![]() | 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 65 | ← | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | Archive 71 | Archive 72 | → | Archive 75 |
Would there be interest in a module function that could link
author citations for taxa automatically? For instance, it would take Cham. & Schldl.
and return [[Adelbert von Chamisso|Cham.]] & [[Diederich Franz Leonhard von Schlechtendal|Schldl.]]
, or just [[Cham.]] & [[Schldl.]]
, relying on there being a redirect.
This would allow more consistent linking of taxonomic authorities in taxoboxes and various lists of taxa. The author citations could just be enclosed in a template, which would do all the work. At the moment, they're linked only if someone cares to do it.
The initial step would be to create a function to locate the author abbreviations (or full names?) in the author citation. Perhaps Wikidata's regex for botanist author abbreviations could be translated into a parser. (The regex can't be used directly because Scribunto doesn't have a regex library.)
As far as linking, it would be easier to simply link the author abbreviations ([[Cham.]] & [[Schldl.]]
), but it would be more useful to link to the full name of the author ([[Adelbert von Chamisso|Cham.]] & [[Diederich Franz Leonhard von Schlechtendal|Schldl.]]
) so that an article can be created. My initial thought was to use data modules, perhaps derived from the data at
IPNI, but maybe the
botanist author abbreviation (P428) property on Wikidata can be used for this, if there's a way to return the Wikipedia article for the Wikidata item in which this property has a given value (I haven't used Wikidata much).
Has this idea been proposed before, and are there issues that I'm overlooking? — Eru· tuon 18:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Cham. & Schldl.
, output
Cham. &
Schldl. and for L.
output
L.
Jts1882 |
talk
08:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
{{template name|Cham. & Schldl.}}
→
Cham. &
Schldl.. It would be more convenient to be able to add the template to the whole author citation than to have to add it to each individual name or abbreviation in the citation. —
Eru·
tuon
16:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
{{botauthor|name|name2}}
).string.gsub
, that takes two arguments: the citation, and a function that receives each author abbreviation and yields the linked version to be inserted into the final version of the citation. —
Eru·
tuon
18:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)redirectTarget
property of the
title
object for the redirect page. —
Eru·
tuon
19:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)(),&
with optional whitespace around them. And it is whitespace-agnostic; it normalizes to the whitespace-less form (L.B. Sm. → L.B.Sm.) internally when looking up the abbreviations, but displays the version that was supplied to it. Using the whitespace-less form internally is slightly simpler than the other way around. I adapted your code for looking up the "botanist author abbreviation" property (
d:Property:P428) to verify that a name not found in the data table is the name of a botanical author. —
Eru·
tuon
19:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)This edit on Chorophyta put the author in parenthesis because small doesn't work on some mobiles. I reverted the change based on the special meaning of parentheses around authors in the botanical code and because they aren't used for suprageneric taxa. Firstly, was this a correct reversion? Secondly, is there an alternative/additional way of making the authority look different, either an alternative to the small tag or different font? Jts1882 | talk 07:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
small
tag is rendered by different browsers. Template {{
Au}} also has a second optional parameter for putting a date in parentheses.
Jts1882 |
talk
16:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Mobile vs desktop version When I change between "en.wikipedia.org" and "en.m.wikipedia.org" on the same device with different browsers, the behaviour is always the same: the mobile version disregards <small> tags, but obeys <span style="font-size:85%;"> (which is how {{ small}} works). I think it's because the mobile version loads different default stylesheets, which have the effect of ignoring <small> tags, presumably because the designers thought that even smaller font on a small mobile device wasn't a good idea. What we will be doing by using {{ small}} is over-riding the intended appearance of the mobile version. I'm not sure that this is the right thing to do. It needs a higher level discussion. Peter coxhead ( talk) 06:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
<small>
is not a presentational element, but rather is defined by the HTML spec as "represent[ing] so-called 'fine print' or 'small print', such as legal disclaimers and caveats". Not decreasing the font size is consistent with this, and the semantics may not be what you as taxonomists intend for this usage.
Hairy Dude (
talk)
23:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
<small>
was a semantic element. In my view, it's exactly appropriate for taxonomic authorities – they are a legal (i.e. according to the rules of the nomenclature codes) addition to the taxon name, which is the main information. For that reason, it can be argued (as I have come round to thinking) that using a presentational style, via CSS, is not the right approach.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
12:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)There is a move discussion at Comptonia (plant) suggesting moving the article to the species Comptonia peregrina since the genus is not actually monotypic and a number of extinct species are described.-- Kev min § 20:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
For those who haven't noticed, the IPNI website has been updated.
urn:lsid:ipni.org:authors:5767-1
is the IPNI ID for this author.urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:435655-1
is the IPNI ID for this taxon name.However, other links don't work and will need to be updated if present in articles. For example,
//www.ipni.org/ipni/plantnamesearchpage.do has been used in citations with wikitext like {{cite web |title="Search for TAXON" |url=//www.ipni.org/ipni/plantnamesearchpage.do |...}}
, but doesn't work now. To search for all occurrences of an item, e.g. "Rhodanthemum", you now need a URL like
//www.ipni.org/?q=Rhodanthemum.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
09:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
{{
IPNI}}
(which generates citations to IPNI); it now works with the new URLs for searches, etc.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
10:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)According to IUCN this species is extinct. However a Wikimedian on Commens has uploaded three pictures purporting to be of this species. I would be interested to know if they pass muster. I have linked a picture of a Kew specimen from the syub, more specimens can be found via GBIF.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
21:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC).
As far as I can tell, this species has not been seen since the mid-1800s, and it was declared extinct in the 1990s after some searching. I can't find anything about its rediscovery. Most likely the uploader is mistaken, ...but with any luck there is a secretive new paper getting written somewhere. I'd ignore it unless something gets published. 86.83.56.115 ( talk) 10:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Been looking at this, not sure how to fix it. It's missing species, most notably the most notable species Shorea robusta. It was mostly constructed from a list of species from northern Borneo, by Ashton in 2004, organised by sections. Ashton classified other species in sections devised for the Flora Malesiana in 1979, PoWO would give a more accurate count and modern nomenclature, but I doubt any of the species restricted to India and/or Indochina are or will ever soon be classified in sections. Wouldn't an alphabetical list be better, with the info on subgeneric classification in the taxobox or text in the individual articles? 86.83.56.115 ( talk) 10:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Species | Ashton (2004) | Updated [1] | |
---|---|---|---|
sections | groups | ||
Shorea affinis (Thwaites) P.S.Ashton | Doona | ||
Shorea congestiflora (Thwaites) P.S.Ashton | Doona | ||
Shorea cordifolia (Thwaites) P.S.Ashton | Doona | ||
Shorea disticha (Thwaites) P.S.Ashton | Doona | ||
Shorea megistophylla P.S.Ashton | Doona | ||
Shorea trapezifolia (Thwaites) P.S.Ashton | Doona | ||
Shorea zeylanica (Thwaites) P.S.Ashton | Doona | ||
Shorea contorta S.Vidal | Pentacme | ||
Shorea siamensis Miq. | Pentacme | ||
Shorea agamii P.S.Ashton | Anthoshorea | White Meranti group | |
Shorea agamii P.S.Ashton | Anthoshorea | White Meranti group | |
Shorea bracteolata Dyer | Anthoshorea | White Meranti group | |
Shorea confusa P.S.Ashton | Anthoshorea | White Meranti group | |
Shorea cordata P.S.Ashton | Anthoshorea | White Meranti group | |
Shorea dealbata Foxw. | Anthoshorea | White Meranti group | |
Shorea gratissima (Wall. ex Kurz) Dyer | Anthoshorea | White Meranti group | |
Shorea lamellata Foxw. | Anthoshorea | White Meranti group | |
Shorea ochracea Symington | Anthoshorea | White Meranti group | |
Shorea resinosa Foxw. | Anthoshorea | White Meranti group | |
Shorea symingtonii Wood | Anthoshorea | White Meranti group | |
Shorea virescens Parijs | Anthoshorea | White Meranti group | |
Shorea isoptera P.S.Ashton | Neohopea | Selangan Batu group |
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
Hi there. I just expanded the above article. But it should probably be moved (to V. harmandiana), see taxonomy section. Leo, 86.83.56.115 ( talk) 20:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
There is a requested move at Talk:Orthilia that has been re-opened. Your opinion would be helpful and welcome in this discussion. Please come and help! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 01:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The plant at this name seems to be called Neocallitropsis pancheri or Eutacta pancheri and all the {{ taxonbar}} identifiers use these two names. The text says it used to be in genus Neocallitropsis but a 2003 molecular study found it nested in Callitris. But that is an old study and doesn't seem to be followed by later sources. The IUCN and Kew use Neocallitropsis pancheri and Christenhusz et al (2011) recognise the genus in their taxonomy. Tropicos has entries for both and some explanation about basionyms I don't follow. I think it probably should be moved to Neocallitropsis pancheri. Jts1882 | talk 08:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
I generally work on tropical plants. Most of the IUCN assessments for tropical plants were complied by Americans in 1998 and are horribly badly researched/done. I see that other editors use Nature Serve for the USA and something else for Australia. I would like to propose switching out the assessments with those of the Centro Nacional de Conservação da Flora for those plants native or largely native to Brazil. Regarding dipterocarps, the Malaysian Red List is miles better than the IUCN.
In other cases I'm not sure what to do, but when an assessment is demonstratively based on bad data (see for example Dipteryx charapilla), is it truly a service to the public to have such bad info right up there on the top of the page?
Cheers, Leo 86.83.56.115 ( talk) 19:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
|status2=
, |status2_system=
and |status2_ref=
. The systems currently available are described at
Wikipedia:Conservation_status. I'm not familiar with the
Malaysian Red List but I don't see why it can't be added if the list can be shown to be notable. Can you provide the information you want to add for
Dipteryx charapilla with a source?
Jts1882 |
talk
07:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)|status2=
, |status2_system=
and |status2_ref=
... didn't work.
86.83.56.115 (
talk)
16:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I saw your edits (after a bit) and added a bit more, and just resubmitted the draft. Good stuff! Cheers, Leo 86.83.56.115 ( talk) 14:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
References
A discussion has been started at WP:Tree of Life regarding recent edit warring behavior of taxonomic etymologies. Comments are requested.-- Kev min § 03:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
There's a source that claims that agave leaves were used in the construction of a 4th century BCE boat. This is an extraordinary claim, given that all botanical sources I know say that Agave is native to the Americas, and was unknown elsewhere until after European contact in the 15th century CE. Extraordinary claims need strong sources, and I haven't seen them yet, so I'm reluctant to add this to the Agave article (it was initially added to the Agave americana article, but no source mentions the species). If anyone has any insight into this matter, please comment at Talk:Agave#Agave in Europe in 4th century BCE. Peter coxhead ( talk) 07:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Some years back, the Pearson Scott Foresman company donated a ton of line art to Commons. These were items which had been in their illustrated dictionaries. However, they didn't label all the images - and in fact, they donated them in the form of assemblies of images, with filenames like "PSF-W1040007" that indicate only the first letter of the words illustrated by the images.
That's the context. Can anyone identify these plants whose names begin with W?
Thanks. DS ( talk) 15:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Is Polygaloides a synonym of Polygala, or vice versa, or neither? Abductive ( reasoning) 06:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Dinosaur Park Formation and Hell Creek Formation both link to the DAB page Baeria, saying it's a ginkgo. The only plant entry on the DAB page is an unaccepted name for Lasthenia, a genus in Asteraceae. Wikispecies does not know Baeria except in connection with Lasthenia. A Google search for 'baeria ginkgo' turned up nothing. I'd be tempted to delete these two entries as spurious, unless an expert here knows better. Narky Blert ( talk) 11:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
References
Are there any editors from this WikiProject willing to maintain Portal:Plants? The Portals guideline requires that portals be maintained, and as a result numerous portals have been recently been deleted via MfD largely becasue of lack of maintenance. Let me know either way, and thanks, UnitedStatesian ( talk) 05:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
After finishing Importance-Assessing all of the unassessed articles in this project, I have been doing some assessing for other projects and I'd just like to share some of my findings. As I previously mentioned, the majority of the articles on plant species have one or zero pageviews a day. But on Wikiproject Fishes there are many articles that have had zero pageviews since July 1, 2015!. I feel that this bears repeating, since this alone is a good reason not to mass-create a bunch of stubs. Abductive ( reasoning) 19:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I have also continued to re-assess large numbers of Low-Importance WP:PLANTS articles as Mid-Importance. As I previously mentioned, any article that gets more than 10 pageviews a day is almost invariably a weed, a medicinal plant, a garden/ornamental plant, or an edible, and consequently something that readers are looking up. If I have the stamina, I intend to re-assess thousands of such articles from Low to Mid. Lest there be concerns that this might go too far, I would like to point out that WP:PLANTS has way too many Low-Importance articles. If one looks at the Wikipedia-wide assessment data, one will see that about 1% of articles are Top-Importance, 4.4% are High-Importance, and 17% are Mid-Importance. If WP:PLANTS matched these numbers, it would have 1,162 Tops (currently 77), 4,145 Highs (currently 673), and 16,005 Mids (currently 6,445). Abductive ( reasoning) 19:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
More generally, we should ask the question: important to which readers? My view has always been that WP:PLANTS assessments should be based on the importance of the topic to readers interested in plants. Amborella is a more important genus than other genera of tropical shrubs or trees because of its relevance to the evolution of flowering plants. How many page views it gets doesn't change that. Peter coxhead ( talk) 06:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Based on how I use sources, including wikipedia, no consideration should be given to readership in editing: the information that I source adds to extant facts; how that is useful is for the reader to decide. I am at a loss how to assign importance to an organism I assume is crucial to some other organisms, is it a guess on the presumed importance to our own? ~ cygnis insignis 12:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Not that anyone needs to do anything, but ya'll should probably be aware that some tools, such as HotArticlesBot will not run on WikiProject Plants because it is too big, in this case greater than 50,000 pages. I've also had trouble with FIST quitting partway through the A's on ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Wikipedia requested images of plants ( 25,800 ) (and yes I know the Image Existence Checker needs to be gone through too). I'm sure there are other potential issues out there, so keep an eye out. -- Nessie ( talk) 13:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
The Araguaney tree is known in English Wikipedia as Tabebuia chrysantha while in Spanish Wikipedia is known as Handroanthus chrysanthus. I am not an expert in biology, I tried to find if it were indeed the same but I fell in this Handroanthus/Tabeuia conflict where some species were renamed and reverted. Could somebody with more expertise try to confirm if both are indeed the same. -- MaoGo ( talk) 14:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Done--
MaoGo (
talk)
23:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Proposal to delete all portals
The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to delete Portal space. Voceditenore ( talk) 08:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
(Post moved from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora). Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC))
recent research suggests that those species are infact the same species only differing that s.madagascariensis is diploid and s.inaequidens is tetraploid. inaequidens is invasive in Europe whereas madagascariensis is invasive in Australia and America. should the articles stay as are or should they be joined with one referring to the other? [1]
Post originally by 134.106.34.199 12:29, 24 September 2019
References
Following a move discussion, I merged Alnus viridis into Alnus alnobetula, but the resulting page needs some attention because the identity of the subspecies, and other issues, differ between the two articles. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 08:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Short of committing WP:SYN it looks as if the solution is to drop Alnus maximowiczii, which brings the two lists of subspecies in line, or to discuss the issues of the ranks of mandschurica, maximowiczii (and also glutipes) - firma, pendula and sieboldiana seem to be clearly outside Alnus alnobetula. Lavateraguy ( talk) 17:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi, rather new editor here with two questions noted after reading the Goldenrod page.
1. I expected to find a page somewhere outlining how to determine which taxonomy to follow, but haven't turned anything up. Is there some guidelines somewhere? Currently, the genus Oligoneuron is split from Solidago in some places but not others, even within the same articles. Obviously these should be treated consistently (with the alternative classification discussed but not used), but I don't know what criteria I should be using to determine which taxonomy to actually use?
2. The page currently treats "Goldenrod" as a perfect synonym of "Solidago" which is not true - the genus Euthamia are also called goldenrods in many if not most cases. It seems really strange to me that Goldenrod doesn't even mention that the term can have multiple definitions. I have personally never used goldenrod to refer to Solidago in exclusion of Euthamia, but I'm sure this may vary regionally. In any case, how should these kinds of cases be treated, where a common name is based on outdated taxonomy? Should there be a page for goldenrod linking to both genera, or maybe just a link to Euthamia in the introduction for Solidago? I'm sure there are many similar examples on Wikipedia.
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somatochlora ( talk • contribs) 17:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
As part of my job I'm compiling information on the endangered plant species of Arizona, and thus have a lot of great information just floating around. I thought it'd be nice to centralize all that info on Wikipedia. Thus asking for advice: should I create a list type article of the US federally endangered plant taxa of my home state? Obviously, that would open the door for one for every state, which is why I thought I'd ask here first before just creating it and then having it deleted. I'm not sure if that is...too niche for the encyclopedia. If something like this already exists, let me know! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 08:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Does cs. have a standard meaning in botany? Phytophthora hydropathica links to it, but it's a DAB page with no obvious match. Narky Blert ( talk) 16:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Should we replace NatureServ as the status system for plants when we have IUCN statuses, or list both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AidenD ( talk • contribs) 02:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello plant experts! There's a draft waiting for review at WP:AFC which falls under the scope of this project. Please take a look.— Anne Delong ( talk) 12:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
The nomenclature and classification of lycophytes, defined broadly, is highly confused and confusing. It's possible, I think, to distinguish between two taxa:
Ignoring minor extinct species, these are related thus:
lycophytes broadly defined |
| ||||||
A major problem is that sources use the same or very similar terms for these two different groups, at wildly inconsistent ranks. As an example, division Lycophyta of Mauseth (2014) excludes zosterophylls whereas the lower-ranked subdivision Lycophytina of Kenrick & Crane (1997) includes them. I've put some tables setting out the variation starting at Lycopodiopsida#Table 1.
Since the policy here is to have articles about taxa, not names, it seems to me that there should be one article for each group I've identified above. We have to choose a single title for each, and set up the same hierarchy in taxoboxes. WP:PLANTS earlier agreed to use the PPG I system for pteridophytes, so we should use Lycopodiopsida for "lycophytes narrowly defined".
Our article at Lycopodiophyta is confused between the two taxa I've identified above. I want to sort it out, but this raises the question of the title to be used.
Question I'm inclined to use the informal term "Lycophytes" for the title of an article about "lycophytes broadly defined" rather than, say "Lycophyta" or "Lycopodiophyta". What do others think? Peter coxhead ( talk) 11:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
I have now moved "Lycopodiophyta" to " Lycophyte" and revised both this article and Lycopodiopsida to make them consistent. The formal and informal "lyco-" names are a mess, which I think I understand now, but find hard to write up clearly and particularly without synthesis or OR. Peter coxhead ( talk) 12:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
|same_as=Taxonomy/Lycophytina
. I suppose they should be changed to |parent=Lycophytes
and then lycophytina is no longer used. However, what reference can be used for the parent Lycophytes. Crane et al (2004) use lycophyte in the cladogram (Fig 1), but the taxon is Lycophytina (e.g. Table 2) following Kenrick & Crane (1997).
Jts1882 |
talk
16:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Howdy hello! As part of my job I have access to a rather large collection of herbarium samples as well as several thousand type samples of plants. I was thinking of photographing many of them and adding them to Wikipedia articles, but then I wondered if that is a copyright issue. Obviously I could just photograph the plant itself, but can I include photos of the labels on these samples? Is the text of the description of locations/habitats/plants by botanists copyrighted? See for example [3]. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 04:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Many herbaria (e.g., US) have already photographed their type specimens and placed these images online. You could simply write or email these institutions and ask for permission to use their images. But to answer your question more directly, most herbarium managers will be more than happy to allow you to photograph specimens if you ask, although most will want some kind of acknowledgment or attribution (which is the proper and polite thing to do anyway). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.174.100 ( talk) 15:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm working on rewriting Saguaro, and I've come across a bit of an oddity. As far as I can tell, its in the tribe Pachycereeae, but the infobox autogeneration is putting it in the seemingly nonexistent tribe Echinocereeae. Is the classification correct? If not, how can the auto infobox be corrected? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 23:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
After all the fun with the Spooky Species Contest last month, there's a new contest for the (Northern hemisphere's) Winter holidays at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Contest. It's not just Christmas, but anything festive from December-ish. Feel free to add some ideas to the Festive taxa list and enter early and often. -- Nessie ( talk) 17:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I am having a little trouble understanding Royal Horticultural Society listings from their website. For example, Celosia argentea var. cristata (Plumosa Group) 'Century Rose' (Century Series) or Geranium (Cinereum Group) Rothbury Gem = 'Gerfos' (PBR) Geranium (Cinereum Group) ROTHBURY GEM ('Gerfos') (PBR). Which elements of these descriptors are superfluous, and what would an article title that meets WP:MOS and WP:PLANTS guidance for them look like? (Not that I am intent on creating articles on these any time soon, but I am thinking of making redlinks for them.) Abductive ( reasoning) 10:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Geranium 'Gerfos' | |
---|---|
Genus | Geranium |
Cultivar group | Cinereum Group |
Cultivar | 'Gerfos' |
Marketing names | Rothbury Gem |
Once again, I present line art of unidentified plants whose names are known to start with "W".
Any thoughts? Thanks. DS ( talk) 04:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
The circumscriptions of many, many angiosperm families have changed radically in recent years, largely as a result of molecular phylogenetics. It's a shame that former circumscriptions are being bulldozed under as the APG classification is stamped on the articles. The APG classification is widely (but not universally) accepted among botanists but many older references will still follow the older circumscriptions, and for historical purposes and to help make sense of older references it is useful to include information, at least in passing, about these former circumscriptions rather than simply editing the article to present the current circumscription. I've made comments along this line in Saxifragaceae and some related articles, as this is one family whose circumscription has changed considerably. For example, the genera now placed in Hydrangeaceae were once included in Saxifragaceae (and many older references will reflect this) but neither of these family articles makes any reference to this. The Parnassia article didn't even include a link to the still-existing Parnassiaceae article (I've just edited it to make this reference). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.174.100 ( talk) 14:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
WikiProject Aquatic plants has been deleted (without discussion) by Ajpolino and the inactive project page is now a redirect. I know most of you probably did not even know it existed. Many of you likely think it was unneeded. I am a little concerned that this was done without a heads-up to WikiProject Plants (the project page had {{ WikiProject Plants}} on its talk page). Very few ToL projects have many active members nor all the robust maintenance that they should, as I'm learning in my efforts in this area. Larger, more active WPs like WP Plants are already too large for some maintenance tasks to run. I'm not asking for any action on this. The project probably should have been folded ultimately, but there is a balance here, and I think we need to pay attention a little bit. -- Nessie ( talk) 16:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I know that among many houseplants (example: philodendrons) and some garden plants (example: hostas), the generic name is the common name, and that it is then acceptable to use the common name, uncapitalized and unitalicized, in Wikipedia articles. I am thinking of making list articles along the lines of List of Award of Garden Merit rhododendrons, such as List of Award of Garden Merit allium or List of Award of Garden Merit sarracenia, but I am wondering about how to title them in cases where the generic name is not typically used as the common name. Should it be "Allium", "allium", "alliums" or something invented like "ornamental onions"? Abductive ( reasoning) 06:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I just made the article for Ipomoea marginata but there's conflicting information as to whether it's an accepted name or a synonym for Ipomoea sagittifolia. Wikispecies has it under the latter name and the Commons category also goes by that. Does anyone know how to resolve this? Anarchyte ( talk | work) 11:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
It appears that there is a second species of Flatbergium. I'm busy trying to meet the Atlas 2020 deadline, so does anyone else want to revise the Sphagnopsida articles. Lavateraguy ( talk) 17:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Is there a more efficient way to identify and correct all dubious links to a specific plant species? I was reading information on the Flea beetle and the author refers to, and links to Euphorbia esula. It wasn't until I read the whole page before I found the note at the end which clarifies confusion between the two subspecies, and then I realized the correct link should have been to E. virgata. While I recognize that I could just correct the link on the "Flea Beetle" page, I'm not certain the information is still valid with the other plant subspecies, and, I suspect there are more pages than just this with an incorrect link. Is there a site wide editing method for this? Perhaps links to Leafy Spurge could go to its Index page (with a note identifying E. virgata as the North American invasive weed)? Or if that's not possible, could someone provide a proper note clarifying E. virgata as the N.A. invasive weed at the top of the page? Any thoughts? Thanks for reading. (Hopelessly still a Wiki Novice) CanucksGirl ( talk) 22:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Is there a consensus view yet about the wording of plant short descriptions. It seems to me that "Species of plant" which is being applied by some editors is less informative than it could be, given that there are several hundred thousand of them. Plantsurfer 11:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Guys, could you check my work on Acer diabolicum? I'm especially concerned about distinguishing styles from stigmas, as these form the "horns" that give the species its names. Abductive ( reasoning) 22:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Didn't really look hard at this, which paper is being used, but both versions of TPL, PoWO and New Zealand gov. websites consider Blumea a synonym of Machaerina. Some Australian websites and gardeners continue using Blumea. On Wikipedia... well, see for yourselves. A number of pages might need moving here. Cheers, Leo Breman ( talk) 23:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Plants since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{ infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{ starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!
Sent on behalf of Trialpears ( talk) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I still find the ICNafp's terms replacement name and replaced synonym somewhat puzzling at times, particularly so when I was struggling to understand the authorship of the synonyms of Pseudolycopodium densum. So I turned to the section Nomen novum#Algae, fungi and plants but didn't find it very helpful. I've attempted to re-write it, but it would be good if others could look it over. It seems an excellent example of the obscurity of parts of the ICNafp! Peter coxhead ( talk) 17:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
The project page is appearing in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. At the moment, the only things not showing are a couple of navboxes at the bottom of the page, but they should be visible if considered necessary. Are there some things that are no longer needed or is there a section that could be moved to a subpage? Jts1882 | talk 16:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
An IP editor pointed out that an image then used in the taxobox at Baragwanathia was in fact of Phlegmariurus squarrosus. It had been called File:Baragwanathia artificial model.jpg by the person who uploaded it to Commons. Because it was included in the Wikidata object, those language wikis that pick up taxobox images from Wikidata were all showing it. I've now had it moved, and removed it from our article and Baragwanathia (Q1452954).
This example makes a familiar point about the problems with both Commons and Wikidata: there's no equivalent of referencing at Commons, so there are many misidentified images; picking up information automatically from Wikidata removes a level of editor scrutiny and responsibility. Peter coxhead ( talk) 19:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I hate the kind of muddled categories I see on fern articles as I've been working on converting them to PPG I. As just one example, see Pellaea truncata, but almost any article in the "Ferns of ..." category hierarchy shows the same muddle.
Personally, I would like to remove all the "Ferns of ..." categories from articles, just use the normal WGSRPD "Flora of ..." categories, and then nominate the "Ferns of ..." categories for deletion. Intersectional categories, in this case mixing taxonomic category with distribution category, are unnecessary, and misleading unless complete (which I'm certainly not going to work on).
Views, please. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
What is the difference between Category:Interspecific plant hybrids and Category:Plant nothospecies? I have probably been assigning these all wrong, but it would help if the category page for Category:Interspecific plant hybrids didn't list Nothospecies as a member, and it would help if there was guidance on each page. Or could they be merged? Abductive ( reasoning) 07:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Do you want a fun and exciting Wiki challenge? An opportunity to get involved in some of the most important editing on Wikipedia? A giant shiny cup to display on your userpage? Well then you should join the WikiCup challenge! Folks of all experience levels are welcome to join. It's a good way for veteran editors to test their mettle, and for new users to learn the ropes. The competition revolves around content creation, such as good and featured articles, DYK's, reviewing such content, and more. See Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring for full details. Over the course of the year, users compete to create the most and best content in a round based format. The top performers in each round will advance to the next, until just 8 remain in the final round. Out of those, one Wikipedian will walk away with the coveted silver Wikicup. Could that user be you? Find out by signing up! Signups are open until January 31, 2020. May the editing be ever in your favor! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 21:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
What authority are we using for grasses? I'm working on creating pages for all of the Boutelouas, and as with all of these obscure grasses, the taxonomy is always a bit foggy. I'm using ITIS at the moment, as its what I use in my day to day field research, but I realized that Wikipedia might use a different one. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 21:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Please see these three requests at Template talk:GRIN. -- CiaPan ( talk) 14:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Done Thank you,
Hike395. --
CiaPan (
talk)
07:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Plants of the World Online sinks a number of genera in tribe Papavereae of the Papaveraceae into Papaver, which in their circumscription includes Meconopsis, Roemeria and Stylomecon, which our family article keeps separate, and two of which have their own article. The molecular evidence for the para/polyphyly of traditional Papaver has been clear for a long time, but horticulturalists in particular have fought to keep Meconopsis separate from Papaver (excluding M. cambrica, which is clearly in Papaver, although the type species of Meconopsis). However, there does seem a trend towards accepting the merger, as exemplified by this paper.
Does anyone have any views on what we should do? Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Introducing
Template:The Plantae Barnstar
Jerm (
talk)
21:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Genus Mauranthemum, but species Leucanthemum paludosum. Lavateraguy ( talk) 22:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
→ Template for Wikipedia articles on Invasive Alien Plants of Union concern
At the WikiThon on Invasive Alien Species held in January 2020 in Krakow, the participants developed a template for the description of Invasive Alien Species of Union concern.
As a next step, I compared it with your Taxon template and extended the structure of chapters 6 (Distribution and habitat) and 7 (Ecology) to fit required descriptives for Invasive Alien Plants. Details of the adaptations can be seen in the google sheet Wikiproject Plants - Template for plant articles, adapted for Invasive Alien Plants.
We would be grateful if you could critically review our template and check if it fits the "Wikiproject Plants" requirements.
Kind regards, Christian Ries ( talk) 09:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
The article for Jankaea needs to be updated with the correct spelling as Jancaea. I haven't touched it because the article title also needs to be changed; see references on the talk page. 160.111.254.17 ( talk) 14:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Just wanted another opinion on this. Draft:Domus solis seems like a hoax to me, but that name has too many false positives when I search. The author hasn't contributed much else to Wikipedia. -- awkwafaba ( 📥) 15:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
A new botanic garden has recently opened, the Delaware Botanic Gardens. I've added references and links to it in a couple of articles but there is no article about the garden yet. The DBG is notable in part because of its meadow garden designed by Piet Oudolf. I can't create a new article as I don't have a Wikipedia account (and don't care to create one, been there done that!) but if anybody cares to do so, you can find more info at their website: http://delawaregardens.org 108.51.174.100 ( talk) 14:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Anyone interested in helping out with identification on some photos: there are tens of thousands of photos in Commons:Category:Unidentified plants and its subcategories, and any help there would be very welcome. I suspect that we actually have photos of no small number of the plants for which photos have been requested, but lack identification. Plenty of very nice photos, as you can see from the few examples I've given above. - Jmabel | Talk 05:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I've added a short note at WP:PLANTS/Resources#Pteridophyte classification arising from a recent issue over the use of the genus Zealandia. I hope this has consensus; do please check it. Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Potato onion: I'd thought I'd quickly fix this article, but it's a mess. Maybe the article should be folded either into Tree onion or shallot. To wit: Maud Grieve calls it Allium x. profilerum, but her description of the crop places it in Aggregatum Group. Ken Fern's Plants for a Future has it as Aggregatum, but the image he shows is clearly of profilerum (bulblets in place of flowers). There are three sources in the article, each contradicts the other in some way in their descriptions. As far as I can tell, this may just be an antiquated British name for shallot, but on the other hand it was also called an Egyptian onion according to Grieve, which I've always considered to be profilerum. What to do? Leo Breman ( talk) 16:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I've done some work on Streptocarpus sect. Saintpaulia and articles on species within this section, following the sinking of Saintpaulia into Streptocarpus. More is needed at both genus articles on why the merger was made.
The Streptocarpus article is very poor, and needs a lot of work. One immediate question I have is whether it would be worth splitting it into two: a genus article, and an article on Streptocarpus in cultivation. I think we've usually only made these splits for fruits (e.g. Musa and Banana). I personally think that articles like Dahlia and Chrysanthemum, that attempt to cover both botany and cultivation, become rather muddled. What do others think? Peter coxhead ( talk) 11:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I think I'm ready to tackle writing some botanical lists and disambiguation pages. I'll ping Casliber and Michael Goodyear since they've written a lot of botanical articles that have been thoroughly reviewed, but all opinions are welcome. I don't really know what I'm doing, but I have access to many of the sources and some knowledge of the WP:FLC process and Botanical Latin. I'm not doctrinaire ... I'm happy to adopt any consistent writing strategy that plants editors are generally on board with. Some observations:
Some personal observations:
The Plant List hasn't been available for a few days now. As it hasn't been updated since 2013 they may have decided to take it down. A few searches reveal that it is cited or linked to on over 8000 pages, with thousands using {{ cite web}} or {{ citation}}. On some pages it is the only source (which is why I found out it was down). Unfortunately few of them have archived links. Should something be done and if so what? — Jts1882 | talk 09:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Andricus inflator links to the DAB page Brachium, in relation to a leaf. This term isn't in Glossary of botanical terms. Can any expert help solve the puzzle? Narky Blert ( talk) 14:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Quick question: I've found four sources that I think might be helpful for creating disambiguation and redirect pages:
Please let me know if any of these are unsuitable. Also let me know if there's a suitable source I'm missing ... preferably a book updated within the last 20 years that's widely considered authoritative and frequently cited on en-Wikipedia, and that's aimed at gardeners as well as botanists. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay, submitted for your approval: User:Dank/Latin and Greek botanical names (V–Z) and its talk page. I need a few minutes to tidy up the refs and to doublecheck information in the linked articles, and later I'll be adding an introduction, images and more Vs, but it's close to finished. There are a variety of goals, but the thing I'm trying to optimize the list for is to serve as a reference when you want to know the original Latin or Greek meaning of a binomial Latin word. It currently uses the four sources listed above ... I'd be happy to add sources of a similar gravitas. Other sources, not so much (for now). Discussion (probably on the list's talk page) and edits are welcome. If the page is acceptable, I'll put it up at Peer Review in a few days. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I am pleased to inform you that all images at https://www.flickr.com/photos/scotnelson/ are now CC-0 public domain. If you find any of use, please upload them directly to Commons using the template {{Cc-zero-Scot Nelson}}, which contains the corresponding OTRS ticket. The Squirrel Conspiracy ( talk) 02:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
WikiProject Plants/Archive70 | |
---|---|
Scientific classification
![]() | |
Kingdom: | Plantae |
Clade: | Tracheophytes |
Clade: | Angiosperms |
Clade: | Monocots |
Order: | Asparagales |
Family: | Asparagaceae |
Subfamily: | Scilloideae |
Genus: | Scilla |
Section: | Scilla sect. Chionodoxa |
Species: | S. cretica
|
Binomial name | |
Scilla cretica |
At present, if there is a rank between genus and species for a botanical taxon, e.g. a subgenus or section, then by default the taxobox displays the name of this rank with the genus spelt out in full, as in the taxobox for Scilla cretica shown here, which uses Template:Taxonomy/Scilla sect. Chionodoxa as the parent taxon.
WikiProject Plants/Archive70 | |
---|---|
Scientific classification
![]() | |
Kingdom: | Plantae |
Clade: | Tracheophytes |
Clade: | Angiosperms |
Clade: | Monocots |
Order: | Asparagales |
Family: | Asparagaceae |
Subfamily: | Scilloideae |
Genus: | Scilla |
Section: | S. sect. Chionodoxa |
Species: | S. cretica
|
Binomial name | |
Scilla cretica |
This can be over-ridden in the taxonomy template, as in Template:Taxonomy/Scilla sect. Chionodoxa/abbrev. When this is used as the parent taxon, the result is as here. I prefer this format, since it is more consistent with the way the species is displayed outside the "binomial box". It's the standard in most botanical taxoboxes; see e.g. Pinus glabra and other Pinus species.
However, the problem with putting the abbreviation in the taxonomy template (as is the case for the subgeneric Pinus ranks) is that if the taxon is the 'target' of the taxobox, the name is still abbreviated, as here. (It will automatically be in bold if it's a self-link as it will be on its own page.)
WikiProject Plants/Archive70 | |
---|---|
Scientific classification
![]() | |
Kingdom: | Plantae |
Clade: | Tracheophytes |
Clade: | Angiosperms |
Clade: | Monocots |
Order: | Asparagales |
Family: | Asparagaceae |
Subfamily: | Scilloideae |
Genus: | Scilla |
Section: | S. sect. Chionodoxa |
WikiProject Plants/Archive70 | |
---|---|
Scientific classification
![]() | |
Kingdom: | Plantae |
Clade: | Tracheophytes |
Clade: | Angiosperms |
Clade: | Monocots |
Order: | Asparagales |
Family: | Asparagaceae |
Subfamily: | Scilloideae |
Genus: | Scilla |
Section: | Scilla sect. Chionodoxa |
I think that it's better not to abbreviate the target taxon, in line with the way that the binomial box doesn't for a species, so I prefer this taxobox.
The effect I personally prefer can be achieved by changing some of the automated taxobox system code, so that in a taxobox a taxon name containing a connecting term will be abbreviated unless it is the target taxon. I have some code in sandbox versions that achieves this so far as I can tell in tests (but full testing of automated taxoboxes is difficult until the changes are live). Note that if implemented this would only apply to names with connecting terms; zoological names would be unaffected. (Their formatting is anyway much less consistent; for a subgenus for example, the bare subgenus name, the full genus name with the subgenus in parentheses, and the abbreviated genus name with the subgenus name in parentheses are all found.)
What do editors here think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter coxhead ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Help is needed here: Commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Prunus lannesiana-- Estopedist1 ( talk) 12:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
As before, can anyone identify the plants shown in these illustrations, given that we know only the first letter of their names? DS ( talk) 15:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
My guesses would be:
Though someone more knowledgeable than me will probably show me I'm mistaken... PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 18:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Could somebody take a look at Draft:Healing of wounds in plants. To my non-botanist eye, this looks like a really interesting and promising draft, and I commented to that effect six months ago. Unfortunately, the original author seems to have left the project. Still, it seems like it would be a shame to lose what looks like a nice piece of work, so I'd appreciate if some botanists could take a look at it and give me some feedback on whether I should accept it or not. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
In trawling through "Expert needed" tags I came across Angel wing begonia. It's a hybrid begonia species, very poor quality. I bring it up because I'm not sure if it should merit a standalone article. What is our take on the notability of hybrids like this? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 04:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Repeating a post on the talk page of Bruguiera: As the topic line above says, it seems unusual. I am ambivalent about this, on the one hand it means that it makes it easier for a user to find the taxa they ultimately are wanting info on, on the other hand, "search" does this as well. What do people think? Brunswicknic ( talk) 10:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone with some familiarity with Pacific botany add a bit to this article? I'm pretty sure he meets the WP:GNG, if not the tightly-delineated WP:PROF, but the article right now is mostly sourced to his obituaries and CV, making that difficult to demonstrate. Choess ( talk) 17:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I have edited Ziziphus cambodianus, but I haven't. That name is accepted, but it redirects to Ziziphus cambodiana. That page had strong issues. I have edited it. Could someone with power change the heading, and redirection away from cambodianus, please. Wikidata still lists it as cambodiana and its links lead nowhere, presumably because of the wrong name, therefore the "q" number ("Taxonbar|from=Q17251852") gives nothing, is there some way this could be changed? Thanks for your work. Brunswicknic ( talk) 09:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Now that IPNI has corrected its entry, the matter is settled; the reliable sources for the feminine are clear. PoWO will follow later; it uses IPNI, but is updated less often. Peter coxhead ( talk) 13:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I have two articles for hemp cultivars that could use an expert's help on many things, but especially including how to format {{ Infobox cultivar}}. I'm not sure what the rules are for italics, single quotes, etc. The articles are Finola (hemp) and Tochigishiro. Just for extra complexity, the second one is a Japanese word so I italicized it in the body but I'm not even sure if this is proper. ☆ Bri ( talk) 21:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm working on cleaning up Coconut, and was wondering if you folks could provide some insight or thoughts about its origin and especially dispersal. I'm trying to figure out how much weight to give to various hypotheses about where it evolved, and how it spread to its present range. There a few different takes in the literature, i.e. that it is Asian, South American, or Pacific in origin. How it spread, whether via natural forces or via humans is also contested. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 00:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Tons of plant articles note that particular cultivars have been granted the Royal Horticultural Society's Award of Garden Merit (e.g. Symphyotrichum novae-angliae). It hardly seems important or interesting to me that some cultivar of a plant is one of some 7500 that a particular regional organisation thinks are good garden plants. From what I've seen this information is only ever cited to the primary source. But I'm not well-versed in the world of cultivated plants, am I missing something? Someone has clearly spent a lot of time adding this information. It's maybe better than not mentioning cultivation at all, but any reason not to remove it from articles that already have an overview of what kinds of cultivars exist and how they are used? I feel like it's making this "award" sound much more important than it actually is. Somatochlora ( talk) 16:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Good morning. Greetings to all the fellow editors!
I have several photographs of the Hippeastrum genus and I would like that my pictures could illustrate the articles that correspond to it's species. But since I’m not a botanist, I can’t identify it.
I have created a gallery in Commons to show the photos in question, so that some of you can help me easily: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_Hippeastrum_in_Venezuela
I thank you in advance for any support in this regard, and I hope that you are doing fine. --
Sebastián
Arena...
02:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Which plant is Persicaria polymorpha? On Wikipedia, Persicaria polymorpha redirects to Koenigia alpina, although it isn't listed as a synonym. One of the synonyms that is listed however is Persicaria alpina. According to the RHS, Persicaria polymorpha is one of the synonyms of Persicaria alpina. So that seems to establish a connection, at least in a horticultural source, between Persicaria polymorpha and Koenigia alpina. Yet the plant commonly sold in the horticultural trade as Persicaria polymorpha tends to look like this, a rather robust and imposing herbaceous plant that grows 1.5 - 1.8 metres high. The RHS page has a similar looking plant. Whereas the images at Commons of Aconogonom alpinum (another Wikipedia-listed synonym of Koenigia alpina, and where our article links to for images) look to me rather less imposing - not nearly so statuesque or substantial, both in foliage and flowers. Is this just a species with very variable morphology, or is the horticultural trade supplying something different, and if so, what are they supplying? PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 03:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I've now created an article at Koenigia × fennica which includes 'Johanneswolke' and put a hatnote at Koenigia alpina. I hope this will help readers to find the plant in cultivation. Peter coxhead ( talk) 06:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
There is a proposed move discussion underway, in which the article Poaceae would be moved to Grass. You may express your opinions on this proposal at /info/en/?search=Talk:Poaceae#Requested_move_28_May_2020 Nick Moyes ( talk) 22:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm somewhat concerned that the image at Glebionis segetum is actually of Glebionis coronaria var. discolor. Lavateraguy ( talk) 20:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I am not very well versed in plants, so maybe you can help me: Is this a Sambucus ebulus? Thanks in advance.-- Alexander-93 ( talk) 14:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't Lavatera phoenicea be moved to Malva now? Leo Breman ( talk) 20:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't Lavateraguy be moved to Malva now? Ehm, sorry, couldn't help myself. AFPD is the CJB's African Plant Database I assume? Right, I'll try to move it and write up something on tax. Leo Breman ( talk) 18:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Sigh... Yet another set of slides and photos in talks I give to be edited once more to update the scientific names. Malva/Lavatera acerifolia/canariensis, a beautiful plant of the Canaries, has a particularly tangled history of labels. Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think a "biscuit flower" exists. Can someone please correctly identify this flower? Thanks, im temtem • hOI!! • fsfdfg • alt account of pandakekok9 11:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Our article Superasterids says they contain “more than 122,000 species”. Is that right? Adding up the counts in the contained clades, one obtains:
Clade | Species | Source | APweb species |
---|---|---|---|
Berberidopsidales | 3 | WP | 4 |
Santales | 1,000 | The Angiosperm Phylogeny Group: An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG IV. In: Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, vol 181, 2016, p. 1–20. doi: 10.1111/boj.12385 | 1,992 |
Caryophyllales | 11,155 | WP | 11,620 |
Asterids | 82,980 | (from table below) | 1000,593 (sic) 101,273 or 97,275 |
total | 95,138 |
Asterids:
Clade | Species | Source | APweb |
---|---|---|---|
Cornales | 600 | WP | 590 |
Ericales | 8,000 | WP | 12,005 |
euasterids | 74,380 | (from table below) | 88,678 or 84,680 |
total | 82,980 | 101,273 or 97,275 |
euasterids:
Clade | Species | Source | APweb |
---|---|---|---|
lamiids | 40,000 | WP | 51,448 |
campanulids | 35,878 | (from table below) | 37,230 or 34,232 |
total | 74,380 | 88,678 or 84,680 |
campanulids:
Clade | Species | Source | APweb |
---|---|---|---|
Aquifoliales | 536 | de:Stechpalmenartige | 536 |
Asterales | 28,500 | WP | 26,870 |
Escallionales | 130 | WP | 130 |
Bruniales | 80 | subclades | 79 |
Apiales | 5,500 | de:Doldenblütlerartige | 5,489 |
Dipsacales | 1,096 | subclades | 1,090 |
Paracryphiales | 36 | WP | 38 |
total | 35,878 | 37,230 (
stated) 34,232 (adding above) |
Lamiids:
Clade | APweb species |
---|---|
Icacinales | 202 |
Metteniusales | 55 |
Garryales | 18 |
Boraginales | 3,120 |
Gentianales | 20,145 |
Vahliales | 8 |
Lamiales | 23,755 |
Solanales | 4,145 |
total | 51,448 |
That is, we are missing about 27,000 species. Even by the standards of a rapidly changing field, that is an enormous discrepancy, more than double the deviations found in other clades. What are the missing species? ◀ Sebastian 23:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
There's a question at Talk:List of Ranunculus species#About the list, regarding the number of species in the genus, that might be of interest here. The questioner seems correct to assert that there are many more than indicated. Plants of the World Online lists 1,654 accepted species! But with the present format of the list (including common names, distributions and images), expanding would be a huge task. Thanks Declangi ( talk) 05:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Someone should make a real and globaly accapted species list about the plants. DenesFeri ( talk) 07:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
HI, I apologize in advance if this is wrong place, but I don't know where else to put it. It seems that in the boxes of many ferns, they are listed as Polypodiopsida (it doesn't help much, that the link leads to Fern), when in accordance to this page, they should be outside of Polypodiopsida. For example: Ophioglossum, Equisetum HlTo CZ ( talk) 14:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 65 | ← | Archive 68 | Archive 69 | Archive 70 | Archive 71 | Archive 72 | → | Archive 75 |
Would there be interest in a module function that could link
author citations for taxa automatically? For instance, it would take Cham. & Schldl.
and return [[Adelbert von Chamisso|Cham.]] & [[Diederich Franz Leonhard von Schlechtendal|Schldl.]]
, or just [[Cham.]] & [[Schldl.]]
, relying on there being a redirect.
This would allow more consistent linking of taxonomic authorities in taxoboxes and various lists of taxa. The author citations could just be enclosed in a template, which would do all the work. At the moment, they're linked only if someone cares to do it.
The initial step would be to create a function to locate the author abbreviations (or full names?) in the author citation. Perhaps Wikidata's regex for botanist author abbreviations could be translated into a parser. (The regex can't be used directly because Scribunto doesn't have a regex library.)
As far as linking, it would be easier to simply link the author abbreviations ([[Cham.]] & [[Schldl.]]
), but it would be more useful to link to the full name of the author ([[Adelbert von Chamisso|Cham.]] & [[Diederich Franz Leonhard von Schlechtendal|Schldl.]]
) so that an article can be created. My initial thought was to use data modules, perhaps derived from the data at
IPNI, but maybe the
botanist author abbreviation (P428) property on Wikidata can be used for this, if there's a way to return the Wikipedia article for the Wikidata item in which this property has a given value (I haven't used Wikidata much).
Has this idea been proposed before, and are there issues that I'm overlooking? — Eru· tuon 18:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Cham. & Schldl.
, output
Cham. &
Schldl. and for L.
output
L.
Jts1882 |
talk
08:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
{{template name|Cham. & Schldl.}}
→
Cham. &
Schldl.. It would be more convenient to be able to add the template to the whole author citation than to have to add it to each individual name or abbreviation in the citation. —
Eru·
tuon
16:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
{{botauthor|name|name2}}
).string.gsub
, that takes two arguments: the citation, and a function that receives each author abbreviation and yields the linked version to be inserted into the final version of the citation. —
Eru·
tuon
18:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)redirectTarget
property of the
title
object for the redirect page. —
Eru·
tuon
19:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)(),&
with optional whitespace around them. And it is whitespace-agnostic; it normalizes to the whitespace-less form (L.B. Sm. → L.B.Sm.) internally when looking up the abbreviations, but displays the version that was supplied to it. Using the whitespace-less form internally is slightly simpler than the other way around. I adapted your code for looking up the "botanist author abbreviation" property (
d:Property:P428) to verify that a name not found in the data table is the name of a botanical author. —
Eru·
tuon
19:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)This edit on Chorophyta put the author in parenthesis because small doesn't work on some mobiles. I reverted the change based on the special meaning of parentheses around authors in the botanical code and because they aren't used for suprageneric taxa. Firstly, was this a correct reversion? Secondly, is there an alternative/additional way of making the authority look different, either an alternative to the small tag or different font? Jts1882 | talk 07:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
small
tag is rendered by different browsers. Template {{
Au}} also has a second optional parameter for putting a date in parentheses.
Jts1882 |
talk
16:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Mobile vs desktop version When I change between "en.wikipedia.org" and "en.m.wikipedia.org" on the same device with different browsers, the behaviour is always the same: the mobile version disregards <small> tags, but obeys <span style="font-size:85%;"> (which is how {{ small}} works). I think it's because the mobile version loads different default stylesheets, which have the effect of ignoring <small> tags, presumably because the designers thought that even smaller font on a small mobile device wasn't a good idea. What we will be doing by using {{ small}} is over-riding the intended appearance of the mobile version. I'm not sure that this is the right thing to do. It needs a higher level discussion. Peter coxhead ( talk) 06:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
<small>
is not a presentational element, but rather is defined by the HTML spec as "represent[ing] so-called 'fine print' or 'small print', such as legal disclaimers and caveats". Not decreasing the font size is consistent with this, and the semantics may not be what you as taxonomists intend for this usage.
Hairy Dude (
talk)
23:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
<small>
was a semantic element. In my view, it's exactly appropriate for taxonomic authorities – they are a legal (i.e. according to the rules of the nomenclature codes) addition to the taxon name, which is the main information. For that reason, it can be argued (as I have come round to thinking) that using a presentational style, via CSS, is not the right approach.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
12:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)There is a move discussion at Comptonia (plant) suggesting moving the article to the species Comptonia peregrina since the genus is not actually monotypic and a number of extinct species are described.-- Kev min § 20:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
For those who haven't noticed, the IPNI website has been updated.
urn:lsid:ipni.org:authors:5767-1
is the IPNI ID for this author.urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:435655-1
is the IPNI ID for this taxon name.However, other links don't work and will need to be updated if present in articles. For example,
//www.ipni.org/ipni/plantnamesearchpage.do has been used in citations with wikitext like {{cite web |title="Search for TAXON" |url=//www.ipni.org/ipni/plantnamesearchpage.do |...}}
, but doesn't work now. To search for all occurrences of an item, e.g. "Rhodanthemum", you now need a URL like
//www.ipni.org/?q=Rhodanthemum.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
09:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
{{
IPNI}}
(which generates citations to IPNI); it now works with the new URLs for searches, etc.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
10:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)According to IUCN this species is extinct. However a Wikimedian on Commens has uploaded three pictures purporting to be of this species. I would be interested to know if they pass muster. I have linked a picture of a Kew specimen from the syub, more specimens can be found via GBIF.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
21:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC).
As far as I can tell, this species has not been seen since the mid-1800s, and it was declared extinct in the 1990s after some searching. I can't find anything about its rediscovery. Most likely the uploader is mistaken, ...but with any luck there is a secretive new paper getting written somewhere. I'd ignore it unless something gets published. 86.83.56.115 ( talk) 10:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Been looking at this, not sure how to fix it. It's missing species, most notably the most notable species Shorea robusta. It was mostly constructed from a list of species from northern Borneo, by Ashton in 2004, organised by sections. Ashton classified other species in sections devised for the Flora Malesiana in 1979, PoWO would give a more accurate count and modern nomenclature, but I doubt any of the species restricted to India and/or Indochina are or will ever soon be classified in sections. Wouldn't an alphabetical list be better, with the info on subgeneric classification in the taxobox or text in the individual articles? 86.83.56.115 ( talk) 10:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Species | Ashton (2004) | Updated [1] | |
---|---|---|---|
sections | groups | ||
Shorea affinis (Thwaites) P.S.Ashton | Doona | ||
Shorea congestiflora (Thwaites) P.S.Ashton | Doona | ||
Shorea cordifolia (Thwaites) P.S.Ashton | Doona | ||
Shorea disticha (Thwaites) P.S.Ashton | Doona | ||
Shorea megistophylla P.S.Ashton | Doona | ||
Shorea trapezifolia (Thwaites) P.S.Ashton | Doona | ||
Shorea zeylanica (Thwaites) P.S.Ashton | Doona | ||
Shorea contorta S.Vidal | Pentacme | ||
Shorea siamensis Miq. | Pentacme | ||
Shorea agamii P.S.Ashton | Anthoshorea | White Meranti group | |
Shorea agamii P.S.Ashton | Anthoshorea | White Meranti group | |
Shorea bracteolata Dyer | Anthoshorea | White Meranti group | |
Shorea confusa P.S.Ashton | Anthoshorea | White Meranti group | |
Shorea cordata P.S.Ashton | Anthoshorea | White Meranti group | |
Shorea dealbata Foxw. | Anthoshorea | White Meranti group | |
Shorea gratissima (Wall. ex Kurz) Dyer | Anthoshorea | White Meranti group | |
Shorea lamellata Foxw. | Anthoshorea | White Meranti group | |
Shorea ochracea Symington | Anthoshorea | White Meranti group | |
Shorea resinosa Foxw. | Anthoshorea | White Meranti group | |
Shorea symingtonii Wood | Anthoshorea | White Meranti group | |
Shorea virescens Parijs | Anthoshorea | White Meranti group | |
Shorea isoptera P.S.Ashton | Neohopea | Selangan Batu group |
References
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(
help)
Hi there. I just expanded the above article. But it should probably be moved (to V. harmandiana), see taxonomy section. Leo, 86.83.56.115 ( talk) 20:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
There is a requested move at Talk:Orthilia that has been re-opened. Your opinion would be helpful and welcome in this discussion. Please come and help! Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 01:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The plant at this name seems to be called Neocallitropsis pancheri or Eutacta pancheri and all the {{ taxonbar}} identifiers use these two names. The text says it used to be in genus Neocallitropsis but a 2003 molecular study found it nested in Callitris. But that is an old study and doesn't seem to be followed by later sources. The IUCN and Kew use Neocallitropsis pancheri and Christenhusz et al (2011) recognise the genus in their taxonomy. Tropicos has entries for both and some explanation about basionyms I don't follow. I think it probably should be moved to Neocallitropsis pancheri. Jts1882 | talk 08:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
I generally work on tropical plants. Most of the IUCN assessments for tropical plants were complied by Americans in 1998 and are horribly badly researched/done. I see that other editors use Nature Serve for the USA and something else for Australia. I would like to propose switching out the assessments with those of the Centro Nacional de Conservação da Flora for those plants native or largely native to Brazil. Regarding dipterocarps, the Malaysian Red List is miles better than the IUCN.
In other cases I'm not sure what to do, but when an assessment is demonstratively based on bad data (see for example Dipteryx charapilla), is it truly a service to the public to have such bad info right up there on the top of the page?
Cheers, Leo 86.83.56.115 ( talk) 19:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
|status2=
, |status2_system=
and |status2_ref=
. The systems currently available are described at
Wikipedia:Conservation_status. I'm not familiar with the
Malaysian Red List but I don't see why it can't be added if the list can be shown to be notable. Can you provide the information you want to add for
Dipteryx charapilla with a source?
Jts1882 |
talk
07:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)|status2=
, |status2_system=
and |status2_ref=
... didn't work.
86.83.56.115 (
talk)
16:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I saw your edits (after a bit) and added a bit more, and just resubmitted the draft. Good stuff! Cheers, Leo 86.83.56.115 ( talk) 14:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
References
A discussion has been started at WP:Tree of Life regarding recent edit warring behavior of taxonomic etymologies. Comments are requested.-- Kev min § 03:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
There's a source that claims that agave leaves were used in the construction of a 4th century BCE boat. This is an extraordinary claim, given that all botanical sources I know say that Agave is native to the Americas, and was unknown elsewhere until after European contact in the 15th century CE. Extraordinary claims need strong sources, and I haven't seen them yet, so I'm reluctant to add this to the Agave article (it was initially added to the Agave americana article, but no source mentions the species). If anyone has any insight into this matter, please comment at Talk:Agave#Agave in Europe in 4th century BCE. Peter coxhead ( talk) 07:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Some years back, the Pearson Scott Foresman company donated a ton of line art to Commons. These were items which had been in their illustrated dictionaries. However, they didn't label all the images - and in fact, they donated them in the form of assemblies of images, with filenames like "PSF-W1040007" that indicate only the first letter of the words illustrated by the images.
That's the context. Can anyone identify these plants whose names begin with W?
Thanks. DS ( talk) 15:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Is Polygaloides a synonym of Polygala, or vice versa, or neither? Abductive ( reasoning) 06:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Dinosaur Park Formation and Hell Creek Formation both link to the DAB page Baeria, saying it's a ginkgo. The only plant entry on the DAB page is an unaccepted name for Lasthenia, a genus in Asteraceae. Wikispecies does not know Baeria except in connection with Lasthenia. A Google search for 'baeria ginkgo' turned up nothing. I'd be tempted to delete these two entries as spurious, unless an expert here knows better. Narky Blert ( talk) 11:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
References
Are there any editors from this WikiProject willing to maintain Portal:Plants? The Portals guideline requires that portals be maintained, and as a result numerous portals have been recently been deleted via MfD largely becasue of lack of maintenance. Let me know either way, and thanks, UnitedStatesian ( talk) 05:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
After finishing Importance-Assessing all of the unassessed articles in this project, I have been doing some assessing for other projects and I'd just like to share some of my findings. As I previously mentioned, the majority of the articles on plant species have one or zero pageviews a day. But on Wikiproject Fishes there are many articles that have had zero pageviews since July 1, 2015!. I feel that this bears repeating, since this alone is a good reason not to mass-create a bunch of stubs. Abductive ( reasoning) 19:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I have also continued to re-assess large numbers of Low-Importance WP:PLANTS articles as Mid-Importance. As I previously mentioned, any article that gets more than 10 pageviews a day is almost invariably a weed, a medicinal plant, a garden/ornamental plant, or an edible, and consequently something that readers are looking up. If I have the stamina, I intend to re-assess thousands of such articles from Low to Mid. Lest there be concerns that this might go too far, I would like to point out that WP:PLANTS has way too many Low-Importance articles. If one looks at the Wikipedia-wide assessment data, one will see that about 1% of articles are Top-Importance, 4.4% are High-Importance, and 17% are Mid-Importance. If WP:PLANTS matched these numbers, it would have 1,162 Tops (currently 77), 4,145 Highs (currently 673), and 16,005 Mids (currently 6,445). Abductive ( reasoning) 19:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
More generally, we should ask the question: important to which readers? My view has always been that WP:PLANTS assessments should be based on the importance of the topic to readers interested in plants. Amborella is a more important genus than other genera of tropical shrubs or trees because of its relevance to the evolution of flowering plants. How many page views it gets doesn't change that. Peter coxhead ( talk) 06:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Based on how I use sources, including wikipedia, no consideration should be given to readership in editing: the information that I source adds to extant facts; how that is useful is for the reader to decide. I am at a loss how to assign importance to an organism I assume is crucial to some other organisms, is it a guess on the presumed importance to our own? ~ cygnis insignis 12:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Not that anyone needs to do anything, but ya'll should probably be aware that some tools, such as HotArticlesBot will not run on WikiProject Plants because it is too big, in this case greater than 50,000 pages. I've also had trouble with FIST quitting partway through the A's on ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Wikipedia requested images of plants ( 25,800 ) (and yes I know the Image Existence Checker needs to be gone through too). I'm sure there are other potential issues out there, so keep an eye out. -- Nessie ( talk) 13:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
The Araguaney tree is known in English Wikipedia as Tabebuia chrysantha while in Spanish Wikipedia is known as Handroanthus chrysanthus. I am not an expert in biology, I tried to find if it were indeed the same but I fell in this Handroanthus/Tabeuia conflict where some species were renamed and reverted. Could somebody with more expertise try to confirm if both are indeed the same. -- MaoGo ( talk) 14:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Done--
MaoGo (
talk)
23:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Proposal to delete all portals
The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to delete Portal space. Voceditenore ( talk) 08:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
(Post moved from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora). Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC))
recent research suggests that those species are infact the same species only differing that s.madagascariensis is diploid and s.inaequidens is tetraploid. inaequidens is invasive in Europe whereas madagascariensis is invasive in Australia and America. should the articles stay as are or should they be joined with one referring to the other? [1]
Post originally by 134.106.34.199 12:29, 24 September 2019
References
Following a move discussion, I merged Alnus viridis into Alnus alnobetula, but the resulting page needs some attention because the identity of the subspecies, and other issues, differ between the two articles. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 08:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Short of committing WP:SYN it looks as if the solution is to drop Alnus maximowiczii, which brings the two lists of subspecies in line, or to discuss the issues of the ranks of mandschurica, maximowiczii (and also glutipes) - firma, pendula and sieboldiana seem to be clearly outside Alnus alnobetula. Lavateraguy ( talk) 17:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi, rather new editor here with two questions noted after reading the Goldenrod page.
1. I expected to find a page somewhere outlining how to determine which taxonomy to follow, but haven't turned anything up. Is there some guidelines somewhere? Currently, the genus Oligoneuron is split from Solidago in some places but not others, even within the same articles. Obviously these should be treated consistently (with the alternative classification discussed but not used), but I don't know what criteria I should be using to determine which taxonomy to actually use?
2. The page currently treats "Goldenrod" as a perfect synonym of "Solidago" which is not true - the genus Euthamia are also called goldenrods in many if not most cases. It seems really strange to me that Goldenrod doesn't even mention that the term can have multiple definitions. I have personally never used goldenrod to refer to Solidago in exclusion of Euthamia, but I'm sure this may vary regionally. In any case, how should these kinds of cases be treated, where a common name is based on outdated taxonomy? Should there be a page for goldenrod linking to both genera, or maybe just a link to Euthamia in the introduction for Solidago? I'm sure there are many similar examples on Wikipedia.
Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somatochlora ( talk • contribs) 17:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
As part of my job I'm compiling information on the endangered plant species of Arizona, and thus have a lot of great information just floating around. I thought it'd be nice to centralize all that info on Wikipedia. Thus asking for advice: should I create a list type article of the US federally endangered plant taxa of my home state? Obviously, that would open the door for one for every state, which is why I thought I'd ask here first before just creating it and then having it deleted. I'm not sure if that is...too niche for the encyclopedia. If something like this already exists, let me know! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 08:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Does cs. have a standard meaning in botany? Phytophthora hydropathica links to it, but it's a DAB page with no obvious match. Narky Blert ( talk) 16:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Should we replace NatureServ as the status system for plants when we have IUCN statuses, or list both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AidenD ( talk • contribs) 02:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello plant experts! There's a draft waiting for review at WP:AFC which falls under the scope of this project. Please take a look.— Anne Delong ( talk) 12:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
The nomenclature and classification of lycophytes, defined broadly, is highly confused and confusing. It's possible, I think, to distinguish between two taxa:
Ignoring minor extinct species, these are related thus:
lycophytes broadly defined |
| ||||||
A major problem is that sources use the same or very similar terms for these two different groups, at wildly inconsistent ranks. As an example, division Lycophyta of Mauseth (2014) excludes zosterophylls whereas the lower-ranked subdivision Lycophytina of Kenrick & Crane (1997) includes them. I've put some tables setting out the variation starting at Lycopodiopsida#Table 1.
Since the policy here is to have articles about taxa, not names, it seems to me that there should be one article for each group I've identified above. We have to choose a single title for each, and set up the same hierarchy in taxoboxes. WP:PLANTS earlier agreed to use the PPG I system for pteridophytes, so we should use Lycopodiopsida for "lycophytes narrowly defined".
Our article at Lycopodiophyta is confused between the two taxa I've identified above. I want to sort it out, but this raises the question of the title to be used.
Question I'm inclined to use the informal term "Lycophytes" for the title of an article about "lycophytes broadly defined" rather than, say "Lycophyta" or "Lycopodiophyta". What do others think? Peter coxhead ( talk) 11:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
I have now moved "Lycopodiophyta" to " Lycophyte" and revised both this article and Lycopodiopsida to make them consistent. The formal and informal "lyco-" names are a mess, which I think I understand now, but find hard to write up clearly and particularly without synthesis or OR. Peter coxhead ( talk) 12:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
|same_as=Taxonomy/Lycophytina
. I suppose they should be changed to |parent=Lycophytes
and then lycophytina is no longer used. However, what reference can be used for the parent Lycophytes. Crane et al (2004) use lycophyte in the cladogram (Fig 1), but the taxon is Lycophytina (e.g. Table 2) following Kenrick & Crane (1997).
Jts1882 |
talk
16:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Howdy hello! As part of my job I have access to a rather large collection of herbarium samples as well as several thousand type samples of plants. I was thinking of photographing many of them and adding them to Wikipedia articles, but then I wondered if that is a copyright issue. Obviously I could just photograph the plant itself, but can I include photos of the labels on these samples? Is the text of the description of locations/habitats/plants by botanists copyrighted? See for example [3]. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 04:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Many herbaria (e.g., US) have already photographed their type specimens and placed these images online. You could simply write or email these institutions and ask for permission to use their images. But to answer your question more directly, most herbarium managers will be more than happy to allow you to photograph specimens if you ask, although most will want some kind of acknowledgment or attribution (which is the proper and polite thing to do anyway). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.174.100 ( talk) 15:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm working on rewriting Saguaro, and I've come across a bit of an oddity. As far as I can tell, its in the tribe Pachycereeae, but the infobox autogeneration is putting it in the seemingly nonexistent tribe Echinocereeae. Is the classification correct? If not, how can the auto infobox be corrected? Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 23:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
After all the fun with the Spooky Species Contest last month, there's a new contest for the (Northern hemisphere's) Winter holidays at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Contest. It's not just Christmas, but anything festive from December-ish. Feel free to add some ideas to the Festive taxa list and enter early and often. -- Nessie ( talk) 17:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I am having a little trouble understanding Royal Horticultural Society listings from their website. For example, Celosia argentea var. cristata (Plumosa Group) 'Century Rose' (Century Series) or Geranium (Cinereum Group) Rothbury Gem = 'Gerfos' (PBR) Geranium (Cinereum Group) ROTHBURY GEM ('Gerfos') (PBR). Which elements of these descriptors are superfluous, and what would an article title that meets WP:MOS and WP:PLANTS guidance for them look like? (Not that I am intent on creating articles on these any time soon, but I am thinking of making redlinks for them.) Abductive ( reasoning) 10:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Geranium 'Gerfos' | |
---|---|
Genus | Geranium |
Cultivar group | Cinereum Group |
Cultivar | 'Gerfos' |
Marketing names | Rothbury Gem |
Once again, I present line art of unidentified plants whose names are known to start with "W".
Any thoughts? Thanks. DS ( talk) 04:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
The circumscriptions of many, many angiosperm families have changed radically in recent years, largely as a result of molecular phylogenetics. It's a shame that former circumscriptions are being bulldozed under as the APG classification is stamped on the articles. The APG classification is widely (but not universally) accepted among botanists but many older references will still follow the older circumscriptions, and for historical purposes and to help make sense of older references it is useful to include information, at least in passing, about these former circumscriptions rather than simply editing the article to present the current circumscription. I've made comments along this line in Saxifragaceae and some related articles, as this is one family whose circumscription has changed considerably. For example, the genera now placed in Hydrangeaceae were once included in Saxifragaceae (and many older references will reflect this) but neither of these family articles makes any reference to this. The Parnassia article didn't even include a link to the still-existing Parnassiaceae article (I've just edited it to make this reference). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.174.100 ( talk) 14:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
WikiProject Aquatic plants has been deleted (without discussion) by Ajpolino and the inactive project page is now a redirect. I know most of you probably did not even know it existed. Many of you likely think it was unneeded. I am a little concerned that this was done without a heads-up to WikiProject Plants (the project page had {{ WikiProject Plants}} on its talk page). Very few ToL projects have many active members nor all the robust maintenance that they should, as I'm learning in my efforts in this area. Larger, more active WPs like WP Plants are already too large for some maintenance tasks to run. I'm not asking for any action on this. The project probably should have been folded ultimately, but there is a balance here, and I think we need to pay attention a little bit. -- Nessie ( talk) 16:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I know that among many houseplants (example: philodendrons) and some garden plants (example: hostas), the generic name is the common name, and that it is then acceptable to use the common name, uncapitalized and unitalicized, in Wikipedia articles. I am thinking of making list articles along the lines of List of Award of Garden Merit rhododendrons, such as List of Award of Garden Merit allium or List of Award of Garden Merit sarracenia, but I am wondering about how to title them in cases where the generic name is not typically used as the common name. Should it be "Allium", "allium", "alliums" or something invented like "ornamental onions"? Abductive ( reasoning) 06:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I just made the article for Ipomoea marginata but there's conflicting information as to whether it's an accepted name or a synonym for Ipomoea sagittifolia. Wikispecies has it under the latter name and the Commons category also goes by that. Does anyone know how to resolve this? Anarchyte ( talk | work) 11:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
It appears that there is a second species of Flatbergium. I'm busy trying to meet the Atlas 2020 deadline, so does anyone else want to revise the Sphagnopsida articles. Lavateraguy ( talk) 17:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Is there a more efficient way to identify and correct all dubious links to a specific plant species? I was reading information on the Flea beetle and the author refers to, and links to Euphorbia esula. It wasn't until I read the whole page before I found the note at the end which clarifies confusion between the two subspecies, and then I realized the correct link should have been to E. virgata. While I recognize that I could just correct the link on the "Flea Beetle" page, I'm not certain the information is still valid with the other plant subspecies, and, I suspect there are more pages than just this with an incorrect link. Is there a site wide editing method for this? Perhaps links to Leafy Spurge could go to its Index page (with a note identifying E. virgata as the North American invasive weed)? Or if that's not possible, could someone provide a proper note clarifying E. virgata as the N.A. invasive weed at the top of the page? Any thoughts? Thanks for reading. (Hopelessly still a Wiki Novice) CanucksGirl ( talk) 22:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Is there a consensus view yet about the wording of plant short descriptions. It seems to me that "Species of plant" which is being applied by some editors is less informative than it could be, given that there are several hundred thousand of them. Plantsurfer 11:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Guys, could you check my work on Acer diabolicum? I'm especially concerned about distinguishing styles from stigmas, as these form the "horns" that give the species its names. Abductive ( reasoning) 22:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Didn't really look hard at this, which paper is being used, but both versions of TPL, PoWO and New Zealand gov. websites consider Blumea a synonym of Machaerina. Some Australian websites and gardeners continue using Blumea. On Wikipedia... well, see for yourselves. A number of pages might need moving here. Cheers, Leo Breman ( talk) 23:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Plants since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{ infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{ starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!
Sent on behalf of Trialpears ( talk) via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I still find the ICNafp's terms replacement name and replaced synonym somewhat puzzling at times, particularly so when I was struggling to understand the authorship of the synonyms of Pseudolycopodium densum. So I turned to the section Nomen novum#Algae, fungi and plants but didn't find it very helpful. I've attempted to re-write it, but it would be good if others could look it over. It seems an excellent example of the obscurity of parts of the ICNafp! Peter coxhead ( talk) 17:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
The project page is appearing in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. At the moment, the only things not showing are a couple of navboxes at the bottom of the page, but they should be visible if considered necessary. Are there some things that are no longer needed or is there a section that could be moved to a subpage? Jts1882 | talk 16:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
An IP editor pointed out that an image then used in the taxobox at Baragwanathia was in fact of Phlegmariurus squarrosus. It had been called File:Baragwanathia artificial model.jpg by the person who uploaded it to Commons. Because it was included in the Wikidata object, those language wikis that pick up taxobox images from Wikidata were all showing it. I've now had it moved, and removed it from our article and Baragwanathia (Q1452954).
This example makes a familiar point about the problems with both Commons and Wikidata: there's no equivalent of referencing at Commons, so there are many misidentified images; picking up information automatically from Wikidata removes a level of editor scrutiny and responsibility. Peter coxhead ( talk) 19:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
I hate the kind of muddled categories I see on fern articles as I've been working on converting them to PPG I. As just one example, see Pellaea truncata, but almost any article in the "Ferns of ..." category hierarchy shows the same muddle.
Personally, I would like to remove all the "Ferns of ..." categories from articles, just use the normal WGSRPD "Flora of ..." categories, and then nominate the "Ferns of ..." categories for deletion. Intersectional categories, in this case mixing taxonomic category with distribution category, are unnecessary, and misleading unless complete (which I'm certainly not going to work on).
Views, please. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
What is the difference between Category:Interspecific plant hybrids and Category:Plant nothospecies? I have probably been assigning these all wrong, but it would help if the category page for Category:Interspecific plant hybrids didn't list Nothospecies as a member, and it would help if there was guidance on each page. Or could they be merged? Abductive ( reasoning) 07:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Do you want a fun and exciting Wiki challenge? An opportunity to get involved in some of the most important editing on Wikipedia? A giant shiny cup to display on your userpage? Well then you should join the WikiCup challenge! Folks of all experience levels are welcome to join. It's a good way for veteran editors to test their mettle, and for new users to learn the ropes. The competition revolves around content creation, such as good and featured articles, DYK's, reviewing such content, and more. See Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring for full details. Over the course of the year, users compete to create the most and best content in a round based format. The top performers in each round will advance to the next, until just 8 remain in the final round. Out of those, one Wikipedian will walk away with the coveted silver Wikicup. Could that user be you? Find out by signing up! Signups are open until January 31, 2020. May the editing be ever in your favor! Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 21:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
What authority are we using for grasses? I'm working on creating pages for all of the Boutelouas, and as with all of these obscure grasses, the taxonomy is always a bit foggy. I'm using ITIS at the moment, as its what I use in my day to day field research, but I realized that Wikipedia might use a different one. Captain Eek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 21:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Please see these three requests at Template talk:GRIN. -- CiaPan ( talk) 14:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
Done Thank you,
Hike395. --
CiaPan (
talk)
07:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Plants of the World Online sinks a number of genera in tribe Papavereae of the Papaveraceae into Papaver, which in their circumscription includes Meconopsis, Roemeria and Stylomecon, which our family article keeps separate, and two of which have their own article. The molecular evidence for the para/polyphyly of traditional Papaver has been clear for a long time, but horticulturalists in particular have fought to keep Meconopsis separate from Papaver (excluding M. cambrica, which is clearly in Papaver, although the type species of Meconopsis). However, there does seem a trend towards accepting the merger, as exemplified by this paper.
Does anyone have any views on what we should do? Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
Introducing
Template:The Plantae Barnstar
Jerm (
talk)
21:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Genus Mauranthemum, but species Leucanthemum paludosum. Lavateraguy ( talk) 22:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
→ Template for Wikipedia articles on Invasive Alien Plants of Union concern
At the WikiThon on Invasive Alien Species held in January 2020 in Krakow, the participants developed a template for the description of Invasive Alien Species of Union concern.
As a next step, I compared it with your Taxon template and extended the structure of chapters 6 (Distribution and habitat) and 7 (Ecology) to fit required descriptives for Invasive Alien Plants. Details of the adaptations can be seen in the google sheet Wikiproject Plants - Template for plant articles, adapted for Invasive Alien Plants.
We would be grateful if you could critically review our template and check if it fits the "Wikiproject Plants" requirements.
Kind regards, Christian Ries ( talk) 09:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
The article for Jankaea needs to be updated with the correct spelling as Jancaea. I haven't touched it because the article title also needs to be changed; see references on the talk page. 160.111.254.17 ( talk) 14:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Just wanted another opinion on this. Draft:Domus solis seems like a hoax to me, but that name has too many false positives when I search. The author hasn't contributed much else to Wikipedia. -- awkwafaba ( 📥) 15:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
A new botanic garden has recently opened, the Delaware Botanic Gardens. I've added references and links to it in a couple of articles but there is no article about the garden yet. The DBG is notable in part because of its meadow garden designed by Piet Oudolf. I can't create a new article as I don't have a Wikipedia account (and don't care to create one, been there done that!) but if anybody cares to do so, you can find more info at their website: http://delawaregardens.org 108.51.174.100 ( talk) 14:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Anyone interested in helping out with identification on some photos: there are tens of thousands of photos in Commons:Category:Unidentified plants and its subcategories, and any help there would be very welcome. I suspect that we actually have photos of no small number of the plants for which photos have been requested, but lack identification. Plenty of very nice photos, as you can see from the few examples I've given above. - Jmabel | Talk 05:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
I've added a short note at WP:PLANTS/Resources#Pteridophyte classification arising from a recent issue over the use of the genus Zealandia. I hope this has consensus; do please check it. Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Potato onion: I'd thought I'd quickly fix this article, but it's a mess. Maybe the article should be folded either into Tree onion or shallot. To wit: Maud Grieve calls it Allium x. profilerum, but her description of the crop places it in Aggregatum Group. Ken Fern's Plants for a Future has it as Aggregatum, but the image he shows is clearly of profilerum (bulblets in place of flowers). There are three sources in the article, each contradicts the other in some way in their descriptions. As far as I can tell, this may just be an antiquated British name for shallot, but on the other hand it was also called an Egyptian onion according to Grieve, which I've always considered to be profilerum. What to do? Leo Breman ( talk) 16:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I've done some work on Streptocarpus sect. Saintpaulia and articles on species within this section, following the sinking of Saintpaulia into Streptocarpus. More is needed at both genus articles on why the merger was made.
The Streptocarpus article is very poor, and needs a lot of work. One immediate question I have is whether it would be worth splitting it into two: a genus article, and an article on Streptocarpus in cultivation. I think we've usually only made these splits for fruits (e.g. Musa and Banana). I personally think that articles like Dahlia and Chrysanthemum, that attempt to cover both botany and cultivation, become rather muddled. What do others think? Peter coxhead ( talk) 11:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I think I'm ready to tackle writing some botanical lists and disambiguation pages. I'll ping Casliber and Michael Goodyear since they've written a lot of botanical articles that have been thoroughly reviewed, but all opinions are welcome. I don't really know what I'm doing, but I have access to many of the sources and some knowledge of the WP:FLC process and Botanical Latin. I'm not doctrinaire ... I'm happy to adopt any consistent writing strategy that plants editors are generally on board with. Some observations:
Some personal observations:
The Plant List hasn't been available for a few days now. As it hasn't been updated since 2013 they may have decided to take it down. A few searches reveal that it is cited or linked to on over 8000 pages, with thousands using {{ cite web}} or {{ citation}}. On some pages it is the only source (which is why I found out it was down). Unfortunately few of them have archived links. Should something be done and if so what? — Jts1882 | talk 09:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Andricus inflator links to the DAB page Brachium, in relation to a leaf. This term isn't in Glossary of botanical terms. Can any expert help solve the puzzle? Narky Blert ( talk) 14:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Quick question: I've found four sources that I think might be helpful for creating disambiguation and redirect pages:
Please let me know if any of these are unsuitable. Also let me know if there's a suitable source I'm missing ... preferably a book updated within the last 20 years that's widely considered authoritative and frequently cited on en-Wikipedia, and that's aimed at gardeners as well as botanists. - Dank ( push to talk) 17:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Okay, submitted for your approval: User:Dank/Latin and Greek botanical names (V–Z) and its talk page. I need a few minutes to tidy up the refs and to doublecheck information in the linked articles, and later I'll be adding an introduction, images and more Vs, but it's close to finished. There are a variety of goals, but the thing I'm trying to optimize the list for is to serve as a reference when you want to know the original Latin or Greek meaning of a binomial Latin word. It currently uses the four sources listed above ... I'd be happy to add sources of a similar gravitas. Other sources, not so much (for now). Discussion (probably on the list's talk page) and edits are welcome. If the page is acceptable, I'll put it up at Peer Review in a few days. - Dank ( push to talk) 15:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
I am pleased to inform you that all images at https://www.flickr.com/photos/scotnelson/ are now CC-0 public domain. If you find any of use, please upload them directly to Commons using the template {{Cc-zero-Scot Nelson}}, which contains the corresponding OTRS ticket. The Squirrel Conspiracy ( talk) 02:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
WikiProject Plants/Archive70 | |
---|---|
Scientific classification
![]() | |
Kingdom: | Plantae |
Clade: | Tracheophytes |
Clade: | Angiosperms |
Clade: | Monocots |
Order: | Asparagales |
Family: | Asparagaceae |
Subfamily: | Scilloideae |
Genus: | Scilla |
Section: | Scilla sect. Chionodoxa |
Species: | S. cretica
|
Binomial name | |
Scilla cretica |
At present, if there is a rank between genus and species for a botanical taxon, e.g. a subgenus or section, then by default the taxobox displays the name of this rank with the genus spelt out in full, as in the taxobox for Scilla cretica shown here, which uses Template:Taxonomy/Scilla sect. Chionodoxa as the parent taxon.
WikiProject Plants/Archive70 | |
---|---|
Scientific classification
![]() | |
Kingdom: | Plantae |
Clade: | Tracheophytes |
Clade: | Angiosperms |
Clade: | Monocots |
Order: | Asparagales |
Family: | Asparagaceae |
Subfamily: | Scilloideae |
Genus: | Scilla |
Section: | S. sect. Chionodoxa |
Species: | S. cretica
|
Binomial name | |
Scilla cretica |
This can be over-ridden in the taxonomy template, as in Template:Taxonomy/Scilla sect. Chionodoxa/abbrev. When this is used as the parent taxon, the result is as here. I prefer this format, since it is more consistent with the way the species is displayed outside the "binomial box". It's the standard in most botanical taxoboxes; see e.g. Pinus glabra and other Pinus species.
However, the problem with putting the abbreviation in the taxonomy template (as is the case for the subgeneric Pinus ranks) is that if the taxon is the 'target' of the taxobox, the name is still abbreviated, as here. (It will automatically be in bold if it's a self-link as it will be on its own page.)
WikiProject Plants/Archive70 | |
---|---|
Scientific classification
![]() | |
Kingdom: | Plantae |
Clade: | Tracheophytes |
Clade: | Angiosperms |
Clade: | Monocots |
Order: | Asparagales |
Family: | Asparagaceae |
Subfamily: | Scilloideae |
Genus: | Scilla |
Section: | S. sect. Chionodoxa |
WikiProject Plants/Archive70 | |
---|---|
Scientific classification
![]() | |
Kingdom: | Plantae |
Clade: | Tracheophytes |
Clade: | Angiosperms |
Clade: | Monocots |
Order: | Asparagales |
Family: | Asparagaceae |
Subfamily: | Scilloideae |
Genus: | Scilla |
Section: | Scilla sect. Chionodoxa |
I think that it's better not to abbreviate the target taxon, in line with the way that the binomial box doesn't for a species, so I prefer this taxobox.
The effect I personally prefer can be achieved by changing some of the automated taxobox system code, so that in a taxobox a taxon name containing a connecting term will be abbreviated unless it is the target taxon. I have some code in sandbox versions that achieves this so far as I can tell in tests (but full testing of automated taxoboxes is difficult until the changes are live). Note that if implemented this would only apply to names with connecting terms; zoological names would be unaffected. (Their formatting is anyway much less consistent; for a subgenus for example, the bare subgenus name, the full genus name with the subgenus in parentheses, and the abbreviated genus name with the subgenus name in parentheses are all found.)
What do editors here think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter coxhead ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Help is needed here: Commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Prunus lannesiana-- Estopedist1 ( talk) 12:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
As before, can anyone identify the plants shown in these illustrations, given that we know only the first letter of their names? DS ( talk) 15:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
My guesses would be:
Though someone more knowledgeable than me will probably show me I'm mistaken... PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 18:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Could somebody take a look at Draft:Healing of wounds in plants. To my non-botanist eye, this looks like a really interesting and promising draft, and I commented to that effect six months ago. Unfortunately, the original author seems to have left the project. Still, it seems like it would be a shame to lose what looks like a nice piece of work, so I'd appreciate if some botanists could take a look at it and give me some feedback on whether I should accept it or not. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
In trawling through "Expert needed" tags I came across Angel wing begonia. It's a hybrid begonia species, very poor quality. I bring it up because I'm not sure if it should merit a standalone article. What is our take on the notability of hybrids like this? CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 04:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Repeating a post on the talk page of Bruguiera: As the topic line above says, it seems unusual. I am ambivalent about this, on the one hand it means that it makes it easier for a user to find the taxa they ultimately are wanting info on, on the other hand, "search" does this as well. What do people think? Brunswicknic ( talk) 10:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Can anyone with some familiarity with Pacific botany add a bit to this article? I'm pretty sure he meets the WP:GNG, if not the tightly-delineated WP:PROF, but the article right now is mostly sourced to his obituaries and CV, making that difficult to demonstrate. Choess ( talk) 17:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I have edited Ziziphus cambodianus, but I haven't. That name is accepted, but it redirects to Ziziphus cambodiana. That page had strong issues. I have edited it. Could someone with power change the heading, and redirection away from cambodianus, please. Wikidata still lists it as cambodiana and its links lead nowhere, presumably because of the wrong name, therefore the "q" number ("Taxonbar|from=Q17251852") gives nothing, is there some way this could be changed? Thanks for your work. Brunswicknic ( talk) 09:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Now that IPNI has corrected its entry, the matter is settled; the reliable sources for the feminine are clear. PoWO will follow later; it uses IPNI, but is updated less often. Peter coxhead ( talk) 13:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi! I have two articles for hemp cultivars that could use an expert's help on many things, but especially including how to format {{ Infobox cultivar}}. I'm not sure what the rules are for italics, single quotes, etc. The articles are Finola (hemp) and Tochigishiro. Just for extra complexity, the second one is a Japanese word so I italicized it in the body but I'm not even sure if this is proper. ☆ Bri ( talk) 21:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm working on cleaning up Coconut, and was wondering if you folks could provide some insight or thoughts about its origin and especially dispersal. I'm trying to figure out how much weight to give to various hypotheses about where it evolved, and how it spread to its present range. There a few different takes in the literature, i.e. that it is Asian, South American, or Pacific in origin. How it spread, whether via natural forces or via humans is also contested. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! ⚓ 00:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Tons of plant articles note that particular cultivars have been granted the Royal Horticultural Society's Award of Garden Merit (e.g. Symphyotrichum novae-angliae). It hardly seems important or interesting to me that some cultivar of a plant is one of some 7500 that a particular regional organisation thinks are good garden plants. From what I've seen this information is only ever cited to the primary source. But I'm not well-versed in the world of cultivated plants, am I missing something? Someone has clearly spent a lot of time adding this information. It's maybe better than not mentioning cultivation at all, but any reason not to remove it from articles that already have an overview of what kinds of cultivars exist and how they are used? I feel like it's making this "award" sound much more important than it actually is. Somatochlora ( talk) 16:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Good morning. Greetings to all the fellow editors!
I have several photographs of the Hippeastrum genus and I would like that my pictures could illustrate the articles that correspond to it's species. But since I’m not a botanist, I can’t identify it.
I have created a gallery in Commons to show the photos in question, so that some of you can help me easily: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_Hippeastrum_in_Venezuela
I thank you in advance for any support in this regard, and I hope that you are doing fine. --
Sebastián
Arena...
02:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Which plant is Persicaria polymorpha? On Wikipedia, Persicaria polymorpha redirects to Koenigia alpina, although it isn't listed as a synonym. One of the synonyms that is listed however is Persicaria alpina. According to the RHS, Persicaria polymorpha is one of the synonyms of Persicaria alpina. So that seems to establish a connection, at least in a horticultural source, between Persicaria polymorpha and Koenigia alpina. Yet the plant commonly sold in the horticultural trade as Persicaria polymorpha tends to look like this, a rather robust and imposing herbaceous plant that grows 1.5 - 1.8 metres high. The RHS page has a similar looking plant. Whereas the images at Commons of Aconogonom alpinum (another Wikipedia-listed synonym of Koenigia alpina, and where our article links to for images) look to me rather less imposing - not nearly so statuesque or substantial, both in foliage and flowers. Is this just a species with very variable morphology, or is the horticultural trade supplying something different, and if so, what are they supplying? PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 03:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I've now created an article at Koenigia × fennica which includes 'Johanneswolke' and put a hatnote at Koenigia alpina. I hope this will help readers to find the plant in cultivation. Peter coxhead ( talk) 06:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
There is a proposed move discussion underway, in which the article Poaceae would be moved to Grass. You may express your opinions on this proposal at /info/en/?search=Talk:Poaceae#Requested_move_28_May_2020 Nick Moyes ( talk) 22:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm somewhat concerned that the image at Glebionis segetum is actually of Glebionis coronaria var. discolor. Lavateraguy ( talk) 20:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I am not very well versed in plants, so maybe you can help me: Is this a Sambucus ebulus? Thanks in advance.-- Alexander-93 ( talk) 14:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't Lavatera phoenicea be moved to Malva now? Leo Breman ( talk) 20:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't Lavateraguy be moved to Malva now? Ehm, sorry, couldn't help myself. AFPD is the CJB's African Plant Database I assume? Right, I'll try to move it and write up something on tax. Leo Breman ( talk) 18:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Sigh... Yet another set of slides and photos in talks I give to be edited once more to update the scientific names. Malva/Lavatera acerifolia/canariensis, a beautiful plant of the Canaries, has a particularly tangled history of labels. Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think a "biscuit flower" exists. Can someone please correctly identify this flower? Thanks, im temtem • hOI!! • fsfdfg • alt account of pandakekok9 11:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
Our article Superasterids says they contain “more than 122,000 species”. Is that right? Adding up the counts in the contained clades, one obtains:
Clade | Species | Source | APweb species |
---|---|---|---|
Berberidopsidales | 3 | WP | 4 |
Santales | 1,000 | The Angiosperm Phylogeny Group: An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG IV. In: Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, vol 181, 2016, p. 1–20. doi: 10.1111/boj.12385 | 1,992 |
Caryophyllales | 11,155 | WP | 11,620 |
Asterids | 82,980 | (from table below) | 1000,593 (sic) 101,273 or 97,275 |
total | 95,138 |
Asterids:
Clade | Species | Source | APweb |
---|---|---|---|
Cornales | 600 | WP | 590 |
Ericales | 8,000 | WP | 12,005 |
euasterids | 74,380 | (from table below) | 88,678 or 84,680 |
total | 82,980 | 101,273 or 97,275 |
euasterids:
Clade | Species | Source | APweb |
---|---|---|---|
lamiids | 40,000 | WP | 51,448 |
campanulids | 35,878 | (from table below) | 37,230 or 34,232 |
total | 74,380 | 88,678 or 84,680 |
campanulids:
Clade | Species | Source | APweb |
---|---|---|---|
Aquifoliales | 536 | de:Stechpalmenartige | 536 |
Asterales | 28,500 | WP | 26,870 |
Escallionales | 130 | WP | 130 |
Bruniales | 80 | subclades | 79 |
Apiales | 5,500 | de:Doldenblütlerartige | 5,489 |
Dipsacales | 1,096 | subclades | 1,090 |
Paracryphiales | 36 | WP | 38 |
total | 35,878 | 37,230 (
stated) 34,232 (adding above) |
Lamiids:
Clade | APweb species |
---|---|
Icacinales | 202 |
Metteniusales | 55 |
Garryales | 18 |
Boraginales | 3,120 |
Gentianales | 20,145 |
Vahliales | 8 |
Lamiales | 23,755 |
Solanales | 4,145 |
total | 51,448 |
That is, we are missing about 27,000 species. Even by the standards of a rapidly changing field, that is an enormous discrepancy, more than double the deviations found in other clades. What are the missing species? ◀ Sebastian 23:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
There's a question at Talk:List of Ranunculus species#About the list, regarding the number of species in the genus, that might be of interest here. The questioner seems correct to assert that there are many more than indicated. Plants of the World Online lists 1,654 accepted species! But with the present format of the list (including common names, distributions and images), expanding would be a huge task. Thanks Declangi ( talk) 05:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
Someone should make a real and globaly accapted species list about the plants. DenesFeri ( talk) 07:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
HI, I apologize in advance if this is wrong place, but I don't know where else to put it. It seems that in the boxes of many ferns, they are listed as Polypodiopsida (it doesn't help much, that the link leads to Fern), when in accordance to this page, they should be outside of Polypodiopsida. For example: Ophioglossum, Equisetum HlTo CZ ( talk) 14:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)