Talk:Hepatica

A fact from Hepatica appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 March 2004. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that according to the ancient doctrine of signatures, the plant hepatica was useful for treating liver disorders?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2004/March.

Wikipedia

Variety vs species

The two references I checked - ITIS and [1]/[2] list the two American species mentioned (H. acutiloba and H. americana) as varieties of H. nobilis. ITIS lists as expert John Kartesz of the Biota of North America Project. Should I just make this edit, giving ITIS as a reference (right now, we have no reference for listing them as species)? Any contrary opinions? Kingdon 02:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done this. Kingdon 14:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Species level articles

Right now we have redlinks for most of the species, and a stub article for Hepatica nobilis. I propose to move all this material into the Hepatica article, and get rid of the redlinks. Given the small number of species, the short length of the current articles, and the questions about what is a species and what is a variety, I think covering this in a genus-level article is going to work better. Any other opinions? Kingdon 13:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Generally not. Stubs are not disallowed to exist separetely, and precedent says that species get their own entries/articles. Punkmorten 16:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC) I just added interwiki links to the article, and if 15 (!) other Wikipedias can have a separate entry for this species I think we are able to do so as well. Punkmorten 16:40, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the merge tag seems to have lasted all of six hours, which doesn't seem to give much of a chance for discussion, but OK, whatever. I'll go try to clean up Hepatica nobilis a bit. Kingdon 01:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common name "liverwort"

After seeing the statement that liverwort means Hepatica in a March 2010 magazine article, I traced it to Wikipedia. This seems to be the result of a typographical error, and none of the botanical books I consulted list it. I've removed it here and in the disambiguation page. Nadiatalent (talk) 11:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change reverted, some dictionaries do list this ambiguous usage. Nadiatalent (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]