Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive25

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

→

List of sequenced plastomes

I've been meaning to put together a list of plastomes for a while. I've now decided it might of well be on Wikipedia as anywhere else, so I've made a start. Anyone else is welcome to pitch in. Lavateraguy (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Amomum

Hi, can any skilled editors evaluate the newly added species (do any need to be lumped together?), and add articles for any of them? Many thanks, Badagnani (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe Amonum costatum and Amomum subulatum should be set up as redirects to Black cardamom, with a view to the last eventually being an article on the spice, and there being separate articles on the species. Any views? (PS: I've made some changes based on the bold assumption that the rest of Wikipedia is reliable.) Lavateraguy (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorting Amomum Names doesn't agree with several elements of that list (ex Wikispecies?) Lavateraguy (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Flora of China gives a recent view on the Chinese species. Lavateraguy (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Flora of China doesn't agree that Amomum compactum is Alpinia nutans. I'm also wondering if Sorting Amomum Names is wrong and Amomum zerumbet is Alpinia zerumbet, rather than Zingiber zerumbet. Lavateraguy (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.tropicos.org/NameSynonyms.aspx?nameid=34500581 Hardyplants (talk) 07:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Buchanania

Thanks for help at Amomum above. Now, I see that Buchanania lists only 3 species, but this website has many more. Can someone help? Badagnani (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Can someone help with this? It would be greatly appreciated. Badagnani (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Could someone kindly help with this? Badagnani (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The 1993 edition of Mabberley's The Plant Book says there are 25 species in Indo-Malaysia and the western Pacific. Unless the genus has been reworked to synonymize most of the species, or unless a splinter genus has been broken off, then the site listing more species is probably correct. All our article says is that it "includes" those three species. The genus article was created by Polbot from a list of rare and endangered species, so only species of conservational concern were included in the initial page creation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Banana production in Côte d'Ivoire

I need botanical intervention with this article. I started an article on Cocoa production in Côte d'Ivoire in which I copied and pasted useful, although not yet checked, information from other articles on Wikipedia to cover the basic botany. However, bananas are beyond me. What I know about bananas is nowhere in Wikipedia, and I can't figure out the basics about banana botany. (I know they're a monicot, but I need specific cultivars, links to the correct species articles, what's a plantain, versus a banana, botanically speaking, and the parent of the dessert banana.) Bananas are a large, valuable, and well-studied export crop for Côte d'Ivoire, so detailed information about bananas in Côte d'Ivoire is available, but the general botany for bananas is not easy for me to find. Can someone add some basics about the botany of production to this article, and I will write the economics, agricultural details, and diseases around this? The help would be appreciated. --Blechnic (talk) 08:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a fair bit of botany at Banana and especially Musa (genus). As for where to find more, a google scholar search for "musa banana" gets a lot of hits but I don't really have a more targeted suggestion. Kingdon (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There are problems with the article which leave me confused, and I am having trouble finding better information. The article says the dessert bananas are "species Musa acuminata or the hybrid Musa × paradisiaca, a cultigen," but then the Musa acuminata article mentions nothing about it being the parent species for the cultivated dessert banana, and in fact is so short as to be useless, hence confusion. There is no Musa × paradisiaca article for some reason, hence more confusion, it should be important, but maybe the name is different for cultivars? The Cavendish banana article is tagged all over with fact needed, but I did use it for my redirect from banana to the actual cultivar most used. I'll add a see also to the Gros Michel article, since I mention Panama disease, but this article is also practically useless. The article goes on to say that Musa x paradisiaca is also the name for the plantain, leaving me simply confused. The Musa (genus) article is too sparse in areas I need to be usable.

I can and will improve some of these articles on the agricultural and economic aspects of bananas, but google searches on the botany of bananas overwhelmed me. If someone could find me a single review article, I could get the information myself, but I can't find an article that discusses the cultivated banana, its parents, the cultivated plantain, its parents, and their relationship within the genus Musa, including what sections include edible fruit. There is too much information, and I'm not a botanist, so I can't enter the correct parameters to limit the search properly. Thanks for the feedback, though. Maybe someone else knows something already about bananas? --Blechnic (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Musa x paradisiaca is Musa acuminata x Musa balbisiana, fide Flora of North America. Musa acuminata is an AA diploid, Musa balbisiana a BB diploid; other bananas are AAA, AB, AAB, ABB, AAAB, AABB or ABBB (BBB is apparently not found). Try this for an overview of the taxonomy.

Most cultivated bananas are selections and hybrids of M. acuminata and M. balbisiana, but the 'Fei' bananas of the Pacific are also eaten.

My impression is that the distinction between plantains and bananas is rather like that between cooking and eating apples, and is of little botanical significance. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

http://www.sbmp.org.br/cbab/sisartigo/pdf/1(4)%202001/1(4)_399-436p-2001.pdf. Hardyplants (talk) 09:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Two categories for pears

There seem to be two categories for pears (Category:Pears and Category:Pyrus) and there is a lot of overlap between them. Since I'm unfamiliar with how plants are categorised on Wikipedia, I thought I'd come here before going to CFD. Which is the standard category title in this case, and which category should be merged? Thanks, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, if I want to rationalize the two after the fact, Category:Pears seems to be for pears which are eaten by people, and Category:Pyrus for all pears (thus making the first a subcategory of the second). With a few exceptions, such as Callery Pear being double-listed (when it would just be in Pyrus according to the above), this seems to be the current practice. Now, we could change this, and even if we don't do that should at least explain (for example, via a sentence at the top of each category) what each category is supposed to contain. Kingdon (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If we had an article like Pear pudding, Pear liqueur, or Pear tart, plant people always remove it if we add a genus category, but those would work under a "Pears" category. Similarly, we have at Category:Chicken dishes category. Badagnani (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If Bollwyller Pear existed (the article is a Shipova, rather than x Sorbopyus, and there's no redirect) that would be another one which would might go under Category:Pears and not Category:Pyrus. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think I understand now. Thanks, –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Need help

Is the proper genus Carum or Trachyspermum? Trachyspermum roxburghianum seems to also be called Carum roxburghianum , and I don't know which is most correct. We have both genera under Apiaceae, but I don't know if both genera still exist or if one has replaced the other. Can someone help sort this out? Badagnani (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There isn't necessarily a right snswer to the question. This paper has both Carum and Trachyspermum as polyphyletic, so there's a good chance that both generic names should be recognised, but that doesn't help with your Trachyspermum roxburghianum. However Flora of China (warning 4.5Mb) treats this species under that name. While I don't agree with everything in Flora of China, it's probably as good a source as you're going to get on this topic. (I had a look at Plants India, but they don't seem to have completed their Umbelliferae list, and have both names in their raw data.)

The key character separating the genera in Flora of China is "Fruit oblong-ellipsoid or ellipsoid, base rounded" (Carum) vs "Fruit ovoid-globose, base often cordate" (Trachyspermum). Lavateraguy (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Sago palm

Sago, about the starch extracted from the palm Metroxylon sagu, has several paragraphs about how sago is extracted also from the cycad Cycas revoluta (highly unlikely), followed by several paragraphs about how Cycas revoluta is extremely toxic (true). Both palm and cycad are often called "sago palm" in English, resulting in much confusion. Please help clean up this article. --Una Smith (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely? Perhaps. True? Evidently [1][2][3][4][5][6] (just in the first two pages of results for googling cycas sago starch food). This is not necessarily surprising; Aesculus seeds were used by several native American groups both as a fish poison and as a food, the latter after leaching, and castor oil and ricin come from the same seeds.--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Curtis, but I was hoping for something a little more scholarly. The first two Google hits you cite are to documents that conflate the palm and the cycad. The palm is monocarpic; the cycad is not. The palm flowers and dies at age 7-15 years; the cycad can live far in excess of 100 years and by age 15 most won't have any stem above ground. --Una Smith (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200113/000020011301A0425142.php Hardyplants (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Hardyplants. Una, you should know that a drive-by googling is much quicker than scholarly research, and can still frame the issue. Also, I don't see any evidence of conflation in the first two references; they are both explicitly about the cycad.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The conflation is where sago cycads are described as an important source of starch. I can find no reliable source re any cycad being a current commercial source of starch. Historically, there was one (see Florida arrowroot), and a few very traditional indigenous cultures still harvest cycads for starch, but primarily (only?) in times of famine. --Una Smith (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

cartilage in plants

Recently I've come across mentions of certain plants or plant parts being "cartilaginous". I hope one of you guys knows enough about plant tissues to tell me whether this sense of the word "cartilage" is the same as is used in the article cartilage, which doesn't mention plants at all? Hesperian 13:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Daydon Jackson, A Glossary of Botanic Terms defines cartilaginous as "hard and tough, as the skin of an apple-pip". That's not unambiguous, but I would interpret the use with respect to plants are relating to the physical properties of the tissue, rather than to the composition. That's supported by material at WikiBooks that says that only animals have collagen (plus, nowadays, trangenic plants). However an article in the EMBO Journal reports the presence of collagen in fungi, so perhaps animals should read opisthokonts. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

edit conflict.

cartilagenous = hardened and tough, but capable of being bent. Dictionary of Botany George usher. I can't recall ever running into the use my self, don't have to many plants with this type of tissues, but I am sure that it could be applied to many tropical and some plants from arid locations. Hardyplants (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My thanks to both of you. Now all I have to do is figure out the difference between "follicles woody" and "follicles cartilaginous", which is apparently a different sufficient to split at subgeneric rank; and how it is possible for one of my sources to refer to the follicles of that subgenus as both "soft" and "cartilaginous". :-( Hesperian 14:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a guess, but one is hard and brittle and the other is soft and pliable. Hardyplants (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, I think you're (almost) right, Hardyplants. "follicles woody" means "follicles hard and tough and brittle"; "follicles cartilaginous" means "follicles hard and tough but pliable". My second source, which is horticultural rather than systematic, has picked up only half the meaning of "cartilaginous", and mistranslated the pliable bit as "soft". Thanks again. Hesperian 23:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hemsley writes of Pyrus s.l. "Fruit fleshy, 2- to 5-celled, cells 1- or 2-seeded, cartilaginous", which makes the tough bit surrounding the core of an apple cartilaginous. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Systematic_bias

PS: there appears to be some concern over too many US-related hooks nommed at DYK...so...(hint hint) big opportunity to address that with some plant article expansions. Remember multiplying stubs by 5x.. :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ulmus apostrophes

The page Ulmus 'Morton Plainsman' contains apostrophes in the name, as did Ulmus New Horizon (formerly Ulmus 'New Horizon'). The latter I moved, but seeing several of the former in fixing redirects I wondered if it was a MOS thing for cultivars and plants that I wasn't aware of. Does anyone know? WLU (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Can not comment on the MOS thing- they do some things that I do not understand, but a cultivar should have the apostrophes, thus Ulmus New Horizon is incorrect. It should be Ulmus 'New Horizon' or can be U. 'New Horizon' with in the body of any work. Hardyplants (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

See cultivar. Hardyplants (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) states that scientific names are to be used as page titles, with certain specific exceptions. Where a scientific name is followed by a cultivar epithet, the epithet is correctly expressed with the initial letter(s) capitalised and enclosed in single quotation marks. --Melburnian (talk) 14:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

New WikiProject proposal: Biota of the UK and Ireland

I've proposed a new WikiProject named WikiProject Biota of the UK and Ireland which would encompass all species and conservation efforts within Britain, an extremely interesting area. The project would include vegetation classification, Category:Lists of British animals, Category:Conservation in the United Kingdom, Category:Ecology of the British Isles, Category:Forests and woodlands of the United Kingdom, Category:Fauna of the British Isles and anything else to do with the flora and fauna of Britain. If anyone is interested just leave your name on the proposal page. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Tissue (biology)

While I am able to provide expert input into the animal aspects of this page, it would be very useful for a botanist to provide expert input for the plant tissue section of the page. LLDMart (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

What kind of input are you seeking? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Synonymy frustrations, again

I can't figure it out: is it Asteromoea mongolica, or Kalimeris mongolica? I'm afraid I made both of those pages, so this is more or less an argument with myself at the moment :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Johnny, Daisy taxonomy is a freakin' nightmare, with only 30,000 species and rising. Many huge genera have been partly revised and some until recently were still in limbo. I am not aware of the species you mention, but giving you a heads up (groan). If I get a chance I may ferret around a bit but am a bit busy. Asteraceae ain't really my forte. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a relevant paper in Ann. MOBot. - available at Botanicus and JSTOR. I only skimmed the first couple of pages, but it looks as if Kalimeris is correct. (I'll leave it to you to read the rest of the paper.) Lavateraguy (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; I've updated our Kalimeris article. I didn't read the whole paper either (at least not yet). Kingdon (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Bleh. I don't want to read papers... I just want to read wikipedia and get the scoop :-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Automated creation of alga articles

Hi,

I'm writing a bot which will automatically create stubs on algal taxa, from the genus level up. While this doesn't strictly fall under the juristiction of plants, any feedback on the stub articles would be very welcome. Stubs will appear over the next couple of days here; more details are available here, where any comments would be gratefully received.

Thanks, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Umm... whose classficiation system(s) are you using? And which groups of algae do you mean? Arguably, there has been more revision of algal systematics over the last 20 years than for any plant group. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Martin,

That's great news! :) I went on an enthusiastic spree roughly a year ago, making articles for most taxa of the Chlorophyta and Charophyta (the green algae) at genus-level and higher, but undoubtedly I missed some and new taxa have been added in the meanwhile. You might also consider developing a bot to improve those earlier articles with a fuller description, images, more links to literature and databases, etc. I did the best I could, but I'm no expert and they were pretty rudimentary. Thanks for your good work, Willow (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

PS. I made a few templates and categories to help with the work, which you might consider? I made separate categories for each of the (major) taxonomic levels of algae: Category:Algae taxonomic classes, Category:Algae taxonomic orders, Category:Algae taxonomic families, and [[Category:Algae genera. Secondly, I made two templates for linking to taxonomic references and databases, unimaginatively titled {{Taxonomic references}} and {{Taxonomic links}}. ;) We can modify or specialize them for you, if that'd help! :) Willow (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - it should be relatively easy to expand your articles, as they appear to use a pretty consistent format. I'll bear this in mind. It might be easier to leave any further discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/anybot#Test_pages to keep it in one place. Cheers, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 20:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Question about avocado seeds

Illustrator LadyofHats created this diagram, and someone left her the following message:

"There is a mistake on your Wikipedia website about "Seed". The seed of an avocado (Persea americana, Lauraceae) does NOT contain any endosperm. The entire seed (apart from the seed coat) consists of the storage embryo with extremely short radicle and thickened cotyledons."

She would like a knowledgeable editor to confirm (or deny) this so she can change the diagram accordingly (or not).--ragesoss (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

They do have an endosperm. I will post a reference soon. Hardyplants (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

OK that was not hard to locate after all; [7]

see page 121. Hardyplants (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the Avocado seed diagram, it looks like it might need to be adjusted though, the part marked as endosperm is not likely to be correct. Hardyplants (talk)

I'm not so sure. The image in the book is of a young fruitlet (including the flesh surrounding the seed), rather than a fully-developed lone seed. If the endosperm expands greatly, it could be correctly labeled.--ragesoss (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That my problem thus all the fudging with "might" and "likely", I do not know if the endosperm expands or is absorbed during development in avocados. I did not come across a good example of a labeled mature seed. Hardyplants (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

My experience with mature avocados leads me to believe that all or almost all of the endosperm is absorbed by the cotyledons. Certainly the macroscopic storage tissue is all cotyledons. Even in the reference cited, the embryo already occupies much of the seed.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to point out that the diagram i made actually disecting a avocado seed, so that what goes for the proportions i am quite sure of it. it is only the names what confuses me. becouse as far as i had understood it, the clear white section with the two arms IS the embryo and that everything else arround it was endosperm. but then again when the whole mass is not endosperm, then what is it? what would be the correct label in this case?-LadyofHats (talk) 10:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing that if you think back on your dissection, you'll remember that the surrounding tissue separated into two parts, which are the two cotyledons. Something similar occurs in peanuts, peas, and beans: the swollen cotyledons occupy the bulk of the seed, and the remainder of the embryo holds them together.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

That's completely contrary to my experience with avocado seeds. Most Magnoliid seeds contain copious endosperm and small embryos. The cotyledons are usually small and do not absorb the endosperm prior to germination the way that legumes do. I'm the one who recommended LadyOfHats use an avocado seed for a model based on a recent dissection. ... That said, I've looked for references or information. Most authors don't mention the embryo or seed anatomy (including FNA), and the closest I've managed to find so far is in Heywood's Flowering Plants of the World where he says of the Lauraceae that the seed contains a straight embryo and no endosperm. Cronquist concurs in his famiy description, so it looks as though the mass of tissue I had intrpreted as endosperm may be the cotyledons. What I wouldn't give for access to a microtome and decent microscope... --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A less practical option would be to germinate a seed and see if the seedling has large or small cotyledons. Or maybe find a picture of a seedling on the web. EncyloPetey, I have a good microscope (not often used any more), what would be much more practical would be a good stereoscope, I find what passes for a good substitution is a digital camera with a good macro lens, you can take a picture and enlarge it on the computer screen, the main problem is that its hard to hold the camera and a dissection probe at the same time. Hardyplants (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I have germinated the seeds. The large half-ovoids remain attached to the embryo axis, and shrivel as cotyledons would.--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean for taking a photograph, I meant for examining the cellular structure of the tissues. A good anatomical invetigation might determine whether the tissue is strongly cellular, and thus unlikely to be endosperm. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You persist in mentioning that endosperm is not cellular, but that is not universally true. Commonly, endosperm has a free-nuclear phase, but cell walls form prior to seed maturation.--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The level of cytokinin activityin the endosperm is very high throughout the period that thistissue exists.

[8] and

Toward (f)ruit maturiy, the endosperm disappears and the seed coat shrivels and dies so that the pericarp and the cotyledons remain as the only active tissues in the mature fruit.

[9] Hardyplants (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

sorry if i am a bit slow to understand this :P The avocado seed had a endosperm, but this dies slowly as the seed grows inside the fruit so that a grown up seed ( like the one in the diagram) has an embryo with two overgrown cotyledons( the mass arround the little white embryo). right? so to correct the diagram i remove the label endosperm and point the arrow of "cotyledons" to the two halfs of the seed(the big mass)..then what are the two little arms that are labeled cotyledons right now?

As Hardyplants mentions below, the little arms are probably the connectors of the cotyledons to the embryo axis, similar to petioles of a leaf. It's inaccurate to call the "little white" thing the embryo, as the cotyledons are also part of the embryo. I and others usually call it the "embryo axis".--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I am really greatfull that you are taking so much work to answer my question :) and i also feel a bit embrased to interrupt you with yet another diagram -LadyofHats (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

he two "arms" might be rudimentary petioles attaching the cots to the seedling or are the leaves of the developing seedling, the cotyledons remain unmoved as the seed germinates and the seedling grows. If the seed in covered with soil, As the seedling grows it breaks the seed coat and produces a stem with true leaves and the cotyledons remain below ground. Hardyplants (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Hardyplants is correct that avocado has hypogeous germination: the hypocotyl does not elongate, and the cotyledons do not emerge above the soil. In this way it is similar to peas and different from beans.--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I changed the diagram, still i will try to go to the bibliotec some time end this week and look for a couple of more sources :P thanks a lot for your help -LadyofHats (talk) 09:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:Wine grape diagram en.svg

I recently did this diagram under request from the Philip Greenspun illustration project the diagram should serve more the wine related articles, but still i tryed to make it as acurate as the sources allowed it. yet it would seem that there are some issues (especially arround the exact appearance of the locule and a disconnected vascular system on the skin )that are enough to make someone to call it a "botanical disaster" (full argument here) and i would like to know your opinion about it and which changes, if needed , have to be done to improve the acuracy of the diagram.-LadyofHats (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Blechnic can be over to top sometimes in her comments, but that doesn't mean she's wrong. I don't have enough familiarity with grapes to know precisely how it should look, but it doesn't look right to me. For one thing, a locule is a cavity, so locular cavity sounds redundant. I can see how you could misinterpret this reference: it appears to be showing a collapsed locule as a thin line, the same locule that is more open in the less mature grape here. If the latter diagram were larger so I could read the labels, I could make more sense of what you should expect.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I don't know plant morphology well enough to help very much, but I would like to offer a few words of encouragement in that these diagrams are well-drawn (artistically) and are the kind of thing which I'd love to see more of, to illustrate some of these concepts (once we can make sure they are accurate, that is). Kingdon (talk) 05:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well i brought a kilo grapes yesterday so i will spend the day disceting them :P-LadyofHats (talk) 09:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I need your help now becouse for starters the grapes i got have no obvious cavity [10], i got clear grapes becouse i was hoping i could realise more of the content of the fruit. but seeing them against the light didnt help much [11], i can recognise the 4 seeds and how they conect but no cavity as such, at must a darker area in the idle of the fruit [12]. but this one seems to be more line nerves than actually a tissue or a clear division. And actually it is far more visible when the grape berry is cut in the horizontal way [13] there one can also recognise that are like 3 lines.

is it posible that my grapes have not 2 but three locules? . anyway later on i desided to make thiner cuts to see a bit ore of detail [14],[15]. it was then when i realised that there was some sort of tissue that would divide the seed from the fruit [16]. and i was thinking this may be.. or?.. actually this whole thing with cuting grapes got me far more confused than i was. can you help me in this please? -LadyofHats (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

They're confusing grapes. Cultivated varieties often deviate from what one would expect in the wild species; for example, cultivated tomatoes usually have more than the two standard carpels. I see several things in these photographs that may be of use to you:

The locules do indeed close as the fruit matures. I believe that the darker lines in grape4yd5.jpg that extend ± tangentially may be the collapsed remains of the locules.
That same photo may very well represent a tricarpellate grape, with seeds in only two of the carpels.
There are prominent axial vascular bundles in grape2ae3.jpg that extend to the stigma (this is expected). There are also peripheral bundles visible in that photo and also seen very clearly in cross section in the part of grape4yd5.jpg where the two halves are joined.
The parts marked with red arrows in gape3gs0.jpg seem to correspond to the darkish lines around the center in grape4yd5.jpg.

Transillumination is indeed a useful technique for imaging many plant organs. I'd suggest getting some other grape varieties to increase your sample size. If you slice thick sections, and place them on a transparent or translucent flat background for the transillumination, you can even use dark varieties, since the pigment is in the outer layers.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I got some dark grapes and ade some big changes in the iage, could you please have a look to see if it is ok now? . thanks for all your effort -LadyofHats (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any issues, but others should weigh in.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Grass-stub

{{Grass-stub}} and Category:Grass stubs are presently defined as intended for "grass-related articles"; note that the word grass in that sentence links to Poaceae. Yet the article grass states that "Grass is the common word that generally describes monocotyledonous green plants." and "Poaceae are the true grasses ... [but] they also include plants often not recognized to be grasses, such as bamboos or some species of weeds called crab grass." On top of all that Category:Grasses is defined as "for what are commonly called grasses", where grasses links to grass. So now I am confused about the scope of this stub. Can I safely assume that all articles tagged with Grass-stub are Poaceae taxa? Should this stub be renamed "Poaceae-stub"? Hesperian 03:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The only confusion is in the article about Grass. I have never heard the term applied to all monocots (lilies, orchids, palms!). Also, bamboos are in the Poaceae as are crabgrasses. So the problem is merely confusion in the article on grass. I think the article is trying to say that most people don't realize that bamboos and crabgrasses are actually in the grass family. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I think your right about the bamboo and grabegrass, but there are a number of monocots that have grass in their common name, including: Blue-eye grass, Yellow Grass, Star grass, To the average person, "grass" has been used to descried what some plant looks like. Hardyplants (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

There's even a dicot (Grass of Parnassus), though it doesn't look like a grass. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

But the same is true of any common name. Consider: A pineapple is not an apple not does it come from a pine. This doesn't make categories based on "apple" or "pine" incorrect or confusing. A starfish, jellyfish, or crayfish (or any shellfish) are not fish, but that doesn't mean that a grouping based on "fish" isn't useful. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Very true, but how many people believe or confuse starfish with real fish? A cat for true grasses is very much needed, but more than once I have been asked about the "Grass with small bright blue flowers" Sisyrinchium angustifolium 'Lucerne' is an attractive perennial for gardens. Hardyplants (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

More often than you might think. I know a professor at Cal who worte a nasty letter in to Science (or Nature?) when they treated "shellfish" (molluscs and aquatic arthropods) as the same group. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Since this discussion seems to be centring on the meaning of the word grass, I had a look at what the OED has to say. There are four definitions relevant to this discussion:

"Herbage in general, the blades or leaves and stalks of which are eaten by horses, cattle, sheep, etc."
"One of the non-cereal Gramineæ [i.e. Poaceae], or any species of other orders resembling these in general appearance."
"In agricultural use: Any of the species of plants grown for pasture, or for conversion into hay."
"Bot. Any plant belonging to the family Gramineæ (Graminaceæ) [i.e. Poaceae], which includes most of the plants called ‘grass’ in the narrower popular sense (see 1) together with the cereals (barley, oats, rye, wheat, etc.), the reeds, bamboos, etc."

My reading of this is that there are three distinct scopes:

the broad, pragmatic scope of the farmer, to whom grass is anything he can feed his livestock;
the popular view, which encompasses the "typical" Poaceae but excludes cereals, bamboo and other atypical Poaceae, and includes non-Poaceae that look like Poaceae, such as some rushes, sedges, etc; and
the botanical view, in which grass = Poaceae.

I think there is a bit of work to be done in various articles to get all this sorted out, but to return to the main issue for me, I think we can probably agree that {{grass-stub}} has an ambiguous title. Since EncycloPetey created this template, it is certain that it was intended to circumscribe the Poaceae and only the Poaceae. Therefore I propose to move this template to {{Poaceae-stub}}. Hesperian 00:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And I don't see that there's significant ambiguity here to merit all the work to do the change. Two of the four definitions in the OED are Poaceae-specific. Of the other two, one is arguably Poaceae (source of hay), and the fourth is a non-specific sense for which no category would be likely to be created. What articles have you seen in the stub category that shouldn't be there? Is this real ambiguity that's confusing people, or purely hypothetical confusion that might happen but somehow hasn't in the years that the stub category has existed? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Only my own confusion. Okay, I'll assume that it is defined as Poaceae for now, and see what comes out in the wash. Hesperian 02:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is evidence of confusion between Category:Grasses and Category:Poaceae. e.g. Category:Bamboos is a subcategory of the former but not the latter! Hesperian 02:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not confusion but history. The Category:Grasses has been around for years and is where most subcategories were located. Then, in the wake of PolBot's additions, a decision was made to erect a set of taxon-based categories. So the duplicate, parallel category Category:Poaceae was created. So, this is the result of history rather than confusion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that makes sense. I'm still not entirely comfortable with Category:Grass stubs having a different semantics to Category:Grasses, but I managed to get a good night's sleep last night all the same. ;-) Hesperian 01:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the stub and category matched until June of this year, when someone decided to change the description of the category, creating a category fork. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Deodar tree is in BAD need of a look at.

This is headed for DYK, but honestly, I don't know where to start with this mess. Circeus (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Should it not go to Cedrus deodara or Cedrus. Hardyplants (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've proposed the merge into Cedrus deodara - there's probably something in there which is worth salvaging which isn't already duplicated at the latter.

As a matter of English usage, deodar tree is a phrase analogous to oak tree or linden tree - Deodar would have been a better article title. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion here --Melburnian (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've chipped in at Talk:Deodar tree. There's material there worth salvaging (in my opinion, anyway), but having two rather similar articles for the same species doesn't make any sense. Kingdon (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the author's talk page I discover that this is not the only questionable article. He got a DYK for Mysore mallige. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that Mysore mallige could use some cleanup. In particular, there is some confusion about the species(es) involved, for example whether it is about particular cultivars, all jasmine grown commercially in Karnataka, or what. Other room for improvement would be Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms, and shortening the text in the Geographical Indication section. On the plus side, I'm happy to see an article about this subject - unless I'm misreading the sources, there is enough for an article there. Kingdon (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Arctic flora and Wikipedia:WikiProject Arctic and Portal:Arctic

Would people here be able to help out with some work on Arctic flora? I (and others) have been working on Category:Arctic and Wikipedia:WikiProject Arctic and Portal:Arctic, but we really need someone who knows about plants and the Arctic to check out Category:Arctic flora and related areas. What we really want to do is identify the truly Arctic species and where the borderline areas are. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty general request, but I do note that a lot of good work seems to be going on at the arctic wikiproject. Hopefully you will find some interested people, but if you have more specific questions, by all means ask. One question: do you want articles like Littorella, whose range extends into the arctic but which is primarily subarctic or warmer? (This is for Category:Arctic flora and/or the wikiproject). I would think it would work better to restrict it to plants which are predominantly arctic, but perhaps you have already thought about this question. Kingdon (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I might be able to help, but I am not very active on Wikipedia and don't have most of the necessary books handy right now. Colchicum (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The following sources could be useful:

Abbott R.J. & C. Brochmann. 2003. History and evolution of the arctic flora: in the footsteps of Eric Hulten. Molecular Ecology 12 (2): 299-313.
Böcher T.W. et al. 1968. The Flora of Greenland. Copenhagen: Haase.
Chapin, F.S. & C. Korner (eds.). 1995. Arctic and Alpine Biodiversity: Patterns, Causes and Ecosystem Consequences. Berlin: Springer.
Hultén Eric. 1937. Outline of the History of Arctic and Boreal Biota during the Quarternary Period. Stockholm: Thule.
Hultén Eric. 1963. The distributional conditions of the flora of Beringia. In J.L. Gressitt (ed.), Pacific basin biogeography. Honolulu: Bishop Mus. Press. P. 7-22.
Hultén Eric. 1968. Flora of Alaska and Neighboring Territories. Stanford, CA: Sanford University Press.
Polunin, Nicholas. 1940. Botany of the Canadian Eastern Arctic. Part 1: Pteridophyta and Spermatophyta. National Museum of Canada Bulletin 92.
Polunin, Nicholas. 1947. Botany of the Canadian Eastern Arctic. Part 2: Thallophyta and Bryophyta. National Museum of Canada Bulletin 97.
Polunin, Nicholas. 1948. Botany of the Canadian Eastern Arctic. Part 3: Vegetation and ecology. National Museum of Canada Bulletin 104.
Polunin, Nicholas. 1959. Circumpolar arctic flora. Oxford : Clarendon Press.
Takhtajan, Armen, 1986. Floristic Regions of the World. Berkeley, University of California Press.
Thorne R.F. 1972. Major disjunctions in the geographic ranges of seed plants. Quaterly Review of Biology 47: 365-411.

and references therein

In an earlier edition Takhtajan claims that there is only one endemic Arctic genus, Dupontia (Poaceae), while in the Flora of North America Thorne mentions Arctagrostis, Arctous, Braya, Diapensia, Loiseleuria and Oxyria as well, but those are arctic-alpine rather than strictly arctic. According to Takhtajan some of the endemic species (there are more than 100 in total, mostly in Chukotka and Alaska) are Ranunculus sabinei, Papaver polare, Salix arctica, Colpodium vahlianum, Сolpodium wrightii, Puccinellia angustata. However, at least some of them also occur much further south in alpine environments, so it is a mess. Colchicum (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So the first question is whether the category is for (a) the plants occurring in the Arctic (there are about 1,000 species, but most of them have no articles on Wikipedia now), (b) the plants endemic to the Arctic or (b) the endemic arctic-alpine plants (and the boundary is sloppy in many cases). Another issue is how to make sure that all editors will use the categorization system correctly and consistently. Colchicum (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Volume III of the Flora of the Russian Arctic includes treatments of the following nine families: Salicaceae, Betulaceae, Urticaceae, Polygonaceae, Chenopodiaceae, Portulacaceae, Caryophyllaceae, Paeoniaceae and Ranunculaceae. The discussions are illustrated with 166 distribution maps. Once completed, the six volumes of the series will treat about 360 genera, 1650 species and 220 infraspecific taxa.[17]

Came across this while looking for another floraristic treatment for the USSR.Hardyplants (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Soursop

Please see and comment. There is yet another proposal afloat to merge a species article with the article about the fruit from that species. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, Talk:Taraxacum officinale, although that's more genus article versus articles for each species. Kingdon (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I've been doing a little cleanup around Annona and species. I've just discovered that much of the text at Atemoya appears to be a copyvio (by a one shot IP user) - paragraphs have been taken unchanged from the reference. Anyone care to do a rewrite? Lavateraguy (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Helianthus divaricatus

Right now, Helianthus divaricatus redirects to Helianthus microcephalus, but I don't think this is correct. Uncle Sam (i.e., USDA PLANTS Profiles) and Uncle Roger (... Tory Peterson) both list these as separate. Further, Uncle Roger says H. microcephalus has a small flower head (thus the name). I'm not an admin, so I can't delete the page, and blanking it seems to not be a good idea either. But I don't think I know enough about the plant to write an article. --Jomegat (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

They are indeed not the same species. I'll make a stub ; ) DJLayton4 (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Done : ) DJLayton4 (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Jomegat (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please help identify this plant

Could someone please help identify the plant in this picture:

Weird. I doubt it is an oz native...(?) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a clue, but it was in a garden so it may not be. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a species of Cestrum Melburnian (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Cestrum fasciculatum ? Noodle snacks (talk) 07:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Possibly Cestrum elegans or Cestrum fasciculatum or a hybid involving either species. --Melburnian (talk) 07:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) With 200 or more species, it might be best to just say "Silvereye perched on a blooming Cestrum species" on the caption for the picture...... And Melburnian now points out that there are even hybrids, so this reinforces by belief that you should not claim a species if in doubt. p.s Nice picture! Hardyplants (talk) 08:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

GA nom for Commelina communis

I've been working on the aformentioned article for the past few days and I think it's more or less ready for GA. If anyone would like to review, copyedit or otherwise improve it, it would be much appreciated. Thanks! DJLayton4 (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I read the article, and it looks like you (and/or other contributors) have done a lot of good work there. Kingdon (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The article is still waiting for a reviewer ; ) I would prefer it if someone from the project could do it as opposed to someone who is relatively unknowledgable about plants. If anyone has time it would be great. DJLayton4 (talk) 01:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)