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 60 | ← | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | → | Archive 70 |
Hi WikiProject Plants,
The Wiki Education Foundation wants to know what it can do to empower editors who work on science-related content on Wikipedia.
If you're familiar with Wiki Ed, it's likely by way of our classroom program, which grew out of the Wikipedia Education Program and through which we provide support for instructors and students who work on Wikipedia as part of a class assignment. This post is about something different, though. We'll be continuing to develop that program, of course, but we also want to start working on ways to help the existing Wikipedia community directly.
In 2016, Wiki Ed will be running a campaign tentatively titled, "Wikipedia Year of Science". The goal, generally stated, will be to improve the content and coverage of science-related content on Wikipedia ("science" interpreted loosely). Whereas our classroom program, as with many other extra-organizational initiatives, is premised on attracting and/or training new users, my aim is to figure out the sorts of things we can do to help the editors who are already engaged in the improvement of science content. The question is indeed wide open, but think about it this way: we have staff and a lot of institutional connections; how can we use our resources and relationships to support you? For example, is there a special collection of photos we should try to get on Commons? What about a document archive? Databases or specific journals? Organizationally, is there software that could be built that would help people working on these topics? What kinds of research could we conduct or help to organize that would help you to work more effectively? What are ways we can connect you with other human resources -- experts, for example (though, again, this is not intended to be an outreach program)? How could we motivate people to contribute, whether it be adding content, improving content, conducting reviews, adding images, improving sourcing, or any other part of the process? How can we get more plant-related articles to FA/GA? How could we help you to spend more of your time working on things you find fun and interesting and less time on process, organization, and functionary duties?
These questions are really just intended to get the ball rolling as this really is a nascent idea. So all ideas are welcome: big, small, obvious, obscure, ambitious, simple, technical, organizational.... I want to be clear that this is not just some survey -- the feedback I get will help to give shape to the "Year of Science" campaign.
I should also mention that this community engagement program we're starting isn't limited to the Year of Science campaign. Researching and planning it is high on my priority list right now, but we can also talk about shorter- or longer-term projects you may have in mind, too.
Apologies for the long message and thanks for your time. Looking forward to hearing what you think. -- Ryan (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 03:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC) (volunteer account: User:Rhododendrites)
What do you reckon? Draft:Branch attachment. Best, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 19:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps someone who is interested in botanists and botanical literature might fancy a potentially large project working partly outside wikipedia, but probably also untangling some of the most confused parts of the wiki, particularly (I think) those related to cultivated plants. It would be necessary to read some Latin and probably various other languages, and it would be slow work. I think this would require a strong eventualist philosophy, because there is no systematic way to complete the task, but it could be enormously helpful here and to all the databases that are built on, or depend on IPNI, the International Plant Names Index, such as World Checklist of Selected Plant Families, The Plant List, all the flora projects around the world, and even the underfunded IUCN Red List.
In a recent interaction with the editors of IPNI I was told "The IPNI lacks 1000s pre-1970 infrasp names, and we have been adding them [now, one less to add!]". Perhaps IPNI will catch up eventually, but in the meantime there are lots of missing variety (and presumably forma) names, and lots of confusion. For example, Citrus medica L. var. dulcis Risso et Poit. and the synonym Citrus limonum Risso var. dulcis Moris are listed at the authoritative site Sorting Citrus Names, but are missing from IPNI. I suspect that Sorting Citrus Names all by itself is probably a rich source of names that are missing from IPNI.
To sort out examples like that would require working from the authority names to find the literature those people wrote, and if it is available to see if there is a description that satisfies the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants. For example, there is just one of Moris' works in the Biodiversity Heritage Library, although several are listed in TL-2. However that one has an index at the back, and on page 312 describes a number of varieties of Citrus limonum which perhaps someone might like to carefully check and report to IPNI using their "contact us" link. Perhaps Moris described the same varieties in earlier works, but using only the publication that is accessible still gives information that should be added to IPNI. There are, of course, complications about whether the description is adequate, particularly article 40 of the code of nomenclature, article 41, etc. Sometimes there is only a weird inadequate description such as "This tree was brought to Britain by the Romans" or "This variety differs from other varieties of the species", so those have to be ignored because they say nothing that could be used to recognize the plant. Many old descriptions use letters of the Greek alphabet such as β, λ in front of the variety name, or as in this case **, ***, etc., which is fine and is interpreted as a variety description (by article 32).
It is certainly a daunting task to chase down any of these, but perhaps could be more fun than some simpler, faster, computer games ... If anyone would like to try this game, I'm happy to offer any advice that I can. Just a thought. Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 16:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Are celery stalks phyllodes? Does anyone have an RS for the petiole article that the rhubarb stalks are phyllodes? FloraWilde ( talk) 20:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I can't seem to find any button for showing talk page archives. Am I blind, or is it missing? FloraWilde ( talk) 16:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, all. Does anyone have strong opinions on the best ways to break up large genera categories? I ask because some categories like Category:Bulbophyllum are a bit on the large size. One way to subdivide a genus is by a (hopefully stable) infrageneric classification. There is a series of such categories for Category:Cattleya, but in such a relatively small genus, I thought it wasn't necessary and brought the category tree to CfD: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 June 8#Cattleya infrageneric categories. There's a similar category tree for Category:Epidendrum and while we currently only have about 100 articles on Epidendrum species, there's room for a good deal of growth. The only thing to look out for here is WP:SMALLCAT, categories on subgenera, sections, subsections, or series that will never contain many articles. Thoughts? Rkitko ( talk) 00:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The mycorrhiza article says, "Mycorrhizal mycelia are much smaller in diameter than the smallest root, and thus can explore a greater volume of soil, providing a larger surface area for absorption". This implies water is conducted along mycelia into the roots. Do mycelia act as vascular tissue? FloraWilde ( talk) 22:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Jepson 2nd ed. (2012) moved 8 California occurring species of genus Coreopsis to genus Leptosyne, and kept 2 species in Coreopsis. (Jepson2 now has C. lanceolata, C. tinctoria, then L. bigelovii, L. californica, L. calliopsiea, L. douglasii, L. gigantea, L. hamiltonii, L. maritima, and L. stillmanii.) Jepson2's last note for genus L. is "Formerly in polyphyletic Coreopsis". User:Stemonitis points out [1]] that FNA still has the species as C. bigelovii, not L. bigelovii. Does anyone have any clarification? If the Jepson2 treatment is accepted, did this remove all species causing Coreopsis to be polyphyletic? FloraWilde ( talk) 23:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
There is a requested move at
Talk:Nepeta cataria#Requested move 15 June 2015. Members of this project are invited to particpate.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk)
02:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Some of you may wish to voice your opinion at Talk:Sex#Sex, facing ambiguity, where some are proposing that the "general" article on sex be made to cover the act of intercourse instead of the general biological process. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 04:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
There are a few that look the same. Does anyone know which this is? Thank you. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 09:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Having returned from a short trip to the Galapagos and having managed to identify most of my natural history photos, I was interested in which species had Wikipedia articles. The results were:
I guess this reflects the generally lower level of interest in plants as compared to animals. Anyway, it creates opportunities for more article creation... Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Right are three photos of what I believe to be from Antennaria but not sure if A. neglecta or A. microphylla or something else. Identification help would be appreciated. These were taken in the dry north section of Yellowstone (el. ~ 5500ft) near the Gardner River on June 17. They were in a very rocky area with little to no large vegetation, just grasses and prickly pear. Thanks -- Mike Cline ( talk) 13:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
It seems to be traditional to describe the fruit of some genera as a "utricle" ( Alternanthera is where I recently came across this). The Utricle article is a disambiguation page, and for the botanical use says "a type of dry fruit similar to an achene". Accordingly in the Alternanthera article, "utricle" is wikilinked to Achene. Can someone enlighten me on what exactly the difference is, if any, between a "utricle" and an "achene"? The Kew Plant Glossary doesn't give the fruit sense at all, the nearest being the prophyll around the nutlet in some genera of Cyperaceae. Other books I have that do define both terms do so in a way that seems to me to make them synonymous. Peter coxhead ( talk) 21:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.-- Lucas559 ( talk) 22:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Please see Template talk:Trade designation#Proposed font style. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi there! I have a photographer friend who uploaded a myriad of high-quality pictures of flora from the Montreal Botanical Garden's greenhouses, and he told me he's willing to re-license them under CC-BY-SA-2.0 (for Commons use) if you guys help me identify exactly what they are, so we can use them across Wikimedia projects! They're in this Flickr album. Please me know!!! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
ID please. J e e 05:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
What gender is Schinus? I just came across a new article, Schinus lentiscifolius. Both that spelling and Schinus lentiscifolia are in The Plant List (as are several other binomial with both masculine/feminine versions). ARS-GRIN taxonomy goes with feminine endings, and Tropicos has a note for Schinus terebinthifolia that the original spelling was " Schinus terebinthifolius" (and Tropicos another note in Schinus itself that it should be feminine). As you can see from the red-link, Wikipedia is going with masculine endings, and not all feminine redirects have been created (but maybe articles need to be moved). I'm assuming feminine is correct from the sources I've examined, but wanted to make sure before I started moving stuff around. Plantdrew ( talk) 22:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
And another thing. Is it worth listing Schinus myricoides as the basionym of Cuscuta myricoides on the Schinus page? I was puzzled as to how a Cuscuta could have first been described as a Schinus (although GRIN explains it). Plantdrew ( talk) 22:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Lewis & Short in their 1958 A Latin Dictionary (which is large!) list Schinus with "f, the mastic tree", so it does seem to be a classical Latin word. Nicholas Turland 2013 The Code Decoded: A user's guide to the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, p. 96, makes a point of explaining how the adjectival epithets in such genera should be corrected to agree with the feminine noun. He lists Agaricus and Astragalus as masculine, and the trees "tend to be feminine (Aesculus, Quercus, Prunus, Ulmus)". I think IPNI should be corrected, but have noticed what seems to be reluctance from the editors there to make such changes. I wonder if they know about some upcoming proposal to amend the code of nomenclature to make it de rigeur to use whatever form the original author used ... I'd suggest using feminine forms here and citing Tropicos and GRIN for that choice, wherever possible. Perhaps we can act as a bulwark against barbarism such as the lead image here. Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 13:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Sidenote: not of relevance to the botanical name, but this Cypriot site uses the feminine in its (Modern) Greek text; the Greek Wikipedia at el:Σχίνος the masculine. Cypriot Greek tends to be more conservative, so I suspect preserves the Classical feminine form. Peter coxhead ( talk) 13:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Schinus polygama now has a draft of an explanation, hanging on the fact that IPNI says that that species name should be corrected. A bold suggestion that would set a precedent for other genus names, is that we could make a statement on the wikiproject page that botanical tradition (IPNI) being mixed, we choose to follow the classical tradition by correcting all the adjectival species epithets in Schinus to feminine. By the way, Commons had already changed the spelling to S. polygama. Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 14:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I had an editor come by my talk page requesting assistance IDing some photos. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with their flora and the resolution isn't that great, so aside from a Centaurea, I'm not very sure what they've got. Does anybody else have any ideas? MMSplant001.JPG, MMSplant002.JPG, MMSplant003.JPG, MMSplant004.JPG, MMSplant005.JPG, MMSplant006.JPG and MMSplant007.JPG. Plantdrew ( talk) 22:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I think it's unfortunate that comments on talk pages with few (or no) watchers sit unanswered for years. Wikipedia:WikiProject X is working on new tools for WikiProject, including one that monitors new topics on talk pages with in a project's scope. You can see this in action for Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary Biology. I also just noticed that WikiProject Oregon has used a different approach to monitor talk pages. Their project banner adds Category:WikiProject Oregon pages to all pages, so all talk page changes can be viewed via this link. The problem with that approach versus the WikiProject X tool is that it captures everything, and most of the changes are reassessments that don't require any response.
Is there any interest here in signing WikiProject Plants up for WikiProject X tools or in creating a master category for all project articles? At present, we can kind of go the Oregon route by looking at changes in each assessment category (e.g. see stub talk changes here). I assume almost all of the pages with few watchers will be stub or start class so there's really only two categories that need checking and a master category may be unneccessary. I intend to start checking stub and start talk pages somewhat regularly, but I don't know if anybody else would be interested in doing so. Plantdrew ( talk) 17:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Please help get Draft:Desmodium oojeinense into acceptable shape. The text is confusing with several different names being mentioned. It probably also needs a Taxobox. If you do not wish to edit it directly please post comments on the talk page. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 10:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi folks, back in the day (~2009) I remember a place I could ask an expert to identify a flower within a photo. If that still exists, can someone point me in that direction? I have a photo of a flower that I'd like identified. I poked around a little bit here and the plant portal, but didn't see anything. Much appreciated! -- Matt Wade 03:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
There's some discussion at T. chebula that could use some WP Plants eyes as I am not familiar with WP Plants. I think I've said the right thing, but I am not familiar with the article standards. Right now there is an editor (currently IP) who is discussing my removal of a paragraph of some dozen or so Indic names for the plant and while I am quite sure the removal is correct I would appreciate someone who could make sure I've got the information/style guide issues sorted properly. Ogress smash! 03:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I haven't found any other relevant discussion on this one so I will bring it here. Taxoboxes serve two useful purposes - an easily accessible summary of the taxonomy, and also a navigation aid. Traditionally they were used on pages dealing directly describing a taxon, e.g. Liliaceae. Since I started writing detailed subpages on the taxonomy of complex taxa (e.g. Taxonomy of Liliaceae), it seemed logical to include a copy of the taxobox on that page as well, for the above reasons, and if it deserves to be anywhere one might think this would be the most appropriate place for it.
So I was startled to find their removal and the reason given was that the tradition was only to include them on taxon pages not taxonomy pages. This seemed illogical to me, however the other editor was agreeable to having a group discussion and perhaps developing a concensus, that could be incorporated into our guidance. There is some urgency on this since that particular page is under GA review. -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 16:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Currently, Endangered plants redirects to Endangered species, which says very little about plants. Can somebody get together an actual article on endangered plants? Cheers! bd2412 T 01:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see WT:FUNGI#Merger of two genera (back in 2000!), big mess — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone have any idea what this might be? Thank you for any information you can offer. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 08:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
There is also image "A" showing the side. I'm not sure if that helps. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 08:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm deeply intrigued by the yellowish-golden fluid it seems to be exsuding. Is that typical of any Calvatis/Bovista species? Circéus ( talk) 11:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
It would be great if folks could comment as to whether this article currently meets FA criteria at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Georg Forster/archive1. cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 05:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, |
Hi, all -- The article berry is today's article for improvement. It certainly could use some work, but there appears to be some thought that the article should emphasize the colloquial usage instead of the correct botanical definition. Any sourcing or improvements you could make would be appreciated. Cheers, Rkitko ( talk) 14:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
The original version of "Berry" has now been renamed as Berry (botany), so at least we have an article covering the botanical sense.
However, a huge number of links exist to "Berry". Since they were created when the botanical version was there, many are wrong and need fixing.
"What links here" shows up links to "Berry" from templates, like {{ Non-timber forest products}}, so it looks as though there's a link to "Berry" in the text when there isn't. Anyone know how to exclude links in templates from "What links here"? Peter coxhead ( talk) 06:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
As Plantsurfer first noticed, there are differences in how our articles describe the fruit of Cornaceae, especially Cornus species. These differences seem to follow different uses in sources:
Any botanists care to venture a view? Peter coxhead ( talk) 14:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello plant experts. This old draft will soon be deleted unless someone takes an interest in it. Is this a topic that should have an article? Or is it already covered somewhere under another title?— Anne Delong ( talk) 17:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
The issue of single versus double marks to indicate a cultivar recently came up at Talk:Perovskia atriplicifolia/GA1. The convention in botany is to use single marks around cultivar names such as Longin and 'Blue Spire', but should I follow this here? RO (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Could we get some feedback at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 7#How plants make food? Thanks. -- BDD ( talk) 17:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
On a few of the pepper pages I noticed that there were requests to add cultivar infoboxes; there is already the pepper infobox though; so I created Template:Infobox pepper/sandbox (haven't updated the documentation) and Template:Infobox pepper/testcases to add in the cultivar infobox information to the pepper infobox, as well as change the heat scale graphic to be objectively tied to the scoville scale listing as according to the current infobox documentation. As the requests were from WikiProject Plants I thought I should put this here, unless there is a better place to get more review of and discussion of purposed changes to an infobox? Falconjh ( talk) 17:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
could someone add Conyza canadens to Conyza list on Conyza page 207.177.82.193 ( talk) 03:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
1. It was just drawn to my attention that WP:TX permits only one name at the top of the box. Personally I thought allowing both a scientific name and a vernacular name (when not obvious) was quite a good idea, but the vernacular was removed. One criticism of this project is that it is written by botanists for botanists, so there is a case for sometimes including both scientific and vernacular names.
2. On the other hand, as an extension of this, I recently came across a number of taxoboxes with several names, because they included the names in a number of different languages. I had started to remove them, relegating them to the text, but thought I should check in here first. I could see why, for a plant native to Russia for example, someone might want to include the Russian name, but I think that is already covered by having a languages sidebar on every Wikipedia page, which allows a quick check on the name in other languages. I can also see a place for using other languages in the text where relevant (for instance discussing why narcissi are called Easter Bells in German), but not in a taxobox. -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 13:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Just asking, should a section about 'How to plant' is necessary to all plant articles? Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The article on Asa Gray is currently ranked as B, but upon casual review I think it could easily be a contender for Good Article or possibly even Featured Article. I'm not familiar enough with Gray's life to assess how ready it is, or what might be lacking, so I probably won't personally be nominating it any time soon, but want to motivate and encourage someone more knowledgeable to get it recognized, as there are relatively few Good Article biologist biographies and even fewer Featured biology biographies. Let's get more quality bio bios the recognition they deserve! --Animalparty! ( talk) 19:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm unsure what to do about Citrus micrantha Wester. The page for kaffir lime (Citrus hystrix DC.) shows it as a synonym, but Talk:Citrus micrantha shows that this is disputed by User:Offnfopt, who has sources. As it stands now, the article is just a taxobox with no categories except the obligatory "Articles with 'species' microformats". I'm letting Offnfopt know about this thread. Thanks, Hamamelis ( talk) 16:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
While I'm at it: is it kosher, copyright-wise, to nick the whole botanical description from the original source, like i just did [3]? For what it's worth, the source is from 1915 and the author died in 1931, so it might actually be in the public domain. (Of course, I attributed it). I don't quite feel like paraphrasing what is pretty dry, list-y prose. No such user ( talk) 12:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't help with C. micrantha, but this 2015 article shows that insight about the Citrus problem is coming. For what it can offer, it would be a good citation. Presumably, the various databases will build on its information soon. Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 15:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Needs at least a stub, that distinguishes it from race (biology), forma specialis, cultivar, and other infraspecific ranks and terms. The term is already redlinked in articles, e.g. Stem rust. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
The usage of Grain is under discussion, see talk:food grain -- 70.51.202.113 ( talk) 05:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Can someone have a look at Atlantic Giant? It seems as though the article was rewritten in 2014 in an NPOV manner, and now consists of an intro that does not reveal the topic of the article, but instead is a criticism of the name. Also see the talk page. -- 70.51.202.113 ( talk) 06:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Apologies for asking a question which is undoubtedly complex, from the great depth of my ignorance about template design. At Talk:Petunia integrifolia#Redirects needed? and cruft, if I understand it correctly without having a mobile device to test it on, there is discussion of a display problem with the citation attached to the authority list in the taxobox. Perhaps the problem is only when editing, I'm not sure. Would it be feasible to add a parameter to the taxobox template, called authority_ref or binomial_ref, that would work in a similar manner to synonyms_ref? The reason I'd like this to happen, is that the fundamental databases such as The International Plant Names Index get too little credit for their vital work, and it would be nice for wikipedia to set a higher standard about that. It would also be helpful to set a standard that would work to reduce the number of poor sources that are already cited for that line in taxoboxen. Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 14:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
|synonyms_ref=
because the reference mark must end up in one of the title bars in the taxobox, rather than in the content. All that |authority_ref=
would do is to place the reference mark where it would appear if placed directly in the content.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
16:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Trying to expand Helonias. Sutter, Robert D. "The Status of Helonias Bullata L. (Liliaceae) in the Southern Appalachians." Castanea 49.1 (1984): 9-16. JSTOR. Web. 21 Sept. 2015. Seems like a good source; haven't read it yet. Will be looking for some more later. Khzzang9 ( talk) 05:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Since 2010 there has been a template {{ Species abbreviation}} which has been added to many disambiguation pages to provide links to the various species names or disambiguation pages which use the word in question (examples include Vanzolinii and Sylvestre).
In a Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_27#Template:Species_abbreviation deletion discussion in April 2015 the consensus appeared to be that it should be replaced by something better, but the close was as "delete". Some instances have already been deleted, but there is now a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Species_abbreviations. If you have opinions on the best way forward, please join that discussion. Thanks. Pam D 21:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
~~
Xb2u7Zjzc32 (
talk)
09:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
According to Microsorum scolopendria the term Phymatosorus scolopendria is synonymous. Because there are 2 items in Wikidata ( Microsorium scolopendrium and Phymatosorus scolopendria) the language links don't show all the references. Therefore I'd like to merge the Wikidata items, but I don't know, which term should be the preferred one. Can somebody help me with this? Best, -- ThT ( talk) 12:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I'm curious whether someone interested in botany can tell more about this tree from the image alone (e.g., genus, possible diseases, etc.)? Thank you. Sb2s3 ( talk) 07:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello all; I'm writing on behalf of the Wiki Education Foundation, which works with instructors who assign university students to write or edit Wikipedia articles in the United States and Canada. We're developing a print handbook for students who will write or expand articles on living species, including plants and fungi. I'd appreciate any feedback on the draft! It is open for comment until November 5th; after that we will set it to print. Thanks so much! Eryk (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 22:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I've just made a stub from what I could find about the use of the term Alliance (biology), and it seems to be an entirely informal grouping similar to a rank, but used more or less to mean a taxonomic puzzle that the authors are trying to untangle. However, orchid articles about genera often have an Alliance line in the taxobox (e.g., Ascocenda, Anacamptis, Brassia, Eria). I don't know what organization has defined these alliances; they are not discussed in the ICNCP. Can someone versed in Orchid taxonomy help with this? Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 21:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
In Malveae alliance is a informal rank intermediate between subtribe and genus. In Thymelaeaceae genera are collected into groups.
I seem to recall that there's something in the ICN about people being allowed to introduce non-standard intermediate ranks. Proles is an example of such an intraspecific rank. Lavateraguy ( talk) 22:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I propose that Alliance lines be removed from the taxoboxes of Orchidaceae. Salazar, G.A.; Chase, M.W.; Soto Arenas, M.A.; Ingrouille, M. (2003),
"Phylogenetics of Cranichideae with emphasis on Spiranthinae (Orchidaceae, Orchidoideae): evidence from plastid and nuclear DNA sequences", American Journal of Botany, 90 (5): 777–795{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) shows not only that the most recent delimitations of alliances correspond poorly to clades, but that the numbers and boundaries of alliances have been redrawn quite differently at different times. Opinions are invited.
Sminthopsis84 (
talk)
19:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Just stopping by since I saw this old discussion while I was here, but yes, orchid alliances have not really been used since the last great Dressler classification of the family in the mid-1990s. Few of his arrangements have held up to molecular phylogenetic analysis and newer publications have a great deal of support for rearranging the tribes and subtribes. I believe that when most of the orchid taxoboxes were created on Wikipedia, the reference most often used was Dressler's classification. I've updated what I could in the area I was working in, see Cymbidiinae and the genera contained within for accurate taxoboxes. I would wager that the majority of orchid taxoboxes use the outdated alliances, which means the category system might also be a mess. There is certainly fertile ground for whomever wants to tackle such an issue. Rkitko ( talk) 02:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia's 5 millionth article is Persoonia terminalis thanks to Casliber ( talk · contribs). There was a bit of a race involving Turkish villages, camera models, plant species and other topics at the run-up to 5 million. I'm glad to see a taxon article made the mark, and especially pleased that it was a plant. Yay! Plantdrew ( talk) 06:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I want to reverse a Move from species to subsp., no longer considered valid as the subsp. has now been sunk as insufficiently distinct from the species. See: /info/en/?search=Talk:Ulmus_minor_subsp._minor_%27Variegata%27 I've managed to revert all the other U. minor cultivar pages, but this one was moved from species to subsp. some time ago. Assistance much appreciated. Regards, Ptelea ( talk) 11:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The article names in Category:Potato cultivars are a mess with some simply being the name ( Bintje) others have potato after them ( Skerry Champion potato) and others use brackets ( Melody (potato)). Many do need more than the name but is there any preference for having potato bracketed? It's certainly the way that biographies etc are named. This also led me wonder whether we have a way of determining the notability of cultivars - for example the Skerry Champion doesn't appear to have an RS coverage so should probably be deleted, but very few meet WP:GNG which makes things a bit tricky. SmartSE ( talk) 22:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The plant project's default practice of naming plant articles with the scientific name obviously could introduce a complication. The argument for doing so is pretty strong when a given plant species has a dozen common names that vary regionally, but seems to be much weaker when it comes to names of cultivars of things that clearly do have a single WP:COMMONNAME. An article title like Solanum tuberosum 'Melody' would be of dubious utility to many readers (but not zero of them, since that exact phrase occurs in published literature). We don't seem to be naming that way, and instead are using the ICNCP name in article prose [mostly] where it makes encyclopedic sense to do so. It also seems to make sense at Commons, which is multilingual. So, it probably should not be a redlink here, and WP:NATDIS would have us move Melody (potato) to Melody potato, which is even more unreasonably a redlink right now. It nice to see that ICNCP conventions, which apply to extended scientific names, are not being used inappropriately to create Frankenstein constructions like 'Melody' potato or 'Melody' (potato), which we need not create redirs for. I'm skeptical anyone would post "I put a 'Granny Smith' apple in my daughter's lunchbox" on a child nutrition forum, even if they were an apple horticulur[al]ist.
Agreed that many cultivars have, at least superficially, a WP:Notability problem. I think it's an open question. Any well-established cultivar will appear in multiple tertiary sources like encyclopedias of garden plants, but tertiary sources don't count for notability establishment, last I looked. Same goes for primary-source journal articles; it's not enough that an obscure new cultivar was part of a study of cucurbit phytopathology. Is coverage in highly specialized horticultural publications of a more secondary nature sufficient? Some would argue that they're not really independent of the subject, and the same could be argued for coverage of new dog breeds, or whatever, in fancier publications, which are not yet covered in mainstream sources or outside of dog breed encyclopedias. (By contrast, the Hass avocado and the Jack Russell terrier are things that zillions of people have heard of and seen mentioned in print.) Hobbyist publications have a promotional interest in new variations (articles on them may be toward the top of their most popular content), and are typically also beholden to commercial advertisers with a fiduciary interest in their acceptance and popularity.
Agreed that things that are not strictly cultivars shouldn't be categorized as such. They're not all varieties, strictly, either. I'm not sure if it's better to fork the categories or rename them something more general (probably the latter, since only experts will know whether something is or isn't a cultivar, but how to name the categories would be an open question). In dealing with domesticated animals, a similar problem came up. Everything was just lumped into "breeds" including things that are not breeds at all. I started forking these into separate breeds and landraces categories, but disputes arose about the definition of "breed" (an issue that might or might not arise for "cultivar"). I've not moved to do anything yet, but the sensible approach now seems to be to treat "breed" in its broadest sense, and then subscategorize into standardized breeds, historically attested breeds that pre-date standardization, and landraces, based on the sourcing for each breed-in-the-broad sense. Something vaguely like this could work for plants. E.g. a catchall directory for potato varietals or types or whatever term is best, subcategorized into formal cultivars, notable heirloom types, landraces, etc. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
We now have articles on Acacia and Acacia sensu lato. And more than 1000 incoming links to Acacia with many that should be going to Acacia s.l.. Are we ready to split Acacia? Is there another way to handle this? It seems to me that acacia is a common name for a bunch of African species (and wattle is a common name for a bunch of Australian species). Should the broad sense be at Acacia with the narrow sense at Acacia (sensu stricto) or Acacia (genus), or ....? Plantdrew ( talk) 05:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Articles that actually distinguish among multiple distinct instances of related items(sans the rest), might be applicable. In any case, it doesn't cost much to test the popular opinion via a WP:RM. No such user ( talk) 13:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Oof. I didn't really pay attention to the content of the articles previously. Acacia now covers the African species ("Vachellia"), completely ignoring retypification. I'd assumed (without reading it) that it covered the Australian species ("Racosperma"). I'd suggest that we redirect Acacia to Acacia sensu lato (or do we keep Acacia as the title, but unitalicized; would the taxobox get stripped out too then?), leave all the species article at Acacia title, and retain articles on the segregate genera (including both Racosperma and Vachellia) Acacia sensu stricto could be a dab page, or a redirect to Taxonomy of Acacia. Plantdrew ( talk) 18:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I just came across this. GRIN is now pulling vernacular names from Wikipedia and applying their own formatting style (our "porcupine tomato" is given as "porcupine-tomato" there). Sigh. Another reliable source joins the cloud of circular Wikipedia sourcing. Plantdrew ( talk) 05:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
So I've been polishing Asplenium articles again, and I've run into two taxobox-related issues where I could use some help.
The first regards the upper ranks of classification, as pertains to ferns. Many of our taxoboxes contain "Class: Polypodiopsida / Pteridopsida (disputed)". I guess, having accepted that Equisetum is part of our bailiwick, we fern people don't think very much about that end of the classification. The families laid out by Christenhusz, Zhang & Schneider (2011) are pretty well accepted; for ranks above that, they follow Chase & Reveal (2009) in classifying all land plants into subclasses of a single class, Equisetopsida, allotting subclass Lycopodiidae to the lycophytes and subclasses Equisetidae, Ophioglossidae, Marattiidae, and Polypodiidae to the ferns s.l. However, I get the impression that this scheme (which places all angiosperms in subclass Magnoliidae) hasn't exactly caught fire with the angiosperm community. Any thoughts on what to apply for class through order in ferns, or should I just leave what's there alone?
The second issue involves the use of eupolypods I and eupolypods II, subclades of the Polypodiales. These are not explicitly mentioned in Christenhusz et al. (2011), but would be unranked clades containing several families. Christenhusz & Chase (2014) decided to raise these clades to the rank of family and downgrade the families within them to subfamilies, but no one except the authors seems particularly enthusiastic about using that circumscription, so I would suggest we avoid it for the time being. However, I would like to know whether or not to include them in taxoboxes below the family level. It's sort of useful information (both have easily-examined synapomorphies associated with vascular bundles in the stipe), but I think that would run against our current practice.
Commentary would be warmly appreciated. Choess ( talk) 06:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
A couple of hundred articles refer to this as "Populus sect. Aegeiros", which is a redirect to Populus sect. Aigeiros. Is "Aegeiros" an acceptable alternative spelling, or simply a mistake? Colonies Chris ( talk)
" Populus sect. Aegiros" is the spelling that has all the incoming links. Until 2 July 2009, the article on the trees was at Cottonwood, after which the tree article was moved to Populus sect. Aegiros and the dab page was moved to Cottonwood. On 16 November 2011, the spelling on the dab page was corrected, and the tree article was moved to the current spelling. It looks like the misspelling originated on Wikipedia, and all the links to the misspelling are a result of having that spelling in the dab page when it moved to the base title. Simple English Wikipedia uses "Aegiros" as I write this, and there are 648 Google hits for that spelling. Good illustration of the power of Wikipedia. Plantdrew ( talk) 17:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
And I don't have move permission on Simple. I'll see if I can find something to do there to rack up my edit count for autoconfirmation. Plantdrew ( talk) 17:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I think we need someone with a bot to go and fix all the links. Lavateraguy ( talk) 17:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Gerardia is making my brain hurt. It should be an Orobanchaceae genus that we have an article on, right? ( see Tropicos search) And looking at TPL, I suspect that the Orobanchaceae genus maybe should be treated as synonym of Agalinis? And we need an article for the acanths at Stenandrium? Plantdrew ( talk) 05:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
..is at FAC ( Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Telopea truncata/archive1) ..in case anyone wants to offer an opinion or suggest improvements....cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 05:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Taxonomy of the Orchidaceae#Need new title. As the IP who has been working on the article says, the current title is misleading. Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to stop by to introduce Corinne; she'll continue to help out at TFA and will be focusing for now on WP:PLANTS, WP:MAMMALS and WP:FUNGI. She'll also be helping out with prose reviews at FAC, and I'm available to answer questions about FAC or TFA any time. - Dank ( push to talk) 16:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm in the process of moving old files over to Commons and ran across this file. The uploader claimed that it is lythrum salicaria but an IP editor later changed the description to say it is a species of Epilobium. Can anyone identify this plant? Kelly hi! 10:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to all for the help! Kelly hi! 11:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
We used to have an article titled Alpine Pennycress. Now it's at Thlaspi caerulescens, and it's a total trainwreck. Thlaspia caerulescens is apparently a European plant with a common name that's formatted by BSBI as "Alpine Penny-cress". And there is a western North American plant with "alpine pennycress" as the usual format for it's common name. TPL via WCSP [4] appears to accept the North American plant as Thlaspi montanum, but USDA PLANTS and FNA (see [5]) treat it as Noccaea fendleri subsp. glauca and TPL is also happy to accept that name via Tropicos ( [6]). I'm not sure whether to go with WCSP/TPL or FNA for the North American species. We can chalk this one up as another outstanding win for WP:COMMONNAME, but does anybody have some ideas about what title should be used for the North American plant? Plantdrew ( talk)
Hi. I need some expertise. I declined an article at AfC for lack of notability, simply based on the WP:GNG guidelines, which it clearly does not meet. Here is the draft: Draft:Herbert Alexander Wahl. The author ( Parkywiki) of the article requested I re-think my position with a query on my talk page, in which he brings up what I consider some damn fine points. However, admittedly, this is not a field of expertise for me, so I'd appreciate some input. That way, in the future if I run into this type of article, I'll know which way to evaluate. Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 19:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Since I keep running into all kinds of iris-related pages on Wikipedia, I've just morphed the Template:Iris page into one for the iris plant family, modeled loosely on Template:Rose. (Before, it was a template page for a band, but I moved that to Template:Iris (American band) so that they wouldn't lose the information already assembled.) It's just a start, and I've never done one of these before, so I welcome the input of anyone who wants to improve it themselves, or just offer suggestions. Alafarge ( talk) 22:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Would like some input from folks interested in plant taxonomy on this one.....
In 2013, Nothofagus was split into four genera, however Greg Jordan of the university of Tasmania and expert on fossil nothofagaceae has disputed the utility of the split and had a paper published on this. Now I am not sure on the consensus on the uptake of the split and how to weigh various bodies. Whatever we end up doing, it'd be good to resent the pros and cons on the genus or family article fully. Greg has begun editing here and it'd be good to engage collaboratively rather than see some edit-war erupt etc. I'll hunt for sources soon. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 06:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
(Transferred from WP:THQ#Botanical editing needed)
Eucalyptus angophoroides was full of sentence fragments and botanical jargon that's meaningless to the layman. I've done what I can about the former, but as to the latter, well, I'm a layman. Trying to decipher the sentence about "exerted valves" led to about a half hour of searching around the web, much of it spent trying to explain to the search engines that I didn't want to know about machinery (though I did find that the spelling perhaps should be "exserted", with an S). See
Can someone knowledgeable about the field please have a look there? Thanks.
-- Thnidu ( talk) 14:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
My free time is a bit in short supply, but I will try to buff Costus chartaceus, Blandfordia punicea and/or Blandfordia cunninghamii for DYK. Anyone is welcome to help. I find Oz plants alot easier to source (as I know where to look) than exotics. While we're at it, Christmas plants could do with some references I suspect. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
NB: Can anyone think of other plants called "Xmas bush"? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
There are three images in Commons in the category "Gooseberries" that would benefit from a botanical brain-wave: here, here and here. They are clearly not Ribes uva-crispa. The camera location of the photos places it in India, where I think the most likely meaning of gooseberry is Phyllanthus emblica, but these cut, dried, fruit appear to have large stones in the middle that have also been cut. I don't think they are a large Crataegus like Crataegus pinnatifida. Can anyone help? Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 20:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd come across some of editing by the students listed here while working in other areas. But I see there are some plant articles needing attention as well, e.g. Leymus, which has material about one of its species that needs moving. If anyone has spare time, checking their contributions would be worthwhile. Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sambangi. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk) 06:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
These two articles appear to contradict each other about which one is the "Ashoka tree". Some of the references at Saraca asoca actually refer to Saraca indica. Are they in fact the same plant which has two names? I don't know how to resolve the confusion, so I'm hoping someone here can have a look. I started a discussion at Talk:Saraca_asoca#Contradiction and/or confusion with Saraca indica. Deli nk ( talk) 16:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Following this discussion (see also just above it Question) the guidance was revised by @ Circeus: and evolution was included in our Template under Taxonomy on 23 May 2009. The only subsequent discussion I have unearthed was in 2011, here. There seems to have been no wish to change this policy since it was enacted.
Consequently I have followed this practice in my taxon articles, and following WP:SS, by logical extension in taxonomy subpages, such as Taxonomy of Narcissus (GA) without any problems, till now.
Taxonomy of Liliaceae was nominated for GA review in April, and has since undergone extensive review. However there remains one sticking point that prevents its promotion. The reviewer believes Evolution should not be mentioned on a taxonomy page. We have had extensive discussions around this but have reached an impasse. Basically mention of evolution fails GA status.
I support our current policy, and to change it now might effect a large number of pages. In an era of molecular phylogenetics, inferences about evolution and current phylogeny and taxonomy stem from the same process, eg Patterson, T. B.; Givnish, T. J. (2002). "Phylogeny, concerted convergence, and phylogenetic niche conservatism in the core Liliales: insights from rbcL and ndhF sequence data" (PDF). Evolution. 56 (2): 233–252. doi: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2002.tb01334.x. PMID 11926492., rather than reliance on the fossil record alone. Our current taxonomy has derived from evolutionary divergence, that is to say it is a dynamic, not static process. Or by a blunt analogy, our current taxonomic diversity and relationships derive from evolution not creation.
Is our current policy justified? If so should having evolution on a taxonomy page automatically fail it for GA (or FA)? If not, how should the topic of evolution be subsequently handled in the template and in articles based on that?-- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 13:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I should point out that the template was alway a rough guideline to me. In particular, there was never in my mind anything to prevent splitting off a subsection where appropriate. Also, the template was originally written primarily for species, where it is exceedingly rare that evolution, phylogeny and biogeography (although the information should be included, obviously, when available) are sufficient to justify even a subsection (as opposed to a paragraph within the taxonomy/distribution sections). In the case of larger taxon, there is obviously no overwhelming necessity to follow the idiosyncrasies of a species-centric template!
My opinion in this particular dispute is that the phylogeny section clearly belongs in the taxonomy article, but that the Evolution and biogeography section can probably go back in the main article, except for information relevant specifically relevant to the taxonomy proper, of which at first glance there does not seem to be a lot.
As a side-note, Cladogram 2 is clearly intended to present timescales more than phylogenetic information, and would probably do a better job of providing that information if it were presented as a timeline (not something that would block a good article nomination though). Circéus ( talk) 10 December 2015
Sources (inter alia):
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |editorlink=
ignored (|editor-link=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |editorlink1=
ignored (|editor-link1=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |editorlink2=
ignored (|editor-link2=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |editorlink1=
ignored (|editor-link1=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)--
Michael Goodyear (
talk)
04:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Taxonomy and systematics
Taxonomy deals with the causes and consequences of variation of an entity ( taxon). It integrates the gathering of evidence, its processing, the production of phylogenetic relationships and a the resulting classification of the entity and its relationships, reflecting the totality of similarities and differences, including the evolutionary processes and pathways which produced divergence and diversity.
Topics to include in this section would usually include;
Rank | Bentham and Hooker (1883) [3] | Cronquist (1981) [4] | Takhtajan (1966, 1980, 2009) [5] [6] [7] | Dahlgren (1977, 1985) [8] [9] | Thorne (1992–2007) [10] [11] | APG (2003–9) [12] [13] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Division | Magnoliophyta | Magnoliophyta | Magnoliophyta | |||
Class | Monocotyledons | Liliopsida | Liliopsida | ( monocots) - unranked | Magnoliopsida ( Angiospermae) | ( monocots) - unranked |
Subclass | Liliidae | Liliidae | Liliidae | Liliidae | ||
Superorder (Series) | Coronarieæ | (Liliiflorae) Lilianae [14] | (Lilianae) Liliiflorae | Lilianae | Lilianae | |
Order | Liliales | Liliales | Liliales | Liliales | Liliales | |
For a comparison of the classifications of genera from 1959 ( Hutchinson) [15] to 2000 (Wilson and Morrison), [16] see Table 1 in Fay et al. 2006, [17] Table 1 in Peruzzi et al. 2009 [18] and Table 3. |
Cladogram of genus Rhododendron (Goetsch et al. 2005) | |||||||||
|
Include the fossil record where known and explain to what degree it supports the constructed phylogeny. Some evolutionary information may be better presented as a Timeline.
Fernandes 1975 [19] [20] | Webb 1978 [21] | Blanchard 1990 [22] | Mathew 2002 [23] | Zonneveld 2008 [24] | RHS 2013 [25] | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Subgenus | Section | Subsection | Section | Subsection | Section | Subsection | Subgenus | Section | Subsection | Series | Subgenus | Section | Section |
Hermione | Serotini | Serotini | Serotini | Hermione | Hermione | Serotini | Hermione | Serotini | Serotini | ||||
Hermione | Angustifolii | Tazettae | Angustifoliae | Tazettae | Angustifoliae | Angustifoliae | Tazettae | Tazettae | |||||
Hermione | Tazettae | Tazettae | Hermione | Hermione | |||||||||
Aurelia | Aurelia | Aurelia | Albiflorae | ||||||||||
Aurelia | Aurelia | ||||||||||||
Narcissus | Apodanthi | Apodanthae | Narcissus | Jonquillae | Apodanthi | Narcissus | Apodanthi | Apodanthi | |||||
Jonquilla | Jonquilla | Jonquillae | Jonquillae | Jonquillae | Jonquillae | Jonquilla | Jonquilla | ||||||
Juncifolii | Apodanthi | Chloranthi | Juncifolii | ||||||||||
Tapeinanthus | Tapeinanthus | Tapeinanthus | Tapeinanthus | Tapeinanthus | Tapeinanthus | ||||||||
Ganymedes | Ganymedes | Ganymedes | Ganymedes | Ganymedes | Ganymedes | ||||||||
Bulbocodium | Bulbocodium | Bulbocodium | Bulbocodium | Bulbocodium | |||||||||
Pseudonarcissus | Pseudonarcissi | Pseudonarcissi | Pseudonarcissus | Pseudonarcissus | Pseudonarcissus | Pseudonarcissus | |||||||
Reflexi | Nevadensis | ||||||||||||
Narcissus | Narcissus | Narcissus | Narcissus | Narcissus | Narcissus | ||||||||
Chloranthi (N. viridiflorus) |
Corbularia syn. Bulbocodium |
Subfamily | Tribe | Genus | |
---|---|---|---|
Lilioideae Eaton | Medeoleae Benth. | Clintonia Raf. - bead lilies | |
Medeola Gronov. ex L. - Indian cucumber-root | |||
Lilieae s.l. Ritgen | Cardiocrinum ( Endl.) Lindl. - giant lilies | ||
Fritillaria Tourn. ex L. – fritillary or mission bells | |||
Gagea
Salisb. (including Lloydia Salisb. ex
Rchb.) – yellow star-of-Bethlehem1,2 | |||
Lilium Tourn. ex L. – lily | |||
Nomocharis Franch. | |||
Notholirion Wall. ex Boiss. | |||
Tulipa L. (including Amana Honda) – tulip1 | |||
Erythronium L. – trout lily1 | |||
Calochortoideae Dumort.3 | Calochortus Pursh - mariposa, globe lilies | ||
Tricyrtis Wall. – toad lily | |||
Streptopoideae | Prosartes D.Don – drops of gold | ||
Scoliopus Torr. – Fetid Adder's Tongue | |||
Streptopus Michx. – twistedstalk | |||
1. Some classifications place Tulipa, Erythronium and Gagea into a separate tribe,
Tulipeae with the remaining genera in Lilieae s.s.
[18]
[27]
[28] 2. Other authorities place Gagea within its own tribe, Lloydieae [27] [28] 3. The situation with respect to Calochortoideae remains uncertain. Originally Calochortus and Tricyrtis were considered to be sister clades and placed together in subfamily Calochortoideae. |
and Cladograms to show the relationships such as this example for the genus Narcissus:
Narcissus Cladogram (Graham and Barrett 2004) [29] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{TaxonIds|name=''Narcissus''|wikispecies=narcissus|ncbi=4697|eol=29121|itis= 500435|gbif=2858200|others=[http://www.tropicos.org/Name/40025195 Tropicos]}}
References
Fernandes68
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Fernandes75
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Blanchard
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Mathew
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Zonneveld
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).RHSBC
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Graham
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).-- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Systematics, taxonomy and evolution
-- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 15:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
The spelling dionaeifolia in our article Caltha dionaeifolia is problematic.
If the foliage was named to resemble a species called dionea, so that dioneae- represents the genitive, then Art. 60.8 of the ICN (see here) does require changing the -ae- to -i-, which changes dioneaefolia to dioneifolia. Hooker explicitly says here that it's named for the resemblance of the leaves to those of Dionaea but then uses the spelling dioneaefolia. Presumably he didn't like dionaeaefolia, and replaced the first -ae- by -e- So if Hooker's change of the genus name to produce dioneaefolia is accepted, Art. 60.8 supports dioneifolia as per TPL/WCSP. On the other hand, you could "correct" Hooker's epithet to dionaeaefolia and thence to dionaeifolia. My view, for what it's worth, is that WCSP/TPL are correct, and it should be dioneifolia since the "correction" of Hooker's epithet isn't sanctioned by the ICN. Expert taxonomic comments sought! Peter coxhead ( talk) 12:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
A year after we noticed that the International Bulb Society website had gone, does anyone have any inside information as to what happened to them? The fact that other groups like the Pacific Bulb Society have changed their links to the Internet Archive suggests they don't interpret the "under construction" sign to indicate they are coming back any time soon. And presumably that is also the end of the Herbert Medal. If nobody knows we could ask a former medallist like Peter Goldblatt. -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 21:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
A personal comment on the situation at Wikidata regarding their treatment of taxonomy:
Wikidata admins know nothing of taxonomy, and neither does one of the two people who controls all taxonomic edits. As a result, when I tried to remove incorrect information that had been placed on the wrong data item, I was reverted and warned that removing any further source information would result in a block. You can see here where the admin told me flat out that "there is no truth only sources". The User:Succu insists that the APG III expanded classification paper puts the Subclass of arthrodontous mosses as a clade within the Class of horsetails, which is clearly wrong.
As a result, I believe that neither the Wikipedias nor Wikispecies will ever be able to make much use of the data stored at Wikidata. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 22:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a RfC at Talk:Climate change denial. Please contribute if you are interested. Biscuittin ( talk) 00:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone recall seeing a book/paper treatise on taxonomic names dealing with orthographic variants - in particular genitive segments - I write this as the issue has come up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Isopogon anemonifolius/archive1. Originally Salisbury had the species name as anemonefolius and I have seen several species (e.g. ericaefolia becoming ericifolia), so was looking for some source that clarified that -i- was used systematically as the ending for the first (genitive) stem...... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
"Lilioid monocot" has recently been moved to lilioid monocots. I can see an argument for the plural, in line with the Latin names of higher taxa, but the move does raise some issues:
What do others think? Peter coxhead ( talk) 19:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Someone who knows what they're doing and has a botany term book handy make a stub for scale leaf - or add a section at leaf and make it a redirect? I have no textbook...... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Notwithstanding the unsourced speculation that we have at
cataphyll about cotyledons and whatever, both Hickey, M.; King, C. (2001), The Cambridge Illustrated Glossary of Botanical Terms, Cambridge University Press{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) and Beentje, H.; Williamson, J. (2010), The Kew Plant Glossary: an Illustrated Dictionary of Plant Terms, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew: Kew Publishing{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) say that cataphylls are scale leaves. The former says "A reduced leaf, e.g., a bract, bracteole, bud scale, or one of the papery sheathing leaves which enclose the whole of a newly developing aerial shoot in the genus Crocus. The latter says "1. scale leaf. 2. scale-like leaf." I suggest a redirect (and rather large-scale cleanup).
Sminthopsis84 (
talk)
15:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I believe we have had some discussions about modifications to {{ Botanist}} before. I see that User:Peter coxhead has recently improved it, thank you Peter! Currently it does three things
I needed a template that would also list all the taxa on IPNI that have the author as authority. I could not find one so I put together one today, as {{ IPNI author plant list}}, which you can see demonstrated at Peter Goldblatt.
But it overlaps with Botanist so is not ideal.
So the field "Author Query"="Author entry" appears twice.
I would like to propose modifying Botanist to incorporate the link to the search results, so we only need one template, if nobody has any objections. -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 21:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello plant experts. Here's an old draft that may be of interest. Should it be kept and improved? Or is this information already in the encyclopedia under another title? I posted about this once before, but no one commented. Is there a better place to report this? — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone know if there is any move to reduce the IPA pronunciation clutter in lead paragraphs, perhaps by putting them into some sort of margin box? We have discussed this before, but as far as I can see not for quite a while. The unsourced clutter in the first sentence of Heteromeles is one case in point, but zooplankton is even worse. In a previous discussion it was mentioned that IPA has caused a lot of bother at wiktionary, but the codes are now present there. (Curiously, only one pronunciation of zooplankton is given at wiktionary.) Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 15:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
@
J. 'mach' wust: I do not think it matters whether or not the source uses the exact same pronunciation conventions we use
– I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that it doesn't matter if we change the source's representation to our IPA, or that it doesn't matter if we directly reproduce the source's representation?
Peter coxhead (
talk)
10:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
And speaking of Peter Goldblatt (see above) that I just started today, we could really do with a template for botanist biographies similar to the one we have for taxa. I would be happy to take care of that if there is general agreement. -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 21:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I am dismayed to notice that nav boxes are now being included in articles on plant species. Aside from the fact that these made redundant by the well maintained categories and taxobox, they have the effect of smothering the incoming links (what links here) to any article. I believe this is significantly detrimental to the overall structure of the site, and to any especial interest in the mention of biota in other articles. cygnis insignis 16:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
This whole discussion begs the question "Where is a navbox appropriate", which is almost a WP wide question, and its corollary "What should a navbox contain and what should it look like"? It would seem that if we can agree on those questions, a guidance should be added to our Template. At the very least a navbox should be complete, for instance contain all families of an order. Redlinking is acceptable in the short term but should be remedied ASAP. And for usefulness the navbox should appear on the both the higher taxon page and the lower taxon pages it targets. We also have to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 20:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Some of them were previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_9#Template:Navbox_Artemisia, which failed as an overly broad nomination (and with very few people commenting). I'll try to put together a deletion nomination for just the genus navboxes that are incomplete in listing species due to avoided red-links, and which include no other topics besides species. That won't include the Persoonia navbox (which is apparently complete) or stuff like {{ Allium}} (woefully incomplete, but not restricted to species topics). Plantdrew ( talk) 21:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
By pure coincidence, I raised an issue of content overlap similar to Grass/Poeceae at Talk:Fabaceae#Overlap with Legume. I would like to solicit some input in that discussion. Thanks. No such user ( talk) 11:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
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 60 | ← | Archive 64 | Archive 65 | Archive 66 | Archive 67 | Archive 68 | → | Archive 70 |
Hi WikiProject Plants,
The Wiki Education Foundation wants to know what it can do to empower editors who work on science-related content on Wikipedia.
If you're familiar with Wiki Ed, it's likely by way of our classroom program, which grew out of the Wikipedia Education Program and through which we provide support for instructors and students who work on Wikipedia as part of a class assignment. This post is about something different, though. We'll be continuing to develop that program, of course, but we also want to start working on ways to help the existing Wikipedia community directly.
In 2016, Wiki Ed will be running a campaign tentatively titled, "Wikipedia Year of Science". The goal, generally stated, will be to improve the content and coverage of science-related content on Wikipedia ("science" interpreted loosely). Whereas our classroom program, as with many other extra-organizational initiatives, is premised on attracting and/or training new users, my aim is to figure out the sorts of things we can do to help the editors who are already engaged in the improvement of science content. The question is indeed wide open, but think about it this way: we have staff and a lot of institutional connections; how can we use our resources and relationships to support you? For example, is there a special collection of photos we should try to get on Commons? What about a document archive? Databases or specific journals? Organizationally, is there software that could be built that would help people working on these topics? What kinds of research could we conduct or help to organize that would help you to work more effectively? What are ways we can connect you with other human resources -- experts, for example (though, again, this is not intended to be an outreach program)? How could we motivate people to contribute, whether it be adding content, improving content, conducting reviews, adding images, improving sourcing, or any other part of the process? How can we get more plant-related articles to FA/GA? How could we help you to spend more of your time working on things you find fun and interesting and less time on process, organization, and functionary duties?
These questions are really just intended to get the ball rolling as this really is a nascent idea. So all ideas are welcome: big, small, obvious, obscure, ambitious, simple, technical, organizational.... I want to be clear that this is not just some survey -- the feedback I get will help to give shape to the "Year of Science" campaign.
I should also mention that this community engagement program we're starting isn't limited to the Year of Science campaign. Researching and planning it is high on my priority list right now, but we can also talk about shorter- or longer-term projects you may have in mind, too.
Apologies for the long message and thanks for your time. Looking forward to hearing what you think. -- Ryan (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 03:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC) (volunteer account: User:Rhododendrites)
What do you reckon? Draft:Branch attachment. Best, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 19:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps someone who is interested in botanists and botanical literature might fancy a potentially large project working partly outside wikipedia, but probably also untangling some of the most confused parts of the wiki, particularly (I think) those related to cultivated plants. It would be necessary to read some Latin and probably various other languages, and it would be slow work. I think this would require a strong eventualist philosophy, because there is no systematic way to complete the task, but it could be enormously helpful here and to all the databases that are built on, or depend on IPNI, the International Plant Names Index, such as World Checklist of Selected Plant Families, The Plant List, all the flora projects around the world, and even the underfunded IUCN Red List.
In a recent interaction with the editors of IPNI I was told "The IPNI lacks 1000s pre-1970 infrasp names, and we have been adding them [now, one less to add!]". Perhaps IPNI will catch up eventually, but in the meantime there are lots of missing variety (and presumably forma) names, and lots of confusion. For example, Citrus medica L. var. dulcis Risso et Poit. and the synonym Citrus limonum Risso var. dulcis Moris are listed at the authoritative site Sorting Citrus Names, but are missing from IPNI. I suspect that Sorting Citrus Names all by itself is probably a rich source of names that are missing from IPNI.
To sort out examples like that would require working from the authority names to find the literature those people wrote, and if it is available to see if there is a description that satisfies the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants. For example, there is just one of Moris' works in the Biodiversity Heritage Library, although several are listed in TL-2. However that one has an index at the back, and on page 312 describes a number of varieties of Citrus limonum which perhaps someone might like to carefully check and report to IPNI using their "contact us" link. Perhaps Moris described the same varieties in earlier works, but using only the publication that is accessible still gives information that should be added to IPNI. There are, of course, complications about whether the description is adequate, particularly article 40 of the code of nomenclature, article 41, etc. Sometimes there is only a weird inadequate description such as "This tree was brought to Britain by the Romans" or "This variety differs from other varieties of the species", so those have to be ignored because they say nothing that could be used to recognize the plant. Many old descriptions use letters of the Greek alphabet such as β, λ in front of the variety name, or as in this case **, ***, etc., which is fine and is interpreted as a variety description (by article 32).
It is certainly a daunting task to chase down any of these, but perhaps could be more fun than some simpler, faster, computer games ... If anyone would like to try this game, I'm happy to offer any advice that I can. Just a thought. Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 16:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Are celery stalks phyllodes? Does anyone have an RS for the petiole article that the rhubarb stalks are phyllodes? FloraWilde ( talk) 20:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I can't seem to find any button for showing talk page archives. Am I blind, or is it missing? FloraWilde ( talk) 16:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, all. Does anyone have strong opinions on the best ways to break up large genera categories? I ask because some categories like Category:Bulbophyllum are a bit on the large size. One way to subdivide a genus is by a (hopefully stable) infrageneric classification. There is a series of such categories for Category:Cattleya, but in such a relatively small genus, I thought it wasn't necessary and brought the category tree to CfD: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 June 8#Cattleya infrageneric categories. There's a similar category tree for Category:Epidendrum and while we currently only have about 100 articles on Epidendrum species, there's room for a good deal of growth. The only thing to look out for here is WP:SMALLCAT, categories on subgenera, sections, subsections, or series that will never contain many articles. Thoughts? Rkitko ( talk) 00:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The mycorrhiza article says, "Mycorrhizal mycelia are much smaller in diameter than the smallest root, and thus can explore a greater volume of soil, providing a larger surface area for absorption". This implies water is conducted along mycelia into the roots. Do mycelia act as vascular tissue? FloraWilde ( talk) 22:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Jepson 2nd ed. (2012) moved 8 California occurring species of genus Coreopsis to genus Leptosyne, and kept 2 species in Coreopsis. (Jepson2 now has C. lanceolata, C. tinctoria, then L. bigelovii, L. californica, L. calliopsiea, L. douglasii, L. gigantea, L. hamiltonii, L. maritima, and L. stillmanii.) Jepson2's last note for genus L. is "Formerly in polyphyletic Coreopsis". User:Stemonitis points out [1]] that FNA still has the species as C. bigelovii, not L. bigelovii. Does anyone have any clarification? If the Jepson2 treatment is accepted, did this remove all species causing Coreopsis to be polyphyletic? FloraWilde ( talk) 23:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
There is a requested move at
Talk:Nepeta cataria#Requested move 15 June 2015. Members of this project are invited to particpate.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk)
02:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Some of you may wish to voice your opinion at Talk:Sex#Sex, facing ambiguity, where some are proposing that the "general" article on sex be made to cover the act of intercourse instead of the general biological process. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 04:00, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
There are a few that look the same. Does anyone know which this is? Thank you. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 09:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Having returned from a short trip to the Galapagos and having managed to identify most of my natural history photos, I was interested in which species had Wikipedia articles. The results were:
I guess this reflects the generally lower level of interest in plants as compared to animals. Anyway, it creates opportunities for more article creation... Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Right are three photos of what I believe to be from Antennaria but not sure if A. neglecta or A. microphylla or something else. Identification help would be appreciated. These were taken in the dry north section of Yellowstone (el. ~ 5500ft) near the Gardner River on June 17. They were in a very rocky area with little to no large vegetation, just grasses and prickly pear. Thanks -- Mike Cline ( talk) 13:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
It seems to be traditional to describe the fruit of some genera as a "utricle" ( Alternanthera is where I recently came across this). The Utricle article is a disambiguation page, and for the botanical use says "a type of dry fruit similar to an achene". Accordingly in the Alternanthera article, "utricle" is wikilinked to Achene. Can someone enlighten me on what exactly the difference is, if any, between a "utricle" and an "achene"? The Kew Plant Glossary doesn't give the fruit sense at all, the nearest being the prophyll around the nutlet in some genera of Cyperaceae. Other books I have that do define both terms do so in a way that seems to me to make them synonymous. Peter coxhead ( talk) 21:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements. These likely copyright violations can be searched by WikiProject categories. Use "control-f" to jump to your area of interest.-- Lucas559 ( talk) 22:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Please see Template talk:Trade designation#Proposed font style. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 23:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi there! I have a photographer friend who uploaded a myriad of high-quality pictures of flora from the Montreal Botanical Garden's greenhouses, and he told me he's willing to re-license them under CC-BY-SA-2.0 (for Commons use) if you guys help me identify exactly what they are, so we can use them across Wikimedia projects! They're in this Flickr album. Please me know!!! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
ID please. J e e 05:41, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
What gender is Schinus? I just came across a new article, Schinus lentiscifolius. Both that spelling and Schinus lentiscifolia are in The Plant List (as are several other binomial with both masculine/feminine versions). ARS-GRIN taxonomy goes with feminine endings, and Tropicos has a note for Schinus terebinthifolia that the original spelling was " Schinus terebinthifolius" (and Tropicos another note in Schinus itself that it should be feminine). As you can see from the red-link, Wikipedia is going with masculine endings, and not all feminine redirects have been created (but maybe articles need to be moved). I'm assuming feminine is correct from the sources I've examined, but wanted to make sure before I started moving stuff around. Plantdrew ( talk) 22:00, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
And another thing. Is it worth listing Schinus myricoides as the basionym of Cuscuta myricoides on the Schinus page? I was puzzled as to how a Cuscuta could have first been described as a Schinus (although GRIN explains it). Plantdrew ( talk) 22:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Lewis & Short in their 1958 A Latin Dictionary (which is large!) list Schinus with "f, the mastic tree", so it does seem to be a classical Latin word. Nicholas Turland 2013 The Code Decoded: A user's guide to the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, p. 96, makes a point of explaining how the adjectival epithets in such genera should be corrected to agree with the feminine noun. He lists Agaricus and Astragalus as masculine, and the trees "tend to be feminine (Aesculus, Quercus, Prunus, Ulmus)". I think IPNI should be corrected, but have noticed what seems to be reluctance from the editors there to make such changes. I wonder if they know about some upcoming proposal to amend the code of nomenclature to make it de rigeur to use whatever form the original author used ... I'd suggest using feminine forms here and citing Tropicos and GRIN for that choice, wherever possible. Perhaps we can act as a bulwark against barbarism such as the lead image here. Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 13:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Sidenote: not of relevance to the botanical name, but this Cypriot site uses the feminine in its (Modern) Greek text; the Greek Wikipedia at el:Σχίνος the masculine. Cypriot Greek tends to be more conservative, so I suspect preserves the Classical feminine form. Peter coxhead ( talk) 13:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Schinus polygama now has a draft of an explanation, hanging on the fact that IPNI says that that species name should be corrected. A bold suggestion that would set a precedent for other genus names, is that we could make a statement on the wikiproject page that botanical tradition (IPNI) being mixed, we choose to follow the classical tradition by correcting all the adjectival species epithets in Schinus to feminine. By the way, Commons had already changed the spelling to S. polygama. Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 14:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I had an editor come by my talk page requesting assistance IDing some photos. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with their flora and the resolution isn't that great, so aside from a Centaurea, I'm not very sure what they've got. Does anybody else have any ideas? MMSplant001.JPG, MMSplant002.JPG, MMSplant003.JPG, MMSplant004.JPG, MMSplant005.JPG, MMSplant006.JPG and MMSplant007.JPG. Plantdrew ( talk) 22:25, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I think it's unfortunate that comments on talk pages with few (or no) watchers sit unanswered for years. Wikipedia:WikiProject X is working on new tools for WikiProject, including one that monitors new topics on talk pages with in a project's scope. You can see this in action for Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary Biology. I also just noticed that WikiProject Oregon has used a different approach to monitor talk pages. Their project banner adds Category:WikiProject Oregon pages to all pages, so all talk page changes can be viewed via this link. The problem with that approach versus the WikiProject X tool is that it captures everything, and most of the changes are reassessments that don't require any response.
Is there any interest here in signing WikiProject Plants up for WikiProject X tools or in creating a master category for all project articles? At present, we can kind of go the Oregon route by looking at changes in each assessment category (e.g. see stub talk changes here). I assume almost all of the pages with few watchers will be stub or start class so there's really only two categories that need checking and a master category may be unneccessary. I intend to start checking stub and start talk pages somewhat regularly, but I don't know if anybody else would be interested in doing so. Plantdrew ( talk) 17:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Please help get Draft:Desmodium oojeinense into acceptable shape. The text is confusing with several different names being mentioned. It probably also needs a Taxobox. If you do not wish to edit it directly please post comments on the talk page. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 10:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi folks, back in the day (~2009) I remember a place I could ask an expert to identify a flower within a photo. If that still exists, can someone point me in that direction? I have a photo of a flower that I'd like identified. I poked around a little bit here and the plant portal, but didn't see anything. Much appreciated! -- Matt Wade 03:40, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
There's some discussion at T. chebula that could use some WP Plants eyes as I am not familiar with WP Plants. I think I've said the right thing, but I am not familiar with the article standards. Right now there is an editor (currently IP) who is discussing my removal of a paragraph of some dozen or so Indic names for the plant and while I am quite sure the removal is correct I would appreciate someone who could make sure I've got the information/style guide issues sorted properly. Ogress smash! 03:17, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I haven't found any other relevant discussion on this one so I will bring it here. Taxoboxes serve two useful purposes - an easily accessible summary of the taxonomy, and also a navigation aid. Traditionally they were used on pages dealing directly describing a taxon, e.g. Liliaceae. Since I started writing detailed subpages on the taxonomy of complex taxa (e.g. Taxonomy of Liliaceae), it seemed logical to include a copy of the taxobox on that page as well, for the above reasons, and if it deserves to be anywhere one might think this would be the most appropriate place for it.
So I was startled to find their removal and the reason given was that the tradition was only to include them on taxon pages not taxonomy pages. This seemed illogical to me, however the other editor was agreeable to having a group discussion and perhaps developing a concensus, that could be incorporated into our guidance. There is some urgency on this since that particular page is under GA review. -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 16:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
Currently, Endangered plants redirects to Endangered species, which says very little about plants. Can somebody get together an actual article on endangered plants? Cheers! bd2412 T 01:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see WT:FUNGI#Merger of two genera (back in 2000!), big mess — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone have any idea what this might be? Thank you for any information you can offer. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 08:38, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
There is also image "A" showing the side. I'm not sure if that helps. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 08:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm deeply intrigued by the yellowish-golden fluid it seems to be exsuding. Is that typical of any Calvatis/Bovista species? Circéus ( talk) 11:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
It would be great if folks could comment as to whether this article currently meets FA criteria at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Georg Forster/archive1. cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 05:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, |
Hi, all -- The article berry is today's article for improvement. It certainly could use some work, but there appears to be some thought that the article should emphasize the colloquial usage instead of the correct botanical definition. Any sourcing or improvements you could make would be appreciated. Cheers, Rkitko ( talk) 14:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
The original version of "Berry" has now been renamed as Berry (botany), so at least we have an article covering the botanical sense.
However, a huge number of links exist to "Berry". Since they were created when the botanical version was there, many are wrong and need fixing.
"What links here" shows up links to "Berry" from templates, like {{ Non-timber forest products}}, so it looks as though there's a link to "Berry" in the text when there isn't. Anyone know how to exclude links in templates from "What links here"? Peter coxhead ( talk) 06:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
As Plantsurfer first noticed, there are differences in how our articles describe the fruit of Cornaceae, especially Cornus species. These differences seem to follow different uses in sources:
Any botanists care to venture a view? Peter coxhead ( talk) 14:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello plant experts. This old draft will soon be deleted unless someone takes an interest in it. Is this a topic that should have an article? Or is it already covered somewhere under another title?— Anne Delong ( talk) 17:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
The issue of single versus double marks to indicate a cultivar recently came up at Talk:Perovskia atriplicifolia/GA1. The convention in botany is to use single marks around cultivar names such as Longin and 'Blue Spire', but should I follow this here? RO (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Could we get some feedback at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 7#How plants make food? Thanks. -- BDD ( talk) 17:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
On a few of the pepper pages I noticed that there were requests to add cultivar infoboxes; there is already the pepper infobox though; so I created Template:Infobox pepper/sandbox (haven't updated the documentation) and Template:Infobox pepper/testcases to add in the cultivar infobox information to the pepper infobox, as well as change the heat scale graphic to be objectively tied to the scoville scale listing as according to the current infobox documentation. As the requests were from WikiProject Plants I thought I should put this here, unless there is a better place to get more review of and discussion of purposed changes to an infobox? Falconjh ( talk) 17:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
could someone add Conyza canadens to Conyza list on Conyza page 207.177.82.193 ( talk) 03:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
1. It was just drawn to my attention that WP:TX permits only one name at the top of the box. Personally I thought allowing both a scientific name and a vernacular name (when not obvious) was quite a good idea, but the vernacular was removed. One criticism of this project is that it is written by botanists for botanists, so there is a case for sometimes including both scientific and vernacular names.
2. On the other hand, as an extension of this, I recently came across a number of taxoboxes with several names, because they included the names in a number of different languages. I had started to remove them, relegating them to the text, but thought I should check in here first. I could see why, for a plant native to Russia for example, someone might want to include the Russian name, but I think that is already covered by having a languages sidebar on every Wikipedia page, which allows a quick check on the name in other languages. I can also see a place for using other languages in the text where relevant (for instance discussing why narcissi are called Easter Bells in German), but not in a taxobox. -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 13:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Just asking, should a section about 'How to plant' is necessary to all plant articles? Typhoon2013 (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
The article on Asa Gray is currently ranked as B, but upon casual review I think it could easily be a contender for Good Article or possibly even Featured Article. I'm not familiar enough with Gray's life to assess how ready it is, or what might be lacking, so I probably won't personally be nominating it any time soon, but want to motivate and encourage someone more knowledgeable to get it recognized, as there are relatively few Good Article biologist biographies and even fewer Featured biology biographies. Let's get more quality bio bios the recognition they deserve! --Animalparty! ( talk) 19:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm unsure what to do about Citrus micrantha Wester. The page for kaffir lime (Citrus hystrix DC.) shows it as a synonym, but Talk:Citrus micrantha shows that this is disputed by User:Offnfopt, who has sources. As it stands now, the article is just a taxobox with no categories except the obligatory "Articles with 'species' microformats". I'm letting Offnfopt know about this thread. Thanks, Hamamelis ( talk) 16:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
While I'm at it: is it kosher, copyright-wise, to nick the whole botanical description from the original source, like i just did [3]? For what it's worth, the source is from 1915 and the author died in 1931, so it might actually be in the public domain. (Of course, I attributed it). I don't quite feel like paraphrasing what is pretty dry, list-y prose. No such user ( talk) 12:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't help with C. micrantha, but this 2015 article shows that insight about the Citrus problem is coming. For what it can offer, it would be a good citation. Presumably, the various databases will build on its information soon. Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 15:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Needs at least a stub, that distinguishes it from race (biology), forma specialis, cultivar, and other infraspecific ranks and terms. The term is already redlinked in articles, e.g. Stem rust. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
The usage of Grain is under discussion, see talk:food grain -- 70.51.202.113 ( talk) 05:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Can someone have a look at Atlantic Giant? It seems as though the article was rewritten in 2014 in an NPOV manner, and now consists of an intro that does not reveal the topic of the article, but instead is a criticism of the name. Also see the talk page. -- 70.51.202.113 ( talk) 06:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Apologies for asking a question which is undoubtedly complex, from the great depth of my ignorance about template design. At Talk:Petunia integrifolia#Redirects needed? and cruft, if I understand it correctly without having a mobile device to test it on, there is discussion of a display problem with the citation attached to the authority list in the taxobox. Perhaps the problem is only when editing, I'm not sure. Would it be feasible to add a parameter to the taxobox template, called authority_ref or binomial_ref, that would work in a similar manner to synonyms_ref? The reason I'd like this to happen, is that the fundamental databases such as The International Plant Names Index get too little credit for their vital work, and it would be nice for wikipedia to set a higher standard about that. It would also be helpful to set a standard that would work to reduce the number of poor sources that are already cited for that line in taxoboxen. Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 14:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
|synonyms_ref=
because the reference mark must end up in one of the title bars in the taxobox, rather than in the content. All that |authority_ref=
would do is to place the reference mark where it would appear if placed directly in the content.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
16:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)Trying to expand Helonias. Sutter, Robert D. "The Status of Helonias Bullata L. (Liliaceae) in the Southern Appalachians." Castanea 49.1 (1984): 9-16. JSTOR. Web. 21 Sept. 2015. Seems like a good source; haven't read it yet. Will be looking for some more later. Khzzang9 ( talk) 05:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Since 2010 there has been a template {{ Species abbreviation}} which has been added to many disambiguation pages to provide links to the various species names or disambiguation pages which use the word in question (examples include Vanzolinii and Sylvestre).
In a Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_27#Template:Species_abbreviation deletion discussion in April 2015 the consensus appeared to be that it should be replaced by something better, but the close was as "delete". Some instances have already been deleted, but there is now a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Disambiguation#Species_abbreviations. If you have opinions on the best way forward, please join that discussion. Thanks. Pam D 21:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
~~
Xb2u7Zjzc32 (
talk)
09:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
According to Microsorum scolopendria the term Phymatosorus scolopendria is synonymous. Because there are 2 items in Wikidata ( Microsorium scolopendrium and Phymatosorus scolopendria) the language links don't show all the references. Therefore I'd like to merge the Wikidata items, but I don't know, which term should be the preferred one. Can somebody help me with this? Best, -- ThT ( talk) 12:22, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I'm curious whether someone interested in botany can tell more about this tree from the image alone (e.g., genus, possible diseases, etc.)? Thank you. Sb2s3 ( talk) 07:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello all; I'm writing on behalf of the Wiki Education Foundation, which works with instructors who assign university students to write or edit Wikipedia articles in the United States and Canada. We're developing a print handbook for students who will write or expand articles on living species, including plants and fungi. I'd appreciate any feedback on the draft! It is open for comment until November 5th; after that we will set it to print. Thanks so much! Eryk (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 22:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I've just made a stub from what I could find about the use of the term Alliance (biology), and it seems to be an entirely informal grouping similar to a rank, but used more or less to mean a taxonomic puzzle that the authors are trying to untangle. However, orchid articles about genera often have an Alliance line in the taxobox (e.g., Ascocenda, Anacamptis, Brassia, Eria). I don't know what organization has defined these alliances; they are not discussed in the ICNCP. Can someone versed in Orchid taxonomy help with this? Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 21:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
In Malveae alliance is a informal rank intermediate between subtribe and genus. In Thymelaeaceae genera are collected into groups.
I seem to recall that there's something in the ICN about people being allowed to introduce non-standard intermediate ranks. Proles is an example of such an intraspecific rank. Lavateraguy ( talk) 22:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I propose that Alliance lines be removed from the taxoboxes of Orchidaceae. Salazar, G.A.; Chase, M.W.; Soto Arenas, M.A.; Ingrouille, M. (2003),
"Phylogenetics of Cranichideae with emphasis on Spiranthinae (Orchidaceae, Orchidoideae): evidence from plastid and nuclear DNA sequences", American Journal of Botany, 90 (5): 777–795{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) shows not only that the most recent delimitations of alliances correspond poorly to clades, but that the numbers and boundaries of alliances have been redrawn quite differently at different times. Opinions are invited.
Sminthopsis84 (
talk)
19:13, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Just stopping by since I saw this old discussion while I was here, but yes, orchid alliances have not really been used since the last great Dressler classification of the family in the mid-1990s. Few of his arrangements have held up to molecular phylogenetic analysis and newer publications have a great deal of support for rearranging the tribes and subtribes. I believe that when most of the orchid taxoboxes were created on Wikipedia, the reference most often used was Dressler's classification. I've updated what I could in the area I was working in, see Cymbidiinae and the genera contained within for accurate taxoboxes. I would wager that the majority of orchid taxoboxes use the outdated alliances, which means the category system might also be a mess. There is certainly fertile ground for whomever wants to tackle such an issue. Rkitko ( talk) 02:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia's 5 millionth article is Persoonia terminalis thanks to Casliber ( talk · contribs). There was a bit of a race involving Turkish villages, camera models, plant species and other topics at the run-up to 5 million. I'm glad to see a taxon article made the mark, and especially pleased that it was a plant. Yay! Plantdrew ( talk) 06:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I want to reverse a Move from species to subsp., no longer considered valid as the subsp. has now been sunk as insufficiently distinct from the species. See: /info/en/?search=Talk:Ulmus_minor_subsp._minor_%27Variegata%27 I've managed to revert all the other U. minor cultivar pages, but this one was moved from species to subsp. some time ago. Assistance much appreciated. Regards, Ptelea ( talk) 11:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The article names in Category:Potato cultivars are a mess with some simply being the name ( Bintje) others have potato after them ( Skerry Champion potato) and others use brackets ( Melody (potato)). Many do need more than the name but is there any preference for having potato bracketed? It's certainly the way that biographies etc are named. This also led me wonder whether we have a way of determining the notability of cultivars - for example the Skerry Champion doesn't appear to have an RS coverage so should probably be deleted, but very few meet WP:GNG which makes things a bit tricky. SmartSE ( talk) 22:31, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The plant project's default practice of naming plant articles with the scientific name obviously could introduce a complication. The argument for doing so is pretty strong when a given plant species has a dozen common names that vary regionally, but seems to be much weaker when it comes to names of cultivars of things that clearly do have a single WP:COMMONNAME. An article title like Solanum tuberosum 'Melody' would be of dubious utility to many readers (but not zero of them, since that exact phrase occurs in published literature). We don't seem to be naming that way, and instead are using the ICNCP name in article prose [mostly] where it makes encyclopedic sense to do so. It also seems to make sense at Commons, which is multilingual. So, it probably should not be a redlink here, and WP:NATDIS would have us move Melody (potato) to Melody potato, which is even more unreasonably a redlink right now. It nice to see that ICNCP conventions, which apply to extended scientific names, are not being used inappropriately to create Frankenstein constructions like 'Melody' potato or 'Melody' (potato), which we need not create redirs for. I'm skeptical anyone would post "I put a 'Granny Smith' apple in my daughter's lunchbox" on a child nutrition forum, even if they were an apple horticulur[al]ist.
Agreed that many cultivars have, at least superficially, a WP:Notability problem. I think it's an open question. Any well-established cultivar will appear in multiple tertiary sources like encyclopedias of garden plants, but tertiary sources don't count for notability establishment, last I looked. Same goes for primary-source journal articles; it's not enough that an obscure new cultivar was part of a study of cucurbit phytopathology. Is coverage in highly specialized horticultural publications of a more secondary nature sufficient? Some would argue that they're not really independent of the subject, and the same could be argued for coverage of new dog breeds, or whatever, in fancier publications, which are not yet covered in mainstream sources or outside of dog breed encyclopedias. (By contrast, the Hass avocado and the Jack Russell terrier are things that zillions of people have heard of and seen mentioned in print.) Hobbyist publications have a promotional interest in new variations (articles on them may be toward the top of their most popular content), and are typically also beholden to commercial advertisers with a fiduciary interest in their acceptance and popularity.
Agreed that things that are not strictly cultivars shouldn't be categorized as such. They're not all varieties, strictly, either. I'm not sure if it's better to fork the categories or rename them something more general (probably the latter, since only experts will know whether something is or isn't a cultivar, but how to name the categories would be an open question). In dealing with domesticated animals, a similar problem came up. Everything was just lumped into "breeds" including things that are not breeds at all. I started forking these into separate breeds and landraces categories, but disputes arose about the definition of "breed" (an issue that might or might not arise for "cultivar"). I've not moved to do anything yet, but the sensible approach now seems to be to treat "breed" in its broadest sense, and then subscategorize into standardized breeds, historically attested breeds that pre-date standardization, and landraces, based on the sourcing for each breed-in-the-broad sense. Something vaguely like this could work for plants. E.g. a catchall directory for potato varietals or types or whatever term is best, subcategorized into formal cultivars, notable heirloom types, landraces, etc. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 07:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
We now have articles on Acacia and Acacia sensu lato. And more than 1000 incoming links to Acacia with many that should be going to Acacia s.l.. Are we ready to split Acacia? Is there another way to handle this? It seems to me that acacia is a common name for a bunch of African species (and wattle is a common name for a bunch of Australian species). Should the broad sense be at Acacia with the narrow sense at Acacia (sensu stricto) or Acacia (genus), or ....? Plantdrew ( talk) 05:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Articles that actually distinguish among multiple distinct instances of related items(sans the rest), might be applicable. In any case, it doesn't cost much to test the popular opinion via a WP:RM. No such user ( talk) 13:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
Oof. I didn't really pay attention to the content of the articles previously. Acacia now covers the African species ("Vachellia"), completely ignoring retypification. I'd assumed (without reading it) that it covered the Australian species ("Racosperma"). I'd suggest that we redirect Acacia to Acacia sensu lato (or do we keep Acacia as the title, but unitalicized; would the taxobox get stripped out too then?), leave all the species article at Acacia title, and retain articles on the segregate genera (including both Racosperma and Vachellia) Acacia sensu stricto could be a dab page, or a redirect to Taxonomy of Acacia. Plantdrew ( talk) 18:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I just came across this. GRIN is now pulling vernacular names from Wikipedia and applying their own formatting style (our "porcupine tomato" is given as "porcupine-tomato" there). Sigh. Another reliable source joins the cloud of circular Wikipedia sourcing. Plantdrew ( talk) 05:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
So I've been polishing Asplenium articles again, and I've run into two taxobox-related issues where I could use some help.
The first regards the upper ranks of classification, as pertains to ferns. Many of our taxoboxes contain "Class: Polypodiopsida / Pteridopsida (disputed)". I guess, having accepted that Equisetum is part of our bailiwick, we fern people don't think very much about that end of the classification. The families laid out by Christenhusz, Zhang & Schneider (2011) are pretty well accepted; for ranks above that, they follow Chase & Reveal (2009) in classifying all land plants into subclasses of a single class, Equisetopsida, allotting subclass Lycopodiidae to the lycophytes and subclasses Equisetidae, Ophioglossidae, Marattiidae, and Polypodiidae to the ferns s.l. However, I get the impression that this scheme (which places all angiosperms in subclass Magnoliidae) hasn't exactly caught fire with the angiosperm community. Any thoughts on what to apply for class through order in ferns, or should I just leave what's there alone?
The second issue involves the use of eupolypods I and eupolypods II, subclades of the Polypodiales. These are not explicitly mentioned in Christenhusz et al. (2011), but would be unranked clades containing several families. Christenhusz & Chase (2014) decided to raise these clades to the rank of family and downgrade the families within them to subfamilies, but no one except the authors seems particularly enthusiastic about using that circumscription, so I would suggest we avoid it for the time being. However, I would like to know whether or not to include them in taxoboxes below the family level. It's sort of useful information (both have easily-examined synapomorphies associated with vascular bundles in the stipe), but I think that would run against our current practice.
Commentary would be warmly appreciated. Choess ( talk) 06:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
A couple of hundred articles refer to this as "Populus sect. Aegeiros", which is a redirect to Populus sect. Aigeiros. Is "Aegeiros" an acceptable alternative spelling, or simply a mistake? Colonies Chris ( talk)
" Populus sect. Aegiros" is the spelling that has all the incoming links. Until 2 July 2009, the article on the trees was at Cottonwood, after which the tree article was moved to Populus sect. Aegiros and the dab page was moved to Cottonwood. On 16 November 2011, the spelling on the dab page was corrected, and the tree article was moved to the current spelling. It looks like the misspelling originated on Wikipedia, and all the links to the misspelling are a result of having that spelling in the dab page when it moved to the base title. Simple English Wikipedia uses "Aegiros" as I write this, and there are 648 Google hits for that spelling. Good illustration of the power of Wikipedia. Plantdrew ( talk) 17:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
And I don't have move permission on Simple. I'll see if I can find something to do there to rack up my edit count for autoconfirmation. Plantdrew ( talk) 17:13, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
I think we need someone with a bot to go and fix all the links. Lavateraguy ( talk) 17:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Gerardia is making my brain hurt. It should be an Orobanchaceae genus that we have an article on, right? ( see Tropicos search) And looking at TPL, I suspect that the Orobanchaceae genus maybe should be treated as synonym of Agalinis? And we need an article for the acanths at Stenandrium? Plantdrew ( talk) 05:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
..is at FAC ( Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Telopea truncata/archive1) ..in case anyone wants to offer an opinion or suggest improvements....cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 05:46, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Taxonomy of the Orchidaceae#Need new title. As the IP who has been working on the article says, the current title is misleading. Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to stop by to introduce Corinne; she'll continue to help out at TFA and will be focusing for now on WP:PLANTS, WP:MAMMALS and WP:FUNGI. She'll also be helping out with prose reviews at FAC, and I'm available to answer questions about FAC or TFA any time. - Dank ( push to talk) 16:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm in the process of moving old files over to Commons and ran across this file. The uploader claimed that it is lythrum salicaria but an IP editor later changed the description to say it is a species of Epilobium. Can anyone identify this plant? Kelly hi! 10:30, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks to all for the help! Kelly hi! 11:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
We used to have an article titled Alpine Pennycress. Now it's at Thlaspi caerulescens, and it's a total trainwreck. Thlaspia caerulescens is apparently a European plant with a common name that's formatted by BSBI as "Alpine Penny-cress". And there is a western North American plant with "alpine pennycress" as the usual format for it's common name. TPL via WCSP [4] appears to accept the North American plant as Thlaspi montanum, but USDA PLANTS and FNA (see [5]) treat it as Noccaea fendleri subsp. glauca and TPL is also happy to accept that name via Tropicos ( [6]). I'm not sure whether to go with WCSP/TPL or FNA for the North American species. We can chalk this one up as another outstanding win for WP:COMMONNAME, but does anybody have some ideas about what title should be used for the North American plant? Plantdrew ( talk)
Hi. I need some expertise. I declined an article at AfC for lack of notability, simply based on the WP:GNG guidelines, which it clearly does not meet. Here is the draft: Draft:Herbert Alexander Wahl. The author ( Parkywiki) of the article requested I re-think my position with a query on my talk page, in which he brings up what I consider some damn fine points. However, admittedly, this is not a field of expertise for me, so I'd appreciate some input. That way, in the future if I run into this type of article, I'll know which way to evaluate. Thanks. Onel5969 TT me 19:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Since I keep running into all kinds of iris-related pages on Wikipedia, I've just morphed the Template:Iris page into one for the iris plant family, modeled loosely on Template:Rose. (Before, it was a template page for a band, but I moved that to Template:Iris (American band) so that they wouldn't lose the information already assembled.) It's just a start, and I've never done one of these before, so I welcome the input of anyone who wants to improve it themselves, or just offer suggestions. Alafarge ( talk) 22:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Would like some input from folks interested in plant taxonomy on this one.....
In 2013, Nothofagus was split into four genera, however Greg Jordan of the university of Tasmania and expert on fossil nothofagaceae has disputed the utility of the split and had a paper published on this. Now I am not sure on the consensus on the uptake of the split and how to weigh various bodies. Whatever we end up doing, it'd be good to resent the pros and cons on the genus or family article fully. Greg has begun editing here and it'd be good to engage collaboratively rather than see some edit-war erupt etc. I'll hunt for sources soon. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 06:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
(Transferred from WP:THQ#Botanical editing needed)
Eucalyptus angophoroides was full of sentence fragments and botanical jargon that's meaningless to the layman. I've done what I can about the former, but as to the latter, well, I'm a layman. Trying to decipher the sentence about "exerted valves" led to about a half hour of searching around the web, much of it spent trying to explain to the search engines that I didn't want to know about machinery (though I did find that the spelling perhaps should be "exserted", with an S). See
Can someone knowledgeable about the field please have a look there? Thanks.
-- Thnidu ( talk) 14:57, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
My free time is a bit in short supply, but I will try to buff Costus chartaceus, Blandfordia punicea and/or Blandfordia cunninghamii for DYK. Anyone is welcome to help. I find Oz plants alot easier to source (as I know where to look) than exotics. While we're at it, Christmas plants could do with some references I suspect. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
NB: Can anyone think of other plants called "Xmas bush"? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
There are three images in Commons in the category "Gooseberries" that would benefit from a botanical brain-wave: here, here and here. They are clearly not Ribes uva-crispa. The camera location of the photos places it in India, where I think the most likely meaning of gooseberry is Phyllanthus emblica, but these cut, dried, fruit appear to have large stones in the middle that have also been cut. I don't think they are a large Crataegus like Crataegus pinnatifida. Can anyone help? Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 20:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I'd come across some of editing by the students listed here while working in other areas. But I see there are some plant articles needing attention as well, e.g. Leymus, which has material about one of its species that needs moving. If anyone has spare time, checking their contributions would be worthwhile. Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sambangi. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ( talk) 06:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
These two articles appear to contradict each other about which one is the "Ashoka tree". Some of the references at Saraca asoca actually refer to Saraca indica. Are they in fact the same plant which has two names? I don't know how to resolve the confusion, so I'm hoping someone here can have a look. I started a discussion at Talk:Saraca_asoca#Contradiction and/or confusion with Saraca indica. Deli nk ( talk) 16:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Following this discussion (see also just above it Question) the guidance was revised by @ Circeus: and evolution was included in our Template under Taxonomy on 23 May 2009. The only subsequent discussion I have unearthed was in 2011, here. There seems to have been no wish to change this policy since it was enacted.
Consequently I have followed this practice in my taxon articles, and following WP:SS, by logical extension in taxonomy subpages, such as Taxonomy of Narcissus (GA) without any problems, till now.
Taxonomy of Liliaceae was nominated for GA review in April, and has since undergone extensive review. However there remains one sticking point that prevents its promotion. The reviewer believes Evolution should not be mentioned on a taxonomy page. We have had extensive discussions around this but have reached an impasse. Basically mention of evolution fails GA status.
I support our current policy, and to change it now might effect a large number of pages. In an era of molecular phylogenetics, inferences about evolution and current phylogeny and taxonomy stem from the same process, eg Patterson, T. B.; Givnish, T. J. (2002). "Phylogeny, concerted convergence, and phylogenetic niche conservatism in the core Liliales: insights from rbcL and ndhF sequence data" (PDF). Evolution. 56 (2): 233–252. doi: 10.1111/j.0014-3820.2002.tb01334.x. PMID 11926492., rather than reliance on the fossil record alone. Our current taxonomy has derived from evolutionary divergence, that is to say it is a dynamic, not static process. Or by a blunt analogy, our current taxonomic diversity and relationships derive from evolution not creation.
Is our current policy justified? If so should having evolution on a taxonomy page automatically fail it for GA (or FA)? If not, how should the topic of evolution be subsequently handled in the template and in articles based on that?-- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 13:37, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
I should point out that the template was alway a rough guideline to me. In particular, there was never in my mind anything to prevent splitting off a subsection where appropriate. Also, the template was originally written primarily for species, where it is exceedingly rare that evolution, phylogeny and biogeography (although the information should be included, obviously, when available) are sufficient to justify even a subsection (as opposed to a paragraph within the taxonomy/distribution sections). In the case of larger taxon, there is obviously no overwhelming necessity to follow the idiosyncrasies of a species-centric template!
My opinion in this particular dispute is that the phylogeny section clearly belongs in the taxonomy article, but that the Evolution and biogeography section can probably go back in the main article, except for information relevant specifically relevant to the taxonomy proper, of which at first glance there does not seem to be a lot.
As a side-note, Cladogram 2 is clearly intended to present timescales more than phylogenetic information, and would probably do a better job of providing that information if it were presented as a timeline (not something that would block a good article nomination though). Circéus ( talk) 10 December 2015
Sources (inter alia):
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |editorlink=
ignored (|editor-link=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |editorlink1=
ignored (|editor-link1=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |editorlink2=
ignored (|editor-link2=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help); Unknown parameter |editorlink1=
ignored (|editor-link1=
suggested) (
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)--
Michael Goodyear (
talk)
04:21, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Taxonomy and systematics
Taxonomy deals with the causes and consequences of variation of an entity ( taxon). It integrates the gathering of evidence, its processing, the production of phylogenetic relationships and a the resulting classification of the entity and its relationships, reflecting the totality of similarities and differences, including the evolutionary processes and pathways which produced divergence and diversity.
Topics to include in this section would usually include;
Rank | Bentham and Hooker (1883) [3] | Cronquist (1981) [4] | Takhtajan (1966, 1980, 2009) [5] [6] [7] | Dahlgren (1977, 1985) [8] [9] | Thorne (1992–2007) [10] [11] | APG (2003–9) [12] [13] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Division | Magnoliophyta | Magnoliophyta | Magnoliophyta | |||
Class | Monocotyledons | Liliopsida | Liliopsida | ( monocots) - unranked | Magnoliopsida ( Angiospermae) | ( monocots) - unranked |
Subclass | Liliidae | Liliidae | Liliidae | Liliidae | ||
Superorder (Series) | Coronarieæ | (Liliiflorae) Lilianae [14] | (Lilianae) Liliiflorae | Lilianae | Lilianae | |
Order | Liliales | Liliales | Liliales | Liliales | Liliales | |
For a comparison of the classifications of genera from 1959 ( Hutchinson) [15] to 2000 (Wilson and Morrison), [16] see Table 1 in Fay et al. 2006, [17] Table 1 in Peruzzi et al. 2009 [18] and Table 3. |
Cladogram of genus Rhododendron (Goetsch et al. 2005) | |||||||||
|
Include the fossil record where known and explain to what degree it supports the constructed phylogeny. Some evolutionary information may be better presented as a Timeline.
Fernandes 1975 [19] [20] | Webb 1978 [21] | Blanchard 1990 [22] | Mathew 2002 [23] | Zonneveld 2008 [24] | RHS 2013 [25] | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Subgenus | Section | Subsection | Section | Subsection | Section | Subsection | Subgenus | Section | Subsection | Series | Subgenus | Section | Section |
Hermione | Serotini | Serotini | Serotini | Hermione | Hermione | Serotini | Hermione | Serotini | Serotini | ||||
Hermione | Angustifolii | Tazettae | Angustifoliae | Tazettae | Angustifoliae | Angustifoliae | Tazettae | Tazettae | |||||
Hermione | Tazettae | Tazettae | Hermione | Hermione | |||||||||
Aurelia | Aurelia | Aurelia | Albiflorae | ||||||||||
Aurelia | Aurelia | ||||||||||||
Narcissus | Apodanthi | Apodanthae | Narcissus | Jonquillae | Apodanthi | Narcissus | Apodanthi | Apodanthi | |||||
Jonquilla | Jonquilla | Jonquillae | Jonquillae | Jonquillae | Jonquillae | Jonquilla | Jonquilla | ||||||
Juncifolii | Apodanthi | Chloranthi | Juncifolii | ||||||||||
Tapeinanthus | Tapeinanthus | Tapeinanthus | Tapeinanthus | Tapeinanthus | Tapeinanthus | ||||||||
Ganymedes | Ganymedes | Ganymedes | Ganymedes | Ganymedes | Ganymedes | ||||||||
Bulbocodium | Bulbocodium | Bulbocodium | Bulbocodium | Bulbocodium | |||||||||
Pseudonarcissus | Pseudonarcissi | Pseudonarcissi | Pseudonarcissus | Pseudonarcissus | Pseudonarcissus | Pseudonarcissus | |||||||
Reflexi | Nevadensis | ||||||||||||
Narcissus | Narcissus | Narcissus | Narcissus | Narcissus | Narcissus | ||||||||
Chloranthi (N. viridiflorus) |
Corbularia syn. Bulbocodium |
Subfamily | Tribe | Genus | |
---|---|---|---|
Lilioideae Eaton | Medeoleae Benth. | Clintonia Raf. - bead lilies | |
Medeola Gronov. ex L. - Indian cucumber-root | |||
Lilieae s.l. Ritgen | Cardiocrinum ( Endl.) Lindl. - giant lilies | ||
Fritillaria Tourn. ex L. – fritillary or mission bells | |||
Gagea
Salisb. (including Lloydia Salisb. ex
Rchb.) – yellow star-of-Bethlehem1,2 | |||
Lilium Tourn. ex L. – lily | |||
Nomocharis Franch. | |||
Notholirion Wall. ex Boiss. | |||
Tulipa L. (including Amana Honda) – tulip1 | |||
Erythronium L. – trout lily1 | |||
Calochortoideae Dumort.3 | Calochortus Pursh - mariposa, globe lilies | ||
Tricyrtis Wall. – toad lily | |||
Streptopoideae | Prosartes D.Don – drops of gold | ||
Scoliopus Torr. – Fetid Adder's Tongue | |||
Streptopus Michx. – twistedstalk | |||
1. Some classifications place Tulipa, Erythronium and Gagea into a separate tribe,
Tulipeae with the remaining genera in Lilieae s.s.
[18]
[27]
[28] 2. Other authorities place Gagea within its own tribe, Lloydieae [27] [28] 3. The situation with respect to Calochortoideae remains uncertain. Originally Calochortus and Tricyrtis were considered to be sister clades and placed together in subfamily Calochortoideae. |
and Cladograms to show the relationships such as this example for the genus Narcissus:
Narcissus Cladogram (Graham and Barrett 2004) [29] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
{{
cite book}}
: |edition=
has extra text (
help); Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help){{TaxonIds|name=''Narcissus''|wikispecies=narcissus|ncbi=4697|eol=29121|itis= 500435|gbif=2858200|others=[http://www.tropicos.org/Name/40025195 Tropicos]}}
References
Fernandes68
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Fernandes75
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Blanchard
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Mathew
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Zonneveld
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).RHSBC
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Graham
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).-- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Systematics, taxonomy and evolution
-- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 15:30, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
The spelling dionaeifolia in our article Caltha dionaeifolia is problematic.
If the foliage was named to resemble a species called dionea, so that dioneae- represents the genitive, then Art. 60.8 of the ICN (see here) does require changing the -ae- to -i-, which changes dioneaefolia to dioneifolia. Hooker explicitly says here that it's named for the resemblance of the leaves to those of Dionaea but then uses the spelling dioneaefolia. Presumably he didn't like dionaeaefolia, and replaced the first -ae- by -e- So if Hooker's change of the genus name to produce dioneaefolia is accepted, Art. 60.8 supports dioneifolia as per TPL/WCSP. On the other hand, you could "correct" Hooker's epithet to dionaeaefolia and thence to dionaeifolia. My view, for what it's worth, is that WCSP/TPL are correct, and it should be dioneifolia since the "correction" of Hooker's epithet isn't sanctioned by the ICN. Expert taxonomic comments sought! Peter coxhead ( talk) 12:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
A year after we noticed that the International Bulb Society website had gone, does anyone have any inside information as to what happened to them? The fact that other groups like the Pacific Bulb Society have changed their links to the Internet Archive suggests they don't interpret the "under construction" sign to indicate they are coming back any time soon. And presumably that is also the end of the Herbert Medal. If nobody knows we could ask a former medallist like Peter Goldblatt. -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 21:27, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
A personal comment on the situation at Wikidata regarding their treatment of taxonomy:
Wikidata admins know nothing of taxonomy, and neither does one of the two people who controls all taxonomic edits. As a result, when I tried to remove incorrect information that had been placed on the wrong data item, I was reverted and warned that removing any further source information would result in a block. You can see here where the admin told me flat out that "there is no truth only sources". The User:Succu insists that the APG III expanded classification paper puts the Subclass of arthrodontous mosses as a clade within the Class of horsetails, which is clearly wrong.
As a result, I believe that neither the Wikipedias nor Wikispecies will ever be able to make much use of the data stored at Wikidata. -- EncycloPetey ( talk) 22:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
There is a RfC at Talk:Climate change denial. Please contribute if you are interested. Biscuittin ( talk) 00:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone recall seeing a book/paper treatise on taxonomic names dealing with orthographic variants - in particular genitive segments - I write this as the issue has come up at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Isopogon anemonifolius/archive1. Originally Salisbury had the species name as anemonefolius and I have seen several species (e.g. ericaefolia becoming ericifolia), so was looking for some source that clarified that -i- was used systematically as the ending for the first (genitive) stem...... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 22:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
"Lilioid monocot" has recently been moved to lilioid monocots. I can see an argument for the plural, in line with the Latin names of higher taxa, but the move does raise some issues:
What do others think? Peter coxhead ( talk) 19:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Someone who knows what they're doing and has a botany term book handy make a stub for scale leaf - or add a section at leaf and make it a redirect? I have no textbook...... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Notwithstanding the unsourced speculation that we have at
cataphyll about cotyledons and whatever, both Hickey, M.; King, C. (2001), The Cambridge Illustrated Glossary of Botanical Terms, Cambridge University Press{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) and Beentje, H.; Williamson, J. (2010), The Kew Plant Glossary: an Illustrated Dictionary of Plant Terms, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew: Kew Publishing{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) say that cataphylls are scale leaves. The former says "A reduced leaf, e.g., a bract, bracteole, bud scale, or one of the papery sheathing leaves which enclose the whole of a newly developing aerial shoot in the genus Crocus. The latter says "1. scale leaf. 2. scale-like leaf." I suggest a redirect (and rather large-scale cleanup).
Sminthopsis84 (
talk)
15:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I believe we have had some discussions about modifications to {{ Botanist}} before. I see that User:Peter coxhead has recently improved it, thank you Peter! Currently it does three things
I needed a template that would also list all the taxa on IPNI that have the author as authority. I could not find one so I put together one today, as {{ IPNI author plant list}}, which you can see demonstrated at Peter Goldblatt.
But it overlaps with Botanist so is not ideal.
So the field "Author Query"="Author entry" appears twice.
I would like to propose modifying Botanist to incorporate the link to the search results, so we only need one template, if nobody has any objections. -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 21:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello plant experts. Here's an old draft that may be of interest. Should it be kept and improved? Or is this information already in the encyclopedia under another title? I posted about this once before, but no one commented. Is there a better place to report this? — Anne Delong ( talk) 02:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone know if there is any move to reduce the IPA pronunciation clutter in lead paragraphs, perhaps by putting them into some sort of margin box? We have discussed this before, but as far as I can see not for quite a while. The unsourced clutter in the first sentence of Heteromeles is one case in point, but zooplankton is even worse. In a previous discussion it was mentioned that IPA has caused a lot of bother at wiktionary, but the codes are now present there. (Curiously, only one pronunciation of zooplankton is given at wiktionary.) Sminthopsis84 ( talk) 15:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
@
J. 'mach' wust: I do not think it matters whether or not the source uses the exact same pronunciation conventions we use
– I'm not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean that it doesn't matter if we change the source's representation to our IPA, or that it doesn't matter if we directly reproduce the source's representation?
Peter coxhead (
talk)
10:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
And speaking of Peter Goldblatt (see above) that I just started today, we could really do with a template for botanist biographies similar to the one we have for taxa. I would be happy to take care of that if there is general agreement. -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 21:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I am dismayed to notice that nav boxes are now being included in articles on plant species. Aside from the fact that these made redundant by the well maintained categories and taxobox, they have the effect of smothering the incoming links (what links here) to any article. I believe this is significantly detrimental to the overall structure of the site, and to any especial interest in the mention of biota in other articles. cygnis insignis 16:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
This whole discussion begs the question "Where is a navbox appropriate", which is almost a WP wide question, and its corollary "What should a navbox contain and what should it look like"? It would seem that if we can agree on those questions, a guidance should be added to our Template. At the very least a navbox should be complete, for instance contain all families of an order. Redlinking is acceptable in the short term but should be remedied ASAP. And for usefulness the navbox should appear on the both the higher taxon page and the lower taxon pages it targets. We also have to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. -- Michael Goodyear ( talk) 20:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Some of them were previously nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_9#Template:Navbox_Artemisia, which failed as an overly broad nomination (and with very few people commenting). I'll try to put together a deletion nomination for just the genus navboxes that are incomplete in listing species due to avoided red-links, and which include no other topics besides species. That won't include the Persoonia navbox (which is apparently complete) or stuff like {{ Allium}} (woefully incomplete, but not restricted to species topics). Plantdrew ( talk) 21:40, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
By pure coincidence, I raised an issue of content overlap similar to Grass/Poeceae at Talk:Fabaceae#Overlap with Legume. I would like to solicit some input in that discussion. Thanks. No such user ( talk) 11:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).