Talk:Attalea (plant)

Comment

"Orbignya" redirects here, but the page does not explain why. // habj (talk) 19:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Attalea (genus)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ucucha 21:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking good; it appears to address the main aspects of the topic and is well-cited. One thing I noticed was that you mention the Haiti species twice in the "Distribution" section. I'll review in depth later (probably tonight). Ucucha 21:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to do this. Took out the duplication. Guettarda (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

More comments:

• Does the Kew ref cite all synonyms? If so, you can use the |synonyms_ref= parameter instead (see Oryzomys albiventer for an example).
• "they consists peduncle and a rachis" - please fix sentence
  • Thanks for the fix. "off of which" is still not the most elegant wording, but it's at least grammatical (which is all the GA criteria demand).
• Why was it named after Attalus III? The connection between an American palm genus and an attalid king seems rather obscure.
• "Other less widely accepted genera have also been described." - please cite
  • Not terribly useful bit of info - it's presented in a far more useful fashion under the "synonyms" section of the taxobox. -- Guettarda
• Much of the disagreement revolves around the question of whether certain groups of similar individuals represent variation within species, or whether they represent groups of morphologically similar species. - "similar" twice in the same sentence
  • Rephased -- Guettarda
• When collections are sparse, it can be difficult to tell whether differences between specimens represent points on a continuum, or true discontinuities in variation. - please cite
  • Rephrased & cited -- Guettarda
• Distribution: probably good to say whose species definitions are used for the 62 species.

• Do I understand correctly that no one has actually recognized 73 species? If so, it would be misleading to give that number in the lead.
  • Thought I was following Pintaud, who presents all 73. Just looked back at his abstract though, and he says "29 to 67" in his abstract. So you're right. -- Guettarda
• There are some technical terms that are not explained in the article (pinnate, acaulescent, peduncle, rachis, remote tubular, plumule, apical meristem). Please explain these inline.
  • Acaulescent and remote-tubular are defined inline, but obviously not clearly enough -- Guettarda
  • OK, translated into English :) -- Gueuttarda
• Is there any particular reason why you mention these specific species complexes under "Species"?
  • I picked a couple to illustrate how these species complexes fit together. Why 2 - a useful number between 1 and "all". Why these two? First two big complexes discussed by Pintaud, but also because they show how it's more than just Henderson the lumper versus Glassman, Govaerts & Dransfield the splitters. -- Guettarda
• Out of curiosity, I searched through my literature collection for Attalea. That yielded a few things you might want to mention (but that should not have any bearing on whether this should be a GA):
  • The bat Anoura caudifer roosts in Attalea foliage
    • Mammalian Species 844.
  • The distribution of the howler monkey Alouatta ululata coincides with that of Attalea speciosa (if I understand the Portuguese correctly)
    • Revista Brasileira de Zoologia 23(1):64-144.
  • Attalea is an important food source for Cebus apella capuchin monkeys.
    • Primate Biogeography (Springer, 2006), ch. 4.
  • The bat Diclidurus albus was seen in an Attalea palm in Costa Rica.
    • University of California Publications in Zoology 134:303-352.
  • A possible Attalea fruit from the late Miocene of Venezuela. The genus has apparently also been found in the Eocene of Peru.
    • Journal of Paleontology 74(5):957-968. Peru Eocene is reffed in this paper to BERRY, E. W. 1929. Eocene plants from the Restin Formation of Peru. Pan American Geologist, 51:241–244. and BERRY, E. W. 1934. Extension of range of Attalea olssoni. Washington Academy of Sciences, 24:447–448.
  • Philander opossums eat Attalea fruit.
    • Fieldiana Zoology 86.
    • I'd be interested in seeing those references -- Guettarda

Ucucha 21:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• • • • Will do.
        • Refs are listed above now. I'd be happy to help you out when you are unable to find any of those. Ucucha 15:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It could do with a few more images; there are some reasonable ones at commons:Category:Attalea and Flickr. Ucucha 23:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Added a couple. Dubious about some of those - the "Corozo palm" is a common name used for several genera, and the fruit pictured are actually used in several genera. Ugh. -- Guettarda

I am now passing this as a GA. I'll give you the refs for the other papers later. Ucucha 14:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Attalea (palm). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070221180119/http://www.rbgkew.org.uk/wcsp/home.do to http://www.rbgkew.org.uk/wcsp/home.do

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Authority name

Frank R 1981 - please use the talk page instead of edit warring. WP:BRD means discuss.

To the best of my understanding, Kunth in F.W.H.von Humboldt, A.J.A.Bonpland & C.S.Kunth is the proper authority, not mere "publishing details". The shorter form of this citation is H.B.K., not Kunth; after all, . For example, Glassman's classic treatment of the genus is titled "Preliminary taxonomic studies in the palm genus Attalea H.B.K." Guettarda (talk) 13:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

If my understanding of this is out of date, then by all means let me know. But, you know, please discuss. Guettarda (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Scientific botanical names are accompanied solely by the authority. To give further publishing details, please do so in the taxonomy section. The sole author is Kunth. All the main modern sources by renowned scholars you have used as references for this article agree with this. Frank R 1981 (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Frank R 1981 - can you provide a supporting citation for your claim? Some sort of factual backing? I have a source that says Kunth in F.W.H.von Humboldt, A.J.A.Bonpland & C.S.Kunth - surely Govaerts is a modern source. And, of course, I'm sure you're familiar with the nature of Kunth's publication of Humboldt and Bonpland's work. Guettarda (talk) 18:30, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Sure, just check the many sources in the references section in this article, many of which I'm sure you read before using them as references.Frank R 1981 (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it's clear that any "in" part of the full protologue is not part of giving the author(s) of a name. Thus IPNI, surely a definitive source, just has "Attalea Kunth" (see here). What matters is who published the new name, not whose name appears on the title page of the work in which the new name appeared. In taxoboxes by long-established convention we give the author(s) (and date for zoological names), not the full bibliographic reference. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I checked the ICBN, and rule 46 supports this. I'm pretty sure it wasn't this way when I last trying to sort of Kunth vs H.B.K. stuff (granted, that was in the 90s, and since I was doing it without the internet, my sources might have been considerably older). Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)`