Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive56

Archive 50

←

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

→

Archive 60

Dryopteris affinis (scaly male fern)

I believe there is an error on this page. The right margin has a summary of the fern's details, ending with a reference to the person involved in the original identification & naming. The person should be (according to my fern reference, The Fern Guide, by James Merryweather), E J Lowe, the famous Victorian botanist, and NOT the Richard Thomas Lowe cited in the article link. 81.131.38.250 (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't find anything to confirm it either way, but it does seem more likely that it was Edward Joseph Lowe rather than Richard Thomas Lowe as you suggest, but looking at those articles it says that the second Lowe has the abbreviation Lowe and that the first has the abbreviation E J Lowe. I found a few online sources using E J Lowe as the authority but most just use Lowe. SmartSE (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

All the reliable sources I can find online so far give the authority as "(Lowe) Fraser-Jenkins". Then IPNI gives "Lowe" as the standard abbreviation for "Richard Thomas Lowe". The standard abbreviation for "E J Lowe" is given as "E.J.Lowe". I note that Stace's New Flora of the British Isles (3rd edition) also has "(Lowe) Fraser-Jenk." for Dryopteris affinis, BUT has "E.J. Lowe" for some Asplenium hybrids, showing that he distinguishes the two. So, on the face of it, the Lowe of D. affinis is not E.J. Lowe. However, I've found lots of inconsistencies in the past in the use of standard abbreviations, and authors just copy from one another, so we really need to access the original source. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

JSTOR 3995903 may help and there are a lot of mentions at the biodiversity heritage library, but looking at those ended up leaving me more confused! SmartSE (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I found the article you linked to, but it's not a journal I can access through my institution. The answer is probably in the Fraser-Jenkins article which transfers the species to Dryopteris; it's in the Fern Gazette 12(1) (1979), I think, but it doesn't seem to be online. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Nephrodium affine was published in 1838 (and as a nomen nudum in 1834). The only Lowe in IPNI author database active in that time frame is Richard Thomas Lowe; in particular E.G. Lowe can be excluded as being born in 1825. The 1838 document might be difficult to find, but the 1834 document is online, and the citation represents an article by the Rev. R.T. Lowe, M.A. However there he uses the name Aspidium affine.

Some 19th century authors ascribe the combination Drypteris affinis to Newman. I guess that this doesn't count, because although he gave the name, he treated it as a variety of Dryopteris filix-mas. I have yet to identify why C. Presl's Polystichum affine of 1836 isn't the basionym, but I haven't yet even confirmed that it is the same species. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Presl's Polystichum affine is based on Wallich's Aspidium affine of 1828. Blume also published the combination in that year. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the people who treat Dryopteris affinis as an aggregate of several species (6 in total, but I've only seen relevant details for the 3 species reasonably common in Britain). Under this system D. borreri is not a synonym. I'd have to check to which of three taxa D. pseudomas should be assigned. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

So it's clear that the article has the right Lowe and that the very few sources who have E.G. Lowe are wrong. But it's still not clear (to me anyway) why Lowe is the authority for the basionym. It seems a tangled taxonomic chain!

It seems that Blume's Aspidium affine (1828) refers to a different plant, and that regardless of the identity of Wallich's Aspidium affine (1828), this is a nomem nudum, which would make Polystichum affine (Wall.) C.Presl (1836) also illegitimate, as Presl didn't provide a validating description. That leaves Nephrodium affine Lowe (1838) as the first man standing. Lavateraguy (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Btw, R.T. Lowe has a very odd credit in IPNI: he seems to have published Hedera helix Lowe notwithstanding the existence of Linneaus' Hedera helix. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I can't find the cited work, but I'd guess that this would be Hedera helix sensu Lowe, which perhaps is Helix maderensis. Wikispecies agrees with that guess. Lavateraguy (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Preliminary discussion on jstor usage

A while ago, discussion on integrating a jstor= parameter in {{cite journal}} lead to the very odd choice of making that parameter create a direct link to the article (whereas every single other identifier is appended at the end). Bots have now been going around to put in dois based on these urls. There are numerous issues issue with edits such as this, not the least of which that the bot fails to apply the {{subscription}} which these links would require. Since we make a fairly common use of such links at WP:PLANTS, I wanted to gather some opinions before I launched a discussion at the template's talk page. Circéus (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There's more than one issue here, I think.

• I can't see any possible reason for treating identifiers based on jstor, pmid, doi, etc. differently.
• The 'flag' set by {{subscription}} seems to be used very rarely. It's also not quite clear when/how to use it: sometimes there's enough information to reference a particular point in the abstract; some sources are free in certain countries, especially if accessed from a public library, but not in others; it doesn't tell me what I personally need to know, namely whether my institution's subscriptions cover this journal or not.
• I've never actually understood why multiple digital identifiers are needed; I have to confess that when I prepare a citation manually, which I usually do, if there's a doi I ignore all the others. Why do we need more than the doi if it exists? (Consider books: if there's an ibsn, then we don't supply the oclc number.) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Use of identifiers is a big mess, and I have actually been reverted for removing OCLC of books with ISBNs (I blame inexistent guidelines on what to include: most people thus assume you must include as much stuff as possible).

• If a direct link is given and it is not a free and open access to the article, it's a {{subscription}}, simple enough (unfortunately there are enough online journals with no IDs to make it relevant. Zootaxa and post-2006 Taxon come to mind).
• Generally speaking, different identifiers give access to different resources. Personally the key aspect of {{subscription}}

Circéus (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Amborella

There is a long-standing open discussion about merging the pages on the genus Amborella and the family Amborellaceae. The genus (and family) includes a single species. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

According to our Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) (Ranks) -"when a taxon contains only a single member, both taxon and member are usually treated in a single article" and "If a family contains only one genus, the article is still named after the genus, as, generally speaking, genus names are more familiar and receive more usage than family names" Melburnian (talk) 04:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion should occur on the linked talk page, as the discussion there is divided. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Classification to be used for embryophytes: problems and possible solution

As has been pointed out here before, there are problems in constructing taxoboxes for early land plants, because as of March 2011 there is no published Linnean classification for the embryophytes which is consistent with the latest research and covers both extinct and extant plants. I've reviewed the problem and proposed a possible solution at User:Peter_coxhead/Embryophyte_classification (it's rather too long to put here and has references). Sorry for the length, but it's a tricky issue. Comments (I suggest here) please! Peter coxhead (talk) 11:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

If one leaves angiosperms as a division one can just about squeeze in ranks between angiosperms and the (broadly defined by traditional standards) APG orders. By the time you've pushed angiosperms to a subclass it's very cramped. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that we can live with different systems, in fact I think it's impossible not to do so. This has been a problem for a long time and I don't see a resolution coming soon. Perhaps the easy answer is to add a |classification_system= to the taxobox code. This would also possibly prevent people from reverting updates to the APG III system, which I've encountered a couple times. I think you're right in saying the system you've cobbled together is WP:SYNTH; I don't think we can use that. But I also don't think there's any viable alternative, though I think stating which system we're using in the taxobox would go a long way to putting everything in context. Rkitko ^(talk) 14:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I very much like your idea of adding a display of the classification system in use to the taxobox code. I'll be interested to see if Martin and Bob think it can be done.Peter coxhead (talk) 23:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

If memory serves, the problem the last time this was discussed is that a taxobox almost always includes more than one classification system (for example, one for arranging eukaryotes into kingdoms, another one to classify from Plantae to angiosperms, APG to get you from angiosperms to a family, and then more specialized work(s) to deal with classification within a family). One thing which is somewhat widely done is to footnote each taxobox entry which might be an issue (for example, to a work which classifies it as shown in the taxobox). There might be some other solution which I haven't seen yet. Kingdon (talk) 02:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that your comment means that the taxoboxes display WP:Synth – more than one classification system is combined in ways not attributable to sources. So why not go the whole hog and devise our own consistent SYNTH classification? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The big questions of classification are indeed sticky (and get more so when considering both fossil and extant species). Fortunately, wikipedia doesn't need to resolve them (but we do have to stick something in the taxobox). Keeping the taxobox to only the most major ranks might help (going straight from Plantae to Bennettitales might be going a bit far, but I would think in terms of aiming for only one intermediate level–probably some spelling of spermatophyte–between those two). Between spermatophyte, Lycophytes (as depicted in figure 1 of Crane et al (2004)), probably a few other groups, and incertae sedis here and there, we might be able to cover most cases and leave the more detailed distinctions to the text. Kingdon (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

If you don't mind about inconsistency, then I agree that for any given extinct or extant genus you can find some one rank above it to use as the parent. Consider the Pertica article. I agree we could omit all the ranks I put in between Euphyllophytina and Plantae. However, firstly I do mind the inconsistency of saying that the rank above Pertica is Euphyllophytina (clearly a Subdivision) while in the Euphyllophytina article (in need of expansion) saying that angiosperms (a Division) are euphyllophytes. Secondly, if you use the automatic taxobox system then it inherently creates parent, grandparent, greatgrandparent, etc. which means that you can't avoid making decisions about more of the hierarchy than just a parent rank, even if only the parent rank gets shown. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, if the sources are inconsistent, it is going to be hard to be completely consistent. I do note that Euphyllophytina is listed as "unranked" on Pertica (which is probably as it should be, and if you are worried about the ending I suppose it could be euphyllophytes instead). I don't know the automatic taxoboxes well enough to comment on the details of that system. I'm not attached to the exact number of taxa/clades to show in a taxobox, but it is my belief that keeping it relatively limited does make life easier both for editors and readers. Kingdon (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I put the "unranked" on Euphyllophytina at Pertica – for the present, because I don't know what to do. I would actually much prefer to put "euphyllophytes" and indeed to use lower-case letter + plural ending informal names for clades, to (a) avoid confusion with Linnean ranks (b) to avoid looking like formal Phylocode names. But is there agreement that this can be done? I haven't seen a taxobox using this style. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Range maps and rights questions

I have two questions:
(1) Who do we have available currently to do range maps?
(2) Does Australia have the same "government publications are public domain" rules as the US? I found images of a rare endemic in an Australian government publication and want to know what I can do. I assume one fair-use image can be uploaded to Wikipedia, but if the whole batch can be uploaded to Commons, that would be better.
--EncycloPetey (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

(1) Not sure, but Australian range maps have been produced for articles relating to certain Acacia and Banksia species. Maybe you could ask one of the map providers for those.

(2) We wish! No, we can't even use official government portraits of Australian political leaders in Wikipedia articles. Its always good when Australian leaders visit the United States (like right now) because then we have the opportunity for public domain US government photos to be taken. Sad really. --Melburnian (talk) 23:11, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy replies. I've asked Hesperian to draft a distribution map. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Poor but important article in need of attention

It seems to me that the Vascular plant article is really rather poor for such an important topic. I don't have time myself at present; does anyone else? Peter coxhead (talk) 21:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

"Vegetative regeneration"

Is there a scientific term to describe the particular biological attributes of certain woody plants (such as Taxus baccata or Prunus laurocerasus) which enables them to regenerate from old tissue after the plant in question has been severely cut back (either by fire, browsing or pruning), and which distinguishes such plants from those which lack this ability (eg most other conifers, some deciduous Prunus)? If there is a term, does Wikipedia have an article on it, and if not, would it be a good idea to have one? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you could look at Epicormic shoot. I'm not sure if that is what Taxus baccata and Prunus laurocerasus have, but they are important in Eucalyptus. Nadiatalent (talk) 18:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

"Resprouter". PPdd (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Crown sprouting, too. Yes, please start the article and merge all of these! -IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. PPdd (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think a fundamental problem with all these articles - even after the revision of their inter-connectedness - is that they're not very accessible to the layperson. (By that I mean that it isn't easy to find the articles, unless you're already familiar with their subject matter and hence titles). For a non-botanist, I personally have a reasonably good understanding of plants and how they grow, and yet I didn't know how to access these articles and the information they contain. I think maybe the articles could benefit from some redirects from laypersons terms (such as "plant regrowth" for example)? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Just do it!. PPdd (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I've just further condensed the terminologies in Crown sprouting (which seems to have become the overarching article for this general area), as I found it a bit confusing before, with repetition of terms. However I'm not sure if it now contains an inaccuracy: specifically, are plants which resprout from the root crown ("resprouters") capable of doing so via epicormic shoots, or just from lignotubers? As it currently reads, the article implies both methods are employed, yet the article on epicormic shoots only refers to dormant buds on above-ground portions of plants. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Both. See chaparral or burl. PPdd (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Following all the discussion and activity on this topic recently, fellow contributors may be amused to see that the article on Epicormic shoots was proposed for speedy deletion the minute it was created - the template described the article as "patent nonsense,consisting purely of incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history"! In truth the incipient article wasn't very good, but still..... From small acorns etc... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:44, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Aah good, I forgot about that page...and I need a link to it from Persoonia levis and Persoonia linearis....the overzealous tagging remains a problem - there is concern over the driving away of new editors by this Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Not all resprouters are crown sprouters as others have pointed out [1], so I have undone that redirect. I'm not against consolidation of some of the articles mentioned above, but please allow a decent period for discussion before redirecting aricles as not all plant editors are in USA timezones. Melburnian (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Not all editors living in the US live their lives in a US time zone, either. :) PPdd (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

As a bit of a generalist on the Plants project (and also the person who started this particular discussion), I'd like some clarification on whether I (and therefore perhaps other non-specialists) have properly understood this whole area. Am I right in perceiving the topic like this:

• 1) Many (but not all) woody plants can resprout from mature tissue
• 2) This is a common attribute of plant species native to fire-prone areas, but it also occurs in species elsewhere
• 3) Plant species which have this capacity are called resprouters (particularly when referring to chaparral-type species)
• 4) Resprouters can be crown sprouters or trunk/stem sprouters (or possibly both?)
• 5) Crown sprouters sprout from either lignotubers, or from underground epicormic shoots (known as burls)
• 6) Trunk/stem sprouters sprout only from epicormic shoots within the trunk/stem

Is this a reasonable summary? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a helpful summary. Looking more closely at the individual articles mentioned in this section , they are all closely related but cover different concepts. Whether or not these are all retained as separate articles, it would be good to have a parent aricle that mentioned all of these concepts together, but I'm not sure what that is/ would be.Melburnian (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this is what I was struggling with in my earlier comments. I personally would be inclined to keep the existing articles, and then create a parent article that has a more general title which the layperson could find more easily. I had made an attempt to do something similar by creating the page Plant regrowth and then redirecting it to Crown sprouting, but I'm personally not happy with having an article called "Plant regrowth" - it seems a bit woolly (though maybe that's an inevitability if a non-technical title is used)? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think we need to steer clear of woolliness and WP:synthesis, I think one thing that we can do in the short term is to increase the interlinking of the articles in the body of the text of each so that they are better inter-related. Melburnian (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I also put the three as WP:HATs, not "see also", since hats are for folks who might have gone there in error, as people here seem to have done. Chapparal is more like what would be in the "see also" section. PPdd (talk) 23:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Of all the articles, to me Crown sprouting is the one needing most work - especially the first paragraph. It refers back to Resprouter in a confusing way, and doesn't make it clear that crown resprouters are a subdivision of resprouters generally (at least that's how I understand the issue). It also refers to crown resprouting from epicormic buds, yet gives no reference to back this up (and I think a reference is needed given that the article on epicormic buds only refers to them existing in above-ground portions of plants). Of course it could be referring to burls - but there's no reference (and no link to the burl article). I began trying to edit the article myself, to address these questions, but realised I might complicate things as I don't have access to the quoted references, and I didn't want to chop and change things and end up with references becoming detached from statements they back up. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

A problem with all this is that there are not very sharp boundaries of the concepts. Is a burl typically below ground or above or both? When does the base of a trunk become a burl? One of the things that makes a burl is fire after fire burning the above ground part and multiple resprouts that eventually forms a caudex-like mass, and similarly with pruning a branch in the air at the same place over and over, creating a burl-like mass. And what about burls that form on branches from buds, such as when pruning at the same place again and again? There is also a situation with Mediterranean climate monocots in fire prone brush, which resprout after fires, from the base like Yucca whipplei, or in the air like Yucca brevifolia, but do not do so in the way dicots do, or even have "bark" in the same sense. I used to force "resprouting" to make dramatic caudexes on everything from Calibanus hookeri and Dudleya pulverulenta to Arctostaphylos spp. in the ground, to bonzaied Pinus longaeva. Then there is the problem of wide variation in publishing standards in botanical literature, especially regarding vague concepts used in field work or horticulture and gardening, like "burl", which ranges from microbiology journals to wood paneling books, hiking field guides pointing to what to look for after a fire, and gardening-tips (pun) books about pruning, all RS. I don't see how OR Synth can be avoided here, as any cut off point we make to bund the articles is OR. WikiProject Mathematics allows much more OR-synthy stuff by necessity, and such thinking might apply here as well. PPdd (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're implying that a variation in publishing standards can be used as a reason for not bothering with references? Or that not having sharp boundaries of concepts means an attempt shouldn't be made to organise the information? I imagine it's possible that there hasn't been enough research in this area to make some claims possible on here - but are you really suggesting we just do it anyway? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys! Though I haven't commented here yet, I've been following this, and I haven't enjoyed surveying an area so much since I rewrote serotiny. When I started that rewrite, I believed that canopy seed banks occurred solely in serotinous contexts, and was reluctant to create a separate article; but I subsequently learned that canopy seed banks also occur as an adaptation to drifting sands, so I created a separate canopy seed bank article. I think the same thing could happen here. It might be tempting to consider epicormic shoots as solely a resprouting strategy, but my ten-year-old Agonis flexuosa routinely sends up new shoots from the base of its bole, and I'm advised not to be too eager to prune them off, as they feed the roots. Similarly, my pomegranate tree routinely shoots from its root crown, yet this is not a resprouting strategy. In both cases the bole/crown is thoroughly lignified and covered in thick bark, so I can only assume that these shoots are, anatomically speaking, epicormic. I guess what I'm trying to say is that separate articles are the way to go here. Hesperian 23:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of seratiny, the Wiki article on Banksia serrata describes it as "gnarled" (i.e., lots of epicormic shoots that did not make it causing a "gnarl"), but I can't find an image of a gnarled one. Is that a mistake in the Wiki article? (Is seratiny similar to getting an erection in terms of the mechanics?) :) PPdd (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

<giggle> How would I know, I'm a 14-year-old girl. (Actually I'm not, which is lucky for you. ;-) ) Hesperian 00:47, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Although the erection thing was a joke, it was only partially. Seratiny is a kind of locomotion that works by various different mechanisms, but none by volition, and some might be similar to an erection, like opening when getting wet, sort of like wetting the accordian like paper crumples paper cover of straws, which then uncurl and straighten out. (It's a seratiny-like effect on the female, not male part, but the stigma lobes of Mimulus aurantiacus close when touched, but they don't <giggle>.) :) PPdd (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it qualifies as locomotion any more than does the upward movement of a branch when a heavy fruit finally falls from it. Hesperian 02:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's an image of a gnarled Banksia serrata trunk with epicormic shoots after a bushfire. Melburnian (talk) 04:17, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Gnarled Banksia serrata

I've had another bash at refining the Crown sprouting article, to remove some repetition and hence ambiguity. If someone with more knowledge than myself could have a perusal over it sometime, to check for general accuracy but also more specifically check that references haven't become detached from claims they support, that'd be great. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration?

Hey all, I noticed more activity recently here - is it worth reactivating Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Collaboration for (hopefully) concentrated reviewing of some bigger more complex plant articles each month? It didn't really get off the ground first time round but....? If folks reckon it's not a goer that's fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if it didn't get off the ground before because all the collaborative activity takes place on this page - or were you thinking of a more intense form of collaboration? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:39, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

what happens is folks choose an article to work on intensively for a month in a concerted effort to make big improvements on articles and get them to GA or FA status...Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I suppose there is the possibility that for contributors of a WikiSloth tendency (which probably includes myself.....), such an undertaking might feel rather like work and so not be of appeal, but why not just try it and see? I'd be prepared to contribute if I'm able - anyone else? Looking at the main Project page, there are quite a lot of high importance articles ranked only as start or stub class (assuming the figures are up-to-date). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

If people want something to do, see #Embryophytes below. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Access to paper sought

Anyone have access to this paper: Just, Theodor (1945). "The proper designation of the vascular plants". The Botanical Review. 11 (6): 299–309. doi:10.1007/BF02861197.? It should have some references to the authorities for early botanical names that I'd like for some articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I've got it. E-mailed to you. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 23:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Evolutionary history of plants

User:Ettrig has been dumping large sections of text from Plant evolutionary developmental biology into the Evolutionary history of plants article. Is there someone here who can help Ettrig understand the difference in scope of the articles, and why duplicating whole sections of text is a bad idea? His primary language is Swedish, and given some of his English grammatical mistakes, I'm not sure I'd be able to convey the differences in scope adequately. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I absolutely agree that the article is now far, far too long and covers far, far too much. I strongly support reverting it back with an explanation on the talk page. The article should cover the history, i.e. describe the major stages in the development of morphological features and their timescales. (There were some problems with the article which are separate from User:Ettrig's changes. It has too much of an underlying 'evolution as progress' tone, with the associated idea that groups such as 'bryophytes' are 'primitive'. It's also not quite up-to-date with recent ideas.) Peter coxhead (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The problem escalates. He's suggested a merge of all the three plant evolutionary articles, but has been going ahead with the merger anyway. No one has commented to him but me, which makes the situation more difficult. Could more people chime in? (It doesn't help that my browser is having fits right now.) --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

All the material on Plant evolutionary developmental biology and Evolutionary history of plants is obviously about plant evolution. So we have now a very long article about plant evolution named evolutionary history of plants. This is obviously poor structuring of the encyclopedia. It makes it more difficult to find the texts, more difficult to understand the whole and more difficult for writers to relate the different aspects. You have left plant evolution a miserable stub for a long time. There is an ease way to change that state, the suggested move. --Ettrig (talk) 07:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

As I have stated before on this page, I am not a botanist, and therefore perhaps approach a subject such as this with the mindset more closely resembling that of the layperson. Although I agree that the presentation of the subject mattter through these articles is somewhat confusing initially, I am not convinced that merging them all together under Plant evolution is necessarily the best way to resolve this, as this will lead to a very long article that could be even more confusing. Instead I would be inclined to make Plant evolution more of a disambiguation/redirection page, and then edit the articles Plant evolutionary developmental biology and Evolutionary history of plants so that the distinction between their two subject matters is more obvious. To me, the key sentence in Plant evolutionary developmental biology is the one which defines the scope of the particular discipline: "It seeks to understand the various influences shaping the form and nature of life on the planet". This to me delineates it as being about process, about cause and effect, and I think the rest of the article should always refer back to this. In contrast, Evolutionary history of plants is about history, about describing what has happened (as far as we understand it), and therefore this article should concern itself more with that. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the above comment. Ettrig had no consensus to make the edits which have been made. In my view they were a serious mistake. The full evolutionary history of plants cannot and should not be covered in a single article. Some material will inevitably appear under the major clades (embryophytes, polysporangiophytes, tracheophytes, spermatophytes, etc.). Other material would be better under topic-focussed articles, e.g. evolution of leaves, evolution of roots. Plant evolution could usefully be a summary over-view with lots of {{main article}} links. There a clear need for a sharp, focussed article on the history of plant evolution, concentrating on the time dimension, as opposed to clades or functional systems. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Embryophytes

Just to draw it to everyone's attention that I have recently re-organized and expanded the embryophytes article. I think that this should be a key 'organizing' article in the coverage of land plant groups, so I've created subsections for each of them, many of which need expanding (I would have thought we need a few paragraphs on each major group). It's very much a 'work in progress', so comments, criticisms and, above all, contributions please. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Given the depth of this clade, I think having three diversity sections on seed plants is overkill. The detail of differences among seed plants should be covered in the seed plants article. I also think there ought to be more information about (a) origin and (b) structural and biological commonalities among members, rather than a focus on differences. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

A lot depends on what view of the clade you take. Actually my initial instinct was to go for the more up-to-date view which sees liverworts, mosses, hornworts and tracheophytes as the four divisions of embryophytes and discuss only these under diversity. However, I followed what was there already, merely dividing up the existing diversity section into more subsections.

• I agree that there should be more about the origins and commonalities of the clade. For instance, the phylogeny section needs to be expanded to cover the placement of embryophytes within Plantae s.l. I don't really have the knowledge to do this.
• In line with modern classification systems, I would like to see short subsections (a couple of paragraphs?) on each of the 'bryophyte' divisions. Again this is outside my area of knowledge. Could you do this?
• I'll remove the subsections on the spermatophyte groups, at least for the present; others can comment on whether they should be there. They only contain what what there already which wasn't very clear.

I do think that for the more general reader a survey of the diversity of land plants is useful. However there are different ways of organizing this; I'd like to see more discussion please! Peter coxhead (talk) 10:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

The subsections which were removed (angiosperms and gymnosperms) weren't very well written and I won't miss them. I will at least mention the possibility that the relative size of the sections (and what to include) might be based on the importance of each (e.g. number of species extinct or extant, total biomass, etc), rather than just phylogenetic depth. Kingdon (talk) 12:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

If the biology writers on WP followed that advice, the article on Animals would be primarily about insects, and the article on Mammals would be almost exclusively about bats and rodents. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Rather than lots of subsections describing each group, I imagine simple paragraphs within a single section covering diversity (extinct and extant). I would like to a see a full section on synapomorphies of the group as a whole, contrasting these features with the "green algae + charophytes". There ought to be a section on the earilest fossil evidence of the group, along with (possibly as a separate section) coverage of the evolutionary challenges of the transition to land. I do not mean the usual clap-trap about vascular tissue spouted in most texts, since our best fossil and phylogenetic evidence demonstrates that was a later innovation. Unlike Botticelli's Aphrodite, vascular plants did not spring fully formed from the sea. There is a wealth of current literature on soil crusts and bryophyte ecology that could and should be expounded upon. Along with the synapomorphies, there also ought to be a full discussion and description of morphological and cytological charactersitics common to the group as a whole, such as archegonia, antheridia, and rhizoids. Past authors have focussed overmuch on taxonomic groupings, and library cataloging systems used to reflect this (e.g., the Dewey Decimal system revised its 570s about 10 years ago). Recently, there has been a shift away from mostly taxon-based cataloging to more topic-based cataloging, and I think it would be a good shift as well for a general article like this one. -EncycloPetey (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the sections you describe would be good and that a topic-based approach is desirable. However, I don't think this excludes a survey of the diversity of land plants, which I think is useful to the general reader. In particular I still think there should be at least a paragraph each on liverworts, mosses & hornworts. If you agree, maybe you could add this material.

There needs to be a series of good articles corresponding to evolutionary innovations in plants, which correspond in large part to major clades. Embryophytes should, as you say, be concerned with synapomorphies of that group. Tracheophytes is the place to discuss vascular tissue and the synapomorphies of that group. And so on. (The Tracheophytes article needs work, in my view, but I'm now going back to early polysporangiophytes, which is where I started before getting distracted...) Peter coxhead (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Ref request

Anyone have access to this article in Australian Systematic Botany? My university doesn't seem to have access and I feel like expanding the article on Alexgeorgea. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 23:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Check your email shortly. Hesperian 23:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks :-) Rkitko ^(talk) 00:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese Medicine, cannibalism and Chinese botany

An early systematizer of botany was the eminent Chinese Traditional Chinese medicine taxonomist, encyclopedist, and physician Li Shizhen, author of the classic Chinese encyclopedia of plants and herbs, the Bencao Gangmu. - e.g., as in this book - “Li Shizhen gives a botany lesson. Fig C1.”, The Monkey and the Inkpot: natural history and its transformation in early modern China, by Calra Nappi, [2]

• Does anyone have suggestions as to what articles the kind of info in this book should go in WP articles? It seems to pertain to quite a number of plant articles, from taxonomy to history of botany. PPdd (talk) 18:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No-one has replied - how depressing! I'd like to help, but don't feel very qualified (ie don't feel at all qualified!) in this subject matter. With regards to taxonomy, I suppose it depends how relevant Li Shizhen's writings are considered today by current botanical taxonomists - whether they are considered to have had any lasting impact outside of the arena of traditional Chinese medicine (I'm guessing perhaps not, from a modern western perspective?). I notice in the Bencao Gangmu article it does mention controversy about erroneous information - without further support from other contributors I'd be inclined to be very wary about adding great chunks about this topic to plant articles. Although maybe something in the history of botany could be pertinent - but I think you'd need to find more references, and I guess integrating the eastern/western chronology might be tricky. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing the point, but I don't see why one would wish to use a work of this vintage as a source for plant articles in WP. We don't use Gerard's Great Herball, do we? Lavateraguy (talk) 12:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with PaleCloudedWhite - sometimes these type of books are good at adding historical or folkloric info. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes the most interesting facts about plants are the things which people used to believe about them, however 'wacky' they may seem to a modern perspective - an encyclopedia shouldn't restrict itself to just botanical classification. (Although as I said above, I'd counter against inserting great chunks into plant articles from this source - better just little snippets in my view). (And by "plant articles" here I'm referring to descriptive articles about particular species etc., though I think User:PPdd was using the term in its broadest sense - which is why I tried to address taxonomy and history of botany in my previous reply). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

A newbie

Hey guys,

I have spotted a newbie editing articles on plants. She seems well intentioned but she might need some guidance. Have a look at Special:Contributions/Hermionesgarden.

I don't know much about the topic myself so I thought someone here might like to take her under their wing.

I left a message for her at User talk:Hermionesgarden#Out-of-date information? urging some caution in her edits.

Yaris678 (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly related to Growing Hermione's Garden. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Unranked vs. clade

Which is preferred in plant taxonomies? The reason I ask is because this question has just been posed at Template talk:Taxonomy/Cactaceae. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that there's an established convention by the community, but I prefer "unranked". Plant systematists have not really adopted clade-based naming yet, at least not in the same way that many zoologists have. There are certainly strong advocates for cladistic-adherent taxonomy, but it hasn't been resolved with the Code yet. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Like much of plant taxonomy at present, there isn't a consensus. I think that "clade" should be reserved for cases where a referenced source names a group specifically using the PhyloCode. In the areas where I've been working recently (early land plants, phylogeny of the higher plant groups), all the reading I've done shows me that in this century the majority of original sources use informal names (chlorophytes, streptophytes, embryophytes, polysporangiophytes, tracheophytes, rhyniophytes, zosterophylls, lycophytes, lycopsids, etc.). For these groups, only a very few post-2000 papers I can find have attempted either a Linnean rank system (e.g. Lewis & McCourt 2004) or a PhyloCode system (e.g. Cantino et al. 2007) and neither seems to have been taken up. Personally, where there isn't a rank or PhyloCode name which has consensus supporting it, I would prefer "unranked" plus a lower-case informal name, such as "unranked: zosterophyll", since this leaves all options open, but we would need to reach a consensus on this. For Cactaceae, where we are using APG3, a mixture of Linnean ranks and "unranked" seems correct to me: the APG papers do not use formal PhyloCode names. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention I think it's not workable (or even sound) to start mixing up PhyloCode and ICBN names, especially in the same article or set of articles. Circéus (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I prefer clade, actually. APG groups are informal clades. There's no mistaking them with PhyloCode and saying "clade: Angiosperms" in the taxobox does not indicate that it is a formally described clade. As I said elsewhere (this discussion is in far too many places), this is a quirk of the difference between the manual taxobox, which cannot display "clade", and the automatic taxobox, which can. Rkitko ^(talk) 12:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I was commenting on P.Cox.'s comment re: lack of agreement over use of formal PhyloCode or informal names. I think from the point of view of the untechnical reader, clade or unranked group is six of one and half a dozen of the other. Circéus (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"A clade is a group consisting of an organism and all its descendants." The APG groups are putative clades. To assert as bald fact that a group is a clade is to assert that taxonomists have discovered The Truth about this particular branch of the tree of life. I'm not comfortable with that. Hesperian 13:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd go to say that most clades are putative by definition, but I'm owrried of falling into the "evolution is just a theory" fallacy. Nonetheless previous discussions regarding the results of including or not including fossil taxa (which may result in a number of holophyletic extant clades becoming paraphyletic). Circéus (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. Circéus is right that most clades are viewed with a skeptics eye and they, just like Linnaean taxonomic ranks, are always changing when we get new information. If we waited for The Truth, we'd be waiting a while. Hesperian, weren't you involved in setting up the taxobox so that it could deal with "unranked" taxa? If memory serves correctly, we were brainstorming once to figure out how to include the "clade" designation instead of unranked, but it would have been too messy. Rkitko ^(talk) 13:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

In that case the first sentence of clade is incorrect.

It is a trivial matter to change "(unranked)" to "(clade)". The problem is that the taxobox invocation would still require unranked_classis, unranked_subclassis, unranked_superordo, unranked_ordo, etc., because there's no other obvious way to indicate whereabouts a clade should be positioned relative to the named taxa. Hesperian 13:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to point out that one great advantage of the automatic taxobox system which uses an explicit hierarchy stored in {{Taxonomy}} templates is that you don't need all the named unranked groups. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not incorrect. Rather, my point was nearly all groups, whether they be named clades or Linnaean taxa, are putative, just with varying degrees of certainty based on the available evidence. The only difference with APG III is that the clades are informal and not named under any system, which I don't think is a requirement for it to be correctly called a clade. Rkitko ^(talk) 13:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

No. A taxon is a taxon, period. It may be systematically unsound, it may be utterly ridiculous, but it is never putative, because the concept of a taxon is assumption- and assertion-free. Anything grouped together for taxonomic (not necessarily systematic) purposes is a taxon, by definition, end of story. You can argue that a taxon is stupid, or poorly defined, or not validly published, or outdated, but you can't stop it from being a taxon. That's like trying to prevent a collection of items from being called a group. You can rail against the grouping criteria, but a group is still a group. Clade is completely different. It groups things into a taxon and it asserts monophyly of that group. Such an assertion can never be proven, so clades are always putative in a way that taxa are not. Hesperian 13:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The discussion among us doubtless reflects the situation generally, and I guess we will find it hard to reach a consensus. I do want to point out, though, that the original query was specifically about use in taxoboxes. What are taxoboxes for? Partly for navigation through Wikipedia articles, for which purpose it doesn't matter what the label is, so long as the taxon/clade/whatever is linked. But so long as we do have labels, then they should surely be as accurate as possible, given the current confused situation. "Unranked" is always accurate for a group which has a sourceable name but not a Linnean rank; "clade" may or may not be. "Zosterophyll", for example, is widely used for a group of genera which are accepted as paraphyletic. So if we use "clade" we still have to use "unranked" (or, to muddy the waters still more, we could use "stem group", "crown group", and so on – no, I'm not seriously suggesting this). Peter coxhead (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Good points. And always refreshing to return to the original question and ask ourselves what the taxobox is for. I agree it will depend on the situation, and certainly for "zosterophyll", unranked works best. (By the way, should we move Zosterophyllopsida to zosterophyll and use {{paraphyletic group}} like algae does if it is paraphyletic?) But the original question was about APG informal clades. These are, as all available evidence suggests, not paraphyletic and represent "good" clades. Perhaps it's instructive if we look at what other language Wikipedias do. I know the German Wikipedia in some cases, e.g. de:Drosera prostratoscaposa, doesn't list "unranked" or "clade" for the APG informal clades. They just present them without a label. That's one way to handle it. The French Wikipedia, e.g. fr:Drosera falconeri, includes both a "Classification classique" and a "Classification phylogénétique" in the taxobox. Rkitko ^(talk) 18:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I would personally like to move all articles on groups that currently have very doubtful ranked names to the informal ones, which avoids lots of problems. I'd much rather have Zosterophyll as the title article, and then explain that every rank from Division to Family has been used to hold the zosterophylls. But is there a consensus to do this? Using the informal name as the title seems to be against the current thinking about naming articles. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, then, the French taxobox offers both a modern and a traditional set of classification categories? That would in my opinion be a very useful thing for our taxoboxes to do, because so much of the "installed base" of information about plants exists under traditional hierarchical names. Sharktopus^talk 22:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Plant identification verification

Ephedra viridis in Natural Bridges National Monument.

I just uploaded this image and I wanted to make sure I identified it correctly. Thanks for your help! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 05:54, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have more information on this? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

According to USDA PLANTS there are four species of Ephedra present in San Juan County, Utah

• Ephedra cutleri
• Ephedra nevadensis
• Ephedra torreyana
• Ephedra viridis

Ephedra torreyana can be ruled out based on this. Melburnian (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

...and Ephedra nevadensis does not have the swollen nodes visible here. It's probably E. viridis, but I can't rule out E. cutleri. The FNA key character that distinguishes E. cutleri is that the twigs are "viscid" (i.e. glutinous or sticky). I can't tell whether that's the case from the photo. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I can tell you because I touched it after taking the photo. It was definitely not sticky. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Then it is most likely E. viridis and was correctly identified. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 23:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Merges without discussion

I personally am unhappy that User:Ettrig has made a number of mergers of content or whole articles without any discussion or attempt to reach consensus. I have asked him to do so, more than once. The latest is merging Xylem and Xylem development, making the latter a redirect. I don't want to end up with a 1:1 argument, so would be very grateful if others could look at this. All I'm asking is that such mergers take place after an attempt to reach consensus, which I think is quite reasonable. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't really been following it all, but if the mergers aren't being dealt with correctly or appropriately, I would revert all edits as part of the bold, revert, discuss cycle. At least some of the edits seem quite constructive, so point me to a discussion and I'll back you up on suggesting discussions before mergers and redirects. Rkitko ^(talk) 14:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I have replied at Talk:Xylem#Adding evolutionary sections/material. Kingdon (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Problem at Cactus

An IP is changing the spelling from American English to British English. The article has been stable as American English for some time now, and it is appropriately an American topic. I did some prowling around in the earliest revisions, but it's not yet clear to me what the original EngVar was.

My dilemma is that the IP is dynamic, and each of three edits have come from different IPs from the same service. So the person making the changes is unlikely to run up against 3RR, but I would be there shortly if I kept reverting, and I imagine there are admins out there who would consider it a content dispute and not vandalism. I'd appreciate some backup. Btw, even though I'm a Yank, I argued for British English on both Maize and Dobermann.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 24 hours and I'll increase that if it doesn't deter the editor. I'll also keep it on my watchlist. Rkitko ^(talk) 18:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Not really on point, but speaking of Cactaceae and "British", does anyone know off the top of their head the closest family to Cactaceae in Europe, or the split-off of it in the common ancestry with what European plant family? Similarly, if Israelis are nicknamed "Sabras" after Opunita spp., because they are prickly on the outside, but sweet on the inside, what were they before the diaspora of Cactaceae out of the America's 500 years ago? PPdd (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Monocotyledon

An evolution section has been transwikied from the Spanish WikiPedia. It needs copyediting, so if anyone wants to pitch in ... Lavateraguy (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't checked this article yet in detail, but just to issue a general warning that the Spanish Wikipedia contains quite a bit of stuff on angiosperm evolution which is translated into Spanish more-or-less directly from the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website. See the reply from "RoRo" at Talk:Asparagales, for example. When translated back into English this material may be too close to the original to be acceptable. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Having now looked at the section, I have to say that I would advise taking it out of article space and into your user space to work on first. It needs more than just "copy-editing"! Peter coxhead (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

What do you see as the problems, other than the language manglement? Is it a copyvio? (In which case why isn't this a problem at Wikipedia ES?) Lavateraguy (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

None of the references were copied over, for one thing. They exist on the Spanish WP, but only the footnote numbers were copied over here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

To clarify what I now see was unclear in my earlier comments. I don't know if there are any copyvio problems with the added section to Monocotyledon. I do know that when I first translated the Spanish to English for Asparagales, I recognized some of the translated text and realized that the original Spanish was actually a translation of material from APweb. Whether it's a copyvio as it appears in the Spanish article, I don't know, but I thought that when translated back to English it was uncomfortably close to the original.
I would move the section to your user space and work on it because (a) the language is too mangled to appear publicly in Wikipedia in my view (b) as EncycloPetey notes, the references haven't been moved over. (In my experience, you have to move them one by one manually. If you ask Google to translate the article, then you get only the footnote numbers. If you instead copy and paste the Wiki source text into Google translate then it translates the field names in the citation templates, which are then mostly not the correct names so the templates don't work.) Peter coxhead (talk) 15:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

New article review requested

I just came across this new article Launaea sarmentosa by a user with only a small number of edits. I added a taxobox, categories and project tag, but a review by somebody familiar with the subject matter is needed. Thanks. Safiel (talk) 04:38, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Botanical Code query

Here's a query for any experts on the ICBN.
The facts (not in dispute): Dawson in 1959 established the genus Psilophyton with the type species P. princeps. However, in 1967 Hueber and Banks published a paper showing that his description and later reconstruction of P. princeps were based on parts of three distinct plants (now Psilophyton, Sawdonia and Taeniocrada). They selected new type specimens for P. princeps.
The query: What is the correct citation now for Psilophyton and P. princeps? It may be different for the genus and the species, of course. The literature contains the following:

• "Dawson" [paleobotanists almost always give the date, with or without parentheses, but I'll ignore it here]
• "(Dawson) Hueber & Banks"
• "Hueber & Banks"
• "Dawson ex Hueber & Banks"
• "Dawson emend. Hueber & Banks" – actually I can't now find this one, but I'm sure I've seen it.

I have an opinion, based on reading the Code, but little confidence in its correctness! Peter coxhead (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Still just Dawson. The code deals with names, not species concepts, and Psilophyton was brought into "nomenclatural existence" by Dawson. A neotype doesn't change that (unless there was a conservation proposal of some sort enacted in Taxon). Circéus (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

As that's what I used in the article Psilophyton, it's good to have support. (By the way, I think it's actually an "epitype" not a "neotype"; see Article 9.7. However this doesn't change the conclusion that the authority doesn't change.) Peter coxhead (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Note that if the circumscription or diagnosis has significantly changed, some authors will cite in the form "Dawson emend. Hueber & Banks", but that still credits only Dawson with the name. The emendation is not covered in the Code per se, but can clue the reader to a significant change in taxon concept. That is, it's not required. In some cases, redesignating a type doesn't even merit an emendation, but for Psilophyton I'd personally put it in because of the heterogeneous original publication. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

On reflection, I agree, and I've changed the taxobox in the article since my first post here. This does raise a general point about names & author citations in taxoboxes, which I've raised in a new section below. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I've very rarely seen "emend." actually used in author citations. Usually it's a one off to mark that the current author is emending a diagnosis (very many original diagnoses are no longer considered valid anyway! The names are used, but sometimes without any of the original author's actual criteria). Circéus (talk) 04:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I've seen it quite often, but then I'm usually looking at cryptogamic literature. There may be a bias in my specialty field towards using it, and you may be right about it appearing principally whe the current author is emending the diagnosis. That's been happening quite a lot lately among the bryophytes now that large-scale molecular phylogenies are being published. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There are definitely different usages in different fields of botany, as EncycloPetey says. Paleobotanists almost always include dates in authorities, for example. I've read a lot of papers about Devonian plants recently – a field quite new to me – and the use of "emend." there is not uncommon, in line with EncycloPetey's comments about bryophyte literature. For example, Cooksonia was created by Lang in 1937, with a relatively vague diagnosis. Recently, Gonez & Gerrienne quite significantly tightened this diagnosis, ejecting some species – although crucially not the type species. So the authority appears in other places as "Lang emend. Gonez & Gerrienne", which seems in accord with Recommendation 47A.1. However, this is only a recommendation, so just "Lang" would be correct. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:40, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll trust your judgement regarding usage of "emend." in the paleobotanical literature (a field very much alien to me). If it is in use, then by all mean, put it in th taxobox. Circéus (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Policy on botanical names/authorities in taxoboxes

This may ultimately be a broader issue than just WikiProject Plants but I'll raise it here first. When the literature contains more than one name/authority for a taxon, to ensure NPOV is maintained these should clearly be discussed in the article itself (when this is appropriate to the level of detail in a Wikipedia article, which it often may not be). However, following the example of earlier and more experienced editors, I have taken the view that only one authority should appear in a taxobox. I don't think that taxoboxes are the place for presenting alternative authorities or names (other than perhaps well-known synonyms). If only one authority is to be used in a taxobox where the literature offers a choice, at least two principles are available:

• consensus if one is clearly more common than the other
• correctness under the ICBN since there can only be one correct author citation.

I have to say that I prefer and have acted on the latter, which could, I suppose, lead to accusations of OR. So I thought I should make this clear here. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Genuine disputes (as opposed to errors, which do occur with some level of frequency, including in the bibliographic references, I recently found one in the Code) about places of publication are somewhat uncommon (unlike those over typification/application of names), when they do arise, they are typically discussed in the literature, which obviates the OR issue. Circéus (talk) 13:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

My impression, and it is only an impression based on partial knowledge, is that paleobotanists have been somewhat more careless about author citations than other botanists. I've learnt not to trust secondary sources, which I have been checking and sometimes correcting based on the original papers where accessible. However, I believe that some editors have frowned on this and considered it OR. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Authorities (and both the ICZN and ICBN, or at least commentaries on them, acknowledge it) are essentially reduced bibliographic citations. If such a citation is provably incorrect (and I have had to correct a few over at Wikispecies and in MycoBank), providing the right citation is not (IMHO) OR. Circéus (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I've recently come across a whopper of an error, and the error looks suspicioously deliberate. For the taxa above rank of family, the authorities are rarely given in the literature, presumably because priority doesn't apply anyway. Dr. Reveal has been accumulating authorities for these higher-rank names, and had (until recently) been citing Scott's Studies in Fossil Botany, 2nd ed. (1909) for "Lycopodiophyta". His website has recently changed to claim the 1st edition (1900). I've looked at the first edition, and no formal names appear there on the cited pages. The reason I think this change was deliberate is that Reveal has been big on following priority (regardless of the ICBN), and also big on excluding fossil taxa from his classifications. I notice that he's inserted a synonym of "Lepidophyta" from Bessey (1907), which predates Scott's use of a formal name in the 2nd edition, and (if priority is followed) would bump the name "Lycopodiophyta" to one based on extinct Lepidodendron. I imagine that he wouldn't care for that.

So, there are major secondary sources out there with flat-out errors, apparently deliberate in some situations. There are even major textbooks and major classification schemes (from authors who should know better) where the Latin ending was incorrectly attached, and the resulting name is therefore not in compliance with the ICBN and needs to be corrected. The erroneous division names "Anthocerophyta", "Hepatophyta", "Lycophyta", and "Pterophyta" are widely-used examples of such erroneous names. So, wide-use would not be a criterion I'd care to follow, as some errors are pernicious and pervasive.

I've been working lately to insert correct ICBN citations for authors of high-rank plant taxa into Wikispecies, as there is a better structure on that project for nomenclatural information. As another example of widespread citation being incorrect, I discovered that the oft-cited author for the Isoetales (J.H. Schaffn. 1928) was incorrect despite it's wide usage. The correct citation appears to be Bartl. 1830, which predates the common citation by nearly a century. I've even gone to the Bartling publication to verify myself first-hand that there is a formal name, identified at the correct rank, and with even a Latin diagnosis. Also, I'd encourage editors here to be sure that a copy of correct citations end up on the Wikispecies companion page for each taxon. The Wikispecies page is often used by authors on other-language Wikipedias in preparing articles. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

That's interesting advice about Wikispecies. I have to say, as one who taught undergraduates about the undesirability of duplicated code in software design, that I have an aversion to the parallel nature of Wikipedia articles and Wikispecies information, but if putting information there would help to correct errors, it's worthwhile.

I've discovered that other public data sources contain significant errors. For example, until yesterday, a search of IPNI for D.Edwards claimed that "Denzil Edwards" rather than "Dianne Edwards" was the author of Tortilicaulis, and that "D.Edwards" was his botanical abbreviation. However, IPNI staff were quick to respond when sent the correct bibliographic reference, so if you find any errors, do contact them via the e-mail address on the site. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I've found similar quick responses from Michael Guiry at AlgaeBase and from B. Goffinet in regard to his on-line moss classification, though the error rate is small in both. I have found a couple of published taxon authors missing from INPI, and sould dredge those up and alert them.

Keep in mind that the Wikispecies information doesn't really "duplicate" Wikipedia since it covers only the classifiation, scientific name and synonyms, publication source, and vernacular names in various lanugages. That's information we typically put just in the taxobox (often without putting it into the article itself). Wikispecies contains no biological data, only nomenclatorial information per its remit. In consequence, it can be a good place to shift those long lists of plant names in various languages that sometimes accrue here in articles. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but as we both know only too well, classification, if not the other information, is a disputed or unclear area at present, with the result that very different classifications of the same species can be (and are) in use in Wikispecies and Wikipedia. I would hesitate to get involved in this in two different projects – one is bad enough! Peter coxhead (talk) 18:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Categories Paleobotany and Prehistoric plants

Category:Prehistoric plants is, rightly, a subcategory of Category:Paleobotany. However, articles placed at present in these two categories seem to me a bit confused. My suggestion (which I have put on the Category:Prehistoric plants page) is that "Prehistoric plants" is used solely for specific taxa or groups of extinct prehistoric plants (of whatever rank), and that "Paleobotany" is used for more general articles. There are a very few exceptions to this usage at present which would need to be re-categorized if there is agreement (an example is Fossil wood which I would put in Category:Paleobotany not Category:Prehistoric plants). Comments please. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Your suggestion is what was originally intended, and follows the same distinction between "plant" stub and "botany" stub tagging. Because WP is dynamic, errant new articles can often end up in the wrong place, often because new editors don't know about the distinction or are simply unaware that the other category exists. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it's good to know that what I suggested was what was intended. I've sorted out the few incorrect categorizations. It is helpful to new editors if the Category pages have an introduction which explains how they should be used, so I've added a bit to both Category:Paleobotany and Category:Prehistoric plants. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Fossil wood, Petrified wood, Fossil plants

While sorting out categories (as per above), I came across Fossil wood and Petrified wood. Some-one might like to look at them and see whether they should be merged. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Seems better to keep them separate, several articles I've found do make a careful distinction between permineralized fossil wood and other types of preservation. Fossil wood encompasses them all, as the lead says ('Fossil wood may or may not be petrified'). Seems that some (usually extremely fragile) fossil wood are not permineralized but simply 'mummified' in permafrost/glaciers/peat/lignite but yeah still consisting of the original organic tissue at least. I'm also guessing the term 'fossil wood' alsp includes trace fossils related somehow to paleoxylology. Some of the more interesting ones I can find are here, here, and here, all of them discusses the difference between 'mummified' and the more familiar 'petrified' wood. I've added a link to the Fossil wood article to the See also section of Petrified wood, it still needs to be expanded though.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 19:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

For a less ambiguous example of fossil wood which is not petrified wood, there are coalified wood fossils in coal deposits. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd just point out that if the argument is that they are different because Fossil wood includes Petrified wood, this isn't in itself an argument for two articles; "Petrified wood" could be made a section of Fossil wood.

I'm personally generally in favour of smaller articles, provided that this doesn't lead to the need to repeat too much overlapping material, so I'm quite happy with two articles. But there have been moves lately which have produced much larger single articles, witness Evolutionary history of plants. Some consistent principles might help to guide editors... Peter coxhead (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that Petrified wood (or at least a summarized version of it) should be in the Fossil wood article with a link to the main article, but I can't agree to wholesale merges of them. Petrified wood has achieved a greater notability than Fossil wood. Merging Petrified wood into Fossil wood would result in the Petrified wood section overwhelming the parent article. (For an example see how Fossil itself does it. With subsections that branch out to larger articles for specific types of fossils)

The problem here is not whether it needs to be merged or not really, it's that the Fossil wood article needs expansion, heh. I would do it, but I'm not an expert on the subject. :( While I can get by with paleontological subjects enough to write about individual species/taxa, I don't think I have what it takes to write on very specialized fields like paleoxylology. :/ --Obsidi♠n^Soul 12:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, I'll take a shot at expanding and reffing it anyway. :P Anyone who'd like to help/correct, feel free to pitch in.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 12:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the higher level general article, "Fossil plants" can be a catch all to merge all similar "plant preserves" articles into. (Higher still, "Biological preservation in nature".) Continuing the above beginning of parsing out of preserved plant materials, geologist Alex Sessions at Caltech and his postdocs study epicuticular waxes preserved in the geological record, such as with Crassulaceae spp., as they do not decompose with oxygen and do not react with water. The plant material sandwiched between is also somewhat preserved. If you want to see the "preservation of other stuff" phenomena and live in Southern Ca., this August, find a cliff face with Dudleya pulverulenta, and spill some water on the nappy/chalky/dusty/bally/gummy epicuticular "wax", and see it coat what is below, including preserving the water in the soil under it. Also Neotoma spp. packrat middens preserve woody tissue for tens of thousands of years due to the urine, or something like that. There is also stuff on preservation by mummification in Carla Nappi's The Monkey and the Inkpot: Natural History and Its Transformations in Early Modern China[3]. In an obscure passage near the end of Ronald Quinn's Introduction to California Chaparral[4], there is a one line comment where he speculates that the nest architecure might be mimicced in human homes to "preserve" heat, protect from weather, etc. Interestingly, if you look at unwatered nappy D. pulverulenta epicuticular wax under a microscope, the particle flakes are layered and organized in a structure similar to the Neotoma nest architecture, but the structure collapses when water is added to it. PPdd (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Almond

Hi, if someone could spare the time, the Almond page could use some help. Some not very good text has been replaced by even worse, and an editing war has resulted that needs a third party who knows the basics of genetics (not much needed!) to adjudicate. Discussion is at User talk:Dia^#April 2011. Thanks in advance to any volunteer! Nadiatalent (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've removed two references which claimed to support the statement that every sweet almond tree produces a few bitter almonds (see Talk:Almond#Every_tree_produces_a_few_bitter_almonds). The statement may or may not be true, but there are no references to what I would call reliable sources which support it. Articles about foods seem to attract editors drawn to fringe science; I've normally steered a wide berth of them and will probably regret this foray! Peter coxhead (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

More generally, the Almond article is rated as B-class by Wikiproject Plants. It may have been so in the past, but it isn't now, in my view; there are too many sections with unreferenced material. Unless anyone objects, it should be down-graded to C-class. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No objections on down-grading the assessment here. It was probably rated B-class before C-class was available (or even discussed). Rkitko ^(talk) 22:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Just added some more references from the University of Graz (no fringe science) that confirm that what I wrote was correct. Sorry guys! ;0) Here the interesting text: Sweet almonds are, by centuries of cultivation and breeding, very low in amygdalin and, thus, harmless; however, even sweet almond trees sometimes yield single bitter almonds (up to 1% of total crop), and some sweet almond cultivars still contain traces of bitter almond aroma. and the link: http://www.uni-graz.at/~katzer/engl/Prun_dul.html --Dia^ (talk) 22:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Material being hosted at a university site is insufficient grounds to conclude that it is correct. Universities sometimes provide hosting facilities to undergraduates and alumni, with minimal editorial oversight. In this case the cited material is a "hobby page" from an alumnus, and is out of his field.

The way almond has been phrased suggests a bimodal distribution of amygdalin concentrations; a possibility is an overlap between the upper bound of concentration in semi-bitter varieties (heterozygotes) and the lower bound of concentration in bitter varieties. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

See also my comment at Talk:Almond#Every_tree_produces_a_few_bitter_almonds. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011 Plant-related disambiguation pages with links.

Greetings! We have a new report of the most linked disambiguation pages, including three that are about plants. The members of the Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links project would appreciate your help in fixing ambiguous links to:

1. Tulip tree: 51 links - no longer a disambig
2. Fan palm: 50 links - no longer a disambig
3. Black oak: 48 links

Cheers! bd2412 T 18:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've dealt with half-a-dozen at Tulip tree; but would it more sense to move it to Tulip tree (disambiguation), and have Tulip tree redirect to Liriodendron tulipifera as the principle meaning? Lavateraguy (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from a bit of quick googling, yes Liriodendron is the primary meaning (Spathodea being African Tulip Tree). I suppose I'd link to Liriodendron rather than Liriodendron tulipifera but that seems like a more minor point. Of course, if someone can show widespread use of "tulip tree" for something besides Liriodendron (perhaps in only some parts of the world?) that might change things. Kingdon (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Tulip tree is almost a WP:TWODABS situation, with only two actual articles. This can be dealt with by moving the current disambig page to its "Foo (disambiguation)" title, redirecting the base page name to the most common meaning, and adding a hatnote there to the other existing article. bd2412 T 14:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It turns out that there is a recently (23/3/11) created Tulip tree (disambiguation) which redirects to Tulip Tree. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, all "Foo" disambig pages have a "Foo (disambiguation)" redirect pointing to them, so that intentional links to the dab can route through it. I can take care of that, if we all agree that the above solution is appropriate. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

A minor point is that a lot of tulip tree links should be pointing at Liriodendron tulipifera, rather than Liriodendron. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Fan palm appears to be a generic description rather than an ambiguous term. I have therefore removed the disambiguation tag from the article. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Xerophyte is being reconstructed.

Xerophyte is being reconstructed.[5] Help would be appreciated. PPdd (talk) 16:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Unsure what to do about this - plant name being referred to a Wood type

The article Philippine mahogany refers to a type of wood more accurately known as lauan/meranti etc. from the genus Shorea. The usage of the term 'Philippine mahogany' seems to be restricted to US trade. Meanwhile, there is actually a species belonging to the mahogany family (Meliaceae) known as the Philippine mahogany (the Kalantas - Toona calantas). So should it be retained as a valid (though inaccurate, as Shorea is a dipterocarp and not a mahogany) American trade name for a type of wood? Or merged and redirected with hatnotes to the articles for Toona calantas and Mahogany?

Ok, I have (possibly temporarily), reverted it to its earliest version as a disambiguation page.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 03:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Global Composite Checklist

Dear active WikiProject Plants members, comments would be welcome at Talk:Mutisia about the following comment that I've added. Perhaps this sort of situation has come up before? Thanks in advance for any advice you can offer.

• The Global Composite Checklist lists taxonomy in a very shabby way with "Synonym of Unknown" for many Mutisia species. Until they get their act together and decide why something is a synonym and what it is a synonym of, I'd like to suggest that we don't glorify their list in Wikipedia, but instead merge the list of "unaccepted" species names with the "accepted" ones, and list the GCC site simply under "external links". Nadiatalent (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Taxon authority errors

I just made an eye-opening discovery. Of the four orders of magnoliids, all four had the wrong taxon authority. APG III has updated more than just nomenclature itself; some older sources for ordinal (and possibly familial) names have turned up. It looks as though there wil be a lot of updating to be done in the angiosperm order and family pages. But note that is is something a person can do with just a copy of the APG III paper. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

One issue is that the ICBN at Article 11.10 says "The principle of priority does not apply above the rank of family", so it's not clear what the exact status is of authors of ranks above family. I have the impression that in the past authors have sometimes been given to indicate "sensu" rather than priority of authorship. However, it seems that as per Recommendation 16B there is a move towards priority being important at all ranks. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Just because priority is not important doesn't mean that orders do not have correct authorship. I'm not clear how trusty Reveal's lists are for authorities, though, given some comments by (IIRC) EncyclopPetey. Circéus (talk) 17:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This isn't an issue of priority of names, but of correct author attribution. As Circeus notes, Reveal's lists don't seem trustworthy, but I'd expect APG III to be correct given the people who are in that group. Nor is the problem confined to orders; I've just found that the Piperaceae page uses the taxon authority for the Piperales (and am correcting it). --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't implying that a particular name, say "Asparagales", doesn't have a author in the sense of the person who first used "Asparagales" for an order, or that we shouldn't try to get it right, just that citing the author isn't as important as it is for lower ranks since priority doesn't determine the correctness of names, so authorship has perhaps not been as well-researched.

Any views on the reliability of this list? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The abbreviations themselves are sound (and have been published separately), the ACTUAL list is this one. Circéus (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

[I've moved and indented the following comment by someone else to maintain flow. Peter coxhead 11:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)] Wow...that page has "supersubtribes"..(sorry just had to break this with a moment of levity).19:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

However, the authorities given for taxa on that list are not always correct. These two lists are the ones I criticized before for sloppy research and outright errors. His "Isoetales", for example credits Prantl (1874), but a brief look at Bartling (1830) will show he validly published the name nearly half a century earlier. The kicker is that Bartling is one of the sources Reveal uses for other taxa on his list. That's a problem in addition to the fact that some of his attributions are for sources that didn't even contain a formal name for the taxon in question. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, right. I missed (or forgot) that earlier discussion; hopefully I've caught up now... One question which occurs to me, which more academic botanists may be able to answer, is this: apart from the natural desire to give credit where credit is due, unless and until the ICBN adopts priority for ranks above genera, why is it important to cite authors for these ranks? Peter coxhead (talk) 19:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Let me "answer" your question by posing two alternative questions: (1) Have you looked at the family list for APG III and seen how many names are annotated "nom. cons."? (Far more than half.) Given this, why cite authors for families? (2) Why cite authors for families in Wikipedia? Their principal value is in determining which name is used when a family circumscription is changed, and we don't deal with that here until someone has published anyway. So why cite authors for families on WP? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Very good questions. Going back a step, why cite authors for genera/species on Wikipedia? Here I think there are answers. One is because the literature contains names which turn out to be illegitimate but which have been used sufficiently widely to justify being in Wikipedia and which need distinguishing so that someone who comes across them can find them correctly. (In paleobotany, for example, Cooksonella Senkevich nom. illeg. is not the same as Cooksonella Nagy.) I'm not aware of any such examples for families. If there are none, then I'd say that Wikipedia editors could decide not to cite authors. (IMHO it's better not to cite them than to cite them incorrectly.) What's important about families, as per the section below, is their circumscription. Asparagaceae sensu APG3 is very different from Asparagaceae sensu Watson & Dallwitz, and the fact that de Jussieu was the first to use the name is of little or even no relevance to Wikipedia readers. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:00, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I could certainly live with a decision to cite authors only for genera and species, although if this is attempted without sufficient consensus there is always a danger that well-meaning editors will put back authors (probably even more inaccurately than what we have now). Kingdon (talk) 03:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Peter's comments. I agree that it's important to make explicit which genus concept is intended, but often you can't get that from citing the taxon authority. For example, there are two radically different concepts about Anthoceros in the literature (as a result of misapplication of the law of residues). The correct taxon authority for the genus is Linnaeus, but the concept of that genus in the original publication is way off, because Linnaeus included what is now a major segregate genus Phaeoceros (and which is incorrectly given the name Anthoceros as a result of the aforementioned problem. None of this could be clarified by putting "L." after the genus name in the taxobox; it requires a full explanation. The same could be said of Cooksonella, for which an identification of the taxon authority in the taxobox will be wholly unenlightening to anyone not already familiar with the name's issues. So, I don't think that taxon authorities are useful in a taxobox at the rank of Genus or above. Now, for species I can see a rationale. It isn't unusual for a species to be transferred to a new genus, so that both the publishing author and revising author need to be identified, and this allows references to be placed into the taxobox in a meaningful way.

I also don't know that adding "sensu APG3" to every angiosperm family page would be enlightening. Since we use a single standard system across the whole of the angiosperms, there should be a better way to indicate this fact. On Wikispecies, we include a note at the top of every angiosperm page about the choice of system. We do the same thing for the "ferns" (Smith system) and mosses (Goffinet et al.). We might consider some way of implementing that here, especially if the issues with the automatic taxobox can be resolved. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we are actually in agreement, although the difficulty I find in explaining taxonomic issues may have misled me. To be clear about the Cooksonella example (in case it isn't), it's not that there are two circumscriptions of the same genus, it's that Senkevich published the name for one set of fossils when Nagy had already published the name for a quite different set. So a new name is needed for Cooksonella Senkevich, but doesn't yet seem to have been published; hence in the meantime, the only unique identifiers of the two different genera consist of the combination genus name + authority. Now this could in principle happen for a descriptive family name (though I don't think it ever has), but it can't happen for typified family names (or any other typified rank name) under the ICBN because "Xaceae" is always the same name/identifier regardless of which genera other than "X" are included.

I would like there to be some neat, tidy way of telling the reader what system is being used in a taxobox. I'm not quite sure how this should be done; certainly not by putting "sensu X" everywhere. One possibility would be to have "System: ..." as the first entry in a taxobox classification, with the name of the system being linked to an explanation. This might be too obtrusive though (and would need discussing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life). Peter coxhead (talk) 16:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Use of taxon name + sensu X

Picking up my last comment the discussion above, and returning to an old issue, I remain very concerned about the lack of clarity in many plant articles as to the sense in which names of higher taxa are being used, regardless of who the authors might be. Good examples of problem names are Chlorophyta, Streptophyta and Charophyta, which have quite inconsistent uses in different sources. The Streptophytina article is currently confused between at least two senses. Given that we can't agree on a consistent classification system to use for plants sensu latissimo, could we not agree to make more explicit use of "sensu X", at least in taxoboxes? Peter coxhead (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is twofold. On the one hand, you're concerned about clarifying to a reader the sense in ehich the name of the article is applied. The second problem is that article writers are confusing the name of the article with its subject material. The result is that we have articles that go on-and-on about the different circumscriptions of different authors without discussing anything of value. Each article should be principally concerned with a given subject, not with the name applied to the article or the definition of that name. With taxonomy, this does get a little messy, but the point for an encyclopedia is to focus on the topic of discussion, rather than the various ways the name has been applied. That's not to say there shouldn't be a section within the article somewhere that addresses differences of application and circumscription, but that issue should always be secondary to the biology, economics, etc. of the taxon. With that in mind, I don't see how adding "sensu" to taxoboxes will be of any value. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you make a very valuable point. We should have more discussion among active editors of the principles which should underpin article construction. I'll respond with some questions.

• What size of the article we are aiming for and how should articles be related? How should articles at different ranks (e.g. order-family-genus-species) be designed? How much repetition should there be? Little or none, because wiki-links lead upwards to shared material? Quite a bit, because encyclopedia articles should be stand-alone?

Personally, I think that at present there are too many plant articles which repeat too much material (often inconsistently).

• Following on from this, should we have a separate article for every one of the recently accepted higher taxa (whether ranks or clades)? Or should some of them be grouped in articles, e.g. on the research/system which produced the taxa or on the higher taxon of which they are part?

It seems that we do try to achieve one article per taxon. However modern phylogenetic approaches often produce less 'natural' groups (particularly the higher ones). By 'natural' here I mean a group which has shared features of morphology, anatomy, ecology, etc. which are accessible to non-specialists. So circumscription becomes a difficult issue, requiring more space, and repetition from one taxon to another. In principle, I'd prefer only one main explanation of the current usage of chlorophyte, streptophyte, charophyte, etc. At present, there's material in Plant, Archaeplastida, Embryophyte, Chlorophyta, Streptophytina, Green algae, and doubtless elsewhere, some of which is inconsistent. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Whatever we do, I think an underpinning principle is that the topic/scope of the article should be the first consideration, and what we call that article should be secondary. So, if there is an important group/clade/taxon (say, Nymphaeales, monocot, moss, vascular plant), then we should write the article about the organisms, and pick a suitable name for the article to go with what's written. In the past we've often worked the other way 'round. Articles started either from a perceived need to turn a name's redlink blue, or else someone penned a factoid and put a taxobox on it to make an "article". This puts undue emphasis on the name. For a time, we even had a few editors creating articles just about the names, divorced from all biological information. As a result, the articles had no focal point for content. It's certainly true that "the meaning of this name varies with usage", but that's true for most words in the English language, even for everyday words like table, heavy, and orange. It's not necessary to base a whole article around this fact. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Pity that it seems to be only the two of us discussing this, because I think your comments are very valuable and some version of them should be put on the project page, not left here to be archived. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

A good example of articles which are really only about names are Drepanophycales and Drepanophycaceae (another pair were Drepanophycus and Drepanophycus spinaeformis, but I've merged these two already). The substantive content of these two is something like "early lycophytes". (The division into orders and families is rather out of date, as well.) Another task to be done should time permit... Peter coxhead (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Botany Barnstar

Just letting you all know, I submitted one for WikiProject Awards (apparently there were earlier attempts at making one as well)

		The Botany Barnstar
		For your excellent contributions to Plant-related articles.--Obsidi♠nSoul 09:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards#Proposal: The Botany Barnstar (title and wording of default message might still need to be changed). Cheers--Obsidi♠n^Soul 12:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation opinions

Hi. I'd be grateful if editors which an interest in disambiguation could take a look at Tristis and let me know their thoughts on its talk page. Thanks SP-KP (talk) 10:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the logic of disambiguation pages for species epithets. Are we going to have one for every species epithet used more than once? What's the point? If I remember that the specific epithet of an organism in some particular group is "tristis", surely it's easier to just search? Since I don't know that the disambiguation list will be complete, I'll probably need to search anyway. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

There's also the possibility that an organism with the masc./fem. epithet tristis will be reassigned to a neut. genus, resulting in the epithet triste, which wouldn't be listed on the page at all, since it's spelled differently. The same could be send of eppithets like rubrus, rubra, rubrum. There are so many potential variations on this theme, that even a "complete" list would not always be helpful. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

How to handle families not in APG III: a proposal

In expanding Asparagales based on the Spanish article (as suggested by a heading note at the time) I ran into the problem of families which are no longer recognized in APG III. There are no less than 13 in the Asparagales, some of which are small, but at least three of which are quite major groups and currently have significant articles on them, particularly Alliaceae, Amaryllidaceae sensu stricto and Hyacinthaceae. In the Asparagales article, I adopted the families of APG III with the subfamilies of Chase, Reveal & Fay (2009) to keep track of the submerged families. I notice that no-one has objected to this. It does however mean that the Asparagales article and articles on the affected families and their genera and species are inconsistent.

My proposal is that this be made consistent, i.e. we adopt the APG III families strictly, removing those which were in earlier versions of the APG system but are not in APG III, but, unusually, explicitly using the subfamilies proposed by Chase et al. (at least in the Asparagales). One advantage of the automatic taxobox system is that a 'minor' rank, like subfamily, can be made to display or not in taxoboxes by a single change to the relevant Template:Taxonomy/... For now, I would suggest displaying subfamilies like Allioideae, Amarylloideae and Scillioidae.

There are two alternatives: continue to use the submerged families or make them disappear totally by ignoring the Chase et al. subfamilies.

Which of the three alternatives do other editors support? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Use the subfamilies. The APG III publication seems to indicate that for simplicity's sake, they didn't tackle the subfamilies in the large APG III paper and specifically point this out: "For convenience and better communication, a subfamilial classification of Amaryllidaceae, Asparagaceae and Xanthorrhoeaceae sensu APG III is proposed in Chase, Reveal & Fay (2009). This will allow researchers to use a subfamily name where previously they would have used one of the APG II bracketed family names." Use of these subfamilies is clearly in line with APG III and it would seem the authors fully support their use. Rkitko ^(talk) 21:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it is pretty safe to use APG III and the subfamilies from the Chase (2009) paper. Classifications prior to that one were pretty much all over the map (as I understand the situation, anyway). Kingdon (talk) 01:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

That has been my impression as well, and I've been following the monocot classification revisions for some time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, well it seems that everyone agrees so far. Just to summarize:

1. We use only the families in APG III (as already agreed).
2. For those previously 'major' families which have disappeared in APG III but have a subfamily provided in Chase et al. (2009), at least for the present, we use the subfamily both as the article title and in the taxobox.

I personally will use an automatic taxobox in any articles which I convert (I'm aware that there's no consensus on this). The advantage is that the subfamilies can be marked "always display"; then if it seems that they don't 'take', changing one taxobox will make them disappear everywhere. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:15, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

In updating articles on species, I have removed text which names the family to which the species belongs: (a) this seems unnecessary at the species level (b) it makes any future change of family more difficult to implement. If anyone objects, I'll stop. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrong picture.

Hallo, This is a picture from the fruit of Planchonia careya & not Terminalia ferdinandiana, there are two tree's with the common name "Biilygoat Plum" or "Kakadu Plum", Planchonia careya & Terminalia ferdinandiana. It's maybe a good idea to change it to stop confusion. I myself am new to Wikipedia & don't really understand how to do this. Thanks Stephen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.2.187.16 (talk) 09:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done. See here. Have also requested a renaming of the photo itself. Thank you for pointing it out.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 10:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Blurgh. Looks like that picture was misidentified as well.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 10:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes the two pictures at commons were of 2 different plants but neither correct! Fixed now. Melburnian (talk) 10:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Zephyranthes article

Could someone please have a look at this article, which I 'passed through' while updating to APG III taxonomy? A quick glance suggests some possible advertising; some of the article looks more like a catalogue than an encyclopedia article – but I only looked quickly. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Didn't look like a catalogue to me: it isn't tied to a particular vendor. Nothing wrong with listing cultivated varieties of a plant, if that is all this is. There might be a little advertising snuck in (such as "are just a few of the talented breeders") here and there. There are some violations of WP:NOTHOWTO but mostly of a stylistic sort: I don't think the discussion of how these things are cultivated and what conditions they thrive in is particularly excessive. Some of it could be trimmed down but I don't see any need for large-scale slashing of that text; more like rewording and tightening and probably snipping out a few things here and there. Kingdon (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Opinions sought

This section Amaryllidoideae#Tribes, subtribes and genera of an article which I 'passed through' while updating to APG III seemed inappropriate to me. My feeling is that a detailed discussion of the tribes into which a family or subfamily can be divided is really only of interest to botanists, who can read the sources, and not appropriate to the level Wikipedia aims for. But what do others think? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a point on which I am an inclusionist. It can always also be broken off into an Phylogeny and Classification of Amaryllidoideae article. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

In this case it is well-written and informative. As Lavateraguy says, we can break it out if need be. Not sure I'd say the same of classifications which don't cite their sources, don't say whose classification it is, commit original research, etc. Kingdon (talk) 01:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Well sourced, encyclopedic content - definite keep. That it's detailed is a positive, not a negative. mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting to see different reactions. I think it would be really useful if we could add some material to the project page which spells out in more detail the level of detail in articles the project is aiming for. The Scope and goals set out the top level goals (although note that articles on orders and higher taxa are missing from the goals). But then I'd like to see more subsections in the Guidelines section, e.g. explaining how WP:NOTHOWTO is applied in the context of plant articles. Since I'm currently traversing the entire tree of articles on Amaryllidaceae sensu APG III, I looking (very superficially) at many more articles than I would normally. A high proportion, in this group at least, rely on horticultural sources for information, and hence include material on cultivation – quite reasonably in my view. But perhaps others would regard the cultivation material as excessive whereas I regard tribe-level classification material as excessive. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template. I think that's what you're looking for. Rkitko ^(talk) 01:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

In my original post, it might have been helpful if I had emphasized the word 'detailed': "My feeling is that a detailed discussion of the tribes into which a family or subfamily can be divided is really only of interest to botanists, who can read the sources, and not appropriate to the level Wikipedia aims for." See also below.

It's just unusual because very few articles have this sort of detailed material and even fewer users have the capacity to write that sort of taxonomic overview. Circéus (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

See the GA review of Aloe vera, in particular the comment

"At times, the language is pretty inaccessible to anyone who is not a botanist, or has not received a scientific training. This is not so all the way through, but it occurs in some of the sections. ... This article has the potential to be of interest to readers outside the natural scientist community, but it needs to be made more comprehensible to them."

Do we, as a WikiProject, agree with this approach to GA status or not?

I think it's also a matter of balance. I've been influenced by a comment by User:EncycloPetey above (see #Use of taxon name + sensu X) making the point that articles should be about the subject and not merely about names. If it's helpful to the reader in understanding the morphology, anatomy, properties, etc. of members of a group, then division into tribes, subgenera, or whatever is useful, but it seems to me (now) that the taxonomy per se should be very much secondary. This is rather against my personal feelings, since I find classification an absorbing subject. However, I'm currently of the view that Wikipedia editors should not. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:30, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Though I have great difficulty in understanding phylogeny and whatnot, I'm also of the opinion that we should not dumb down content for the sake of dumbing it down. I've argued about this with someone in IRC once. While we can exchange jargon with words more familiar with readers, we also should not omit information that may be important to someone serious about the subject simply because majority of people don't care to know about it, imo. But yeah, it's all about balancing, I guess. I usually shove down the more technical aspects of articles I write (which I barely understand myself) down at the bottom of articles so as not to scare away readers.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 11:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Obsidian Soul. A GA physics article is generally going to go over my head because you can't explain the topic in proper detail without assuming the reader knows something about physics. Likewise in botany. The solution to this is to be careful and link to the proper articles in our dense descriptions or explain likely unfamiliar words or concepts with parentheticals. That has never been a problem before in any GA or FA review I've participated in. Rkitko ^(talk) 11:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I try to put brief explanations in parentheses, but too much makes the text hard to read. Now if there were a single "botanical glossary" with anchors for every defined term, this might help to produce more useful wikilinks than is sometimes possible at present. The discussion of merging Glossary of botanical terms and Glossary of plant morphology terms seems to have halted, which I think is a pity. I'm in favour of a single "botanical glossary". Peter coxhead (talk) 20:34, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphan notices

Another thing I've noticed in traversing the 'Amaryllidaceae article tree' is the significant number of species articles tagged as orphans. Since the project's goal is to describe "all ... species of the kingdom Plantae", it's inevitably the case that many species will only be linked to from their genus article. So I've simply removed these orphan tags whenever I found them. I suspect there's no way of preventing them being added, although if there were I would support it. Any views? Comments? Peter coxhead (talk) 07:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I dislike that tag a lot. LOL. It's extremely unnecessary in most cases and quite obnoxiously prominent. imo, it should only be used when there are actually articles that can be linked to it, instead of arbitrarily placing them on every page with less than 3 articles linking to it.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 08:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

If you talk to the people doing the tagging, they'll suggest that you make an "all species in the genus" template and include it on all pages related to the genus. That's an option for smaller genera, but I don't think it would be feasible for large genera. And, more to the point, it's silly to add it just to avoid having a bot tag the pages. Guettarda (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I always got the feeling that people who add it to pages simply can't find anything else wrong with them. :P As if they have to place a tag so they place that one in the absence of anything else appropriate. I mean seriously, whatever happened to WP:SOFIXIT. :/

Anyway, yep, seems to be justified. Species/Taxonomic articles are specifically mentioned in Wikipedia:Orphan#Articles that may be difficult to de-orphan -- Obsidi♠n^Soul 17:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems that we all agree on the removal of orphan tags. I've made WP:TAXONORPHAN a shortcut to Wikipedia:Orphan#Articles that may be difficult to de-orphan, so when removing orphan notices from taxonomy/species articles, [[WP:TAXONORPHAN]] can be given as justification. Hopefully this will stop reverts, if not additions in future. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Blue Sage

I've just done a little bit of tidying on Eranthemum pulchellum and I notice that both it and Salvia clevelandii are known by the common name Blue Sage. Currently Blue sage redirects to Salvia clevelandii (which has no hatnote for Eranthemum pulchellum). There's also a DAB page Blue Sage (disambiguation) which links to both articles. Is Salvia clevelandii the primary use of Blue Sage or is that country dependent? It seems that Eranthemum pulchellum is a popular Indian plant. Should Blue sage be a DAB page or is it appropriate for it to redirect to one of the two articles with a hatnote for the other one? Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

S. clevelandii seems to be more commonly known as the 'Cleveland sage' ('blue sage' being only one of its common names). You should change the redirect from Blue sage to point directly to E. pulchellum and put a {{Redirect|Blue sage}} hatnote on it. S. clevelandii, on the other hand, should have a {{For|other plants also known as 'blue sage'|Blue sage (disambiguation)}} or something hatnote leading to the dab page. It probably was redirected to S. clevelandii before simply because the article on E. pulchellum didn't exist at the time of its creation (former was written in 2007, latter in 2011).-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 15:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, done. Thanks. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 20:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Guarana

Just a heads-up; Guarana has had a GAR open for over a month and nobody's commented yet. Please feel free to do so here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Algae tagging

Possible errors I made a number of edits to talk pages adding {{WikiProject Algae}} in January and I've tried to rectify my mistakes, but one of the editors who was vigilant about this matter (User:Kleopatra) has apparently disappeared from Wikipedia. If anyone else wants to go through the effort of checking some of my old edits for errors, I'd appreciate it. From now on, I'll be sure to steer clear of tagging the talk pages of technical or scientific articles. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

For those who might not have found User_talk:Koavf#Tagging, the issue was articles like Phytopthora, Pythium, Dileptus anser and other non-photosynthetic unicellular eurkaryotes. Your edit history is pretty prolific, though, koavf, so it isn't easy for me to just check whatever you have tagged. Kingdon (talk) 01:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually I only tagged one of those three pages. Here's what I'm doing: starting with this edit (2011-01-24T04:12:54) to Talk:Artificial seawater, I will go through my edits (see starting here) backwards through to my edit (2011-01-24T19:20:21) to Talk:Zonaria (alga) and for every edit where mine is the top diff, I will make a list that can be reviewed by other users who are more knowledgeable than me. As I've stated before, I'll not engaged in any mass-editing of science or technical articles (where I am too ignorant), nor will I tag them at all (mass- or otherwise), unless I am certain of the appropriate WikiProject. This was a huge hassle for everyone involved—myself included—and I want it to be fixed finally. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Here you go

All (top) edits from this period—Total: 280

2011-01-24T19:20:17 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Yuknessia ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:20:15 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Xanthophyceae ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:20:12 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Wheels of Poseidon ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:19:52 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Trichocyte (algae) ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:19:37 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Tetrapedia (alga) ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:19:32 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Telonema ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:19:30 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Syringodermatales ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:19:28 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Syringodermataceae ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:19:27 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Synurophyceae ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:19:21 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Stylonematophyceae ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:19:08 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Sporochnales ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:19:03 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Sphaerellocystis ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:18:58 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Skvortzoviothrix terrestris ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:18:56 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Shiro alga carta ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:18:51 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Scotiellopsis terrestris ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:18:25 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Roombia truncata ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:18:21 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Rhodothamniella ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:18:19 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Rhodochytrium ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:18:16 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Rhizochromulinales ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:18:13 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Reproductive initials ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:18:11 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:RedToL ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:18:07 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Raphidophyceae ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:17:10 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Pyramimonas tetrarhyncus ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:17:08 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Pylaiella ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:16:56 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Pseudopedinella ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:16:53 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Pseudogrinnellia ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:16:50 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Pseudochorda ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:16:41 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Proteromonas ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:16:39 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Proteromonadidae ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:16:35 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Prasiola ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:16:32 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Postgaardi ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:16:30 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Porphyran ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:16:27 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Polytoma ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:16:25 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Polyquat ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:16:23 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Polarella ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:16:20 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Pleurochrysis carterae ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:16:17 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Platychilomonas psammobia ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:11:55 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Planochloris ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:11:49 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Pinguiophyceae ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:11:47 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Pinguiococcus ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:11:09 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Phyllobium ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:11:07 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Phycologia Australica ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:11:03 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Phaeothamniophyceae ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:11:00 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Phaeophyceae ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:10:54 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Petrophyton (alga) ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:10:28 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Parapedinella ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:10:21 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Palmogloea ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:10:19 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Palmodictyon ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:10:18 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Palmodactylon ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:10:13 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Oxyrrhis ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:10:09 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Osmundea pinnatifida ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:09:55 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Onslowiales ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:09:38 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Neochloris terrestris ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:09:35 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Nemodermatales ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:09:34 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Nemodermataceae ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:09:32 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Nemastomatales ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:09:28 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Nannochloropsis ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:09:24 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Myriotrichia ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:09:23 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Myriogramme ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:09:19 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Minium ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:09:14 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Mesopedinella ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:09:08 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Mastigonemes ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:09:02 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Lusitania (alga) ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:08:59 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Lobata (alga) ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:08:57 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Litostroma ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:08:52 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:List of coralline algae species in the British Isles ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:08:49 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Leptofauchea coralligena ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:08:47 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Leptocladia ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:03:18 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Laminariales ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:02:54 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Kremastochloris ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:02:47 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Karyorelictea ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:02:41 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Karotomorpha ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:02:11 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Ishigeales ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:02:04 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:IIMSAM ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:01:59 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Ice algae ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:01:57 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Hystrix (diatom) ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:01:54 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Hypnomonas ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:01:52 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Hyphochytrium ‎ (tag using AWB) 2011-01-24T19:01:40 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Holdfast ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:01:35 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Himanthalia elongata ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:01:30 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Hibberdiales ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:01:16 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Hepatocystis ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:01:11 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Heleococcus ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:01:05 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Halysis ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:01:01 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Halvaria ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:00:40 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Goussia ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:00:38 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Gonium ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:00:37 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Goniotrichales ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:00:30 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Gonimoblast ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:00:23 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Gonidium ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:00:18 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Golenkiniopsis ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:00:16 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Glow plate ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:00:14 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Glossomastix ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:00:06 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:GEOHAB ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:00:00 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Eisenia arborea ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:59:59 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Eisenia (alga) ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:59:46 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Ectocarpus siliculosus ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:59:42 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Echinosphaeridium ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:59:39 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Dulse ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:59:34 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Dispora ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:59:27 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Dinobryaceae ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:59:23 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Didymosporangium ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:59:19 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Dictyophycus ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:59:17 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Dictyochloropsis reticulata ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:59:15 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Dicranochaete ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:59:12 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Diaphragma ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:59:07 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Dermatophyton ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:59:05 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Dendrocystis ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:59:01 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Dactylothece ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:58:55 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Cystoseira ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:58:51 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Cutleriaceae ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:58:49 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Ctenocladus ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:58:44 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Cruoria ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:58:40 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Crenacantha ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:58:35 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Conoidasida ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:58:29 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Coelastrum ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:58:26 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Codiolum ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:58:22 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Cloniophora ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:58:17 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Chrysosphaerales ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:58:15 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Chrysophyta ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:58:05 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Choreoclonium ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:58:01 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Chorda ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:57:56 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Chlorotylium ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:57:52 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Chlorofilum ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:57:48 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Chlorochytrium ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:57:41 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Chara vulgaris ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:57:37 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Chaetophora elegans ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:57:34 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Chaetonemopsis ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:57:33 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Chaetonema ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:57:31 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Chaetomnion ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:57:24 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Cepedea ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:57:22 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Cedercreutziella ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:57:18 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Carpospore ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:57:12 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Calkinsia ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:57:10 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Cafeteria (bicosoecid) ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:57:02 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Botrydiaceae ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:56:51 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Bifurcaria ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:56:49 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Bicosoecid ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:56:38 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:B. Greg Mitchell ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:56:27 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Ascoseirales ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:56:25 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Ascoseiraceae ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:56:23 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Arthrochaete ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:56:21 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Arenigiphyllum ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:56:19 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Archaeolithophyllum ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:55:50 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Actinochloris terrestris ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:59:26 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Phasmid Study Group ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:59:22 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Peruphasma schultei ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:59:18 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Megacrania batesii ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:59:16 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Medauroidea extradentata ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:59:03 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Achrioptera fallax ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:57:00 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Siphon (insect anatomy) ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:56:56 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Newfoundland Insectarium ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:56:49 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:International Union for the Study of Social Insects ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:56:47 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Insecticidal soap ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:56:41 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Insect diuretic hormones ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:56:38 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Inherited sterility in insects ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:56:36 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Household insecticide D-20 ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:56:32 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Anvil (insecticide) ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:50:25 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Sphingopus ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:50:16 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Sinoichnites ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:49:37 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Proximodorsal process ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:49:20 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Pes (anatomy) ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:48:57 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Pengxianpus ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:48:43 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Otozoum ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:48:39 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Ornithoscelida ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:48:32 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Obturator process ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:48:21 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:National Geographic Dinosaurs ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:48:03 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Megalosauripus ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:47:53 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Manus (anatomy) ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:47:38 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:List of stratigraphic units with few dinosaur genera ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:47:04 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:How to Keep Dinosaurs ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:46:38 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Gigantosauropus ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:46:35 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Giant Dinosaurs of the Jurassic ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:45:37 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Coracoid tubercle ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:44:45 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Antorbital fenestra ‎ (tag using AWB) 2011-01-24T04:44:40 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Anchisauripus ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:44:35 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Amblydactylus ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:29:59 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Robbins, Tennessee ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:24:23 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Geniculate (alga) ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:24:21 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Gemina ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:24:19 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Gelidium ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:23:29 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Joppa, Tennessee ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:21:40 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Fucus spiralis ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:20:29 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Florenciellales ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:18:06 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Florenciella ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:17:41 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Ettlia terrestris ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:17:38 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Epithallium ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:17:20 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Cryptophytes ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:14:08 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Conceptacle ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:13:00 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Biliphyta ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:12:54 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Artificial seawater ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:03:18 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Laminariales ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:02:54 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Kremastochloris ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:02:47 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Karyorelictea ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:02:41 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Karotomorpha ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:02:11 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Ishigeales ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:02:04 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:IIMSAM ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:01:59 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Ice algae ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:01:57 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Hystrix (diatom) ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:01:54 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Hypnomonas ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:01:40 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Holdfast ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:01:35 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Himanthalia elongata ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:01:30 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Hibberdiales ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:01:16 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Hepatocystis ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:01:11 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Heleococcus ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:01:05 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Halysis ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:01:01 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Halvaria ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:00:40 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Goussia ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:00:38 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Gonium ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:00:37 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Goniotrichales ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:00:30 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Gonimoblast ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:00:23 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Gonidium ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:00:18 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Golenkiniopsis ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:00:16 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Glow plate ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:00:14 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Glossomastix ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:00:06 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:GEOHAB ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T19:00:00 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Eisenia arborea ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:59:59 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Eisenia (alga) ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:59:46 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Ectocarpus siliculosus ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:59:42 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Echinosphaeridium ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:59:39 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Dulse ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:59:34 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Dispora ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:59:27 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Dinobryaceae ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:59:23 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Didymosporangium ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:59:19 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Dictyophycus ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:59:17 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Dictyochloropsis reticulata ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:59:15 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Dicranochaete ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:59:12 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Diaphragma ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:59:07 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Dermatophyton ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:59:05 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Dendrocystis ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:59:01 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Dactylothece ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:58:55 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Cystoseira ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:58:51 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Cutleriaceae ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:58:49 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Ctenocladus ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:58:44 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Cruoria ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:58:40 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Crenacantha ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:58:35 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Conoidasida ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:58:29 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Coelastrum ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:58:26 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Codiolum ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:58:22 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Cloniophora ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:58:17 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Chrysosphaerales ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:58:15 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Chrysophyta ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:58:05 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Choreoclonium ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:58:01 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Chorda ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:57:56 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Chlorotylium ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:57:52 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Chlorofilum ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:57:48 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Chlorochytrium ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:57:41 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Chara vulgaris ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:57:37 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Chaetophora elegans ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:57:34 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Chaetonemopsis ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:57:33 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Chaetonema ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:57:31 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Chaetomnion ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:57:24 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Cepedea ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:57:22 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Cedercreutziella ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:57:18 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Carpospore ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:57:12 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Calkinsia ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:57:10 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Cafeteria (bicosoecid) ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:57:02 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Botrydiaceae ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:56:51 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Bifurcaria ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:56:49 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Bicosoecid ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:56:38 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:B. Greg Mitchell ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:56:27 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Ascoseirales ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:56:25 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Ascoseiraceae ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:56:23 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Arthrochaete ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:56:21 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Arenigiphyllum ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:56:19 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Archaeolithophyllum ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T18:55:50 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Actinochloris terrestris ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:24:23 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Geniculate (alga) ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:24:21 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Gemina ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:24:19 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Gelidium ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:21:40 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Fucus spiralis ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:20:29 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Florenciellales ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:18:06 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Florenciella ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:17:41 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Ettlia terrestris ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:17:38 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Epithallium ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:17:20 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Cryptophytes ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:14:08 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Conceptacle ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:13:00 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Biliphyta ‎ (tag using AWB) (top) 2011-01-24T04:12:54 (diff | hist) Nm Talk:Artificial seawater ‎ (tag using AWB) (top)

There are all of them in a list, so they should be reviewable by someone who is knowledgeable on these topics. If this is too much of a hassle, I can place {{db-author}} on all of these talk pages. Please let me know if/how I can assist on my talk. Thanks and (once again) sorry. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; that list is quite helpful. I went through the first dozen or so and only found one error. If I get more time I'll do some more, but help is appreciated. Just add strikeout (<s>) tags to ones you have already checked (and if you aren't sure, just skip that one and move on to the next). Kingdon (talk) 01:30, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome But the rub here is that all of these articles were under Category:Algae, which is why I felt safe tagging them in the first place. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I've changed the categories on Telonema. Kingdon (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Flora or plants?

Should I move California native plants to Native plants of California, Indigenous flora of California or some other combination? Is "flora" and "plants" used interchangeably? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

In terms of articles that exist, it seems that titles of the form "Flora of location" are preferred over "location-adjective Flora", so there's a case for moving from "California native plants" to "Native plants of California".

As to "native plants" vs. "indigenous flora", I'd choose "native flora"!! Peter coxhead (talk) 09:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Categorization of plant articles

Having updated to APG III the taxonomy in all the articles I could find relating to Xanthorrhoeaceae, Amaryllidaceae and Asparagaceae (as per Wikipedia_talk:PLANTS#How_to_handle_families_not_in_APG_III:_a_proposal) I wanted to ensure that the categories matched. I started a thread on categorization at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Guidelines_on_categorization, which seemed to reach some kind of consensus (among the few respondents).

However, the actual categorization which seems to be intended for plants is more complicated. I say "seems" because many of the relevant extra categories appear to have been created by Hesperian, who doesn't seem to be around to answer my request for an explanation.

The categorization appears to me to be meant to work like the diagram opposite. "Meant" because actual article categorization is highly inconsistent. The brown lines show categories and links which I don't really see the need for.

• Arrows in the diagram mean "is categorized as". Links between categories read in reverse as "has the subcategory"; links between an article and a category read in reverse as "has the page".
• Articles on species and genera are categorized either under the genus, if it's big enough, or under the next higher category otherwise.
• Articles on genera are ALSO categorized under the category "FAMILY genera".
• Articles on subfamilies are categorized under the subfamily.
• Articles on families are categorized BOTH (1) under the family AND (2) under "ORDER families".

Where there were existing categories in the articles whose taxonomy I've updated, I've followed this pattern.

• Is this system of categorization documented anywhere? If so, where?
• Have I understood it correctly?
• What are the advantages of the categories shown by brown links in the diagram? The disadvantages seem clear to me: extra complexity means that editors don't categorize as apparently intended; there's great scope for inconsistency between the links with, e.g., genera articles placed in "Category:FAMILY1" but also in "Category:FAMILY2 genera".

I hope someone can help! Peter coxhead (talk) 11:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

(non-WikiProject Plants member observation) Thanks for raising this. I also find those brown links/categories rather confusing and somewhat redundant. Are they a hangover from some older attempt at categorisation, perhaps? Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 12:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

There are also categories for some tribes (e.g. Cichorieae). Lavateraguy (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I should have added to the notes above that "subfamily" is just one example of an intermediate level. Very large genera might need subgenera, etc. to reduce the size of the category listing (orchids are a good example where genera have a huge number of species). The principle is clear, I think. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

To me the brown Category structure seems redundant, and Hesperian hasn't given much of an explanation as to its need. I would say adjusting, merging, and deleting categories where they are needed to get down to the taxo based structure may be teh way to go.--Kevmin § 19:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, if no-one explains why the brown Category structure exists, I'm very tempted to do exactly what you say in the area I've been working in, namely Xanthorrhoeaceae, Amaryllidaceae and Asparagaceae. It's a big enough task to get the black links right. But let's wait a little longer (but not too long :-) ). Peter coxhead (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I consider the use of categories like Category:Proteaceae genera to be useful and sensible. It don't think the structure is at all confusing, though even I find the diagram above confusing, with all its needlessly crossing lines and its failure to capture the symmetry inherent in the system. I'm sorry if my explanation has been inadequate; I am too busy in real life to invest time in defending this. Hesperian 00:02, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I understand that I'm (semi)retired and so have more time for this stuff than others, which should not give me more say in decisions, so I want to proceed with caution. I'll make some points in the hope that there are others about who understand this stuff.

• There definitely is a strong potential symmetry in the system, which I agree doesn't show up too well in my 2-D diagram. I think this is because it has multiple category hierarchies: the categorization of the taxa themselves, the categorization of the taxon genera, the categorization of the taxon families (and the categorization of the taxon orders, etc. if the diagram were extended upwards). To show how these multiple vertical categorizations are connected seems to require crossing lines – or at least I haven't found any way of drawing it that doesn't, and I have tried several.
• The symmetry is only potential, because taxa with few members (genera with few species, families with few genera, etc.) have usually not had categories created for them, since there is a bias against categories with few members (although WP:SMALLCAT allows them in this case, I think). So the reality is that if the categories were fully populated, which is far from the case, the system would be symmetrical. Actually it is not, partly deliberately and partly because categorization is far from complete.
• I agree entirely that if the categorization were complete, it is useful to be able to access a list of all the genera within the Proteaceae (say) on which Wikipedia has articles. But in the system under discussion there are two ways of doing this which should produce the same result: firstly by going to Category:Proteaceae genera and secondly by going to Category:Proteaceae, which should contain either subcategories or pages for each genus. In this case, I guess because Proteaceae interests Hesperian, there is a comprehensive list in Category:Proteaceae genera, but a poor one in Category:Proteaceae (e.g. the article on Knightia excelsa is there but nothing for the genus Knightia). For other families, e.g. Apiaceae, there is actually no Category:Apiaceae genera, only Category:Apiaceae.

In conclusion, unless anyone else is really interested, I think I'll get back to writing articles, which is more useful, it seems, than thinking about categorization! Peter coxhead (talk) 07:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that I see it all laid out, I like the system. Family categories have the potential to be messy - some genera, some species, some subfamilies...there's no guarantee that you can look at a family and figure out what genera are in it. Big families can be especially messy. So having a category specifically for genera, by family is useful. It parallels "lists of genera by family" (lists and categories are supposed to exist in parallel), while being potentially easier to maintain. So yeah, I like it. Guettarda (talk) 11:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment – good to see that someone else is willing to engage with this issue!

I entirely agree that lists of genera by family, with links from the genus names to Wikipedia articles, are extremely useful (not least when taxonomies change, as seems all too often at present). What I'm not convinced of is that having categories which parallel these lists is useful. In particular, I can't see that it's potentially easier to maintain. As I know from recent experience, if the circumscription of a family in terms of its genera changes, you have to change:

1. one or two pages which list the genera of that family (the family page + possibly a separate page listing the genera for that family)
2. the taxoboxes for the affected genera AND species (which is MUCH easier if automated taxoboxes are used since you don't need to go to the species articles at all)
3. the text of the articles for the affected genera AND the articles for the affected species if these latter mention the family in the text (which I think they generally shouldn't)
4. the categories in the articles for the affected genera – one 'black' category in my diagram and one 'brown' category.

(If categorization is correct, then there shouldn't be any changed categories for species articles, but this is a big if!).

Did having a category for the genera of a family help me in changing Xanthorrhoeaceae, Amaryllidaceae and Asparagaceae to APG III? Not in the slightest, it just made extra work.

Anyway, I thought there might be a quick consensus on this issue; as there isn't, and as I don't think that categorization is at all an important feature of Wikipedia for taxon articles, I think I'll leave this topic now. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Categorization and APG III

(Moved to a new section as a new topic I think. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC))

Actually I'm more than a little concerned about APG III recategorization. I don't think that we should reclassify entire groups solely based on APG III. Family circumspection depends on a number of factors. Until the experts working on a family actually accept the redefinitions, APG III is nothing more than a proposal. It is worth noting, of course. But until it enters common usage, we should not be changing families. It isn't our job to advocate for change. It's our job to document changes. Bearing that in mind, I suspect that it might make sense for parallel APG III categories to exist, at least until the systematics world establishes consensus on these changes. Guettarda (talk) 15:11, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

There are three places where reference to the placement of a taxon occurs:

• In the text of the article. Here, I'm sure we all agree, there should be discussion (or at least mention) of all taxonomic placements likely to be found in the literature. Recently I've been trying to explicitly add a statement about the system in use if I've been editing an article. Thus if it said "species X y is in family Z", I would change this to "In the APG III classification system, species X y is in family Z". We need to make the subjective nature of classification clearer.
• In the taxobox. Here there can only be one taxonomic hierarchy, and I asked above if anyone objected to this being changed to APG III for the Asparagales families most affected; no-one did. I have raised before whether there should be some mechanism for explicitly showing in the taxobox the system in use. I favour this. E.g. instead of "Scientific classification" which sounds definitive and authoritative, why not "Classification according to APG III", or whatever system is in use for that group?
• In the categorization. Having been through all the articles I could find relating to the Asparagales, I am only too aware of how inconsistent and generally poor the categorization was (and probably still is, although I've tried to improve it). The problem for me with providing multiple categorizations, which of course is technically possible, is that editors clearly find it too difficult to cope with the current system of categorization. I incline to the view that one system, paralleling the taxoboxes, which then has a chance of being more-or-less complete and consistent, is better than multiple systems, which would inevitably be less complete and more inconsistent. (Btw I have deliberately classified and categorized to the subfamily level in those families most affected by APG III. This means that there is a match between, say, Asparagaceae s.s. and Asparagoideae sensu APG III+, making it easier to match the two systems or switch back if the consensus changes.)

More generally, it seems to me that the organization of an encyclopedia does require editors to make decisions about classification systems (but they should be up front about these decisions). (You can't organize a library by both the Library of Congress and the Dewey systems. You just have to choose.) The content of an encyclopedia is different. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Many, if not most, of the changes in each APG update do reflect the literature. As you read through the APG III publication, they reference work by others that supported the conclusion for family or order shifts, so I don't think APG III, for example, is making much of this up or producing radical changes with no supporting data. I also don't think it's fair to say we're advocating for use of APG III by using it in the taxoboxes (one might say using Cronquist's outdated system would be advocating a position, too); I think the reasoning behind adoption of the system is quite sound on our part for consistency's sake. We could be waiting forever for common usage to catch up and by then it may be changing again. I continue to support APG III usage here. I also think it's pretty accurate to say that the systematics world is APG III, or at least many of the big names in flowering plant systematics are a part of APG III. I doubt very much that Chase et al. would publish a new family or order arrangement without consulting the experts on that taxon and inviting comment, given their data. And for what it's worth, I also support Hesperian's categorization scheme above of Category:Family genera. I just haven't had the opportunity to say so. I also apologize if any of this is incoherent as I'm working on little sleep and jet lag right now. Rkitko ^(talk) 20:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Although I support the use of APG III (as is obvious!), I'm aware that, as Guettarda wrote, it's not the case that all the experts on particular groups agree with APG III. (For example, I know from personal communication that Alan W. Meerow, an expert on the Amaryllidaceae s.s. and author of many names in this group, does not accept the full APG III system which sinks this group to a subfamily.) So we need to be a little cautious, hence my advocacy (and use) of the subfamilies which could be more easily turned back to families should the need arise.

I've given in over the "Hesperian categorization scheme"; clearly some plant editors like it and it should stay. I'll only point out, again, that its usage among plant groups is very, very patchy. I suggest that those who like it spend some time applying it. :-) Apiaceae is a good place to start since as of now Category:Apiaceae genera does not exist. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

If anyone wants to take this up they may find my old notes in User:Hesperian/Notes/Ranks of some use. Hesperian 23:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Now draw a diagram for that without crossing lines... :-) Peter coxhead (talk) 07:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with updating to APG-III. Whereas most published taxonomies are merely the views of a few authors, APG-III represents the consensus of a peak body. It was already the consensus view the day it was published. There's no need to hold out for unanimity. Hesperian 23:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Just came across this interesting paper: Kim, Joo-Hwan; Kim, Dong-Kap; Forest, Felix; Fay, Michael F.; Chase, Mark W. (2010), "Molecular phylogenetics of Ruscaceae sensu lato and related families (Asparagales) based on plastid and nuclear DNA sequences", Annals of Botany, 106 (5): 775–790, doi:10.1093/aob/mcq167 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help). Quote from the conclusion section: "the parsimony analysis in this study does not find support for the broader circumscription of Asparagaceae sensu APG III. Amaryllidaceae s.l. are supported, but in this study Asparagaceae s.l. are paraphyletic to Amaryllidaceae s.l.". Note that two authors (Fay & Chase) are part of the APG group. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Purple yam

I've requested the article Purple yam be moved over redir to Dioscorea alata. Please weigh in at the talk page. I am leaving this message at all the relevant project's talk pages. Hamamelis (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The article has been moved, as above, with 5 votes in support; 0 votes opposed. Thanks everyone for your participation. I am leaving this message at all the relevant project's talk pages. Hamamelis (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Categorisation of plants by political entity

The topic of categorising plant within political borders may have been discussed somewhere else but I thought I would drop a note here. Lobelia inflata is listed as a plant in numerous US states. What do we do with some of the plants with a more cosmopolitan distribution? In how many country categories should we list bracken or some of the eucalypt species? Having lots of categories in the article makes the category system less useful. Can a reader be bothered wading trough all the categories? Geographical grouping are a much better way of categorising plants (and animals). -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this has been discussed a bazillion times. Two points bear repeating:

1. People have an interest in the flora of their countries and states. Plus flora is managed along political boundaries, because herbaria are funded by political entities. Pick a country/state, and search for books entitled "Flora of <country/state>" or "Plants of <country/state>", and I guarantee you you'll find plenty. Wikipedia's job is to reflect that interest, not to pass judgement on it and decide not to provide people with what they are looking for because we think it is silly.
2. It can be hard to justify following political boundaries when dealing with non-contiguous cases, like Hawaii being a part of the United States. But this is not a problem unique to us. Every herbarium database has to deal with it. Compromises have to be made. Rather than make our own decisions on how to proceed, we outsource the issue by following the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions.
3. Regarding over-categorization, a key solution is to add distribution categories only to lowest level (or endemic) taxa. You wouldn't add flowering plant to every "Flora of" category. Similarly, you wouldn't add bracken either, because this is a genus. You would only add geographic categories to individual bracken species, such as Pteridium aquilinum.

Hesperian 05:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Question about Shallot article

Information has been added to the Shallot article re Shallot#Shallots_in_Persian_cooking. This is partially referenced and appears to be correct. However, whereas the Shallot article at present refers in the lede to Allium cepa var. aggregatum or A. cepa Aggregatum group, the 'Persian shallot' is a different species (A. stipitatum, syn. A. hirtifolium). I'm not used to editing food-based plant articles. Is this a case where the initial description of 'shallot' should be widened or where the material on 'Persian shallots' should be moved to a newly created Allium stipitatum article? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

If you have a reliable reference to create the stipitatum article, then that would seem preferable. Meanwhile, the Shallot article is under a common name, so it is appropriate that it refers 'other shallots'. Perhaps at present the lead should be modified so slightly to acknowledge these? Imc (talk) 07:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Lavateraguy has already modified the lead section. The issue for me, then, is that the taxobox isn't quite right once the article says that "shallot" is not one species.

On the issue of a reliable source for info on A. stipitatum, I have Dilys Davies' Alliums book, but the Kew Checklist seems to have sunk species she describes separately into synonymity, so it's slightly tricky to work out which currently recognized species is being described. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I have now created Allium stipitatum. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Now that you have created Allium stipitatum I would favour moving the Persian shallot stuff into there. If an article is created for French shallots as well, then shallot can be cleaned up.

I speculate about the value about creating a subarticle of Allium, about their culinary uses. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll move the Persian shallot stuff, leaving a wikilink in the original article.

Done.

I think that a general article about culinary uses of Allium species would be very worthwhile. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a chapter on "Edible Alliums" in Davies, Dilys (1992), Alliums : the ornamental onions, London: B.T. Batsford (in association with the Hardy Plant Society), ISBN 978-0-7134-7030-7 which seems well-researched and would be a good source if you have access to it. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Warnings

reading Camassia quamash I noticed that there are two warnings in the article pointing out that it can be confused with Zigadenus venenosus which is poisonous to humans. While I appreciate the sentiment, this seems unencyclopedic to me. Encyclopedias do not exist to offer advice on whether one should or shouldn't do something. Is there some kind of guideline for this type of thing? Murderbike (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes WP:NOTMANUAL. I've addressed it at the article.Melburnian (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

But it's ok to report, neutrally, on advice which can be sourced elsewhere. So if it's reported that Camassia quamash bulbs are edible, then it would be responsible to add something like "SOURCE says that the species can be confused with Zigadenus venenosus which is poisonous to humans", assuming that there is such a source. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Plants Desert Plants Task Force

WikiProject Plants Desert Plants Task Force

• User:PPdd

Would anyone like to join me in starting a WikiProject Desert Plants Task Force? Once there are five names above, we can start our task list. Sign your name in the quote box above. PPdd (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Plants Illustration, Anatomy, and Morphology Task Force

WikiProject Plants Illustration, Anatomy, and Morphology Task Force

• User:PPdd

Would anyone like to join me in starting a WikiProject Plants Illustration, Anatomy, and Morphology Task Force? The purpose would be to create a Wikipedia Illustrated Encyclopedia of Plant Terms, to visually illustrate the technical terms used in our plant articles. A picture is worth way more than a thousand words, and we all have that "So and So's Illustrated Encyclopedia of Plant Terms" on our shelf that we take out more than any other book there. Once there are five names above, we can start our task list. Sign your name in the quote box above. It will also help people scratching their heads and looking up into their upper right visual periphery every time they look at a Jepson Manual. PPdd (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Query about ICBN and Ternary name

I would be grateful if any experts on the ICBN/botanical nomenclature could look at Talk:Ternary_name#.22Ternary_name.22_is_not_in_the_ICBN; I've flagged the article with {{disputed}} which may or may not be correct. Thanks. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I commented there. Also, suggest you review Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive30#"Quadrinomial_name" and maybe have a chat with Curtis Clark, who is very strong on nomenclature. Hesperian 01:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Actually, on reviewing it, I'm inclined to think that your comment "I suspect I am going to have to read this [Art. 24.1] twenty times before I begin to comprehend the disputes and compromises inherent in the wording, and its implications for us" applies to me too! In spite of his expertise, I'm not entirely convinced by Curtis Clark's response to you then. I've left him a message asking him to look at Talk:Ternary_name#.22Ternary_name.22_is_not_in_the_ICBN if he has time. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The article "Ternary name" has been moved to Infraspecific name (botany) following discussion on the talk page. Please see the queries/requests at Talk:Infraspecific_name_(botany)#Move_and_re-write. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:59, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The name Papilionoideae

This edit claims that the subfamily name Papilionoideae is not "properly formed". The idea of citing the ICBN directly (as opposed to a secondary source) makes me nervous, but more importantly, is this correct? I fairly quickly got more deeply into taxonomy than I either know already or could quickly look up. I can verify that Papilionoideae is used in the literature (e.g. google scholar) but of course that doesn't answer the question of what the ICBN says. Kingdon (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Why should citing a primary source make you nervous? Anyway, the online version of the ICBN was cited, which says "19.7 When the Papilionaceae are included in the family Leguminosae (nom. alt., Fabaceae; see Art. 18.5) as a subfamily, the name Papilionoideae may be used as an alternative to Faboideae". The issue that I see is that "properly formed" is ambiguous; Papilionoideae is explicitly legitimated by the ICBN, and uses the proper termination, but isn't based on the name of a genus (it was grandfathered in, like Cruciferae, Leguminosae, etc, when the rule about basing names at some ranks on a genus name was introduced).

"Article 18.5. The following names, of long usage, are treated as validly published: Compositae (Asteraceae; type, Aster L.); Cruciferae (Brassicaceae; type, Brassica L.); Gramineae (Poaceae; type, Poa L.); Guttiferae (Clusiaceae; type, Clusia L.); Labiatae (Lamiaceae; type, Lamium L.); Leguminosae (Fabaceae; type, Faba Mill. [= Vicia L.]); Palmae (Arecaceae; type, Areca L.); Papilionaceae (Fabaceae; type, Faba Mill.); Umbelliferae (Apiaceae; type, Apium L.). When the Papilionaceae are regarded as a family distinct from the remainder of the Leguminosae, the name Papilionaceae is conserved against Leguminosae. "

"Article 18.6. The use, as alternatives, of the family names indicated in parentheses in Art. 18.5 is authorized. "

Lavateraguy (talk) 07:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The implication, to me, of both the Code and Lavateraguy's explanation, are that the edit is not completely accurate: it's true that the name could not be formed now, but it is conserved, so in this sense it is correct. I would suggest changing the edit to "Faboideae is also sometimes referred to as "Papilionoideae", which is a conserved name under the current International Code of Botanical Nomenclature". Presumably the pairs that should be used are Leguminosae/Papilionoideae and Fabaceae/Faboideae and not mixtures of the two?

More generally, I agree that you shouldn't be nervous about sourcing from the Code itself. The various articles on botanical nomenclature suffer from serious under-referencing to the Code. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the edit history, the corresponding comment there is definitely incorrect - it ways that Papilionoideae is not a valid alternative. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be reverted; to me it strongly implies that Papilionoideae has no formal standing as a name, when in fact it is explicitly allowed by the code, more that one can say for Faboideae. --Curtis Clark (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The reason that citing a primary source can be problematic is that it is too easy to push an agenda which does not reflect the consensus in a field (especially if the citation is selective or heavy with interpretation of a non-self-explanatory source). See WP:PRIMARY. But I don't want to get too hung up on wikilawyering. In this case "the name Papilionoideae may be used as an alternative to Faboideae" settles the matter (but isn't this 19.7 rather than 19.6?). I somehow missed that text the first time around. Kingdon (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a bit off the specific issue of "Papilionoideae", but I don't see that your reason above really has anything to do with the source being primary. Citing any source can be done badly in all the ways you describe. Secondary sources often have their agendas and have already been selective with the primary sources, which is why you should usually go back to the primary sources to check. I agree that where primary sources are used there's generally a particular need to look at a wide spread to avoid POV-pushing, but this does not apply to the ICBN. By definition there's just one primary source. It seems to me that it's only when you want to say something like "the Code says X but usage is often Y" that you need careful choice of sources for the latter.

WP:PRIMARY is not written from the point of view of science articles. Almost all the language used has nothing to do with science, e.g. primary sources offer "an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on"; secondary sources "are second-hand accounts, at least one step removed from an event". In this Wikiproject, we don't work on articles about events, periods of history, works of art, political decisions; we work on articles about plants and plant-related issues. A high proportion of these simply couldn't be covered at all without using primary sources, but I see no evidence that WP:PLANTS editors feel that such articles shouldn't exist. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The Chaparral article needs images of both resprouters and the fire follower annuals and their eco-community.

The Chaparral article needs images of both resprouters and the fire follower annuals and their eco-community. Does anyone have good suggestions that are illustrative of both concepts and apply statewide? PPdd (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Plants Chaparall and Fire Task Force

WikiProject Plants Chaparall and Fire Task Force

WikiProject Plants Chaparall and Fire Task Force

• User:PPdd

Would anyone like to join me in starting a WikiProject Plants Chaparall and Fire Task Force? Once there are five names above, we can start our task list. Sign your name in the quote box above. PPdd (talk) 15:18, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Musa banksii or M. acuminata subsp. banksii

Wondering if someone who is a botanist, or better yet, a Musa specialist, can take a look at Talk: Musa, section Musa banksii or M. acuminata subsp. banksii. We (myself and Obsidian Soul) are not sure which of these, if either, is the consensus accepted name for this plant. Some basic web searching has already been done, and the fruits of that search are at the talk page. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Laurel Sumac

I noticed that in the Santa Monica Mountains, Malosma laurina is the first to resprout after a Summer or Fall fire, with no waiting for winter rains, and is also the only chaparral plant with substantial growth in the later parts of the dry period. Also that the parasite Cuscuta californica is mostly only in its growth phase on this species in these driest of times. Does anyone know and source as to whether these are all related? PPdd (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Quercus ×audleyensis - The Audley End Oak

After reading about this tree in the Sun newspaper dated 8/6/2011 I tried to find more detail of it online, without much success. It is one of a kind in the UK and grows in Audley End, England. Does anyone else know more about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.2.77.142 (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Google tells me that it's a hybrid between Quercus ilex and Quercus petraea. The original description, in Elwes and Henry, doesn't have a Latin diagnosis; one would have to check the ICBN to see whether one was required at that date (1910). If one was then the correct name might be Quercus ×koehnei, from 1912. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that nothospecies names (but not nothogenera names) must conform to the same rules as species names Article H.10. Only after 1 Jan 1935 does a non-algal non-fossil taxon need a Latin diagnosis Article 36.1. So Quercus × audleyensis would appear to have priority over Q. × koehnei. But the ICBN is not a model of clarity, so I may be wrong. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Photo of pollen [sic] of Taraxacum kok-saghyz

The captioned photo appears to be of seeds.

JBP20090825 (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

What photo? Where? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Must be this one. mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

If so, a larger version can be found at the address below - the USDA doesn't seem specify what part of the plant it is (at least I could not find it).

• http://plants.usda.gov/java/largeImage?imageID=tako80_001_ahp.tif

Hamamelis (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Those are achenes/fruits. The pollen looks completely different as you can see here (under "C" for "Common Dandelion"). --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I have move permissions on Commons and have renamed the image / edited all links from Wikipedias. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Food web

Food web is currently being rewritten, and will hopefully go to FA. Any relevant contributions from people in this project will be much appreciated. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Botany background color - unification

Hello colegues!

Do we consider decolorisation of topic template a problem? (From dark green to standard navbox blue?) Do have any plant topic color-scheme tied to relevant navboxes?

I do ask, because User:Frietjes, while in the midle of series of small semi-automatic usefull editations aiming on template standardisation, he removed the background color from Template:Botany (per wp:deviations). Is it OK with us? Wp:deviation aim at removal of unnecessary HTML tags from Wiki. But at the same time, if have reason to believe, that color is justified by navigation value (as cited) bellow, it is still OK to have the template green.

Quoting from wp:deviations:
Deviations from standard conventions are acceptable where they create a semantic distinction (for instance, the infoboxes and navigational templates relating to The Simpsons use a yellow colour-scheme instead of the customary mauve, to tie in with the dominant colour in the series) but should not be used gratuitously

So therefore I ask, does have the green color in the templete any relevance for the reader? Or we do not care? Reo ⁺ 18:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Dark green seems to me an appropriate colour theme for plant related articles. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking over Wikipedia:Navigation templates and Template:Navbox I note that one is encouraged to use the default colors, but using non-default colors is OK if there is a reason for it. The green seems fitting and harmonizes a bit better with the plant taxoboxes (although few of the pages have both a taxobox and the botany box). As for wp:deviations, the key thing there is how much contrast (see WP:COLOR), and from that point of view the green is probably too dark, especially if the foreground is #0645AD (which is the foreground color I'm getting as a non-logged-in user with firefox, as far as I know with no unusual browser defaults). The color contrast thing is kind of complicated because it is affected by the user's theme, although I guess the most important thing is what non-logged-in users see. Oh, and of course there is Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates. Kingdon (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I see it actually similarly. I think it would be good, if the template would be harmonized with the Plant-taxabox colors and had a Green color. This being said, Frietjes mayby changed it also from the point of WP:ACCESS#Color(contrast) point of view, so if we want to harmonize really, so then lets use the exact colorcode of the taxaboxes. That would be the best option - two birds by one stone. --Reo ⁺ 00:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Please make me a photo of this plant, to support an article...it will show what a kick ass project you are

Please...I need a photo uploaded that shows the poison leaf plant. We have no photo of it. But I want to show it in the Fluorine article which is being worked up for FA. It would also grace the article for the plant itself as well as the article for fluoroacetate. So high impact. TCO (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

PLEASE! Come on, help the FA! TCO (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I doubt anyone here has some Dichapetalum cymosum lying around waiting to be photographed LOL. You'd have better chances asking in WikiProject South Africa. That said, you could try emailing the address given (under inquiries) in these slides from the University of Pretoria, South Africa website.-- Obsidi♠n^Soul 20:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry...will do. thought this might be like the Harry Potter where the fake Mad-eye Mooney leaves the book on gillyweed with Longbottom. TCO (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Seeking a UK Wikipedian for a Summer placement

In the Summer of 2011, Wikimedia UK and ARKive are colloborating on a project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of threatened species. This will involve recruiting a fixed-period in-residence role that we are calling Wikipedia Outreach Ambassador. This will be a volunteer, with access to desk space at ARKive's offices in Bristol and with travel and subsistence supported by Wikimedia UK. Their role will require both on-wiki activity and involving the wider community through online and offline events. If you can attend meetings in Bristol, and are interested in both wildlife and free knowledge, please visit the project page for further details. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

challenge to take poison leaf plant to GA

I would like to incite someone here to take Dichapetalum cymosum to GA. Very cool plant in that it makes a fluorine compound. TCO (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Lowercase sort key for species articles function gone

Hey folks, just a heads up. I didn't notice this until now, but apparently back in March there was a MediaWiki update that fixed a bug for the sorting order in other language Wikipedias. As far as I can tell, this means DEFAULTSORT is no longer necessary on non-biographical articles (hurray!), but the solution created other problems. Apparently, the solution was to treat all letters as capitalized, which caused some problems when μ gets transformed to the uppercase M, which is still Mu and sorts after Z (used in stub sorting).

Anyway, it also seems to have changed the way we were using lowercase sorting for species in genus categories. Take a look at your favorite genus category (mine: Category:Drosera) and notice that subgenera, sections, and "List of" articles are now mixed in among the species, which, in most cases, were sorting under lowercase headings via explicitly defined sort keys (e.g. [[Category:Drosera|paradoxa]], which now sorts under "P"). I started a discussion here: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Category sort order (lower case no longer?). User:Kotniski had an interesting idea, to exempt explicitly defined sort keys like ours from the new sorting rules. How we would do this, I have no idea (probably through requesting the feature at bugzilla) and I'm not sure if we'd gain support for it. If we want to go that route, we'd have to advocate for it.

Regardless, I think we're in a better position than we were several years ago when most genus categories were unsorted by species epithet, but it's a bit annoying that we can't separate out capitalized entries from lowercase entries. Thoughts? Rkitko ^(talk) 22:03, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think that Category:Drosera is sorted exactly how I would want it to be sorted. I'm strongly against sorting entries on the basis of the case of the first letter which is against all the normal rules for alphabetic sorting. Why shouldn't subgenera be sorted among species? Peter coxhead (talk) 07:40, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

That's just one example. You can find other genus categories where now species articles titled at common names are mixed in among species names, along with the "List of Genus species" article. It's just messy. The old way was a consensus view aimed at keeping species sorted separately so they could easily be found among the other articles in the category. Why shouldn't we separate them? Rkitko ^(talk) 12:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, categories such as Category:Quercus now appear somewhat jumbled.--Melburnian (talk) 12:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I agree that the "List of Genus species" article and other special articles, such as the genus itself, should be separate (which is easily done using | ]], but personally I don't see the case for keeping common names separate from species. However, if there was an earlier consensus, I guess it should be adhered to if this is possible. But the way to do it isn't to fiddle with the sort order, but to have some explicit mechanism to create more than one sorted order. Sorting upper and lower case letters by ASCII order creates all kinds of problems, especially when there's no consensus on the case to be used for common names. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Let's go back to the basics here? Originally the idea was to sort by SPECIES name in genus categories. Lowerkey simply had the extra advantage of sorting species separately from other articles, but I believe we can live with that change (worse come to worst, the two types of articles, thematic and species, can be split to separate categories). With subgeneric groups (which seems to be the main actual complain), such cases can be treate din multiple ways: a separate category ("subgeneric classification of Drosera"?), sorting them under "Subgenus/Section/subsection" instead of the section name, and using a non-letter sort key to put them at the beginning. Circéus (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

One 'basic' might be to think about indexes in botanically-oriented books. There seem to be two strategies regarding common and Latin names in the books I have on my shelf; they are about evenly split. Some have two separate indices, one for scientific names and one for everything else (this seems to be older books); others have one index. There is an argument for separating scientific names from common names/other titles, but then I would have thought that subgenera go with the other scientific names. I have to say that when I look at the complete muddle which most categories pages are in, sort order doesn't seem to me to be the highest priority. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

For large genera, I quite like the concept of separating out common names in a separate category such as at Category:Banksia taxa by common name created by Hesperian. It creates an easy to follow listing and redirects from common names are placed there as well. I've used the same system at Category:Grevillea taxa by common name.--Melburnian (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Extended clade template

Some editors might be interested in {{Cladex}}, an eXtended version of {{Clade}}. This allows coloured brackets or bars to be drawn to the right of leaf nodes in a cladogram, thus allowing paraphyletic groups to be identified. Unfortunately I can't yet find a way of labelling these brackets/bars, but as they can be of any colour, a key can be provided. An example is:

embryophytes	tracheophytes hornworts mosses liverworts

where the green bracket marks the "bryophytes".

NOTE As with {{Clade}}, the display of the cladogram depends on how your browser lays out tables. Please report any bugs with particular browsers at Template_talk:Cladex. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Titles for articles on nothogenera and species in nothogenera

Is there a consensus as to whether the article title for a nothogenus or a species in a nothogenus should include the multiplicaton sign? Lavateraguy (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

There was a a discussion back in 2007 about use of the multiplication sign in article titles generally, though Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) doesn't mention nothogenera specifically.--Melburnian (talk) 01:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Are there any articles on nothogenera or its species which don't include the cross symbol?

I'm more concerned about the non-use of a space between the × and the genus name. This causes problems (a) for people who need to use screen readers and so is against accessibility guidelines (b) with searches. (The same is true for the use of † for extinct taxa.) Ideally all non-alphabetic characters should be separated from words by at least &thinsp;. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

There are a few variations used for article titles as seen here Melburnian (talk) 08:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The hybrid symbol should not be in italics

At least for plants, it's clear to me that the × symbol should not be italicized. See all the examples at ICBN, Appendix I, although explicit reference to not italicizing the hybrid symbol is restricted to the use of the letter x (H.3A.2). I've added a referenced note to this effect to Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(flora)#Hybrids.2C_cultivars_and_provisional_names which I hope isn't controversial. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

In most font families the multiplication sign glyph is the same in both the regular and italic versions, so one can't draw an inference from the appearance in the ICBN. In terms of practicaliies in Wikipedia, in nothospecies it is more convenient to italicize it (Geranium × magnificum vs Geranium ×magnificum). See also the use of the italic title feature for species. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

"In most font families the multiplication sign glyph is the same in both the regular and italic versions": precisely; this, I am sure, is why the ICBN does not say that it should not be italicized. It does say that if the letter x is used it should not be italicized, from which it is reasonable to deduce that the symbol × should not be either if the font family concerned displays it differently when italicized. Further, if you look at the source HTML for ICBN, Appendix I, you'll see that the <i>...</i> tags exclude the ×; for example ×<i>Agropogon littoralis</i>.

It's true that it's more convenient to italicize the ×, but my contention is that this is wrong and we should not be doing it. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Symphytum

Symphytum redirects to comfrey, which covers Symphytum officinale and Symphytum ×uplandicum Lavateraguy (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I've made a start on sorting this out, by creating a stub article Symphytum. There's already an article on Symphytum officinale; for the present I've made Symphytum × uplandicum a redirect to Comfrey, since the bulk of the 'gardening' stuff there relates to the hybrid. I'll do a bit more editing for consistency. There are a number of cases like this, where a gardening or food term covers more than one species (e.g. Scallion, Shallot), so that articles don't quite fit into the normal pattern for plant pages. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The statement that Symphtyum officinale is widespread is misleading; while it is arguably widespread, Symphytum ×uplandicum is much the commoner taxon, to the degree that I am concerned about recording segregants of the latter as the former. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Certainly around where I live I never find clearly identifiable S. officinale in the wild, only S. × uplandicum and probable back-crosses. I revised Comfrey, referenced to Stace (2010). Several of the sections still need severe pruning (pun intended) as they are "how to guides". Peter coxhead (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Please verify my identification of this plant

This photo was taken in Yellowstone on June 18, 2011. I believe this to be: Smilacina racemosa, False Solomon's-seal. Am I correct. If not what is it? Thanks --Mike Cline (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The current name for that species is Maianthemum racemosum. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

How confident are you in that identification? It doesn't look too much like Maianthemum racemosum to me but I don't know whether there is variation in stem thickness and other traits based on things like subspecies or whether it is growing in sun. Perhaps Veratrum? Kingdon (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The plant in the picture above also doesn't have an arching habit, which adds weight to it not being Maianthemum racemosum. UK nurserywoman Beth Chatto describes M. racemosum as "Related to Soloman's Seal, and very like it in its beautiful arching foliage...". As one of the most distinctive features (to a horticulturist, if not a botanist) of true Soloman's Seal (Polygonatum) is its arching habit, it could be argued that one would expect a plant known as "False Soloman's Seal" to also exhibit such a characteristic - which the plant in the picture does not. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If not Maianthemum racemosum, then any help identifying would be appreaciated. The plant's location as seen in the photo is on the east facing shelter of a large boulder setting in fairly damp soil adjacent to a marshy pond. This appeared to be a relatively isolated colony with no evidence of other colonies in the vicinity. --Mike Cline (talk) 11:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The only other possibility which occurs to me is Veratrum – it has the right overall look, and at first I thought the leaves were spirally arranged, but now, on looking at a blown-up version of your photo, the leaves are in two ranks. The location behind a boulder is probably causing a more upright growth than you would see in the open. What species of Maianthemum are listed for Yellowstone? (Well out of my geographical area of experience.) Peter coxhead (talk) 12:51, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

According to USDA PLANTS data these are the taxa within the genera Maianthemum and Veratrum (mentioned above) within the counties that the park crosses:

• Maianthemum racemosum ssp. amplexicaule
• Maianthemum stellatum
• Veratrum californicum var. californicum

Of these, I think the more upright and robust nature of the pictured plant most resembles the latter.--Melburnian (talk) 13:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

A quick difference between Veratrum and Maianthemum is that the latter genus usually has flowers with very small tepals and more prominent stamens. Unfortunately none of the flowers is very sharp in the photo. The habit (upright, robust) is exactly what I would expect of the European Veratrum album, which Veratrum californicum seems to resemble. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the input so far. Very enlightening. A interesting point of note is the USDA Distribution Map for Veratrum californicum. For Yellowstone it only shows Teton County, WY, and not Park County, WY (the country northeast of Teton). This photo was taken well inside Park County, relatively close to the Montana border. 44°54′57″N 110°23′38″W. Whereas Maianthemum is reported from Park County, WY. I hope to be back in the park within the week and may revisit this to get some better photos.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a note about that: plant populations are not always static, and probably under-reported. So, they could have migrated to Park County; or they may have been there for a long time, just nobody noticed. Hamamelis (talk) 22:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

As an addendum to that: The distribution maps for the Arkansas flora did not include dandelions in every county, although they were certainly present in every county. There is (and always will be) room for more basic floristics research to improve US distribution maps (the UK is way ahead in that regard). --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

A close-up of the flower would settle the issue. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Flower close-ups

Here's a series of photos (as best I could do) of the flowers as of 0800 this morning. [6] --Mike Cline (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The flower close-ups seem a good match for Maianthemum racemosum ssp. amplexicaule [7] --Melburnian (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Definitely not a Veratrum, in spite of the rather robust look. The two-ranked rather than spiral arrangement of the leaves noted earlier is also a feature of Maianthemum. A lesson for me in not relying on the overall "look" of a plant when you don't know the full range of species. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks, a bit harder than birdwatching with the exception that plants stand still, isn't it. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess I'll buy it after seeing [8]. Also, after reading the description at Flora of North America. The subspecies are different in erect vs. arching and leaves which are clasping versus not (the source says "petiolate" for the eastern subspecies but we certainly aren't talking about a long petiole, I think mostly they mean "not clasping"). Kingdon (talk) 13:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Miscategorization

Can anyone tell me why Template:Full echinoderm phylogeny is categorizing in Category:Botany templates? I can figure out where the category placement is hiding. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It's only visible when you hit the edit button on one of the subpage thingies, see Template:Full echinoderm phylogeny/doc. I've moved the template into Category:Animal templates (I hope) but there may be a more appropriate location for it. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Wonder why it isn't showing up in Category:Animal templates.... Maybe I need to purge my cache. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It's not at your end (or mine) that the problem lies. The categorization is transcluded, so the change won't show up until either (a) someone edits the template itself, or (b) the system reworks the transclusion, which can take an hour or more to go into effect. Purging the cache won't have any effect; we used to have this issue all the time on Wiktionary, where transclusion is done far more often than it is here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I was worried I'd managed to screw something up. I normally steer clear of templates for fear I'll accidently break something that shows over multiple pages. Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Green color for navigation templates and accessibility

Hello. Until recently, the Template:Botany was using dark green for its background which did not met accessibility requirements (WP:COLOR). Per discussion at its talk page, I changed it to same light green that is used in taxoboxes, and some of your templates like Template:Plant classification. Though there doesn't seem to be a lot of coherency among the color of your templates, I though you should be notified. And I hope my change will be consensual, so that we can move onto more important matters. Dodoïste (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The lack of coherency in "our" templates comes from the facts that (1) many of our templates aren't navigational, but consist of article content, (2) Some of our templates are shared across major themes, such as chemistry or paleontology, so color-coding them would not actually mark them thematically, (3) the two templates not color-coded for green that could be are probably unknown to the majority of project participants, since we are shooting to create and manage more than a quarter of a million articles.

The choice of green was initially made to match the color used in the plant Taxoboxes, where the choice of color was reached after much discussion and checks for visual and technical compatibility. If there is a problem, then it affects far more pages through the taxobox template than it does through the Botany template.

Reminder: The usual order of things is to reach a consensus first, not to wheel-war a change through and "hope [the] change will be consensual". If you engage in discussion first, you can know these things rather than hope for them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I see that consensus to use the color from the taxobox was already reached at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Template:Botany background color - unification. I'm lucky today. :-)

For the reminder : you're right. However, I believe that such trivia shouldn't require that many formalities. Dodoïste (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Category:Plant articles needing a taxobox

I would like to propose that {{WikiProject Plants}} be modified slightly so that, rather than placing articles with needs-taxobox=yes into Category:Plant articles needing a taxobox, it would place them in the more general Category:Missing taxobox. This is a simple and straightforward change, and should be advantageous to WP:Plants, since it means that any plant articles needing attention will be one level higher in the hierarchy, and thus more likely to receive attention sooner. The current category also appears to be entirely redundant; in all the years I've been looking at it, I haven't seen a single page in there. In that time, however, dozens of plant articles have shown up in Category:Missing taxobox (through the use of {{missing taxobox}}), and been dealt with. Ten months ago, I tried to retarget the template as I have outlined here, but a single user disagreed with what I had thought of as an uncontroversial change, and my efforts stalled. Now I would like to try again. I think the change can only be beneficial to WP:Plants and the articles under its aegis, but I will gladly listen to any disadvantages I may have overlooked. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

They will be less likely to get quick attention that way, since the plant taxa will be mixed in with fungi, animals, and microorganisms. People wishing to assist would need to wade through additional chaff to find the articles they can work on. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

There seriously isn't that much chaff. At the moment there are 54 articles (which counts as a backlog for this low-traffic category and is gradually decreasing), and any new entries get dealt with within the day (typically within the hour). Also, bear in mind that the existing category has been used a total of 0 times, to my knowledge. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It and its predecessor (a cfd changed the title) were used plenty when we were first assessing plant articles for the project before, I think, {{missing taxobox}} was created. I also prefer to keep it separate as I check it diligently. I'm not interested in creating taxoboxes for other taxa, as I'm not certain I would be competent enough with those classifications to do it correctly. Rkitko ^(talk) 20:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

If you check it diligently, perhaps you can tell me: how many articles have passed through Category:Plant articles needing a taxobox in the last year? I may have missed some, but between us we probably saw them all. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

One of the primary tasks of a project is to identify project-specific maintenance issues, and this template assists with that aim for the Plants project, so I believe it should be retained. The main reason that the template is bypassed appears to be due to the template not being listed on two key pages:Wikipedia:Taxobox_usage#Articles_lacking_taxoboxes and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#To_do.--Melburnian (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Some years ago it had quite a few articles in it.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that a category being useful years ago has any bearing on its being useful now. I don't doubt that it was useful; I doubt that it is useful. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that whether it was or is useful many not be the right issue which is whether it will be useful in the future. Accepting your statement that no (or almost no) pages ever appear in this category, I would like to know why. If it's because very few plant pages are being created by comparison to animal pages (which I suspect), then the category should still be retained, against the day that there will be more active plant editors. If it's because plant pages at present always get taxoboxes (which I suspect is true because they are created by relatively few experienced editors), then again, the category should still be retained for the same reason. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

And if, as is actually the case, it's because plant articles without taxoboxes are treated like articles from other kingdoms, and are simply tagged with {{missing taxobox}}? Then there is no reason to try and separate the two. Plant articles without taxoboxes are, de facto, placed in Category:Missing taxobox. There was one there this morning, for instance. It may perhaps make your project feel good to have an empty cleanup category, but it doesn't lead to any improvements of articles. (If there was a need in the future, the category could easily be resurrected; the important time period is, however, now and the near future, not a distant, more botanical, future.) "If it's because very few plant pages are being created [...] then the category should still be retained, against the day that there will be more active plant editors"; "If it's because plant pages at present always get taxoboxes [...] then again, the category should still be retained"; this doesn't follow. There would need to be not only plant articles without taxoboxes (which does happen), but they would need to be marked as such using the parameter in {{WikiProject Plants}}, which doesn't happen, and there's no reason to think that would occur more in the future. --Stemonitis (talk) 08:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the question that we all should be asking is which is likely to be more useful in the future. It's not easy to distinguish the name of an obscure plant genus from a protist clade or a fossil invertebrate, so their incorporation into the missing taxobox category isn't necessarily helpful. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

That's what already happens! They are incorporated there. They are mixed in with protists and fossils (well, there aren't any at the moment, because plant taxonomy is relatively straightforward, so they get dealt with quickly). The question is, is it worthwhile maintaining a category that is constantly empty because its potential contents are consistently placed elsewhere? --Stemonitis (talk) 09:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I think we may be mis-understanding one another. Are you saying that the category is empty, not because such cases don't exist, but because the necessary flagging to record them as a missing plant taxoboxes is never done? If so, then you're clearly right that this category isn't needed. (But this isn't what you wrote initially; don't assume that we all understand the fine details.) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes: apologies if that wasn't clear. The plant-specific flagging has never occurred to my knowledge (it is certainly vanishingly rare). Any time a plant article has been flagged as needing a taxobox (this is fairly common), it is done using {{missing taxobox}}, and the article appears in Category:Missing taxobox. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Ah, right. An idea which occurs to me is that {{Missing taxobox}} should be revised to take a parameter, such as |animal or |plant. If this were recognized then the template would also put the article in a more specific category. If the documentation to the template explained this, perhaps people would be more inclined to use the extra parameter. I sympathize with the view that I think the others were expressing, namely that if possible we'd like plant articles without taxoboxes separated out. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I used to use this quite a bit. I had a habit of scrolling through User:AlexNewArtBot/PlantsSearchResult daily and assessing each article. I often didn't have time to add the taxobox myself since there were so many results, so I just tagged it for later while adding the assessment banner. Here's one today: Maerua Oblongifolia, which obviously needs lots of help. The time commitment for going through the NewArtBot's results every day was a bit much, so I stopped, but the category and the functionality through the WP:PLANTS banner is still useful. Rkitko ^(talk) 22:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Some of the text there is rather similar to the JSTOR Plant Science page for the species. Since I've moved it to Maerua oblongifolia could someone dispose of the redirect left behind? Also, do we want both Pueraria tuberosa and Kudzu? Lavateraguy (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Right now Kudzu covers 5 related species from Japan and China, but P. tuberosa is from India, Nepal and Pakistan. As far as I can tell from Flora of Pakistan there is little reason to cover P. tuberosa and the Chinese/Japanese species in the same article (that is, there are plenty of differences between the species, no hybridization that they mention, etc). Kingdon (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Postscript: a confession

I must own up to having carried out a devious experiment. I came across a plant article without a taxobox, and rather than dealing with it promptly, as I normally would, I placed it in the plant-specific missing taxobox category to see how long it would take before it was fixed. A week has now passed, and nothing has happened. I recognise that there is a strong desire to keep the plant-specific category, and I can see that I'm not going to change your minds on this, but the fact of the matter is, it doesn't work. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

But why doesn't it work? Not because there's anything wrong in principle with having a separate category for plant articles missing taxoboxes, but because there simply aren't anything like enough editors working in the area. Your sterling work is noted and much appreciated; if there were more like you, the categorization would work. So there's an argument for not being defeatist; keeping the category and hoping that more editors will appear. Or am I just naively optimistic? Peter coxhead (talk) 11:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

A nice attempt at a positive spin, Peter; it certainly made me smile! For this task, the problem is not a lack of editors. It only takes one to check the category regularly (daily, say, or even weekly) and deal with an article should it appear. In fact, one editor is generally enough to cover missing taxoboxes across all kingdoms. The problem is that it's a category that no-one looks at, and that's why its contents don't get fixed. You are right that there is nothing wrong in principle with such a category, but in practice there is. A cleanup category that doesn't get cleaned out isn't working. I don't actually expect to change your minds at this stage, but I thought I should at least document my little experiment. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that putting it in the general category would have worked any better? Lavateraguy (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Every other article newly appearing in Category:Missing taxobox (including several plants) were dealt with quickly – most within the hour, and all within 24 h of appearing. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, you've convinced me at least. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Were there any other plant articles dealt with in that week though the parent category besides Dicksonia sellowiana? Melburnian (talk) 02:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I also dealt with Croton gratissimus (perhaps too efficiently), and – eventually – Carex festucacea. Other editors may have dealt with others (I suspect not, but I can't guarantee it). "Several" may be a slight overstatement, but the principle stands: plant articles regularly go through the main category and are dealt with. Nothing goes into the plant category, and if it does, it doesn't come out. --Stemonitis (talk) 05:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Two of these are taxobox requests, so the volume of taxobox requests on plant articles seem much less (if ~2 per week) than times past, making a subcategory less justified. I'm still not keen on putting these in a mixed basket though where plant aricles are hard to identify. Think I'll revise my position to "neutral".Melburnian (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Help with plant identification

Hi. Can someone help to identify the species of lily shown in "commons:File:Iris delavayi.jpg"? Apparently it is not an Iris delavayi but we folks at the Commons don't know what it is, so we can't rename the file (unless we call it "Unidentified Lilium"). Please respond at "commons:File talk:Iris delavayi.jpg". Thanks very much! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Lilium regale, possibly a selected form of it or a hybrid of it. Imc (talk)

I too believe that it is Lilium regale. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 17:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I'll wait a few days and see if there are other suggestions before renaming the file. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

There are two varieties or forms of Lilium regale in cultivation. The first is the 'normal' variety, Lilium regale var. regale, which commons:File:Iris delavayi.jpg appears to be. It has purplish markings on the outside of the flower, and deeper green leaves. The second is Lilium regale var. album, which seems to be the variety illustrated in the wild at commons:File:Lil_regale_01Infl_China_Sichuan_Wolong_18_06_04.jpg. This has a pure white outside to the flower, and rather paler leaves. (de:Königs-Lilie mentions this variety, en:Lilium regale does not at present.) Peter coxhead (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone – I've renamed the image "Lilium regale var. regale - 20070814.jpg". — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 11:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

What plant is this?

Whaddya know – more help needed! Can you please identify the plant shown in these photographs? It was originally identified as a "silver fir", but a request has been made for them to be renamed as "Abies procera Glauca - blue spruce - Blautanne". However, I note that Abies procera is the noble fir, and the blue spruce is Picea pungens. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 14:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I confirm that Abies procera 'Glauca' is the "blue fir" (English) or "Blautanne" (German), and that Picea pungens 'Glauca' is the "blue spruce" (English) or "Blaufichte" (German). The pictures are of a Abies procera 'Glauca'. Botanically yours, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 15:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Perhaps "Abies procera" should be updated to mention the term blue fir? — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 15:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Abies procera is the "noble fir" or "Edeltanne", its selection 'Glauca' is the "blue (noble) fir" or "Blautanne". --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 16:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Adding Plant Profile resources

I am working for Nature Manitoba, a 90year old non-profit dedicated to natural history, and am trying to get some new plant profiles (in .pdf format) available as resources to people looking for plant information. These are great and detailed community-funded resources and they do not need to link to Nature Manitoba's website (it's not a promotional scheme, just part of the grant's mandate to make these accessible to the public). How do I go about adding links to them? I tried adding external links but it was considered spam. Any recommendations?

The list is here:

http://naturemanitoba.ca/botany/index.html

Some individual profiles are here:

http://naturemanitoba.ca/botany/wildPlants/AnnualSowThistle.pdf

http://naturemanitoba.ca/botany/wildPlants/Chicory.pdf

Tommy (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why adding an individual profile PDF file which isn't advertising as an external link to the relevant article would be considered "spam". I've added the Chicory one to the Chicory article; it seems to me to be as relevant as any of the others. However, each profile would need to be considered on its merits in relation to the article. The detailed photos in those I've looked at seem excellent. One disadvantage is that they are PDF files rather than HTML pages. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Tommy. Here are a couple pages for you to read: first Wikipedia:Conflict of interest where it says "This page in a nutshell: Do not edit Wikipedia to promote your own interests, or those of other individuals or of organizations, including employers". Next Wikipedia:Truth, where it says "Truth is not the criterion for inclusion of any idea or statement in a Wikipedia article, even if it is on a scientific topic (see Wikipedia:Science). The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Please do read both of those pages for reasons why.

So if you wrote it, or are in any way connected to the people who did, then you just have to trust the system that if it is worthy enough, then third-party sources will pick it up, it will become notable, and other editors (never you) will include it here. Best wishes, and keep on editing.  :) --Tom Hulse (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Tommy, just like User:Peter coxhead, I also found those articles to be an excellent resource. The articles, for the photos alone, would be a great addition as an external link to most any Wikipedia species article. Wikipedia guidelines on adding External Links, in cases where you have a conflict of interest, is not quite as severe as what is mentioned just above. Regarding the addition of External Links in which you might have a conflict of interest, you'll see the following recommendation: "you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide." If I saw a request from you to add an external link to any of the plant articles that I watch, I would look at the linked PDF file and almost surely go ahead and add such a useful resource to the external links. First Light (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes. This is the first time I have tried to contribute and have a better understanding of the process -- discussions first! Tommy (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Editing article titles

Is it possible (or even recommended) to edit existing article titles, or do they have to be renamed and moved? I've started doing some tweaking on articles within Category:Rose cultivars, and am finding a lack of uniformity in the titles - many don't have the genus name italicised (eg Rosa 'English Miss'), some don't even have the genus name at all and are just listed under their cultvar name (eg Old Blush), some don't have quotation marks around the cultivar name etc. Is it possible to correct these titles when editing? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

We can introduce italics in to the title, as I have now done using {{DISPLAYTITLE:''Rosa'' 'English Miss'}} at Rosa 'English Miss'. Articles at their partial cultivar names would require a page move to put them in the standard Genus 'Cultivar' format followed by DISPLAYTITLE. Before moving, I would suggest adding a reference to the article text showing the name in that format, using a source such as RHS plantfinder (example). Melburnian (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

In case moving pages is a new concept for you, you'll find a 'move' tab either amongst your tabs at the top of the page, or in the dropdown menu under the "▼" tab. Hesperian 03:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It is often a good idea to propose a move on the talk page, as described at WP:MOVE. The main exception is if you are pretty sure it is uncontroversial. Kingdon (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I made a few more of these moves, but then realized that actually some of the names are not cultivar names but trade designations and I had made mistakes. The ICNCP puts trade designations in a different font, not in single quotes; only cultivar names go in quotes. We should, I think, only use cultivar names as page titles; alternative trade designations should be redirects, listed in the article. Thus Rosa Royal William is really Rosa 'Korzuan' according to the RHS plantfinder. The whole list of rose "cultivars" needs checking against the RHS plantfinder (and any other sources).

There doesn't seem to be a policy on trade designations/cultivar names, so I've raised this below. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Kew Bulletin

This is currently the most-cited journal on Wikipedia that doesn't have an article (cited at least 193 times on at least 164 different articles). Apparently it's a Botany journal, so I though I'd drop by and poke around to see if someone could write this article. If you never wrote an article on academic journals, there's WP:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide to help you out. There's also Systematic Botany (cited at least 80 times on 74 articles) and many others that can be found at WP:JCW (see "Most popular missing entries"). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I've started the Kew Bulletin article, just a stub for now. First Light (talk) 00:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Amazing! That was fast! Many thanks. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not finding the "Most popular missing entries" that you mentioned at WP:JCW. Could you provide a link? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Wilibald Swibert Joseph Gottlieb von Besser

Just noticed that this Austrian botanist for which the genus Bessera was named doesn't have an article yet. Murderbike (talk) 05:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome to start one. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I've created a very short stub: Wilibald Swibert Joseph Gottlieb von Besser. mgiganteus1 (talk) 01:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Cultivar names and trade designations

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(flora)#Hybrids.2C_cultivars_and_provisional_names covers only cultivar names. However, "trade designations" (ICNCP term) are generally used more than cultivar names, especially for popular groups (e.g. annual bedding or basket plants, roses, phormiums, etc.). My personal view is that where the correct cultivar name is known (this is unique), the article should be under the cultivar name, with any trade designations as redirects, to be listed in the article. Thus according to the RHS plantfinder, there is a rose with the trade designation "Royal William" whose cultivar name is 'KorzuanKorzaun'. So the article should, I think, be at "Rosa 'KorzuanKorzaun'" with "Rosa Royal William" as a redirect. If there's a consensus Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(flora)#Hybrids.2C_cultivars_and_provisional_names should be changed. What do others think?

One annoyance is that the ICNCP requires the use of a different font family for trade designations. This is fine in print: typically a serif font is used for the main text and a sans-serif font for a trade designation. This doesn't work on the web, since users can set different default font families so the font family for the main text is unknown. The only thing I can think of is to use monospace for trade designations, e.g. Rosa Royal William. What do others think? Peter coxhead (talk) 07:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking on the same lines a week or so ago. We can get monospace with the CODE markup. Is there any other way of doing so? (Small caps would be an alternative, but I don't see a means of producing these.) Lavateraguy (talk) 07:37, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Small caps can be produced Like This, but the code isn't very pretty. mgiganteus1 (talk) 08:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Also in template form: {{Smallcaps}}. mgiganteus1 (talk) 08:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I confess that I have always found this whole area rather confusing - probably because I am always introduced to a rose through its trade name, rather than its cultivar name, (although the two can be the same), and because it's only with more recent introductions that the concept of an international cultivar name (or international registered name) has gained currency. Also, international registered names almost always follow the standard format of having the first three letters (usually capitalised in books and trade publications) taken from the breeder's name, with the rest of the name often verging on gobbledegook, whereas older cultivars which were never given an international registered name should strictly speaking be known by the name they were first given as a trade name in their first country of introduction. For example, the rose cultivar which people in English-speaking countries know as Peace was first introduced in France (where it was bred) as 'Mme. A. Meilland', and this should be (indeed it is!) its cultivar name as it was never given an international registered name - even though 'Mme. A. Meilland' is itself a trade name in effect. Conversely a more modern introduction such as Royal William was bred by Kordes in Germany, where it was introduced as Duftzauber 84, but it was also given the international registered name of 'KORzaun' (incidentally my 2 sources both list it as ..zaun and not ..zuan) - which strictly speaking should be the cultivar name - although I notice that even in the RHS Encyclopedia of Roses it's listed under Duftzauber 84! I don't know where I stand on this. To be technically accurate I agree with Peter above, but that would mean that an awful lot of rose cultivars will be listed under very similar-sounding and almost nonsensical cultivar names (all cultivars introduced by Kordes begin KOR..., all cultivars introduced by David Austin begin AUS... etc). Under such a system for example Gertrude Jekyll will be listed under 'Ausbord' and Graham Thomas will be 'Ausmas'. I'm wondering if, seeing as this is the English-language version of Wikipedia, we shouldn't in fact use the English trade names, with the international cultivar name underneath. I confess though that this does go against my inclination to have things listed under their technically correct names (I'd rather have all taxon entries under scientific rather than common names for example....) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

"Korzuan" was my typo; it should be "Korzaun"' – I've corrected my original. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:21, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

A 'back question' is whether we want Wikipedia to contain articles on every cultivar, i.e. is Wikipedia a gardening encyclopedia as well as a general encyclopedia? My personal preference is not to have articles on cultivars unless they have some more general importance, e.g. the first of a new group of cultivated plants. This doesn't solve the naming problem, but does put it into perspective.

More generally, I think that small caps should be avoided as the display case for trade designations; {{Smallcaps}} explains some of the problems with small caps. I suggest that we create a template for trade designations and try to get it used consistently; then it will be easy to change the display later. (Incidentally, it's quicker to type <tt>..</tt> than <code>..</code> and slightly more logical when the text isn't code.) Peter coxhead (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why Wikipedia shouldn't contain articles on every cultivar, eventually. Surely that's the beauty of an online encyclopedia - it isn't limited by bulk of paper. As long as articles are factually correct and about subject matter of sufficient interest to have been written about and read about, I don't think it's right to put our own limitations on what those articles should cover. (Take a look at the rest of the encyclopedia and see how detailed the coverage of other areas is - List of EastEnders characters (2009) and Pokemon crime syndicates being 2 examples.) However I agree that cultivars of special historic or other significance should be prioritised. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm obviously an old fogey, but I wouldn't have either of those articles in Wikipedia if it were down to me, so it's doubtless a good thing that it's not. But let me put my concerns a different way. No-one is going to prevent anyone creating a Wikipedia article if it meets the appropriate criteria. So the question is whether most cultivars would meet these criteria, in particular those in WP:N. I suspect not:

• Merely being present in a list of cultivars or a plant catalogue or the RHS plantfinder (which is just a list) doesn't meet the requirement for significant coverage.
• Many cultivars are only described in primary sources which are not independent, such as plant catalogues or sellers' or breeders' web sites, so don't meet the requirement for independent secondary sources.
• Typically quite a lot of the information available about cultivars is concerned with how to grow them; given WP:NOTHOWTO this can be summarized factually, but cannot be used extensively, which means that very often there isn't enough left for significant coverage.

Only if the cultivar has a reasonably detailed history and description in a gardening book, magazine or encyclopedia does it seem to me likely that it will meet the requirements for notability. As a practical example, look at Rosa 'Iceberg' (which should probably be Rosa Iceberg). Is there anything more that can be said about it, other than more cultivation details? If not, then I believe the article doesn't meet WP:N and should be deleted. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Another point which occurred to me is whether the article Rosa 'Iceberg' is really within the scope of WikiProject:Plants, as its talk page suggests. The spirit of the project page seems to me firmly towards botany rather than horticulture. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe the spirit of WikiProject Plants is firmly towards plants. While I don't believe in assumed notability for all cultivars, I would also argue that many have a degree of notability that well exceed many plant species. People in their day to day lives are more likely to come across cultivars than pure species, in terms of the food they eat, street trees, the plants in their parks and gardens and the crops in their fields.Melburnian (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I would agree that this project is about plants, and notable cultivars are surely more notable than many plant species. Rosa 'Iceberg' was immediately familiar to me, moreso than perhaps 99% of all species with WP articles. Some horticulturists come to it through love of the individual plants, species, varieties, cultivars, and botany - more than through landscape design or the broader field of horticulture. First Light (talk) 01:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Please don't think that I am arguing against cultivars being part of WikiProject Plants: I personally am as much a gardener, if not more, than a botanist. I do think that the project page doesn't reflect equal interest in both areas, and needs a little editing if the project does indeed cover both.

Returning to my example of Rosa 'Iceberg', within Wikipedia, "notable" has to be interpreted in relation to policy, i.e. WP:NOTABLE. The fact that cultivars are better known than species doesn't make them notable to an encyclopedia. The question is whether there is enough independent sourceable material about them. So I think that Melburnian and First Light have not succeeded in defending the article. (To repeat, I am not actually suggesting deleting it, but if someone else did, it needs defending in terms of WP:NOTABLE.) Peter coxhead (talk) 06:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Having been around here for nearly six years and created hundreds of article, I am familiar with the notability policy. I always find that the best way to defend notability is by expanding the article and adding sources. Now I do work full time and its a bit's difficult at short notice, but I gave it a go ...Melburnian (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Rosa 'Iceberg' (which should really be Rosa 'Schneewittchen' - it's a German-bred rose, introduced by Kordes in 1958, and 'Schneewittchen' is its original German name), I have found the following secondary sources in my possession:

• "The RHS Encyclopedia of Roses" (Dorling Kindersley, 2003) by Charles and Brigid Quest-Ritson, p359 - mentions that 'Schneewittchen' is "the world's most popular and widely-grown rose"
• "The Ultimate Guide to Roses" (Macmillan, 2004) by Roger Phillips and Martyn Rix, p228 - mentions that 'Schneewittchen' is "one of the most important roses raised in the last 50 years ... It has won many prizes including the WFRS Hall of Fame in 1983"
• "The Dictionary of Roses in colour" (Rainbird Reference Books Limited, 1971) by S. Millar Gault and Patrick M. Synge, p179 - says 'Schneewittchen' "Has been, for several years, one of the great Floribunda roses"
• "The New Rose Expert" (Transworld Publishers Ltd, 1996) by Dr. D. G. Hessayon, p37 - 'Schneewittchen' is described as "Quite simply, the most popular white Floribunda of our time"

I have not quoted all my sources, nor even all that they say about 'Schneewittchen', but are the above references not defence enough? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I got caught in an edit conflict before posting the above comments, and Melburnian beat me to it - and did a much better job! PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Great! We can all agree now that Rosa 'Iceberg' is notable, and Melburnian is absolutely right that the best way to defend an article is to expand it and add sources. Now for the rest of the rose cultivars... Peter coxhead (talk) 07:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Original issues

I rather led us off the original issues (with hindsight I should have started another thread). These were:

• Under what title should cultivar articles appear when there exists both a cultivar name and trade designations? The 'obvious' answer of "cultivar name" does run into the problem that these are increasingly nonsensical character strings. I currently incline to the view that we should pick the best-known English name, whether this is a cultivar name or a trade designation. We should try to reach a consensus on this, rather than leave it unresolved.
• How should we show trade designations? I'm going to create a template for this so that it can easily be changed if a different consensus emerges. Initially I'll use monospaced font.

I'll make a note when I've done it. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that listing strictly according to registered cultivar name will produce perhaps rather baffling article titles. Sticking for the time being with roses (where at least I have some familiarity), I know that at least one rose breeder (Tantau, in Germany) has resorted to using numerals for the international registered cultivar names of their introductions (presumably because it's easier than thinking up new names all beginning with the letters TAN). Hence, the cultivar with the trade name Twice In A Blue Moon has the registered cultivar name 'TAN96138', and Birthday Boy is actually 'TAN97607'. I think I'm inclined to agree that the best-known English name is probably the most workable solution for titles in the English-language Wikipedia, although I note that the RHS Encyclopedia of Roses seems to list entries according to the trade name in their first country of introduction. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I have created the template {{Trade designation}}, short form {{Tdes}}. It works both in the text and for titles (see this redirect).

I have made some copy-edits to the Rosa 'Iceberg' article, leaving it as here. I think it's then well beyond start class, so I'll alter the rating. As an experiment, I'm going to alter the article to use {{Tdes}}; if people don't like it, they can revert to the one just linked to. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Article now altered; see version 439402774. On a Mac, I think that the font size for the trade description name needs increasing slightly, say to 110%, but I know I'm in a minority, so would Windows users please comment? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It does seem that the choice is between the best-known English name or the first used trade description when the cultivar was introduced. Avoiding cultural imperialism suggests the latter; ease of pronunciation the former. I can cope with French and German, but I grow a fabulous clematis whose first cultivar name was ‘Blekitny Aniol’ – it was introduced by the famous Polish clematis breeder, Brother Stefan Franczak. Polish friends have tried to teach me how to pronounce it (to me it sounds something like "bwekitnee aniow", but when I say it, they smile). So I prefer 'Blue Angel'. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The effect which the new template has on the text of Rosa 'Iceberg' doesn't work for me and my personal pc/browser settings (I'm on Windows/Firefox) - the trade names come out very small. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I think templates in the main text are generally discouraged because of such discrepancies between platforms. For the record, I have viewed this in Windows+Firefox 5 and see the same problem as PaleCloudedWhite does. In Windows+IE7 it looks OK. I'm glad that we are looking at trade names vs cultivars names because it does require more detailed consideration. Whatever we come up with needs to conform with the WP:COMMONNAME policy. Melburnian (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The problem is not the template (there are plenty of templates intended for use in the main text), but choosing the best way in which to implement it to allow for browser differences. I'm now in the university where I have access to different platforms. For flexibility I used a span tag within the template; I'll change it to tt and check. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The current version seems ok in all the browser/platform combinations I've tried, although still not ideal. Basically it expands to whatever <tt>..</tt> would on a given system, but with the font size increased to 1.2×.

Recall that this is not necessarily the final solution. The point of using a template rather than inserting e.g. <tt>..</tt> directly in the source is to make it easier to change later. On the other hand, apart from small caps, I can't think of any other way of doing what the ICNCP requires.

(Conforming with WP:COMMONNAME is an interesting issue, because the policy seems to me to prefer common names to scientific names, as other projects within the ToL project do, whereas we (rightly in my view) have preferred scientific names over common names.) I think that choosing the best-known English trade designation when the cultivar name is inappropriate is consistent with WP:COMMONNAME and its general policies. In particular:

• "Recognizability – article titles are expected to be a recognizable name or description of the topic" – this supports trade designations like Iceberg over cultivar names like 'KORbin'.
• "Naturalness – titles are expected to use names and terms that readers are most likely to look for in order to find the article (and to which editors will most naturally link from other articles)." – again this supports Iceberg over 'KORbin'.
• "Precision – titles are expected to use names and terms that are precise, but only as precise as is necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously." – it could be argued that since the registered cultivar name is unique, this favours 'KORbin' over Iceberg, but so long as there is one trade name which is well known and well attested to by reliable sources, it should be ok.
• "Consistency – titles are expected to follow the same pattern as those of similar articles." – so we need a WikiProject Plants policy.

Peter coxhead (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm in general agreement with your Iceberg vs 'KORbin' dot point analysis, and that we need to cover trade names in the "Hybrids, cultivars and provisional names" section of our existing policy. Melburnian (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)