass or tussock grass. Kingdon (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... Interesting. I just searched JSTOR (with quotes) "bunch grass" (1027 hits), "tussock grass" (533 hits) and "tussock" (3717), so that's a little more ambiguous. (I used a science metasearch last time, which appears to have excluded JSTOR.) Nonetheless, it seems unlikely that the bulk of the solo references to "tussock" are describing "a bunch of hair or feathers". Debate 木 20:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, too. But why not combine both at the current redir tussock grass? --Rkitko ^(talk) 21:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

That proposal suits me. It seems silly to have round brackets as the main entry when there's a perfectly good title without them sitting there as a redirect. I'll have a think about the mechanics of doing that, as it would be nice to pull the talk and history with it. Debate 木 21:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

If the consensus is to merge the two to that title, I can perform a history merge of the articles so that nothing is lost in the edit histories. --Rkitko ^(talk) 22:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I certainly support a merger. I originally simply redirected this page (which at that stage was a stub) to bunch. For some reason later editors decied to expand this article even fiurther while leaving bunch intact. One or the other needs to redirected.Ethel Aardvark (talk) 22:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

+Grass

I still do not see what the purpose of this article is after all the discussion...is it just a list of names? Why mot call it Tussock vegetation and include the sedges and other groups of plants that have this type of growth habit. Then you could have the grasses as a major heading and a description of the growth form, ecology ect. Or do you propose a distinct article for the none grass tussocks? Hardyplants (talk) 22:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

My current feeling is that the broad description, particularly as it appears at bunch grass, has some value however I'm coming around to the conclusion that it would be best to split the list of species out as a separate list. In terms of naming, given the above, it might be worth simply merging everything to Tussock, since it seems to me to clearly be the primary topic, with a disambiguation split off that. Debate 木 22:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A tussock vegetation article is a really bad idea IMO. As I noted above, there is already an aricle on the vegetation type/ecoregion known as tussock grasslands that covers the general ecology and landscape topics including the species found in that system. And if the current consensus is followed then there will be an article that covers tussock/bunch grasses. Tussock vegetation as a term is so broad as to be meaningless. To do it justice we would need to include discussions of an incredibly a diverse range of lifeforms including not just herbaceous species, but also cacti and even woody plants such as the saltbushes or mallees. What purpose do you think an article of such breath would serve?Ethel Aardvark (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Were is this article that covers this topic already? I guess the purpose is the same as the purpose of an encyclopedia. If you think it would be too complicated, there others around that can work on it too. As to the so called meaninglessness of the term.http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Tussock%20vegetation%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wp http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Tussock+vegetation%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Tussock%20vegetation%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=ps Hardyplants (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)