This article is within the scope of WikiProject Glossaries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.GlossariesWikipedia:WikiProject GlossariesTemplate:WikiProject GlossariesGlossaries articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatinWikipedia:WikiProject LatinTemplate:WikiProject LatinLatin articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetictree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic articles
I just linked the following terms (in order of appearance), usually to Glossary of botanical terms: spike bract lip style scale anther gland calyx stamen catkin corolla spur spikelet sorus capsule awn joint stigma sporangium staminode ovary. - Dank (push to talk) 20:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In case this becomes important in another list: in this list, Anacampserotaceae, Atherospermataceae, Berberidopsidaceae and Chrysobalanaceae are the longest family names (and, on my laptop, 3 of those are showing with soft hyphens now). In the L–P list, the longest are Atherospermataceae and Potamogetonaceae. - Dank (push to talk) 16:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In this edit, I removed the etymologies from 12 rows where the plant name already existed in Classical Latin or Greek (or in one case, Medieval Latin). I'm working on putting some classical etymologies in a different series of lists. - Dank (push to talk) 21:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To deal with various concerns raised, I intend to expand this list series by pulling everything possible from Stearn, Bayton, Coombes and Christenhusz, and a little from Burkhardt, subtracting genus names that aren't currently accepted at Plants of the World Online. (See the reference list of, for instance, List of plant genera named for people (A–C).) The expansion will increase the number of lists in the series (from four to five), but there should be ways to avoid duplicating any work for reviewers at FLC that they've already done in previous lists (by subtracting rows they've already seen). I have also been citing Quattrocchi and Gledhill ... they're great sources, for what they are ... but I haven't been including genera that appear only in those books in the old lists and don't intend to start doing that in the new lists. The word "bias" was mentioned by one person, maybe they thought the lists should have more sources ... if anyone feels this way, remember that these aren't lists of genera, they're about etymologies of genera, and not a lot of people have even tried to cover this subject exhaustively and authoritatively. I think I've got all the best comprehensive sources on this topic in my list, but I'm open to adding new sources if anyone has suggestions for sources that can meet the higher standard required for featured lists. Btw, I get that Plants of the World Online isn't perfect for what I'm using it for here, because it's just one database, and some editors prefer to rely on more than one ... but it can be argued that it's useful as an update to the book Plants of the World, which definitely meets the FLC standard. I don't think other databases will meet this standard, but I'm open to exploring the possibilities. Other than that, some people want a name change for the lists ... let's see if we can get everyone to agree on the structure for the new lists before we try for a new name. Any comments, questions, complaints? - Dank (push to talk) 15:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, wider inclusion criteria would be a good way to improve these lists. If inclusion of names from other sources would expand the geographic and categorical scope beyond what Stearn may have that would be a very good way to have a comprehensive list. One suggestion that could save effort at FLC would be to have A–Z complete and nominate each sublist together: I would view these as a single article split across multiple pages for size reasons, not separate articles to be reviewed on their own especially because comments may apply to all the subpages at once. Reywas92Talk18:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think getting four featured lists out of one FLC would be a bad idea in most cases (I have reasons if you want them) ... but to use one or two FLCs to turn the four Stearn FLs into 4–6 FLs in order to deal with good-faith objections and add new sources ... that seems very sensible to me, I'm on board. I've just pulled most of Burkhardt from the proposal above (otherwise we'd go way over 4–6 lists), and I'll ask people at WT:FLC to come have a look and tell us if they have any objections. - Dank (push to talk) 19:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as it would be possible to achieve, why are only currently accepted names being included? The albeit longer list would avoid the problem of making and keeping it current, however that would be done. ~ cygnis insignis19:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Without this, we'd have more than ten times as many rows in the List of plant genera named for people (A–C) list series, and that's just from Burkhardt. Of course, I'm not taking a stand that we should never provide this information for non-accepted genus names ... but I'd need to see a specific proposal about where the non-accepted names are coming from, how many there would be, whether FLC criteria are being met, etc. - Dank (push to talk) 19:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Spore-bearing genera are omitted to stay in sync with the other lists in the "See also" section, and because there are significant differences of opinion (in particular at PotW and POWO) about the taxonomy for spore-bearing genera. Also: now that the other list series is finished, that's the place to store (and edit, and argue about) genera named for people, so I'm removing those rows from this list series. This will also free up room here. - Dank (push to talk) 02:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on my lists of genera named for people for a while, and now I'm returning to this list. In general, the information in the 2nd column reflects the sources, I hope, but whenever any of the sources report that there are or were very similar plant names that have appeared in widely read sources, then I almost always say just "X name" (Latin, Greek, whatever) and leave it at that. Burkhardt makes the point that you can't always trust information that comes only from linguistic analysis. - Dank (push to talk) 17:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are very few genus names that appear in Coombes but not Stearn; the difference isn't worth worrying about. - Dank (push to talk) 20:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pulling Quattrocchi from this list series, because his text differs significantly in many cases, and it's above my pay grade to evaluate the differences. I think I've deleted all the text that comes only from him, but I might have missed several rows. - Dank (push to talk) 17:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some readers will wonder why I don't give more mythological background when the name comes from mythology; it's because any description of the role of the mythological character will be interpreted as having some relevance to the naming of the plant ... but my sources don't generally mention any such relevance. Also, this is a list about plants, not about gods. - Dank (push to talk) 02:18, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating from the talk page of the 4th of these lists: I cite Gledhill if he lists a word that's almost the same as the genus, but I never use his spelling unless someone else backs it up. - Dank (push to talk) 03:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, done for now and moving on. The number of rows decreased, so there isn't a need for another trip to FLC yet; important new sources appear every two or three years, so over time, the number of rows will probably grow. The naming controversy seems moot at this point to me, but I'm open to suggestions, including "List of plant genus names with etymologies". - Dank (push to talk) 03:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've just had a private communication from Burkhardt that Linnaeus gives Eystein Beli as an eponym for Bellis, so I'm removing it from this list. - Dank (push to talk) 15:00, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
