Talk:Dracaena angolensis

DYK Idea

As a note to myself, if it grows to DYK size, then try:

.. that the Spear Sansevieria, Sansevieria cylindrica, is a species of plant that received its name from a competition in a Dutch national newspaper? If you read that reference more carefully, you will see that it is the cultivar 'Skyline' that was perhaps named in a newspaper contest. The article hardly seems like a reliable source, however! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB1D:2E:3500:A1C2:4A36:F069:2831 (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dorso-ventral gene suppression

This sentence appeared to be copied from another website. It was also not comprehensible. I removed it. --Blechnic (talk) 05:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dracaena cylindrica?

Hi all! Isn't the genus now part of Dracaena under APG IV? Ron (talk) 10:56, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rǫgn: yes, if you go to Sansevieria § Selected former species, you'll see that I am in the process of moving the articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done all moved now. (It took longer than usual, because most of the Dracaena names didn't have an entry in Wikidata, so to make the {{taxonbar}}s work, I had to create the items there as well as fix the articles for the move.) Peter coxhead (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are "cylindrical snake plant" and "African spear" Wikipedia creations?

Is there possibly a case of citogenesis in the common names "cylindrical snake plant" and "African spear"? I can't find sources for either from the pre-Wikipedia era. Even a personal attestation here of having heard either name would be comforting. — AjaxSmack 00:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's totally possible this is citogenesis. None of the books I have on hand, including a recent one that is entirely about the genus, mention either of these common names. Personally I think listing every common name is of limited value anyway since houseplant growers often just make up whatever name sounds catchy. Steven Walling • talk 19:47, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"...houseplant growers often just make up whatever name sounds catchy." Touché. — AjaxSmack 15:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key point to make, as always, is that English names need reliable citations like everything else, and if they don't have them, should be removed. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then do you think that editors should summarily delete names that appear in relatively reliable sources, but that don't meet a cursory citogenesis test of online sources (as our colleague did here), or is a {{fact}} tag with an explanation enough? — AjaxSmack 21:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah basically I agree with Peter. This might be worth discussing at the relevant WikiProject, but my guess would be that we should take a conservative stance on common names and only include them when there are numerous sources that prove that they are indeed widely common. Citogenesis is thankfully rarely a problem since most plant common names predate the existence of Wikipedia. Steven Walling • talk 01:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]