![]() | 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 35 | ← | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 45 |
I've nominated this for deletion here as I can't find any sources about this plant. Smartse ( talk) 14:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Can someone help fill out Pimpinella? Badagnani ( talk) 17:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone identify this tree ? I made the photo at San Bartolomeo al Mare, Liguria, Italy in the month of May this year :
JoJan ( talk) 13:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm writing a paper right now on allelopathy in Solidago altissima and am performing research on allelopathy in other plants. I'm no botanist, and have no idea how to tell which authority to attribute here...but I'm assuming I would attribute Nuttall. Unfortunately, I'm thrown off by the fact that everywhere I looked, it says Euthamia graminifolia (L.) Nutt.
Does this mean there are two authorities? Here's all that Nuttall appears to have written on the species:
EUTHAMIA.
(As a section of Solidago, NUTT., Gen. Am., Vol. II., p. 162. DECAND. Prod., Vol. V., p. 341.) Flowers heterogamous; liguli minute, twice as numerous as the discal, subcampanulate florets. Capituli small, oblong or ovate; involucrum imbricate, the scales agglutinated. Receptacle deeply alveolate, fringed. Achenia oblong-ovoid, villous, contracted at the summit; pappus comose, consisting of a small number of scabrous hairs.-Perennial, much-branching herbs. with entire linear leaves; flowers corymbose in sessile clusters, yellow.- Allied to Nidorella and Brachyris, rather than to Solidago.
Euthamia graminifolia; angles of the stem and veins of the leaves minutely hirsute; leaves lanceolate-linear, three to five-nerved; corymb compound; discal florets eight to ten; liguli fifteen to twenty, shorter than the disk.
HAB. From Canada to Florida.
Source: Nuttall, T. 1841. Descriptions of new species and genera of plants in the natural order of the composite, collected in a tour across the continent to the Pacific, a residence in Oregon, and a visit to the Sandwich Islands and Upper California, during the years 1834 and 1835. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. 7:283-453.
Anyway...I'm wondering whether to write Euthamia graminifolia (L.) or Euthamia graminifolia (Nutt.). Help, anyone?
Thanks in advance... Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 03:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
A prolific contributor to Commons, Fg2 recently passed away. I've nominated one of his photographs of a Morning glory to be a Featured picture, hopefully to be featured on the Main page in his memory. Everyone at FPC wants a species or genus ID, though. The flower was tentatively IDed as an Ipomoea by a Commons user, but I have no idea if that ID is accurate. Can someone with flower expertise help with the ID? Kaldari ( talk) 14:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I've listed this category for renaming here at CFD. My suggested rename is Category:Lists of Lepidoptera by food plant, which I think makes the contents more clear, but I wonder if there is still a better name. This is more in the province of the Lepidoptera Wikiproject, but any input is appreciated. Cheers, Postdlf ( talk) 17:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
When I first started transcribing botany texts at the English Wikisource, I confined myself to texts on the flora of Australia. Cygnis insignis joined me, mostly working on illustrated material, such as Curtis's Botanical Magazine; and I joined in that too. Later I realised that much of my effort was directed towards texts of little importance. So I moved on to the works of Robert Brown; this was a step in the right direction.
Lately I have got to wondering: what are the most significant English-language botany texts of all? They must be written in English, which eliminates many immensely important works in Latin and other foreign languages, including virtually all pre-Renaissance texts. And they must be in the public domain, so not too recent. I've come up with a list of ten authors, the last two of which are obvious: Robert Brown and Charles Darwin. I'll withhold the rest to avoid steering this discussion. But authors are easier to identify than texts: e.g it is not at all easy to identify any particular work of Darwin's that is of immense botanical importance; and Brown's most significant paper presents Brownian motion, a phenomenon of little botanical significance.
Google doesn't help much here. So what do you guys think? What are the landmark English-language botany texts?
Hesperian 05:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
This has been very interesting so far, and not what I expected. I was thinking along the lines of Hale's Vegetable Staticks; Hooke's Micrographia; Grew's The Anatomy of Plants; maybe Gilbert White's Natural History and Antiquities of Selborne. i.e. anatomy and physiology rather than systematics and floras. I will definitely have to check some of these out.
Hesperian
13:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Taking it one step further is Wilhelm and Strink's "Plans of the Chicago Region." While it's a traditional flora and regionally focused, it also contains plant associations by ecosystem that are serving to guide environmental restoration efforts. The book is crucial to understanding the diversity of natural systems in the southern Great Lakes, but the ecosystem approach is one that I hope to see duplicated in future flora. MApandr ( talk) 15:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Is this picture really New York Aster or this one? -- Car Tick 01:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Can someone check whether the Arabic word khubbayza refers to Malva neglecta, or to Middle Eastern species of Malva more generally, or ...? -- Una Smith ( talk) 15:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
See Commons:Talk:Oxalis regnellii for the background info we could dig up. . Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 22:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
List of domesticated plants lists knotweed as a legume, but knotweed redirects to Polygonum. Is listing knotweed as a legume a mistake, or is there a legume that goes under that name? (BTW, knotweed might be suitable for a disambiguation page, given that it's applied to plants spread over several genera.) Lavateraguy ( talk) 11:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Can we all agree that Category:Phycologists is the correct name, since (1) it combines two Greek elements, and (2) No one in the field uses the term "algologist"? -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 16:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I've started a Cfr at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_15#Category:Algologists. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 20:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
A user has suggested expanding our article based on the content of the Spanish Wikipedia article (which is featured there). The content they have (that we lack) consists largely of a decent looking section on monocot evolution, as well as a list of major groups (with pics and descriptions). I know enough about both monocots and Spanish to translate the additional material. Do members of the PLANTS group think this expansion would be worthwhile? -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 01:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Let me say of front: plants are not my forte. Not even my mezzoforte.
I recently visited the Bloedel Reserve and took quite a few photos, which I am uploading at Commons:Category:Bloedel Reserve. I am guessing that quite a few of these show relatively rare plants, and that the addition of some species names in descriptions and categories would be appropriate. If anyone cares to help out, that would be great. - Jmabel | Talk 22:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I can't imagine why only 3 pictures show up for you; I see 31, of which 30 are mine. Is anyone else having a problem with that page.
The Echeveria was identified for my by a professional horticulturalist who was there at the time. I'd be inclined to guess she knew what she was talking about, but it is of course always possible that she was mistaken. - Jmabel | Talk 01:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Join the fun at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Horticulture_and_Gardening#Plantpot_.3F.3F Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I made this photo in Sanremo, italy in May 2009. Can anyone help with identification ?
Thanks. JoJan ( talk) 15:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Anyone more familiar with these kinds of terms care to take a stab at this stubby article? There's a disputed tag and a comment on the talk page regarding the proper use of the term. Any ideas? -- Rkitko ( talk) 17:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's one I haven't seen before: Drake-Brockmania and Pechuel-Loeschea. IPNI uses lowercase after the hyphen, e.g. Drake-brockmania, but a google search turns up both capitalization styles. Anyone know the rule on this or proper usage? -- Rkitko ( talk) 22:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I see this as an area where we might legitimately adopt a convention, which, I would hope, would be to lowercase all letters except the first.
Hesperian
23:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The entire ICBN is available online at http://ibot.sav.sk/icbn/main.htm and even includes a subject index. Hyphenated generic names are permitted and the ICBN specifically addresses them: see Art. 20.3 and Art. 60.9, Note 3. Note that they are treated differently from hyphenated epithets, and can be changed only by conservation. Note also that in all examples given, the first letter of the second word in the generic epithet (i.e., the letter immediately following the hyphen) is lower case.
[8] Time to update our articles on classification? I can nab the pdf for anyone if they want it. --
Rkitko (
talk)
12:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Didn't realize - they also published a handful of other papers in the same volume:
I can get these, too. Send me a Wikipedia e-mail if you need these. Rkitko ( talk) 17:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I've added the classification down to ordinal level to the APG III system page, trying to maintain the style of the pages on the earlier versions. It's slightly awkward to show that the Berberidopsidales, Caryophyllales and Santalales aren't included in the rosids or asterids while keeping them between these groups, as per APG III. Currently I've put in “(back to core eudicots)” -- what do others think? However I really think that the set of APG-related pages is a mess. Having separate pages for Angiosperm Phylogeny Group, APG system, APG II system and APG III system seems to me to cause a number of problems, such as:
Why not have a single article on ‘the’ APG system? Peter coxhead ( talk) 17:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I wonder... With all the rich taxonomic information on Carya illinoinensis that's missing from our current article (summarized here, and could be expanded upon when the proposals/disposals site returns), would this be a good place to use our WP:FLORA naming convention and split a botanical article from the horticultural and commercial use? It wouldn't seem to fit at the current article. -- Rkitko ( talk) 23:04, 31 October 2009 (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 35 | ← | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 45 |
I've nominated this for deletion here as I can't find any sources about this plant. Smartse ( talk) 14:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Can someone help fill out Pimpinella? Badagnani ( talk) 17:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone identify this tree ? I made the photo at San Bartolomeo al Mare, Liguria, Italy in the month of May this year :
JoJan ( talk) 13:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm writing a paper right now on allelopathy in Solidago altissima and am performing research on allelopathy in other plants. I'm no botanist, and have no idea how to tell which authority to attribute here...but I'm assuming I would attribute Nuttall. Unfortunately, I'm thrown off by the fact that everywhere I looked, it says Euthamia graminifolia (L.) Nutt.
Does this mean there are two authorities? Here's all that Nuttall appears to have written on the species:
EUTHAMIA.
(As a section of Solidago, NUTT., Gen. Am., Vol. II., p. 162. DECAND. Prod., Vol. V., p. 341.) Flowers heterogamous; liguli minute, twice as numerous as the discal, subcampanulate florets. Capituli small, oblong or ovate; involucrum imbricate, the scales agglutinated. Receptacle deeply alveolate, fringed. Achenia oblong-ovoid, villous, contracted at the summit; pappus comose, consisting of a small number of scabrous hairs.-Perennial, much-branching herbs. with entire linear leaves; flowers corymbose in sessile clusters, yellow.- Allied to Nidorella and Brachyris, rather than to Solidago.
Euthamia graminifolia; angles of the stem and veins of the leaves minutely hirsute; leaves lanceolate-linear, three to five-nerved; corymb compound; discal florets eight to ten; liguli fifteen to twenty, shorter than the disk.
HAB. From Canada to Florida.
Source: Nuttall, T. 1841. Descriptions of new species and genera of plants in the natural order of the composite, collected in a tour across the continent to the Pacific, a residence in Oregon, and a visit to the Sandwich Islands and Upper California, during the years 1834 and 1835. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. 7:283-453.
Anyway...I'm wondering whether to write Euthamia graminifolia (L.) or Euthamia graminifolia (Nutt.). Help, anyone?
Thanks in advance... Bob the Wikipedian ( talk • contribs) 03:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
A prolific contributor to Commons, Fg2 recently passed away. I've nominated one of his photographs of a Morning glory to be a Featured picture, hopefully to be featured on the Main page in his memory. Everyone at FPC wants a species or genus ID, though. The flower was tentatively IDed as an Ipomoea by a Commons user, but I have no idea if that ID is accurate. Can someone with flower expertise help with the ID? Kaldari ( talk) 14:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I've listed this category for renaming here at CFD. My suggested rename is Category:Lists of Lepidoptera by food plant, which I think makes the contents more clear, but I wonder if there is still a better name. This is more in the province of the Lepidoptera Wikiproject, but any input is appreciated. Cheers, Postdlf ( talk) 17:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
When I first started transcribing botany texts at the English Wikisource, I confined myself to texts on the flora of Australia. Cygnis insignis joined me, mostly working on illustrated material, such as Curtis's Botanical Magazine; and I joined in that too. Later I realised that much of my effort was directed towards texts of little importance. So I moved on to the works of Robert Brown; this was a step in the right direction.
Lately I have got to wondering: what are the most significant English-language botany texts of all? They must be written in English, which eliminates many immensely important works in Latin and other foreign languages, including virtually all pre-Renaissance texts. And they must be in the public domain, so not too recent. I've come up with a list of ten authors, the last two of which are obvious: Robert Brown and Charles Darwin. I'll withhold the rest to avoid steering this discussion. But authors are easier to identify than texts: e.g it is not at all easy to identify any particular work of Darwin's that is of immense botanical importance; and Brown's most significant paper presents Brownian motion, a phenomenon of little botanical significance.
Google doesn't help much here. So what do you guys think? What are the landmark English-language botany texts?
Hesperian 05:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
This has been very interesting so far, and not what I expected. I was thinking along the lines of Hale's Vegetable Staticks; Hooke's Micrographia; Grew's The Anatomy of Plants; maybe Gilbert White's Natural History and Antiquities of Selborne. i.e. anatomy and physiology rather than systematics and floras. I will definitely have to check some of these out.
Hesperian
13:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Taking it one step further is Wilhelm and Strink's "Plans of the Chicago Region." While it's a traditional flora and regionally focused, it also contains plant associations by ecosystem that are serving to guide environmental restoration efforts. The book is crucial to understanding the diversity of natural systems in the southern Great Lakes, but the ecosystem approach is one that I hope to see duplicated in future flora. MApandr ( talk) 15:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Is this picture really New York Aster or this one? -- Car Tick 01:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Can someone check whether the Arabic word khubbayza refers to Malva neglecta, or to Middle Eastern species of Malva more generally, or ...? -- Una Smith ( talk) 15:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
See Commons:Talk:Oxalis regnellii for the background info we could dig up. . Dysmorodrepanis ( talk) 22:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
List of domesticated plants lists knotweed as a legume, but knotweed redirects to Polygonum. Is listing knotweed as a legume a mistake, or is there a legume that goes under that name? (BTW, knotweed might be suitable for a disambiguation page, given that it's applied to plants spread over several genera.) Lavateraguy ( talk) 11:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Can we all agree that Category:Phycologists is the correct name, since (1) it combines two Greek elements, and (2) No one in the field uses the term "algologist"? -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 16:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I've started a Cfr at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_15#Category:Algologists. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 20:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
A user has suggested expanding our article based on the content of the Spanish Wikipedia article (which is featured there). The content they have (that we lack) consists largely of a decent looking section on monocot evolution, as well as a list of major groups (with pics and descriptions). I know enough about both monocots and Spanish to translate the additional material. Do members of the PLANTS group think this expansion would be worthwhile? -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 01:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Let me say of front: plants are not my forte. Not even my mezzoforte.
I recently visited the Bloedel Reserve and took quite a few photos, which I am uploading at Commons:Category:Bloedel Reserve. I am guessing that quite a few of these show relatively rare plants, and that the addition of some species names in descriptions and categories would be appropriate. If anyone cares to help out, that would be great. - Jmabel | Talk 22:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I can't imagine why only 3 pictures show up for you; I see 31, of which 30 are mine. Is anyone else having a problem with that page.
The Echeveria was identified for my by a professional horticulturalist who was there at the time. I'd be inclined to guess she knew what she was talking about, but it is of course always possible that she was mistaken. - Jmabel | Talk 01:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Join the fun at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Horticulture_and_Gardening#Plantpot_.3F.3F Casliber ( talk · contribs) 12:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
I made this photo in Sanremo, italy in May 2009. Can anyone help with identification ?
Thanks. JoJan ( talk) 15:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Anyone more familiar with these kinds of terms care to take a stab at this stubby article? There's a disputed tag and a comment on the talk page regarding the proper use of the term. Any ideas? -- Rkitko ( talk) 17:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Here's one I haven't seen before: Drake-Brockmania and Pechuel-Loeschea. IPNI uses lowercase after the hyphen, e.g. Drake-brockmania, but a google search turns up both capitalization styles. Anyone know the rule on this or proper usage? -- Rkitko ( talk) 22:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
I see this as an area where we might legitimately adopt a convention, which, I would hope, would be to lowercase all letters except the first.
Hesperian
23:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The entire ICBN is available online at http://ibot.sav.sk/icbn/main.htm and even includes a subject index. Hyphenated generic names are permitted and the ICBN specifically addresses them: see Art. 20.3 and Art. 60.9, Note 3. Note that they are treated differently from hyphenated epithets, and can be changed only by conservation. Note also that in all examples given, the first letter of the second word in the generic epithet (i.e., the letter immediately following the hyphen) is lower case.
[8] Time to update our articles on classification? I can nab the pdf for anyone if they want it. --
Rkitko (
talk)
12:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Didn't realize - they also published a handful of other papers in the same volume:
I can get these, too. Send me a Wikipedia e-mail if you need these. Rkitko ( talk) 17:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I've added the classification down to ordinal level to the APG III system page, trying to maintain the style of the pages on the earlier versions. It's slightly awkward to show that the Berberidopsidales, Caryophyllales and Santalales aren't included in the rosids or asterids while keeping them between these groups, as per APG III. Currently I've put in “(back to core eudicots)” -- what do others think? However I really think that the set of APG-related pages is a mess. Having separate pages for Angiosperm Phylogeny Group, APG system, APG II system and APG III system seems to me to cause a number of problems, such as:
Why not have a single article on ‘the’ APG system? Peter coxhead ( talk) 17:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I wonder... With all the rich taxonomic information on Carya illinoinensis that's missing from our current article (summarized here, and could be expanded upon when the proposals/disposals site returns), would this be a good place to use our WP:FLORA naming convention and split a botanical article from the horticultural and commercial use? It wouldn't seem to fit at the current article. -- Rkitko ( talk) 23:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)