Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive31

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33→Archive 35

Continued disruption of Wikipedia plants for over two months

I ask the cabal of flora editors (as User:Born2cycle has seen fit to call us), and other interested users, to make comments, specifically diffs, about how long the users User:Philip Baird Shearer and User:Born2cycle have been disrupting Wikipedia. User:PBS willfully ignores all policies that don't support what he wants and User:B2c is simply carrying on a one-sided conversation.

It's time they started listening, or left. I ask that members of the community disengage from them, request that their edits of policy pages be blocked, and contribute to an RfC to get over with their tenditious and pointed editing editing of Wikipedia.

A community consensus requires dialogue within the community. Neither of these editors is dialoguing, and no more amount of time listening to their tenditious, repetitious, uncivil, and pointed monologues will create a consensus.

--KP Botany (talk) 03:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I stopped listening (or responding) a long time ago. I'm not sure what else needs to be done. Kingdon (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Oops, what needs to be done is to thank you. --KP Botany (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Plant identification (Chile)

I have three plants that need identifying, all seen in Chiloé, Chile. If anyone can help, I'll then upload them. Unlike with bird species, I'm not really sure where to start looking to make my own guesses? Stevage 12:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Photo 1&2 Gunnera tinctoria, photo 3 artichoke, photo 4 within Fabaceae. Melburnian (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Botanist

Hi, all. I was recently cleaning up the new citation errors that appear when our botanist template is present without (or is placed below) <references/> or {{reflist}}. I noticed that we now have three templates that perform roughly the same function for the sake of different styles: {{Botanist}} (over 1000 transclusions), {{Botanist-inline}} (a little over 100 transclusions), and {{botanist-inline2}} (not even 20 transclusions). Any opinions on this? Seems like overkill to me. The first -inline template was the result of this discussion that didn't get much input. There must be a better way to organize these. Any ideas? Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

A related discussion was at TfD: Inline Sister Projects links - cygnis insignis 14:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I like inlines rather than boxes (for the reasons mentioned by others at that TfD), so I'd be fine with standardizing on the inline ones, but not with standardizing on the box ones. I'm also OK with (a) leaving the status quo, or (b) preserving existing functionality, in terms of giving the choice of box or inline, but reorganizing how it is done (for example, one template with some parameters to pick the style). Kingdon (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, my main point was the proliferation of multiple templates to fill relatively the same function. Also, I've found it rather silly to have an inline version of this template. I can't think of any other inline template that takes place of actual text like this. Personally, I prefer the existing {{botanist}}. I've found that it catches the eye better. I've looked up many common names with ambiguous author abbreviations like William Jones (Jones) and once on an article, looked for the botanist template to verify that this is the Jones I want. An inline version still has the author abbreviation bolded, but I find the double lines to stand out much more. I, of course, agree with those at the TfD link posted on the inline sister project links. They're easier to place in an external links section and won't get stuck below taxoboxes on stubby articles. I'd be ok with your option (b) as that was the point I was driving at here, but I still don't really get the point behind the inline text-replacing template, save for the possible difficulties of doing it manually with the difficult links and category. --Rkitko (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I like the convenience of being able to find the names when they are in the template t1|botanist. I don't see the need for the others. --KP Botany (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
I find myself looking for the first and most common version on botanist articles. I didn't know the others existed, and probably missed seeing them in some articles. I'm also for keeping only the one version. First Light (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Reassessment needed

For Amaranthus brownii. I don't think it is Start-class. See also the peer review linked on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


Coleus aromaticus/Plectranthus amboinicus/Plectranthus aromaticus

Oral rehydration therapy says:

"... Hemendra Nath Chatterjee a Bengali scientist from West Bengal, India. ... In 1951 he discovered that in Bengal villages small epidemic of cholera is is treated by raw leaf juice of a common plant of Bengal called pathorchur (Coleus aromaticus)[1]."

Coleus aromaticus redirects to Plectranthus amboinicus, which gives various synonyms and says,

"There is quite a deal of confusion about the name of this herb. Some sources indicate that P. aromaticus is synonymous with P. amboinicus, under which name this herb is often sold, in fact, two different species. P. amboinicus is widely grown in the Gulf of Mexico area where is has the common name of Cuban Oregano or Mexican Oregano. P. aromaticus on the other hand originates from the Seychelles and possibly India and Indonesia, where it is given the common name Indian Borage. The herb is commonly known in Puerto Rico as Orégano de la hoja ancha (Wide Leafed Oregano) and also Orégano Brujo (Wild Oregano).

Fide Flore de Madagascar via Botanicus all 3 names apply to the same plant. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I've now found a relevant monograph - Somran Suddee, A Taxonomic Revision of tribe Ocimeae Dumort. (Labiatae) in continental South East Asia (2001)
Yes, pace lawyering over the ICBN. The plant Bentham described as Coleus aromaticus is Plectranthus amboinicus, but he cited Plectranthus aromaticus, which is Plectranthus scutellarioides, as a synonym.
No. I've "corrected" the statement on distribution. However, most of the text there was added by an IP address whose sole contribution to Wikipedia was that. The author appears not to have realised that the species in introduced in the New World. The paragraph you quote would be best removed.
No. (We'd want one on Plectranthus scutellarioides, but there's no pressing urgency.) Lavateraguy (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

-- I'm not competent to work on these myself. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=2501333&blobtype=pdf

Darwin Day

Happy Darwin Day, everyone. In case you missed the hype, today is the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin. Hesperian 22:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Milk fruit

Hi everyone. On my recent trip to Vietnam I came across a fruit called Milk fruit. I was surprised that we don't seem to have an article about it. I wonder perhaps if it has another name. If someone could give me a reference for it or perhaps the scientific name I might have a go at starting an article. There's a picture of it here. Thanks. Martin 05:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Chrysophyllum cainito?[1] First Light (talk) 05:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think so, here's an article from Vietnam that links Chrysophyllum cainito with the common name "milk fruit" [2] Melburnian (talk) 06:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
It seems you are right. But now I'm really confused because I thought a star apple was something different ... Martin 09:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Might you be confusing "star apple" with "star fruit" (Averrhoa carambola)? Hesperian 11:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
No, for some reason I thought a star apple was a mangosteen. So, I will redirect milk fruit to chrysophyllum cainito then. Thanks for the help. Martin 13:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

aestivation

Yet another question like my "tuft" and "polygamy" ones above:

Everyone knows that aestivation means the arrangement of tepals in a flower bud before it has opened. Well, you know now if you didn't before. Personally, I found out about five minutes ago.

Our article on aestivation is about animal dormancy as a strategy to survive periods of heat or dryness. Can the botanical concept of aestivation support an article that would be more than a mere dictionary definition? If not, how should we handle the situation?

Hesperian 13:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

de.wikipedia have Knospendeckung Melburnian (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
One could explain the different forms of aestivation, such as cochleate, contorted, contortiplicate, crumpled, decussate, imbricate, induplicate, open, quincuncial, reduplicate, valvate; or mention its taxonomic value (e.g. sepals valvate in aestivation is one of the markers of Malvaceae - except for Fremonotodendron and Chiranthodendron, which is why some earlier botanists excluded them from the family). Lavateraguy (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've created a stub based on Lavateraguy's excellent response. It is at aestivation (botany), which might be a mistake, since I suspect some plants aestivate in the other sense of the word.
For examples of the second sense see many winter and spring flowering bulbs.
With out paying much attention to the technical meaning, I have always used ephemeral, My guess is that aestivation when used this way is just a borrowed animal term with out much formal usage this way. Hardyplants (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand emphemeral to refer to monocarpic plants which run through their life cycle from seed to seed in a few weeks, such as many desert annuals (or Cardamine hirsuta and Senecio vulgaris) - or is that what you meant when you referred to the technical meaning? Lavateraguy (talk) 17:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
That might be the technical meaning but it use seems to be lest restrictive Spring ephemeral, summer ephemeral are often used for bulbs and other plants that have a short period of active growth then do dormant. How botanists use the term I can't recall, but for other people interested in plants, I am sure this is the use that is most common. Hardyplants (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I also just discovered our article on vernation; I don't think if I've ever seen such a neglected article: 22 edits in 6 1/2 years! Hesperian 04:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

[form taxon segue]

Form taxon (botany)? 5 edits in 18 months. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, this area is messed up a bit by the article at Form taxon that doesn't link to the botanical article, which is called Form taxon (botany), and by the misnomer of the first as the form taxon article. "Form taxon" is used in paleobotany, but "form taxon," as used in its article is usually called "life-form taxon," not just "form-taxon." --KP Botany (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Um, so what to do? Make "form taxon" a disambiguation page, to Life-form taxon and Organ taxon? Are paleobotanists the only ones who use organ taxa? What about all those teeth in the fossil record? --Una Smith (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I've always just called them teeth. It's not mentioned in the article at all as a usage, even though you recently edited it. Remember, the place to discuss your theory that all Wikipedia should be dabs is that policy/guidelines page, not everywhere but there. --KP Botany (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
form taxon is dodgy. Organ taxon is not a term of art in the ICBN (Vienna Code); the terms are morphotaxa (fossil plants) and form-taxa (fungi). Fide Google organ taxon has much less usage than either morphotaxon or form taxon. In the light of the ICBN perhaps form taxon (botany) should be moved to morphotaxon.
ichnotaxon is a related concept. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Zoology doesn't seem to make the same distinction between names based on parts of organisms as does mycology and palaeobotany - but see ichnotaxa (trace fossils). Lavateraguy (talk) 12:02, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
There are a lot of fossil shark taxa known only from teeth: see Shark tooth. Does ICZN have a special name for these "body part" taxa? --Una Smith (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know. I've examined fossil shark teeth, and always simply assumed I was talking about a shark species, not a form taxon, not just its teeth, but I have very limited knowledge of animal fossils, and only arthropods at that. Re plant fossils, probably morphotaxon would be best if that's the correct usage. I would have to check my Taylor and Taylor on that. I've always just used form taxon, but we should use the official term, if there is one. --KP Botany (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Only the teeth are known
Most fossil sharks are known only from the teeth (the rest of the shark being cartilaginous), and there is approximately zero chance of finding any other body part, so I guess for them the form taxon question is moot. Now teeth of terrestrial animals are another matter. --Una Smith (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I know this. This, however, does not mean that the species is considered a form taxon. --KP Botany (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Form taxon is the usage I'm familiar with as well. Apart from that, in the ICBN, it is valid to have separate names applying to the telomorph, anamorph and holomorph of a single fungal species, but under the ICZN if two names are found to apply to different forms of the same species (e.g. Anguilla/Leptocephalus or Anomalocaris/Laggania/Peytoia) one name becomes as junior synonym of the other. I don't know for certain, but am reasonably confident that the only "form taxa" under the ICZN are ichnotaxa. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a big tangent from aestivation. How about we move it to TOL? --Una Smith (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, or the talk page of the relevant articles, probably ToL or wiki bio best. --KP Botany (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Flora by country categories

Hi, folks. If you monitor any flora by country categories, you may already be aware of a new proposal to collapse these categories into larger ecozone categories. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 15#Biota of countries test proposal for the complete details. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 04:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to place a notice here myself. Looking for as much input as possible especially from those expert in the area. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

nomina nuda

Earlier the question was raised as to how a nomen nudum could be identified with a known species.

Article 32.3 states "The requirements of Art. 32.1(d) are not met by statements describing properties such as purely aesthetic features, economic, medicinal or culinary usage, cultural significance, cultivation techniques, geographical origin, or geological age." So one can see that it would be possible for a name to be identifiable as referring to a species, but not contain a description or diagnosis under the rules of the ICBN, and hence be a nomen nudum. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

TThanks; that was my misunderstanding. It was cleared up for me at the time, but this is still useful and interesting. Hesperian 11:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Flora IDs

I was looking to get some IDs on some flower photos. Thanks for the help in advance! ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 04:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The last two are: some type of Achillea; and then a Dianthus, maybe Dianthus barbatus. First Light (talk) 04:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The yellow Nassau flower might be a Lantana, something like this one.[3] First Light (talk) 04:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit conflict ;-) ] I'm pretty sure the third is a Lantana. Hesperian 04:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm hopeless on plant IDs, but I do have trusted user rights on commons, so I can move them for you once they have ids. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
The blue flower is Plumbago auriculata, the reddish Key West flower is Euphorbia milii and the yellow Orlando flower is Pachystachys lutea. Melburnian (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding to First Light's diagnostic, I'd wager the Albany plant is most likely a pink cultivar of Achillea millefolium. Circeus (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I remember now that the pink albany one is a pink yarrow. We have yellow yarrow too and it smells like cat piss. That's how I remember what it is... :-) ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk»
Thank you all very much for the IDs. This is a nice resource for an ignorant photographer!
Noodle snacks, mind renaming for me? Thanks! :-):
  1. UnidentifiedBlueFlower.JPG→PlumbagoAuriculataMiami.JPG
  2. UnidentifiedRedFlower1.JPG→EuphorbiaMiliiKeyWest.JPG
  3. UnidentifiedYellowFlower1.JPG→YellowLantanaNassau.JPG
  4. UnidentifiedYellowFlower2.JPG→PachystachysLuteaOrlando.JPG
  5. UnidentifiedPinkFlower1.JPG→AchilleaMillefoliumAlbany.JPG
  6. UnidentifiedPinkFlower2.JPG→DianthusAlbany.JPG
Noodle snacks, I was considering #1 and (maybe) #2 for FPC, what do you think? Thanks again! ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 03:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ergot

The article Ergot needs a cleanup, desparately. It begins Ergot is the name of a fungus that is usually referred to as 'ergot', although referring to the members of the Claviceps genus as 'ergot' is also correct. Ouch. And Saint Anthony's fire is a disambiguation page. --Una Smith (talk) 03:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That sentence was the worst part (at least in what I found in a quick look-over), and I rewrote it. I think Saint Anthony's fire as a disambiguation page is probably fine (I found a few journal article titles which seemed to imply there might be issues in what it refers to, although the articles themselves weren't available, so I'm not sure). Kingdon (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Mamane

Mamane needs assessment. Viriditas (talk) 10:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Problems with "orphan" tags on species stubs

Discussion and note here. --KP Botany (talk) 04:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Another orphan is Aspidistra nicolai. Fide IPNI, this should be Aspidistra nikolaii. Aspidistra redlinked to Aspidistra nikolai. I've fixed the last two points. Do you'all want to dispose of the orphaned redirect page resulting? Lavateraguy (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
Given the Times Online and the National Geographic have articles with that spelling, I think it's a good idea to keep the nicolai redirect. Melburnian (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
See here for a list of orphaned magnoliophyte articles. ("Plantae" has too many false positives.) I've linked to a few from the corresponding genus pages. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
That ain't gonna fly. I've been converting taxoboxes to APG-II, which involves replacing "Division: Magnoliophyta" with "(unranked): Angiosperms". So that search won't have found any members of the groups that I have converted to date, namely: all the monocots, all the magnoliids, all the eurosids II, all the euasterids I, and all the euasterids II except Asterales. Hesperian 23:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
See here as well.
There's an orphaned (and quite extensive) article for Adenium arabicum; Adenium is treated as a monotypic genus with arabicum as a subspecies of A. obesium. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and added a link to unorphan it. As for species vs. subspecies, I assume it is like Hepatica where the world is unlikely to come to a consensus one way or the other anytime soon. Well, plus all the usual complications with cultivated plants (there are plenty of hybrids in cultivation, it seemed from Adenium vendor sites). There's a discussion on WT:PLANTS under "Adenium arabicum" from 1 January 2009 which might help some (but wasn't too conclusive). Kingdon (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Aphandra natalia is orphaned. It also seems to be redudant, as Aphandra says that the genus is monotypic. I've proposed a merge. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
basal angiosperms is orphaned. I've proposed a merge with paleodicots. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
What about ANITA grade? It sounds like it belongs in the same article as those others. Guettarda (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
If they do all end up merged, perhaps the article should also cover pal(a)eoberb, with a redirect or two. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Aspidistra elatior

We don't seem to have an article for Aspidistra elatior. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Now we do ... or at least the start of one. Melburnian (talk) 12:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Fang Wenpei

We have a submission at AfC about Fang Wenpei who apparently discovered more than 100 species of plants. However there is only one source, in Chinese, so I'm having trouble verifiying it. Has anyone heard of this person, or can they add to the references? It can be found at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Submissions/Fang Wenpei. Thanks, MartinMsgj 16:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The Google translation is somewhat readable, and the same text is here and here. There is a more biographic account here.
He has an IPNI entry, substantiating that he did author plant names. There are about 2000 Google hits for his Chinese name 方文培, but they may not all refer to the same person. There's enough for an article, assuming you agree on notability.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
See also here. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Note that the current version of the draft article cites a second source, in English. The URL I give above is to the relevant page of that source. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys. You've helped a lot as usual. MartinMsgj 17:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Algae at WP:PROD

A bunch of algal genera have been sent for deletion at WP:PROD. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

For those of us who don't know how to find the related discussion, please provide a link. Lavateraguy (talk) 07:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I removed the prods I could find. The reason given for deletion was that there was no basionym to redirect it to. Turns out that's not what the guy meant, he meant there was no basionym to redirect to the genus he was deleting--not kidding. But, all I could say was WTF, of course? And removed the prods for being incomprehensible. Here's my contributions, so you can see the prods I removed. Here's the user who added them for the inexplicable reason that they could not be redirected to or from their basionyms (new one on me). [[4]] --KP Botany (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
This is also being discussed at User talk:Anybot (search for FingersOnRoids, the user in question) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Microbiology#Algae at WP:PROD. Personally, I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other. Since these are bot created articles, there isn't any great loss if they are deleted, but having them stick around until/unless someone can find some accepted species or make them a redirect or whatever is probably also OK. I think FingersOnRoids means "accepted name" or "genus to which all the species got moved" or something of the sort rather than basionym, but the finer points of taxonomy usually get my head spinning, so I could be saying it wrong. Kingdon (talk) 15:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's not a big issue if the articles stay around or not, it wouldn't hurt. I just didn't think that it could really meet WP:N if it was a genus without any recognized species in it. Unless my understanding of this issue is very wrong? I am not well rehearsed in taxonomy, if you could tell by the way I mangled the use of the word basionym, in my prod reason. Sorry that I confused you KP Botany. Oh, I redirected some genera articles that didn't have species that were not accepted taxonomically to the genera listed in their species synonyms in Algaebase. Is there an issue with that too? Regards, FingersOnRoids 22:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I get the impression that AlgaeBase is incomplete, and that you shouldn't infer a lack of recognised species from a lack of species recognised in AlgaeBase. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
There might be - just because Actinosphaenia spendens is now placed in Actinoptychus doesn't mean that there are no species left in the genus. For example Actinosphenia (variant spelling) elegans. If you take AlgaeBase at face value there are recognised species. We'all might like to have a word with Anybot's operator at well. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I just thought that once someone finds another source, they could just create an article on the genus in question again. Right now, some articles on the genera consist of one or two sentences, so it wouldn't really be much of a loss of information. But again, I was just proposing they be deleted because I discussed it with the bot's operator, and he seemed to agree with what I was doing. But since I am definitely not an expert on whether algae genera with no species should be kept, I'll leave it to you guys to decide what to do with them. Regards, FingersOnRoids 21:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Simple basic plant page

We seem to have great specialized pages, but what seems to be missing is a page that explains basic plant concepts. My last biology class was a couple of decades ago so I wouldn't dare DIY something. We seem to be running into a lot of confusion on the refdesk as to what roots, leaves and the vascular system of plants are for and how nutrients get transported from one to the other. Maybe I just couldn't find the relevant page, but that means that other users are unlikely to have much more luck. An introductory section on the plant page with links to the special pages would help. Thks. (Lisa4edit) 76.97.245.5 (talk) 07:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC) Found something under vascular plants but this info needs to be linked better or some of it should be moved to higher up on the plant page. What is still not clearly identified is what is moved where how. Not the exact details, just an overview. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 07:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't know if I'll get any time for this myself, but I agree there is an unmet need here. If anyone wants to take this on, I would suggest sitting down with some introductory textbooks and first using them as a guide to what topics should be there (and figuring out how that maps to articles we currently have, or should have). Another potentially relevant place to get started is Category:Top-importance plant articles which either covers these topics, or should. Kingdon (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I think plant misses the mark a little, in terms of "general audiences", and is probably a bit too heavy on taxonomy. Guettarda (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I remember reading a quote somewhere that the term botany has become so closely aligned with systematics that the other kinds of botanist now describe themselves with the obfuscatory plant biology. I think this bias towards systematics is even more true on Wikipedia that in the real world; our focus on systematics is totally over the top. But don't look at me; I'm going to keep describing describing taxa; it's the rest of you that have to change. :-) Hesperian 02:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Plant Sciences or plant scientists - mind you, is the right term :) We are heavy in the systematics personal around here that is for sure...we have a lot of quality in one area. Hardyplants (talk) 07:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Systemic systematics bias ... so to speak. Melburnian (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I think of it as a being a shift in interest for a fairly obvious reason: there is currently a massive overhaul of plant systematics and a LOT of ground to cover, so obviously a lot of people are working in that area and publishing entirely new and often surprising finding, which would tend to overshadow the more usual stuff. Kinda like the whole hoopla over extrasolar planets in astronomy, when there is still much to be understood about the objects we already know the existence of. Circeus (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There are some developments on this topic that need some attention.

Guettarda (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and Viridiplantae (which has been a redirect for years, and which was made into an article on 26 Feb 2009). Kingdon (talk) 20:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

How embarrassing

I run a script that identifies categorisation issues and suggests solutions. e.g. if an article is in both Category:Flora of Western Australia and Category:Proteaceae, then it will suggest that the article also be put in Category:Proteales of Australia.

On the latest run, categories related to soccer kept cropping up, indicating that there was an article that was in both plant categories and soccer categories. Eventually I tracked it down to our article on the FC Barcelona coach, Josep Guardiola, which was in Category:Asteraceae genera. The culprit? Me. I had attempted to tag Guardiola into that category, but that title is a redirect to the person, and AWB had blithely followed it, and I had blithely hit the save button. :-(

Any volunteers to stubify that redirect?

Hesperian 02:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Started, just barely. BTW, in search of references I found this: A Baraminological Analysis of the Tribe Heliantheae sensu lato (Asteraceae) Using Analysis of Pattern (ANOPA) (pdf). In case you aren't familiar with baraminology, it's a Young Earth creationist imitation of systematics. Strange article. Very strange. Guettarda (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Crikey moses! Hesperian 05:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Wow. You learn something new every day. See also Baraminology at Conservapedia. ("Crikey moses"?) First Light (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I clicked on a link in the references, expecting a good gloat. To give them their due, it was quite a well-written and neutral explanation of the field, in fact better than our article. It made the point that there is a scientific angle that is independent of any religious assumptions. This consists of a family of phyletic tools and techniques that relax the assumption that all taxa share a common ancestor, and is properly called Discontinuity systematics. Baraminology takes that a step further by adding into the mix The Truth as Revealed in the Scriptures. Hesperian 10:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I'm talking about an article that our article references. I am not endorsing the Conservapedia article (which I haven't bothered to look at). Hesperian 00:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I understood that. What I didn't get was that there might be a scientific basis underpinning baraminology. Is 'discontinuity systematics' a valid approach, or a discarded one, or just a different perspective? First Light (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be going a bit too far to say there is "a scientific basis underpinning baraminology." Systematics doesn't proceed according to the scientific method: "form a hypothesis, figure out how to test it, conduct an experiment, draw conclusions, etc." It is essentially concerned with building models. You gather data on characters of the members of a set of plants. Then you apply a family of computation methods that will find the simplest evolutionary explanation for the various similarities and differences between those plants. If you have enough data, the simplest explanation ought to be a good approximation of the truth.
Implicit in these methods is the hypothesis that all plants share a common ancestor. If you abandon that hypothesis, your computational methods are no longer valid, and you have to go off and develop new methods. Discontinuity systematics is the name given to the development and application of methods that don't depend on that hypothesis for their validity. So there's two issues here (1) the abandonment of the hypothesis of common ancestry; and (2) the computational methods developed as a result. You can reject (1) as religious stupidity, yet still acknowledge (2) as mathematically sound. Hesperian 01:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. It sounds like at least a sincere attempt in that article, then. First Light (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
At one point I removed a use of that paper as a reference that one of the regulars had just added to an Asteraceae article. Lavateraguy (talk) 07:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, can anybody point me towards a few good examples of what a genus-level article should hope to look like? Not one that has some obvious economic importance, just a regular, small to moderately sized genus with no obvious economic or ecological importance. Guettarda (talk) 06:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

There appear to be no plant genus articles in the good articles and featured articles lists. I'd suggest Banksia, but that does need some grammar polishing. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Banksia is pretty heavily out of date too. Hesperian 13:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Myristica/Nutmeg

There a long list of orphaned Myristica species articles. Myristica redirects to Nutmeg. I'm not sure that this is the correct place to put a list of Myristica species. Any opinions? Lavateraguy (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that the article is reliable, then Myristica should be split away from Nutmeg. To me, the real question is whether M. fragrans should have its own article or not (since most nutmeg is M. fragrans). Having Myristica coincide with nutmeg is problematic. For example, the information on worldwide production and on psychoactivity probably apply to only one species, and almost certainly don't apply to the 90-some which aren't used as a source of nutmeg. So as it stands, I think the article is misleading. Guettarda (talk) 18:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I see that Myristica fragrans also redirectes to Nutmeg. This would be another product/plant example, but I see no pressing need to make the split. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Pilosella

Pilosella is a synonym of Hieracium, and Category:Pilosella contains nothing but redirects from names published under Pilosella to the corresponding Hieracium species articles. The redirects are of course worthwhile, but do we really want to categorise them like this? I was this close to unilaterally depopulating and deleting the category, but then I thought I ought to ask here first. Hesperian 00:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I notice that Category:Hieracium is also chock full of redirects published under Hieracium. I think if these are going to be categorised at all, then all the synonyms should be lumped together separate from the accepted species (i.e. categorised by the property of being a synonym, not categorised by the name under which they were published. Hesperian 00:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
This area is a mess (Hieracium), thankfully we are not likely to have to deal with the hundreds of species from Russia and Siberia. Hardyplants (talk) 05:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Pilosella aurantiaca is not a redirect. (It was in Category:Asteraceae, but I've moved it.)
Whether Pilosella is a synonym of Hieracium is disputed. See, for example, Cichorieae Portal. Lavateraguy (talk) 07:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
...which is why I believe it has just sat there for so long. These were a result of Carol Spears' work, right? Anyway, if the taxonomy is ever figured out, I'd suggest following the Jwinius model and create Category:Hieracium by taxonomic synonyms. Rkitko (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the concept but not the title. No doubt Jwinius meant "taxonomic synonyms" as more informative than "synonyms", but in fact it mis-scopes the category by excluding nomenclatural synonyms. Rkitko doesn't need this explained, but for those who do:
  • A synonym is a scientific name for a plant that is not the accepted name.
  • A taxonomic synonym is a synonym that arises when a botanist publishes a new species, but it is subsequently found that the specimen material on which the new species is based is referrable to a species that has already been published. That is, there are two distinct specimens, but both are currently referred to the same species. There remains the possibility that in future they might be considered distinct after all.
  • A nomenclatural synonym is a synonym that arises when a botanist changes the name of a species, for example by transferring it into a different genus. In such cases there are two names for the same specimen material, so these names are destined to remain synonymous for all eternity.
I'll bet my boots that Jwinius didn't mean to exclude the latter group.
Also I think "synonyms" is grammatically clumsy if not downright wrong. I prefer Category:Hieracium by synonymy.
Hesperian 22:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Jwinius is a zoologist. Zoologists call taxonomic synonyms "subjective synonyms" (and nomenclatural synonyms "objective synonyms"), so I doubt that the overly restrictive meaning occurred to him.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Ah, that explains that. Do we get to trout Rkitko for Category:Stylidium by taxonomic synonyms then? Hesperian 03:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
It does seem to contain both types. I was going to make a pun, but I couldn't find a Wikipedia article on trout that had synonyms in the taxobox.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Trout away! I was just following Jwinius' example, though the thought did cross my mind about nomenclatural synonyms. Should have thought more about it. It's getting a bit late for me to do anything about it tonight, but I'll alter it (and the categories for Utricularia and Drosera) to Hesperian's suggestion tomorrow. Rkitko (talk) 05:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandeae

Does this tribe of Orchidaceae still need an article? See here. I found it on Most wanted articles list as #98 showing 51 articles linking to it. Please advise. Thanks flower children! --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added a stub, but more material would not go amiss. Lavateraguy (talk) 07:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Arecoideae is also a missing article with a lot of incoming links; Higher Epidendroideae was at the top of the list with 137 incoming links, but they've disappeared, so I guess someone has been through and done something (changed to Epidendroideae?) with this. There are also several Orchid tribes lacking articles, but they're not showing up on the most wanted articles list. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Yep, that was me. I don't know what "Higher Epidendroideae" means, but I know it isn't a subfamily. Hesperian 13:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
It appears to be the old Vandoideae, which has been found to be nested in Epidendroideae, but while the term is all over the web, there's not much in the literature. See, for example, Cameron et al, A Phylogenetic Analysis of the Orchidaceae: Evidence from rbcL Nucleotide Sequences, American Journal of Botany 86(2): 208-224 (1999) Lavateraguy (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I will try to get some pics for Vandeae. Should I create Arecoideae? Please recommend a couple of stubs I can make where I can put together a bunch pics showing examples (like I did here with Vetigastropoda). I helps me learn where things go and how hierarchies work. Thanks!--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, is it okay for the infobox picture to be a few examples put together when the article is for a family, or subclass, etc., or is an image of a single flower the convention?--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Couple of IDs

Could anyone recommend a good and broad reference for these things? Noodle snacks (talk) 04:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The Reader's digest gardeners' encyclopedia of plants and flowers (Australian Edition) lists garden plants by size/type, season and colour and is extensively illustrated, although I think that particular edition is out of print. Melburnian (talk) 06:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
The second one looks like Feijoa sellowiana to my mind. Hesperian 04:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
(listed on Commons as Acca sellowiana) Hesperian 04:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Yep, that looks like it. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The fruit are medlars. Hesperian 06:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

... with a severe nutrient deficiency ... Imc (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The first picture is an 'Oriental hybrid lily', note the typically pendulous anthers and the nubby claw-like bumps on the throat of the flat flowers. Hardyplants (talk) 06:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The third one is Crassula arborescens something in Crassulaceae. Melburnian (talk) 06:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Melburnian (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The fourth one is a cultivar of Echeveria possibly 'Black Prince'. Melburnian (talk) 07:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

So who is our valiant leader? Guettarda (talk) 17:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
It's an interesting cultural question actually. I really couldn't imagine who would be the "leader" of a project like this one, or like ToL. Sure, there are lots of small projects that are basically driven by a single person or a small group. It makes me wonder about Wikipedia culture as a whole, and the idea of any sort of top-down structure. What's a "coordinators working group" supposed to do? Herd cats? Guettarda (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) We don't have one, and it works well as far as I am concerned. Calling us a cabal was about the most off target thing either of the trolls said. No two of us, as far as I can tell, would agree with each other about anything more than 30% of the time, and that's with plants, not off topic areas. Proposals that concern projects should simply be announced on project talk pages and interested editors can speak for WP:plants as far as I am concerned with the issue. --KP Botany (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
The cultural question really is interesting—I noticed that Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history has a lead coordinator, ten coordinators, a coordinator emeritus, five departments, several "task forces" and a "stress hotline". Different cultures, do you think? :-) First Light (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
If WikiProject structure reflects leadership structure, I may have to create WikiProject Hesperian, since I acknowledge no leader and accept no disciples. ;-)
But seriously, a number of people, including some from this project (e.g. KPBotany, me, Gnangarra), saw this as anathema to the Wikipedia culture, and went and kicked up a stink. As a result the group has been re-scoped to be about assessment, not leadership/coordination. I hope that this will also result in it being completely open, because if it remains an exclusive club, the stink will continue.
Assuming that it does end up being something worthwhile eventually, I guess the best WP:PLANTS person to participate is the person who has been most active in article assessment, which would, I believe, be Rkitko.
Hesperian 02:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I, too, thought of Rkitko. I have always deferred to him in article assessment, and will gladly continue to do so.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Damned if I'm going to do it. And certainly he works with the consensus of the limited few of the rest of us who ever assess plant articles. Plus he's easy to discuss issues with, if you disagree, he offers his side, you offer your side, an agreement is reached. --KP Botany (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll gladly join WikiProject Hesperian. Where do I sign up? I'm humbled, folks, and still skeptical of that working group. The intent seems well-placed; it would have been nice to get some advanced notice of some other large assessment changes, like the MetaBanner or the implementation of C-class, but I think we do OK on our own. I've been kind of busy myself and haven't had much time for assessment lately. Someday I'll clear the backlog... --Rkitko (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
That's quite an honor coming from us, come to think of it: we nominated you as most fit to represent us in a policy working group that's being nominated for deletion. --KP Botany (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If I had to pick someone to represent us on assessment, I'd Rkitko would probably be at the top of the list. But I oppose nominating a coordinator. Gnangarra made an important point - creating a hierarchical group to make decisions on our behalf isn't the way Wikipedia works (except for the arbcomm...which is not an institution I'm very fond of). I know that the interest of this project will be served by his participation in that group. But I think that if no one else does it, then we need to open the group to the community and delegate any and all Wikipedians to participate on our behalf. Guettarda (talk) 06:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I wasn't suggesting that Rkitko be our representative, but rather that, with an open group structure, I'd defer to him.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't see any advantage in electing/appointing a single representative as anything in our project. I suppose I see the advantage for certain larger projects (military history mentioned above, though I'm sure their content focus also informs how they structure themselves), but we don't need any of the drama associated with elections, coordinators, or representatives. I'll gladly put the work group on my watchlist and watch what happens over there, though. --Rkitko (talk) 14:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Agree with others here that there is no need for a hierarchy - many editors would add a helpful voice, particularly Rkitko with his assessment work. As an aside, my wry comment about the Military History project was made with bemusement rather than judgment. It's only natural that the organization of a project takes on some of the personality of its subject. First Light (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Bemusement? Judgment? I'd say it was wisdom.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes to the general, it would be nice if Rkitko could keep an eye on what's going on over yonder, and let us know anything he considers important for us to know. On another note, does the project need notified about articles in any way? Here's an automated article alert bot. I know we get some, but do we need others? WP:Article alerts --KP Botany (talk) 00:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused. Are you unaware of Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Article alerts, or saying it is inadequate? Hesperian 00:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm asking if the notice about the alerts that I saw (on my watchlist today) meant there was something new that we should add. --KP Botany (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a general remark on this coordinator thing, it was a poorly worded message which makes it seem we want the "project coordinators", but it's more like someone who would coordinate things from there to here, rather than from here to there. The thing is open to anyone and everyone, but we initial set it up as the coordinator's workgroup because most of us who tried to coordinate were project coordinators and we thought "gee, it would be fun if we could all meet somewhere and coordinate with each other". This was never suppose to be some close group for coordinators only, but rather an interproject coordination page. We really don't give a rats ass about whether people are "project coordinators" or not. I hope that clarifies things a bit.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants/Archive31&oldid=1252513345"