Talk:Hawaiian lobelioids

"double flower"

The "double flower" of Clermontia is formed by enlargement and coloration of the sepals, not duplication of the petals as described in the double flower article. KarlM (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you give a reference so I can include it in the double-flowered page? I've only recently made this article. It sounds like what you're saying is that this mutation is a homeotic change of sepal to petal, rather than stamen to petal? I'm updating it as I learn more about the subject... the current form is more moderate than the version you saw (because I saw a sepal-to-petal mutation mentioned somewhere), stating "Double-flower forms usually arise when some or all of the stamens in a flower are replaced by petals." With a good reference maybe I could add a sentence or paragraph about sepal-to-petal types. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 19:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It's discussed in the Manual of Flowering Plants book (Wagner et al.) cited in the article. I added a pic of the typical section Clermontioideae form. There's also one sort-of intermediate with lobes that are enlarged but still foliate, which is considered a subspecies of the same one in the new pic and therefore probably convergent rather than a true intermediate. It seemed redundant to include it in the article, but I have a picture of it here. Convergence of sepal form on petals (or even replacement) is fairly common, so I would think that once they start getting enlarged for whatever reason, the evolutionary pressure starts for them to look like petals pretty quickly. KarlM (talk) 11:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so... not a single gene mutation ... plus, that reference would be nontrivial for me to get ahold of. Well, I was just fishing for info on how make the double-flowered article more accurately cover all usages of the term. If you think it's inappropriate to link, that's fine; I merely searched Wikipedia for all usages of the phrase and linked them. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 19:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the reason I changed it back in the first place was that it sounded like you were using the term "double flower" in a semi-technical way for a specific change or type of change, and in this case it's more of an informal term because it looks like it's got two sets of petals. KarlM (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Split

This article should be split as several genera in this group are distinct enough that they deserve their own articles --Melly42 (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not? Just about every article on a plant species is linked back to its genus article, which links back to its family article. If the genera were distinct enough to be called as such, why shouldn't they be enough to have their own articles? Hamamelis (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Er.. But not from a disambiguation page, just from the present article itself. Hamamelis (talk) 07:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Since it's a cohesive group that's often referred to as a whole, I think it's worth keeping this article as well, along the lines of the silversword alliance. I agree that the genera deserve their own articles, but right now there is only one paragraph plus a species list for each, so it's hardly worth it. If they get expanded then it's definitely worth spinning off the genera as separate articles. KarlM (talk) 06:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Lobelia genus obviously already has its own article, but I wasn't sure if that was clear from this article, so I added a Template:Main to its entry. Do you all think this is a good way to do it? Indeterminate (talk) 09:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and when each genus has its own article this one can be reduced here, and expanded there (that is, into the new articles). The template:main should be added at the head of each section for a genus as new articles are created. This is a good intermediate solution, at the very least. Hamamelis (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Lobelia is a cosmopolitan, poly- or paraphyletic genus. The Hawaiian species included under it are likely to be separated into two genera sometime soon. KarlM (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this article should remain and as people are inclined to create articles for the genera, they can move information from here to those articles and link to them. Template:Main seems like a good way to do it. I'm going to remove the split notice at the top of the page, it seems like we have consensus here. ErikHaugen (talk) 19:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Hawaiian lobelioids/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Sections on the individual genera need expansion. If enough detail is included it might be better to have them as separate pages, but for now they're short enough to keep all together. KarlM 08:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 08:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 17:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Separate genus articles

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Hawaiian lobelioids. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:31, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Notes on recent updates

• Presumed extinction: Clermontia grandiflora[1]
• New species: Clermontia hanaulaensis[2][3][4]

Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2023 (UTC)