Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive57

Archive 50

←

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Revision of Project's Scope and Goals

As currently worded, the Project's Scope and Goals are not clear about hybrids, whether natural or artificial, or cultivars. I propose that the Scope and Goals be changed as below, where new material is underlined.

This WikiProject aims primarily to describe all plants, that is, all species and natural hybrids belonging to the kingdom Plantae. This project's scope also includes botanists and botany-related articles and notable artificial hybrids and cultivars.

Goals:

1. Describe all ranks and notable clades, particularly orders, families, genera, and species, and natural hybrids, of the kingdom Plantae.
2. For species, natural hybrids, and notable artificial hybrids and cultivars, describe botanical properties, distribution, multiplication, usage (medicine, food, etc.), botanical history, cultivation information, and common names.
3. Develop and implement a robust method of naming plant articles for the ease of navigation and searching for Wikipedia users.
4. Maintain Category:Plants and its subcategories.

The addition of clades and orders just reflects the current position. The change is to be clear that we regard all species and natural hybrids as sufficiently notable for inclusion, but not all artificial hybrids and cultivars, although those which are sufficiently notable do fall within the scope of the project.

Views? Peter coxhead (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The amendments appear reasonable to me. Melburnian (talk) 11:25, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

and me too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks for the work. First Light (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'll leave it over the weekend to see if there are any dissenters, and if not, I'll edit the policy on Monday. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't get too hung up over such text (for example, it is not a problem if there is overlap between the scope of the plants project and others such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, WP:FARM, WP:FOREST, etc). But having said that, the proposed amendments look fine to me. Kingdon (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree that overlap between projects is not a problem; indeed it's an advantage. Clear wording in the project policy can be useful, though: I have used the existing wording to defend a plant stub from deletion on the grounds of non-notability by pointing out that it was the policy of WikiProject Plants to have an article on every plant species. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:22, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of a specific issue, I suppose this is just a nit-pick, but the current wording says we want to cover all species, not necessarily that each species gets its own article. Kingdon (talk) 01:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

As there was no disagreement, I have now made the changes suggested above (with some very small changes to the English). Peter coxhead (talk) 06:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"Euphorbia pringlei"?

Anyone heard of this? Does it exist? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

not my area of expertise though this looks promising..Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

IPNI includes it, and notes that it's a synonym of Euphorbia lurida subsp. pringlei. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This 1960 reference has it included under Euphorbia lurida as well. Melburnian (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

ahhhhhhhhhh... lurida... thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:17, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Linnaeus for GA

The GA review for Linnaeus has begun. If you can help, please "watch" the review page and assist as you can. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The article really needs some more work; see the latest discussions at Talk:Carl_Linnaeus. In particular how he came to his ideas, some more about them, and their impact. It's a pity that Linnaean taxonomy is such a poor article. (It's on my ever-growing "to do" list.) Peter coxhead (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

One article per species

(I moved this to a new heading. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC))

That's an important distinction raised by Kingdon above. Since day one the project scope has included the aim to "describe all plants" but has never specified whether this description means individual articles for each one. The scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds, for comparison, specifically includes "articles for all known species, genera, families, and orders of birds ..." Melburnian (talk) 03:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Two points:

1. The project has been clear that it doesn't want separate articles for monotypic taxa, so in that sense it doesn't want an individual article for "all known species, genera, families, and orders" of plants.
2. I personally think it's a purely pragmatic matter as to whether there should be one article per species or whether they should be covered in, say, the genus article. For extinct species the norm seems to have been to have an article on the genus with brief accounts of the species. This seems to me correct (I've written quite a few such articles, so I may be biased). For extant species the norm seems to be to have an article per species (subject to (1) above). The result is that there are a lot of stubs, when perhaps a short description of the species in the genus article would be more sensible until more is written about the species.

Either way, it would be good to be clear about this in the project principles. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

My eventualist view is that we should aim to have an article on every extant species, with the qualification of your point 1. I'm not so sure on extinct species, perhaps modern extictions should be treated separately from prehistoric extinctions. At the next level of genus, it would seem that all would qualify to have individual articles. Melburnian (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with aiming for an article on every extant species. What I'm personally unsure about is the wholesale creation of stub articles – an editor sees a list of species in a genus article and creates a stub for each which just says something like "X y is a species in the genus X, family Zaceae." Is there a point to this? This is not just a rhetorical question; I'm interested in Scilla, and had thought of creating stubs for the missing species, before deciding that there was no point in doing this – either I should create at least a start class article or leave the red link there. I'm interested to know what other editors think.

The extinct plants I've written about are Early Devonian genera like Adoketophyton, where I think there really is no point in separate articles on the two currently named species, since the amount of information available is very limited. (Actually, it could be argued that the whole article is not acceptable according to WP:PRIMARY.) But as I wrote above, I think this is just a pragmatic issue, not one of principle: normally for fossil plants a genus article will be sufficient, but in some cases it may not be. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether one article per species is a good idea depends on the degree to which a particular genus has been taxonomically and biologically studied. To take a real example, here is a quote about Marchantia from volume VI of Schuster: "Although the genus is considered as among the best known groups of hepatics, aspects of its taxonomy remain poorly resolved. Thus some 72 taxa have been reported for the New World, although Bischler (1984) reduces these to nine!" So, there are very well-known and well-researched taxa, for which the taxonomy is a royal mess. In these situations, articles on all the species should not be created. (Although Bischler has now finished a world monograph of Marchantia, which could rectify the situation for this particular case). --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a really good point, which I should have thought of. There definitely needs to be some degree of taxonomic consensus, otherwise we end up with incompatible articles through editors using different taxonomies and it becomes a huge task to sort it out when a consensus finally appears. (My favourite genus, Ophrys, is another example of a mess. Flora Europaea had 20 species; Delforge (2001) has 252 species, many of which he says are only distinguished by their pollinator; a recent study of the genetics of the genus found only 10 genetically distinct groups.) Peter coxhead (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

My opinion, Peter, is that such articles are worse than worthless. If they provide no information beyond that presented in a list on a genus page, but they require the reader to click through to reach that lack of information, then they actively inhibit learning. In such cases, I generally merge the species back into the genus, although this occasionally releases vitriol from other editors, albeit in only a small minority of cases. (The problems that EncycloPetey raises are additional reasons why one might be cautious, but would only result in wasted effort for editors. I feel that wasting readers time is a much more serious problem.) I think the project is right to wish to cover all plant taxa, but it should not enforce a separate article for every taxon, even apart from situations of monotypy. A species can be adequately covered within a genus article in many cases, such as where it is poorly known or differs little from other species. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This is my current opinion too, although when I started serious Wikipedia editing I followed others and did create some species stubs. Now I don't. I haven't quite gone so far as to merge species stubs into the genus article, but I tend to think you're right to do so. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with Stemonitis and prefer even a simple stub rather than a list or mention in the genus article. I see several advantages. First, a species name shouldn't redirect to the genus unless it's monotypic. Second, a species stub can be categorized in flora categories, etc. And third, if a stub exists, it will eventually gather more edits (and photos, and links to Commons, etc). Rkitko ^(talk) 22:29, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I agree with Rkitko. The Euphorbia in the section below is a good example. We wouldn't be able to put 2000+ species summaries in the genus article. If a proper stub was created for Euphorbia lurida we would have a taxobox with synonyms and references and a redirect from Euphorbia pringlei. I am also quite amazed when I put in a photo request on new species articles, how other editors will either take a photo or track down a photo (say from flickr), and add it to the article. Also, once a stub is established with a valid taxobox, it allows other editors who are not so comfortable with taxonomy to more readily make a contribution. Melburnian (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Generally, I agree with the above two. Speaking for myself, WP's hold on me stems from there being a whole lot left to do. It's inexplicable, but that is principally what drives me to edit at all. Less is not more here to me, its just less. I understand Stemonitis' point, but 'less than worthless' is a bit extreme, I think, as many, if not most articles start out as very stubby stubs; their worth is in their potential early on, and not closed. Hamamelis (talk) 01:25, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I will respond point by point if I may. "A species name shouldn't redirect to the genus unless it's monotypic." This is simply dogmatic, and is not based on any worthwhile argument (at least none has been presented). "A species stub can be categorized in flora categories, etc." So can redirects, and I frequently do this. "If a stub exists, it will eventually gather more edits (and photos, and links to Commons, etc)." This is frequently cited, but I have yet to see any evidence for it. I see no reason why a species section of a larger article shouldn't accumulate the same number of substantive edits. (And how many Commons links does one article need?) I don't claim that species should always be merged into a genus, and a large genus such as Euphorbia would be one very clear instance where that wouldn't be desirable. That in no way reduces the desirability of doing so elsewhere, however. I feel that the desire for separate substubs comes from what I would call editor-centred writing, where Wikipedians (understandably) prefer systems and situations that make it easier for editors; while the ability to edit is an integral part of Wikipedia, its core function, which we must never lost sight of, is to inform readers. It doesn't matter how good an article will be or could be. Wikipedia will never be finished, so it has to be useful right now. Splitting off substubs is not informative to the reader and isn't helpful in the current state of the project. When you look at it from the readers' point of view, there really is no justification for such vanity. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It would be useful to have some statistics to show how long stubs sit around un-expanded. One reason that I now tend to support Stemonitis's view is that I originally bought into the argument that stubs (and red links) encourage further editing. I'm now very doubtful that this is true. The number of editors who add to scientifically oriented plant articles is very small (witness the number who ever comment here). (Articles with some connection to herbal or fringe medicine are another matter.) Peter coxhead (talk) 07:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I managed to find some relevant statistics. I should say immediately that although I've read the help pages, I don't entirely understand the underlying processes that generate them. Further the data relies on the accuracy of the rating for WikiProject Plants on the talk page, which is not always correct.

If you go to [1] you can generate a list of Plant articles by change of status over a date range. I left the date fields blank; the earliest date I saw was in 2007. I looked at all possible changes from "Stub-Class", with the following results:

• Stub to Start: 264 articles
• Stub to C: 29 articles
• Stub to B: 1 articles

There were no other changes. Thus over the time period that the tool generates the data, only 304 articles have had their status changed from Stub to something else.

To get an idea of the recent rate of change, which is clearly higher (or picked up more by the tool), I set the date range to 2010-01-01 to 2010-12-31. This produced a total of 158 articles leaving Stub class in the year. As there are currently 34,810 Stub class articles, this implies that it will take 220 years to fix all the stubs at the 2010 rate, assuming no more are added.

This is a serious underestimate, actually, since if you look at some of the articles, you'll see that often what happens is that an editor creates a stub and then expands it later, which does nothing towards fixing existing stubs. Melburnian favours "eventualism", but this is rather too "eventual" for me. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

To be completely fair, very few people raise the rating of an article after they expand it. I had gone through a couple years ago and, while assessing new articles, made sure I took a look at the stub-class articles that no longer had a stub template. Further, I wasn't necessarily talking about expansion up to start-class. I'm talking about the incremental increase in information from a "substub" type "X is a species in the genus Y" article with taxobox and categories to including photos, a link to commons, other sister projects, synonyms, maybe a bit more information, but it's still a stub. You can't measure that. Rkitko ^(talk) 12:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Good point. So one of the issues is what proportion of articles rated as Stub-class are actually not. There seems to be no automated way of deciding this, so I went through a selection of species articles rated as stubs whose genus name begins with "M" (as this is about the middle of the alphabet). You're absolutely right that the rated class is highly inaccurate; no more than 1/3 those I looked at are what I would call a stub, and some were at least C. So the situation isn't as anything like as bad as the raw statistics above indicate. However, even if you apply a large correction factor, the reality is that there are likely to be a lot of real stubs which don't get expanded. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I think a distinction needs to be made between stub articles which only comprise variations on "X is a species in the genus Y in the family Z" and those which give rather more. It is possible that some species articles are quite satisfactory remaining as stubs. Also I think a situation which has been overlooked by Stemonitis is when a reader searches for a particular species, but then has to read through a whole genus article, only to find that the species is just part of a list. This I think perhaps serves the reader less well than if they are brought directly to a species article, even if it is only a stub. I am not making an argument either one way or the other on this issue - I am just raising points which I think need considering. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Not overlooked. I think that if I were looking for information on Euphorbia lurida (just to take a species at random), I would learn more from this:

Euphorbia is a genus of plants belonging to the family Euphorbiaceae. Consisting of 2008 species, Euphorbia is one of the most diverse genera in the plant kingdom, exceeded possibly only by Senecio. Members of the family and genus are sometimes referred to as spurges. The genus is primarily found in the tropical and subtropical regions of Africa and the Americas, but also in temperate zones worldwide. Succulent species originate mostly from Africa, the Americas and Madagascar. There exists a wide range of insular species: on the Hawaiian Islands where spurges are collectively known as "akoko", and on the Canary Islands as "tabaibas"...

than I would from this:

Euphorbia lurida is a species of Euphorbia.

because the second gives you no context until you have clicked on Euphorbia and read the first. You are right, however, that more informative stubs are a different kettle of fish. An article which states:

Euphorbia lurida, the San Francisco mountain spurge, is a species of Euphorbia that occurs at altitudes of 3,500–7,500 feet (1,100–2,300 m) in Utah, New Mexico and Arizona, and closely resembles E. robusta but with narrower cauline leaves.

is clearly much more informative and could not be usefully merged into the genus article. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:27, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

(Replying to PaleCloudedWhite) If some species articles are "quite satisfactory remaining as stubs", then the definition of "Stub" is wrong. If there is nothing more that can be said about a species because nothing more is available in reliable sources, then the article should surely not be classed as a "Stub". Perhaps we need to clarify the project's quality categories to be clear that they are relative to the subject matter: a "C-class" article on a relatively unknown species can't be expected to be as detailed as a "C-class" article on a major taxon, e.g. a family or an order, or one on a botanical topic. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The difficulty with discussing stubs as a class is that it includes substubs, which at one time were in a separate class of their own. Generally speaking, I would not encourage the creation of single-sentence substubs, particularly en masse as part of a "rollout". On the other hand I fully support the creation of near-Start class referenced stubs on any notable topic.Melburnian (talk) 03:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Same. Any species article that includes information that simply can not be placed in the genus page deserves an article of its own. I would agree with Stemonitis though that one-sentence "X is a species of Y genus" stubs aren't really that informative. And they simply hide the existence of far more comprehensive coverage of the subject.

On that note, are there any ways of emphasizing that the reader should see the genus article for more info? In short articles, the genus is often already wikilinked in the first sentence, but a See also section urging the reader to see the genus article might still fall within the guidelines of WP:SEEALSO. That might solve the problem of readers being unaware of the larger article.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 05:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

We seem to be reaching some kind of consensus here, which it would be good to try to write up on the project page (I have the feeling that too many useful discussions just disappear when at least a summary should be recorded). Here's my attempt at a summary including some contentious points:

• The default position is that each species/natural hybrid should have its own article.
• However this does not meant that species articles should be created regardless.
  • They should not if they will be left as what used to be called a "substub". Such articles can legitimately be removed. [This last may be contentious; I think that only Stemonitis and I have expressly supported it.]
  • They should not while there are major taxonomic uncertainties which may later require wholesale changes.
  • They should not if there is never likely to be sufficient information available to make the species notable relative to the genus; many if not most fossil plant species fall into this category.

In such cases, treatment at the genus level is more appropriate, at least as an interim measure. Rather than a "substub", a categorized redirect to the genus article can be created. [Contentious?]

• A true stub, i.e. a very short article but one which nevertheless contains some information about the species that cannot be deduced from the genus name + the genus article, is of value. [We may disagree about the boundary between a "substub" and a "stub" but seem to agree that some articles classed as stubs are ok.]
• Every effort should be made to categorize articles correctly; the number of Stub-class articles shown in the project table is much larger than the reality.

Is this a fair summary? Peter coxhead (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I would not include "Such articles can legitimately be removed". I don't support redirect from species name to genus as it results in "false" blue links. The "taxonomic uncertainty" clause requires more thought, because, as written, we would not have any articles on Acacia species, for example. The next one could be something like where there is insufficient information available from reliable sources to meet the notability requirement. This will be the case for many fossil plant species (but only if other editors dealing with the latter agree that that is a correct assumption). Again I don't support "Rather than a substub, a categorized redirect to the genus article can be created". The last two stub points seem basically OK - though I would not use the terminology "true stub".Melburnian (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, well you've confirmed that the parts I suggested might be contentious are indeed so. I'm going to add something to the project page and then ask others to check it.

• The bits marked as contentious will be removed or noted as such.
• The "taxonomic uncertainty" bit will be weakened, to suggest being cautious in such areas rather than avoiding them altogether.
• No editor who has created articles on long-extinct plant species has ever disagreed with working mainly at the genus level, but there aren't many of us – actually I think only myself and User:Smith609 recently – so it's hard to say that there is a consensus. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see #Further update to project page. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a birch tree?

• 
  from a distance
• 
  close up

I may have misidentified the tree in these pictures. I thought the unusual bark was due to it being a very large, old birch but someone suggested it is actually a cottonwood or a poplar tree. Anyone know for sure? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not a birch; cottonwood looks right to me. My best guess is Populus trichocarpa ; this reference says it grows on the Kenai Peninsula between sea level and 2,000 feet. However, as I live over 12,000 kilometres from where this picture was taken I can't claim any local knowledge.Melburnian (talk) 02:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Further update to project page

Based on the discussion at #One article per species, I have added some more content to WP:PLANTS#Scope and goals which I think reflects the consensus of the discussion. Please check and amend if I have implied there is a consensus over an issue where there is not.

I have also added a brief note at WP:PLANTS#Statistics which should not be contentious. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd WP:Avoid instruction creep and just revert [2]. I didn't see any evidence of a consensus one way or the other from the previous discussion, and at least speaking for myself I don't agree with the proposed text. I'm also somewhat suspicious about a plants-specific policy when WP:TOL already addresses the question. Kingdon (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The project page should certainly not say anything on which there isn't a consensus, so go ahead if that's what you think.

The only two things I would say are firstly that we seem to have discussions here which do yield useful insights and these often just disappear, which I think is a pity and not helpful to newer plant editors. (How to categorize plant articles is a good example of such a discussion which seems to have produced no recorded output.) Secondly, I don't see the text as "instructions" but merely advice.

On the separate issue of plants versus ToL, there are already clear differences between different (sub)projects. For example, we have favoured scientific names for article titles; many other projects do not. The whole discussion arose from the reasonable question as to whether WP:PLANTS wanted one article for every species, as some other projects do, or not. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I was quite surprised how this last (quite large) amendment was implemented without any editor giving support for the wording, quite in contast to your previous amendment. I don't like reverting good faith edits, but have done so in line with your first sentence and the objection from Kingdon above. Melburnian (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I, too, disagree with the text that Melburnian reverted, in particular the guidance discouraging the creation of substubs. I don't see the need for us to give any guidance whatsoever on this point. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit; anyone is entitled to create an article on any notable topic. WP:PLANTS is merely a place for plants editors to collaborate and coordinate their efforts; we have no jurisdiction to alter fundamental principles of openness. Hesperian 02:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected; I fully accept that my summary did not represent a consensus (although I thought it did). I have restored the brief note at WP:PLANTS#Statistics which I think is not contentious.

I disagree that there is no "need for us to give any guidance whatsoever on this point" – the key word being "guidance". Just as anyone is entitled to create an article on any notable topic, anyone is entitled to challenge its notability and have it deleted (or delete it themselves if they are an admin like some of those who have opposed "substubs"). Such a cycle is not a very productive use of our limited time, and I still think that a genuine consensus would be useful, so I hope someone else will manage to find some wording concerning the issue of one article per species which can be added to the project page. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

In nearly seven years I have not once seen a verifiable plant taxon substub deleted through due process. Hesperian 08:16, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Mostly they are replaced by redirects. See Stemonitis's comments at #One article per species. Anyway, I don't want to imply by prolonging this discussion that I don't accept the reversion; I do. Let's leave it for now. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Merge of Viridiplantae and Plant

An anonymous editor has raised this at Talk:Viridiplantae. Please comment there. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Latin cultivar names

As I remember, in names such as Rosa gallica officinalis, the cultivar name should be treated as other cultivar names even if it is Latin; i.e. with initial capital, and not be italicised. Always assuming that it is a true cultivar and not a natural taxon of course. Can someone confirm this?

See the Rosa gallica article for the current usage and another example, Rosa gallica forma trigintipetala. Thanks, Imc (talk) 10:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

If "officinalis" is an established cultivar name, then it is governed by the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP). (Cultivar names can only be all in Latin if established before 1 January 1959.) If it's a cultivar name, then the whole name should be written as Rosa gallica 'Officinalis', as you remembered. Frequently old "cultivars" with names such as "officinalis" turn out to be groups. Group names are not put in quotes, e.g. Rosa gallica Officinalis Group.

If it's not a cultivar or group name, then it must be an botanical infraspecific name governed by the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature (ICBN), in which case it must be written with a "connecting term" such as "var." if a variety or "f." if a form, e.g. Rosa gallica var. officinalis. The connecting term is never italicized. In botany, trinomials such as Rosa gallica officinalis are always wrong.

The RHS Plant Finder lists it here as a variety, i.e. under the name Rosa gallica var. officinalis. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

A quick scan through my rose books reveals a certain amount of confusion, both historically and today. In the RHS Encyclopedia of Roses (2003) it comes under 'Officinalis' standing alone, without the Rosa gallica, confirming that the authors regard it very much as a cultivar (seeing as all the other cultivar entries are listed alphabetically under their cultivar name alone, without any Rosa in front). In "The Hillier Manual of Trees and Shrubs" (1998) it's listed as Rosa gallica var. officinalis. In the 2006/7 catalogue of rose grower Peter Beales (who holds the UK National Collection of Rosa species) it's listed as Rosa gallica officinalis. In Phillips and Rix's "The Ultimate Guide to Roses" (2004) it's Rosa gallica 'Officinalis'. So there we already have 4 sources and 4 different notations. It appears that this confusion has historical precedents. If I can quote at length from an article (by Francois Joyaux) about Christophe Opoix ("The Champion of the Rose of Provins"), in the Autumn 2005 edition of the Historic Rose Journal:

"Today we distinguish between the single wild rose, Rosa gallica and the semi-double rose of the apothecaries, Rosa gallica 'Officinalis', which is the only one, strictly speaking, entitled to the synonym 'Rose de Provins'. At the start of the nineteenth century, this terminology was not exactly fixed. Even today, some authors continue this confusion. Take, for example, the case of Krussmann, a serious author, who describes Rosa gallica 'Officinalis' first as single, then later as semi-double."

"Despite Opoix's opinion that the semi-double variety known as the 'Rose of Provins' had been cultivated since the thirteenth century, it is noticeable that many of the old representations of roses for medicinal use show single roses, with five petals. This is seen in the work of Symphorien Champier, entitled Rosa gallica, published at Paris by Josse Bade in 1514 ... It is clearly a single rose ... This single rose was called Rosa gallica and is indeed the rose whose medicinal virtues he promotes. In this sense, it is the rose of the apothecaries."

"Opoix's own confusion is total, and he equates Rosa gallica with Rosa gallica 'Officinalis'. He writes: 'The red roses, known by the name of Roses de Provins, Rosa rubra simplex Tournef., Rosa gallica Linn., etc.' Or again: 'Foreigners and the famous botanist Linnaeus have called them Rosa gallica, the rose of France, and the French, the rose of Provins'. To him, quite curiously, the single botanical species rose of Linnaeus, Rosa gallica and the horticultural semi-double form Rosa gallica 'Officinalis' syn: 'Rose of Provins', syn: 'Rose of the Apothecaries' are one and the same rose ... Yet it is quite clear that the roses grown at Provins at that time were semi-double roses ... Opoix says that 'the number of petals rarely exceed twelve' - which matches the semi-double flowers of our Rosa gallica 'Officinalis'."

"And how were the Roses of Fontenay [a competing rose-growing area] described? Opoix singles out several differences .... most importantly, the roses of Provins are 'more single' than those of Fontenay 'and their petals, though fewer in number, are larger'. ... [His] remarks suggest two conclusions. First, it is clear that in Opoix's time, and for a long time before, no clear distinction was made between the wild species Rosa gallica L. and the horticultural variety Rosa gallica 'Officinalis'. Even if the synonyms 'Rose of Provins' and 'Rose of the Apothecaries' are applied to the latter, both seem to have been roses used by apothecaries. Second, this confusion could be explained by a gradual progression in roses used in pharmacy from a single flower to one that was increasingly double. In 1807/8 Opoix was using the term Rosa rubra simplex to signify a rose which had not been single for a long time. On the other hand, the nurserymen of Fontenay had come to be growing a rose that was distinctly more double than that of Provins, which, moreover, to Opoix was a degenerative step."

I'm not sure if that doesn't just muddy the waters, rather than clarifying anything. Interesting though... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, interesting. The ICNCP is relatively new, so to some extent the historical application of a cultivar name or a botanical name to this entity is not relevant. To be a cultivar now it must have "distinct, uniform and stable" characteristics which are retained when propagated. The history above suggests that plants with range of doubleness were called "officinalis", which implies either a botanical variety or a cultivar group rather than a cultivar in the ICNCP sense.

As for "notations":

• The ICNCP allows a cultivar name to be used with a full botanical name or just with the genus or alone. So Rosa gallica 'Officinalis', Rosa 'Officinalis' or 'Officinalis' are all allowed (the last obviously needs a context).
• The ICBN absolutely forbids the notation Rosa gallica officinalis. Article 24 covers infraspecific names: a connecting term is essential; also, like specific epithets, infraspecific epithets cannot be used alone. So Rosa gallica var. officinalis is the ONLY correct notation if it's a variety, although it can be abbreviated to R. gallica var. officinalis or R. g. var. officinalis.

I've edited Rosa gallica to use the correct notations, but I guess the article should say that both names are in use, which it doesn't at present. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've now also said that both names are in use, with references. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Imc (talk) 06:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Need ID help - wildflowers

• 
  Cleome rutidosperma
• 
  Cyperus cf. rotundus
• 
  Commelina cf. benghalensis
• 

Need identification help with the following wildflowers. Will try to create articles for them if none exists. All are from Mindanao island, Philippines. First one is possibly Trifolium, last one is possibly Chromolaena?-- Obsidi♠n Soul 08:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Not an area of the world whose flora I know anything about (although I am familiar with some pan-tropical weeds, which the last probably is). As someone who gets quite a bit of e-mail which includes photos of local plants to be identified (because I run a website on a local National Nature Reserve), I would just make the point that you really need to include a close-up of the flower to have a reasonable chance of the plant being identified correctly. Most modern digital cameras will produce quite good close-ups – study the manual if you don't know how to do it! Peter coxhead (talk) 10:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Haha, sorry, will try to do that next time. These are all 'profile' pictures I guess, not meant for ID. I'll take a full photo next time then mangle it immediately afterwards for closeups of the morphology, heh. Camera sucks though.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 11:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, this is a difficult set of IDs. I'm thinking based on this that the third one may be Commelina benghalensis.Melburnian (talk) 03:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The hairs are not brown-tipped though... hmmm. Still, ID to genus level is already awesome enough. Thanks :) Requested renaming.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 05:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

A couple more thoughts. The grass looks like a Digitaria; I've seen grasses like it in Malaysia, but never been able to determine the species. The flower in the first photo is nothing like a Trifolium; as far as can be told from the photo it seems to have 4-5 petals and be one-sided; definitely try to get a better photo of this! Peter coxhead (talk) 07:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I recognize Digitaria, very common here as well, but definitely not the same. The leaves are different. This one has slender (1cm or less in width), glabrous, and long leaves. Does not branch. Leaves are not spreading and arise from sheaths that more or less terminate near the base (such that they all look like they're coming directly from a single point in the ground). Inflorescence is compact (shorter than Digitaria but thicker), alternating, and overlapping and arises from a thin stalk (around 6 to 9 inches in length) that is triangular in cross-section.

Ah, right: triangular stems are fairly clear. Sedges have always been beyond me! Peter coxhead (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I suspect it's a sedge (Carex). Very similar to this picture of Carex disticha or this picture of Carex fimbriata, except for the shapes of the inflorescence. Hmm... might be Carex tristachya based on this picture. I'll take better shots tomorrow, but... there are so many, LOL, and they all look the same. Dunno if it's worth it. Heh.

It may be Cyperaceae, but I don't think it's Carex, because that would have separate male and female flowers, which are normally readily discernible. It's more likely to be something like Cyperus rotundus (cf. this photo), but no doubt there are dozens of species in the area. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think you nailed it. Not sure about the species as well. I've seen the larger C. rotunda around (which has more spikes and usually grow well away from other grasses) and this might be a different species or just stunted from proximity with other plants. Anyway, this made me discover that we don't have an article on carabao grass (Paspalum conjugatum), the most common lawn cover around here. I'll make that my next project instead as this already has an article.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

As for the first pic. I will. That would be easier than the grass, I would guess. I think it's definitely a legume though, you can see some of its pods.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

If it's a legume (pods are not clear enough in the photo to be sure), then presumably what's visible in the photo's solitary pale blue flower are standards & keel. It doesn't fit Trifolium though; this should have clusters of flowers and few-seeded pods. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

And after much google-fu, I think I found what the first pic is! :D It's apparently the fringed spiderflower, Cleome rutidosperma. We have no article on it. Perfect. And you were right. Not Trifolium nor a legume, but Cleomaceae. The flower was too tiny to be of much help, heh..-- Obsidi♠n Soul 16:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to assist in adding donated content: GLAM/ARKive

I am the Wikipedia Outreach Ambassador to ARKive, who have kindly agreed to donate an initial 200 article texts about endangered species from their project, to Wikipedia, under a CC-BY-SA license. Details are on the GLAM/ARKive project page. The donated texts include many about plants. Your help, to merge the donated texts into articles, would be appreciated. Guidelines for doing so are also on the above page. Once articles have been expanded using the donated texts, we are also seeking assistance in having those articles translated into other languages. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns, on the project's talk page, or my own. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

ARKive have just released another batch of texts, including several on plants. I've added these to the list on the project page. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 14:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Salvia hispanica

I would like neutral opinions on my attempt to add information to the Salvia hispanica article about the seed's use in Mesoamerica, based on academic journal sources. An editor keeps removing it and has placed it at Talk:Salvia hispanica#Mesoamerican usage for discussion. Thanks, First Light (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

As three independent editors have supported the inclusion of this material at Talk:Salvia hispanica#Mesoamerican usage, I have put it back (and improved the citations to clarify that both are to reputable journals, although one is effectively pre-publication). Peter coxhead (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe the WP:Plants quality rating of this article should be upgraded - I'm guessing either to a 'Start'-class or 'C'-class. I would just do it myself, but I'm not certain if there are strict criteria by which such things are assessed, or whether it's actually just a rough assessment? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Assessment#Quality_scale (which could do with being more prominent on the project page). However, it seems to me that the criteria there are not really followed; most C-class articles I see do not contain "a lot of irrelevant material" or "still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup". Instead I think a judgement is made as to how far they are towards completion. My view is that Salvia hispanica is about C-class and I'll amend the rating accordingly. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

A couple of areas that need expansion are the description of the plant and its position within this large genus. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Peter, and everyone who commented there. That other editor has a long history of edit-warring without discussing on that article, so it could use being on more watchlists for a while. Much appreciated, First Light (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Watsonian vice-counties

The article on Watsonian vice-counties is in severe danger of being ruined by zealots. It has been dragged into the "debate" (if I can dignify it with that term) over the use of the term "British Isles". As always, the best way to prevent damage is to improve the article, so if anyone here could add anything to it, that would be most appreciated. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

One slightly tricky issue for me is the title of the article. It can reasonably be argued that "Watsonian" vice-counties are those of Great Britain; the VCs used in the island of Ireland are later and not, in one sense, "Watsonian". The correct title for the article is "Vice-counties of the British Isles", for which many sources are available, e.g. Stace (2010), New Flora of the British Isles, back cover. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:36, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I would be perfectly happy with a renaming, if that is inline with the sources; I had had the same thought as you, but didn't think I could have a serious discussion of it in the current situation. Please propose it there, and I will gladly support it. The more botanists there are taking part in the discussion, the better. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Watsonian vice-counties. I made some edits to produce a view which I think is more in line with the sources, starting to add more refs ("Watsonian VCs" = GB + Isle of Man; "VCs of British Isles" = GB + Ireland +/- Channel Islands). These were immediately undone by User:MacStep. I have reverted his changes, with an explanation on his talk page. We'll see what happens next. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, people are doing the right thing in terms of trying to discuss on the talk page and supplying sources. Too bad that MacStep isn't doing the same, but we'll see how it goes. Kingdon (talk) 01:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Undo move

It's now necessary to undo a move to The Biological Vice-Counties of Ireland, or something Lavateraguy (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. I have tried to discuss my edits with him, to no avail. I personally think we need to discuss changing the title to e.g. "Biological vice-counties of the British Isles" but this needs discussion and consensus. I've exhausted my three reverts on undoing his reversions of my attempted edits. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Undone as being without consensus, and being obviously inaccurate. Let's get a proper discussion going, where a clear consensus can be formed. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Expert attention needed

See List of plants with edible leaves. A commercial website (www.leafforlife.org) had copied the plant list from Facciola's Cornucopia and added the claim that the leaves of these plants are edible. This is profoundly untrue; the list contains several plants whose leaves are fatally poisonous. Facciola lists plants where at least one part is edible, nonwithstanding of the edibility of the rest.

The other sources given often make no claim whatsoever about edibility.

This page might qualify for speedy deletion; in its present state it eventually get someone killed.

Each and every entry on this list needs to be reviewed, all sources need to be checked.

[The above edit was contributed by User:Dysmorodrepanis, but the Signbot didn't pick up that it was unsigned. This note added by PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)]

Even in the cases where the leaves are edible, important conditions are missing from the list. E.g. several species of Rumex have leaves which are edible if young and if well-boiled with the water discarded, but otherwise contain too much oxalic acid. I think the article should be removed promptly. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I hate some of these pages - "edible" (loosely defined) can mean almost anything which lacks a disagreeable taste and toxic compounds, which could cover an insane number of plant species.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete per Casliber? ;-) Rkitko ^(talk) 18:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised it's still there. I think that an admin should delete this immediately; it contains improperly sourced and potentially dangerous information. This is separate from the issue of whether a list of edible leaves would ever be acceptable as an article; I think it could be, but it would need careful sourcing of every entry, so the ratio of value to work would be small. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it qualifies under WP:CSD, but WP:PROD might be a useful tool. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, have tried WP:PROD. We'll see what happens. (I'm not likely to be around to follow this up for the next few days.) Peter coxhead (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think deleting the whole thing is far too rash and radical. The best idea is not to delete the whole article, but to delete all the dubious leaves in this excessively long list, leaving only those which are well-known enough to qualify as edible leaves, like cabbage, spinach and lettuce.Xufanc (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The list should have a proper introduction stating the standards for inclusion in the list. Leaves that are consumed in small quantities as a spice like oregano or for medicinal purposes, like Common Lime, should not be included.Xufanc (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Another alternative would be to redirect it to leaf vegetable or list of common leaf vegetables (which should probably be titled list of leaf vegetables). All are without references. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I am working on the article now. The list of leaf vegetables is very small and many non-Western vegetables are missing.Xufanc (talk) 05:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good outcome - I think the above page is a narrower defined list which is along the lines ot what people will be looking for then looking for plants with edible leaves. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is a good outcome. I think that List of leaf vegetables is a better title. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Cultivar names and trade designations (part 2)

The issue of how to handle cultivar names and trade designations was discussed at some length above, and some consensus reached, but no action was taken.

As this shouldn't be lost, I'll summarize here the current state of play, as I see it.

1. According to the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP), trade designations should be set in a different font, rather than put in single quotes as cultivar names are. It was agreed that in Wikipedia, fixed space font was the only viable option. A template {{tdes}} was created, which produces text like this Iceberg. The advantage of consistently using a template is that it is easy to change the style if a different consensus is reached in future.
2. Article titles are an issue. Current policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora)#Hybrids, cultivars and provisional names implies that the cultivar name should be used as the article title. Often this works, but for some heavily commercialized plants, the cultivar name is a meaningless string of characters. Thus the rose sold in the UK as Royal William was bred by Kordes in Germany; all his recent rose introductions have cultivar names beginning 'KOR' – this one is 'KORzaun'. We agreed that in such cases it was better to name the article under the trade designation used in the first English-speaking country into which the cultivar was introduced.

Comments, views, please – the intention is to set up a WP:PLANTS policy on this. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

On point 1, I don't much like {{tdes}}. I don't think many readers will understand why words that are particularly common to them are offset in a different font. In fact, since many of these words are so common in English, I don't see why it's necessary to follow the ICNCP point on this issue. We don't follow every aspect of the ICBN (especially the point on italicizing all taxa; italicized family names will always look strange to me) because it's not yet common usage. Is it common usage to follow this part of the ICNCP?

I agree on the second point. WP:FLORA should be updated to include trade names. Quite a few plants have nonsense cultivar names. I had originally titled Stylidium graminifolium 'ST111' under the trade name Stylidium graminifolium 'Tiny Trina' until I realized my error. For many cultivars, the trade name is the registered cultivar name, but for those that have commonly used trade names, we should title it at that name. So, in my example, would I move the article to Tiny Trina? And if it's a common word that requires disambiguation, should we suggest dabbing with the genus name (Tiny Trina (Stylidium)) or the common name of the taxon, which might be more practical for apple, rose, etc. cultivars? Rkitko ^(talk) 22:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

My initial appraisal of Peter coxhead's summary above is that it is the most workable solution to this issue. However a couple of points for consideration have sprung to my mind:

1) I'm not completely satisfied with the effect which the trade designation template has on the text characters, at least not in my pc/browser settings. I don't want to sound unappreciative of Peter's work on the template, and I'm possibly being too exacting over a problem with only limited solutions, however in Windows/Firefox I think when the text is highlighted in bold print the template has the effect of making the characters appear too strung-out and too over-emphasized. Some talk was made in the earlier discussion about using something called "Small caps", although this seemed to be dismissed as not practical. I don't have any programming/software knowledge at all, and hence am a bit in the dark as to why "Small caps" was a bad idea, although I thought its effect on the appearance of the text was quite positive.

2) We ought to be aware that for some plants (eg roses), the registered cultivar name of modern international introductions is almost never intended for general useage by the public, so most articles for such cases will predominantly be titled according to their trade name.

3) Some trade names fall foul of the "Precision" requirement for WP article titles, as they are not always unique. In such instances where 2 or more different cultivars have the same trade name, it might be worth stipulating that, in their article title, such cultivars have their true cultivar name in brackets after their trade name (this is assuming of course that their cultivar names are not applicable as article titles in their own right, for reasons outlined previously). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

1) Regarding point 1, I generally concur with what Rkitko and PaleCloudedWhite have written above regarding the template.

2) I think in cases where the trade name is more commonly in use than the cultivar name perhaps article titles in the format [Genus (species) Trade name] such as Rosa Iceberg and Stylidium graminifloium Tiny Trina could be used. This format would integrate with the alphabetical sort of categories of cultivars in the [Genus (species) 'Cultivar'] format. We should also recognize the current practice that food crop cultivars are titled at [Cultivar].Melburnian (talk) 08:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Like others, I'm not over-happy about the way {{tdes}} displays trade designations. I do however think that we should make some attempt to follow the ICNCP in distinguishing between trade designations and cultivar names. Reliable sources (e.g. the RHS databases and publications) do use a distinct font family for trade designations. However, it's clear that changing the font family won't work in an online encyclopedia, because the font family for the main text can be altered by the user, so it can't be guaranteed that the two are distinct. Three possibilities seem to exist:

1. A fixed space font, which generally needs to be a little larger than the default, as per the present version of {{tdes}}, giving Rosa Iceberg. The problem is that the relationship between the normal text and the trade designation text will vary between platform, browser, user settings, etc.
2. Small caps, giving Rosa Iceberg. It's trivial to change {{tdes}} to small caps if this is preferred. The variation between platforms, etc. seems to be less, but still exists. (WP:SMALLCAPS discourages small caps in text, but allows it in templates, so it's ok in {{tdes}}.)
3. No font marking (but no quotes either), giving Rosa Iceberg. If this is agreed, I would personally still urge the use of the template to mark in the source that it's a trade designation, otherwise we'll find editors inserting quote marks for a cultivar. Again, it's trivial to change {{tdes}} to do nothing if this is preferred.

Of the three, I personally think that (1) is the least worst choice, but am happy to go along with the consensus.

The important issues, for me, are:

1. agreeing to distinguish between cultivar names and trade designations in a systematic way, regardless of what that way is
2. agreeing that meaningless cultivar names should not be used as article titles. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Peter coxhead on his last two points (immediately above), and also with his assertion that editors might mistakenly try to insert quote marks around trade names, if no font marking is used to distinguish them. However I wonder if using a 'do nothing' template might be insufficient to prevent this happening - if editors don't understand what a template does and why it's there, they may delete it out of ignorance. So despite its simplicity, I'm inclined not to favour option 3 of the ones outlined by Peter above. Looking to the other two options, is it possible to see what small caps (option 2) would look like over a whole article, so it can be more fairly compared to {{tdes}} (option 1)? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Compare Rosa Iceberg with this version. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I've since realized that a disadvantage of no marking at all for trade designations is that this is the form to be used for a grex or a group rather than a cultivar. Cymbidium Clarisse Austin is not a cultivar with the trade name "Clarisse Austin" but the grex Clarisse Austin. If there were a cultivar with a trade designation "Fancy Pink" within this grex, its name should be written as something like Cymbidium Clarisse Austin Fancy Pink, not Cymbidium Clarisse Austin Fancy Pink. Similarly groups of cultivars are given names in plain text, e.g. Pelargonium Fragrans Group. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

These complications, to me, add support in favor of a laissez-faire approach. If you, a knowledgeable person who has read on this topic recently, didn't realize this until now, will our readers? Other editors? Altering the font for trade names does not seem to be common usage or commonly understood. And how many grex registries are there? Off-hand I only know of the orchids, though I'm sure there are more. And even though multiple cultivars can arise from the same hybrid cross, unless there's a grex registry, it only confuses the matter. (There was effort a couple years ago to try to establish a grex registry for Nepenthes, but hobbyists in the trade eventually did not support it.)

Grex names as used in Rhododendron in addition to in orchids.

To throw another ingredient into the mix, there are also cultivar groups, such as Meconopsis Sterile Blue Group and Meconopsis Fertile Blue Group. I advocate Malva sylvestris Mauritiana Group instead of the various ICBN names based on Malva mauritiana L. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

In the example of Cymbidium Clarisse Austin Fancy Pink, why is the {{tdes}} necessary? In titling the article, I would think our existing guidelines would steer us toward Cymbidium Fancy Pink, disambiguated as necessary, if there's another Fancy Pink trade designation in the genus, with the grex in parentheses. And in writing about them in the article, I think it would be easy to make it clear in the intro paragraph which is a grex and which is the trade name. I think the ICNCP rule is to allow for brevity and easy identification in publications and databases. But as an encyclopedia, we're going to explain these things anyway, so we don't require the offset font style that, at the moment, would only serve to confuse everyone. Again, we don't follow every rule of the ICBN, even though some journals and databases do italicize taxa at the ranks above genus, we haven't yet followed suit. Let's leave it alone. Rkitko ^(talk) 17:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's talk about a real example with an article already: Phalaenopsis 'Kaleidoscope'. Clearly this is mistitled. It's original title without the quotes was more accurate, but still far off. It was written and then moved by two different editors that I respect very much. There's certainly a problem if even they missed the error! This particular article seems to be about both the grex Phalaenopsis Baldan's Kaleidoscope and the most common (or only?) cultivar, Phalaenopsis 'Golden Treasure'. I would prefer moving the article to the cultivar name. As far as I can tell, 'Golden Treasure' is the cultivar name and not a trade designation. If it were, then I would prefer Phalaenopsis Golden Treasure. But of course, any of these would be more correct that the current title. Rkitko ^(talk) 17:55, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

There are two different issues here: what article titles should be, and whether to distinguish trade designations from grex names and cultivar group names. I was not suggesting that an article would be titled Cymbidium Clarisse Austin Fancy Pink were there such a cultivar. By their very nature trade designations tend to be distinct with in a genus at least, so Cymbidium Fancy Pink would be the obvious title, with or without the font difference to show that it's a trade designation.

Can I suggest that to avoid confusion, we separate the discussion into two parts.

Using trade designations in article titles

The proposal is that if (and only if) the unique registered cultivar name is a meaningless character string, like 'KORzaun', we give the article a title consisting of [genus (specific-epithet) trade-designation]. This is a variation on existing policy, which is that the cultivar name should be used. I don't think that anyone has objected to this proposal. If you do, could you please do so here, otherwise it appears that there is a consensus on this. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Distinguishing trade designations from grex and group names

This issue applies both to titles and to the body of articles and is independent of the choice of words in the title.

• It's agreed that cultivar names are shown by the use of single quotes.
• It's agreed (I believe) that trade designations do not have single quotes, nor do grex names nor cultivar group names.
• It's not the case that we can just "leave it alone" as Rkitko suggested, because there are quite a few articles in which trade designations appear in single quotes, as if they were cultivar names, in both the title and the text, and this at least should be corrected.

There does not appear to be a consensus that trade designations should be distinguished in Wikipedia by some appropriate variation on the font. I personally would like a bit more explanation of why this would "only serve to confuse everyone". The whole point of the ICNCP approach is to distinguish between cultivar names (single quotes, normal font), trade designations (no quotes, different font) and the rest: grex names, cultivar group names and, most importantly, common names. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

A clarification: I meant "leave it alone" with respect to font styles. Certainly the incorrect titles and text where trade names appear in single quotes should be corrected. I understand the reason for the ICNCP rule, but I find it unnecessary. I expect that whether it's an article title or in text, it will be clear from at least the introduction or an infobox (speaking of, we should probably incorporate a grex parameter into the {{Infobox cultivar}}) which terms in the name are the genus, grex name, cultivar name, trade designation, cultivar group name, or common names. I imagine a single sentence could take care of all of this. For instance, "Phalaenopsis 'Golden Treasure', commonly sold under the trade designation Example, is a popular artificial orchid cultivar of the complex grex Baldan's Kaleidoscope." I imagine that people that have no clue about the ICNCP's rule on font styling trade designations would be reading, then stumble over the odd font on the word "Example" in the previous sentence and instead of continuing to read, they would be left wondering why it's like that with absolutely no explanation or link. If I wasn't now aware of the reason, it would certainly break the flow of reading for me. In other font difference examples, people expect taxa at the genus rank and below to be italicized and they expect, at least on Wikipedia, that the article title upon first mention will be bold (along with a few alternative title names). People do not yet, in my estimation, expect or understand why trade designations would be in a different font, leading to confusion. I hope that explains my thoughts a bit more. Rkitko ^(talk) 20:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, your explanation is clear to me now. I agree that in your example text the lack of a font change causes no problems. However, I think that it's a bit different where there's a discussion of a number of cultivars of a species or a cultivar group, since you could need to repeat the information as to whether it's a cultivar or a trade designation. For example, I was reading an article in The Plantsman about Cortaderia in cultivation and those awarded an AGM. Suppose I wrote this up in Wikipedia. I think that this:

Plants proposed for an AGM included 'Evita', 'Monstrosa', Silver Feather and 'Sunningdale Silver'

looks better than this:

Plants proposed for an AGM included 'Evita', 'Monstrosa', Silver Feather and 'Sunningdale Silver'

which suggests that I've forgotten the quotes on one of them (a common mistake I quite often correct).

If there's no consensus for marking trade designations, there's no consensus, and it can't be a policy. However, as with capitalization or not for common names, it seems to me that editors are free to follow the ICNCP or not on an article-by-article basis. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that example. I see how in some cases it might be useful, but I again think clear arrangement of the sentence is better in the long run. In this case, I would write it this way, "Plants proposed for an AGM included the cultivars 'Evita', 'Monstrosa', 'Sunningdale Silver', and the plant known under the trade designation Silver Feather." I disagree that in your examples the former looks better. The font change is jarring. Perhaps that's just my opinion; I have picked up an eye for fonts and text flow from my font-snob and print designer partner, having endured frequent rants about the usage of Papyrus and Comic Sans. At any rate, I'll shut up now and let other folks chime in on this point to build consensus :-) Rkitko ^(talk) 03:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Of course, we could use Comic Sans: "Plants proposed for an AGM included 'Evita', 'Monstrosa', Silver Feather and 'Sunningdale Silver'." It is available on both Windows and Mac platforms (not sure about Linux), and is unlikely to be the reader's default font. :-) Peter coxhead (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I have formulated a few disparate thoughts/questions on this whole issue:

1) On the question of using a different font for trade designations, in different ways I agree with both Peter coxhead and Rkitko - namely I think using a different font is good in principle, but works less well in practice with the options explored so far (although I find Comic Sans less objectionable in presentation than the template - sorry Peter!)

2) It actually isn't clear to me what differentiates a trade designation from a cultivar synonym - older cultivars in particular often seem to have acquired alternative names which are merely considered as synonyms, yet when cultivars are given alternative names today, these are regarded as trade designations. Is this purely a case of historical precedence?

3) It also isn't clear to me whether there is a distinction or not between cultivar names, code names and registered names. I've been looking through some of my (non-academic) reference books on roses recently, and there is a certain amount of confusion on notation. For instance, the RHS Encyclopedia of Roses states that in its entries, "Cultivar names are in Roman type with single quotes. Registered or trade names appear in sans-serif typeface without quotes." However it also states that "Synonyms and code names ... are other names under which a rose may be sold or described. Code names are usually composed of three capital letters (usually an abbreviation of the breeder's name) and lowercase letters to give a unique word that identifies the rose." I note that these code names are then presented in the body of the encyclopedia as synonyms, they are given single quotes (as if they were cultivars or cultivar synonyms) but they are printed wholly in capital letters. However in Phillips and Rix ("The Ultimate Guide to Roses") these code names are presented using no quote marks, a standard font, and only the first three letters are capitalized. Also, what we have been referring to as trade designations are presented in single quotes [eg " 'Gertrude Jekyll' (also called AUSbord) "].

I did state at the start of part 1 of this discussion that I find this whole area rather confusing... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I notice that no other editor has commented on my musings immediately above. I'm wondering if this is significant - do editors feel I led the previous discussion down the garden path a little, with what were perhaps(?) rather confused earlier assertions of mine regarding 'code names' and 'cultivar names'? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

No, there is confusion in the conflicting source information which you have rightly highlighted. For the example of Gertude Jekyll, US Patents confirms this is a trade name so in that case the notation 'Gertude Jekyll' seems incorrect to me. For Ausbord, the same source gives [Rose plant named `Ausboard`] and [Variety Denomination (in accordance with the UPOV Convention): Ausbord (Trade name Gertrude Jekyll) ]. For our purposes, given that 'Ausbord' is a cultivar name, I think it should be presented with single quotes. With regard to your second point, I am also not clear whether certain older cultivar-style names should be treated as trade names or synonyms.--Melburnian (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that intention is relevant here. A plant may be given two cultivar names in good faith, i.e. each namer thought that his or her name was the unique cultivar name. (Btw, the correct term is "cultivar epithet", not "cultivar name".) Then it turns out that the plants are the same. So there are synonymous cultivar names, and the first is normally accepted. Cf Article 2 Ex. 17 from the ICNCP:

Pittosporum 'Margaret Turnbull' ... appears to be identical with P. 'John Flanagan' ... The International Cultivar Registration Authority for Pittosporum designated P. 'Margaret Turnbull' as the accepted name, with P. 'John Flanagan' as a later synonym.

Principle 6 of the ICNCP is clear that trade designations are marketing devices in addition to properly established names regulated by the Code. So someone who knows that the correct cultivar name, accepted by the relevant registration authority, is, say, 'Ausbord', can choose to sell the plant as Gertrude Jekyll. Gertrude Jekyll isn't a synonym because the namer never intended it as a cultivar name. The same is true if what appears to be a cultivar name is used in selling the cultivar after another name is accepted by the Cultivar Registration Authority. Thus the names Rosa 'Madame A. Meilland' and Rosa 'Peace' were established before the ICNCP was created. However, Rosa 'Madame A. Meilland' is now the accepted and registered name. When they appear in old publications, it appears that 'Peace' is a synonym for 'Madame A. Meilland'. When the rose is sold today in the UK under the name "Peace", then Peace is a trade designation [at least it is in ICNCP Article 17 Ex. 2].

The definitive source of cultivar names is the accepted Cultivar Registration Authority for the genus. For roses, this is the American Rose Society according to Appendix I of the ICNCP. Unfortunately their list of registered cultivar names is only available for purchase, so I can't check whether, e.g., it should be 'Ausbord' or 'AUSbord'. The cultivar name 'Ausburton' in this form is in the ICNCP [Article 31 Ex. 1], so I suspect that the capitalization of "AUS" is just a reflection of the rose breeders' convention that the first 3 letters designate the breeder, e.g. "Aus" = "David Austin", "Har" = "R. Harkness".

Re "code names". The ICNCP now allows cultivar names to be 'codes'; from Article 21.25:

A cultivar epithet may also be in the form of a code of up to 10 characters excluding spaces and that consists of no more than four alternating sets of a letter or letters and a number or numbers.

So '12AB34CD' is a possible cultivar name, but '12AB34CD56' is not. The key point is that the cultivar name is intended to be a unique way of identifying the cultivar, but need not be a name which could be used in selling the plant. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a limited preview of The Official Registry and Checklist - Rosa (American Rose Society) with a search function at amazon.com. Here is how they have listed some of the Rose cultivar-related names mentioned above:

• 'Ausbord'
• Gertrude Jekyll®
• 'Iceberg', 'Korbin' 'Fée des Neiges', 'Schneewittchen'
• 'Peace'

--Melburnian (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, useful, I hadn't found the "look inside". Two points:

• This seems to confirm that 'Ausbord' is correct, not 'AUSbord'. The same applies to all of the rose cultivar names in which the first three letters refer to the breeder; the register always has lower-case other than the first letter.
• However, some of the listings are confusing if not incorrect. If you look up 'Iceberg', it gives 'Fée des Neiges' and 'Schneewitchen' as synonyms, followed by a description of the rose. However, if you look up 'Korbin', it also gives 'Fée des Neiges' and 'Schneewitchen' as synonyms, followed by a much shorter description.

So which is the correct (established) name? It looks as though it is 'Iceberg', reinforced by looking up 'Fée des Neiges', which says "see 'Iceberg'". But this is unlikely, since Kordes gives roses cultivar names of the form 'Kor...'.

Furthermore, other sources have "Schneewitchen ®". If this is a registered trademark, then it cannot be a cultivar name [ICNCP, Principle 6], and can only be a trade designation, which should not be put into single quotes. So although the rose register repeatedly references the ICNCP in the Introduction, it doesn't seem to be following it reliably.

My conclusion is that although the ICNCP is clear as to theory, sources are confused as to practice. I think that User:Melburnian reached this conclusion some time ago; sorry to be behind the curve. Quite where this leaves Wikipedia editors isn't clear to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there does seems to be confusion out there. I do notice that Kordes themselves use Schneewittchen ® A question - why do you think Iceberg and Fée des Neiges are trade designations? Melburnian (talk) 08:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I was relying on the RHS database, which treats the names this way.

Note that there's a hierarchy. Any name under which a plant is sold is a trade designation or selling name, so there's no doubt that "Iceberg", "Fée des Neiges" and "Schneewittchen" are trade designations. The question is whether they are also synonymous cultivar names which requires the list of criteria in the ICNCP to be met. The Registration Authority is supposed to establish this, but appears to be wrong for "Schneewittchen" if not the others. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Palandokenensis

I came across this while stub-sorting: article on Androsace villosa subsp. palandokenensis . I'm not a botanist and don't know whether this is correctly titled - there is no article on Androsace villosa. Over to you! PamD 22:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any valid publication of the taxon. The book The Plant Hunter's Garden by Bobby J. Ward says, "Androsace villosa subsp. palandokenensis (Primulaceae) was the preliminary name given in Josef's seed catalog for this plant collected in the Palandoken Mountains of eastern Turkey at elevation 10,200 feet (3100 m). It was such a good plant that he investigated it further and found it had been earlier named as A." and that's as far as I can see in the amazon.com "Look inside" preview. Frustrating. If anyone has this on their shelves, it might tell us what to do with the article. Rkitko ^(talk) 23:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

A Google book search gives the rest of that sentence,[3] even though there's no snippet view on Google Books. It says "...it had been earlier named as A. glabrata. Josef says that it grows on dry screes...". First Light (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

IPNI tells me that Androsace glabrata is also Androsace olympica var glabrata. The Plant List gives it as a synonym of Androsace villosa. Lavateraguy (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I've created a start-class article on Androsace villosa. If it can be shown that Androsace villosa subsp. palandokenensis is a valid name, the limited information at the wrongly-named Palandokenensis can be added to it. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice work! I have no opinions on the taxonomy (A. glabrata → A. olympica var. glabrata → A. villosa). It seems it's a variable and widespread species, so I'd expect a great deal of synonymy. I don't think the information at palandokenensis is valuable now that we have Androsace villosa. I'll prod it. Rkitko ^(talk) 02:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this on - I know I brought it to the right place! Might it be worth including a note mentioning this term (as an invalid proposed name or whatever) on the A. villosa page, with a redirect, not least to deter a future editor from creating the palandokenensis article in good faith? It would save us having to go round this loop again. PamD 07:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

It's such an obscure name that was never formally published that I can't imagine this happening again. And usually we don't create redirects from subspecies names like this, mostly because there is often more than one plant that shares that same subspecies name. Sure, a mention might be worthwhile, given that we have a reference above. Rkitko ^(talk) 11:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Changes to {{Infobox cultivar}}

Hi all. There were some changes to {{Infobox cultivar}} that I recently reverted. If you'd like to discuss these cosmetic changes to the template, please check in on the discussion at Template talk:Infobox cultivar#August 2011 changes. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 23:39, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent renaming of article

Recently Polymnia (genus) was renamed to plant Polymnia (plant). Since there is more than one species in the genus, it would appear that this rename is contrary to WP:NC(flora). Before I revert this move, I wanted to check here for an expert opinion. Boghog (talk) 02:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

(plant) is a common disambig term. (genus) can be ambiguous, since there may be a zoological Polymnia. In this case, a quick search did not turn up one. I'm not partial to either dab term. Rkitko ^(talk) 02:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The argument "Since there is more than one species in the genus" makes no sense to me. None of those species are named "Polymnia"; they are named "Polymnia canadensis", "Polymnia fruticosa", etc. Hesperian 02:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The Polymnia (genus) article is not really a disambig page since it contains more information than simply links to species within the genus. It also contains a taxobox. In addition, while WP:NC(flora) does not specifically mention naming conventions for genus articles, it does list Garcia (genus) as an example. I don't have any strong opinion on this one way or the other, but I thought this should be brought up for discussion. Boghog (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Polymnia (genus) is not even remotely a disambig page. I still don't understand the argument from "Since there is more than one species in the genus". Hesperian 03:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, on further reflection, I agree my initial argument does not make sense. However the question remains how best to name genus articles. Ideally this should be specified in the naming convention. Boghog (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The naming policy WP:NC(flora) is about the names of articles, not about the parenthetical contents used to disambiguate one article from another. There are many possibilities for text that would be included. In this instance, if there is only a single genus by the name of Polymnia, then I would prefer the original name because it is a scientific name. However, I have no strong opinion, nor a strong reason for choosing either name. I do not think there was a good reason to rename, and so I'm more inclined to keep the original through inertia than anything else. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

In my view we should disambiguate using the most specific broadly familiar term. "Plant" is broadly familiar, and a lot of the time will be the most specific such term. Occasionally a more specific broadly familiar term will be available, such as "grass" or "bamboo" or "orchid". Using the most specific broadly familiar term is consistent with the use of "bird", "mollusc", etc, when "animal" would suffice. "Genus" fails this criterion. Hesperian 04:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I find the Polymnia (plant) title a little strange since it mixes scientific and common names and according to the guidelines scientific names with a few exceptions are preferred. On the other hand, Watsonia (plant) is also listed as an example in WP:NC(flora) with along with the formatting suggestion "{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Garcia'' (genus)}}" (as is already done with Polymnia (plant)) to differentiate the scientific from common parts of the title. Furthermore Hesperian's argument to the use the "most specific broadly familiar term" is sensible. Boghog (talk) 04:56, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what Hesperian advocates above. Kingdon (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Am I missing something when I ask why the article should be not renamed to Polymnia? The current disamb page Polymnia has two other uses; one appears to be a little used alternative version of the Greek Polyhymnia and the other is an insect species. Neither of these terms seems to be sufficiently notable to merit taking away the major use status from the plant.Imc (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

• While leaving you botanists to debate what to do with plant genera in general, as a disambiguation enthusiast I've added hatnotes to the page about the plant genus (to cater for the two other, both slightly dubious, entries on the dab page) and put in a "db-move" to get it moved to the base name of Polymnia. There's no need for a dab page - and if there was, it should be at Polymnia (disambiguation) as the plant genus is clearly the primary usage. PamD 11:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Imc that in this case, the genus is the primary topic. I disagree, however, with Hesperian above. I think the best practice is not to use the most specific well-known term, but the most general term which is specific to that meaning. I think "(genus)" is a good choice of disambiguator in most cases. Obviously, where there are genera with the same name under different codes that won't be acceptable, but in most cases it distinguishes the genus from the mythological figure, or the Spanish town, or whatever. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

"most general which is specific", rather than "most specific well-known"... so, if you had to disambiguate the turtle genus Chelodina from the chiton genus Chelodina, you would choose Chelodina (deuterostome) rather than Chelodina (turtle). Hesperian 07:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Within reason! Obviously, the need for the disambiguating term to be familiar (i.e. guessable) is paramount. Given that, I think the most general term that still disambiguates is likely to be the best. The reader may not know all the details about the topic, which is presumably why they're looking it up in an encyclopaedia. We shouldn't presume that knowledge. If they know there's an insect called Iris, but can't remember what sort of insect (Was it a stick insect? A leaf insect? ...) then looking for Iris (insect) should succeed, and is more useful than Iris (mantis), which requires the reader to already know the answer to their question (Aaah, of course, it's a mantis!). It also largely avoids the entirely subjective question of what counts as sufficiently well-known. (Is Mantidae well known? Mantinae? Should we call it Iris (Miomantini)?) For most genera that need disambiguating, the fact that it is an entity of the category "genus" is more than enough to disambiguate it, and that requires very little additional knowledge on the part of the reader, for whose benefit the disambiguation is made. (In your example, Chelonia (genus) actually suffices, because the molluscan "Chelodina" is a sub-order, not a genus.) --Stemonitis (talk) 07:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how it removes the subjectivity; it simply reverses its application. "Vertebrate" is more general than "turtle"; but is it sufficiently well known? The only way to remove "sufficiently well-known" would be to adopt a policy of "most well-known". But meh, as long as we agree that we should use a broadly familiar term that actually disambiguates, I'm not too fussed whether we settle on general or specific. Hesperian 09:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm still undecided in this debate, but would like to comment that "(genus)" appears to be the more common disambiguator for animal genera (in my very unscientific sampling). Regardless, it would be nice to have some consistency one way or the other. Kaldari (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

If I imagine myself as a general reader who has no knowledge of any terms used in the biological sciences, and if I was looking up a plant that I had heard of, say on the radio, called Polymnia, then coming to a disambig page with Polymnia (plant) is going to be more helpful than Polymnia (genus), because as such a reader I'm not going to know what "genus" means. However, is there anything wrong with the compromise Polymnia (plant genus)? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem with that style of disambiguation is that it requires two additional pieces of information, either one of which is enough to disambiguate (in most cases). Someone might know that there's a plant, but not know the type of name (e.g. "geranium" vs. Geranium), or might know it's a genus but not be sure it's a plant (rather than an alga or a fungus, say). There may be other reasons I've overlooked, too. I think it's safe to assume that the readership knows what a genus is (or is about to find out!); for a taxonomic article, that's very basic knowledge. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:00, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I work daily in a garden which is freely open to the visiting general public, and from the conversations which I have with them, I would say that actually it's safe to assume that most people have no idea of what "genus" means. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it often requires explanation.[4] Melburnian (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I like PaleCloudedWhite's compromise "Polymnia (plant genus)". Redirects from "Polymnia (plant)" and "Polymnia (genus)" could then be added so anyone in principle should be able to locate the article. Are there any objections to renaming the article to "Polymnia (plant genus)"? Furthermore to ensure consistency, it would be desirable to add a recommendation for the naming of genus articles to WP:NC(flora). Boghog (talk) 08:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I think "plant genus" is awful. Hesperian 09:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

But why is it awful? According to WP:PRINCIPALNAMINGCRITERIA, the compromise would provide consistency, precision, and recognizability but obviously it is not as concise. With redirects, the naturalness criteria is not quite as important. Boghog (talk) 09:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I support Hesperian's position ("we should disambiguate using the most specific broadly familiar term").

• The use of "(genus)" causes poor naming when it is initially used to disambiguate a genus name from some other use, but it later it turns out that there is more than one genus. Thus we have Huia (genus), originally named (I assume) to distinguish the frog genus from the Maori common name of a bird, Huia. But there's an extinct plant genus of the same name so "Huia (genus)" is itself ambiguous. The plant article is at Huia (plant); Huia (genus) should really be at something like "Huia (animal)" or "Huia (frog)".
• The disambiguating term should be sufficiently specific to distinguish between nomenclature codes, but not so specific as to be obscure. Additions like "(plant)", "(animal)", "(fungus)", etc. meet this requirement; "(genus)" does not.
• For my taste, the addition "(plant genus)" is over-specific and not "broadly familiar", although I agree that naturalness is not so important for disambiguated titles.

Peter coxhead (talk) 14:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Most of these arguments only apply, of course, when the same name is used by different codes. For the vast majority of cases, "(genus)" is sufficient to disambiguate; the principle of using a finer disambiguator where required is already in place and (as far as I can see) universally accepted. Yes, "Huia" should be fixed, but that does not mean that "(genus)" is always a bad idea; it isn't. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If it's known, for certain, that the only disambiguation that will ever be needed is between use of the title as a genus name and other use(s), then "(genus)" works. My point is that this is generally not known, so starting off with "(plant)", etc. is safer and will lead to less work in the long run. However, given that there is a disambiguation page or hatnote, diversity in this area surely isn't a problem, so editors can stick to whatever they prefer. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Having been mystified more than a few times by an unfamiliar "Foomnia (genus)", I put my hand up for " (plant)". " (plant genus)" is overkill, since plant species would almost never need disambig (are there even any examples?), and the higher taxa are all distinctly plant-only names. Plus, plant people will instantly know the article is about a genus, while non-plant people will only be interested in the "plant" part of the dab anyway. Stan (talk) 22:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Request

It's difficult to rewrite standard botanical descriptions without plagiarism, so I thought it best to call in an expert.

Can someone rewrite this

“ Terminalia arjuna Roxb. (Combretaceae), commonly known as Arjuna [...] is a large tree, often with buttressed trunk, smooth grey bark and about 20 - 25 m in height. Its leaves are usually sub-opposite, oblong or elliptic-long, pale dark green above and pale-brown beneath, 10-20 cm long and hard. The flowers are yellowishwhite while the fruits are 2.5-5.0 cm ovoid or ovoid-oblong, fibrous-woody, and glabrous. It is common on the banks of rivers, streams and dry watercourses in sub-Himalayan tract, West Bengal as well as in central and South India. ”

For Terminalia arjuna? That's an exact quote from [5], which should be a reasonably reliable source, though if someone has a suitable botanical guide covering it, that'd be better.

The article, as it stood, was a rather nasty coatrack - all about alternative medicine, nothing about the plant itself. I've trimmed the alt med stuff down to the most informative and supported bits. Once it has the actual botany, we could try adding in a little more of the research, but there's a tendency for these articles to list every crank website and tiny mouse study as proof the herb can cure every known disease. 86.176.222.148 (talk) 11:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

My advice is to find second and/or third description. Having other sources makes it easier to create different sentences without changing the facts. I often take information from different sources about a certain part of a plant and then order it accordingly. For example, describe the trunk from information from different sources, then the leaves, then the flowers, then the fruits. Habitats and Distribution are placed in another subsection. You can create sentences radically different from one source if you incorporate other information from other sources, as well s make it more informative. It's not WP:Synthesis of course, as it is descriptive and you are getting discrete information and not banging together different sources to get a different conclusion.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 23:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Sources are a bit difficult to find due to the huge number of people wanting to sell you stuff made from it - there's a rather low ratio of useful content to crap in searches. =/ 86.179.217.124 (talk) 07:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I've given this a go. Can you check Terminalia arjuna? 86.178.193.2 (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Revolutionary changes to the Botanical Code published in 16 journals and 5 languages

Just bumped on this. Might be interesting for the participants in this project? See: http://www.pensoft.net/news.php?n=76&SESID=86c4626a89e57622be6054f326b58647 Cheers Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Googling for Melbourne Code ICBN finds International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants Lavateraguy (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking for Online Ambassadors interested in crop plants

Hi WikiProject Plants members! The United States Education Program is working with a class for the current term on Geography of Crop Plants, and we're looking for some experienced Wikipedians with an interest in the subject area to support the class as Online Ambassadors. If you're interested, apply now!. --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

American plum and Prunus americana

If someone is feeling industrious, it looks like we need a merge of American plum and Prunus americana. Rkitko ^(talk) 00:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Merger done; copyedit could take a while. Nadiatalent (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

What counts as a synonym?

Is there a style guideline about what should be listed in the synonyms part of (plant) taxoboxes? Someone has very industriously added a lot of chresonyms to the species pages of Nepenthes, e.g., the list for Nepenthes alata includes "Nepenthes alata auct. non Blanco: Shivas (1984) [=N. gracillima]". This sort of thing might seem helpful, but can lead to a terrible clutter; in the case of Nepenthes hookeriana it appears to be quite scrambled, for example, the name might actually be due to Lindley, and the auct non Low. Hort.Veitch ex Mast. (1881) name used on the page is said to be a nomen illegitimum. IPNI and TROPICOS are no help in this case. A fundamental problem, of course, is that synonym lists need citations, but depending on the source, a synonymy could have a lot of material that doesn't fit the definition of synonym in the glossary of the code of nomenclature. Do we have an established guideline about whether to include misidentifications, simple usage of a previously established name, and later homonyms that are considered to be heterotypic synonyms? Nadiatalent (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

These names probably came from the carnivorous plant database. I, for one, would prefer we stick to the simplest synonyms. A basic metric would be: if you think such a synonym would be discussed in the text, then it should be included in the taxobox. For the most part, we'll have no need to discuss misidentifications, etc. unless it was a pretty widely reported. Rkitko ^(talk) 18:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, simpler would be good. I'd like to get rid of "Hort.Veitch" although it might be nice in principle to say that the plant came from the Veitch nursery, I think that was a stand-in for the type specimen that the code of nomenclature now requires, and not really helpful hundreds of years after the fact. I'd also like to get rid of "auct. non Low ... ex" which doesn't even say who misused Low's name. N. kookeriana has a redirect, but I'd like to remove "Nepenthes kookeriana Low ex Becc. (1886) sphalm.typogr." from the N. rafflesiana page. It would be easier to do this sort of thing if we had an established directive about what to omit from synonymy lists. Nadiatalent (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that the various Nepenthides alatae (sp?) at Nepenthes alata are simply chresonyms, but something between chresonyms and synonyms. They appear to be mostly references to different (broader) taxonomic conceptions of the species. Another similar source of such names would be regional floras, where the local variety might have been treated as Nepenthes alata, and subsequently segregated. (I don't care for auct. non Blanco X, preferring Blanco sensu X (if based on the same type) or X non Blanco (if based on a different type), but there might be rules and conventions that I don't know about.) Lavateraguy (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Orthochresonyms? Nadiatalent (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I've found a citation for Nepenthes x hookeriana Lindley. It is to Gard. Chron. 87 (1848). Nepenthes loddigesii Baxter in Loud. Hort. Brit. Suppl. 3: 593 (1850) is given as a synonym. There's a copy of Gardeners Chronicle at archive.org, but it's unreadable online; I'm downloading a copy. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Try BHL, it looks okay on my computer. Nadiatalent (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's what Cheek and Jebb's "Nepenthaceae" (2001) has to say:

Nepenthes × hookeriana Lindl. in Gardeners' Chronicle is merely a name in a list of species, referring to the name in Low's book. Hugh Low, however, accidentally, or otherwise, had described what we know as N. rafflesiana as Nepenthes × hookeriana and vice versa in his book Sarawak, its Inhabitants and Productions (1848). Masters was the first author to note this in the Gardeners' Chronicle (II (1881) 818, f. 157), where he gives the first full description and illustration of Nepenthes × hookeriana.

mgiganteus1 (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That's helpful. The Masters opus is available in BHL, page 812. (BHL is a bit unforgiving about how you spell Gardeners'). I think that Masters's name can only be a later homonym of Low's name. It seems to fulfill the requirements for valid publication (as in our modern code's requirements for that time), but would be illegitimate as a later homonym. Nadiatalent (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The quote from Cheek and Jebb would make a nice example for Chresonym#Example (heterochresonymy), where an example is needed. If you don't mind I'll copy it there. Nadiatalent (talk) 21:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. I've just double-checked to make sure it's 100% verbatim, and it is. The full ref would be: Cheek, M.R. & M.H.P. Jebb 2001. Nepenthaceae. Flora Malesiana 15: 1–157. mgiganteus1 (talk) 06:02, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! Must be off to work right now, back to this later. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

As to the main topic, nom. nud., misapplications and misidentifications do not usually belong into the infobox (and most of the times not in the article). Such information might have some place on wikispecies, however. Circéus (talk) 06:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a useful discussion, and it would be good to get some record of it into the project page. I too find myself undecided at times what to include. For example, I recently created Sternbergia clusiana. There's a synomym given in reliable sources (Kew Checklist, IPNI) as S. sparffiordiana. However, all over the gardening literature, including normally reliable sources such as Brian Mathew's books and the AGS Encyclopedia, this is spelt as S. spaffordiana, which appears to be incorrect. I wouldn't consider putting the mis-spelling in the taxobox, but am not sure whether to mention it in the article (or the genus article Sternbergia). Some general guidance on issues like this would be useful, accepting that in the end it's a matter of editorial judgement. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The project page is a good suggestion for where to put this sort of thing, or as a separate page linked from there. The reason I'd like it to be a separate page is that I don't usually have enough time to follow this whole project discussion, but a separate draft document on my watch list would work well.

Do you think that a redirect from the bad spelling isn't sufficient? Putting "often misspelled" or "often misidentified" on a lot of pages seems okay to me, though presumably it could become excessive.

About nomina nuda, sometimes they could presumably be taken up generally (can't think of an example, though), so outlawing them completely might not be helpful. Illegitimate homonyms certainly need to be listed because they are often the only one generally known, as for example on the disambiguation page Spironema, where there is what might be called "the Raffinesque effect".

One problem with including mis-spellings is that they then propagate throughout all the mirrors and re-packagings of Wikipedia, and I worry that rather than correct them the effect might be to continue them. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, so "frequently mis-spelled as" (or misspelled, or however one spells that) can be in the text, but misspellings should not be in the synonym list of the taxobox. Sounds like the start of a style manual. With that in mind, I'll remove N. kookeriana from the taxobox of N. rafflesiana and adjust the redirect to go to N. hookeriana. Nadiatalent (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

According to the cited source the name N. kookeriana was applied to N. rafflesiana, so I've restored the previous redirect. I think the collapsed synonym lists at Nepenthes rafflesiana are quite an elegant solution. I don't believe the article would benefit from further removals, since (1) all the synonyms are now sourced (and have been documented by a taxonomist); (2) mentioning a redirect in the article is preferable to not mentioning it, if possible; and (3) the auto-collapsed lists allow us to include additional names without taking up valuable article space. mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

So there seems to be no solution to this problem. Signing off. Nadiatalent (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

As I understand the situation, Low used Nepenthes rafflesiana for the hybrid, and Nepenthes hookeriana for Nepenthes rafflesiana. The former can't be used for the hybrid because it would be a later homonym, and the latter would either be a superfluous name for Nepenthes rafflesiana or a heterotypic synonym. What legitimises the use of the name Nepenthes ×hookeriana for the hybrid? Lavateraguy (talk) 01:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, while I don't think it the botanists' problem, isn't it contrary to the ICZN to use Spironema for both a fossil gastropod and a flagellate. Lavateraguy (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Objective synonyms

I have a query which is rather tangentially related to the above topic. I've been trying to understand the page Name-bearing type, but find it somewhat confusing. This might be because the article contains an error, or is not sufficiently clearly written, or just because I'm being a blockhead! The sentence which I'm having particular trouble with is the one which states that "Two taxa that have the same name-bearing type are called objective synonyms", because I had previously been under the impression that such synonyms were alternative names for what is actually the same (single) taxon, not for two. Any comments / explanations? (I would have posted this query on the relevant article's talk page, but as it's not an oft-visited page I thought it might not get answered, and then I noticed the above thread about synonyms). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. That page is complicated, do zoologists really think in that kind of prose? I don't see any reason that "name-bearing type" couldn't be replaced by "type" throughout. The lead paragraph has me stumped, and I'll have to read the cited references. My first thought is that of course the name "maculata" can be used if you use a broad circumscription, i.e. if you are a lumper, and if priority rules allow. Perhaps the last sentence of the first paragraph could be improved by adding "if narrowly defined to exclude the type of Trachylepis atlantica. Guess I'd fail zoological nomenclature. Nadiatalent (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It is strictly a zoology concept that covers lectotypes, holotypes and neotypes, plus whatever else is used under the ICZN. The phrase you cite DOES have an error: a taxon in the biological sense is not a name in either system and vice versa! The problem is that (as far as I understand it) a "taxon" as defined in the code is an abstraction that is irredeemably associated with its name, it is NOT necessarily an actually biological entity, and the paragraph uses the term both in the taxonomic sense (taxa are also names and can be synonymous) and biological. I.e. the validity of a name does not imply the validity of the corresponding biological taxon, leading to subjective synonyms. Circéus (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The revision ("two names that have the same name-bearing type are objective synonyms") still has a problem in that it doesn't include a reference to rank, which matters. Motacilla alba alba has (by definition) the same type as Motacilla alba, but that doesn't make the two names synonyms. So I think it should be "two names of the same rank that have the same name-bearing type are objective synonyms". However, this is purely a zoological matter, so not really for us to discuss here at WikiProject Plants! Peter coxhead (talk) 10:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the comments and input on this, despite its non-plants content. I confess that I hadn't noticed that this is a strictly zoological arena until after I had posted the question. I originally arrived at the article via a link from lectotype, and didn't notice that botany had dropped out of the picture en route (maybe I am a blockhead after all....!). If no-one objects, I'll copy this discussion over to the article's talk page, and see if any zoologists want to chip in. However does this now mean that the lectotype article needs adjusting, seeing as it currently states that "In botanical nomenclature ... a lectotype is a kind of name-bearing type" ? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

The Vienna Code doesn't use this term ("name-bearing type"), although it seems to be very similar in meaning (if not identical) to its "nomenclatural type" (Article 7.2). The glossary says:

"homotypic synonym (nomenclatural synonym). A synonym based on the same type as that of another name in the same rank (Art. 14.4); termed an “objective synonym” in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and the Bacteriological Code (Art. 14.4 footnote)."

• This establishes that "objective synonym" (zoology) = "homotypic synonym" or "nomenclatural synonym" (botany).
• It supports my point above that any definition of "objective synonym" must specify that they are at the same rank.

So I think the lectotype article should say that in botanical nomenclature a lectotype is a kind of nomenclatural type, which is the equivalent of a name-bearing type in zoological nomenclature.

It's perhaps worth going back to what seems to be the purpose of the distinctions both codes make. If two names at the same rank are attached to precisely the same type then the only issue as to which is legitimate is priority; hence this is an objective decision. If two names at the same rank are attached to different types, but a taxonomist claims that these types are not sufficiently different to warrant two names, and hence are synonyms, this is a subjective decision.

However, the usual disclaimer is needed about any attempt on my part to gloss or interpret either of the codes! Peter coxhead (talk) 22:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Definition of stolon

I've written that the plantlet-bearing structures of Chlorophytum comosum are not, strictly speaking, stolons. I took this position because the plantlets are borne on the inflorescence. The problem is the term "stolon" seems to be rather vaguely defined in the botanical literature that I can access (a vagueness which I think is reflected in the article Stolon). In particular the definition usually uses the term "stem", but this is then defined both loosely (to include petioles, scapes, pedicels, etc.) and precisely (to mean only the structure which bears leaves, buds, and flowers). Can anyone tell me of a source which specifically supports the restriction of "stolon" to a true stem? Or am I wrong about this? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I checked the classic book, Goebel's Organography of Plants, expecting some discussion of a suitable definition, but there is none. He emphasizes the continuity of transformations between different functions, so an inflorescence axis can transform into a stem (as in pineapples). I think that I would agree with you, it grows initially as an inflorescence, and later it starts to look like a set of branched stolons, but the tiny leaves along the stem are bracts, and I think (??) that it doesn't form roots at the nodes, just at the tips. (The stolon page needs a lot of work to clear out the vagueness.) Nadiatalent (talk) 16:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Article needing work

This new article History of plant breeding appears to need quite a bit of work done on it, if anyone has time... Peter coxhead (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Hortorium

Hello, could someone knowledgeable please comment on the new article Hortorium? Should it be merged with Herbarium or Botanical garden? Melchoir (talk) 04:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Most usages of the word refer to the Liberty Hyde Bailey Hortorium rather than to a generic use as a particular kind of specialised herbarium (compare xylarium). So like aceretum (as in Esveld Aceretum), it would seem inappropriate to have an article on the topic. So merge with herbarium, adding mentions of fungarium and xylarium (if not already present) and hortorium. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

How to join this project?

How can I join this project I want to add certain information from this website http://aidwort.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=34&Itemid=55 Waiting for response... comment added by SilvijusAidwort (talk • contribs) 20:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC) SilvijusAidwort (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You can add your name here, but being a member of this project doesn't confer any special privileges that any editor doesn't already have. Please see the discussion just above about aidwort.com not being a Reliable Source for information in articles, by Wikipedia standards. You should also read Wikipedia:COI if you have a relationship with that website, which would give you a Conflict of Interest. First Light (talk) 20:37, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Carl Linnaeus – almost GA

The article on Carl Linnaeus is very close to being recognised as a Good Article. Unfortunately, the person who nominated it appears to be absent. The only outstanding issue is that the short section on "Linnean taxonomy" needs to be referenced. This is basically a summary of Linnean taxonomy, but that, too, is unreferenced. If anyone here can help with referencing that section – or even re-writing it – it would be much appreciated, and would be a huge step towards getting this very important article raised to GA level. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

If it's an acceptable source for a GA, this is what I used in Binomial_nomenclature#History for part of what the section in question might cover. Although it's a web source, the author is a well-known botanist with many papers in the area of taxonomy/evolution.

A problem is that "Linnaean system", "Linnaean taxonomy", etc. are terms used rather loosely in the literature, and seem to include some or all of at least the following:

• The system of binomial names introduced by Linnaeus.
• The ranks (species, genus, order, class, kingdom) that Linnaeus introduced.
• Names and classifications based on these ranks that Linnaeus himself produced.
• The concepts underlying the above, which were then developed, revised and expanded by others.
• The entire modern system as embodied in the various Codes.

The last of these should not be covered, but I'm not sure how much of the others should be. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Botanical Code question

Roscoea cautleoides was the original name given to a species of Roscoea by M.F. Gagnepain on the basis of a similarity to the taxon he knew either as the genus Cautlea or as Roscoea section Cautlea. (See here.) All the literature until the last few years uses this spelling of the epithet (including, e.g., the Flora of China).

However, Cautlea Royle is agreed to be an invalid name (it was not accepted by the author), and was validated as Cautleya Hook.f., i.e. with an added "y". Presumably on the basis of this, recently Gagnepain's name has been 'corrected' to Roscoea cautleyoides in sources such as IPNI or the Kew World Checklist. Few other sources (yet) use this spelling.

I can't find any source which explains the spelling change. Nor can I see precisely why under Articles 60-62 of the Vienna Code this change is justified.

Can anyone enlighten me? Peter coxhead (talk) 07:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Article 60 is the relevant one: "The original spelling of a name or epithet is to be retained, except for the correction of typographical or orthographical errors and the standardizations imposed by Art. 60.5 (u/v or i/j used interchangeably), 60.6 (diacritical signs and ligatures), 60.8 (compounding forms), 60.9 (hyphens), 60.10 (apostrophes), 60.11 (terminations; see also Art. 32.7), and 60.12 (fungal epithets)." Since the name Gagnepain used as his based was "Cautlea" (regardless of that name's validity or legitimacy), corrections are not allowed. Circéus (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

That would be my interpretation too, but in which case why have IPNI and the Kew World Checklist made the change, followed by other usually reliable sources such as the RHS or the Encyclopedia of Life (and indeed Wikimedia Commons)? Presumably the reasoning is that since "Cautlea" is treated as an orthographic error for "Cautleya", then "cautleoides" can also be treated as an orthographic error for "cautleyoides". As there's no definition of "orthographic error" that I can find in the Code, it's not clear what is permitted under this heading. (Perhaps the spirit of 60.12 is being followed, although it obviously does not apply here: "Epithets of fungus names derived from the generic name of an associated organism are to be spelled in accordance with the accepted spelling of that organism's name; other spellings are regarded as orthographical variants to be corrected".) Peter coxhead (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hook f. identified Cautlea as an orthographic error for Cautleya, based on Cautley. Presumably the argument is that Gagnepain was propagating a orthographic error introduced by Royle, and his name therefore should be corrected in the same fashion. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Nonetheless it would run counter to the ICBN since this was clearly not an incidental (i.e. typographical) error on Gagnepain's part. There is far worse hanging around: Lespedeza (after Vicente Manuel de Céspedes y Velasco) is cited in the ICBN as an example. In so far as Gagnepain was not specifically honoring Cautley anyway, but citing what he took as a valid name, the original spelling must stand. However, I will admit that I am not entirely clear how far down the etymological phone the modifications mandated by Article 60.7 spread. Circéus (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest e-mailing the folks at IPNI. I've found them to be quite accommodating when I have questions about their entries. Rkitko ^(talk) 20:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

ID of File:Trifolium longipes.jpg

Dear plant experts,

File:Trifolium longipes.jpg is supposedly Trifolium longipes, a species I have never seen, because I have not been anywhere within its distribution range so far. The image is used in Wikipedia and it is from the USDA photo collection, which is probably considered a trusted source. Unfortunately the clover on the image looks very much like Trifolium hybridum and does not have much similarity to Trifolium longipes according to [6]. The flowers look different and there are no long and narrow leaflets in the Wikimedia/USDA image (as the Colorado wildflower site mentioned above claims). There is also no similarity to some other pages with Trifolium longipes, such as [7] and [8]. So what does the USDA image show? Should it be moved to Trifolium hybridum or is this just a misidentified, not identifiable clover? Best regards, --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 07:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know this genus well, and only spent a little time with the pages you linked. So I can't really say whether T. longipes is variable (perhaps based on subspecies) or whether the USDA photo in question is misidentified (a possibility which I wouldn't reject–there's nothing particularly authoritative about that database). The Jepson manual is at http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/get_JM_treatment.pl?3691,4222,4267 and you can see all of the USDA photos at http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=TRLO . Kingdon (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but unfortunately the Jepson manual does not seem to be very specific regarding anything that can be seen on the photo. I still hope that someone reads my question, who actually knows Trifolium longipes (and possibly even the possible alternatives for clovers from North America). I do not believe that subspecies could account for differences on this scale. I found Trifolium longipes in two books ["Pacific States Wildflowers" by T. F. Niehaus and C. L. Ripper and an old copy of the "Flora of the Pacific Northwest" by C. L. Hitchcock and A. Cronquist (5th printing, 1981)]. Both of them show images of the long, narrow leaflets (which are even mentioned in the text of the Niehaus book!) In addition the calyx appears to be much too short, compared to the corolla, for matching the key in the Hitchcock flora, which lists four "varieties" of the species. BTW: I know that there are some errors in the USDA photo collection. But I still have no clue whether there is the possibility to ask someone to check or even correct them and get an answer. I tried it with some other images with no result whatsoever. But may be I got the wrong mail address. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

There is an email link for the credited author/photographer of the image in the staff listing on this web page which may be worth a try. --Melburnian (talk) 03:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I sent a mail to the author. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I still have no clue where I could get an answer. The mail had no effect whatsowever. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 20:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

aidwort.com used as a reference for laundry lists

I was hoping to just ignore this, but here and in most of the edits at Special:Contributions/Neringak5 the site aidwort.com is being used as a reference and furthermore the content is just a long list of symptoms/diseases which a medicinal plant is supposedly used for. My first instinct is always a talk page note (written in a friendly way but also pointing to relevant policies and such), but I wasn't sure whether this was an ongoing issue (I didn't find anything by searching project pages for aidwort but I'm not sure how reliable that kind of search is). Kingdon (talk) 06:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

My first instinct in such cases is instant removal. The site (aidwort.com) is clearly not a reliable source (however it does at least include some warnings, not reproduced in the article). Medical references not supported by reliable sources should surely be removed, as they are potentially dangerous. Another argument for WP:BOLD action is that some articles (e.g. Garlic, Aloe vera) have become very difficult to fix since they contain so many pseudo-medical claims; it's better not to allow the situation to develop than to try to deal with it afterwards. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Peter. Even if they make an argument for aidwort.com being a reliable source, this particular editor has ignored the sections in the website page which refers to Eupatorium perfoliatum (and others) as being "rather unsafe", and has also changed the paragraph heading from "Traditional useage" to "Medicinal uses", which is at best sloppy editing, and at worst deliberate misinformation. Remove. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, agree with removal (for all the reasons cited). I've also left the talk page note in question. Deli nk (talk · contribs) also pointed out there might be a WP:COPYVIO issue. I also looked over the contributions of SilvijusAidwort (talk · contribs) which seem to already have been reverted. Kingdon (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It's clearly not a reliable source, failing just about every single qualification at WP:RS—"third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" for starters. This IP address, 78.58.125.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), also added similar lists at Iris versicolor and Malva sylvestris, which I've removed, along with one more by User:SilvijusAidwort. I found those others by using this external link search, which is handy for keeping an eye out for any future uses of aidwort.com, which will show up as soon as they are added: [9]. First Light (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I would really like to know what do you call a reliable source, because all the info on aidwort is based on researches published in pubmed and or resources witch are as reliable as possible (like cohrane library etc.) (if you would bother reading references) a good point was made though about medicinal uses/traditional use. The book from which this info has been cited termed that part "indications" which is untrue because it is not an indication if it has been used for some reason like I think it is so (orthere is ethnobotanocal evidence lacking double blind control trial support). There is usually a lack of evidence to support the use of herbs for medicinal usage. For instance some researchers write about ethnological (ethnobotanical) use. Why is it written rather safe instead of safe or unsafe? It is hard to determine the safety of a herbal remedy, because they contain lots of phytochemicals and it is hard to tell whether it is safe or not (except if it is a well-known poisonous plant or cause allergy) safety information is provided in researches or reports of side effects. I would like You to reconsider about Aidwort (recheck references), because the purpose of this site was to give scientifically accurate info about herbs. Some articles about herbs in wiki lack medicinal uses (or proved uses) information which is available. Some content is written according to Natural medicines database which actually is one off the most extensive databases about herbs. I must apologize for my previous behavior (adding info without permission) I did this due to not knowing the code of conduct of wikipedia. Also I would be grateful if You could tell me how do You want the information be given for it to be considered reliable. Do it so here or send me an e-mail silvijus2@yahoo.com. SilvijusAidwort (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Technically I do have a COI, but there is no possible direct financial gain in disclosing the information I have on wiki.

I ask to reread because I added my arguments on that matter.

Best regards,

SilvijusAidwort (talk) 17:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Multiple editors here agree that aidwort.com is not a reliable source. See WP:RS and especially WP:SPS, which describes "Self-Published Sources". I believe that elsewhere I recommended that many of the sources you use to reference the articles on your website are reliable sources—yes, I did bother to read the references on the site. You should use those reliable sources for referencing Wikipedia articles. You can read the linked policies to verify which of the sources used at aidwort.com meet Wikipedia standards for reliability. Again, multiple editors here agree that aidwort.com itself is not a reliable source, and shouldn't be used as a reference on Wikipedia. First Light (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

To expand a bit more, the question is not whether aidwort.com uses reliable sources but whether it is in itself a reliable source. According to Wikipedia policies, as noted above by First Light, it doesn't meet the criteria for a reliable source. However, you can certainly use information which has been collated at aidwort.com in Wikipedia provided that it is referenced to any reliable sources which aidwort.com has used and not to aidwort.com itself. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

List of plants used as medicine

We can use a lot more eyes to watch over List of plants used as medicine, especially as far as sourcing of medical claims is concerned. Your input would be greatly appreciated. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I fixed one medical claim, which indicated that the plant is used, when in fact a pharmaceutical extract of the plant is used (though less commonly now). The plant itself is extremely poisonous.[10] Perhaps we shouldn't be giving medical advice on Wikipedia. First Light (talk) 15:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, First Light. I've distinguished between medicinal use of digitalis, and subsequent use of the derivative, being explicit about toxicity. Note that we're trying really hard to avoid any claims at all in List of plants used as medicine, instead focusing only on noting usage of plants in different medical traditions (i.e. this plant has been used for this purpose). That seems like the only way to avoid disappearing down the cesspool that nearly took the article out in the first place. If you spot any claims or counterclaims regarding medical efficacy being made there, as opposed to (well-cited) uses, please pipe up. Thanks. Waitak (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I have moved this to list of plants used in herbalism as more accurately reflecting the focus of the article. Mangoe (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

More information about Eclipta alba

In my region, Assam, India the plant "Eclipta alba" was used to make ink - till 50-60 years earlier. Could this information be necessary to be incorporated in the article? Will somebody well conversant with the topic please look into? Psneog (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

It could be incorporated if (and only if) there is a reliable source which says this. It is a sometimes irritating, but absolutely necessary, principle of Wikipedia that reliable sources are needed for any statement. Do you have any idea where to look for a source for this information? Peter coxhead (talk) 19:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Apple

Just letting you know that I've put up Apple for a good article reassessment since I think it no longer meets the GA criteria. You can comment here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for new article

Wikipedia has an article on the Animal Kingdom, but it does not have an article on the Plant Kingdom. I shall be grateful if one could be started. Many thanks, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

See Plant (puzzled by your question, since Animal Kingdom is just a dab page that takes you to Animal). First Light (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

And Plant kingdom is a redirect to Plant... Peter coxhead (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of vegetable oils/archive1

Appalling sourcing, I'm afraid. 86.** IP (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Russian Thyme

Hi. This might be a completely wrong place to put a comment but I couldn't find another way. Sorry. I only wanted tp mention that the English article for "Thyme" doesn't have a link to a Russian page for the same plant ru:тимьян или чабрец. The Russian article has a link to Thymus but not back to Thyme. If this is of any use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Russian romashka (talk • contribs) 14:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

There are interwiki links between Thymus (genus) and ru:Тимьян, which are corresponding articles. ru:тимьян или чабрец looks as if it may be a disambiguation page, in which case I don't see why an interwiki link would be desired, even if it corresponds to thyme. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Classification systems

There is a discussion going on at Talk:Cannabaceae that could use input from editors who've been involved with wikipedia policy about different classification systems. Help, please! Nadiatalent (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Amazon River tree

There is a tree that grows in the Amazon River, a first colonizer. It's a large tree with palmately compound leaves. Can anyone tell me what it is? Thanks. --68.105.141.221 (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Most likely the genus Cecropia, formerly placed in various families (Cecropiaceae, Moraceae) and now (APG III) placed in Urticaceae. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.170.163 (talk) 17:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Definition of convar.

In the article Beet and others I have seen the term convar. in what seems to be defining a type of variety. What does it mean? There seems to be no Wikipedia definition for it. Thanks. Oosoom ^Talk 14:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that this is a deprecated term for what the ICNCP calls a "group". See http://rs.tdwg.org/ontology/voc/TaxonRank#Convar. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:48, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

From 2001 comes this discussion which says that it can't be replaced by "cultivar group". There's probably enough material there to put a definition into wikipedia. The 2004 ICNCP doesn't list it in either the glossary or the index. Nadiatalent (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

The 1995 ICNCP apparently said "Prior to the introduction of cultivar-groups in this Code, authors may have used other designations such as 'convar', 'sort', 'type' or 'hybrids' as terminology equivalent to cultivar-group; such terms are to be replaced by 'cultivar-group'." (quoted on p.45 of the reference you gave above). By the time of the 2004 ICNCP, "cultivar-group" had become just "Group", and the equivalent note had become "Authors may have used other designations such as 'sort', 'type', 'selections', or 'hybrids' as terms equivalent to the word 'Group'; such terms are to be replaced by the word 'Group'."

I agree that (a) the term "convarietas" is sufficiently notable to be worth an article (b) there is enough material around to create a properly sourced article. (But I'm not volunteering to write it – at least not at present.) Peter coxhead (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. Oosoom ^Talk 13:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Holiday cactus article: merge and split proposal

I have proposed merging/splitting the Holiday Cactus article at Talk:Holiday Cactus#Merger/Split. I'd welcome comments there please. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

As no-one responded, I've now done most of this. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Common name dispute

Hey all, I'm not a member of this WikiProject but I edit invasive plants articles every now and then. Yesterday I added "scotch thistle" as a common name to Onopordum acanthium, since it's both a redirect to that article, and a very common name in the U.S. (the one used by the National Invasive Species Information Center, among many other government agencies). It was quickly reverted by an IP without a clear explanation (they just said "see ref #13", which didn't really explain anything). I took it to the talk page to give my reasoning, but I have a feeling this IP is a returning user with a crusade against using the word "Scotch" in plant names. We went through this in 2006 at Talk:Cytisus scoparius#Scotch broom, where the only person arguing to omit the "Scotch" name was User:MPF. He also took it to the Scottish Wikipedians noticeboard, where he was quickly shot down: Wikipedia_talk:Scottish_Wikipedians'_notice_board/Archive8#Request_for_assistance. It was pointed out that when searching for a reliable source that says this particular common name should be avoided, every result pointed back to someone named "Michael F.", who appears on botanical forums pushing this point whenever possible (e.g., [11]). I did some searching myself today and didn't come up with anything reliable saying the name should be avoided. But anyway, I don't want to get into an edit war over this, so other eyes and opinions would be appreciated. Thanks! SheepNotGoats (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not aware of any problems with that name, and it is certainly widely used. It appears in Clapham, Tutin & Warburg's Excursion Flora of the British Isles, so it can't be written off as an Americanism. The crucial point is that Wikipedia is not censored, so any name that is reasonably widely used ought to be listed. Similarly, if we have a reliable source stating that a particular name is offensive to a particular group of people, then we should explain that, too. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly endorse this position. In the specific case, "Scotch thistle" is a well-sourced common name (it's also in the 3rd edition of Clapham, Tutin & Moore's Flora of the British Isles). There have been other attempts at censorship of common names ("Kaffir Lily" is an example). "Explanation not censorship" is a good slogan! Peter coxhead (talk) 11:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have added the reference citing the offensive nature of the name. 217.206.228.6 (talk) 11:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

And I have undone it. That tiny footnote is hardly a reliable source for the substantial claim that the name is offensive to Scots. You will have to find a better source and demonstrate consensus for your changes before making such changes, or your edits will be considered disruptive, and you may be blocked form editing. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:55, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

To be fair to 217.206.228.6, the last sentence in my earlier post may have been misleading, implying that I thought that there should always be explanation, whereas actually it must always depend on WP:RS and WP:NPOV. I agree that the view that "Scotch" is offensive seems to be a miniscule POV and so should not be included; the same view of "Kaffir" might not be, if it were investigated, which I haven't. "Don't censor; consider whether to explain" is perhaps what I should have written. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

We call it a scotch thistle here in Oz too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for the input and for keeping an eye on these articles. As others have said, there's absolutely no basis for omitting the name entirely, and I'm hesitant to include a statement that it's offensive without some *very* good sources supporting this (as Stemonitis said, a GRIN footnote is not good enough). Also, I have to wonder how they feel about Scotch eggs, Scotch whiskey, and Scotch Corner. SheepNotGoats (talk) 14:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

[Aside] That's "Scotch whisky", not "Scotch whiskey". By tradition, "whiskey" is used for the Irish spirit, and "whisky" for the Scottish. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes, I had known that at one point, but I guess it had slipped my mind :) SheepNotGoats (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that "Scotch" should be identified as offensive to some, unless related to food or drink, citing GRIN and other sources and consistent with Scotch (adjective).[12][13] For a discussion of the handling of a common name for the Brazil nut that most find pejorative, please see Talk:Brazil_nut#Nomenclature. --Walter Siegmund (talk)

No, the Scotch thistle article is not the place to state that "Scotch" in general is offensive to some. That belongs in the Scotch article. We should only include it if reliable sources say the entire term "Scotch thistle" is offensive, which so far is not the case. That being said, neither of your sources mentions Scotch thistle. Also, your second source clearly states: "mildly offensive when referring to people", not plants. SheepNotGoats (talk) 16:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

[after edit conflict] Interesting. Those sources mention the continued use of "Scotch" in some set phrases – I wonder if "Scotch thistle" might be considered one of those. That phrase is included in the OED, with no indication of offensiveness, citing examples as recent as 1996 (Richard Mabey), suggesting continued usage of the phrase even among Britons. The OED does mention a change away from "Scotch" in favour of "Scottish" and "Scots", but describes it as being "in deference to the perceived Scottish preferences", rather than due to offense taken. (And the OED does explicitly mention how offensive words are where it is appropriate; "nigger" is described as "strongly racially offensive", for instance.) I think SheepNotGoats is right that the perceived general disdain for the word "Scotch" does not require mention at Onopordum acanthium. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Looking at other plant articles, the USDA Germplasm Resouces site is very widely used as a trusted source. Why should it suddenly be unreliable in this case just because it does not support your point of view? Walter Siegmund is right, information like this is important and should definitely be included on the Onopordum acanthium and Cytisus scoparius pages.

Clapham, Tutin & Moore is long out of date, the BSBI current official list of scientific and common names (see www.bsbi.org.uk/taxonomy.html and Stace's New Flora for details) has been revised. No explanations are given, but it is clearly done to avoid such disliked terms.

Stemonitis, your attitude and hostility to my edits is very obnoxious, and quite unbecoming to how senior wikipedia editors should behave. 217.206.228.6 (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "official common name". Common names are those which are used by people, regardless of what name a particular agency would like to be used. The presence of a preferred vernacular name does not mean that another common name is not also used. No-one has argued that "Scotch thistle" is the best name for the plant, merely that it is a frequently used one. GRIN is, for the most part, reliable, but unsourced footnotes therein, particularly where not backed up by other sources, are not. "It is clearly done to avoid such disliked terms" is original research. You may believe that, but it is not verifiable. I would suspect that it is rather because the term "Scotch thistle" is ambiguous, and probably doesn't primarily refer to O. acanthium. You should also be wary of making personal attacks (e.g. "obnoxious"); such comments can result in being blocked from editing. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

BSBI and Stace's New Flora are both UK publications, but I think we all agree that Scotch thistle is not a common name in the UK anyway, so its omission in those sources doesn't demonstrate anything. Also, as I mentioned before, GRIN does not provide a source for its footnote, even though they source *everything* on that site. I used to know the guy who runs GRIN, and I'm tempted to contact him to ask where the footnote came from. Maybe he'll be able to provide me with a good source that we can include, but somehow I wouldn't be surprised if his answer is "some guy emailed me and asked me to include that statement". Also IP217, there's nothing wrong with being "hostile" to edits that don't meet WP policies like WP:V and WP:RS. That's how Wikipedia keeps its quality up. SheepNotGoats (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Stemonitis: You say "There is no such thing as an 'official common name'." That is your point of view; there are others. Britain certainly does have official common names for its native and long-naturalised plants, same as for birds, mammals, etc. You also say "No-one has argued that "Scotch thistle" is the best name for the plant". You have, by placing it in bold at the top. Many, probably most, British readers, used to officially sanctioned names, will read that as being an officially sanctioned name that has to be used, however offensive they find it. If you mean what you say, put it in plain text with the other variant names in the Taxonomy and names section. SheepNotGoats: You say "Also IP217, there's nothing wrong with being "hostile" to edits that don't meet WP policies like WP:V and WP:RS." I believed, and still do, that my edit, being referenced from a reliable source, does meet those policies. I have seen many things stated in wikipedia, and referenced from far less reliable sources, which have remained unchallenged for years. Mine it seems is only not allowed because it does not meet your point of view on common names. 217.206.228.6 (talk) 16:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Real quick response, because this is getting tiresome: 1.)This is not a British encyclopedia. This is an English-language encyclopedia, which includes the U.S. in its audience and scope. 2.)The name Scotch thistle is used as the *primary* common name for the species in numerous American government publications (state and federal). I had provided some examples earlier but I can provide more if necessary. 3.)When a term is in bold in a Wikipedia article, it just means that term is either the name of the article, or is a redirect to it (which is the case here). SheepNotGoats (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think the consensus is clear here. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the consensus is clear. Also, I challenge the statement that "Britain certainly does have official common names for its native and long-naturalised plants". It does not by any normal use of the word "official"; there's no government-sanctioned list of common names analogous to the USDA database. The BSBI has a list with common names (at http://www.bsbi.org.uk/BSBI2007.xls), but this is only evidence of a common name in use in Britain for a given species. The BSBI doesn't use "Scotch thistle" but other UK sources do (e.g. here). Peter coxhead (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

GRIN strikes me as a sufficient source for the notion that "scotch" as an adjective for this plant may be considered offensive. A google scholar search for "Onopordum acanthium" also makes it clear that the name "scotch thistle" is quite commonly used, so I'd be reluctant to conclude that the notion that this name should be avoided is a majority view. There's discussion of the general issue at Scotch (adjective) although it seems hard to extrapolate the information there to plant names (except perhaps by trying to draw analogies to Scotch pie, Scottish terrier etc etc).. Kingdon (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Jean Baptiste Bory de Saint-Vincent

Someone fluent in French could greatly expand the biography of Jean Baptiste Bory de Saint-Vincent from the content at the French Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomen articles

I wonder if someone with a botany background could take a look at the following cross-discipline terms, and possibly edit them to include botany. They are currently written with a decided zoological bent: nomen dubium, nomen novum, and nomen oblitum. There may also be other terms, not included here, that I haven't thought of. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know botany doesn't use nomen oblitum - it uses nomen conservandum and nomen rejiciendum instead of nomen protectum and nomen oblitum. Terms you didn't mention are nomen nudum, nomen invalidum (spelling?) and nomen illegitimum Lavateraguy (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Lavateraguy, I very much appreciate the correction! It's why I ask for experts, when I'm unsure :) Hamamelis (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

As regards "nomen invalidum", the Preface to the Vienna Code says "Given the very different meaning of 'valid' and 'invalid' applied to names in zoological nomenclature (equivalent to the botanical 'correct' and 'incorrect'), it is convenient that neither 'valid name' nor 'invalid name' need be used in botanical nomenclature".

The Glossary only defines the terms "nomen novum", "nomen conservandum", "nomen nudum", "nomen rejiciendum" and "nomen utique rejiciendum". Strangely, although the abbreviated form "nom. illeg." occurs in the code, the full form "nomen illegitimum" doesn't appear to, "illegitimate name" being used instead. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles for nomen nudum, nomen rejiciendum, and nomen illegitimum (and I now realize, after a second look, nomen dubium) already cover botany, at least in passing in some cases; nomen illegitimum covers botany sufficiently, in fact going as far as saying it is a term primarily used in botany. But nomen novum still heavily leans zoological while being a cross-discipline term. It begins "In biological nomenclature, a nomen novum […] is a technical term", which is obviously inclusive of botany. But it then goes on having ten paragraphs under the heading of "zoology", while botany is never mentioned in the article at all. Hamamelis (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Dates on taxon names?

Hi all, a question: Two dates have just been added to the taxobox of Asteraceae (Asteraceae Bercht. & J.Presl 1820, and Aster L. 1753); is there a wikipedia convention for this? Do we studiously avoid using zoology-esque dates? Nadiatalent (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

There was discussion on this several years ago: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive15#Poll: Should/May a date be included in the taxobox authority? My position has since changed and I agree that it's generally not a botanical convention to include dates in the author citations. I think Hesperian summed it up accurately in saying that if we include dates, it looks like we don't know what we're doing. However, it must be said that some disciplines within botany, such as the literature on our fossil taxa as described to me, often includes the date of publication. With Angiosperms, at least, I don't think we should be applying the date. Rkitko ^(talk) 15:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good. In other work I'd include the date if priority were being directly discussed, e.g., in a proposal to conserve or reject a name, but I agree that here it would look as if we don't know what we're doing. An additional reason that I'd favour leaving dates off is that for some of the higher taxa there is quite a bit of fluidity at present, and it would be convenient to leave the wrestling about publication dates and whether various publications are legitimate to the nomenclatural experts and the purely nomenclatural databases. If possible, it would be nice to get the consensus view enshrined on the project page as a convention to follow. Nadiatalent (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What goes is that dates are not considered a part of the author citation (unlike in zoology). However, there is nothing inherently problematic with date being mentioned concurrently with names (it is obviously common in nomenclatural literature): the ICBN does it with parenthesised dates after the author. I'd say the taxobox, in so far as it does have both taxonomic and nomenclatural data, is an okay place to have the date of publication for the taxon it is about (but not for any others). Circéus (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

As Ryan noted, there are some areas of botany, such as paleobotany, where it is standard to include the date. So I've always followed the sources by doing this in articles I've written about extinct plants (e.g. Adoketophyton) but never in articles about extant plants (e.g. Schlumbergera truncata). I agree with Circéus in both respects:

• If a date is included, it should be in parentheses, as per the examples in the Vienna Code (I assume the new ICN is unchanged in this respect). This also distinguishes the style from zoology.
• Dates in a taxobox should be restricted to the taxa which are the subject of that taxobox. Normally this will be just the main taxon, but for genus articles on extinct plants where there aren't separate species articles (usually because there isn't enough information), I've also put the date on the species listed in the taxobox.

I don't think that we need a general policy, other than perhaps these two points. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The 2007 debate makes for interesting reading. I like dates after authorities. I think it makes the name more information rich, and in some cases clarifies the publication we're referencing. This is not especially common in botany, but sources like the Flora of New Zealand and Flora North America have done it regularly, albeit with the full citations after the names. However, after reading the user consensus of 2007 appears to have been to leave off dates-- I'm okay with following that. BC Myles (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

About the ICBN/ICN, I attended the 2011 meeting and I believe that there was no discussion at all of the quite old suggestion that the zoological and botanical codes might reach agreement on a single way to do this. The issue seems to have died when its failure was noted in the St Louis code from 2000. I'd favour putting Peter's points onto the project page, if others agree. Keeping the taxoboxen as uncluttered as possible seems desirable. Nadiatalent (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Whatever we decide as "policy" or note as if it were such, we need to specifically state that there will be situations in which the standard cannot be followed. The case of Porocystis globularis is illuminating of several points mentioned above. The species was originally described as "Siphonia globularis Giebel, 1853" and this would have been the correct from under the ICZN. The species was reassigned to "(Porocystis globularis Giebel, 1853)" sometime after 1892 when the fossil genus Porocystis was segregated from other similar fossils. The genus has since been touted as a sponge and as belonging to various animal phyla, but is now considered to be a fossil member of the Dasycladales (a group of green algae that includes Acetabularia). However, this puts it under the ICBN, and there is already an older legitimate genus Porocystis in the Sapindaceae. This means that there is no legitimate name currently in the literature for this species, so for now it remains in the form it had under the ICZN. It thus has the date, but the date is included within a parenthetical name and author pair.

In any case, I find that the dates and additional citation information now regularly being included in major works like the FNA are incredibly helpful. If only the author and date is known, I'd like to see that information, as it often helps me track down a reference. But if a full reference is known, then it should be cited, and footnoting/referencing it via the taxobox seems like a good idea to me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

However, note WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. It's unlikely that an editor will actually have seen most of the older taxonomic references, so they shouldn't be treated as citations. This is an issue with something like Circéus's treatment at List of Commelina species. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I HAVE seen at least ¾ of those! Circéus (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

To be clear, I wasn't saying that you hadn't seen them – merely that with lists, of which this is one example, it's difficult for any editor to have read all the primary bibliographic references if it's decided to include them. (But since you mention it, the other quarter should have "cited in" style references...) (With extant plants, you can at least read the Latin diagnosis, regardless of the language of the source; but fossil plants don't need a Latin diagnosis according to the ICBN, so for some of the stuff I've been working on the source of the name is a paper entirely in Chinese – and Google translate is pretty poor at botanical Chinese!) Peter coxhead (talk) 23:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd call this a situation where WP:IAR applies, but there is also another option. Instead of adding the citations here on Wikipedia, the source can be added on the appropriate Wikispecies page. We could then have instead a small icon linking from the Taxobox authority line to the relevant Wikispecies page, where all the publication and nomenclatorial info would be located. This idea could also be used to eliminate long lists of Synonyms (see wikispecies:Alismatales for example) from our Taxoboxes. Wikispecies is first and foremost a nomenclatorial database, so we might start making more use of it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a very interesting idea. I find myself writing complex sections on taxonomy in articles (e.g. Schlumbergera#Taxonomy, which is still significantly simplified compared to the sources), and then wondering who is actually interested in reading this material. Those who contribute here may be, but is anyone else? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

On a related issue: Do we want to include information like nom. cons. in the taxobox? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not. That kind of information definitely is something for prose in my mind. Circéus (talk) 09:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a very interesting discussion (I've only just had time to read the 2007 archive). Some minor comments:

About eliminating synonym lists by linking to wikispecies from the taxobox: I think they have to remain because there would be redirects from each of those synonyms.

There are times when I'd like to see "nom. cons." in the taxobox, and "nom. illeg." too for those all-too-frequent synonyms that are better known than the legitimate name, but perhaps those are occasions to ignore the rules.

Now that we have quite a few articles about botanists, I find that the links from the authority names to the person pages can be sufficient date information. I'd rather not see the date on a recent combination so that the message "discovered by William Jack (who died young for his dedication to botany), then moved to a different genus in 2004" can come through more clearly for someone who isn't familiar with botanical nomenclature. Nadiatalent (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2011‎ (UTC)

Which Thorne?

In the taxobox of a few articles, such as Anguina amsinckiae, the name Thorne is linked after the binomial name. I'm trying to disambiguate this link and am wondering whether it is meant to refer to Thorne system (1992) or Robert Folger Thorne. Any help is appreciated and please remember to be mindful of where wikilinks actually point. -- Fyrefly (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

And while I'm on this, could you folks tell me which two people "Steiner & Scott, 1935" is meant to refer to? It would save me the trouble of investigating like I had to for Thorne. I know very little of botany. -- Fyrefly (talk) 15:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

These are authorities – the people who came up with the names and defined them. They can be found by searching (under "standard form") here; Thorne is Robert Folger Thorne. "Steiner & Scott, 1935" is a zoological authority, which are treated slightly differently. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, if you're dealing with animals (is this about Anguina amsinckiae?), then Thorne is probably someone else. It would appear to be Gerald "Jerry" Thorne (1890–1975). --Stemonitis (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'll move the links over to Thorne the person, rather than his system and I guess I'll try to dig up who Steiner and Scott are. Hopefully they have articles, since Gerald Thorne does not. -- Fyrefly (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I would guess Gotthold Steiner and C. Emlen Scott. We don't have articles about many nematologists. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh. I had gone with Gerolf Steiner, but at second glance, he's probably not who I'm looking for. I'll probably just unlink the names. -- Fyrefly (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

IMO, this is an area where Botany is clearly superior: the zoology dates are useless since most times the publication is not cited and the names all to often ambiguous.Circéus (talk) 18:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Nadiatalent (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Um... I'm not sure that omitting a piece of information, even though it's not always of use, can be called "superior". I think that one of the reasons for the difference in the treatment of dates relates to how changes of placement are treated. Because we write things like "Muscari aucheri (Boiss.) Baker" rather than just "Muscari aucheri (Boiss.)" there isn't a single date involved. I suppose botanists could use the style ""Muscari aucheri (Boiss. 1844) Baker 1870" but this looks a bit confusing. (Actually, I've realized recently that this is a deeper issue than it first seems, connected with the fact – or view – that Botryanthus aucheri and Muscari aucheri aren't synonyms under the ICZN.) Peter coxhead (talk) 23:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The zoological code seems to have a flaw, as far as I can tell. The definition in the glossary "synonym, n. Each of two or more names of the same rank used to denote the same taxonomic taxon." doesn't seem to include the lumping/splitting situation. No botanist would say that the name of a microspecies of Taraxacum that has been split off by someone, then re-included in T. officinale by someone else, could be "used to denote the same taxonomic taxon", i.e., anyone who used it to denote T. officinale would be way off base. It's weird. Nadiatalent (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a can of worms, but knowledgeable zoological taxonomists seem to agree that although the glossary isn't clear, changing the genus placement of a species without changing the specific name doesn't create a synonym. This wouldn't be true in the Taraxacum case. There's a huge amount of discussion about this (quite a bit of it bad-tempered) ; it makes you glad to only have to try to understand the ICN! Peter coxhead (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Recalling a brief discussion a few weeks back regarding the zoological Name-bearing type, I have to comment that the above edit has amused me greatly.... :) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:05, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

(Comment referring specifically to Nadiatalent's edit at 22:58 on 17 November) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, nomenclature is amusing (and I'm serious about that). Nadiatalent (talk) 14:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

List of culinary nuts

List of culinary nuts is organized into botanical nuts, drupes, gymnosperms and "other". Could someone please review the members of each to make sure they're right? In particular, the ones in "other" seem questionable. I'm trying to keep the number of categories manageable, but if there are other categories that absolutely have to be there, please feel free to toss them in. Thanks! Waitak (talk) 23:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed one that was clearly wrong, but some of the others are controversial (for example, walnuts and hickories depend on how you define "drupe"; the fleshy outer layer comes from bracts, not pericarp). I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have a single alphabetic list, and allow the individual articles to handle (or not) the botanical details.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:33, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I moved Sterculia quadrifida, but I think that Cola, Brachychiton and Pachira also should be moved. The description at Mongongo doesn't seem particularly nutlike either. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Families of the Monocotyledons

Dahlgren's epic survey of monocot family characters with descriptions is available at books.google.com. However, it is listed there under the title Anorectal and colon diseases: textbook and color atlas of proctology by Ernst Stein, so you won't find it if you look for the actual title.

Note: This sort of title/content discrepancy is not at all uncommon at books.google.com. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a howler! There's a very long discussion of the problem at Language Log, but it seems that the only solution is to deluge Google with feedback, which we are probably well positioned to do in that particular case. Here's a link that gives a feedback link in the upper right. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Google's feedback link offers only two possibilities "part of the page is missing" or "page unreadable". Still, a deluge of complaints with both options selected might perhaps get someone's attention. Nadiatalent (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I have successfully gotten similar changes pushed through before with a carefully written (and pointed) message about the problem. However, there are a great many such problems that should never have come about in the first place. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to spot, but I noticed the back cover is the one from the right book. Circéus (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Pyrophyte article and Dionaea

The comment by Lavateraguy in the previous thread about Cupressus nevadensis prompted me to have a look at the Pyrophyte article. Putting aside the article's slightly clumsy grammar in places, I have a question concerning its assertion regarding Dionaea muscipula: namely that it isn't obvious to me that the two given references actually support the article's assertion that D. muscipula survives fires by virtue of its "high moisture content". Although the references both support the assertion that D. muscipula performs well after fires due to elimination of competition, neither (as far as I can see) elaborates on the physical means by which D. muscipula is able to survive/withstand fire. Any comments? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Roberts PR, Oosting HJ.1958, cited by the Schulze et al. article includes experiments with burning off the plants from soil blocks brought in from the field. The growing tips were not damaged and produced new leaves two weeks later. It says ""Although the rhizomes of Dionaea are in the top 2.5–4 cm of soil, the larger ones are well protected from fire injury, and the roots, being deeper, are unlikely to be affected. This may be deduced from the temperatures, recorded by Heyward (1938) for the soil heating effects of forest fires in longleaf pine areas. The surface soils of Dionaea zones being moister, the temperatues during burning are likely to be lower than those obtained in the longleaf soils."

It's the soil that has a high moisture content. Nadiatalent (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting, and it's a shame that that article isn't freely available online. However, referring to soil temperatures under heating still doesn't account for why Dionaea survives fire better than its competitors, seeing as they're all growing in the same soil. Is the phrase "the larger [rhizomes] are well protected from fire injury" referring to some other inherent characteristic? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It is a fairly lengthy discussion with quite a lot of experiments involved, including mowing a patch, burning the material removed, and putting it back on part of the patch. The sundews grew rapidly after that until shaded out by other plants. I think it may be a fair summary (unless I skimmed it too quickly) that they take advantage of the nutrients very rapidly. It's a pity that there isn't even an abstract freely available. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I've re-worded the article to try and make it match the referenced studies a bit better (and to improve the grammar), though it might be a good idea if someone had a look, to check I haven't fallen foul of WP:SYN. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Plant article template: "Taxonomy" or "Classification"?

As long as we're making changes, I'd like to see the standard header "Taxonomy" replaced by "Classification". The latter word is more widely understood, and is a better fit. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I moved this comment to a new section, because I think it's an important issue. I had thought of raising the question of the "Taxonomy" section, but didn't want to mix what I hope are the straightforward issues in the previous section with this more complex one. As the content is described at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Template#Taxonomy, it's difficult to see that "Classification" would be the right title, because of the nomenclature issues ("Ideally, this section would include a full taxonomic history ... Mention whether conserved or rejected names exist in relation to the taxon at hand.") What I've recently written in the first two paragraphs of Hippeastrum#Taxonomy, for example, wouldn't fit under "Classification".

On the other hand, I don't think that many articles do put classification issues, such as a list of subtaxa, under "Taxonomy"; genus articles more usually, it seems to me, have a separate section for "Species", as well as for "Evolution and phylogeny" where the information is known. Purely nomenclatural issues are often put under different headings, including "Etymology". So I don't think that the template is right at present, but I'm not sure what should be recommended, bearing in mind that this isn't a policy, just a guideline. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with regard to what you wrote about Hippeastrum not being Classification, but a large number of articles I've dealt with include lists of subgroups, relationship to other groups, current placement within a classification system, and other material that is better described as "Classification" than "Taxonomy". I'me not arguing for the elimination of "Taxonomy" as a possible header, but I do think that "Classification" is a more generally applicable one for a wider set of issues, and so should be the one reccomended for use. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Being the one that wrote the original suggested format for plant articles, I must admit I cannot quite recall why I picked "Taxonomy" over other names, so I wouldn't be opposed to this change. Circéus (talk) 02:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

What is in the currently suggested "Taxonomy" section seems to divide into "Nomenclature", "Evolution and phylogeny" and "Classification". It does seem to me that (a) these are better as separate sections and (b) the last two are good suggestions for section titles (I'm not sure about "Nomenclature" as a title). To editors who have created new plant articles: your input is needed! Peter coxhead (talk) 09:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I tend to use Taxonomy or Taxonomic history to cover all three aspects, unless there's so much material that it makes sense to divide them. I don't think I would ever title a section Nomenclature. Taxonomy (working out what constitutes a taxon, and how it relates to other taxa) encompasses evolution, phylogeny, classification and even nomenclature to my mind. The main problem with it would seem to be its unfamiliarity to lay readers. Everyone understands classification, but few people recognise taxonomy, and even fewer recognise how it differs from classification and nomenclature. I also think that the section headings are likely to depend on the content to such a degree that it may not make sense to specify "standard" headings. I think it would be better to direct editors to some well-written articles (e.g. FAs & GAs) to get some idea of how to structure their articles. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I've used most of them, Taxonomy, Classification, Nomenclature (etymology and common names only, particularly extensive non-English local names which are not ideal in paragraph form), Taxonomy and nomenclature (combination of the two), Discovery, History of discovery (latter two dealing mostly with discovery and sometimes taxonomic history), etc. I tend to separate Phylogeny (or Evolution, sometimes Evolution and fossil record) from Taxonomy. I also prefer it not to be standardized to be honest, and left to the discretion of contributors depending on what applies.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 17:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I prefer Taxonomy as it is more inclusive, as aspects of common and scientific names are often intertwined with classification and cladistics etc. Hence taxonomy is a single word which provides a succinct and inclusive heading to cover the whole shebang. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Need conifer expertise

Anyone knowledgeable in conifers can look at Cupressus nevadensis? All the links and reference on the page eitehr are dead or refer to Cupressus bakeri (which according to the jepson database apparently is not even supposed to be in Cupressus)... Not to mention that the name seems to be misattributed. Circéus (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The FNA synonymizes Cupressus nevadensis Abrams under C. arizonica Greene. The FNA treatment states that formerly species were segregated from this taxon on the basis of bark characters, but that such characters intergrade across the range of the species.

The 1996 printing of the 1993 edition of the Jepson Manual considers this taxon as a subspecies C. arizonica E. Greene subsp. nevadensis (Abrams) E. Murray.

And it looks as thought he cited IUCN Red List no longer recognizes this as a species either, but as a variety [14], noting also that the information is in need of updating. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it a pyrophyte, or just a pyrophile? Lavateraguy (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I've mentioned the possible inclusion in C. arizonica with a sentence in Cupressus nevadensis and a link at Cupressus arizonica (which already mentions C. nevadensis and four other geographical species/varieties). Kingdon (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Names of Lysichiton species

Whether Lysichiton or Lysichitum is correct is discussed here (I can't access the full article myself), and all the major databases seem to have followed this source in using Lysichiton. However, in either Greek or Latin the genus name is neuter, so it seems to me that the species should be L. americanum and L. camtschatcense, not L. americanus or L. camtschatcensis. However GRIN, for example, has Lysichitum americanum but Lysichiton americanus. (To confuse the issue, the hybrid was named in 2011 as L. ×hortensis, when I would expect L. ×hortense.) Can anyone throw light on this matter? Peter coxhead (talk) 12:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The genus Lysichiton is correct according to the Kew World Checklist of Monocots [15], which is an extremely reliable source. Also, it is masculine and takes masculine epithets, because this is one of those Greek nouns with unexpected gender. Even though the noun χιτών ("chiton") looks neuter from its ending, it is in fact a third-declension masculine noun in the original Greek, so it's treated as masculine in its derivatives as well. It's a similar situation to the gender problem in trees, where masculine-looking words like Quercus are actually feminine, since dryads were feminine in Greek mythology. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake entirely. (An illustration of the problems of transliteration: classical Greek nouns in -ων don't behave the same as those in -ον, which I did know but had forgotten.) Thanks; I'll make sure the articles are correct. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

But sharing your question has led me to notice several nomenclatural problems in the duckweeds, which have now been corrected. The most egregious was that the Lemnoideae was at "Lemnaoideae" and there are still many links embedded in articles to that spelling that will need to be corrected. So, one person's "mistake" can still lead to additional improvements by stimulating involvement. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

This isn't my area at all, but I hope that y'all are respecting botanical usage: remember that Linnaeus made a lot of mistakes about the gender of names and we respect them (article 60.2, we use the spelling as it was given in the valid publication, excepting some rare corrections). Nadiatalent (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Article 62.1 states " A generic name retains the gender assigned by botanical tradition, irrespective of classical usage or the author's original usage." and gives several examples of Linnean names whose gender have to be corrected: Rhamnus (Linnean m. corrected to f.) and Erigeron (Linnean n. to m.). There are occasional proposals to conserve the gender of a name (Bidens #1357, Nuphar #1334, Celastrus #1378...) as a result. Circéus (talk) 18:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but also note Note 1 to Article 62.1: "Botanical tradition usually maintains the classical gender of a Greek or Latin word, when this was well established." And once the gender of the genus name is clear, Article 23.5 provides that the epithet should be corrected if it doesn't agree. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

At present Botanical Latin is a redirect to Botanical nomenclature. But I wonder if there should actually be an article on botanical Latin? There are plenty of sources, although Stearn alone would be enough, I guess. Thoughts? Peter coxhead (talk) 21:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the redirect is fine. I can't imagine much content that would be specific to an article on Botanical Latin, as opposed to being covered by New Latin or under Botanical nomenclature. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't New Latin be a better redirect for Botanical Latin? Lavateraguy (talk) 10:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

In my view, New Latin covers too much for a redirect from "Botanical Latin", whereas Botanical nomenclature covers too little, so I don't really like either as a redirect, but if it has to be one or the other, I tend to agree that New Latin would be better.

If a whole article on "Botanical Latin" is too much, what about a section within Botanical nomenclature? I think there are some specific issues (try using a standard Latin dictionary or Google translate to translate a Latin plant diagnosis and you'll soon see that it's a distinctly different dialect with usages which differ from either Classical or more general New Latin, including zoological Latin; the issue of "botanically traditional gender" as noted in the discussion above is certainly specific). My only reservation is whether it's suitable for a general encyclopedia, such as Wikipedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking of perhaps a section within New Latin - there is also a bit, biased to zoology, there. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't think we should accept that botanical Latin comes in the section entitled Relics! It's quite alive and well (and very useful; I recently managed to write an article on a species of Roscoea largely based on a paper in Chinese but with a Latin diagnosis which I could read). But I agree that a new section in New Latin could work. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

South African plant ID

What is this?

I came across the image at right on Commons, and I think it's misfiled, but I'm not familiar enough with the South African flora to be certain of its identity. The leaves (if I'm seeing them correctly) suggest Iridaceae, although the flowers (from what I can see) look like they might belong to the Velloziaceae. Any help? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The genus Wurmbea seems correct to me, though I am not familiar with the South African species.Melburnian (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Ooh... I hadn't thought of Colchicaceae, but now that you mention it, and I compare some photos, you could be right. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Edits to the plant article template page

I've made a series of copy-edits to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Template, which (as far as I can tell) don't change the meaning.

In addition I have made two substantive alterations to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Template#Categories:

• Under "The taxonomic scheme" I've qualified "All articles should be placed in the lowest level category" with what is actual current practice, namely that we don't strictly follow the taxonomic hierarchy but consider the size of the categories.

• In the last bullet point I've emphasized that only species articles can be categorized into their year of formal description.

I think these two changes are in accordance with consensus in the project, but this is always a dangerous statement!

Also I don't understand the reason for this statement "An article providing an alphabetical list of species or genera ... should use an asterisk (e.g. [[Category:Asteraceae|*]])." Looking at such list articles this isn't always the case, and I would have expected an article with the title "List of genera of Xaceae" to appear in a category listing in the same place as the article "Xaceae". Can someone explain please? Peter coxhead (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That relates to Wikipedia:Categorization#Sort keys - "Use other sort keys beginning with a space (or an asterisk or a plus sign) for any "List of ..." and other pages that should appear after the key article and before the main alphabetical listings". Melburnian (talk) 11:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I wasn't clear. I was unsure why a space is recommended for an article on a family, i.e. [[Category:Asteraceae| ]], but an asterisk for an article giving a list of genera in a family, i.e. [[Category:Asteraceae|*]]. Why the difference? Peter coxhead (talk) 13:31, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe the asterisk is an older tradition, but the two are otherwise equivalent. I find the space more visually appealing. I am not aware of any reason for treating families and genera differently. For the list, I would use [[Category:Asteraceae| List]], to ensure it appears second, after the main article. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

That seems to me a much clearer suggestion. If no-one objects, I propose putting it in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Template#Categories. So, an article titled "TaxonName1" would be put into "Category:TaxonName2" via [[Category:TaxonName2| ]]. An article titled "List of Subtaxa of TaxonName1 would be put into "Category:TaxonName2" via [[Category:TaxonName2| list]] (where whether TaxonName1 = TaxonName2 depends on the size of the categories). Peter coxhead Peter coxhead (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that wording would be a bit convoluted for the template page, but I agree with the principle that [[Category:Name| list]] is preferable to the traditional [[Category:Name|*]] as a sortkey for such list articles.Melburnian (talk) 06:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I definitely wasn't suggesting that wording!! It's just the computer scientist in me trying to be absolutely precise here after failing to be clear earlier. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

As no-one objected, I've edited the template article to incorporate Stemonitis' suggestion. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

List of vegetable fats

Does anyone know how to go about compiling a list of vegetable fats? In this discussion, two other editors and I have determined that the vegetable fats currently listed on List of vegetable oils should probably be split off into their own list at List of vegetable fats, but we're unsure how many other vegetable fats there are or how we might determine what they are. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 03:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Single quotation marks for cultivars

An amendment to WP:MOS has been proposed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Quotation marks guideline: adding a special case --Melburnian (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

General structure for plant articles and lists

I've looked through the backlog a bit, but haven't found any debates on this subject. I'm wondering if there has been much agreement on exactly how to structure articles on plant taxa (in terms of section titles, content, and order)? The Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Template page seems to have attracted fairly little interest over the years (with the exception of the taxonomy vs classification debate very recently). My personal preference would be (roughly):

1. Lead/Introduction (not true section) - Brief intro to the taxon.
2. Description - Morphology/anatomy.
3. Growth and development - Physiological and developmental notes of interest.
4. Ecology - Habitat/soil types/pollination/seed distribution/parasites/food for what animals/etc.
5. Evolution - How old is the lineage/fossil notes/interesting evolutionary traits/evo-devo.
6. Phylogeny and classification - (You can't talk about one and not the other these days.) Why it's placed where it is, and the sub-taxonomy of the group.
7. Etymology - What does the name mean. Who described it and when.
8. Distribution - Where it's found.
9. Conservation - If the taxon is rare, threatened, etc.
10. Uses - Food/timber/medicine/cultivation, etc.
11. Culture - Cultural significance.
12. Genera - (if it's a family, families if it's an order, species if it's a genus, etc.). Only included in articles if there's less than ~50, otherwise create new article for the list.
13. Image gallery - Images with captions.
14. See also - Other relevant wiki sites.
15. References - Ref list.
16. External links - Other relevant non-wiki sites. Formatted to include the exact link and then institution link: Orchidaceae at The Plant List
17. Categories (not true section) - Add article to appropriate categories.

Essentially all of them are optional (dependent on the resources at hand), except for the intro, description, references, and categories-- which are fundamental to any plant article. For an example see Poaceae, which I have structured in this way (more or less). Asteraceae and Orchidaceae are similar. Family-level pages are probably the best place to start implementing a structure-- and then it should slowly trickle through. I think most plant articles probably fit this already anyway, albeit with most sections missing.

For taxonomic lists long enough to have their own separate article (over ~50 taxa?), I'm more drawn towards those that mimic lists of scientific publications/books. For an example see List of Ericaceae genera, which I structured in this way. I prefer taxonomically formatted (referenced!) lists followed by alphabetical ones for taxa lists smaller than ~250, and separate articles for taxonomic/alphabetical lists larger than ~250. However, despite what I think about article structure, I think that if the lists are of good quality a rigid outline of structure isn't necessary, as long as the information is getting across. List of Arecaceae genera and List of Commelinaceae genera are also nice examples.

Any other opinions? BC Myles (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I think there are quite a few things wrong with that list. I'll start with a few of the more obvious ones. A number of things are separated that are better dealt with together (or at least adjacently). The etymology is instrinsically linked with the nomenclature (and thus to taxonomy and classification), which ought also to include data on type material and so on. Similarly, the list of constituent genera (or other taxa) is part of the taxonomy and classification and should be dealt with there. Secondly, image galleries are advised against (see WP:IG), so I don't think we can make them a standard heading. "Categories" is not a section, and I assume that by "Introduction", you mean the lead, which is a summary of the remainder, not a separate section. Most importantly, though, there was some agreement above not to try to force editors into standard headings too much, and I think your proposal may be a step in that unwanted direction. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Great response. (1) Yes, fair enough, Etymology and Phylogeny & Classification are linked and should be adjacent-- I've edited that. (2) I always try to include the type taxon in the taxobox (with authority). I see detailed notes on the type, and detailed notes on nomenclature, rather in the jurisdiction of places like the IPNI and Tropicos-- rather than Wikipedia. That sort of information tends to be of most use to systematists, and by and large we do not use Wikipedia to do research. I think the audience for Wikipedia tends to be somewhat less specialised. No? (3) I see Image Galleries constantly, on nearly every family page. The link you mention at WP:IG says "...the use of a gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. The images in the gallery collectively must have encyclopedic value and add to the reader's understanding of the subject..." So if well selected I think an image gallery definitely falls into this category on plant taxon pages. (4) Why are we trying not to standardise our article headings again? Why have a template? BC Myles (talk) 13:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

For 4) at least: because as you said, it depends entirely on the information available and how best to present it. Sections can be merged most of the times (Taxonomy and nomenclature, Distribution and habitat, Importance, Evolution and fossil record, etc.) depending on the length of the sections themselves (e.g. if sections only have one sentence each, they might be better off merged together); or simply for a better "flow" in the article (e.g. if information in one section needs to be discussed in the context of information in another section).

The order can also be different, depending on whether one section requires significant descriptions of another section first for it to make sense (e.g. if Description discusses relationships that should have already been covered by Taxonomy, etc.)

The headings of the sections are also dependent on the contents. Thus an "Ethnomedicinal use" heading might be more accurate than a "Uses" heading if the information is about uses in herbal medicine, ditto with "Cultural significance", "Medicinal use", "Culinary use", etc. "Commercial importance" might be more appropriate than "Cultivation" if they are harvested only from the wild. "Paleoecology" might be more correct than "Ecology" in fossil taxa. Some information may not fit under any of the suggested headings at all, etc.

Standardization is really not ideal. The template is still useful though as a guide as to what should ideally be discussed in the article.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I think standardising as much as possible is good. I've tried this all over the wiki and already have my own template of sorts. We have over a hundred bird, dinosaur, plant and fungus FAs, many with similar titles. There are so many above that many plant articles will have very short sections if we split as advised. What I have been doing this past five years generally is:

• combine common and scientific naming, classification, subspecies (and often evolution) into taxonomy (with these as subheadings as need be). All these are often intertwined. I'll have a separate etymology within if the main common name has an extensive history worth discussing
• combine distribution and habitat into Distribution and habitat - as they are generally interwined too.
• Growth and development (things like reproduction/pollination/response to fire etc.) all go in ecology
• We don't generally do galleries but link to commons. In fact, have a look at some of the ones I've worked on with Hesperian (talk · contribs) -all the Banksia featured articles -see Banksia marginata as an example. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
• I rarely put in see also as they are linked in article.

Hence my order is

1. Lead/Introduction (not true section) - Brief intro to the taxon.
2. Taxonomy - often placed here as taxobox eats into space (incl evolution/cladistics/naming etc.- always want to put images in description section...
3. Description - Morphology/anatomy.
4. Distribution and habitat - Where its found/Habitat/soil types
5. Ecology - pollination/seed distribution/parasites/food for what animals/etc.
6. Conservation - If the taxon is rare, threatened, etc.
7. Uses - Food/timber/medicine/cultivation, etc.
8. Culture - Cultural significance.
9. References - Ref list.
10. External links - Other relevant non-wiki sites. Formatted to include the exact link and then institution link: Orchidaceae at The Plant List
11. Categories (not true section) - Add article to appropriate categories.

Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

PS: Disagree about not including detailed info on type - it is generally crucial to figuring out what/how the name of the plant is, and often there is confusion, which makes for an interesting story. I think detailing how scientists name and argue over taxa is a great way to interest readers (Salisbury's shenanigans with Robert Brown's work in 1809 being a classic example!) Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm certainly not in favour of any attempt to impose rigid ordering/sections (which wouldn't work anyway). However, although it's hard to generalize, if you look at a cross-section of articles (including FA and GA ones, but also others) I think there is excellent agreement on the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Template, where the information exists, and broad agreement on the ordering, with one major exception and one minor exception.

• The major exception is "Cultivation", which in the template is separated from "Uses". It seems to me that most editors treat cultivation as one of the uses, creating either a subsection or a separate section depending on the importance of this use and the information available, although a separate section does run into problems with WP:NOTHOW.
• The minor exception is the order of "Description" and "Taxonomy". As Casliber notes, there are FA rated articles with "Taxonomy" before "Description" but my unscientific attempts to survey plant articles suggests that this is not the usual order; where both sections exist, "Description" usually goes before "Taxonomy".

So I think that a broad structure like the following, very slightly revised from the template, is a useful guide.

1. Description (I think readers want this first, whatever editors think!)
2. Taxonomy – interpreted broadly to cover nomenclature, evolution and phylogeny, subdivisions, etc.
3. Distribution and habitat
4. Ecology
5. Conservation
6. Uses, including Cultivation
7. Culture

How many sections or subsections these seven get divided into will depend on the information available; for example (3), (4) and (5) may go together where there isn't much in the sources used. Where there's really very little, I've personally added it to the Description section.

I think it would be worth altering the template page in relation to Cultivation, since I don't think that as it stands it reflects the current consensus as embedded in articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

"Cultivation", which in the template is separated from "Uses"; actually, this is a "hedge case", since only a limited number of plants are liable to have separate sections (but then most of the optional sections—e.g. "toxicity"—are kind of hedge cases, which is why they're given as optional to begin with!), and the template is pretty clear on that ("crops and ornamentals"). In most cases we can have "cultivation and uses". Examples of articles with separate sections are flax and saffron (cultivation under "species"). Circéus (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I never put Taxonomy that close to the start of the article when there is more general information included. Description of the plants and some kind of ecological information should always come before that. Taxonomy is a comparison with other groups (a la circumscription, definition, relations, etc.), and it makes no sense to me to compare to other groups before establishing what the group is. The average user will be more interested in a physical description, size, distribution, etc. before they will want to know where the type specimen is housed and which authors fought over the name. Further, the Taxonomy section is apt to include lists of subtaxa, a phylogenetic tree, and other diagramatic information that cannot be squeezed in next to the Taxobox.

"Etymology" is one of those things whose placement depends on the taxon. Sometimes the name is closely tied to a morphological trait, and so it makes more sense to discuss under Description. Sometimes the name originates from the mind of the author who described it, so the etymology is best discussed under Taxonomy. Other times the name pertains to folk usage, and so it make more sense to discuss the etymology under Uses. I think "Etymology" is a topic to be included where possible, rather than a section to be included. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I also prefer Description first, as a non-specialist writing for the regular reader. If Taxonomy is especially relevant for a particular plant, because of interest, disputes, history, etc., then I would put it right after Description. Again, thinking of the typical reader, who is probably a non-specialist. First Light (talk) 18:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Good discussion. I think I've gathered the following points:

(1) Creating a rigid structure is a fool's errand because we'd never be able to agree on one, and it would result in many taxa (those with little information available) having pages full of very short sections. Instead a broad set of guidelines is better-- one that allows for merging of multiple sections into one as the author sees fit. I suppose Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Template basically summarizes this, but I would prefer if this page showed some "optimal examples". Perhaps one species, one genus, one family and one order (or similar). These could highlight what a page could become, if a great deal of information was available (and so no "lumping" of multiple sections required).

(2) We still haven't reached a consensus on what to call the "Taxonomy" section. Placing a subsection called "Evolution and phylogeny" in here (as per the template) does not make sense to me. The taxonomy is often a product of this information, but certainly the field of taxonomy itself does not involve understanding evolutionary processes. I think placing this into three separate sections makes more sense: Evolution, Phylogeny and classification, and Etymology. This means (a) all information relating to interesting evolutionary notes has a place, (i.e. interesting synapomorphs, known evolutionary rate shifts, biogeographic structuring, etc.) (b) discussing why the taxa is placed where it is, the relationships of the taxa within it, and previous classifications of note has a place, and (c) the story behind the name also has a consistent location (who/when was it described, and what does it mean?). I would be interested to hear from people who argue for a very broad "Taxonomy" section. By that, everyone who studies evolution is now a "taxonomist"?

(3) In terms of order, it would be nice to form a consensus on if "Taxonomy/Evolutionary" section(s) or "Description" comes directly after the lead/intro. My vote is for "Description".

(4) There seems to be a lot of support for placing "habitat" information in with "Distribution". As a botanist, I rarely, if ever use/hear the word "habitat". As I understand it this is generally used for animals. "What sort of habitat does that plant grow in?" It does not sound/look right, but maybe it's just me. I think "habitat" related information belongs in the "Ecology" section, without the word "habitat".

What do others think? BC Myles (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I prefer Taxonomy, "interpreted broadly" as Casliber and Peter Coxhead both said above. I also use "Distribution and habitat" regularly, when there is information on the native habitat. They should be together, because a plant's native habitat is directly related to its distribution, and often they just can't be separated. For example, 'growing in cloud forest along stream banks at x elevation in x mountain range in x country' (to paraphrase Salvia divinorum#Distribution and habitat). First Light (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Taxonomy "interpreted broadly" = Taxonomy "interpreted incorrectly" in this case. But perhaps that is not of concern. Re: "Distribution and habitat", fair enough. I've just looked at a number of floristic treatments, and although most separate them-- some do lump them together, so I can't really argue against that. My main issue remains with the word "habitat" as I can't think of a single plant floristic work or monograph that uses this word, but perhaps you know of some? If there is precedence I'm happy to concede, otherwise I think we should encourage a different word. BC Myles (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Re I think Taxonomy "interpreted broadly" = Taxonomy "interpreted incorrectly" in this case. But perhaps that is not of concern., I agree that it is incorrect, and I think it is of concern. If it is necessary to put nomenclature, taxonomy, phylogeny and evolutionary history all under a single section, then that section would best be called "Systematics", or better still "Taxonomy and systematics". Hesperian 05:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Re "Habitat": I don't know about seed plants, but this section title is extremely common for works on cryptogams. I find an explicitly labelled "Habitat" section for species listings in Arkansas Ferns and Fern Allies, Ferns of Georgia, Ferns of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, Guide to the Liverworts of North Carolina, The Liverworts of New Zealand, Liverworts of the Western Himalayas and the Panjab Plain, etc. For the most part, the other works I examined did not have explicitly labelled sections of any kind, with the exception of Schuster's Hepaticae and Anthocerotae of North America, which calls the "Habitat" section "Ecology" instead, but treats the same information one would expect to find under "Habitat". --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, if it's in the field guides you mention then perhaps "habitat" is totally fine, given Wikipedia is likely to have a similar audience. It is worth noting the Schuster volumes are by far the most established of the works you mention, and he uses "Ecology". Also a look at the Liverwort Flora of New Zealand shows Distribution and Ecology sections (example: Trichocolea hatcheri). But regardless, point taken, my issue with habitat is dropped. BC Myles (talk) 04:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Hesperian has a point - I've been using "taxonomy" as an umbrella term as I thought it encapsulated what I was getting at with a classification/naming/systematics/(and poss some evolution) section, but conceded it was a bit jargony for the general readership. If people think it is in accurate, then I'd be happy to ditch for (maybe) "Classification and naming" - this affects fungi and animals as well so we should open up a discussion and vote at WT:TOL Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd support not using "Taxonomy". It is a subpart of systematics and is used in the very narrow sense in other disciplines, for example in cognitive linguistics. "Classification" has a little of the same problem with being used in other areas, but I don't think that is significant. I'd suspect that "classification" might upset phylocodists (but I don't know any personally that I could ask). Nadiatalent (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Nadia, I think that how "Taxonomy" is used in other disciplines isn't really relevant. But I agree that there are issues over how broadly the term should be interpreted in current biological usage. The Systematics article – which I'm personally not at all happy with – quotes one definition which restricts taxonomy to (a) providing scientific names for organisms, (b) describing them, (c) preserving collections of them, (d) providing classifications for the organisms [...]. It explicitly excludes (e) investigating their evolutionary histories. BUT this is a 1970 definition; now (e) can't possibly be separated from (d) and hence (a). So I'd like to see a more up to date and better sourced discussion of the distinction between systematics and taxonomy before we decide whether or not "Taxonomy" is a good section title. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

From my understanding,

• taxonomy = "what groups shall we divide these things into?"
• nomenclature = "what shall we name these groups of things?"
• systematics = "what are our underlying reasons and rationale for dividing these things into groups the way we do?"

Hesperian 01:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Nadia, it's great to have your input. We met briefly at the Melbourne botanical congress a few months back (at one of the bryophyte functions). With regards to definitions, there are several good sources. One is the APG textbook (Judd et al., 2007), which has Taxonomy - Theory and practice of grouping individuals into species, arranging species into larger groups, and giving those groups names, thus producing a classification, Systematics - The science of organismal diversity; frequently used in a sense roughly equivalent to taxonomy, Phylogenetic classification - Classification accurately reflecting hypothesized phylogenetic relationships among a group of taxa. Another good source is Michael Simpson's (prof. at San Diego State) text Plant Systematics, which has Taxonomy - A field of science (and major component of systematics) that encompasses description, identification, nomenclature, and classification, Systematics - A science that includes and emcompasses traditional taxonomy and that has as its primary goal the reconstruction of phylogeny, Phylogenetic Systematics - A methodology for inferring the pattern of evolutionary history of a group of organisms by grouping taxa based on apomorphies (syn. cladistics), Nomenclature - The formal naming of taxa according to some standardized system; for plants, "algae," fungi, and organisms traditionally treated as fungi, governed by the International Code of Nomenclature (ICN). So the definitions of systematics/taxonomy have overlapping similarities, but also have important differences. Systematics is more encompassing of modern methodologies. Also, the term systematics has become more popular with phylogeneticists, where as taxonomy is viewed as rather old school, and more and more seems to equate with alpha taxonomy in many researchers minds. Again my personal preference is for splitting two sections Phylogeny and classification for info on relationships and taxonomy, and Etymology for information on the name. However, even just straight replacing taxonomy with systematics would be an improvement. Hesperian mentioned "Taxonomy and systematics", but I think this would make it looks like Wikipedians don't understand the terms. Casliber mentioned "Classification and naming", but I think this might seem a bit too "dumbed down"? BC Myles (talk) 01:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, why don't we have some kind of vote? I'm not familiar enough with Wikipedia to know how to do this, but suspect there is some kind of polling system in place. I would propose voting on "Taxonomy" vs "Systematics". Systematics is broad enough that any information on taxonomy, phylogeny, nomenclature, etymology, etc. can all be included within it. Authors can more or less chose how to subdivide (or not) the section as they see fit, but I think WikiPlants encouraging the use of "systematics" over "taxonomy" for a main subject header would be a step in the right direction. BC Myles (talk) 02:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that part of the problem being encountered here is that this whole area of botany (and probably also of the wider biological sciences) is currently in a state of flux, and possibly in a way undergoing some sort of paradigm shift (albeit slowly). For an encyclopedia, which attempts to present 'facts' as established truths, this is something of a problem. Seeing as 'systematics' appears to be the more encompassing term, this appears attractive, although I am concerned that such a term is meaningless to the general reader, unlike the less technical 'classification'. If a 'more professional' term like systematics is used, it should be linked to an article which explains it using terms which the layperson can understand - which is probably not the case at the moment. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

We can list three options at WT:TOL as this involves animal and fungus articles too. I'll set it up.Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

NB: Now listed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_life#Taxonomy_vs_Classification_vs_Systematics_vs..... - please if anyone has another option, please list early so we can avoid revisiting. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Article in need of GA review: Schlumbergera

Peter Coxhead's article on Schlumbergera has been nominated for GA status for more than two weeks now, and no-one has yet volunteered to review it. I think it may be because most of the GA regulars have more zoological than botanical backgrounds. Does anyone here feel like performing the review? (I would do it myself, but I gave an informal peer review on it recently.) Without wishing to prejudice the outcome, I wouldn't expect it to take too long. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hyphenated common names? etc...

It started with Dalea purpurea and a discussion of the proper common name being hyphenated, concatenated, or neither. Does the plants project have a guideline on this? I went to check on Douglas-fir and found it happily hyphenated pretty consistently. Sweet-clover/sweetclover (Melilotus) not so much. This is a minor point relative to the huge scope of WP:PLANTS, but I'm wondering if these should be fixed at least when one runs across them, or if a policy would help for future pages.

Also, in trying to edit the genus page Melilotus, I was unclear on how to use that page vs. the specific pages, esp. Melilotus officinalis and Melilotus albus. Can one say the genus is "now found worldwide," or should that comment be applied to those widespread species? Not being familiar with the other spp, I wasn't sure. Melilotus elegans, for example, is only shown in one province of North America, according to the USDA Plants Database. Also the discussion of coumarin-- genus-wide or primarily M. officinalis/albus?

Impressed by the project size and expertise available already, I hesitate to join, but will weigh in when I can. Thanks for all your work raising the visibility of plants! --Araucana (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Hyphens Since there aren't rules about common names (unlike scientific names), it's really a matter of what the consensus usage is in reliable sources. It's clear that "Douglas fir" would be wrong, as the common name refers to the genus, not a species of fir. So the choice is "Douglasfir" or "Douglas-fir". The first just looks odd to me, but then I prefer hyphens elsewhere (e.g. "sweet-clover" for Melilotus rather than "sweetclover"). My impression is that hyphens are now considered "old-fashioned", at least in the UK, and are removed where possible.

I thought that Douglas fir (as in Mitchell and Hillier, for example) was normal British usage. (Restricting fir to Abies (silver firs) is I believe a relatively new usage - Baltic fir is one of the names for Pinus sylvetris.) Lavateraguy (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I should have made it clear that I was referring to the usage in the article Douglas-fir, i.e. I should have written "Given the usage in the article, it's clear that "Douglas fir" would be wrong ...". I would myself follow Stace (2010), which gives the normal British usage, i.e. "fir" is used for a number of genera, so that "Douglas fir" is the correct form but is then the common name only of P. menziesii. The key point is that "Douglas-fir"/"Douglasfir" and "Douglas fir" should be distinguished. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Genus vs species pages Clarity is the issue, I guess. If only one species in a genus has a worldwide distribution and the rest are very restricted, it seems to me misleading to write that the genus has a worldwide distribution, even though this is technically true. Re coumarin, as a computer programmer I dislike redundancy, so I used to resist duplicating information on both the genus page and the species pages. But I've been persuaded that this was wrong; we should consider the convenience of readers not editors; we shouldn't assume that readers are so interested in what we write that they will keep following links to get all the information. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

FYI - Move Discussion Yerba Mate

Members of this project might be interested in the move discussion ongoing here. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Featured list candidate

I've nominated List of culinary nuts as a featured list candidate. This is an invitation to participate in the discussion. It's unlikely that the candidacy will be successful if no interest is shown in the article nomination. If the application is successful, I plan to bring a number of other related lists up to featured list quality, and go through the nomination process. Waitak (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there a policy or convention in terms of abbreviating genus names when the genus has been already mentioned? In List of culinary nuts there are things like:

• Beech (Fagus spp.):

• American beech (F. grandifolia)

Is either expanding or abbreviating the genus name in such circumstances preferred, or is there no official preference? Waitak (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The way I learned it (back in the late Pleistocene) was that abbreviating the genus was okay as long as there was no chance of ambiguity (check!) and it wasn't the first element in a sentence (check!). So it seems to me you're fine to abbreviate, although there is no requirement to do so. I personally tend to err on the side of cautiously not abbreviating, but this is a case in which I would abbreviate.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

One could argue that search engines have changed the balance here. If you abbreviate, the page contains Fagus and grandifolia, but not Fagus grandifolia, and might not (depending on how clever search engines are) be found in a search for the last. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. (Having been a student back in the Pleisocene as well, I can identify.) Based on the above, I think I'll leave the names abbreviated unless the editors doing the featured list review feel strongly otherwise. Please contribute to the candidacy discussion! Waitak (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Of course in the Pleistocene (the early period anyway) we abbreviated differently, e.g. Ps. menziesii for Pseudotsuga menziesii. I sometimes have to stop myself doing this even now. (Just thought I'd throw in this comment.) Peter coxhead (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

error in Carbon Assimilation curve in Non-photochemical quenching article

Looks like an error in the Carbon Assimilation curve in 'Non-photochemical quenching' article.

As it is, the curve shows Carbon Assimilation (red line) going 0 to 5 to 10 to infinity as light intensity 'irradiance' increases. That can't be right. While that would make an interesting plant (and world!), it looks like someone got the axes reversed. Seems that if the [red] curve remains as is, and light intensity 'irradiance' increases on the horizontal 'x-axis' (instead of the y-axis as it does now) while Carbon Assimilation increases on the vertical y-axis (instead of the x-axis as it is now), then Carbon Assimilation would indeed saturate (plateau) at high levels of light intensity - as the text indicates.

Also be nice if the Carbon Assimilation axis had some units (it has numbers).

Lastly how far would Carbon Assimilation increase with increased blue light intensity (the blue line)? Assuredly not forever as the graph suggests. I'd imagine there'd be a family of curves for wavebands of some nominal width (say 100 nm) going from infrared through visible and into the lower energy UV - and all of them would eventually plateau (saturate) in carbon sequestration (assimilation) at some point. [at some level of 'irradiance' the plant macromolecules would denature or 'cook'!]

Apologies for not having the knowledge (or time) to improve on the graph someone so graciously provided. Fascinating article, thanks folks! - JP

98.155.227.230 (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I have edited a new version, basically inverting the X and Y axes as you proposed and based on graphs here and here, which shows you're correct. I do not know about the values though, so I just copied them as is. Pictured below:

• Original graph
  Original graph
• 
  Corrected graph

I have also replaced the picture in the article. People with commons admin rights may want to delete the incorrect file.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 11:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• 
  Photosynthetic parameters of plants
• 
  The relationship between irradiance and carbon assimilation for a monoculture of Woloszynskia halophila at different pH

I've replaced them all with clearer graphs from specific studies.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 06:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Genus with only one species

If there is a genus with only one specie (Trimeris with only Trimeris scaevolifolia) for example, would there normally be separate articles for genus and species, or a single article for both? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

A single article at the genus name, with the species being a redirect (according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants#Plant article naming conventions). See Frerea as an example. First Light (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Gomphia

Has the genus Gomphia (Ochnaceae) been submerged into Campylospermum? It's not a trivial question since the name Gomphia also refers to an important genus of starfish, and I need to know how to handle the redirect/disambiguation. If the plant genus is no longer accepted, then the page can be converted to a page about the animal with just a hatnote. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, although some species of it may have been put in Campylosppermum, the genus appears to fall in the synonymy of Ouratea

Volker Bittrich and Maria do Carmo E. Amaral. 1994. Lectotypification of Gomphia Schreb. (Ochnaceae). Taxon 43:89-93. JSTOR 1223466. Circéus (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --EncycloPetey (talk) 10:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Terminology

On occasion, I've been toying with grabbing random book passages and checking that the words were all in Wiktionary. One word I ran into this way was "anacrostylous", used to characterize the gynoecium of some Sapindales. I have utterly failed to find a good definition of it, but managed to work something by elimination: "Having the style emerging from a depression at the tip of the gynoecium." If anyone can confirm, it would be greatly appreciated Circéus (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The prefix anacro- in developmental terms usually means "not at, nor arising from, the apex". It is used in the term anacrogynous to describe liverworts in which the archegonium does not develop from an apical cell at the growing tip of the shoot, but rather from superficial lateral cells. I would check to see whether this means that the style in the Sapindales does not develop from the apex of the ovary, or directly from an apical meristem. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

A good image is seen here. Here they contrast it with "gynobasic", but I always thought the companion term to that was "basistylous"? A more detailed look seems to indicated it means something like "having a gynobasic style that arises from the center of fused ovaries", which would make it a special type of basystyly. Circéus (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC)