Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive54

Archive 50

←

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

→

Archive 60

Citrus macroptera

An editor insists on moving it to "hatkora", even though the alternative "shatkora" and the scientific name both seem to be as widely used. I've moved it back and requested consensus.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Curtis, can you resolve the discrepancy between GRIN and IPNI saying that the authority is Montrouz., (and a common name is Melanesian papeda) while USDA PLANTS cited on the Wikipedia page says the authority is Lour.? The native ranges seem to be the same, Pacific basin. This link cited by PLANTS also says Montrouz. (and has another common name for you: wild orange). My best guess is that USDA PLANTS is wrong. Nadiatalent (talk) 16:06, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Lour. is Loureiro, João de (1717-1791), who collected in Vietnam, Mozambique, and Portugal. Montrouz. is Montrouzier, Xavier (1820-1897), who collected in France; all this from IPNI. Agroforestry.net gives the authority as "Montrouzier". My general inclination is to always go with IPNI, but I'm puzzled by IPNI's statement of their geographic areas; C. macroptera is evidently native to Vietnam, but a glasshouse plant in France. And they collected a century apart.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

sine descr. lat.

Can someone tell me what this means please? I see it as a reason for a name being declared nom. illeg., nom. nud. or nom. provis. In general, where can one find the meaning of such terms?

I'm guessing "published without a Latin description/diagnosis", but I haven't found a reference just yet. Melburnian (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It's in Stearn's Botanical Latin: "sine descriptione latina" "without Latin description" [1] --Melburnian (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Remember that the requirement for Latin descriptions has exceptions, so it doesn't always signify a nomen nudum.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Hesperian 03:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What looks like peas?

I asked the question here when there were still leaves oon the trees. I never remember to ask anyone on the college campus where the trees may be located. Or even if it is someone else's land, they have professors who teach students to identify trees. But I can't remember to do it.

This time of year the fruit or whatever you want to call it is dark brown and just hanging there. The bark makes the trees look like the leg of a deceased person. Those are the only clues I can offer.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 20:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

No pictures? I would expect a lot of tree fruits to look small, round, and green. :P Obsidi♠n^Soul 21:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The suggestion of American linden (American lime) from the reference desk seems like a good bet, see if the photo at http://www.desert-tropicals.com/Plants/Tiliaceae/Tilia_americana.html looks like it. Your descriptions don't mean much to a botanist, with thousands of possibilities to consider. How tall are these trees? How wide is the trunk? Do you mean that the bark is smooth and multi-coloured, or does it have grooves in it? Which college is this? Are the trees growing in a wild area or could they have been planted by the college gardeners? Nadiatalent (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW for anyone who didn't check out the above discussion, or missed it, do note when the OP says 'looks like peas' he/she doesn't mean in pods Nil Einne (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

It's he. I'm not going to say what college so I won't identify where I am. The trees were planted in a pattern but they're on both sides of the road and I don't think it's college property on the other side. The trunk is the width of an athletic person's leg, very smooth, and colored like the person died. The fruit is hanging about as high up as I am tall, and above that. No pictures because I don't have a camera and don't want to go through the trouble.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll be back tomorrow at 18:00 (UTC).Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 22:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Deceased people can turn many different colors. True fact. -IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

People may be different colours before they are deceased. Another true fact. Imc (talk) 08:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The height of this "tree" would be very useful info, and is "hanging" meant to be an exact description? One of many possibilities is Crape Myrtle, Lagerstroemia, photo of dried "dark brown" small round fruit here but the fruit sit up, don't hang, and the plant is usually called a shrub. People do tend to plant them in rows in places with names like "myrtle beach". The reason for asking the name of the college is that some colleges post lists online of the trees on their grounds. Other pictures of mottled bark to consider for ideas about how to describe it more exactly would be at Crataegus spathulata, Arbutus Carpinus, Platanus. Nadiatalent (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll be back tomorrow at 21:00 (UTC) but I looked at the trunks again. Most have multiple trunks that are as big as arms. The trees have grown as high as the cable television lines. And the fruit can be seen as high as the top.

And the color of dead people (Caucasians, specifically) I referred to was that which TV shows that do it right did, with makeup.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 19:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Does sound like crepe myrtle (Lagerstroemia). Does the bark have an almost 'muscled' look to it? Guettarda (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes. The coloring looks like it would have blood vessels. Makes sense, since I saw the same fruit at Myrtle Beach, though that's not the species the beach is named after. I believe I do remember the flowers. Furthermore, one more detail is that the "fruit" looks like an artichoke right now, only brown and much, much smaller.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Like this? Melburnian (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Melburnian's photo is correct. Let me check the other links.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't draw any definite conclusions from the other photos, but I think we have our answer. I don't think the trees are on campus, though. The trees at Myrtle Beach might be them too, since people would likely plant Crape Myrtle, even though it's actually the Myrtle Bush they named the beach after.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 15:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

(amused at the cadaver reference) Does the bark look like this? Here are photos of an allée of Crepe myrtles. The bark will feel soft and at times, velvety. It reminds me of deer antlers during the velvet stage...perhaps a less macabre image.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Plant Identification (Philippines)

Hello, I went on a picture taking spree today, heh. I uploaded them all in wikicommons. I identified most of them, but need help in identifying the others (most of the unknowns are fungi). I've used some of them already in Wikipedia articles. If you have the time, please do drop by my WikiCommons Userpage and feel free to edit or leave comments on the page if you can identify any of them. They could be useful in filling in some articles lacking pictures. Most of these aren't exotic though so it shouldn't be that difficult. Thanks Obsidi♠n^Soul 03:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the last is Colchicum and have so labelled it. It clearly isn't Tulipa or Narcissus. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, Probably Colchicum. Same grass-like leaves. I tried to go back and take a shot of the flower structure itself, but the flowers were gone. T_T Probably eaten by a goat. LOL. One difference I noticed is that there is a swelling below the petals in these pics, in contrast to the smooth stalks of the Colchicum pics I've encountered. But then again, it was probably just beginning to fruit. Thanks Obsidi♠n^Soul 05:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

This is presumably item S4. Is that an ovary I see borne on the flower stem, just below the flower, and well above the ground? I did not think that any Colchicum would bear such. In addition, there seem to be nodes on the flower stem, which I think also indicate that it is something else. Also, would any Colchicum even flower in a tropical climate or are they bound to temperate seasons like tulips and many other bulbs? (I'm assuming that where these pictures were taken is in lowlands Philippines.) Imc (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I noticed too. It is an ovary. I think it bears small green fruits after flowering as well, though its main method of propagation is by bulbs I think. I think this is also not native here. But I'm not sure. They do seem to be struggling, heh. But they've been there for years now. Disappearing sometimes, but rejuvinating from underground bulbs when it gets rainy.EDIT: Nope, not the lowlands. Bukidnon, it's a plateau, pretty high up, but the climate's still pretty warm.Obsidi♠n^Soul 09:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Unknown A1-2 looks like a Solanum to me. The flowers of Unknown A1 are not those of a Solanum, but there it rather looks to me like you've shot the flowers of some herb tangled up in a Solanum. Hesperian 04:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Nope, the flowers are of the plant. They were the only large plants in that area and all of them had those flowers. Also note top right corner where you can clearly see a flower attached to the plant. It still is probably Solanum though... it's a big genus and that's an understatement, heh.Obsidi♠n^Soul 05:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I think its Melia azedarach [2] Melburnian (talk) 07:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep again. I didn't notice they were actually juvenile plants because the tree that was there before had died (probably the same tree which bore the seeds they were from). Now I remember, they were actually the same species. Thanks. :) Obsidi♠n^Soul 08:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, E1 looks like "Bufo" marinus. E3 and E4 makes me think Ginger lily (whatever that means) but I don't know non-banana Musa. E7 and E8 look like a Chamaesyce to me. If that doesn't occur in your area, think some sort of weedy decumbent Euphorb. FWIW, E7/8 looks like a Rubiaceae to me. I think H6 is a common weedy Compositae whose name escapes me. Thinking Rubiaceae on J1/ J2. S2 looks like a Jatropha to me, but that's just a guess. Agree B1 looks like an epiphytic fern. Guettarda (talk) 06:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

J4 appears to be Ochna serrulata Melburnian (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah! Perfect :D

E1 - Agree on the Cane toad Bufo marinus, IIRC it's invasive in Australia as well.

E3 and E4 - Agree, pretty sure it is Alpinia purpurata now.

E7 and E8, dunno either. It's tiny (note rice grain in E8). Not an ornamental, more like a weed. Noticed it throughout the island, common in loose sandy soil. It has what looks like tiny flowers at each leaf joint. Never mind though, it probably doesn't even have a wikipedia article, heh.

J1 and J2, yep, Rubiaceae. Again pretty sure it's Hamelia patens now.

H6 - Hmmm good call... probably ironweed Vernonia. V. cinerea to be exact, since that species is native here.

S2 - yep, it's Jatropha, can't tell what species though. Probably J. multifida.

J4 - yep. Ochna serrulata.

Anyway, thanks a lot! Will rename/move those and see what can be used for wiki articles. :) Obsidi♠n^Soul 07:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I've identified B1 and B1-2 as well. It is a fern. Pyrrosia sp. (Probably P. adnascens or P. piloselloides), commonly known as Tongue Fern or Dragon's Scales. Wikipedia doesn't have articles on them though. :( Obsidi♠n^Soul 14:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Your description of the habit of E7/E8 seems consistent with Chamaesyce. Any idea if is has milky sap? If you got a good look at the flowers (those tiny things along the stem, between the leaves) you could probably confirm whether it's a Euphorb. Guettarda (talk) 15:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh yeah, sorry. Chamaesyce redirected to Euphorbia and I am not very familair with it. The species there do not look superficially similar, heh. Google however, confirms that it is. It's apparently Euphorbia maculata, the Spotted Spurge/Creeping Spurge (syn.Euphorbia prostrata, Chamaesyce prostrata, Chamaesyce maculata) :) Obsidi♠n^Soul 21:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hm... Euphorbia maculata seem to have spots in the centers of their leaves. The plants in the pics don't. Is Euphorbia maculata and Euphorbia prostrata synonymous? Obsidi♠n^Soul 22:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

G7 and G8 might be Ixora? Imc (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Nope. It does look a lot like Ixora, but it's a small tree. The leaves are also thin with reddish/pinkish petioles/veins, and not waxy like those of Ixora. The red parts are also the sepals (?), the flower is actually white or pink, elongated, and very thin, extending from the center of the red 'petals'. You can see one opened in G7, the others are either still buds or have fallen off. I've also uploaded Ixora pics before, and there are plenty of them around here to compare, heh.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 09:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Carphalea kirondron [3] Melburnian (talk) 11:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoop! It is! :D And a pictureless article! Now I feel useful. ;D hehe. Thanks Obsidi♠n^Soul 11:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Z4 is a Peperomia. Oxalis maybe for X1. Agree X2 looks like a Solanaceae. I know X4, I know it like I know myself...but I'm drawing a blank. Guettarda (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

X1 has got to be in the Oxalidaceae, although I'm not familiar enough with the tropical genera to make a determination beyond that. It looks very like the genus Oxalis to me, but I've not seen a creeping species of that genus. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

X4 is probably another Euphorbia haha judging from the cyathia. And you're right. Z4 is Peperomia pellucida, another pictureless article :D. I think H5 is also Peperomia (Peperomia obtusifolia probably). And yep, you're both correct. It's apparently Oxalis repens. The Creeping wood sorrel, locally known as Taingang Daga, literally 'Mouse ears', though we've been calling them 'Clovers' since forever, haha. Guess that explains why species from the genus are called 'False Shamrocks'. Thanks again. Obsidi♠n^Soul 21:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, X5 looks like a Peperomia. I didn't take a closer look at it because it had a name. Good way to identify a Ficus is to look at the terminal bud - they have a characteristic sheath that covers the immature bud. Very distinctive once you learn to look for it. Guettarda (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

We have Ficus benjamina and Ficus elastica here somewhere. I'll go inspect them, heh. Obsidi♠n^Soul 22:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Ficus elastica should show it well; F. benjamina doesn't actually show it well. Guettarda (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

X2 is Mirabilis jalapa, though the tube might be a bit long for this species. It is not in Solanaceae. Imc (talk) 22:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah thanks. :) Obsidi♠n^Soul 22:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

D5 reminds me of Phytolacca; I'd wager that Y1 is in the Phytolaccaceae as well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Awesome. :) It's the closely related Rivina humilis. Y1 is probably even the same species. Will have to check again. Thanks Obsidi♠n^Soul 23:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

How to split taxa

I've started a discussion on a rather problematic article-split situation at Template talk:Automatic taxobox/Archive 8#Hornworts. Please provide suggestions/opinions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Scrophulariaceae/Verbascum question

I was re-reading Verbascum thapsus and noticed something: although the article (and the online ref) firmly attribute five stamens to it, our flower picture seems pretty clearly to be that of a didynamous flower. It's not impossible that the fifth anther is simply hard to see (as in some pictures here), but I'd appreciate a sanity check. There is some variation regarding the presence and fertility of stamen other than the didynamous ones in Scrophulariaceae (including within Verbascum), how likely is it that we have a didynamous specimen? Or should I merely put in a note that the fifth stamen is not visible in that particular picture? Circéus (talk) 08:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting. The images at the site you linked to have text about the "five orange stamens", yet I count four in most pictures. The Flora of Texas says there are five and has no pictures; the Flora of the Carolinas says five and has uninformative pictures; the old Flora of Missouri says 5 in the keys but the accompanying image seems to show four; the Jepson Manual (Calif.) says 5 and has a flower illustration with three above and two below the pistil. I wonder if this is a common phenomenon in the species and (if so) whether it's been published. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Look at these two pics, which DO have a fifth stamen, just not very visible. In the first the anthers overlap partly, and the middle filament is hidden by the hair; in the second image, the anther is definitely there, just obscured by hair again. Circéus (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Minor ranks on species articles in Fabaceae, Orchidaceae, and Poaceae

I've been running through the Fabales updating taxobox classifications to APG III and EncycloPetey noticed me cutting out subfamilies, tribes, and subtribes from species articles. We both think it would be a good idea to get clear consensus on inclusion or exclusion of these minor ranks on species articles for these three families (and any others) where subfamilial classification is more important. So what do you all think?

To clarify my rationale for removal on species articles, I was following WP:TX's advice on minor ranks and thought that subfamily, tribe, and subtribe are more relevant to the genus articles (which I left intact) than each species. I could be comfortable with either approach, but the taxoboxes do get quite large with these ranks included. I would probably prefer it if we let taxoboxes for species only get larger for subgeneric ranks. But I do recognize that subfamilies, tribes, and subtribes are more important to these species than these ranks would be in most other angiosperm families.

So, any thoughts? Rkitko ^(talk) 03:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think WP:TX says it should be a case to case basis. To quote:

Taxoboxes should include all major ranks above the taxon described in the article, plus minor ranks that are important to understanding the classification of the taxon described in the article, or which are discussed in the article. Other minor ranks should be omitted.

For example, in the taxobox for the genus Formica, it's appropriate to include entries for tribe and subfamily, since those are an aid to understanding how Formica relates to other genera in the family Formicidae. But it wouldn't be appropriate to include the superorder Endopterygota, since all genera of ants are in that superorder; it isn't particularly interesting at this level.

Another example is the subfamily Bambusoideae, the bamboos. This subfamily probably should be mentioned in the taxobox of every bamboo species, since it is a major grouping in this context, despite its minor rank.

I dunno much about Fabales though (or most plants for that matter, haha), so I don't know if the subfamily, tribe, and subtribe ranks of those species are actually important enough to be mentioned. If they are important in distinguishing them from other members of the family, I think they should be retained.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 04:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

If we speak specific family groups, I remain unconvinced that the entire infrafamilial classification (especially where the lower levels might still be in significant flux) is necessary. So I'll ask, in the three concerned case, would keeping only subfamilies rather than both them and tribes be sufficiently "more useful" than family alone? That is, can we do this without having to go down to subtribe? Circéus (talk) 04:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Keeping subfamily but omitting tribe and subtribe on species articles might be a good solution. Since this information is much more relevant to a genus than each species, I see these ranks and clutter in the taxobox. I haven't come across this yet, but imagine a taxobox with subfamily, tribe, subtribe, genus, subgenus, section, and then species. It would be huge! Rkitko ^(talk) 16:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

My opinion: generally omit. But retain some very important minor rank taxa, such as Bambuseae and perhaps Epidendroideae. Hesperian 06:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The subfamilies in Fabaceae have in the past (and in some Floras) been recognized at family rank. The subfamilies and tribes of the Asteraceae are regularly included in treatments of that family because of the enormous size and diversity of the family, and they are used in keys and Floras. I find them often helpful when working with identification. In orchids, tribes are used often, but the subfamily level isn't particularly informative because nearly all the orchids belong to two subfamilies. I've not spent much time identifying grasses (at least not successfully), and their classification has changed so much since I first learned them that I don't know enough to comment myself.

I think it would make sense to be consistent within whichever families have this information, for the sake and sanity of the users and editors. That is, if we think the Bambusoideae should be included, then it makes sense to have the subfamily listed for all pages of grasses. Note: the Arecaceae (palms) and Asteraceae (composites) are the two families I can think of that are not mentioned in the section header yet potentially need subfamilial classification included on genus and species pages. I should have thought of these earlier. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

In the Fabaceae, subfamilies are used extensively by researchers. Of the three subfamilies, tribes appear to be used often in the Faboideae, but not the other two. To exclude the subfamilies, to make the articles conform, will exclude major information that users should be able to get at a glance. Organisms and their taxonomies have not been dealt out in a neat and tidy manner, and I hope that wikipedia offers their readers what is used for each group of organisms. A basic piece of information about a species of Fabaceae is the subfamily it belongs to. --Kleopatra (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any thoughts on tribe and subtribe being included on species articles? Note that these ranks would still be present on the genus articles. Rkitko ^(talk) 16:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It depends upon the family and the species. I would include tribes for Faboideae, but not for the other Fabaceae subfamilies. Many plant families have the intermediate "ranks," but they are seldom to never used in the literature. My inclination is to assist the reader by including only the most important information in the taxobox, information that clarifies and explains without adding too much. A general reader may encounter a source in print or on-line that discusses a Fabaceae species and includes its subfamily. This article may mention the tribe, if it is about a Faboideae species. Still, there is plenty of room in the article for other-than-basic information. I don't know enough about how subtribes are used in plant families to say much more. --Kleopatra (talk) 05:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

(undent) I think we forget a few things:

1. We write a global wikipedia, not a specialist encyclopedia. Most specialists won't look at species article looking to know which subfamily they are members of (unlike in scientific article, where that context can be important as it's the only one thee is).
2. Subfamily actually do not provide that much "major information that users should be able to get". Only a very limited fraction of users really "need" that information, and the information provided is in fact only contextual, not definitional as far as wikipedia writing is concerned.

What I try to say is that Wikipedia is not the Jepson manual: species aren't subarticles of genus or family articles, so information doesn't "trickle down" (not does it necessarily have to either, in this case). The "at a glance" information is limited to a ridiculously small portion of the actual users, which would/should logically not look for it in a Wikipedia article anyway. Remember most users can barely tell what the membership in the Genus actually implies! Heck, I'm far more knowledgeable than the average users, and 3/4 of the time, I can't tell what the family placement implies, much less the order. The specialist users should know or expect where to find that information, not to mention that the at-a-glance stuff should be included in the species article anyway. Circéus (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Circeus, except that there are exceptions like the bamboos—a tribe—that defy both Circeus' points. These few exceptions aside, Circeus has stated my position exactly. Hesperian 06:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Even with the bamboos I wouldn't expect it to be so important that the subfamily be mentioned specifically in the infobox. Saying so in the opening sentence is equally as efficient IMHO. Circéus (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

So, if all this is the case, why do we have a taxobox at all? If the article is for a general public, then what information will the order and family provide (to someone who is a non-specialist) that is more useful that the subfamily? Why not eliminate the taxoboxes altogether? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

• sigh* Because basic taxonomic information remains an important element for these type of articles, so as far as balance between two extreme goes, the general status quo, seems to generally provides good enough data for species article. If one is looking specifically as a species article in Wikipedia, then they probably don't actually require (if specialist) or aren't really able to use (if non-specialists) what limited "instant information" putting those ranks would provide for understanding the article. Does that make sense? Circéus (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm one of the few remaining Wikipedians who still endorses Utgard Loki's famous anti-Infobox manifesto: Infoboxes are indeed reductive PowerPoint bullet point summary counter-articles of no use to anyone who is willing to actually read the article text. But, having accepted that they are here to stay, and that they function as a summary, they might just as well be as effective as possible. I ask you, if I were to pick at random one of our bamboo species articles, and challenge you to summarise it in a single word, what would that word be? A very general word like plant or grass would communicate an extremely general and therefore vague concept to the vast majority of people. A overly specific word like Phyllostachys will communicate something much more specific and therefore informative, but only to the small proportion of people who know what that word means. What you want is a word that is both specific and widely understood, and I put it to you that you would do no better than the word bamboo. This, to me, is a compelling argument for including tribe Bambuseae in the taxobox of all bamboo species articles. Hesperian 02:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Circeus: Obviously I'm not against taxoboxes, but I was hoping to draw out a clearer rationale. You've partially addressed the question in that the taxonomic information acts as a summary. However, you've referred in your reply to "basic taxonomic information". Which taxonomic information is that? Why are taxa "major" ranks more basic than "minor" ranks? The only real difference between ranks is historical chance and precedent of publication. I was hoping that your reply would explain why a taxobox should include some information but not others and why the arbitrary distinction in "major" and "minor" ranks amtters in this case.

A rank regarded as "minor" can be just as important as information as a "major" rank in some situations. Knowing that a plant blongs to the Eupatorieae can be just as important as knowing it is in the Asterales, and may even be more so under particular circumstances. Regarding your earlier comment "Saying so in the opening sentence is equally as efficient": I strongly disagree. That argument could be made for any taxonomic rank, but in practice we do not list all the more inclusive taxonomic ranks in the opening sentence of any species articles. The taxobox organizes that information much more efficiently and intelligibly than the opening sentence could. It also provides quick navigation to strongly-related taxonomic articles. When the same information is put into the article, it is not as easy to see which taxon is more inclusive than another, so the taxobox actually exceeds the capacity of prose to quickly summarize the taxonomic information. As a navigation tool, it is therefore very useful to have key subfamilies and tribes listed for members of large families where those subtaxa and minor ranks are used regularly in the literature.

Whether specialist or non-specialist, the higher-ranked taxa can and do provide useful information for understanding included taxa. The question is, for the larger families where the subfamilial ranks are regularly used, why not consider using them? All "instant information" is limited, but I personally find such links invaluable in some situations, especially as our taxonomic understanding of relationships is dynamic and currently undergoing significant change all the time. If I spot a taxon that is not placed in the larger taxon I expected it to be included within, then I follow the link to looks for information about current delimitation of that group. This is information that usually is not placed on individual species pages, but is placed on pages of higher rank. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Daphne odora

I have just been looking back at recent revisions to Daphne odora, and noticed that the classifications in the taxobox suddenly changed simultaneously with my first edit of the article earlier this month, despite the fact that I definitely didn't alter the taxobox as part of my edit. Does anyone know how/why this could have happened, and which classifications are the correct ones? (I am a horticulturist and not a botanist)PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems most likely that you edited an older version of the page. I fixed the taxobox. Melburnian (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, that seems most likely - despite my always being careful. Beginner's error I think. I've reinstalled some of the other text that I didn't mean to wipe. Thanks again. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Not a palm tree

Hi Folks, I've been taking a look at the article Flora and fauna of Cornwall and cleaning it up a bit. This image, which is in the lede, is described as showing palm trees. I certainly believe these are not palm trees, but what are they? Anyone know? Are they Yuccas of some sort? Many thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

While Palm trees are not (to the best of my knowledge) native to Cornwall, it is correct to say that the area (the Scillies in particular) is known for a mild enough climate that palm tree can be grown there. Circéus (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Aren't they Cordyline australis, aka Cornish palms? --Kleopatra (talk) 05:48, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

They are Cordyline australis which is widely grown not just in Cornwall but most of southern England. Imc (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, the plants in the image are Cordyline australis, which, as Kleopatra notes, are often called 'Cornish palms', although botanically they are not. I have amended the caption. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much, plant people! I appreciate your taking the time to sort this out. Invertzoo (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Pea bean

I can't find a reference for this species, Phaseolus aegypticus. IPNI doesn't have an entry for it, nor any spelling variants. It also doesn't get many google hits. Is this article really just referring to Phaseolus vulgaris? Rkitko ^(talk) 21:33, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I can't find a reference for Phaseolus aegypticus as a published name either. The article seems to be referring to a cultivated variety, though I can't find any reliable sources that verify the information in the article's source. Melburnian (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I should qualify "published" as a published name of 1 May 1753 or later per the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature. Melburnian (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Gerard's Herbal does refer to Phaseolus aegyptiacus, as the 'party coloured kidney bean of Egypt', see [4]. This plant is illustrated, and is probably Lablab purpureus which has 'Egyptian bean' listed as a common name in Wikipedia. Note the comments on the confusion between the names Dolichos and Phaseolus in nearby pages of the Herbal. The plant referred to in the pea bean article's reference is probably a Phaseolus and not Lablab. The confusion may be because of the similarity of the seed's colour and shape, e.g. as shown at [5]. Imc (talk) 10:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This UK site [6] sells both "pea beans" and "lablab beans" which suggests that they are different in the usage of UK seed merchants. The description of "pea beans" (half white, half maroon) fits this RHS reference [7], which compares them to borlotti beans, a cultivar of Phaseolus vulgaris. So there is reasonable, but not definitive, evidence that "pea bean" is a cultivar of P. vulgaris. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Digging around a bit more, the photo at [8] looks to me exactly like the image at File:Painted_Pony_Bean.JPG used in the Phaseolus vulgaris article. I suspect these are the same cultivar. However, this is OR! Peter coxhead (talk) 11:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Searching "pea bean" on Google Scholar seems to link it to P. vulgaris: [9], [10], [11]. Of course, that doesn't account for P. aegypticus. But that name appears in a 1597 herbal (pre Linnaeus), so is it possible that it was never a scientific name at all, merely a 'Latin' one? Thomas Kluyver (talk) 14:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

What does seem clear is the article Pea bean should not be in Wikipedia. There's no source to support it as a separate species. It's most likely just a cultivar of P. vulgaris and if there is a good referenced source it should be mentioned in that article. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Imc (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I've proposed it for deletion. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Vernalization

I stumbled across vernalization, which had just one reference and a lot of ranting about Lysenkoism, and it is now much better than that, but I would be grateful for a bit of help. If anyone(s) can help expand it to x5 from what it was (or arguably, to x5 what it was with the Lysenko rant removed) we would be eligible for DYK for it. It is a very interesting topic too. Sharktopus^talk 21:19, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC

There's an RfC on a requested change to the way Appendix 1 conservation status in the CITES system is displayed in taxoboxes. Please stop by if you have any opinions on the subject. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Quercus vaccinifolia

According to PLANTS, CalFlora, and Jepson, Quercus vaccinifolia is spelled vacciniifolia, although this may be recent. I adjusted the article content, but I don't know how to adjust the article name, which also appears to control the TaxoBox. Any help, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.111.110.55 (talk) 06:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Browsing GRIN and Flora of North America there seems to be variation in which spelling people use. It might take more taxonomic knowledge than I have to know which spelling is best, but the important thing is to list both of them in a case like this (which you have done). Kingdon (talk) 07:07, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

IPNI has both spellings. By my understanding of the ICBN and Botanical Latin, vaccinifolia is an orthographic error, which should be corrected to vacciniifolia Kellogg, Proc. Calif. Acad. 1: 96 (1857) used the vaccinifolia spelling, so we have the tension between strict priority and the ICBN. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC).

This is correct; the epithet means "Vaccinium leaf", so it is properly vaciniifolia.

I've renamed the article (move is now hidden under the star next to view history). Lavateraguy (talk) 08:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone already did it, but one way to handle this is to create a "redirect". Copy the content to a new article with the correct spelling, Quercus vacciniifolia. Then put #RedirectQuercus vacciniifolia in the article for Quercus vaccinifolia. HkFnsNGA (talk) 07:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I would think that it is preferable to use the article move feature (hidden under the star next to view history) (which automatically produces a redirect, and also maintains the edit history) Lavateraguy (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, the page move was the correct way to do it. Cut and paste moves cause problems with the page history. See here. Melburnian (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

If there are two spellings in use, a redirect is best to have, otherwise a page move is best? Does a page move generate a redirect? HkFnsNGA (talk) 08:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, with a page move the default action is to "leave a redirect behind", unless you uncheck this in the page move dialogue box. Melburnian (talk) 09:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Category: Prehistoric plants

Part of the category hierarchy runs: Plants by conservation status > Extinct plants > Prehistoric plants. This is clearly wrong. Based on its parents, "Extinct plants" is clearly meant for plants which have become extinct in historic times; "Prehistoric plants" should not be a subcategory of this. "Prehistoric plants" should be directly below "Plants", I think. Comments please. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Especially since it's under the parent category of Plants by conservation status. I'm not really sure Prehistoric plants should even be under that since 'conservation' would not be applicable to them by default.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 22:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems appropriate to me. To begin with, "prehistoric plants" are a subcat of "extinct plants", so they are appropriately segregated from recent extinctions. If they were mixed in among recent extinctions it might be more confusing, but as is, it seems fine. As for the parent cat - that's not a problem at all. Categories aren't meant to be strictly hierarchical. And I'm not sure that "conservation status" is really a problem. Anyway, the same system is used for animals, so I'd suggest moving the discussion to the Tree of Life WikiProject, since this affects more than just us. Guettarda (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's not how I read Wikipedia:Categories. Categories are supposed to consist of "overlapping trees". Each tree will be a hierarchy, but the system as a whole isn't "strictly hierarchical" because subcats can have more than one parent. But if you follow any specific branch, then you should surely get a hierarchy. "Prehistoric plants" are not a subcat of "Plants by conservation status". I can move this discussion to the Tree of Life WikiProject, but my experience is that fewer people respond there, so I'd like to see what "plant" people think first. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:00, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

That's what is intended, and is how I read Wikipedia:Categories. You can't presume that any invididual path will always make strict sense. Consider that Category:Flora of Sweden is (by perfectly logical steps) a sub-sub-(etc)-category of Category:Plate tectonics because Category:Europe is in Category:Continents, which in turn is in Category:Plate tectonics. I'd say that the current situation is far less strange-sounding. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, good example. I see now that once you have overlapping trees, then there will be branches that don't make sense as "classifications" rather than merely "chains of categories". It would be helpful to newer editors, like me, if this were more clearly stated at Wikipedia:Categories. For people from a mathematical background, the introduction to this article makes it sound more precise than it actually is. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Venus Flytrap

Does anyone agree it might be worth changing the distribution map for Venus Flytrap to one that's on a larger scale? Because it has such a small native range, it's actually pretty difficult on the existing map to make out where it is - readers who don't already know the range might have to read the text before they can find it on the map, which seems to reduce the usefulness of the map as a visual tool. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. And if I had the foggiest idea how to edit vector images, I would crop it right now. A few folks around here are capable of doing so; maybe one of them will be kind enough to fix it. Rkitko ^(talk) 01:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I might have a go myself if no-one else does it first. I've downloaded the relevant software - just have to work out how to use it! PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been able to access the downloaded software after installing it - don't know why. Looks like the map will have to stay as it is for now, unless anyone else takes it up..... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Mung Bean copyvio

Someone tagged the Mung bean article as a copyvio recently. Apparently for the text used in the Uses section. Can anyone ascertain if it is indeed a copyvio? It seems more like the site copied text from Wikipedia rather than the other way around as the text in question has existed since at least 2006 while the external site's text seemed to have been last edited 2010.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 08:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like it's the case; please put Template:Backwardscopy on the talk page. Cheers [CharlieEchoTango] 09:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Desert and dry climate plants joint taskforce?

Is there a WikiProject Desert and dry climate plants, or one for deserts and chaparral? If not, is anyone interested in starting one? HkFnsNGA (talk) 09:46, 29 January 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia:WikiProject Deserts should be linked up to it. HkFnsNGA (talk) 09:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like it might be a good joint taskforce between that WikiProject and this one. Guettarda (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

How does one start a joint taskforce? PPdd (talk) 17:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Information about plant quarantines

Per a topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wine#Grape questions (related to a FAC), I was wondering if anyone knew of a good article that discusses quarantine standards in regards to propagation and distribution restrictions. There is a stub, Plant quarantine, that I just flagged as being part of your project, but I was wondering if you guys knew of something better. This is for the Thomcord FAC. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You might want to ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Agriculture. HkFnsNGA (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Also WP:WikiProject Law and WP:WikiProject International Relations. HkFnsNGA (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)