Talk:Acanthomintha duttonii

Taxonomy

The taxonomic info could use some additions: Why and when was the species separated from Acanthomintha obovata? Who is it named after? Circeus 15:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 8, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: No. The morphology section has redundancies, is unclear, poorly worded, and uses botanical jargon incorrectly in places, plus mispellings. A few examples, but needs rewritten completely rather than edit right now: "inflorescences ... are ... terminal in form" is meaningless. I suspect what is meant is the inflorescences are terminal. They're described as "head-like," but this implies something akin to an Asteraceae head, while, in fact, aren't they terminal spikes like mints? Second paragraph contains repetitions form first. There is more wrong than actual distinct text in this section, should be read by authors first, then sent for peer-review, although I put it on the botany peer-review list for help with the terminology.

2. Factually accurate?: It can't be accurate if it is so difficult to understand and uses jargon incorrectly. Also, these are tiny flowers, and there is no general sense of the plant itself. Aren't they Lamiaceae? Do they have square stems? Isn't this plant a serpentine endemic? This should be in the lead, as this speaks to directly to its tremendous rarity. "Montara Mountain Block?" This is not a particularly standard use of this. How about just Montara Mountain, unless it is linked directly to an article called Montara Mountain Block.

3. Broad in coverage?: Really limited information about the plant as a serpentine endemic. This line "species such as the San Mateo Thornmint have adapted to serpentine soils and actually require Serpentine soils for survival" is an extraordinary statement for serpentime endemics, and, as such, must be directly referenced to a specific comment in a research article, preferably a couple, and its notability as an exception to the usual trend in serpentine endemics must be discussed.

4. Neutral point of view?: No, article includes speculation, which is never neutral, in Conservation, "the criteria of occurrences and acreage may both be present."

5. Article stability? No, but this is good, as it needs to be rewritten.

6. Images?: Better picture of a flower and/or inflorescence is needed.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --KP Botany 19:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a few comments:

• "Head-like" is used for some mambers of lamiaceae, for example Monarda's inflorescences are often referred to as heads. I suppose techkically it's a "single terminal verticillaster", but that sounds even worse :).
• Unfortunately academic publications on the endemic flora of serpentine soils are hard to come by... presumably there will at least be dissertations or other narrowly published sources, but tracking them down could be difficult.

In general I think it's going to be hard to get GA nominations for very esoteric species such as this one, due to the problems of there being relatively few secondary sources, and the difficulty in tracking down primary sources. For what the article is, I think it's quite good. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 13:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"Head-like is used for specific inflorescences in the mint family. What I should have said was, "aren't they terminal spikes like Mentha and Saliva." It is not used for all members of the mint family, though, other members have inflorescenses in terminal spikes. And, actually, I don't know. That's why it's a question, but it can't be used unless that is what is meant.

I'm having a hard time with the morphology section. Did you read it through and try to make sense of it, and do you agree that a Good Article can have a section that is difficult to follow and internally inconsistent?

"All thornmints are aromatic annual wildflowers with square erect stems and petioled leaves. Inflorescences of thornmints are head-like, in clusters and terminal in form. In Acanthomintha, leaf veins are conspicuous and the leaf margins are always spiny, leading to the common name. The characteristics of the genus flower are that of a two-lipped calyx and lobes spine-tipped,[4] re-inforcing the basis of the common name. All Acanthomintha have the upper three lobes of its calyx acuminate and the lower two lobes oblong in shape. All Acanthomintha corollae are funnel shaped and white. All Acanthomintha have four stamens, with the upper two reduced, whether they are sterile or not. Thornmint styles are slender and their fruit is ovoid in shape with a smooth exterior texture.

A. duttonii has a stem which is generally unbranched and less than twenty centimeters in length; the stem may present hort hairs or none at all. Leaves of this species are eight to twelve millimeters in length, lanceolate to obovate in shape. The margins of this spiny leaf are occasionally serrate. The terminal inflorescences have bracts of about five to eleven millimeters; moreover, these bracts are ovate and green at the flower, with five or seven marginal spines, each three to seven millimeters. The virtually hairless to sparse short haired calyx is five to eight millimeters in length, while the corolla is 12 to 16 millimeters in extent. The white corolla is often tinged lavender in color; the corolla throat is cream colored and its upper lip is hooded, while the longer lower lip is reflexed and three-lobed. The upper lip is more diminutive than the lower, and is entire and shallowly hooded. A. duttonii upper stamens are fertile, while the anthers are short and hairy. The style is glabrous."

"Inflorescences of thornmints are head-like, in clusters and terminal in form."

--->What does "terminal in form mean?" This is an unusual enough statement that it should be clarified.

"In Acanthomintha, leaf veins are conspicuous and the leaf margins are always spiny, leading to the common name."

And "The margins of this spiny leaf are occasionally serrate."

--->Which is it, the leavers are "always spiny" or "occasionally serrate?" These are contradictory statements. And, actually, I thought the name came from the bracts, not the leaves.

"All Acanthomintha have four stamens, with the upper two reduced, whether they are sterile or not."

"A. duttonii upper stamens are fertile"

--->Why say above "whether sterile or not" then tell in the next paragraph that they "are fertile?"

"However, species such as the San Mateo Thornmint have adapted to serpentine soils and actually require Serpentine soils for survival."

--->This is not true for most serpentine endemics, as it seems to be implying that there is something in serpentine soils that is necessary for this plant to grow. What is true, in general, for serpentine endemics is that their adaptations to serpentine soils make them less fit competitors on non-serpentine soils. If the statement in this article is correct, it is extraordinary enough that it must be attached to a specific reference, and elaborated upon. If it is not correct, it should be removed. There are also other things, like doesn't it say "hort hairs" somewhere? What are "hort hairs?"

--->I'm a little put out to be asked to give good article status to an article that doesn't make sense. Couldn't that be the least of Good Article status, that it makes sense and is not inaccurate?

--->I didn't ask for the compelling prose of a FA, simply factual accuracy and readability. KP Botany 19:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I also think that it should be reviewed for accuracy and internal consistency before it is nominated for a Good Article. People won't continue reviewing articles if this basic underlying consideration is ignored. It's simply not fair to the reviewer to ask them to do a copy edit of a very rough draft. KP Botany 19:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Serpentine soils

As I stated this is ecologically unusual enough that it must be sourced and explained before it can be put in the article, "However, species such as the San Mateo Thornmint have adapted to serpentine soils and actually require Serpentine soils for survival." KP Botany 18:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of my knowledge of serpentine/serpentinite soils comes from A Natural History of California by Allan Schoenherr. That text has about 10 pages out of 700 that talk specifically about "serpentine edaphic/endemic" species. From what Schoenherr says, it seems like the fact that there are species that are indicators for these soils has more to do with the fact that they can survive their poor/strange mineral content and that most other species cannot. He doesn't say anything about these species requiring serpentine soil, so it seems more like an evolutionary pressure of not being able to compete against species that thrive in better soils. Mike Dillon 02:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's generally been shown in experiments, that serpentine endemics simply cannot compete with non-endemics on non-serpentine soils, or that they can't compete against weeds on non-serpentine soils. Either way, I removed the statement until it can either be varified and clarified, or corrected. There are some good books on serpentine endemics, and some good papers. Plants are unusual beasts, though. KP Botany 03:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The genus authority

Is there some reason you're "rewriting even though the original statement was directly out of the genus authority?" If you don't trust the genus authority, then you have to include evidence from the literature for this in the article itself.

Don't you see that you have two statements that needed reconciled to each other, "Each Acanthomintha species has four stamens, with the upper two reduced, whether they are sterile or not." at the end of the first paragraph, and "A. duttonii upper stamens are fertile, and the anthers are short and hairy."

--->"Why say above "whether sterile or not" then tell in the next paragraph that they "are fertile?"

Well, one reason you say it above is that it is common in some species to have infertile upper stamens, but in this particular species they are fertile, or whatever. You have to bring these statements together, as all of your statements when you move from the genus to the species, or there is no point in including the genus description in the article. KP Botany 21:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"rewriting even though the original statement was directly out of the genus authority?" The online Jepson manual gives separate treatments to the general characteristics of the Genus and the one specific to species within that Genus (so you sometimes have to take in account contradictory information, and important features might not be described in the species' entry.

At least, I think that is the issue Circeus 18:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

But it doesn't make sense to remove something "even though ... it is directly out of the genus authority." It's like saying, "I removed it even though it should stay." However, it does need clarified, or tied to the preceding paragraph, as this is not a flora. I do have a couple of Jepson Manuals (field and lab), and use the on-line one, and this is the general pattern of floras. The prose needs tied together, that's what I'm trying to get across, so that someone who is not used to the style of floras and is not the most careful reader, can clearly understand what is being said. KP Botany 19:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)