Talk:Carex hirta

Distribution

The distribution listed currently is "Carex hirta is native to Europe, and is found across the British Isles, albeit with records becoming very scarce in the far north." The native distribution range can be seen here (I've copied it below):

• AFRICA - Northern Africa: Morocco
• ASIA-TEMPERATE - Western Asia: Iran; Turkey - Caucasus: Armenia; Azerbaijan; Georgia; Russian Federation - Ciscaucasia, Dagestan
• EUROPE - Northern Europe: Denmark; Finland; Ireland; Norway; Sweden; United Kingdom

Middle Europe: Austria; Belgium; Czechoslovakia; Germany; Hungary; Netherlands; Poland; Switzerland

East Europe: Belarus; Estonia; Latvia; Lithuania; Russian Federation - European part; Ukraine

Southeastern Europe: Albania; Bulgaria; Former Yugoslavia; Greece; Italy; Romania

Southwestern Europe: France [incl. Corsica]; Portugal; Spain

The inclusion of "scarce in the far north" doesn't state that the plant is absent from those parts, so it's questionable if its even noteworthy. Given that the plant is found in Norway and Sweden, "far north" is a relative term (and we wouldn't state that the plant is found in Norway but is scarce in the "far north"). And although the ukwildflowers is an excellent website by itself, it is the website of an amateur field botanist with a narrower-than-global focus. --HighKing (talk) 10:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

For an English-language encyclopaedia, a limited bias towards English-speaking countries is acceptable. Within the British Isles (the context of the clause), the far north equates to the Northwest Highlands and the Northern Isles, where records are indeed very scarce. That division is abrupt, noticeable and noteworthy; any description that the species is widespread and common across the archipelago (which is how it would otherwise be worded) would be misleading in this case. Its presence in Norway is limited to the southernmost areas, and the species doesn't extend much further north in Sweden (see this map of Scandinavia and the global range). Mere presence–absence data, especially at the country level, can be very misleading. North Africa is not an important part of its distribution, for instance. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"A limited bias towards English-speaking countries is acceptable" is fine when it comes to spellings and the "centric"-ness of articles. I'm not questioning that, at all. But North America is also (aguably) english-speaking, but there's no mention of this plant in the USA where it is very widespread. Also, a limited bias doesn't mean that we simply ignore distribution in other areas in Asia and Africa. While I might disagree on the point about the division between widespread and scarce (as opposed to absent) being noteworthy, if we are to include it in the article, we should then also mention the noteworthiness of "abrupt, noticable and noteworthy" divisions between being widespread and scarce in the USA and other areas in Europe. Otherwise to say it is widespread in these areas is equally misleading. --HighKing (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

North America is an entirely different case. The species is not native there, as the current article, and the global map I linked to above, both make entirely clear. It is, perhaps, widespread, as seen on a state-by-state presence–absence level, but the (admittedly somewhat outdated) map shows its occurrences to be rather scattered. Contrary to your assertion, the occurrence of Carex hirta in North America is indeed mentioned in the article, in the "Distribution" section, where an alternative common name is also given, and the date and location of the first occurrence are noted. It is unclear to me how you might have overlooked that. Indeed, more space is given to the North American distribution than the native distribution. Overall, I cannot see that the current wording is in any way misleading. If you have any further suggestions for improvements to this article, then please feel free to make them, but I think this discussion cannot bear much fruit. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't intend to give the impression that North America wasn't mentioned at all, but that the delineation between widespread and absent isn't mentioned. I suppose that the abrupt delineation is less noteworthy for introduced species. What about this suggestion? --HighKing (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"Carex hirta is native to Europe, although not usually found more northerly that lattitude 60oN, corresponding with the northern British Isles (or Great Britain) and southern Scandanavia[2]. It can also be found in Northern Africa and the Caucasus regions. It has been introduced to North America, where it is known as "hammer sedge".[3] It was first recorded in Amherst, Massachusetts in 1877, and has since been found across much of the eastern United States and Canada.[4]"

Um, no. Because of things like the course of the Gulf Stream, consistent latitudinal limits rarely occur in biogeography – as a keen follower of all things Irish, you will no doubt be aware of the Lusitanian element there, for example (cf. Kerry slug, Arbutus unedo, etc.). The environment at 58° north in maritime Britain is very different from that at 58°N in inland Scandinavia (incidentally, your suggested line at 60°N passes through Shetland, far north of the island of Great Britain; also note that (bio)geography naturally uses geographical rather than political terms for areas). Even within Great Britain, the division is evidently not parallel with the parallel; the abrupt change is probably more to do with the Highland Boundary Fault (but that's entirely my speculation, not anything I've seen published). I also suspect that that wording it as you suggest would constitute a novel synthesis of the information provided. What the source actually says is:

This sedge is found all over Ireland, England and southern Scotland but suddenly finds the central and northern climate too inhospitable and records become very scarce here.

That is what we have to report, albeit fixing the stylistic errors (anthropomorphism, omission of areas clearly intended, etc.). There really is nothing wrong with the current text. There was a slight incongruity initially, as you pointed out, but that problem has now been fixed. You seem to have strayed some distance from your original point, and I no longer know whether you're campaigning for removing that fact (as you were initially), or for the inclusion of outlying populations. In either case, I have yet to see any evidence of any real problem with the text. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Not 100% sure where you're coming from with those final comments, but I think I can guess. Just for both our benefits, and to clarify what we've discussed, allow me to do a recap (and feel free to point out where I strayed, etc, cos I feel a little aggrieved at your insinuations):

I questioned the distribution mentioned in the article and if the mention of the plant becoming scarce in the north of the British Isles is noteworthy. You said that a limited bias towards english-speaking countries is acceptable, and that the scarcity is very noteworthy. Using that logic, I then asked if it was also noteworthy to mention the delimitations between plentiful and scarcity in other regions. You responded in a way which I interpreted to mean that there's a difference between areas where the plant is introduced, and where it is a native species, and (my interpretation) that delineation is more notable for native areas. I suggested an alternative wording to overcome the BI-centric view presented in the article and also highlight the importance of the sharp delineation between widespread and scarce. You've provided a rather good reason why using latitude isn't a good idea, but simply said there's nothing wrong with the current text. My take on it is that the current text is BI-centric (by making a point about scarcity, even though it's a phenomenon seen in other places as we travel north also) and incomplete (it omits mention of Africa, the Caucasus regions and New Zealand). --HighKing (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The point is that we have a reliable source which has drawn attention the the sudden scarcity of C. hirta in the far north of its range in the British Isles. Other than our own interpretations of cartographic evidence, we have no such source for other statements, and it would therefore be original research to start making such claims for other areas. The source we have bases its claim not just on a map but on the field experience of the author. Without the testimony of a Scandinavian botanist that a similar sudden decline is evident there, we simply cannot make that claim. It could be more gradual than in the British Isles; we don't know.

The stated distribution is inevitably a simplification of the species' true range. As well as the omission of some small areas, some areas where it is not present are not specifically ruled out: southern Iberia, Corsica, Sicily, etc. It is only to be expected that a short summary of the distribution will not contain all the detail. I don't feel that the few occurrences in North Africa are particularly worthy of mention – they're certainly not part of the species' core range. The northern parts of the Caucasus region are geographically part of Europe, and so are already implicitly included. In New Zealand (where it's also an introdution), the total range seems to constitute two populations, one at Palmerston North, and one over the water at Havelock, Marlborough. Compared to its great abundance across most of Europe, this really does pale into insignificance. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I question/doubt if the private website of a self-professed amateur botanist and photographer is a reliable source, especially if this is the only basis for adding the claim for the notability of the delineation between widespread and scarcity. I also question your easy dismissal of inclusion of other areas where Carex hirta can be found and being not particularly worthy of mention. Some might feel that the very fact the plant has managed to establish itself in such relatively small areas as being particularly notable. --HighKing (talk) 11:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)