Talk:Glossary of leaf morphology

Style

Needs prose, not just a list.

Comments

I vote that the description of arrangement of leafs on a stem is already on the main leaf article, and should not be here, or should be separate. Also, types of how compound leaves are should be separated from individual leaflet shape discussion. Both compound leaf types and leaf arrangement on stems need pictures perhaps more than the other leaf shape examples do. 128.101.70.96 16:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)lotusduck

what is a oblong? a square or a leaf shape?

i reckon this makes no sense at all what is a oblong? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.64.76.53 (talk) 20:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

leaf type

Could costapalmate make it onto the list?Mmcknight4 04:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

group of leaflets is considered one leaf

It is very confusing that a group of leaflets is considered one "entire leaf" -- even a group of groups of groups are just one leaf?! Needs much more explanation! -74.75.213.191 (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations & thanks to the maker(s) of & contributors to this article

I just want to say I love this list. Thank you for putting it up & making it good (though I'm not a botanist so I can't expertly judge its quality or anything, but it's certainly good enough for laypersonish old me). What fantastic, beautiful words they are (e.g. Lanceolate, Flabellate, Bipinnate, Perfoliate) just as words!--Tyranny Sue (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Compound leaves

I changed the previous description of 'compound' which used to say that leaves had to be multiple pinnate to be called this. Imc (talk) 07:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

How to make internal links?

This is a good list, and the context of other shapes is better than a dictionary reference from other articles.

But how can the terms be linked from other articles without making every shape a header? Would like to have the link [[leaf_shape#shape | shape]] work so that "shape" is at least shown on the page that is displayed.98.111.146.179 (talk) 06:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

For an invisible "link point" or anchor, you can insert {{anchor|NAME}} (almost) anywhere in an article, where NAME is replaced some appropriate word. Then [[Leaf shape#NAME|SHAPE]] will link the word SHAPE to the anchor called NAME.

Better here, perhaps, is the use of {{vanchor|SHAPE}}, which makes a visible "link point" or anchor. This has already been done for the entry "cordate" as you'll see if you edit the article. So you could go through the article adding {{vanchor}} as appropriate. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Why not recurved?

I am in two minds about the addition and subsequent deletion of "Recurved", "recurvate". Why delete it? It is a perfectly valid term as applied to leaves. Of course it also can apply to other organs as well, such as thorns or petals, but so can many other terms standardly applied to leaves and present in the list. JonRichfield (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I would include it; its use for other organs is irrelevant. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Palm 0855.JPG concern

Are the leaves of the plant in image "Palm 0855.JPG" palmately compound? They appear to be simple leaves with palmate venation. If we could confirm the identity of the plant, I could be more certain, but in any case, including leaves of something like Aesculus would illustrate the palmately compound leaf shape more clearly.

Bjpete (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)Bjpete

Leaf/Leaf shape overlap and rationalisation

The article for leaf is very long (for good reason of course) and contains a lot of material that overlaps this article; confusingly so. One option would be to merge the two, but because of the size of the Leaf article, I recommend that the leaf shape sections of Leaf be incorporated into this article. I could do that myself, but would prefer first to hear from other editors who might have rival thoughts or projects. I am repeating this note in the talk page of the other article. JonRichfield (talk) 08:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The exact same solution prompted me to come to Talk. I wholeheartedly second your proposal. Anarchangel (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I do have one concern, which is that the title is informal; I propose this page be moved to Leaf morphology, whereupon a 'main article' template in Leaf can link with the same terminology as that page' s section header. Anarchangel (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

On the basis of WP:GLOSSARIES, I suggest it would be best to move this page to Glossary of leaf shape terms or Glossary of leaf shape terminology. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Glossary of leaf shapes? --Tom Hulse (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I like Glossary of leaf shape terminology. RE Tom's suggestion: Not all of the terms describe the overall shape of the leaf. Some pertain to just the apex, just the base, or just the margin, so "Glossary of leaf shapes" wouldn't quite describe this glossary as accurately as "Glossary of leaf shape terminology". --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

For that argument to work, you would have to use something like like Glossary of leaf parts or Glossary of leaves. Adding the word "terminology" doesn't at all change the meaning away from overall leaf shapes. It seems reasonable that to the average person it would not seem an error to include leaf part shapes in an article about "leaf shapes". I would favor the simplest title over the most pedantically correct one. --Tom Hulse (talk) 22:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Tom Hulse: it's not a glossary of leaves or of leaf parts but of the terms used to describe the shapes of whole leaves and their parts. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The meaning of glossary already includes the idea of "terms" or "terminology". Neither of those words imparts anything new to a glossary title. So, actually, yes a glossary of leaf shapes is the same as a glossary of leaf shape terms. --Tom Hulse (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. If you search the web, you'll find that two very common patterns are "X glossary" (e.g. this) or "Glossary of X terms" (e.g. this). Perusing Category:Glossaries suggests that titles with and without "terms" or "terminology" are used for articles. In spite of the etymology of "glossary", I would expect a "glossary of leaf shapes" to be strong on diagrams of the actual shapes, whereas a "glossary of leaf shape terminology" suggests to me a concentration on the terms themselves. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

If you do not know the actual meaning of "glossary", then yes it would be easy to make your mistake of expecting those two different formats. While some do include diagrams, what you propose is just not at all part of any modern definition of glossary. Your reference to etymology of course is an obfuscation, as we are talking about current meaning, not a historical one. Perhaps stop looking at a glossary as a list of ideas, some of which may be words. Instead, by definition, a glossary is a list of words; and though commonly done, it is redundant to tell us again that it is also a list of terms. "A list of terms about leaf shape terms" is identical to "A list of terms about leaf shapes". "Glossary" already includes "terms" & "terminology" to all who know what the word means. Here's an example: one of your links is to a "Glossary of Literary terms". Now by your theory you would expect it to be different from a Glossary of Literature, which you could think would be a list of books. However, it's not, since Glossary is not a list of things but a list of terms--Tom Hulse (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Tom, we write Wikipedia for the general public, not for pedants like me (and you, but apologies if you don't accept this description of yourself). So there's no harm in redundancy if it makes the article title clearer to readers. And anyway the analogy between "literary [terms]" and "leaf shape [terms]" seems to me misleading; leaf shapes are best described by diagrams, which form a major part of any attempt to explain terminology, as in Stearn's chapter in his Botanical Latin. There's no equivalent for literature.) Peter coxhead (talk) 11:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

No problem with pendant, lol. I should clarify that yes of course I would be fine with the title either way, but if no one minds, I'll continue to respond to those who said my way was incorrect. When you say 'no harm in redundancy if it makes the article clearer', we absolutely agree. But a more relevant version for this discussion would be 'no benefit to redundancy if it does NOT make the article clearer'. There are just not two different kinds of glossaries that we need to somehow use the title to distinguish between, as you propose. You can't just make up new sub-meanings with matching usage rules for a very clear, simple word like glossary. A glossary defines or explains words or terms, not necessarily ideas, objects, or things; please try to understand the difference. That's what separates it from a dictionary, encyclopedia, etc., is that it already includes "terms" or "terminology". It might actually be more confusing to pretend there are two meanings and/or be redundant when you don't need to be. The best title is usually the shortest clear title, per fixed Wikipedia policy (WP:CONCISE, WP:PRECISE). --Tom Hulse (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Messy linking

As I stated in the {{cleanup}} template, links in the list go to haphazard locations, and should be somehow made consistent. Browsing around, I noticed that there are nice svgs in commons:category:Leaf_diagrams which would make this article much more readable. Compare the table in fr:Forme foliaire, which could be adapted; pictures are worth a thousand words. I'm short on time to tackle this myself at the moment, but maybe later... No such user (talk) 14:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Removal of non relevant terms

Leaf margin terms

• Entire: Having a smooth margin without notches or indentations

Leaf arrangement terms

• Basal: Arising from the root crown, bulb, rhizome or corm, etc., as opposed to cauline

These terms don't have anything to do with leaf shape. I've removed them as such.Wasp32 (talk) 04:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree that it is helpful to remove those words that can easily be mistaken for shape descriptors, such as in a phrase "leaves basal, simple, peltate, entire, light green". To be consistent you should remove bipinnate, biternate, compound, mucronate, odd-pinnate, palmate, peltate, perfoliate, perforate, pinnate (and all its sub-entries), plicate, pungent, retuse, simple, trifoliate, tripinnate, undulate, unifoliate. Trimming this page down to a shadow of what it was is not, in my opinion, an improvement. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:17, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

"Entire" is most certainly about leaf shape – the shape of the margin is part of the shape of the leaf. The lead section says "Leaves may .. have a regular or irregular border" – the shape of the border is important. A number of terms relating to the margin/border are missing. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I said it in the section above, but let me repeat: we should just translate fr:Forme foliaire – much better article. No such user (talk) 11:20, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I have done so and I'm going to update this article very shortlyWasp32 (talk) 12:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you [1]. Btw, I reverted your edit at Palmate as it's probably not worth a disambiguation page. Other entries were WP:PTM anyway. No such user (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Rewrite means wiktionary needs work

Because this page now cites wiktionary a lot, there is a lot of work to be done to improve wiktionary. It seems that a lot of pages there state that a feature applies to leaves, but it could apply to many other structures. I got as far as aristate before exhaustion set in (surely a glume or a lemma is the first thing one thinks of as having an arista, and saying "of leaves" is not appropriate). Another problem with wiktionary is that it links to its own definitions of words like "blade" that are so ambiguous that the link is unhelpful, and a rewrite to avoid such words would be an improvement. Of course, there are also the usual number of just-plain-errors there, as here. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm thankful to Wasp32 for the rewrite, as the page is now comprehensive and informative, and accurate for the most part, however, it should not cite wiktionary, as it is NOT a reliable source. So the first challenge would be to change those citations to something more reliable, however, it's a technical issue someone should eventually address. As you note, a greater problem is that we have a mess at wiktionary, but I'm reluctant to dig there... No such user (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yea, sorry about all the wiktionary links. There were assorted web places which covered the leaf shapes but none seemed to be as entire as wikionary. I think I'll spend some time forming proper refs tonight or tomorrow. I'll probably pull most of the glossary of one of my keys or out of Dirr's manual to woody plant.Wasp32 (talk) 00:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that. If you work with botany a lot, I recommend

• The Kew Plant Glossary: an Illustrated Dictionary of Plant Terms, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew: Kew Publishing, 2010 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help) and
• The Cambridge Illustrated Glossary of Botanical Terms, Cambridge University Press, 2001 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help).

They don't always agree with one another; Beentje generally seems to include more meanings. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Yea, I don't have either of those books. I only study botany casually (for the time being) and as such the only books heavy duty botany books I own are:

• Rhoads, Ann; Block, Timothy. The Plants of Pennsylvania (2 ed.). Philadelphia Pa: University of Pennsylvania press. ISBN 978-0-8122-4003-0.
• Dirr, Michael A (1990). Manual of woody landscape plants (4. ed., rev. ed. ed.). Champaign, Illinois: Stipes Publishing Company. ISBN 0-87563-344-7. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

I've also got a few Peterson guides but they don't cover this stuff. Wasp32 (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

This is a very useful reference (commonly called "the telephone book" because of its size). Chapter 6 is the relevant one, and is available online. "Phytography - Morphological Evidence", Vascular Plant Systematics, Harper and Row, New York, 1976 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |authors= ignored (help) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:25, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Move to glossary of leaf morphological terms?

How about moving this article to glossary of leaf morphological terms? That takes care of the terms that aren't strictly about shape, and is entirely consistent with the current lead which says this is a "list of terms which are used to describe leaf morphology". Plantdrew (talk) 05:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Glossary of leaf morphology is shorter and less redundant (a glossary is by definition a list of terms ). Although the original title, Leaf shape was IMO just fine. No such user (talk) 07:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, such a change would be helpful. As I mentioned above with a simple example "leaves basal, simple, peltate, entire, light green", if a reader doesn't already know the terms, real botanical descriptions can be a frustrating puzzle to see which are shape terms and which describe position, the edge, the structure (pinnate, simple, ternate, etc.) or other features (marquescent, deciduous, caducous, etc.). Actually, I think it would be better to merge the content into Glossary of botanical terms. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:01, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I discovered Glossary of plant morphology today and concluded it was monstrous and very cumbersome to find information. Not sure what to do with that one. Glossary of botanical terms is at least properly sorted alphabetically. I'm not opposed to the merge you propose but 1) the illustrations should be transferred, as they are a major advantage of this article and 2) this article is condensed and present a fine learning opportunity if the reader is interested in complete leaf terminology rather than meaning of a single term. No such user (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with all those points. The solution would be to duplicate entries in the specific and the general glossaries, but I suspect that the wikipedia community generally, people who do not know what botanical descriptions are like, would remove the duplicates. (And wiktionary also needs to be cleaned up.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

My long(ish) experience with Wikipedia community is that duplication and forks, wanted or unwanted, tend to proliferate, so the danger of an enthusiastic layman editor coming up cleaning up the duplication is pretty low. While I'm generally a mergist, I think that in this case some duplication is a good thing. No such user (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

lyrata

In Glossary of leaf morphology it states the following

• Term: lyrate; Latin: ; Refers principally to: entire leaf; Description: Shaped like a lyre, pinnately lobed leaf with an enlarged terminal lobe and smaller lateral lobes;

I believe that the Latin term may be "lyrata". I was considering making a disambiguation page for Lyrata which would have the following links:

• Ficus lyrata
• Arabidopsis lyrata
• Berlandiera lyrata
• Salvia lyrata
• Leibnitzia lyrata
• Paysonia lyrata
• Quercus lyrata - "the scientific name comes from the lyrate (lyre-shaped) leaves."

I've heard the Ficus lyrata simply refer to as "lyrata" (spelling) and /loʊrɛtʌ/ (pronunciation, probably erroneous)

Words:

• lyra (Latin noun) - translates to the English word "lyre"
• lyre (English noun) - "a stringed instrument like a small U-shaped harp with strings fixed to a crossbar, used especially in ancient Greece"
• lyrate (English adjective) - "shaped like a lyre"
• -ate (English suffix) - "state or quality of (adjective)"; "makes the word a verb"
  • verbs:
    • "radii" (plural of radius) + "-ate" = radiate (verb: to extend, send or spread out from a center like radii)
    • formula -> formulate
  • adjective: palm -> palmate - "resembling the palm"
• -āta (Latin suffix):
  • nominative feminine singular of -ātus
  • nominative neuter plural of -ātus
  • accusative neuter plural of -ātus
  • vocative feminine singular of -ātus
  • vocative neuter plural of -ātus
• -ātā (Latin suffix):
  • ablative feminine singular of -ātus
• -ātus (Latin suffix), from https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-atus#Latin:
  • "-ed, -ate, -like. Used to form adjectives from nouns indicating the possession of a thing or a quality"
    • barba (“beard”) → barbātus (“bearded, having a beard”)
    • rēticulum (“small net”) → rēticulātus (“reticulated, net-like”)
    • albus (“white”) → albātus (“clothed in white”)

lyra is a Latin noun; if it was a Latin adjective it would be "lyrātus", and a form of lyrātus would be "lyrāta"/"lyrata".

Also notice the column names and rows 70 through 72 here: https://books.google.com/books?id=WYg5AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA6&dq=lyrata+%22latin%22#v=onepage&q=lyrata%20%22latin%22&f=false --NoToleranceForIntolerance (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

not sure what you're proposing precisely @NoToleranceForIntolerance:, but the entry for 'lyrate' is an English word of Latin origin, derived from "lyrata" Nessie (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I too am not sure what exactly is being proposed, but there is a problem with the entire column of Latin terms, as I've noted in the section below. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Ending of Latin adjectives

For some reason, in the current version the column of Latin adjectives whose masculine singular ends in -us are almost all given with the ending -a, i.e. either feminine singular or neuter plural. It's more usual to give adjectives with the masculine singular ending, so I'm going to convert to this. It's also consistent with the adjectives with other endings. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

"Auriculate" redirects here, but doesn't appear in text

Care to add? Imagine Reason (talk) 12:24, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

It's already there. Seventh entry in "Leaf and leaflet shapes". Peter coxhead (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I just changed Auriculate to point directly to Glossary of leaf morphology#auriculate. Now no one else will miss it.Nessie (talk) 17:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

"Entire leaf"

Can we please change this phrase in the section on leaf and leaflet shapes? In the column "Refers principally to" we have the term "entire leaf" used repeatedly, to mean the whole leaf. However, the term "entire leaf" already has a different meaning in botany: it means a leaf (or leaflet) with a smooth edge, without teeth or lobes – as dealt with in the very next section on leaf edges. Using the same term in two different senses can surely only cause confusion. I can see no reason why this column should not say "whole leaf" – or even better (as the section applies to both leaves and leaflets), "whole leaf or leaflet". Richard New Forest (talk) 11:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Richard New Forest: absolutely. Just do it. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Richard New Forest:  Done. To save space, I used "whole leaf". – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

"examples"

the charts should probably have one species example per line item — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rovi9805 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)