![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Organisms Wiki was recently started as a wikia to educate on all types of organisms and their biological counterparts. This wiki will aim to provide free, excellence-quality and concise articles dealing with organisms and habitats. Organisms Wiki is a wikia, and is also very small and new, which is why I would like to leave a note here that we appreciate any helpful contributions.
I have had people criticizing the sense of making a wiki on this topic when indeed Wikipedia covers just about anything related to organisms. Sure, this may be true - but a major advantage of having Organisms Wiki hosted at wikia is to cover the topics in broader depth. Thank you. Organisms Wiki
Paul Davey 07:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Is this the right place to ask? I took some nice photos of plants in the Namadji National Park, Australian Capital Territory, but have no idea what the plants are. They seem pretty common. If someone can help identify them, I'll upload them to commons with the correct names.
All suggestions/comments welcome. There are some other angles here. Thanks. Stevage 08:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I had mentioned earlier that I would be making a lot of stubs to rectify "deadlinks" from Wikiversity and Wikibooks, so just a heads up that they're rolling in now.
I also noticed that a lot of these are linked from various "article wanted" lists, and thought folks might want to make use of the template I'm making these articles with: User:SBJ/ps. That template is specifically designed for transitioning from wikiversity pages, but a similar one could be made with more #switch fields... let me know if I can help make one. -- SB_Johnny | talk 12:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, all. I'm planning a trip in the very near future up to the University of Michigan libraries. I've already created a pretty hefty list of articles to photocopy for myself - journals I couldn't find elsewhere and where interlibrary loan had let me down. The library is quite extensive, so chances are they have what you might be looking for. (How many US institutions have all the volumes of the Australian journal Austrobaileya?) I'll take requests for your hard-to-find articles. Search their library here for the journal you seek. If they have it, check their holdings to see if they have the volume you need. Post the citation on my talk page and I will photocopy, then scan and deliver your article in pdf form. I thought I'd make the most of this trip and help out anyone here at the same time. I'll probably make the trip early next week, so make your requests! Cheers, Rkitko ( talk) 21:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi All, I’m off to a conference (Association of Tropical Biology and Conservation – Asian Chapter) in Kuching, Sarawak in April 2008 and was wondering if you want me to promote the WikiProject:Plants there – thru a poster presentation. In general the pages covering tropical plants/ecology are fairly bare (with the exception of the Durian page) and could do with the input of a few more tropical biologist. I'm in the process of writing/editing Stubs for various Dipterocarps - but with something like 3000 tree spp. in Sabah alone - there is a fair amount of work to do. Sepilok2007 03:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you would have to worry too much about the biologist publishing their results on Wikipedia (RE: No Original Research). Our funding is dependent on getting our results into peer-reviewed journals with the highest impact factor - Wikipedia could be sold to them as a way of disseminating already published research to the wider comunitiy. I'm new to WP:Plants - so would appreciate feedback/help on the poster idea. Sepilok2007 07:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I think there are a few points worth covering. Conservation/taxa information: For many tropical plant species we have broad scale distribution maps - based on Herbarium collections (and my plan for the Dipterocarp pages is to upload these distribution maps), however, these maps show distributon prior to mans influence. The conservation of many tropical species is primarily dependent on the retention of protected areas and as part of my species description I'm linking to the relavent Wiki protected areas pages (or external pages - such as (Sabah Forestry Department: Conservation Area Information and Monitoring System). I think this is one of the advantages of Wikipedia - you can link diverse "databases". And the information isn't static - i.e. if a protected areas is lost (fire, encroachment etc.), which happens occassionally, then this information can easily be updated on the species page.
Dissemination of information: One of the advantages of Wikipedia is that it is accessible to anyone with a phoneline and a computer. In the tropics many schools/institutes of higher education don't have the library resources of their Western counterparts, however, computers and internet access are becoming more widespread. This will place a greater importance on information on the internet and how to access it. I doubt many schools and few institutes of higher education in the tropical subscribe to Web of Science or online Jounals - so Wikipedia could potentially be their main access to information - especially with the various versions of Wikipedia becoming available - in most internet searchs I do Wikipedia is listed in the first 10 articles. Sepilok2007 00:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Another way to contribute is with properly identified photos. Many plant articles lack photos and one reason is that someone needs to identify the plant. Plant biologists might be able to contribute photos of plants which they've identified, or if they're passing through an arboretum simply by photographing plants which others have labeled. Proper licensing, yada yada yada. ( SEWilco 16:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC))
Fraxinus mandschurica [14] or Fraxinus mandshurica [15]? Does anyone have access to the original publication to check, please?: Ruprecht, Bull. Phys. Math. Acad. Sci. Saint Petersburg. 15: 371 (1857). Thanks - MPF 11:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
On the electronic plant information centre [16] at Kew - it is listed mainly as "Fraxinus mandshurica. The serach results were:
Plant names 2 entries found in IPNI
Bibliographies 22 references found in Micromorphology bibliography
Collections 3 specimens found in Economic Botany collection 14 specimens found in Living collection
with only 2 records in Economic Botany collection for the alternative sch spelling I haven't followed up any of the alternative search site listed on ePIC i.e. ITIS | RBGE | Species 2000 | w3Tropicos | GBIF Sepilok2007 05:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
1 hit(s) Fraxinus mandshurica from The Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh 2 hit(s) Fraxinus mandshurica from the Sir Harold Hillier Gardens and Arboretum 1 hit(s) Fraxinus mandshurica from the Royal Horticultural Society 1 hit(s) Fraxinus mandshurica from The Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University 1 hit(s) Fraxinus mandshurica from The New York Botanical Garden 2 hit(s) Fraxinus mandshurica from Denver Botanic Gardens (also have 1 specimen wt sch spelling) 3 hit(s) Fraxinus mandshurica from WCMC's Plant Conservation Bibliography 1 hit(s) Fraxinus mandshurica from Botanic Garden of the University of Copenhagen
There is a synonym for this species Fraxinus nigra subsp. mandschurica (Rupr.) S.S.Sun - which may have added to the confusion.
Sepilok2007 05:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I just wanted to thank all of everyone on this wikiproject, all the biology data has really been a help with my Bio homework! Thanks! Wikilost 02:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I've recently noticed a lot of articles that I've contributed to having an IPA pronunciation added. I believe that this should not be done due to the fact that nearly everyone tends to pronounce scientific names differently, not only from country to country, but also within the English speaking world and within its individual countries. If we were to list them all, in some plants with longer names there would probably be well over 5 possibilities, which wouldn't be helpful to anyone. I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I couldn't find where and what was decided. Anyone have an opinion? Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 22:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
See this discussion at the article for Ailanthus altissima- after I removed the IPA given and stated my concerns, the editor did cite OED for the IPA pronunciation. While what it claims as standard is the way that I would pronounce it, I know botanists who pronounce the first syllable differently and some who always pronounce a 'th' at a 't' (as in 'Neanderthal' - often pronounced like 'Neandertal'). I feel that any 'standard' is artificial, even if given by the OED, but I'd be interested to hear what you have to say, either here or on the above talk page. Thanks for the input so far. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 00:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the input. I agree that it should stay after listening to all the comments I've received, but I suppose I just wish there was a standard to make matters easier. C'est la vie, I suppose. But at any rate, I think a good rule of thumb would be if a dictionary gives a pronunciation, we might as well use it. It can't hurt at any rate. Thanks again! Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 07:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I believe that the lily in this photo: Image:Bouquet of flowers apr07.jpg is that of the Easter Lily. Could someone please confirm? This shot of the stigma may be of use: Image:Large stigma.jpg Thanks, -- Fir0002 02:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Could someone more familiar with the subject please have a look at this article and make any required changes. It's a little confusing as there seems to be three names for this plant, and I can see this going back and forth as to what name to use. I'm very in the dark when it comes to plants, but as far as I can tell, the botanical name should be Asplenium rhizophyllum, and the way it is written now it reads like it's a synonym. If it's fine as it is, then hurrah, but it's a little confusing none-the-less. ARendedWinter 07:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello all, Melburnian invited me here. There are two species called walking fern, and each of these species has two scientific names, depending on whether they are placed in the Camptosorus or Asplenium genus. For some reason, the article kept being changed to say there is only one species of walking fern. Will someone please fix it? - L. Adair
Yes agree with EP, the text of the disambiguation page could be as follows:
Walking Fern may refer to two species of fern in the genus Asplenium which are occasionally placed in a separate genus Camptosorus:
It may also refer to:
Why the scientific name? Encyclopædia Britannica uses the common name, when possible. In any case, could the disambiguation page say what the two have in common? We should at least make it say why they are called walking fern, I think. - L. Adair
Is the synonym for Camptosorus sibiricus Asplenium sibiricum or Asplenium ruprechtii? On Google, Camptosorus sibiricus+Asplenium sibiricum gives about 10x as many results as Camptosorus sibiricus+Asplenium ruprechtii, so I think it is Asplenium sibiricum, but I am unsure. - L. Adair
I just discovered this portal. Looks like it was created earlier this month. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 20:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a DRV discussion here related to the Japanese citrus category that may benefit from your input. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/ c 20:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I've just created (stub) pages for all the genera of the Polygonaceae that I could find, and could use help in two ways:
Sorry I often seem to use this project as a ref desk, but we're going to do a 'bot update on the wikiversity bloom clock, as well as making an extension of the keys to enable searching by and for families. I'm asking because it's better not to have the bot doing corrections, but rather reserve it for adding fields. We're talking about doing the following additions, and I want to make sure they're exhaustive options (e.g., I didn't discover the need for "opposing tendril" on leaf arrangement until I got into cucurbitae and vitaceae). Here's what were talking about right now:
I guess the question is whether these options will cover all the bases (we'll add more later). Did I miss anything? -- SB_Johnny | talk 16:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I've never looked at the project, but I'm assuming that there are existing fields already there. Is pubescence already in there? If not I would think that it would be a good character type to add (glabrous, hirsute, villous, stellate, glandular etc etc.). Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 20:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me if these topics are already covered, I have not had time to look over your current project. I have used a number of keys and some of the things that stand out as characters that have been used to segregate different families include: Green plants vrs parasitic plants, land plants vrs aquatic; Ovary position - inferior, superior etc; Glabrous vrs hairy; leave opposite, whorled ect; Petals free or absent or attached to each other; Woody plants, herbaceous plants, annuals biennials or perennials; Leaves entire, lobed, dissected ect. If these are helpful I can list others but maybe this is redundant info. Hardyplants ( talk) 21:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The number of calyx segments is not always the same as the number of corolla segments, and if you count epicalyces as a perianth whorl that adds to the variation. The apetalous genus Octolobus has 8 sepals. The rosaceous species Dryas octapetala has 8 petals. Ranunculus ficaria has 7 to 12 petals, Troillus has 5-15 of both sepals and petals, Helleborus 5-12. Several other Ranunculaceae are apetalous but have high numbers of petaloid sepals - Caltha palustris 5-8, Anemone 5-20 depending on species, Hepatica 6-10, Pulsatilla 6, Many monocots have 6 tepals, but I'm not sure whether any can't be interpreted as two whorls of three.
In general core eudicots are stereotypically 4- or 5-merous, with exceptions such as Octolobus and D. octapetala, and monocots are stereotypically 3-merous. Basal angiosperms and basal eudicots are more varied, varying either in the number of whorls (e.g. in Magnoliaceae) or in the merosity (e.g. in Ranunculaceae). Paperaveraceae often have 2 sepals, and I seem to recall there's a clade somewhere with two petals. The number of bracteoles and sepals varies more.
You can get an overview of variation if you go through the relevant pages on the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website. (Alternatively Judd et al or Heywood et al if you have access.) Lavateraguy ( talk) 22:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
Organisms Wiki was recently started as a wikia to educate on all types of organisms and their biological counterparts. This wiki will aim to provide free, excellence-quality and concise articles dealing with organisms and habitats. Organisms Wiki is a wikia, and is also very small and new, which is why I would like to leave a note here that we appreciate any helpful contributions.
I have had people criticizing the sense of making a wiki on this topic when indeed Wikipedia covers just about anything related to organisms. Sure, this may be true - but a major advantage of having Organisms Wiki hosted at wikia is to cover the topics in broader depth. Thank you. Organisms Wiki
Paul Davey 07:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Is this the right place to ask? I took some nice photos of plants in the Namadji National Park, Australian Capital Territory, but have no idea what the plants are. They seem pretty common. If someone can help identify them, I'll upload them to commons with the correct names.
All suggestions/comments welcome. There are some other angles here. Thanks. Stevage 08:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I had mentioned earlier that I would be making a lot of stubs to rectify "deadlinks" from Wikiversity and Wikibooks, so just a heads up that they're rolling in now.
I also noticed that a lot of these are linked from various "article wanted" lists, and thought folks might want to make use of the template I'm making these articles with: User:SBJ/ps. That template is specifically designed for transitioning from wikiversity pages, but a similar one could be made with more #switch fields... let me know if I can help make one. -- SB_Johnny | talk 12:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, all. I'm planning a trip in the very near future up to the University of Michigan libraries. I've already created a pretty hefty list of articles to photocopy for myself - journals I couldn't find elsewhere and where interlibrary loan had let me down. The library is quite extensive, so chances are they have what you might be looking for. (How many US institutions have all the volumes of the Australian journal Austrobaileya?) I'll take requests for your hard-to-find articles. Search their library here for the journal you seek. If they have it, check their holdings to see if they have the volume you need. Post the citation on my talk page and I will photocopy, then scan and deliver your article in pdf form. I thought I'd make the most of this trip and help out anyone here at the same time. I'll probably make the trip early next week, so make your requests! Cheers, Rkitko ( talk) 21:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi All, I’m off to a conference (Association of Tropical Biology and Conservation – Asian Chapter) in Kuching, Sarawak in April 2008 and was wondering if you want me to promote the WikiProject:Plants there – thru a poster presentation. In general the pages covering tropical plants/ecology are fairly bare (with the exception of the Durian page) and could do with the input of a few more tropical biologist. I'm in the process of writing/editing Stubs for various Dipterocarps - but with something like 3000 tree spp. in Sabah alone - there is a fair amount of work to do. Sepilok2007 03:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you would have to worry too much about the biologist publishing their results on Wikipedia (RE: No Original Research). Our funding is dependent on getting our results into peer-reviewed journals with the highest impact factor - Wikipedia could be sold to them as a way of disseminating already published research to the wider comunitiy. I'm new to WP:Plants - so would appreciate feedback/help on the poster idea. Sepilok2007 07:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. I think there are a few points worth covering. Conservation/taxa information: For many tropical plant species we have broad scale distribution maps - based on Herbarium collections (and my plan for the Dipterocarp pages is to upload these distribution maps), however, these maps show distributon prior to mans influence. The conservation of many tropical species is primarily dependent on the retention of protected areas and as part of my species description I'm linking to the relavent Wiki protected areas pages (or external pages - such as (Sabah Forestry Department: Conservation Area Information and Monitoring System). I think this is one of the advantages of Wikipedia - you can link diverse "databases". And the information isn't static - i.e. if a protected areas is lost (fire, encroachment etc.), which happens occassionally, then this information can easily be updated on the species page.
Dissemination of information: One of the advantages of Wikipedia is that it is accessible to anyone with a phoneline and a computer. In the tropics many schools/institutes of higher education don't have the library resources of their Western counterparts, however, computers and internet access are becoming more widespread. This will place a greater importance on information on the internet and how to access it. I doubt many schools and few institutes of higher education in the tropical subscribe to Web of Science or online Jounals - so Wikipedia could potentially be their main access to information - especially with the various versions of Wikipedia becoming available - in most internet searchs I do Wikipedia is listed in the first 10 articles. Sepilok2007 00:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Another way to contribute is with properly identified photos. Many plant articles lack photos and one reason is that someone needs to identify the plant. Plant biologists might be able to contribute photos of plants which they've identified, or if they're passing through an arboretum simply by photographing plants which others have labeled. Proper licensing, yada yada yada. ( SEWilco 16:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC))
Fraxinus mandschurica [14] or Fraxinus mandshurica [15]? Does anyone have access to the original publication to check, please?: Ruprecht, Bull. Phys. Math. Acad. Sci. Saint Petersburg. 15: 371 (1857). Thanks - MPF 11:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
On the electronic plant information centre [16] at Kew - it is listed mainly as "Fraxinus mandshurica. The serach results were:
Plant names 2 entries found in IPNI
Bibliographies 22 references found in Micromorphology bibliography
Collections 3 specimens found in Economic Botany collection 14 specimens found in Living collection
with only 2 records in Economic Botany collection for the alternative sch spelling I haven't followed up any of the alternative search site listed on ePIC i.e. ITIS | RBGE | Species 2000 | w3Tropicos | GBIF Sepilok2007 05:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
1 hit(s) Fraxinus mandshurica from The Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh 2 hit(s) Fraxinus mandshurica from the Sir Harold Hillier Gardens and Arboretum 1 hit(s) Fraxinus mandshurica from the Royal Horticultural Society 1 hit(s) Fraxinus mandshurica from The Arnold Arboretum of Harvard University 1 hit(s) Fraxinus mandshurica from The New York Botanical Garden 2 hit(s) Fraxinus mandshurica from Denver Botanic Gardens (also have 1 specimen wt sch spelling) 3 hit(s) Fraxinus mandshurica from WCMC's Plant Conservation Bibliography 1 hit(s) Fraxinus mandshurica from Botanic Garden of the University of Copenhagen
There is a synonym for this species Fraxinus nigra subsp. mandschurica (Rupr.) S.S.Sun - which may have added to the confusion.
Sepilok2007 05:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I just wanted to thank all of everyone on this wikiproject, all the biology data has really been a help with my Bio homework! Thanks! Wikilost 02:31, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I've recently noticed a lot of articles that I've contributed to having an IPA pronunciation added. I believe that this should not be done due to the fact that nearly everyone tends to pronounce scientific names differently, not only from country to country, but also within the English speaking world and within its individual countries. If we were to list them all, in some plants with longer names there would probably be well over 5 possibilities, which wouldn't be helpful to anyone. I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I couldn't find where and what was decided. Anyone have an opinion? Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 22:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
See this discussion at the article for Ailanthus altissima- after I removed the IPA given and stated my concerns, the editor did cite OED for the IPA pronunciation. While what it claims as standard is the way that I would pronounce it, I know botanists who pronounce the first syllable differently and some who always pronounce a 'th' at a 't' (as in 'Neanderthal' - often pronounced like 'Neandertal'). I feel that any 'standard' is artificial, even if given by the OED, but I'd be interested to hear what you have to say, either here or on the above talk page. Thanks for the input so far. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 00:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for the input. I agree that it should stay after listening to all the comments I've received, but I suppose I just wish there was a standard to make matters easier. C'est la vie, I suppose. But at any rate, I think a good rule of thumb would be if a dictionary gives a pronunciation, we might as well use it. It can't hurt at any rate. Thanks again! Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 07:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I believe that the lily in this photo: Image:Bouquet of flowers apr07.jpg is that of the Easter Lily. Could someone please confirm? This shot of the stigma may be of use: Image:Large stigma.jpg Thanks, -- Fir0002 02:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Could someone more familiar with the subject please have a look at this article and make any required changes. It's a little confusing as there seems to be three names for this plant, and I can see this going back and forth as to what name to use. I'm very in the dark when it comes to plants, but as far as I can tell, the botanical name should be Asplenium rhizophyllum, and the way it is written now it reads like it's a synonym. If it's fine as it is, then hurrah, but it's a little confusing none-the-less. ARendedWinter 07:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello all, Melburnian invited me here. There are two species called walking fern, and each of these species has two scientific names, depending on whether they are placed in the Camptosorus or Asplenium genus. For some reason, the article kept being changed to say there is only one species of walking fern. Will someone please fix it? - L. Adair
Yes agree with EP, the text of the disambiguation page could be as follows:
Walking Fern may refer to two species of fern in the genus Asplenium which are occasionally placed in a separate genus Camptosorus:
It may also refer to:
Why the scientific name? Encyclopædia Britannica uses the common name, when possible. In any case, could the disambiguation page say what the two have in common? We should at least make it say why they are called walking fern, I think. - L. Adair
Is the synonym for Camptosorus sibiricus Asplenium sibiricum or Asplenium ruprechtii? On Google, Camptosorus sibiricus+Asplenium sibiricum gives about 10x as many results as Camptosorus sibiricus+Asplenium ruprechtii, so I think it is Asplenium sibiricum, but I am unsure. - L. Adair
I just discovered this portal. Looks like it was created earlier this month. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 20:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a DRV discussion here related to the Japanese citrus category that may benefit from your input. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/ c 20:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I've just created (stub) pages for all the genera of the Polygonaceae that I could find, and could use help in two ways:
Sorry I often seem to use this project as a ref desk, but we're going to do a 'bot update on the wikiversity bloom clock, as well as making an extension of the keys to enable searching by and for families. I'm asking because it's better not to have the bot doing corrections, but rather reserve it for adding fields. We're talking about doing the following additions, and I want to make sure they're exhaustive options (e.g., I didn't discover the need for "opposing tendril" on leaf arrangement until I got into cucurbitae and vitaceae). Here's what were talking about right now:
I guess the question is whether these options will cover all the bases (we'll add more later). Did I miss anything? -- SB_Johnny | talk 16:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I've never looked at the project, but I'm assuming that there are existing fields already there. Is pubescence already in there? If not I would think that it would be a good character type to add (glabrous, hirsute, villous, stellate, glandular etc etc.). Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 20:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me if these topics are already covered, I have not had time to look over your current project. I have used a number of keys and some of the things that stand out as characters that have been used to segregate different families include: Green plants vrs parasitic plants, land plants vrs aquatic; Ovary position - inferior, superior etc; Glabrous vrs hairy; leave opposite, whorled ect; Petals free or absent or attached to each other; Woody plants, herbaceous plants, annuals biennials or perennials; Leaves entire, lobed, dissected ect. If these are helpful I can list others but maybe this is redundant info. Hardyplants ( talk) 21:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
The number of calyx segments is not always the same as the number of corolla segments, and if you count epicalyces as a perianth whorl that adds to the variation. The apetalous genus Octolobus has 8 sepals. The rosaceous species Dryas octapetala has 8 petals. Ranunculus ficaria has 7 to 12 petals, Troillus has 5-15 of both sepals and petals, Helleborus 5-12. Several other Ranunculaceae are apetalous but have high numbers of petaloid sepals - Caltha palustris 5-8, Anemone 5-20 depending on species, Hepatica 6-10, Pulsatilla 6, Many monocots have 6 tepals, but I'm not sure whether any can't be interpreted as two whorls of three.
In general core eudicots are stereotypically 4- or 5-merous, with exceptions such as Octolobus and D. octapetala, and monocots are stereotypically 3-merous. Basal angiosperms and basal eudicots are more varied, varying either in the number of whorls (e.g. in Magnoliaceae) or in the merosity (e.g. in Ranunculaceae). Paperaveraceae often have 2 sepals, and I seem to recall there's a clade somewhere with two petals. The number of bracteoles and sepals varies more.
You can get an overview of variation if you go through the relevant pages on the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website. (Alternatively Judd et al or Heywood et al if you have access.) Lavateraguy ( talk) 22:07, 29 November 2007 (UTC)