Talk:Ornamental bulbous plant

This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Title of article is a misnomer

I stumbled on this article and was startled to see such a title in such a context, in which it is botanically misleading, and unnecessarily so. I do thoroughly understand that horticultural terminology tends to be loose in botanical terms and that to try to legislate it would be futile, but it is perfectly possible to re-name and reorganise the title and material of this article and those of linked and related articles to achieve both botanical correctness and ease of use. As I am not a botanist, I am reluctant to do so myself if any botanically and horticulturally competent editors would wish to do so themselves, though I should be willing to assist if invited. However, if no one has the inclination (or time) I shall probably get round to it myself... sometime... boldly. Could anyone with an interest in the matter please rattle my cage before I am moved to take action? Not yet having considered the details, I am thinking along the lines of a name such as "Geophytes in horticulture" plus a separate article article on "Geophyte" (currently "Geophyte" is just a redir or the like) another article (or perhaps just a redir to the "Geophytes in horticulture") titled say, "Bulbous plants in horticulture", plus a few links etc to contain the damage. Comments please? JonRichfield (talk) 15:07, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be interesting to hear from a trusted expert in both the Spanish language and gardening whether the Spanish page sounds as ridiculous in that language. As it stands, Baobabs should certainly be listed. Your proposal sounds fine to me. The page is also quite poor, I'd like to see it converted to more of a "list of" format, perhaps with "see also List of root vegetables, List of tulip varieties, Tulipa#List of species, List of Canna cultivars ...". If you didn't want to list all geophytes on one page, separate lists for the different types linked together by "see also" sounds fine to me too. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely understand why some botanists might dislike this title. However, this just is the term used in horticulture. Brian Mathew, noted Kew botanist and author or co-author of many books on bulbs (see Brian Mathew#Books, noting the titles) discussed what terminology to use and wrote "We just have to accept that there is no accurate term which we can use for this group of plants, and we are left with 'bulbs' as the snappiest and most convenient." The article is very clear that the horticultural use of the term is meant. "Geophyte" is not exactly equivalent to the horiculturalist's "bulbous plant", e.g. there are biennial geophytes which are not grown as bulbous plants and some rhizomatous plants, like irises, which are included in "bulbs" are not strictly geophytes. "Bulb" has two meanings: the strictly botanical and the horticultural. Wikipedia must follow reliable botanical and horticultural sources. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Peter that the horticultural term is widely used and understood, and that we need to deal with it.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is clear about the different kinds of storage organs and the distinction between a true bulb and a "bulb" more broadly. So I'd be inclined to leave things more or less as they are. Granted, there is some overlap with Storage organ but the difference between horticulture and wild plants makes it kind of hard to just merge the articles. Kingdon (talk) 10:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without intending in any way to prejudice the outcome of this discussion, I've amended the article intro in order to make it impossible to overlook the fact that "bulbous plant" is a loose horticultural term, not a strict botanical one. (I actually disagree that the article previously made it very clear, as it's easy for lay readers to conflate horticulture and botany). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A clear improvement; thanks.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:30, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all of us, including PaleCW, seem to have a constructive attitude about the whole business. I still am not happy with the article for reasons similar to those mentioned by some of us. Though I think that the article needs serious attention anyway, that is not the main theme of my complaint; I realise that many horticulturists use the term that way. The main immediate problem is navigation and linking rather than content. But for now I don't expect to do anything about it. For one thing, someone else might want to do better, and do it a lot more efficiently than a non-botanist might. For another, in preparation for improvement I decided that Storage organ needs more urgent attention and I haven't yet worked out the right structure and am creating another related article. So I don't expect to rock this boat terribly soon. I calmed my itching by adding a hatnote, but I'll keep watching. :-) Cheers, JonRichfield (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a clear and distinct topic to be covered here (there are a large number of gardening books about it – and I happen to give lectures on it to gardening clubs, etc.). Recent edits have greatly clarified what it is. However, I agree that the title is not ideal. One idea which occurred to me is "Ornamental bulbous plants". This signals two important features of the article: (a) it applies to horticulture not botany (b) it doesn't (or shouldn't) include geophytes grown primarily for food. A Google search suggests that "ornamental bulbs" is significantly more common than "ornamental bulbous plants", but I think the former is a shade too much of a concession to gardening use. What do others think? Peter coxhead (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ornamental bulbs are what people use for lighting their Christmas trees. :-) (This one seems to combine the two subjects, if I'm properly interpreting its garlicky nature.) I'm fine with "ornamental bulbous plants".--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would prefer "Ornamental geophyte" or "Geophytes in horticulture" for the article name, with "Ornamental bulbous plant" as a redir to it, and maybe "Bulbous plant" in a disambig linking to it, but I could live with that OBP option in preference to the current Christmas tree lighting situation - especially as we can add a few redirs and hat notes to salvage the situation for the pedants like myself and any other ants about the place. JonRichfield (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Ornamental geophytes" gets 2200 ghits (versus 334 for "ornamental geophyte" and 56,700 for "ornamental bulbs"), so it would be hard to make a case for it as the common name. Certainly around my neck of the chaparral, gardeners call all of them "bulbs". They go good with Ephedra flowers and ginkgo berries.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my view "ornamental geophyte" is too far removed from the horticultural focus of the article; I cannot recall the use of such a term in horticultural texts. Indeed as Curtis and Peter have noted, the simple term "bulb" is the one used most in common parlance, more so than "bulbous plant". (I am looking at a "bulb catalogue" in front of me now - inside it has a "Miscellaneous Bulbs" section which contains Crocus, Cyclamen etc., and on the cover the company describes itself as "The Greatest Name in Dutch Bulbs"). I think "ornamental bulbous plant" strikes about the right balance - it is still horticulturally recognisable (unlike "ornamental geophyte"), but unlike "ornamental bulb" it (slightly) reduces the conflict between the title and text (in which it has to be stated that botanically they're not all bulbs). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There seems enough of a consensus to make the move. Peter coxhead (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to work on this article after the holidays. Peter coxhead (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another interesting example of the use of the term "bulb" in the horticultural sense is the International Bulb Society, which awards the prestigious Herbert Medal. I was reminded of this while fixing wikilinks to the more accurate "bulb" or "ornamental bulbous plant". Peter coxhead (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had always thought that "ranunculus bulbs" were storage roots. Am I wrong?--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not very wrong, no; those one buys actually are storage roots attached to the base of the stem, but just plain "storage roots" would be close enough for jazz. I never have experimented with them myself, but maybe it is possible to propagate them from a separated root, the way one can with sweet potatoes, or at least by tinkering with hormones; if so however, one wonders why dealers would bother to sell the clawed clumps, though it certainly is possible to divide large, healthy clumps.

As for the article itself, I should say it is now out of disaster mode. I expect that Peter will make it a great deal more worthwhile when he has the time. I'll be happy to assist if and when desired, but I would be a lot more comfortable with such a role rather than running the whole thing as a project. JonRichfield (talk) 07:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that ranunculus "tubers" are like dahlias: buds are only produced from the attached section of stem, at least without special treatment. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:37, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that my suspicions are confirmed, I want to make the point that they are in no sense tubers in the botanical meaning, since the storage takes place in the roots. Especially since the article is aimed toward a gardening audience, I've added a section, but it could probably use some, ahem, fleshing out.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In "fleshing out", we could also discuss Cyclamen, which has storage organs that appear to form at the stem/root junction (originating from the hypocotyl). The storage organs of some Cyclamen species produce fibrous roots only on the upper surface, those of other species only on the lower surface. In the first case, the tissue may be mainly stem in origin, and the organs are called "corms" by some sources; in the second case, the tissue may be mainly root in origin, and the organs are called "root tubers". Yet other sources treat "hypocotyl tubers" as a separate category. Picking up dahlias again, what a gardener buys must be a combination of a least one root tuber and a stem to which it is attached; the tubers themselves are useless. So what exactly should we call the "dry thing" that is sold as a Dahlia? You can see why gardeners give up and lump everything together as "bulbs". Peter coxhead (talk) 03:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ENGVAR of article

It's not clear what variety of English this article is supposed to be written in. It was started by User:EnCASF, who is Spanish; the largest contributions are by User:English Fig, User:Darorcilmir and myself, who write in British English. The current version has a mixture of spellings (e.g. "estivation" rather than "aestivation" but "favourable" rather than "favorable"). The least change to spellings is to declare it to be Oxford British English (preserving some -ize endings), which I'm going to be be WP:BOLD and do, but I'm happy to go along with any other consensus view. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible copyright problem

This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored, hopefully in an acceptable way, the small amount of useful information removed as part of the copyright cleanup. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peter. You might like to paraphrase and re-add the material removed today in this diff. The clean-up on this particular article is now complete. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution

Some material present in this article was copied from corm, bulb, tuber, and rock garden. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]