Talk:Taxonomy of the Orchidaceae

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Taxonomy of the Orchidaceae article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Wikispecies project

This article belongs as part of the wikispecies project at species.wikipedia.org

Undirected link

The link Garay points to an obscure Portuguese village instead of to Leslie (László) Garay a Harvard botanist. Tusbra 16:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links removed. JoJan 20:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links directed to the appropriate article. 76.93.209.228 (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need new title

This article is about an obsolete system of orchid classification which was published by Robert Louis Dressler in 1993. It would have to be totally rewritten to turn it into an article on current orchid taxonomy. I suggest that it be re-titled "Dressler's system of orchid classification" or something of that sort. I do not plan to write any more on this subject. I do not know whether we really need a separate article on orchid taxonomy, anyway. Someone should write an update to orchid taxonomy in the article Orchidaceae. I will leave this decision for others to make. 128.171.106.249 (talk) 06:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the title is not correct, and would support a move to a different title. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Following the lead of the well-developed Banksia project, what about "Dressler's taxonomic arrangement of Orchidaceae"? Taxonomy of Liliaceae is up for GA, and given the complexity of orchid classification, I think a standalone article under the current title might yet be warranted. Choess (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an occasional contributor to the article, and main author of Taxonomy of Liliaceae and Taxonomy of Narcissus (GA), I would say that if it is not addressing the topic in a comprehensive manner, then it's title is misleading, and should either be rewritten or moved. There are of course a number of other issues with this page. Also the treatment on the main Orchidaceae page is woeful and does not reflect the daughter page. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of those two options I would favour a rewrite, to keep it in line with other "Taxonomy of ..." articles, if necessary later, if too voluminous, the schema outlined here could become a separate page or list. To rename the page now would leave a gap. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the Model proposed above is Taxonomy of Banksia and Category:Taxonomy of Banksia which has numerous pages devoted to individual taxonomic systems which have been applied to Banksia. But you need an ovearching Taxonomy of Orchidaceae first! I have grouped these into Category:Taxonomic articles and it would be appreciated if new taxonomy pages be added to it. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "Rchb." author abbreviation correct?

Several of the author designations in this article are "Rchb.f." and a few are "Rchb.". "Rchb.f." was the orchid specialist and "Rchb." was his father, also a eminent botanist.User-duck (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pterostylidinae

"Pterostylidinae" appears twice - in the tribes Diuridae and Cranichideae. This can't be right can it? Gderrin (talk) 07:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not. The underlying problem is that this is a poorly sourced article. So far as I can make out it synthesizes bits of classifications from different sources contrary to WP:SYNTH, resulting in inconsistency. It's also mostly not been updated for recent work. I've been working on Orchideae, for example, which was said to have one subtribe, but now has two, with quite different generic boundaries. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. (Embarrassing, eh?) Sorry I don't think I have the sources needed to fix it. Perhaps it's not fixable anyway. Gderrin (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]