Talk:Ripogonum

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

---

Rhipogonaceae → Ripogonaceae – The original spelling of the genus is Ripogonum, and that is the spelling used by the standard references on the botany of the areas concerned i.e. Australia and New Zealand. See, for instance, IPNI/APNI. The assertion in the current article that the "website kept by prof Reveal" uses the spelling Rhipogonaceae is incorrect, and the website URL given is no longer valid. The page on Prof. Reveal's website is now [1] and shows only the spelling (family and genus) with Ri- not Rhi-. The spelling of this page title must be changed to conform to usage in the countries concerned. Also, alteration of the original spelling from Ri- to Rhi- is contrary to ICN Art. 60.3, as has been pointed out by Nicolson & Fosberg (2004) The Forsters and the botany of the Second Cook Expedition (1772–1775), Regnum Vegetabile 139. MisterCDE (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Support. IPNI is still confused about this, see this search. I haven't seen Nicolson & Fosberg 2004, but guess that adding the 'h' would date from a time when it was considered good scholarly practice to correct plant names according to their real or supposed Greek origins. The original spelling can be seen on plate 25 here, without the 'h'. Article 60 of the Code of Nomenclature is ambiguous about whether this is an orthographic error to be corrected, but example 1 shows a case where there is no evidence that the original authors didn't intended to use that misspelling, and as you say, 60.3 states that spelling changes should be rare. Since a majority of recent sources are using the spelling without the 'h', I agree that it is time for Wikipedia to follow suit. P.S. this has nothing to do with usage in the countries concerned, it is a matter for Code of Nomenclature, which is (so far) accepted by botanists in those countries. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Because there is no technical reason that this page cannot be moved without admin help, I'll make the move, and then anyone who cares to can protest. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Good move! —--macropneuma 14:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad the "h" is gone, but WP:FLORA suggests that an article covering a monogeneric family should be at the title of the families only genus; in this case, Ripogonum (and that move is blocked for technical reasons). Plantdrew (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

(Embarrassed burbling sound). That would be a good move. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

There are still 13 other articles that aren't redirects at Category:Monogeneric plant families (and I just tackled a few), so it's not an isolated case. Not sure how many of those can be moved without an admin/technical request, or whether all are appropriately moved (I found one that was no longer monogeneric in circumscription, and one (Pterostemonaceae) that should remain as an article on a historically recognized family). Plantdrew (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

So, there's no reason not to submit a move request for this one, then? A clear agreement here from all interested parties would be strong support for such a request. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I have readied it for a simple technical move (request) (as much as i’m going to). A move request to the genus article (over the redirect and with this the family article redirecting to that). Unless a good lot of editing is proposed, to add much more material about the family, which would not be appropriate in the genus article, then this will be a good move to the genus. If much more family details should be added, then we should have two articles, one for the family and one for the genus. The upside of that, and in compliance with policy, is the likely chance of further changes to the family circumscription or existence, in the not too distant future, with increasing genetics studies, relationships detection and resolution. If that happens, it would then also be easier to link Ripogonaceae to a different or new family name or to edit the family article for its new circumscription which would likely have more genera. It is a recently described family so the latter is less likely. It is more likely to be sunk (hence become a redirect). Though, simplistically and idealistically, that depends on choice of type specimens; practically, conservation of older names and traditions has often trumped ideals. —further clarified, copyedited, and added one sentence—--macropneuma 14:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC) —--macropneuma 15:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The technical move to Ripogonum is complete. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

IPNI is confused because it has 2 sources: Index Kewensis and APNI. The latter is created by Australian botanists, and in Australia and NZ the Forsters' original spelling is maintained. But the Index Kewensis tends to follow the Hookers (WJ & JD) who preferred the classical transcription, and has ignored criticisms by St. John (1971) and Nicolson & Fosberg (2004) who both comment specifically on the spelling of the generic name. Thanks for the move! MisterCDE (talk) 13:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

IPNI will probably update in time, they have specialist nomenclaturists to advise, and many corrections happen in IPNI. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Rh versus R

This is original research:

"^ The original spelling by Johann Reinhold Forster and Georg Forster was Ripogonum.[4] Because the Greek word ῥιπος begins with an aspirate rho rather than plain rho, classical scholars preferred to transcribe it with rh- rather than r-. Consequently, some early botanists treated the Forsters' spelling as an error to be corrected.[citation needed] However, ICN Article 60[5] no longer permits corrections of the original spelling such as this (Art. 60.3). (It is still recommended that the classical transcription rules should be followed when forming new names (Rec. 60A).) It has also been noted that the Forsters' spelling is likely deliberate and should not be liable to correction in the same way as an accidental typo would be.[6]"

What we need is not an explanation of why any Wikipedia editor thinks this is correct, but a citation from the literature using the correct spelling from a well-respected source after the Taxon publication. If this information from the ICN is published anywhere in relation to the rh/r discussion of the spelling of the name, then this can also be included. But, any Wikipedia editor's interpretation of the ICN and how it applies to this case is not relevant to Wikipedia and needs to be removed as original research.

I read the above discussion, also, and it also amounts to original research. --AfadsBad (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Source for plant family name Ripogonaceae/Rhipogonaceae

(Moved from user talk page)

Can you source this edit? This explanatory edit appears to be original research, and APGIII, IPNI, and MOBOT all list Rhipogonaceae. --AfadsBad (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Is this adequately explained by Talk:Ripogonum? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I think sources go in the article, though, not on the talk page. This discussion simply says that a lot of online sources use it without the "h," which I don't think is how articles use citations. --AfadsBad (talk) 16:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. The problem has clearly arisen because it is difficult to put a citation inside a footnote. I'll see if I can figure out how to achieve that. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Reading Wikipedia rules on citations, this "Because the Greek word ῥιπος begins with an aspirate rho rather than plain rho, classical scholars would prefer it be transcribed with rh- rather than r-. Consequently, some early botanists treated the Forsters' spelling as an error to be corrected. However, ICN Article 60[5] now discourages corrections of the original spelling, particularly concerning the first letter or syllable (Art. 60.3). (It is still recommended that the classical transcription rules should be followed when forming new names (Rec. 60A).)" appears to be original research. The information about the Greek spelling is not cited to a source; is this from the book that is cited later? Then it would be mixed in-line and a terminal citation that needs cleared up. The citation to the code is original research, also. We can't use the taxonomic codes ourselves as our interpretation and application of primary literature. I added one citation, but it is also primary, Taxon, and we need a secondary source, a journal use of the name subsequent to the Taxon, not our application of the ICN within an extensive footnot. --AfadsBad (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I've made some small corrections to hopefully clear up some confusion; the wording on the page was too circumspect because the code of nomenclature doesn't just recommend in this case, it lays down the law (but in a polite way). Consequently, I hope it is clearer that the code is cited for exactly what it says, there is no OR involved.

I haven't seen the Nicholson and Fosberg reference, and do not have ready access to it. I believe that this matter is probably discussed very directly therein, because I've read other works by Dan Nicholson who is notable both as an authority on nomenclature and on the history of botany, and is careful in his explanations. Please take that matter up with the editor who added the material. The transcription of the Greek rho at the start of a word is, I would say, a general-knowledge matter that is quite hard to give a citation for. The whole matter of breathings and orthography of Greek is discussed in some detail on the page Greek diacritics. In my opinion, this is one of those matters where it is best to use the advice at Wikipedia:MINREF#When_you_must_use_inline_citations and not give a citation, because there is a point where citations start to severely clutter the material that is directly relevant to the page (in this case how Ripogonum is spelled, not how Greek has been pronounced and transcribed over the centuries). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not having any issues with your wording. My issues is that you and the other author have taken the ICN and interpreted it to explain the title of this article, then applied your interpretation as a citation. I do not think this is within the scope of what Wikipedia editors are supposed to be doing, and for good reason with anonymous uncredentialed editors; this is original research for a scientist, specifically a taxonomist. By posting on your talk page and that of the other author, I was hoping that you had found this information in another source, rather than having come to that conclusion and applied it to the article via your own taxonomic research. This appears to not be the case, that you can provide the sources, so I am going to raise the issue of removing the original research from the article. I can send you the Nicholson and Fosberg, if you would like. Thanks for your responses. --AfadsBad (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

This is one of those tricky cases. The facts appear to be:

1. Both Ripogonum and Rhipogonum are found in reliable sources. IPNI gives Ripogonum with Rhipogonum as "orth. var." WCSP gives only Rhipogonum. [Fully sourceable]
2. The first publication of the name was as Ripogonum, but the origin is from a Greek word which would usually be transcribed as "rhipos", so the spelling was "corrected" to Rhipogonum. [Fully sourceable]
3. Art. 60 does not permit such corrections unless the original spelling was a typographical or orthographical error. [Fully sourceable]
4. We don't have a source at present which says that the original spelling was not a typographical or orthographical error.

In the text, we can simply state 1–3. But we have to make a choice of title; we can't be neutral here. And then readers are entitled to know why that choice was made. We could say that we are following IPNI, I guess, and leave it at that, but I think some explanation in a footnote of the issues is justified in this unusual case. Yes, there's a degree of OR, but what is the alternative? Peter coxhead (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that we have any sort of expertise in taxonomy that allows us to explain this. I think that we can settle the name based on the Taxon article, or on APNI, without any problem, but having anonymous editors interpret the ICN is about the highest level of original reserach one can have in a botanical name; it's what taxonomists do. We are not taxonomists, and our explanation is not necessary. We can point out the confusing sources; we can tie those in to the botanical literature, but I think this is a solid rule of how to write a derived source of information for a popular audience, stick with supportable facts and information from secondary and tertiary sources, bending the rules around a primary source every once in a while, but not around original research. Wikipedia gets mirrored all over the place; we simply do not have the credentials to authoritatively decide the name of a taxon! To me, that is outrageous! --AfadsBad (talk) 23:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are saying. We don't have a choice. We HAVE to pick one name or other as the name of the article. We can't have an article at two names (a redirect, yes, but not an article). So are you saying we can't have an article on this taxon? I really don't understand. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say anything of the sort. I feel like no one is listening to what I am saying though, and who knows why. Why not use the Taxon plus APNI citation? But I said that above and you just accused me of saying we either have to have two names or no article, which is not anywhere near what I said, since I said I think we can pick one based on these two sources. So, I'm lost. --AfadsBad (talk) 23:24, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we don't seem to be understanding one another for some reason (late at night for me!). Let's backtrack. I was puzzled that you wrote "I disagree that we have any sort of expertise in taxonomy that allows us to explain this". We can explain what the sources say; Sminthopsis84 certainly understands taxonomy well enough to do this, as do you. We can't produce an original interpretation but we're not doing so, as I understand it, just explaining an interpretation already out there.

I would move the footnote to a Taxonomy section, and present the facts: the original spelling was without an "h"; many authors preferred the spelling with an "h" based on the normal transcription of ρ; the WCSP uses this spelling; IPNI doesn't; which is correct depends on interpreting Article 60 of the ICN; the Nicholson & Fosberg article gives an interpretation (I assume; I haven't seen it). This is how I read the current footnote, although it needs a little re-writing perhaps. Assuming that I've represented the Nicholson & Fosberg article correctly, where is the OR? Peter coxhead (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Multiple references for author

Also, the reason there were two references, was one to establish the author, the second to affirm the spelling without an "h," although that reference may go in a better place, and just using APNI rather than APG III should suffice. --AfadsBad (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I understood that, but the position of the ref is supporting the authority. As I said above, we should have a proper Taxonomy section which explains the issues, not a footnote, and the refs can go there. In WP:PLANTS we've tended to keep taxoboxes simple, putting alternative names/classifications in the text.

I suspect we don't really disagree, but aren't yet communicating clearly with one another. Enough for today! Peter coxhead (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

A break is good. --AfadsBad (talk) 23:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I've now created a Taxonomy section, moving and re-writing the material formerly in footnotes. I've a few refs to add, and as I haven't accessed Nicholson & Fosberg, could someone who has please check that I haven't misrepresented them. I don't think that there is now any possible OR, just sourceable statements of facts. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both for your efforts. This matter is also beyond my understanding because I don't understand whether the statement from AfadsBad "My issues is that you and the other author have taken the ICN and interpreted it to explain the title of this article, then applied your interpretation as a citation." still applies to the reworked text. I don't agree that "we simply do not have the credentials to authoritatively decide the name of a taxon!". Individually, perhaps anonymous wikipedia editors don't, but as a group we do, because we correct one another's work. The Code of Nomenclature is interpreted by individual botanists and botanists-in-training every day in their work. Sometimes they make mistakes. Sometimes the Code is unclear, and that is why we meet every six years to see if we can improve how it is worded to clearly apply to what had formerly been difficult cases. The Code is a document that is meant to be read and understood by anyone who cares to do so. I'm sorry, but I object to the claims that the Code isn't readable by anyone except anointed experts, and that our wikipedia signons aren't all the identification that we need. These signons have a history associated with them which should be just as usable as credentials as anything we could produce that is associated with "real life". Claiming to have earned a PhD, or to have published books, as some wikipedians have done, is irrelevant, it is one's actual behaviour in the wiki that matters. With time, these signons can become excellent credentials because the history of their behaviour is more readily available than real-life behavioural history is (making a committed identity, is, of course, a help with that).

At the risk of upsetting things even more, I notice that Tropicos lists Ripogonum as invalid. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Authoritatively deciding the name of a taxon is primary research. We don't have the credentials, because Wikipedia has chosen, as a community, to design a system, whereby such primary research is excluded from what we publish. Exactly how many times do you have to use the code to decide a name of an article? I contend we should never be doing that; it is the work of taxonomists. It doesn't matter whether we understand the code or not, or that it is meant to be understood by people; I don't see where I've raised that the code is incomprehensible by mortals or anything of that nature, so I don't have any response to that, and I consider that a different issue from using the code to write an encyclopedia. --AfadsBad (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm still rather puzzled as to why we aren't understanding one another.

• Authoritatively deciding the name of a taxon is primary research. Yes, I agree. That's why the primary bibliographic reference should never be used as the source for the name of a plant, but rather secondary sources such as IPNI, WCSP, etc. In the text of the article we should always present all alternative views in a balanced manner according to WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE.
• Exactly how many times do you have to use the code to decide a name of an article? I contend we should never be doing that Well (repeating myself) when apparently reliable sources contain different names for a taxon, whether just spelling or otherwise, we have to decide which to use, as we can only use one. The decision on an article title takes place outside the article, so the prescription against OR isn't of primary relevance. Sometimes we make a global decision, as WP:PLANTS did in selecting APG III (even though, as I've found, most specialists are not using some of the merged families, e.g. the most reliable recent sources use Hyacinthaceae rather than Scilloideae). Sometimes to select an article title we may have to judge the relative reliability of the sources, as per WP:AT. In the article, we won't judge for ourselves who is applying the ICN correctly; the different views will be presented factually. However, in deciding on an article title, it's perfectly reasonable to use our own knowledge and expertise as one of the factors being balanced in the choice of an article title. Clearly if later a "definitive" article appears in Taxon we will follow that. In the meantime, we have to do the best we can.

• I don't disagree with this, but I don't see how any of these should lead us to directly interpreting the ICN in order to pick an article title. It was not necessary in this case. And I don't see how it is necessary in any other case.

Returning to the main issue, is there anything in the current Taxonomy section which you consider "improper"? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. "Which spelling is correct depends on the interpretation of Article 60 of the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, which recommends that the classical transcription rules should be followed when forming new names (Rec. 60A) but also that "the original spelling of a name or epithet is to be retained, except for the correction of typographical or orthographical errors".[11]" this sentence is an explanation of the ICN and is not needed in this article. This information should come from one of the sources, not directly from the code. Other than that, it has been rewritten and sourced properly, imo, although using the primary literature, the Taxon article is necessary, and sometimes that is so. --AfadsBad (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:PSTS doesn't rule out using primary sources, like the Code. We shouldn't interpret it ourselves without support from a reliable secondary source, but it's ok to use a primary source to make "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person". I contend that the sentence about the Code you quoted above is such a statement; any educated person can see that there's a potential conflict between the two parts of Article 60. (However, on reflection, "but" is better replaced by "and" as less leading.) Peter coxhead (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that's what I said in my last sentence about using Taxon. I would prefer a secondary source or a tertiary source, but that's fine. But I disagree with including the ICN quote at all; and it is original research. How does adding this information enhance the article for a general reader? It does not, in my opinion. I see hundreds of Wikipedia plant articles that are not even about the taxonomy of the organism, but about the taxonomy of the taxonomy of the organism, these stiff statements, "such a family is recognized by few taxonomists," and that is the entire article. The taxonomy sections stands well without this sentence; this sentence is almost like a show-off. Is it notable that the code is contradictory? Is it necessary that we point this out from our original reading of the code when the Taxon article raises the issue? I don't see it. --AfadsBad (talk) 13:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

My, people have been busy! As the author of the controversial footnote, perhaps I should have been more careful in citing authorities. What I wrote was more or less what was said by H. St. John (1971), "The date of publication of Forsters' Characteres Generum Plantarum and its relation to contemporary works", Le Naturaliste Canadien 98: 561-581. This is a paper flagged as "important" in TL-2 in the Forster entry #1826, so it is well-known to Forsterian botany scholars at least. On p. 574-575 he says "This generic name was altered to Rhipogonum by Hook. f. in Fl. N.Z. 1:253, 1853, without discussion. There is no doubt about the derivation of the name, as the Forsters stated that it was from ῥιψ = vimen : γονυ = genu, geniculum, articulus. In the original 1775 publication, the Forsters printed the generic name four times, each time as Ripogonum, so there was no obscurity or confusion about it. They took the Greek aspirate and the rho, and Latinized them as the consonant R. At no later time did they "correct" this, so their chosen spelling Ripogonum must stand." Nicholson & Fosberg merely quoted St. John and agreed with his conclusion, and in addition pointed out the relevant sections of the ICBN (as it was at that time) which I changed to ICN. But I like the present citation that someone put in, pointing to the recent Taxon paper. MisterCDE (talk) 08:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Primitiae Florae Novae Zelandiae on-line?

According to this reference Rhipogonum was described in Solander's unpublished manuscript Primitiae Florae Novae Zelandiae. Does anyone know if there is an online version of this manuscript?--Melburnian (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be unavailable to me here. A citation appears online as Solander DC (1782) Primitiae florae Novae Zelandiae. In ‘Floras of the countries visited by Captain James Cook’s first voyage’. pp. 381–620. (Botany Library, Natural History Museum: London). That might be a red herring, not an actual publication, because I can't find it in any library catalogue. A trek to London might be required, or to Auckland, as detailed here. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for checking it out.--Melburnian (talk) 23:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Sources for Uses

This has become quite a nice little article. I'm reluctant to put tags on the section just yet, but the Uses section needs more refs if anyone can provide them. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It is a nice little article. I think the tags are offensive to the reader, but useful for the editor, and, as we have a couple of editors working on this, it's my opinion that tagging any problems you see would be beneficial to the editing process. --AfadsBad (talk) 13:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Don’t worry about the tiny number of readers (avg 10 real viewers/day –ref:) who are almost entirely us in the last few days! Add good quality tagging all you like. ——--macropneuma 13:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Welllll..... --AfadsBad (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Typical for relatively obscure plants articles. --macropneuma 14:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh well, an improvement on the 0.5 viewers per day this month last year... .--Melburnian (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

i smile … and thanks, from me, good citing edits. --macropneuma 14:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, we certainly don't write plant articles in the expectation of a large readership! (Flower is about the only plant-related article I've ever seen make it into the top 1000. Cactus surprised me in the past by its popularity, which is one reason why I did some work on it.)
Is there any way of finding out the ranking in popularity of articles tagged as belonging to WP:PLANTS? Peter coxhead (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

You can see the 500 most-viewed plant articles here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Popular pages. The daily view statistics don't always match those on stats.grok.se, but I assume the relative ranking is accurate. Plantdrew (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah, very interesting! Thanks! I'd missed this page. It's a pity that the top five are all C class. I've been working on Banana, on and off. I don't believe that Aloe vera is still GA; it's had too many "pop medicine" additions/removals and has got rather disjointed. It might be good to work on the top ones. On the other hand, popular page = much vandalized page, which is annoying. No more here, because it's off-topic... Peter coxhead (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)