Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Proposal to add nothospecies

Add a section labelled "Notability (hybrid taxa)" below the "Notability (species)" section, with the following text:

Nothospecies and hybridogenic species, including kleptons, are species, and Notability (species) applies".
Jump to: Discussion Survey Notifications

Discussion (nothospecies)

Most hybrids, even validly named, are of little concern to their relevant international body of taxonomists. This is not the case for many naturally occurring hybrids. Take The International Compositae Alliance for instance. A search for Cirsium in their Global Compositae Database yields a number of nothospecies alongside species. This is carried over into POWO, and consequently many Wikipedia articles of the form "List of Genus species" list nothospecies alongside species. Unlike subspecies, they cannot be easily assigned to a species, because their parentage is split across two or more species. Redirecting to a genus section or a dedicated genus hybrid section is possible, but as Category:Plant nothospecies shows, they have been treated the same as species up until now. After an article is created, at least four redirects are necessary for the four most common valid ways of writing the species name, one of which is simply Genus species, without the × symbol. Since that are accepted by the relevant international body of taxonomists is specified, including nothospecies carries little risk of the stub bloat that might be feared otherwise. All so recognised plant nothospecies have at least one substantial description, and for most there are at least 5-10 sources that could add unique information.

Some of the longer articles include: Asplenium × boydstoniae, Asplenium × ebenoides, Asplenium × kentuckiense, Asplenium × trudellii, Asplenium × wherryi, Cornus × unalaschkensis, Crocosmia × crocosmiiflora, Eucalyptus × alpina, Eucalyptus × brachyphylla, Eucalyptus × lamprocalyx, Eucalyptus × stoataptera, Eucalyptus × balanites, Eucalyptus × balanopelex, Eucalyptus × chrysantha, Eucalyptus × kalangadooensis, Eucalyptus × missilis, Eucalyptus × phylacis, Grevillea × gaudichaudii, Karpatiosorbus houstoniae, Kniphofia × praecox, Lonicera × bella, Lysimachia × commixta, Lysimachia × producta, Myosotis × bollandica, Myosotis × cinerascens, Nuphar × saijoensis, Nuphar × spenneriana, Nymphaea × daubenyana, Nymphaea × thiona, Phalaenopsis × lotubela, Platanus × hispanica, Polygonatum × hybridum, Quercus × deamii, Richea × curtisiae, Sabal × brazoriensis, Salix × fragilis, Seringia × katatona, Spyridium × ramosissimum, Taxus × media, Tilia × europaea, Typha × glauca, Ulmus × arbuscula, Ulmus × diversifolia, Ulmus × intermedia, Vanilla × tahitensis, Veronica × lackschewitzii, Verticordia × eurardyensis, Yucca × schottii.

Ivan (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I would also submit Hypericum × inodorum as (I believe) the only nothospecies Good Article, and a demonstration that many of these articles can reach that status with sufficient effort. Fritzmann (message me) 21:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
At the risk of sounding stupid, would this also apply to naturally-occurring animal hybrid species (ex. Clymene dolphin, Amazon molly, edible frog, Pelophylax kl. grafi, Papilio appalachiensis) or just plants?
— Kodiak Blackjack (talk) • (contribs) 00:20, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
The term "nothospecies" is generally restricted to botany and mycology, for which the most articles are at risk. But I can modify "nothospecies" to read "hybridogenic species" ([[hybrid speciation|hybridogenic species]]). Thank you. Ivan (talk) 01:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
I note that WP:MAMMALS has ursid hybrids and equivalent. They've adopted the alternative strategy of collecting data on hybrids within a taxon within a single article.
Hybridogenic species and nothospecies are not equivalent concepts (and don't overlap much). Hybridogenic species are species of hybrid origin, either fertile (originating by polyploidy, or by stabilisation of a hybrid population) or clonal (typically apomictic). Triticum aestivuum and Galeopsis tetrahit, for example, are hybridogenic species, but no-one would consider them nothospecies. Nothospecies run the gamut from rare sterile hybrids to hybrid swarms (e.g. Silene x hampeana) to widespread clonal populations (e.g. Spartina x townsendii). An overlap occurs because different people draw the line in different places, so a taxon may be treated as a nothospecies by one author and as a hybridogenic species by another. (Note that apomictic whitebeams are treated different, and arguably inconsistently, to Spartina x townsendii.) Hybridogenic species are species, and are notable by the rule that all accepted species are notable.
I believe your proposal needs rewording. I'll think on it more later. Lavateraguy (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm not quite sure how to include the zoological concept, so I will reword it to reflect botany and mycology only, since nothospecies are my primary concern. Or rather, that the wording of the article with certain "species" allowed by "hybrids" not allowed without meeting WP:GNG would confuse editors unfamiliar with botanical nomenclature. Ivan (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
It's possible that we need an explanatory section, rather than the simple addition of a word. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up Ivan - this is something of a blindspot in the wording of the proposal that I hadn't fully considered until now. I see no reason that naturally occurring, named hybrids that are accepted by the relevant authorities should be treated any differently to non-hybridogenic species. Artificial hybrids are a bit more complicated, and I believe these should generally be required to meet GNG to warrant an independent article per the existing wording of the proposal, but I welcome further discussion on this topic from users with more knowledge than myself on the topic of artificial hybridisation. I agree that any amendments to the proposal will need to wait until the proposal passes (or fails, and goes back to the drawing board for reworking), but this is definitely something I think ought to be addressed after the close. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
I think that perhaps this should be Notability (hybrid taxa), separate from Notability (species). In that case the first statement would be on the lines that "hybridogenic/ous species, including kleptons, are species, and Notability (species) applies". Lavateraguy (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
I like this idea. I will alter the proposal accordingly. Ivan (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Premature voting withdrawn

===Survey (nothospecies)===

  • Support as proposer. Ivan (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Please wait. I think this is rather putting the cart before the horse. It might be best to pause this discussion until the big RfC is closed; if the proposal fails, this will be moot; if it passes, then we can reanimate this discussion and consider the addition of nothospecies. Otherwise it is too confusing – is this a proposal to amend the above proposal, i.e. the one under discussion? Is this a proposal to amend the guideline if the above proposal passes? Cremastra (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
    The proposal is to amend the above proposal. Ivan (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
    Amending a ready-to-close proposal is a bad idea. If you want to amend the guideline if the proposal passes, wait for the proposal to pass, and (importantly) develop a rough consensus for the amendment through informal discussion, before proposing any new formal RfC. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you. Ivan (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Notifications (NSPECIES)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(species)/Archive_4&oldid=1262075713"