Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

→

Archive 50

Subspecies article names

A large number of articles on plant subspecies have names with the abbreviation "ssp.", for subspecies, in their names (Festuca rubra ssp. commutata) Is this correct? (It is not for animals). —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The rules are different for plants and animals. Guettarda (talk) 23:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually we generally use "subsp." rather than "ssp.", because the latter is so easily confused with "spp." Hesperian 23:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's covered under "Infrageneric and infraspecific taxa" in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora). Melburnian (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK. A good deal more don't have this, so I decided to ask here. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 00:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

What plant subspecies articles don't have "subsp." or "ssp." in their titles? Hesperian 00:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember: one was at DYK recently. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The example given, which was a redlink even though an article exists, shows that we should redirect from the ssp. format to the subsp. format for all subspecies articles and change all ssp. redlinks to subsp. as we come across them. I've now fixed the example subspecies.Melburnian (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Go for it! :-) Hesperian 00:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Guettarda (talk) 04:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Well done indeed! Hesperian 04:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Guettarda :) Melburnian (talk) 04:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Dioscorea alata

Dioscorea alata redirects to Ube. As this is a Filipino name, not an English one, do youall want to do some renaming here? (Is winged yam the usual English name?) Lavateraguy (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems that purple yam, violet yam and water yam are also redirects to the same page. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Think this is a perfect example of why we should use scientific names. Guettarda (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't know the plant or its products well, but yeah, I think I'd pick the scientific name over just assuming that "winged yam" is used anywhere outside botanical circles. Kingdon (talk) 18:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Calliandra surinamensis (Beautiful Stamen of Suriname)

Stub http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calliandra_surinamensis

I have developed an article on the talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Calliandra_surinamensis

I propose to replace the existing stub if there is no objection.

Any comments or corrections are welcome.Nnoddy (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Be bold. Hesperian 05:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Tree with bird in it

Can anybody here tell what tree this bird is in? File:Cape Sparrow in tree.jpg If it is an Acacia, especially an Acacia erioloba, it will be especially useful for the bird's article. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 21:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

171 Senecioneae photos uploaded

171 photographs of aster species in the tribe Senecioneae have been uploaded to Commons: commons:Category:Pieter_Pelser

They are all IDed to the species by a professional botanist. Please help add these photos to appropriate Wikipedia articles. Thanks. Kaldari (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

These were originally miscategorized as public domain, but Dr. Pelser generously agreed to license them for use. The few I've looked at are excellent.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

APGIII genera

Hello,
were can I find the genera of the APGIII families ?
In Kew Garden web site ? They say here that they follow APGIII (but on this page for APGIII they provide a link which does not correspond to APGIII but to APWebsite (which does not follow APGIII).
Cheers Liné1 (talk) 10:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

APWebsite would probably be your best bet. There's no single authority for plant taxa, and no single source covering all ranks. (APG I/II/III covers orders and families; APWebsite covers some taxa below the family level.) For any family of any size there will be no agreed set of genera. You can go to a recent revision or checklist, if one exists, but that is one group's opinion, and other botanists may disagree. (In the case of Malvaceae, I've concluded that if I want a list of genera I've got to produce it myself.) Lavateraguy (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, even if it is a sad one: APWebsite is hard to read and quickly changing. As I don't want to provided my own classification (with my loginName it might be dangerous ;-)) I will have to provide multiple source: let us say Kew+APWebsite.

Any comment on the genera lists in Kew Garden web site or ARS-GRIN ?

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Does the original APGIII paper go down to genera? I don't have access right now, but I will tomorrow. If you send me an email, I'll send you a copy of the paper. Hesperian 13:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No it stays at the clade-ordo-families level. For the top clade-ordo levels en:APG_III_system is already up-to-date, but for the complete list, you will have to go to fr:Classification APG III.

Promess, I will copy the families from fr:Classification APG III to en:APG_III_system.

Cheers Liné1 (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I upgraded en:APG_III_system with the family list. Cheers Liné1 (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Binomial nomenclature move discussion

There is an ongoing move discussion regarding the Binomial nomenclature article here. Since this article seems to be an important part of this project, your views regarding the suggested move would be valuable there. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sequoiadendron move discussion

There's a discussion about renaming Sequoiadendron: either moving it to Giant Sequoia or splitting it into an additional species article at Sequoiadendron giganteum. The discussion is at Talk:Sequoiadendron#Requested move. Please feel free to add to the discussion. —hike395 (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Naming convention overhaul

I have overhauled the flora naming convention. I believe you guys will find it largely unobjectionable. Explanation at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora)#Overhaul. I suggest that any further discussion happen over there, rather than here. Hesperian 01:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Quick article move

Hi, is there an admin who could please move Potamogeton illinoesis to Potamogeton illinoensis over the redirect to fix the spelling? Thanks! -IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Rkitko ^(talk) 17:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• thanks! IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 23:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I have got a similar question. Could an admin please move Triglochin maritimum to Triglochin maritima? Even though Linneaus described it as neuter, the gender is now feminine (see ICBN Vienna Code 2006, Art. 62.2b and Ex. 5). Thank you! -S.v.Mering (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2010 (UTC)