Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

Taxonomy problems

Could someone with taxonomic knowledge take a look at Caryophyllidae, Illiciales and Samydaceae and see if taxoboxes can be added to them? Thanks Smartse (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

We usually don't include taxoboxes on pages of obsolete taxa, e.g. Triuridales. They should not be marked as needing a taxobox. The idea was that a taxobox legitimizes the taxon, making the reader think it's currently accepted. That is, unless consensus has changed. Rkitko ^(talk) 22:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Rkitko, for what it's worth.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well. Taxoboxes are for taxa, not for other groupings, and we've selected APG (III) as the basis for our angiosperm classification. Adding a taxobox to a group not included as part of APG III would result in a mixed classification, both in the article itself and also in terms of what people would find when following any other links from said taxobox. That would confuse users more than it would help them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've hidden the templates on the two that still had them so hopefully people won't replace it again. Thanks for the speedy replies. Smartse (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Is Caryophyllales in eudicots?

I ask because lots of the Caryophyllales articles seem to have Magnoliopsida in the taxobox—Caryophyllineae is an example—but APG III system says they're in Core eudicots. If this is a mistake, I don't have time to deal with it right now, and anyway, a bot would be nice. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 00:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It just hasn't been updated yet. Magnoliopsida is from the Cronquist system and hasn't been fully purged from the taxoboxes in a wave of updating to APG III. Bots do a very poor job at making this change because there is inherent variability in how each taxobox parameter is applied in each article. A human eye is necessary at every step. User:Hesperian had been handling this and even clued me in on how but also cautioned me on several pitfalls here. I'll see what I can do with the Caryophyllales tonight. But just know that it's a work in progress across the project. :-) Rkitko ^(talk) 00:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 04:28, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

navbox templates for species and genera

Hi, folks. Just checking my sanity. I started a discussion (here) with User:Visik when I saw new templates being added to some of the articles on my watchlist. Was wondering what you all thought of their utility, usefulness, etc. Here are some examples:

• {{Rubus}}
• {{Ranunculaceae genera}}
• {{Clematis}}

And there are many more. Are they harmless? I was initially concerned because they appear to be generated from a single category, basically bringing the content from the genus or family category into a navbox at the bottom of every article in that category. They also omit redlinks, giving the reader the impression that twenty-or-so links in {{Clematis}} are all the species in the genus (a genus of about 300 species). My conversation with Visik seems to have stalled, so I thought I'd check with all of you. Any thoughts? --Rkitko ^(talk) 02:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's an unhelpful approach for a few reasons. One is mentioned, that many people seeing a single article will know "Clematis" as a taxonomic hierarchy, not a navigation scheme. At least some of them will think it's a complete list of Clematis species, so the navbox would at least need an explanation at the top ("Clematis: a genus of about 300 species with the following Wikipedia articles:"). Another reason: since it is such a hierarchical and organized scheme, there should be consistency across all genus and species articles. I can't imagine having a Salvia taxobox with 260+ (and growing) articles in it, for every stub article. It may be better to have a "List of x" link in every "See Also" section of a plant article - that way people can see the redlinks and a short explanation of the genus, which is typically included in those lists. First Light (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Right. The size of some genera make the nav templates unrealistic. I generally include the "List of x" link in the see also section, as well as the "Taxonomy of x" link, if I've made one. I argued that that takes care of the navigation concerns Visik had. The counter-argument was that readers would then have to click through to another page to reach other existing related articles and navboxes give related articles greater visibility. I'm not sure I buy that since that's how any page without a navbox operates. Do you think the templates can be reformatted to respond to our concerns, or are they more trouble than they're worth and should be taken to TfD? I should note that I have fewer concerns about navboxes that are complete and include other items (major publications, etc.) not included in the main category, e.g. {{Nepenthes}}. Visik apparently takes an eventualist view, arguing that the templates are incomplete and will be improve upon by others. I'm not sure I buy that, either. Rkitko ^(talk) 16:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the problems are obvious (mainly that it is yet another thing to try to keep up to date and another place to have to worry about differing classifications and the like). I had some of this same debate at Template talk:Eukaryota classification a while back (also inconclusive, at least as far as I'm concerned, although I will note that most of the high-level eukaryote navboxes do seem to be getting regular attention and are not just category dumps). I've more or less come to the conclusion that enough people like navboxes to make fighting them somewhat pointless (where "people" means writers at least, harder to say about readers). On a side point, italics for genera/species, I think you could just point him to WP:TOL; I don't really see why we need a navbox specific policy when longstanding policy has been to italicize them in general. Kingdon (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I still think they will be confused with comprehensive lists of species within a genus. If fighting them is indeed pointless, then I could probably be convinced not to !vote 'delete' in a TfD if: there were a qualifier after the genus name, such as what I mentioned above, "Clematis: a genus of approximately 300 species with the following Wikipedia articles"; and if the "List of species x" was the first link in the box, maybe in bold. And of course the species names should be italicized—most of the article titles have even been converted to italics by now. First Light (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

category Maloideae

Category Maloideae contains a number of genera which aren't part of the traditional Maloideae, and which aren't mentioned at Maloideae. As the lastest tendency is to eliminate Maloideae rather than expand it further, I am skeptical that this reflects recent work. Anyone know better? Lavateraguy (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Which ones? I assume you're not talking about Kageneckia, Lindleya, Vauquelinia, and Gillenia (which are discussed at Maloideae). That's the main issue I've run into regarding the circumscription of Maloideae (or the group formerly known as Maloideae, as the case may be). Kingdon (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Chamaebatiaria, Exochorda, Holodiscus, Neillia (and Neillieae), Stephanandra, Spiraeanthus (I might have missed some) Lavateraguy (talk) 07:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sida cordifolia

I'd never even heard of this before copyediting it. Way unbalanced - if anyone has any actualy botanical or ecological info to add that'd be helpful. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added a description, and moved/trimmed the medicinal usage. There is still a paragraph on its chemistry that needs a clear reference. First Light (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar discussion

There is a discussion going on regarding the creation of a plant/botany barnstar at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards#Plant-related barnstar. Participation is always welcome.
--Gyrobo (talk) 14:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

See the previous discussion on this topic for some other ideas and suggestions: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive37#Ugently required - a WikiProject Barnstar. Rkitko ^(talk) 14:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Rutaceae and Doronicum

Two completely separate questions.

1) I've been vaguely thinking of rewriting and expanding Rutaceae. The state of phylogeny of the family, though, leaves to be desired. Far as I can tell, its paraphyly with regard to Cneoraceae and Ptaeroxylaceae (and apparently Harrisonia) is known, but nobody has undertaken a review of morphological, anatomical and chemical data to determine the best way to deal with this (with subfamilies, or separate families, and if so, how to define them), as none of the three clades concerned (Rutaceae s.l., basal Rutaceae of Cneorum-Spathelia, and Rutaceae s.s.) have well-defined synapomorphies. Any ideas whether the upcoming Families and Genera of Vascular Plants, Vol. 10 (FGVA10; Sapindales, Cucurbitales, Myrtaceae) might be worth waiting for? If it's anything like FGVA8 (Asterales), which I've been using at Wikispecies for its literature lists, it looks worth it, though I'm not sure whether it'll attempt to solve the paraphyly issue (Takhtajan's latest update maintained all three families).

2) Speaking of FGVA8, it gives "circa 40 species" for Doronicum, but the most recent review (Alvarez Fernandez, 2003) cites 26 species, with only two having been described since. What's going on? Is this negative type information ("it's well known there are X undescribed species"), or has there been a significant realignment that sent a dozen more species in Doronicum? I'd rather have an idea before I dive in editing species:Doronicum (I've been working through species:Senecioneae)

Circéus (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Counts of species in the literature aren't always accurate. For example Althaea is widely stated to have ~12 species, but it only has 6 or so (and half of those are in the process of being transferred to Malva. (This error is in FGVA5.) I've never worked out where the 12 came from - perhaps at one time some but not all Alcea species were included in the count.

I can't speak for Doronicum, but would suspect that the Alvarez Fernandez paper should be trusted, particularly as it refers to a 1911 work that recognised 34 species (with 15 species subsequently described) - perhaps the 40 species refers to the situation before lumping and/or transfer of species to other genera.

Doronicum is said to be sister to the rest of Senecioneae, so it's unlikely that there are issues of genus delimitation. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess that makes sense. Thank you. Circéus (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Any comments re: the Rutaceae bit? Circéus (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Presumably you can look at APG III to determine whether to treat Rutaceae s.l. or Rutaceae s.s. I looked at Stevens' Angiosperm Phylogeny Website, and it doesn't help, except for providing some citations to the literature. I glanced at a few papers a couple of days back. It looks as if you would have to commit original research in synthesising a phylogeny/classification from the various papers. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I can find phylogenies relating Rutaceae to Cneoraceae and Ptaeroxylaceae just fine, and APG is currently the only system I've seen that formally treats these as Rutaceae (I have had more trouble finding a Sapindales families phylogeny), because of the aforementioned lack of investigation into the best solution. Circéus (talk) 15:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK query

I wrote up Abelmoschus ficulneus after some images caught my eye. It's in legal length for DYK, but I'm not an expert in the area so I want to ask, is the article OK? ResMar 03:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that your description of the distribution is incomplete. My notes have it present in Niger and northern Nigeria, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea and Somalia, and Tanzania, and Zambia. The extent of the native, as opposed to the naturalised, range is unclear. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Could I have the reference? ResMar 15:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I would have got at least some of that at Aluka. I haven't recorded specific details as to where I took the information from, but it would be worth checking the Flora of Somalia, Flora of Tropical East Africa and Flora Zambesiaca treatments there. See also the African Flowering Plants Database, which adds Mozambique to the mix. (The recent Mozambique checklist apparently doesn't have it; at least it's not in my notes of southern African distribution based on this and other sources.) Lavateraguy (talk) 16:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Can't we reference your notebook? :) ResMar 16:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Cultural and or literary references sections – precedent when cleaning up?

Several plants I keep an eye on eg. Plumeria tend to accumulate casual (usually unreferenced) contributions in literary and cultural sections. Some of these plumb the depths a bit. Citations of precedents on what to save and what to clean up welcomed – please no "throw it away if not referenced" responses. Trev M  ~  13:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I hesitated to reply because you said you didn't want advice that included "throw it away," but honestly that's the best option. It just keeps gathering unless you cut it down to size and keep an eye on it. I cleaned up the "cultural depictions" section of carnivorous plant a while back (diff) and this is how I did it:

1. Wholesale deletion of all unreferenced material that was non-notable in the context of the article. References to the dozen-or-so minor video games that had a single carnivorous plant or a scene with carnivorous plants had no place on that article. I even question whether it would be notable in the context of an article on that particular video game unless the plant was part of a plot point.
2. Evaluate the rest of the unreferenced bits. If it's notable within the context of the article's topic, then keep it and try to reference. If I can't find reliable sources, move it to the talk page until I can or someone else can. Another way to think of this is whether or not the bits of info are reciprocally important to the article topic, e.g. is it necessary to mention that Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital was used in an episode of House on the Greystone article or is it more appropriate to include that factoid in the article on that particular episode or series arc as a filming location/set/external shot? I'd say the latter most definitely.
3. Ref the rest, clean up the flow and make it a few paragraphs. I typically also leave a note commented out that the section is not meant to be abused per WP:TRIVIA and what Wikipedia is WP:NOT.

I hope that helps! Rkitko ^(talk) 23:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, Plumeria#Literary occurrences is really awful. The only way to write a section about the symbolic and/or cultural significance of a plant is to find sources that discuss the symbolic and/or cultural significance of a plant. They do exist; e.g. Stevenson, Karen (2008) The frangipani is dead refers to Plumeria as a symbol of the Pacific and Pacific art in particular, and discusses the signifance of its use as a motif in Pacific art, such as that of Fatu Feu'u. Replace that pointless list with a single cited sentence on Pacific art, and you'll have vastly improved the article. Hesperian 00:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Images of fruit in articles on flowers

Articles on many well-known flowers, such as peony, gladiolus, tulip, narcissus, dahlia, etc. don't contain images of ripe fruit. I think such images should be added into articles on flowers. If they are useless, then I really have no idea, what is "Wikipedian botany" about, in contrast to botany books I had read or looked through. Cmapm (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, so go ahead and add some, some are located in commons, others might need to be taken and uploaded. Hardyplants (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course there should be images of the fruits. Did someone claim to you they were "useless"? LadyofShalott 22:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

While you're at it, images of leaves would also be very helpful. First Light (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the proper pronunciation of M. champaca?

I apply to one of you (as experts) for advice: does anybody know what is the proper pronunciation of specific (also common) name of Michelia champaca? Is it [xaɱpaka] or [tʃaɱpaka]? Thanks for replying in advance! --Iaroslavvs (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If no one else here can help you, I've seen User:Kwamikagami be quite active in adding IPA pronunciations to plant articles in the past. He may be able to help. Rkitko ^(talk) 00:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the question is how the name is pronounced, not how to represent the pronunciation. Not that I can help with either... Guettarda (talk) 01:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, You are right. I want know how is the champaca pronounced (not in Latin, naturally, because I know this language and its rules: "ch" represents sound "x" and "c" means "k"; but I suppose Latin pronunciation isn't in everyday use). --Iaroslavvs (talk) 11:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Right, I realized that. Sorry for the confusion. I suggested contacting Kwamikagami to answer the how to pronounce question, since you obviously already know how to use IPA (where I haven't the foggiest). Kwamikagami seems to know how to pronounce latinized species names or may have references for that. Rkitko ^(talk) 12:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It is tʃaɱpaka; i.e. pretty much as the word champaca would be pronounced in English. See http://webapps.uni-koeln.de/tamil/ for a Sanskrit reference; you have to search for campaka, which is the spelling in the Harvard-Kyoto transliteration used on this dictionary. It would not be xaɱpaka since the velar fricative does not exist in Sanskrit or most Indian languages (the exceptions are Assamese, and it is possible in other languages for purists using words borrowed from Persian / Arabic et.c.). Imc (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...that's what you get for not clicking through and reading the article. I assumed it was a Mesoamerican species, based on the question. When it comes down to it though, people pronounce species names whichever way they learned, or feel most comfortable. Since they're latinised, species names should be pronounced as they would be in Latin. But would that be church Latin, or classical Latin? Guettarda (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You'd have to ask a botanist who's familiar with the plant. Typically people do try to retain native pronunciation to the extent that English will allow, so I assume that it's an English rather than a Latin ch, as Imc suggests, but that's only an assumption. And then there's the problem of where to place the stress. — kwami (talk) 00:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no "proper" pronunciation for any name that is universal, even within English. Species names (and any botanical or other taxonomic names for that matter) are pronounced according to whatever norms and conventions exist for New Latin in that country's botanical community. This is one reason that Wiktionary has not attempted to add pronunciations for any scientific names; such pronunciations vary by country, by language, by dialect, and by region. Even very commonly known names like Pinus have multiple pronunciations in English in the United States, albeit the Classical pronunciation can only be said with a straight face by the oldest and most hardcore botanists.

Also note that Classical Latin ch is /kʰ/, rather than /x/. See Latin spelling and pronunciation for more on Classical and Ecclesiastical pronunciation of Latin. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:44, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...If there's no reference for the pronunciation, why add it to the article?--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)