Talk:Subshrub

Plants Mid‑importance

	Plants portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Horticulture and Gardening Low‑importance

	Gardening portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Horticulture and Gardening 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.Horticulture and GardeningWikipedia:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningTemplate:WikiProject Horticulture and GardeningHorticulture and gardening articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge of Subshrub and Chamaephyte

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into Subshrub. -- Kingdon (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I could tell in a quick search, these terms are synonymous, and even if they aren't, it would be easier to explain the differences in a combined article than in separate ones. Kingdon (talk) 20:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not sure what's the specific definition of a subshrub. A chamaephyte is a specific class in the Raunkiaer system...before supporting a merge I would prefer to see a reference that equates the two classes. The problem with merging them sans reference is that we would be making the decision to equate both of them. Guettarda (talk) 16:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The two words are used by different groups of people, there is overlap in meaning because the groups are often talking about the same plants. But how close they are to being synonymous I can't tell. Subshrub or sub-shrub of course has greater usage. Chamaephyte, being a "proper scientific word" has a more precise meaning, while many plants that are not naturally subshrubs can be trained or grown as one and the term applied to them in horticulture. Hardyplants (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subshrub is not just horticulture, as you can see by searching in efloras.org for subshrub. But I don't want to digress too far from whether there should be one article or two. Kingdon (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your right, and it was not my intention to make that sharp of a distinction, subshrub is a valid term used often in scientific works. Hardyplants (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, that does not preclude the two terms being merged onto one page, since both are not likely to grow into large articles. I would vote for shubrub, and the term chamaephyte covered there with a redirect. Hardyplants (talk) 19:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was my thinking. I'd probably start with just putting the two paragraphs on one page without any explicit attempt to compare the two terms, or something vague like "a related term is...". Kingdon (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

shubrub, has to be one my better typos. Hardyplants (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to look at Raunkiær plant life-form. Phanerophyte, Hemicryptophyte, and Therophyte redirect back to the article. Geophyte redirects to storage organ. Cryptophytes is about the Cryptophyceae, but Cryptophyte is a disambiguation page. Hydrophyte redirects to aquatic plant. Chamaephyte, Helophyte and Epiphyte have their own pages, the latter two with no mention of Raunkiær at all. Aerophyte is a redlink.

I think one approach might be to:

Unlink all the life form names in Raunkiær plant life-form, and include for each, where useful, links to more general names (such as aquatic plant or annual plant), that correspond at least generally to each life form.
For each life form name that has no other meaning, create a redirect to Raunkiær plant life-form.
For each life form that is used in a general sense as well (e.g., geophyte, epiphyte, include an informative link to Raunkiær plant life-form, either in the article or as a hatnote.
For each life form name that has other meanings (e.g., cryptophyte, add the Raunkiær meaning to a disambiguation page or hatnote, as appropriate.

Chamaephyte would then become a redirect, and the section on chamaephytes would mention subshrubs--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will let you all decide what should be done. I will contribute some text and references when every thing is settled, so whatever we have is not just a encyclopedic definition. I believe that is the only contribution I can make on this issue.Hardyplants (talk) 19:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have an opinion between that and having the Raunkiær terms redirect to a related concept (subshrub in this case). So your (Curtis Clark's) proposal sounds fine if you want to implement it. But let's try to get something done. Kingdon (talk) 13:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of subshrub tends to vary more than that of chamaephyte. Also, most plants that are said to be subshrubs also appear to fit the definition of chamaephyte, or vice versa. Therefore, it would help to have an example of a plant that is a chamaephyte but not a subshrub, or vice versa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.230.233.169 (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Somewhat later: "bush"

The change of "bush" to "subshrub" in the text of this article, justified partly by the inappropriate link, missed the context of the terms "subshrub" and "bush" being used interchangeably by some sources. I removed the link and reinstated the statement to that effect, plus various edits. (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]