Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive70

Archive 65

←

Archive 68

Archive 69

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

→

Archive 75

Idea: module for linking author citations

Would there be interest in a module function that could link author citations for taxa automatically? For instance, it would take Cham. & Schldl. and return [[Adelbert von Chamisso|Cham.]] & [[Diederich Franz Leonhard von Schlechtendal|Schldl.]], or just [[Cham.]] & [[Schldl.]], relying on there being a redirect.

This would allow more consistent linking of taxonomic authorities in taxoboxes and various lists of taxa. The author citations could just be enclosed in a template, which would do all the work. At the moment, they're linked only if someone cares to do it.

The initial step would be to create a function to locate the author abbreviations (or full names?) in the author citation. Perhaps Wikidata's regex for botanist author abbreviations could be translated into a parser. (The regex can't be used directly because Scribunto doesn't have a regex library.)

As far as linking, it would be easier to simply link the author abbreviations ([[Cham.]] & [[Schldl.]]), but it would be more useful to link to the full name of the author ([[Adelbert von Chamisso|Cham.]] & [[Diederich Franz Leonhard von Schlechtendal|Schldl.]]) so that an article can be created. My initial thought was to use data modules, perhaps derived from the data at IPNI, but maybe the botanist author abbreviation (P428) property on Wikidata can be used for this, if there's a way to return the Wikipedia article for the Wikidata item in which this property has a given value (I haven't used Wikidata much).

Has this idea been proposed before, and are there issues that I'm overlooking? — Eru·tuon 18:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a great idea. I don't think it has been proposed before. I can't speak much to the logistics at the moment, will have to think on it. It would be better to link full names; many author "abbreviations" are just the unabbreviated surname, which is likely to be a disambiguation page. One thing to be aware of is that there are many taxoboxes that aren't using the standard IPNI abbreviation form. I've been doing some work on bromeliads, and changed hundreds of instances of "L.B. Smith" to L.B.Sm.. IPNI omits spaces, but some other sources (e.g. Tropicos and the ICNafp) put in spaces; "L.B. Sm.". Sometimes initials get omitted, which means the abbreviation in the taxobox is for a different person than the actual authority. Going through Wikidata may help to catch non-standard/wrong authority abbreviations currently in some taxoboxes. Plantdrew (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: Ahh, since there are invalid abbreviations, it would probably not be a good idea to have taxoboxes automatically apply the template to the contents of authority parameters. That's too bad. I was hoping that was a possibility – it would save a lot of work. The fact that some author citations have links already is not an impediment because a module function could easily detect links and avoid tampering with them.

Good to know about the spaces. Internally the module would have to regularize abbreviations one way or the other; I suppose it depends on what data source the abbreviations are looked up in. — Eru·tuon 16:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I went with the space-less version of the abbreviations because it seems to be simpler to normalize that way than the other way. — Eru·tuon 19:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I see no reason why this can't be done. A few thoughts and questions:

1. How would the template look? Would there be separate templates for botanical and zoological names (e.g. {{botauthor|name}} and {{zooauthor|name}}) or a single one with a code parameter, e.g. {{taxonauthor|name|code=bot}}.
2. What would you do with multiple names? Use the template twice (e.g. {{botauthor|name1}} & {{botauthor|name2}}]) or pass it two names (e.g. {{botauthor|name|name2}})?
3. You can get the wikidata item for a wikipedia page using the wikibase functions. Then it can retrieve botanist author abbreviation (P428) or author citation (zoology) (P835) for botanical and zoological names. This works when the name is a valid wikipedia page title, so the key question is can it get the wikidata id from a redirect?
4. Another way is to use a data submodule, with a table of names and abbreviations. This is easier to set up, but requires the all the desired names to be added. This is a lot of work when the information is at Wikidata.
5. Or use both. Use the submodule information it is present, otherwise check Wikidata.

From a practical point of view, my suggestion is to start with the data submodule approach. It should be easy to set up with a few authorities for testing and working out exactly what is required. Then the wikidata code can be added. If the preference is to use wikidata, the once everything is working the data submodule options can be made secondary and only used for special cases.   Jts1882 | talk  07:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Is this the type of thing wanted? For Cham. & Schldl., output Cham. & Schldl. and for L. output L.   Jts1882 | talk  08:56, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jts1882: Similar, but it would parse the whole author citation and link each author in it, so something like {{template name|Cham. & Schldl.}} → Cham. & Schldl.. It would be more convenient to be able to add the template to the whole author citation than to have to add it to each individual name or abbreviation in the citation. — Eru·tuon 16:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

1. I would start with just botanical author citations, which I'm most familiar with. If zoological author citations have the same format, then perhaps they could be added at some point.
2. As mentioned above the template would accept entire author citations and add links to each author name or abbreviation. I haven't seen cases of more than one botanical author in a row with no separator ({{botauthor|name|name2}}).
3. That doesn't sound like what I'm looking for. The template needs to retrieve the full name for a given author abbreviation: L. → Carl Linnaeus. (Retrieving the authors of the taxon on the current page is something that would be more useful to taxoboxes.)

— Eru·tuon 16:34, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

What you want with the whole authority citation should be fairly straightforward. Once its working with single names, it just needs to parse the whole authority string for the recognised authority (from a list). So if we have "Smith, Cham., Jones & Schldl." it would substitute links for those it finds in the list (currently Cham. and Schldl.). I'll try and set it up in a botany template tomorrow. Any suggestion for a short and memorable template name? It will need a list of botanical authorities, which I've started in a module subpage at Module:Taxon authority/data.   Jts1882 | talk  17:33, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jts1882: I've drafted a parser of botanist author abbreviations based on Wikidata's regex at Module:Sandbox/Erutuon/author citation. I'm not entirely sure of the complete syntax of the citations, but parenthesized abbreviations and lists ((L.) A. J. Eames & B. Boivin in Thalictrum thalictroides) are part of it. My current idea is to create a function, similar to string.gsub, that takes two arguments: the citation, and a function that receives each author abbreviation and yields the linked version to be inserted into the final version of the citation. — Eru·tuon 18:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Oops, looking at Module:Taxon authority, I misunderstood how you proposed using Wikidata. Since the method relies on the abbreviation having an article with a Wikidata entity, it seems like it would be easier to just link to the redirect, or for that matter to retrieve the redirect target using the redirectTarget property of the title object for the redirect page. — Eru·tuon 19:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it does now what you want substituting linked name in full authoity string, e.g.

• {{Taxon authority|L.}} --> L.
• {{Taxon authority|Cham. & Schldl.}} --> Cham. & Schldl.
• {{Taxon authority|Smith, Cham., Jones & Schldl.}} --> Smith, Cham., Jones & Schldl.
• {{Taxon authority|L., Jones & Schldl.}} --> L., Jones & Schldl.

--   Jts1882 | talk  12:05, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it does work, but I'm going to complete the parser because it may be more efficient than searching the author citation for every possible author abbreviation. — Eru·tuon 17:32, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I've finished a first draft of an author abbreviation-linking function in Module:Sandbox/Erutuon/author citation. It defines author citations as containing author abbreviations separated by one of the characters (),& with optional whitespace around them. And it is whitespace-agnostic; it normalizes to the whitespace-less form (L.B. Sm. → L.B.Sm.) internally when looking up the abbreviations, but displays the version that was supplied to it. Using the whitespace-less form internally is slightly simpler than the other way around. I adapted your code for looking up the "botanist author abbreviation" property (d:Property:P428) to verify that a name not found in the data table is the name of a botanical author. — Eru·tuon 19:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I still will prefer and use Wolfe & Wehr; Pigg & Melanie DeVore; etc as this template will not be of use to me. The vast majority of paleobotanical workers do not have author abbreviations. Aside from that I think as project we should work to make things more accessible to the public and not more arcane.-Kevmin § 13:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Taxon authors citations, small tag and mobiles

This edit on Chorophyta put the author in parenthesis because small doesn't work on some mobiles. I reverted the change based on the special meaning of parentheses around authors in the botanical code and because they aren't used for suprageneric taxa. Firstly, was this a correct reversion? Secondly, is there an alternative/additional way of making the authority look different, either an alternative to the small tag or different font?   Jts1882 | talk  07:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree on the reversion. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

An alternative is the {{small}} template, which works on mobiles.   Jts1882 | talk  13:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

For a little while I was using {{Au}} which is supposed to be specifically for taxon authorities. I don't know if it's functionally different from {{Small}} (if not, perhaps it should be merged)? I gave up on Au after realizing it was barely used. At that time I wasn't aware of the {{Species list}} family of templates, which I think should be encouraged whenever there are lists of more than two taxa/authorities. Plantdrew (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Haven't seen that one before. It uses {{small}} so should work with mobile OSs. The issue appears to be how the small tag is rendered by different browsers. Template {{Au}} also has a second optional parameter for putting a date in parentheses.   Jts1882 | talk  16:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

The difference in the behaviour of {{au|Smith 1867}} → Smith 1867 and {{au|Smith|1867}} → Smith (1867) seems odd, to me anyway, and pretty pointless.

The {{Species list}} family of templates use Module:TaxonList, which uses <small>; probably it should be changed to use the functionality of {{small}}. see my comment below. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Why does it need to look different, in small or smallcaps or whatev? cygnis insignis 20:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it helps non-expert readers to distinguish the name of the taxon from the author, which isn't part of the name. Other wikipedias use different techniques, e.g. the German wikipedia uses small caps. Regardless, it's a very well established convention here.

The Wikimedia software handles non-HTML tags (e.g. <ref>..</ref>) and then HTML tags, so one answer is to persuade the tech people to have special handling of <small>..</small>. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Well implemented, I'm not aware how that was established to be preferable. The author is part of taxonomic citation, and separated from a name by the italic format; arguably the format would separate an inline 'citation' within a sentence[?] As always, the discussion is about 'how', asking why is deprecated. I'm aware of the trend, applied as a 'fix', but unaware of a convention to do so in outside sources. cygnis insignis 09:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: it's not separated by italics when the taxon is higher than a genus, and it is sometimes, if rarely, necessary to discuss two separately named taxa, and regularly necessary to list synonyms for such taxa. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll think about that, thanks. cygnis insignis 12:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

It is not common now, but in the past many authors of taxonomical works put suprageneric taxon name in capitals, so there was a distinction between the taxon name and its authority. I think making the distinction in some way is useful and improves the appearance of taxonomy listings.   Jts1882 | talk  06:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Jts1882: yes, I agree that the distinction is useful. As noted below in my response to Hairy Dude, authorities are like "small print" in that they are a potentially ignorable addition to the taxon name. The problem is how to represent this on a mobile device, where the default print may already be very small. Given that other information is left out in mobile view (e.g. taxonbars, categories by default), maybe tagging authorities in some way that causes them to disappear in mobile view could be better. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

A template using style to change the size can use custom CSS for the mobile view. An alternative to size would be font or, as you mentioned above, small capitals. Or just hide it with CSS.   Jts1882 | talk  12:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Mobile vs desktop version When I change between "en.wikipedia.org" and "en.m.wikipedia.org" on the same device with different browsers, the behaviour is always the same: the mobile version disregards <small> tags, but obeys <span style="font-size:85%;"> (which is how {{small}} works). I think it's because the mobile version loads different default stylesheets, which have the effect of ignoring <small> tags, presumably because the designers thought that even smaller font on a small mobile device wasn't a good idea. What we will be doing by using {{small}} is over-riding the intended appearance of the mobile version. I'm not sure that this is the right thing to do. It needs a higher level discussion. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• I've posted a comment in the first instance at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Small tags and mobile view, as this appears to be largely a technical issue. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Remember in all of this that Wikipedia is not a scientific journal, but rather is written for a general audience. Content needs to be based on sources, but presentation is our own affair and we can choose what works best for our readers, even if that's different from what the literature does. Additionally, you may be surprised to learn that (in HTML 5) <small> is not a presentational element, but rather is defined by the HTML spec as "represent[ing] so-called 'fine print' or 'small print', such as legal disclaimers and caveats". Not decreasing the font size is consistent with this, and the semantics may not be what you as taxonomists intend for this usage. Hairy Dude (talk) 23:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @Hairy Dude: yes, I was aware that <small> was a semantic element. In my view, it's exactly appropriate for taxonomic authorities – they are a legal (i.e. according to the rules of the nomenclature codes) addition to the taxon name, which is the main information. For that reason, it can be argued (as I have come round to thinking) that using a presentational style, via CSS, is not the right approach. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion at Comptonia (plant)

There is a move discussion at Comptonia (plant) suggesting moving the article to the species Comptonia peregrina since the genus is not actually monotypic and a number of extinct species are described.--Kevmin § 20:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

This is now resolved. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:42, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

IPNI have updated their website

For those who haven't noticed, the IPNI website has been updated.

• Old links for authors, e.g. with URLs like //www.ipni.org/ipni/advAuthorSearch.do?find_abbreviation=Losinsk. for a standard abbreviation, currently still work, but redirect, in this case to //www.ipni.org/a/5767-1, where urn:lsid:ipni.org:authors:5767-1 is the IPNI ID for this author.
• Old links for taxa, e.g. with URLs like //www.ipni.org/ipni/idPlantNameSearch.do?id=435655-1, also currently still work, but redirect, in this case to //www.ipni.org/n/435655-1 where urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:435655-1 is the IPNI ID for this taxon name.

However, other links don't work and will need to be updated if present in articles. For example, //www.ipni.org/ipni/plantnamesearchpage.do has been used in citations with wikitext like {{cite web |title="Search for TAXON" |url=//www.ipni.org/ipni/plantnamesearchpage.do |...}}, but doesn't work now. To search for all occurrences of an item, e.g. "Rhodanthemum", you now need a URL like //www.ipni.org/?q=Rhodanthemum. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:14, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I have now updated the template {{IPNI}} (which generates citations to IPNI); it now works with the new URLs for searches, etc. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Ilex gardneriana

According to IUCN this species is extinct. However a Wikimedian on Commens has uploaded three pictures purporting to be of this species. I would be interested to know if they pass muster. I have linked a picture of a Kew specimen from the syub, more specimens can be found via GBIF. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC).

As far as I can tell, this species has not been seen since the mid-1800s, and it was declared extinct in the 1990s after some searching. I can't find anything about its rediscovery. Most likely the uploader is mistaken, ...but with any luck there is a secretive new paper getting written somewhere. I'd ignore it unless something gets published.86.83.56.115 (talk) 10:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

List of Shorea species

Been looking at this, not sure how to fix it. It's missing species, most notably the most notable species Shorea robusta. It was mostly constructed from a list of species from northern Borneo, by Ashton in 2004, organised by sections. Ashton classified other species in sections devised for the Flora Malesiana in 1979, PoWO would give a more accurate count and modern nomenclature, but I doubt any of the species restricted to India and/or Indochina are or will ever soon be classified in sections. Wouldn't an alphabetical list be better, with the info on subgeneric classification in the taxobox or text in the individual articles?86.83.56.115 (talk) 10:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I would go for an alphabetical list, given that the division into sections is not complete and not up-to-date. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

This study might be helpful if dividing into sections is still considered useful. Perhaps a table that can be sorted alphabetically and by section (when known) would be helpful.   Jts1882 | talk  13:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Here is a partial table (from the top subsections in the article) illustrating what could be done. It keeps the Ashton system information, can include updates for molecular or other evidence, and can have species added where sections and groups are uncertain.   Jts1882 | talk  06:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jts. Thanks and wow. I'll implement your suggestion. A caveat: my main gripe about the list was its incompleteness and if Ashton's system was useful, as the Shorea species of India, Thailand and elsewhere in Indochina, unclassified in Ashton's system, are divergent and likely cannot be classified in his system without creating more sections, and some 40% of the recognised species will need to be put in the unassigned category. But if the list is sortable alphabetically then Ashton can be ignored. Cheers, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 12:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Species	Ashton (2004)		Updated
	sections	groups
Shorea affinis (Thwaites) P.S.Ashton	Doona
Shorea congestiflora (Thwaites) P.S.Ashton	Doona
Shorea cordifolia (Thwaites) P.S.Ashton	Doona
Shorea disticha (Thwaites) P.S.Ashton	Doona
Shorea megistophylla P.S.Ashton	Doona
Shorea trapezifolia (Thwaites) P.S.Ashton	Doona
Shorea zeylanica (Thwaites) P.S.Ashton	Doona
Shorea contorta S.Vidal	Pentacme
Shorea siamensis Miq.	Pentacme
Shorea agamii P.S.Ashton	Anthoshorea	White Meranti group
Shorea agamii P.S.Ashton	Anthoshorea	White Meranti group
Shorea bracteolata Dyer	Anthoshorea	White Meranti group
Shorea confusa P.S.Ashton	Anthoshorea	White Meranti group
Shorea cordata P.S.Ashton	Anthoshorea	White Meranti group
Shorea dealbata Foxw.	Anthoshorea	White Meranti group
Shorea gratissima (Wall. ex Kurz) Dyer	Anthoshorea	White Meranti group
Shorea lamellata Foxw.	Anthoshorea	White Meranti group
Shorea ochracea Symington	Anthoshorea	White Meranti group
Shorea resinosa Foxw.	Anthoshorea	White Meranti group
Shorea symingtonii Wood	Anthoshorea	White Meranti group
Shorea virescens Parijs	Anthoshorea	White Meranti group
Shorea isoptera P.S.Ashton	Neohopea	Selangan Batu group

References

Vatica cinerea

Hi there. I just expanded the above article. But it should probably be moved (to V. harmandiana), see taxonomy section. Leo, 86.83.56.115 (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree; Plants of the World Online has it here and primary sources seem convincing. I'll move it. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done + some fixes for the move; please check and make any more needed. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Peter. I'll update the distribution to reflect the new taxonomic consensus. I see you removed the text on TPL in the Taxonomy section; fine enough, no point in perpetuating the misleading info there.86.83.56.115 (talk) 10:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, TPL is now thoroughly out-of-date, and should be replaced wherever it is used as a reference by PoWO or WCSP (which apparently have the same underlying database, but different presentation, plus WCSP is updated more frequently). Peter coxhead (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Eh, read some older works on the taxon; seems I made a false assumption and will need to rewrite some parts on taxonomy. Turns out the synonymy was already proposed in 1990 in the Flore du Cambodge, du Laos et du Viêtnam, it's just taken Kew 30 years to recognise it. It's unclear if Ashton disagreed or just never read it or other regional works (PROSEA, 1994) using the synonymy. Same goes for IUCN... Newman must have known about the synonymy from his work in Laos in 2007, but choose to ignore it in 2017 when writing the Red List assessment... Naughty scientist!86.83.56.115 (talk) 13:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Newly re-opened RM

There is a requested move at Talk:Orthilia that has been re-opened. Your opinion would be helpful and welcome in this discussion. Please come and help! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  01:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Callitris pancheri

The plant at this name seems to be called Neocallitropsis pancheri or Eutacta pancheri and all the {{taxonbar}} identifiers use these two names. The text says it used to be in genus Neocallitropsis but a 2003 molecular study found it nested in Callitris. But that is an old study and doesn't seem to be followed by later sources. The IUCN and Kew use Neocallitropsis pancheri and Christenhusz et al (2011) recognise the genus in their taxonomy. Tropicos has entries for both and some explanation about basionyms I don't follow. I think it probably should be moved to Neocallitropsis pancheri.   Jts1882 | talk  08:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Endemia.nc uses Callitris.

Checking the citations of the 2003 paper finds a 2010 morphological paper that has it as sister to Callitris (including Actinostrobus) and a 2017 paper that has it in Callitris as sister to C. sulcata. Following the citations from the former finds a 2019 paper agreeing with the latter. If I commit synthesis, Callitris pancheri is correct. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

But the majority of secondary sources do seem to be using Neocallitropsis. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

POWO uses Callitris pancheri. Seems there is too much variation to make a change.   Jts1882 | talk  13:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

the items on wikidata should be separated into the two names, and both should be included in the taxonbar. --Nessie (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Organ (anatomy), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Can I get rid of the IUCN conservation assessments?

I generally work on tropical plants. Most of the IUCN assessments for tropical plants were complied by Americans in 1998 and are horribly badly researched/done. I see that other editors use Nature Serve for the USA and something else for Australia. I would like to propose switching out the assessments with those of the Centro Nacional de Conservação da Flora for those plants native or largely native to Brazil. Regarding dipterocarps, the Malaysian Red List is miles better than the IUCN.

In other cases I'm not sure what to do, but when an assessment is demonstratively based on bad data (see for example Dipteryx charapilla), is it truly a service to the public to have such bad info right up there on the top of the page?

Cheers, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

To get support for removal of the IUCN assessment you would have to provide reliable sources making the case that the "assessment is demonstratively based on bad data". However, you can add a second system using |status2=, |status2_system= and |status2_ref=. The systems currently available are described at Wikipedia:Conservation_status. I'm not familiar with the Malaysian Red List but I don't see why it can't be added if the list can be shown to be notable. Can you provide the information you want to add for Dipteryx charapilla with a source?   Jts1882 | talk  07:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Jts. Looking at the list of Wikipedia:Conservation_status apparently only organisations from rich English-speaking Western nations get to decide on conservation status... Seems biased! I think I'll c&p this to the talk page at Wikipedia:Conservation_status and hope others agree with me...

This is the English Wikipedia, with a lot of British, American and Australian editors, so will inevitably have an English language bias, because of interest in local species and access to sources. There is nothing to stop anyone adding conservation status for other groups, but if the sources are not in English, it is difficult for English speakers.

True, true... There is a good reason for the bias, still, there is a bias. Another thing is that many of these 3rd world systems are much newer.

The Malaysian Red Lists for plants are made by the Malaysian Institute for Forestry or somesuch. They are not complete for the entire flora, but where available well-researched and justifiable. If the same criteria were applied to European or North American biodiversity, as were applied to dipterocarps by the IUCN, everything from pigeons to cows should be declared critically endangered.

As you can see from the conservation section, it is allowable to have local red lists (e.g. Australia, New Zealand). At the moment, neither the Malaysian Red List (I could only find something for mammals) nor the Centro Nacional de Conservação da Flora have an article on the English wikipedia. The latter looks quite a promising source.

If you could look at Vatica cinerea, I referenced it to a .pdf of the Red List; see Chao et al in the references.

Regarding D. charapilla, I'm annoyed because the conservation status was based on it supposedly being an endemic and "known only from the type locality" -neither are true, nor were they in 1998 when the assessment was made. It comes from a very wild and unexplored area, is hard to identify and is under-collected. By now with more exploration the range of the species is about half the size of Europe, much of it protected in national parks. Regarding the population of this species it is no different from 7 other of the 11 spp. of Dipteryx, thus its inclusion is arbitrary and based on false assumptions -made 21 years ago by anonymous non-experts in the USA! Thing is it has never been assessed by any other group, but should this one conservation status assessment be continued to be perpetuated for decades, despite being demonstratively false? 86.83.56.115 (talk) 16:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

We have to base edits on reliable sources. If the IUCN status report is unreliable, we need a reliable source saying that is unreliable. If there is a better source we can include it, but I couldn't find an assessment for Dipteryx charapilla by the Centro Nacional de Conservação da Flora.

No, there is nothing... A reader will understand that the status is unwarranted if they read the text, but still, at first glance the reader will still see the questionable IUCN status on the top of the page... Or am I nitpicking? 86.83.56.115 (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

If you want to add the Malaysian Red List and/or Centro Nacional de Conservação da Flora conservation statuses, I think there are several required steps. First, they would need a Wikipedia article explaining the lists: who they are complied by, the categories, etc. Are you willing to write something, either a separate article or a section in another appropriate article? Second, the template handling conservation needs to be modified to include them. I can do this if provided with the appropriate information. A set of graphics like those for the IUCN and other organisations as shown in Wikipedia:Conservation_status would also be useful. It might be possible to reuse the IUCN graphics.

I guess I better put my money where my mouth is... I'll write up a draft for the CNC first. "template handling conservation needs to be modified"= Ah-ha, that's why it didn't work. CNC uses the same IUCN assessment categories, so the IUCN graphics should suffice fine... Could you do this part? Likely beyond my current ability. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Ultimately, Wikipedia is a collaborative project. A topic will be covered if it has reliable sources and if there are editors who are willing to write material on a topic.   Jts1882 | talk  17:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

tried adding the CNC assessment as a second system using |status2=, |status2_system= and |status2_ref=... didn't work. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you give me the source of the assessment (web address) and the article you want to add it to?   Jts1882 | talk  17:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure. Assessment: [[1]], wiki article: Dipteryx alata. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

See example at Cryptanthus exaltatus where I've added the status.   Jts1882 | talk  17:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, ok, I can do what you did there. Earlier, the lack of graphics confused me. I changed one small thing to be more precise, though (added that it was version 2012.2). Thanks again for all the help, Jts! Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Actually; I want to thank you immensely! Solving this would be brilliant. This situation has been bothering me for at least a year! 86.83.56.115 (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

So I wrote up this: Draft:Centro_Nacional_de_Conservação_da_Flora. Good enough? I gather under Bolsonaro some things have changed: the Ministry for Environment has been fused with other ministries (Agriculture? website has disappeared...) -but that is not yet reflected on their homepage. About the Malaysian Red List (from the Forest Research Institute), I read [[2]] the 2010 dipterocarp stuff will be adopted into the IUCN Red List at the end of 2019... So maybe wait up on that. 86.83.56.115 (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

CNC Flora Red List category abbreviations following the IUCN criteria (version 3.1, 2001)

Yes, I think that is suitable. My only question is the article title, should it be the actual name of the organisation in Brazilian or the name translated into English (National Centre for the Conservation of Flora?)? I would also add a section on the red list and its categories. If it is explicit about using the IUCN and categories (which I think it says it is), we can probably use the IUCN graphics or modified versions (e.g. see right).   Jts1882 | talk  06:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Ah, there is a problem with the article (reflected in the review of the draft). The article only references the organisation that it is about. Common sense would say an agency of the Brazilian government was notable and verifiable, but Wikipedia doesn't always work that way. It needs reliable sources that refer to the organisation and its red list. Here are a couple of articles reviewing the red list project and the physically published list from 2013.

Ok, I saw your edits (after a bit) and added a bit more, and just resubmitted the draft. Good stuff! Cheers, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Edit warring of etymologies

A discussion has been started at WP:Tree of Life regarding recent edit warring behavior of taxonomic etymologies. Comments are requested.--Kevmin § 03:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Agave in Europe in 4th century BCE

There's a source that claims that agave leaves were used in the construction of a 4th century BCE boat. This is an extraordinary claim, given that all botanical sources I know say that Agave is native to the Americas, and was unknown elsewhere until after European contact in the 15th century CE. Extraordinary claims need strong sources, and I haven't seen them yet, so I'm reluctant to add this to the Agave article (it was initially added to the Agave americana article, but no source mentions the species). If anyone has any insight into this matter, please comment at Talk:Agave#Agave in Europe in 4th century BCE. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I would agree to the removal (I have just removed the edits on the lead of cashew as well) as these are essentially claims by a very small number of authors with a number of citations to themselves. Having seen the Sorensen paper and subsequent claims associated with Pre-Columbian Indian contact with the New World I can say that the evidence is rather weak for all the identifications made from carvings etc. (I have a whole bunch of images of the purported maize carvings from an Indian temple - File:Halebid_Muktaphala_1.jpg, ... , File:Halebid_Muktaphala_19.jpg) The issue is the same with cashew and Annona squamosa - the visual resemblance is weak - unfortunately there is a strong wave of nationalism that rides on such hypotheses. Shyamal (talk) 08:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC) [PS: this new edit can definitely be added to the article at Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories ]

Comment above copied to Talk:Agave#Agave in Europe in 4th century BCE. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Identify plants based on very little information

Some years back, the Pearson Scott Foresman company donated a ton of line art to Commons. These were items which had been in their illustrated dictionaries. However, they didn't label all the images - and in fact, they donated them in the form of assemblies of images, with filenames like "PSF-W1040007" that indicate only the first letter of the words illustrated by the images.

That's the context. Can anyone identify these plants whose names begin with W?

• 
  W-plant
• 
  Also a W-plant

Thanks. DS (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The first is wisteria. The second is wintergreen (Gaultheria). Going off the assumption that these are illustrations of fairly common species, the wisteria might be Wisteria sinensis or Wisteria floribunda and the wintergreen is probably Gaultheria procumbens. I wouldn't categorize them to the species level, but you could put tentative species IDs in the comments. Plantdrew (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

The "wintergreen" definitely looks like Gaultheria procumbens, and not like any of the other more well-known Gaultheria species. — Eru·tuon 17:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

How old are the dictionaries? If they're old enough you might be able to find copies on archive.org or Google Books, and examine the pictures in situ? Lavateraguy (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea, sorry. Some of the images definitely are recycled PD, I know that much. DS (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Polygaloides vs Polygala

Is Polygaloides a synonym of Polygala, or vice versa, or neither? Abductive (reasoning) 06:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Both seem to be accepted genera in Polygalaceae, at least according to Tropicos and POWO.   Jts1882 | talk  07:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I need a definitive answer from the literature, can't trust the usual databases or I wouldn't be asking here. Abductive (reasoning) 04:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Polygaloides was split from Polygala by Abbott, J.R. 2011. Notes on the disintegration of Polygala (Polygalaceae) with four new genera for the flora of North America. Journal of the Botanical Research Institute of Texas 5: 125–137. For further information and links to the research works, please see Wikispecies. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 07:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Cool. I'm probably going to create a stub for Polygaloides but I am in no way attached to it nor will I object if it gets redirected as more information becomes available. Abductive (reasoning) 02:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Two links to a DAB page

Dinosaur Park Formation and Hell Creek Formation both link to the DAB page Baeria, saying it's a ginkgo. The only plant entry on the DAB page is an unaccepted name for Lasthenia, a genus in Asteraceae. Wikispecies does not know Baeria except in connection with Lasthenia. A Google search for 'baeria ginkgo' turned up nothing. I'd be tempted to delete these two entries as spurious, unless an expert here knows better. Narky Blert (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Seems only the former mention is referenced. I’m having trouble accessing it on my phone. --Nessie (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

First thing that I'm finding is that its a misspelling of Baiera, an extinct seed plant possibly in the ginkgophytes.--Kevmin § 16:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

To expand on that, here is the fossilworks.org page on Baiera. Its a Permian to Cretaceous Ginkgoaceae genus named by Braun in 1843.--Kevmin § 18:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Great work, thanks! Narky Blert (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

I added a "see also" link to Baiera, since it sounds like that was a genuine error. Guettarda (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

And I have added a {{distinguish}} hatnote to Baiera. Narky Blert (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The authority was Karl Friedrich Wilhelm Braun, now added to both Baiera and List of botanists by author abbreviation (B). Narky Blert (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Call for portal maintainers

Are there any editors from this WikiProject willing to maintain Portal:Plants? The Portals guideline requires that portals be maintained, and as a result numerous portals have been recently been deleted via MfD largely becasue of lack of maintenance. Let me know either way, and thanks, UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Organ (anatomy), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Readership

After finishing Importance-Assessing all of the unassessed articles in this project, I have been doing some assessing for other projects and I'd just like to share some of my findings. As I previously mentioned, the majority of the articles on plant species have one or zero pageviews a day. But on Wikiproject Fishes there are many articles that have had zero pageviews since July 1, 2015!. I feel that this bears repeating, since this alone is a good reason not to mass-create a bunch of stubs. Abductive (reasoning) 19:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I have also continued to re-assess large numbers of Low-Importance WP:PLANTS articles as Mid-Importance. As I previously mentioned, any article that gets more than 10 pageviews a day is almost invariably a weed, a medicinal plant, a garden/ornamental plant, or an edible, and consequently something that readers are looking up. If I have the stamina, I intend to re-assess thousands of such articles from Low to Mid. Lest there be concerns that this might go too far, I would like to point out that WP:PLANTS has way too many Low-Importance articles. If one looks at the Wikipedia-wide assessment data, one will see that about 1% of articles are Top-Importance, 4.4% are High-Importance, and 17% are Mid-Importance. If WP:PLANTS matched these numbers, it would have 1,162 Tops (currently 77), 4,145 Highs (currently 673), and 16,005 Mids (currently 6,445). Abductive (reasoning) 19:23, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I kind of like that we have a roughly 1:10 ratio going down each level of importance, but I'm not attached to it. I'm pretty sure the Wikipedia-wide data shows the highest class/importance given for any articles assessed for multiple projects (which would skew importance higher than if looking at the data for any single WikiProject). And article creators who self-assess their articles have a tendency to give unreasonably high importance ratings; for many projects, there isn't much of an effort to check assessments, so unduly high importance ratings will accumulate. It might be helpful to look at some other individual projects. Video Games has 0.1% Top, 1.6% High, 6.5% Mid, 91.6% Low. For articles with an importance assessment, Football has 0.0% Top, 0.5% High, 17.7% Mid, and 81.8% Low. I picked video games and football as being among the projects with the most active editor bases, but I'm not vouching for the amount of thought and care that has gone into their importance ratings. Taxonomy is a field where there are many possible articles that won't have any readers interested in them.

I don't object to bumping up a bunch of importance ratings, but I don't think it's imperative to do so based on whatever the "Wikipedia average" is. Plantdrew (talk) 20:34, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

However raising the importance rating of some articles based on page views seems sensible imo. Kind regards, Matthew Ferguson (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Do we see page view statistics where wikipedia content is available from iNaturalist (or, if there are any, other sites with a similar presentation)? I created Lonicera nigra, partly because I just saw the plant in the wild, partly because it has wikipedia articles in German and about a dozen other languages (the languages of its native range). Now I am beginning to wonder (there are only 41 iNaturalist observations, so this species may be more obscure than I thought). Kingdon (talk) 23:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

More generally, we should ask the question: important to which readers? My view has always been that WP:PLANTS assessments should be based on the importance of the topic to readers interested in plants. Amborella is a more important genus than other genera of tropical shrubs or trees because of its relevance to the evolution of flowering plants. How many page views it gets doesn't change that. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I have always taken a view that, other things being equal, higher taxa should be of high importance, family-level taxa of mid importance and species of low importance. However, it seems reasonable for Reynoutria japonica to be raised to mid importance while Reynoutria multiflora remains at low, as the former is a plant of considerable interest to many readers. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Based on how I use sources, including wikipedia, no consideration should be given to readership in editing: the information that I source adds to extant facts; how that is useful is for the reader to decide. I am at a loss how to assign importance to an organism I assume is crucial to some other organisms, is it a guess on the presumed importance to our own? ~ cygnis insignis 12:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, as Cwmhiraeth says, some decisions can be semi-automated: the higher the rank of the taxon, the more important it is, all other things being equal, simply because it will be linked from all the lower-ranked taxa. But after that, yes, importance to us humans is a factor; Japanese knotweed is more important to humans than non-invasive species. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd disagree that higher rank necessarily equates to higher importance. Orders historically haven't been very stable between different taxonomic systems. While they are more stable under APG, they aren't easy to diagnose visually. Families have been relatively stable, and are easy to diagnose visually. People with minimal botanical knowledge can easily recognise plants in the palm, cactus and grass families (although they might mistakenly include some other plants with similar appearances). Families are generally more important than orders.

I went through importance ratings for families a few years back. Speciose, visally distinctive families with significant human uses are high importance. Smaller families are mid. I rated a few families as low importance; my criteria for low importance families was: very small (<50 species), restricted to one continent, and not generally recognized in pre-APG taxonomic systems. Plantdrew (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I see the point, but where an order is present in many taxoboxes, there's a strong case for ensuring the article is of reasonable quality, and marking it as of at least mid importance is a useful indicator. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of article assessments is to prioritize work on articles based on importance, not to emphasize taxonomic ideals. An article that nobody reads is not important. The fact that an article on a species that the public finds interesting gets more pageviews than a family a biologist finds interesting is only tragic if you let it bother you. Abductive (reasoning) 04:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Plants is too large for some maintenance tasks to run

Not that anyone needs to do anything, but ya'll should probably be aware that some tools, such as HotArticlesBot will not run on WikiProject Plants because it is too big, in this case greater than 50,000 pages. I've also had trouble with FIST quitting partway through the A's on Category:Wikipedia requested images of plants ( 24,085 ) (and yes I know the Image Existence Checker needs to be gone through too). I'm sure there are other potential issues out there, so keep an eye out. --Nessie (talk) 13:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Hot Articles used to have a smaller limit (10k, if I recall correctly), making it unusable for most of the (reasonably active) ToL subprojects. Perhaps the limit will be raised in the future. Plantdrew (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Araguaney

The Araguaney tree is known in English Wikipedia as Tabebuia chrysantha while in Spanish Wikipedia is known as Handroanthus chrysanthus. I am not an expert in biology, I tried to find if it were indeed the same but I fell in this Handroanthus/Tabeuia conflict where some species were renamed and reverted. Could somebody with more expertise try to confirm if both are indeed the same. --MaoGo (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Tabebuia chrysantha and Handroanthus chrysanthus are different scientific names for the same plant. English Wikipedia should probably move the article to Handroanthus chrysanthus, as that name is being used in most up-to-date databases. 14:58, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Can we use some database or source to add both names in the article? --MaoGo (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

If you look at the bottom of the English wikipedia article there is something called a {{taxonbar}} which has links to a variety of databases using the name or an alternative. The POWO and Tropicos entries are the two I find most useful. The information is retrieved from Wikidata so you could look directly there, but the Taxonbar is very useful for checking this type of question.   Jts1882 | talk  15:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I will move the page (in a day or two) to Handroanthus chrysanthus then and add the alternative name, thanks for the feedback. If there is still some opposition please ping me quickly. --MaoGo (talk) 10:57, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done--MaoGo (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Plants

Proposal to delete all portals

The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to delete Portal space. Voceditenore (talk) 08:05, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Senecio inaequidens/Senecio madagascariensis

(Post moved from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora). Peter coxhead (talk) 08:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC))

recent research suggests that those species are infact the same species only differing that s.madagascariensis is diploid and s.inaequidens is tetraploid. inaequidens is invasive in Europe whereas madagascariensis is invasive in Australia and America. should the articles stay as are or should they be joined with one referring to the other?

Post originally by 134.106.34.199 12:29, 24 September 2019

References

"Finally, the sum of the morphological, chromosomal and geographical distribution differences provides sufficient evidence to maintain S. madagascariensis and S. inaequidens as separate species."

While there are exceptions cytotypes are usually at least partly reproductively isolated. My rule of thumb is that cytotypes are separate, perhaps cryptic, species. There's very little in the cited paper to support merging the species, and the pattern of molecular variation might be because Senecio madagascariensis is paraphyletic with respect to Senecio inaequidens, which woould be the normal situation for recent allotetraploids. Looking at meiosis in a hybrid would be interesting. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Alnus alnobetula

Following a move discussion, I merged Alnus viridis into Alnus alnobetula, but the resulting page needs some attention because the identity of the subspecies, and other issues, differ between the two articles. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• Alnus viridis was described from the French Alps, so at first sight should be synonymous with subsp. alnobetula as described, rather than subsp. fruticosa. However the name Betula alnobetula was based on a plant of unknown origin, so one would have to dig into the subject of its typification to see whether the autonym is correctly applied to the Central European populations.
• According to Alnus the subg. is Alnobetula rather than Clethropsis (FNA agrees). Subg. Clethropsis redirects to Alnus; subg. Alnobetula doesn't, so a tweak to the template may be needed.
• POWO recognises 5 additional species of Alnobetula - Alnus firma Siebold & Zucc., Alnus mandschurica (Callier) Hand.-Mazz., Alnus maximowiczii Callier, Alnus pendula Matsum. and Alnus sieboldiana Matsum.; the 2nd and 3rd have also been published as subspecies of Alnus alnobetula.
• A paper rejects these two taxa both as species and as subspecies.

Short of committing WP:SYN it looks as if the solution is to drop Alnus maximowiczii, which brings the two lists of subspecies in line, or to discuss the issues of the ranks of mandschurica, maximowiczii (and also glutipes) - firma, pendula and sieboldiana seem to be clearly outside Alnus alnobetula. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Two Goldenrod Questions

Hi, rather new editor here with two questions noted after reading the Goldenrod page.

1. I expected to find a page somewhere outlining how to determine which taxonomy to follow, but haven't turned anything up. Is there some guidelines somewhere? Currently, the genus Oligoneuron is split from Solidago in some places but not others, even within the same articles. Obviously these should be treated consistently (with the alternative classification discussed but not used), but I don't know what criteria I should be using to determine which taxonomy to actually use?

2. The page currently treats "Goldenrod" as a perfect synonym of "Solidago" which is not true - the genus Euthamia are also called goldenrods in many if not most cases. It seems really strange to me that Goldenrod doesn't even mention that the term can have multiple definitions. I have personally never used goldenrod to refer to Solidago in exclusion of Euthamia, but I'm sure this may vary regionally. In any case, how should these kinds of cases be treated, where a common name is based on outdated taxonomy? Should there be a page for goldenrod linking to both genera, or maybe just a link to Euthamia in the introduction for Solidago? I'm sure there are many similar examples on Wikipedia.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somatochlora (talk • contribs) 17:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

For #2, I brought up the same point here: Talk:Goldenrod#Many_genera_other_than_Solidago_are_"goldenrods" —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 18:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

@Somatochlora:, for taxonomy we were largely following The Plant List for several years, and the taxonomy given in many articles is still based on that source. Plants of the World Online is probably the best taxonomic resource at the moment, but isn't perfect. As a rule of thumb, go with POWO. If POWOs treatment of particular genus/species has problems, other sources should be considered. We don't rush to make changes based on the primary literature; changes should be in some taxonomic database before being implemented on Wikipedia. Plantdrew (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both kindly Somatochlora (talk) 00:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Now that a move has occurred, should the redirect at goldenrod be turned into a set index page? Lavateraguy (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Lavateraguy: Yes, go ahead. --Nessie (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Endangered plant taxa of insert your state here

As part of my job I'm compiling information on the endangered plant species of Arizona, and thus have a lot of great information just floating around. I thought it'd be nice to centralize all that info on Wikipedia. Thus asking for advice: should I create a list type article of the US federally endangered plant taxa of my home state? Obviously, that would open the door for one for every state, which is why I thought I'd ask here first before just creating it and then having it deleted. I'm not sure if that is...too niche for the encyclopedia. If something like this already exists, let me know! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 08:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

There's Category:Endangered flora of the United States ( 110 ) with no subcats. Also Endangered flora of Connecticut. I say go for it, but set a clear definition as to what can be included. --Nessie (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

But for federally endangered (US ESA) they would want Category:Biota by ESA status, which is not further subdivided into flora/fauna. Enwebb (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

There are only 22 plant taxa with federal T/E status in Arizona. I think it would be better to make a list based on state T/E status (while also mentioning federal status when applicable). USDA PLANTS advanced search allows searching by state/federal status and occurence in a state. It is probably worth checking each entry for details (only "crested"/"fantop" saguaros are state-listed in Arizona, but this isn't apparent from raw search results on USDA PLANTS). Plantdrew (talk) 16:31, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

cs.

Does cs. have a standard meaning in botany? Phytophthora hydropathica links to it, but it's a DAB page with no obvious match. Narky Blert (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

An error for cv. or cultivar?   Jts1882 | talk  16:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it’s a nonstandard abbreviation for Senecio cineraria, another synonym of Senecio bicolor subsp. cineraria? Doesn’t explain it’s use in Rhodoendron Kurume hybrid cs. Hershey's Red though. --Nessie (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC) Looking at the probable source it seems likely it’s a typo for cultivar. --Nessie (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

without checking, but makes sense, so I'll suggest "cross" instead of the × (not the †) ~ cygnis insignis 20:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure looks to me (in context) that cv. was intended, so I decided to be WP:BOLD and change it. Speak up if you see any reason to think something else should be here. Kingdon (talk) 13:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Which status system as default

Should we replace NatureServ as the status system for plants when we have IUCN statuses, or list both? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AidenD (talk • contribs) 02:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Healing of wounds in plants

Hello plant experts! There's a draft waiting for review at WP:AFC which falls under the scope of this project. Please take a look.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Lycophyte question

The nomenclature and classification of lycophytes, defined broadly, is highly confused and confusing. It's possible, I think, to distinguish between two taxa:

1. "Lycophytes broadly defined", which includes the extinct zosterophylls as well as extant lycophytes and their close extinct relatives. An example is the subdivision Lycophytina of Kenrick & Crane (1997).
2. "Lycophytes narrowly defined", which includes only the extant lycophytes and their close extinct relatives. Examples are the class Lycopsida of Kenrick & Crane (1997) and the class Lycopodiopsida of PPG I (although this is based only on extant species).

Ignoring minor extinct species, these are related thus:

lycophytes broadly defined	†zosterophylls lycophytes narrowly defined

A major problem is that sources use the same or very similar terms for these two different groups, at wildly inconsistent ranks. As an example, division Lycophyta of Mauseth (2014) excludes zosterophylls whereas the lower-ranked subdivision Lycophytina of Kenrick & Crane (1997) includes them. I've put some tables setting out the variation starting at Lycopodiopsida#Table 1.

Since the policy here is to have articles about taxa, not names, it seems to me that there should be one article for each group I've identified above. We have to choose a single title for each, and set up the same hierarchy in taxoboxes. WP:PLANTS earlier agreed to use the PPG I system for pteridophytes, so we should use Lycopodiopsida for "lycophytes narrowly defined".

Our article at Lycopodiophyta is confused between the two taxa I've identified above. I want to sort it out, but this raises the question of the title to be used.

Question I'm inclined to use the informal term "Lycophytes" for the title of an article about "lycophytes broadly defined" rather than, say "Lycophyta" or "Lycopodiophyta". What do others think? Peter coxhead (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I agreed with your suggestions. PPG-I is the system used for extant lycophytes so Lycopodiopsida should be used there instead of Lycopsida. Ruggiero also uses Class Lycopodiopsida for extant forms, but doesn't meantion what else is in Lycopodiophytina. That leaves Lycophyta or Lycophyte for the broader group and Wikipedia prefers common names.

I think it would be useful if Table 1 was extended to give the ranks and names for the taxon including zosterophylls, as well as the taxon including extant forms.   Jts1882 | talk  12:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jts1882: thanks for your response. I have actually done some work on extending the table as you suggest, and do want to have a table for the "broad lycophytes". However, there's a disconnect between the paleobotanical literature, which is mostly older or based on older underlying sources, and the literature dealing with extant species, which is more recent and relies largely on molecular phylogeny, so putting the two in one table involves too much synthesis or even OR, I think. Our taxoboxes assume, for example, that the PPG's Lycopodiopsida combines with zosterophylls to form a larger taxon (called Lycopodiophyta right now), but this can't be sourced, because PPG I ignores all extinct species. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled by table 1. The title is "Alternative highest ranks used for all extant species". Surely higher ranks such as Plantae and Eukaryota also include all extant species. If the intent is to show the lowest higher rank for all extant species, then Ruggiero should agree with PPG-I on class Lycopodiopsida (even though they also have subphylum Lycopodiophytina containing just this class). In addition, Taylor et al (2009) use class Lycopsida, in agreement with Kenrick & Crane (1997); both use it to the exclusion of zosterophyllophytes. Kenrick & Crane include both Lycopsida and Zosterophylopsida in their subdivision Lycophytina, while Taylor et al exclude zosterophyllophytes from their Lyocophyta, which only contians Lycopsida. I don't know what Taylor et al use for the more inclusive taxa (not in the google books preview), but they use lycopida for all lycophytes discussed and note the use of lycophytes for a broader taxon by Gensel & Berry (2001).

In all four sources (Kenrick & Crane (1997), Taylor et al (2009), Ruggiero et al (2015) and PPG-I), all extant lycophytes are included within a taxon at class rank, either called Lycoposida or Lycopodiopsida. If these are synonyms (as stated in Wikispecies) there is broader agreement than the table suggests. The disagreements are with the extinct taxa, which the latter two don't deal with. I don't have access to Mauseth (2014)or Niklas (2016).   Jts1882 | talk  12:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

It's difficult to word the table caption! What I mean is the highest rank used that (apparently) excludes the zosterophylls but is still a "Lyco-" name. As the accompanying note says, those who use one of the higher ranks may also use one of the lower ones. So, yes, some of these also use a class rank, and these may match up, but this doesn't change the fact that the highest "lyco-" name is different. What I'm trying to capture is the problem that if you see a taxon name in "lyco-", you have no idea what it means unless you more about how it is used. Kenrick & Crane's Subdivision Lycophytina is more inclusive than Taylor et al.'s Phylum Lycophyta, which isn't what you would expect. Taylor et al.'s Phylum Lycophyta has the same composition as Class Lycopodiopsida when this is used with no corresponding higher "lyco-" rank in other sources, which again isn't what you would expect. The disagreements in Table 1 are not about the extinct taxa, they are about the highest rank that is equivalent to the "narrow lycophytes", regardless of whether there is any rank above that includes the "broad lycophytes". Some have such a rank, some don't.

Any ideas about how to improve the explanation of the table will be very gratefully received. Clearly I haven't succeeded in explaining it properly!

(Taylor et al. don't use anything for the inclusive taxon, they just put their Lycophyta and their Zosterophyllophyta in an unranked group "land plants", as two of the phyla in Kingdom Plantae. Mauseth similarly has nothing that groups his Division Lycophyta and zosterophylls.) Peter coxhead (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I have now moved "Lycopodiophyta" to "Lycophyte" and revised both this article and Lycopodiopsida to make them consistent. The formal and informal "lyco-" names are a mess, which I think I understand now, but find hard to write up clearly and particularly without synthesis or OR. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Much clearer now. Before it was quite a struggle to understand the different usages. I was going to mention the muddle in the taxonomy templates, but see you have reorganised these already.   Jts1882 | talk  14:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

What should be done with Template:Taxonomy/Lycophytina? Plantdrew (talk) 15:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

It's still used. There are six extinct genera using {{Taxonomy/Lycophytina/clade}} (Adoketophyton, Hicklingia, Distichophytum, Huia, Discalis, Gumuia) and that has |same_as=Taxonomy/Lycophytina. I suppose they should be changed to |parent=Lycophytes and then lycophytina is no longer used. However, what reference can be used for the parent Lycophytes. Crane et al (2004) use lycophyte in the cladogram (Fig 1), but the taxon is Lycophytina (e.g. Table 2) following Kenrick & Crane (1997).   Jts1882 | talk  16:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it's an acceptable two-step process: (1) formally, the parent is Lycophytina (2) "lycophytes" is an informal term equivalent to this use of Lycophytina. Both can be demonstrated from various reliable sources. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

On a different question, what do people think of Lycopod (disambiguation)? It allows the second hatnote at Lycopodiopsida. At one point I thought that Lycopod should redirect to Lycopod (disambiguation), but I found that most uses of the wikilink probably should be to Lycopodiopsida, although as ever, in many cases it's simply not clear what is meant, so I went back to this redirection. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it's OK to have lycopod as a redirect. Looking at the first few pages of Google results, "lycopod" is mostly used in contexts where it isn't clear whether zosterophylls are included (most contexts are about the extant plants, but may mention extinct relatives without specifying the relatives further). If I include zosterophyll/Zosterophyllopsida/Zosterophyllophyta as an additional search term, I'm getting results that separate zosterophylls and lycopods. Plantdrew (talk) 16:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Herbarium type samples and copyright

Howdy hello! As part of my job I have access to a rather large collection of herbarium samples as well as several thousand type samples of plants. I was thinking of photographing many of them and adding them to Wikipedia articles, but then I wondered if that is a copyright issue. Obviously I could just photograph the plant itself, but can I include photos of the labels on these samples? Is the text of the description of locations/habitats/plants by botanists copyrighted? See for example [3]. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Copyright is an extremely complex subject, which I doubt that any of us at this page have sufficient expertise to assist with. How about asking at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:37, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: This thread would suggest that herbarium specimens are not subject to copyright (as would papers describing new species that repeat the holotype's specimen label data verbatim). However, the best thing to do would be to ask representatives of the institution holding the herbarium specimens whether they are OK with what you plan to do. I'm not an expert in copyright. However, I think it is unlikely that a specimen holding institution would claim any kind of copyright on physical herbarium specimens. Specimen collectors routinely collect duplicate specimens (with identical labels, but different physical plants attached to the sheet), which are then distributed to multiple institutions. And over time, specimens may be transferred to a different insitution from where they were first deposited. Collectors may or may not be working on "company time" when they collect any given specimen. Given duplicates, transfers, and working off-the-clock, I think it is unlikely that any one institution would be able to claim copyright. But the best thing to do is inform relevant people of your plans and make sure they are OK with it. As a photographer, you certainly would have potential copyright claims (which you can waive to release the images as CC-BY-SA). Plantdrew (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you both for your replies. @Plantdrew: The link you added didn't work for me? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek:; the link works for me, not sure what's wrong. To summarize it though, it's a query on a mailing list from an herbarium collection manager who had allowed photographs of some specimens and was upset that the herbarium wasn't credited in a (possibly copyrighted) book containing the photos, and was seeking advice to ensure the herbarium was credited in the future. None of the replies suggested that she had any legal recourse. Plantdrew (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Many herbaria (e.g., US) have already photographed their type specimens and placed these images online. You could simply write or email these institutions and ask for permission to use their images. But to answer your question more directly, most herbarium managers will be more than happy to allow you to photograph specimens if you ask, although most will want some kind of acknowledgment or attribution (which is the proper and polite thing to do anyway). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.174.100 (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Tribe Echinocereeae

I'm working on rewriting Saguaro, and I've come across a bit of an oddity. As far as I can tell, its in the tribe Pachycereeae, but the infobox autogeneration is putting it in the seemingly nonexistent tribe Echinocereeae. Is the classification correct? If not, how can the auto infobox be corrected? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

That would be my fault. The genus list at Pachycereeae is sourced to the Germplasm Resources Information Network, but GRIN no longer recognizes Pachycereeae, and includes saguaros in Echinocereeae. Cactoideae has the statement: "As of August 2018, the internal classification of the family Cactaceae remained uncertain and subject to change. A classification incorporating many of the insights from the molecular studies was produced by Nyffeler and Eggli in 2010"; the uncertainty seems mostly related to Cactoideae and not the other Cactaceae subfamilies. Nyffeler and Eggli put Carnegeia in tribe Phyllocacteae, subtribe Echinocereinae. Wikipedia is more or less following the arrangement of Cactoideae tribes from GRIN as of 2010, but GRIN has a new classification now. Neither of GRIN's arrangements are consistent with Nyffeler and Eggli. Until classification stops being uncertain and subject to change there isn't a great solution. Omit displaying tribe altogether? Display the tribe used in an old classification that is no longer supported by the source cited? Pick one of several tribes used in newer classifications? Plantdrew (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I would opt to either not display the tribe, or to use Nyffeler and Eggli's suggestion. In the first case, it may be better to just explain the uncertainty in text in the Taxonomy section. But if Nyffeler and Eggli's suggestions have been well received, then we could assume that their work is now the standard. Google scholar claims 65 citations of their paper, I'll take a look at some of the works and see what other folks think of it. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I would think using incertae sedis would be better than omitting the tribe, no? --Nessie (talk) 02:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh yeah, good suggestion! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 03:00, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: Could I get further assistance from you in remedying this? I've just added a (short) taxonomy section to Saguaro, and thus have stumbled upon the tribe issue again. I like Nessie's solution of just putting incertae sedis, but am not sure the technical aspects of that. Some help in rounding up sources that I could discuss in text regarding the tribe would also be appreciated. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: check out Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/advanced taxonomy#Incertae sedis taxonomy templates and then look at {{Taxonomy/Carnegiea}}. What is the parentage we have settled on? --Nessie (talk) 15:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

First annual Tree of Life Decemberween contest

After all the fun with the Spooky Species Contest last month, there's a new contest for the (Northern hemisphere's) Winter holidays at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Contest. It's not just Christmas, but anything festive from December-ish. Feel free to add some ideas to the Festive taxa list and enter early and often. --Nessie (talk) 17:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

is dis extended to th Western Hemisphere, I think I'm included? ~ cygnis insignis 19:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Southern Hemisphere? Certainly included. Your plants are more interesting anyway, since they're flowering in December. There's certainly stuff missing from the contest list that would be eligible based on common names (including articles you've worked on; Christmas morrison, Christmas tree of Western Australia). More plants can be found here. Plantdrew (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Cygnis insignis: Yes, all hemispheres welcome. --Nessie (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

we have Christmas spiders too, assumed that everyone does but who knows ~ cygnis insignis 01:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

RHS nomenclature

I am having a little trouble understanding Royal Horticultural Society listings from their website. For example, Celosia argentea var. cristata (Plumosa Group) 'Century Rose' (Century Series) or Geranium (Cinereum Group) Rothbury Gem = 'Gerfos' (PBR) Geranium (Cinereum Group) ROTHBURY GEM ('Gerfos') ^(PBR). Which elements of these descriptors are superfluous, and what would an article title that meets WP:MOS and WP:PLANTS guidance for them look like? (Not that I am intent on creating articles on these any time soon, but I am thinking of making redlinks for them.) Abductive (reasoning) 10:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Geranium 'Gerfos'
Genus	Geranium
Cultivar group	Cinereum Group
Cultivar	'Gerfos'
Marketing names	Rothbury Gem

The RHS nomenclature follows the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants (ICNCP), with some additional information, e.g. on synonyms, trade descriptions and (sometimes) less formal groups. As an example, Geranium 'Gerfos' is the unique name for the cultivar 'Gerfos' in the genus Geranium. It has a selling name/trade description Rothbury Gem, which may be one of many, and is placed in the cultivar group ("Group") Cinereum Group (cultivar groups are not hierarchical, and a cultivar can be placed in more than one). If we followed the usual WP:PLANTS practice of using the scientific name the article would be at "Geranium 'Gerfos'" and {{Infobox cultivar}} would be as shown here. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt that the ICNCP calls for superscript PBR in names. What does it mean, "Pabst Blue Ribbon", "Peanut Butter Runny"? Abductive (reasoning) 12:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

PBR = Plant breeders' rights. It's not part of the name, but like ® or ^TM, which I think we don't use here. It tells gardeners that they can't propagate and distribute the cultivar (depending on national legislation). Peter coxhead (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

So, anything and everything in parentheses is definitively not part of the name? Also, if you look at the RHS listing, it says Geranium cinereum 'Gerfos'. Then is this not the true name? Wikipedia's article lists 'Gerfos' as a cultivar in the Geranium cinereum article. Abductive (reasoning) 19:03, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Geranium cinereum 'Gerfos' is the true name of the cultivar; the cultivar name should appear in single quotes, and should be preceeded by at least the genus if not the binomial (if there is an unambiguous common name for the genus, that can be used instead of the scientific name). Including the name of the Group to which a particular cultivar belongs is optional, but when it is included, it should be placed in parentheses and should follow the genus/binomial and precede the cultivar name. Note that trade designations are often mistakenly presented as cultivar names (in single quotes); I would hope that the RHS doesn't make this mistake anywhere, but many nurseries/gardening websites do. Plantdrew (talk) 19:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The use of these notions "Group" and "Series" is concerning. I worry that Geranium cinereum 'Gerfos' and many others are actually hybrids of uncertain parentage, and thus why the RHS sometimes doesn't include a species. Abductive (reasoning) 20:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For some reason the RHS are listing 'Gerfos' as G. (Cinereum Group), rather than G. cinereum. At a guess Cinereum Group is equivalent to section Subacaulia, and particular cultivars might be hybrids. Yeo's monograph on cultivated Hardy Geraniums only recognises G. argentatum and G. cinereum (and some species not in cultivation), but Wikipedia has an article for Geranium subcaulescens. (POWO has this, and also Geranium subargentatum, and perhaps others; Wikispecies includes 15 species in the section.) Several of the Cinereum Group cultivars are hybrids between G. cinereum and G. subcaulescens. Following up a web search for Geranium Subacaulia further may shed further light, but ascertaining the parentage of 'Gerfos' may not be possible. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Series just means that it's one of a series of cultivars from a particular breeding program - typically these have similar habits, but different flower colours. In the case of the Celosia you can safely drop the group (Plumosa Group would be a group of similar cultivars of Celosia argentea var. cristata) and the series. The case of the Geranium is more complicated. There would be a case for an article at Geranium sect. Subacaulia, or for one at Geranium Cinereum Group. It's not immediately clear that section Subacaulia and Cinereum Group are conterminous, but that would be my working hypothesis. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd question the desirability of creating red links for these - as far as I know there is not a consensus that cultivars are generally notable. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

These have gained the RHS's Award of Garden Merit. In general, cultivars are not notable and never will be. Abductive (reasoning) 21:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

For the Celosia see MOBot plant finder. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks guys for all the help. I think I have a firmer idea of what to call these things now. Abductive (reasoning) 21:36, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

If enough ecyclopaedic content could be generated from more than a few reliable sources then an article on a cultivar might be notable. Unlikely there would be enough content though, I'd imagine better to add it as a subsection of the relevant species article. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Identify plants based on very little information

Once again, I present line art of unidentified plants whose names are known to start with "W".

• 
  Unidentified W-plant
• 
  Another unidentified W-plant

Any thoughts? Thanks. DS (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

If it wasn't for the 6 petals I'd suggest Waldsteinia for the first. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@DragonflySixtyseven: do we know that it's the scientific name that starts with "W"? Or could it be the English name? If the latter, a species of Anemone ("windflower") might be possible for the first – five sepals is more usual, but the sepal number does vary. The overall "jizz" is Anemone-like, with a solitary flower and almost a whorl of leaves. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

That's a sensible idea - I'd concluded that it wasn't a monocot in spite of the 6 perianth segments, and the jizz was Ranunculaceae or Rosaceae (Potentilla/Geum/etc) - and Ranunculaceae are less stereotypically pentamerous than most eudicot families. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

It could definitely be an English name rather than Linnaean, yes. And given that the other images on the source page are "winch", "wing (airplane)", and "Windsor chair", I think "windflower" is most likely it. Good work. DS (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Might the second one be woad (Isatis tinctoria)? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm less confident about that one - the other images on its source page begin with "wh" and "wi", so 'woad' would be an outlier. Anyone else think it's woad? DS (talk) 13:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The leaves and habit do look like woad, but woad is a crucifer (tetramerous) and this plant is drawn with (actinomorphic) pentamerous flowers. At that place in the alphabet it could be white X or wild X (or even whorled X). How far can we trust details of the illustrations? Lavateraguy (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I think we can trust the illustrations to be accurate. Maybe not complete, but if they show a plant as having a pentamerous flower, then I'm fairly sure the plant has a pentamerous flower. DS (talk) 04:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The first one looks like Wood Anemone, Anemone quinquefolia. The second one could be a member of Apocynaceae, with its flower shape and the venation and placement of the leaves on the stem. Hardyplants (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Family circumscriptions

The circumscriptions of many, many angiosperm families have changed radically in recent years, largely as a result of molecular phylogenetics. It's a shame that former circumscriptions are being bulldozed under as the APG classification is stamped on the articles. The APG classification is widely (but not universally) accepted among botanists but many older references will still follow the older circumscriptions, and for historical purposes and to help make sense of older references it is useful to include information, at least in passing, about these former circumscriptions rather than simply editing the article to present the current circumscription. I've made comments along this line in Saxifragaceae and some related articles, as this is one family whose circumscription has changed considerably. For example, the genera now placed in Hydrangeaceae were once included in Saxifragaceae (and many older references will reflect this) but neither of these family articles makes any reference to this. The Parnassia article didn't even include a link to the still-existing Parnassiaceae article (I've just edited it to make this reference). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.51.174.100 (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• There is much work to be done. Welcome to the Project. Abductive (reasoning) 00:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Howdy hello! We'd be very glad to have you help us clean up some of those issues. There are a lot of plant articles, and rather few of us. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

You should realise that anonymous editors using only an IP address, are not necessarily taken seriously, because many people could edit under that rubric, and are often disruptive but not accountable. The APG consensus has been a tremendous advance. I don't think we should go down the road of it not being accepted, it is the only way forward after all the mess that preceded it. Interesting you should mention Saxifragaceae, since the whole of Saxifragales is under active revision at present, including Saxifragaceae, as you may notice. However, your point about documenting the history is well taken and has always been a key part of my own editing (see for instance Lilioid monocots, Liliaceae). But there are a lot of plants and new information coming in continually. We do do need more hands on the wheel. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 22:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

It should always be the case that historical and alternative classifications and circumscriptions are discussed in plant articles where appropriate. However, there has to be a single system for article titles and taxoboxes, otherwise we would end up with duplicated articles on the same taxon at different titles (as can easily be shown to be the case in some other language wikis). For angiosperms, the system that commands widest acceptance at present is APG IV, so we use it for article titles and taxoboxes. But, I repeat, taxonomy sections should always discuss alternatives that can be shown to command support in reliable sources. (As an example, see Scilloideae, where the alternative treatment as Hyacinthaceae is made clear.) Peter coxhead (talk) 23:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Saxifragaceae has been drastically revised. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 21:46, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Aquatic plants‎ RIP

WikiProject Aquatic plants‎ has been deleted (without discussion) by Ajpolino and the inactive project page is now a redirect. I know most of you probably did not even know it existed. Many of you likely think it was unneeded. I am a little concerned that this was done without a heads-up to WikiProject Plants (the project page had {{WikiProject Plants}} on its talk page). Very few ToL projects have many active members nor all the robust maintenance that they should, as I'm learning in my efforts in this area. Larger, more active WPs like WP Plants are already too large for some maintenance tasks to run. I'm not asking for any action on this. The project probably should have been folded ultimately, but there is a balance here, and I think we need to pay attention a little bit. --Nessie (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@NessieVL: Woah, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aquatic plants has not been deleted. The content of the page (which looked like this before redirect) was a single sentence that said "This project is intended to create accurate and dependable articles on the aquatic plants" along with one participant who hasn't edited in two years. I replaced that content with a redirect to WikiProject Plants. A Wikipedia:WikiProject is a group of editors collaborating on a project. WikiProject pages facilitate that collaboration. The page Wikipedia:WikiProject Aquatic plants was never used for collaboration. It was basically a draft project made with good intentions that never got started. Editors interested in collaborating on this topic aren't likely to find peers at that page, or at its talk page (which had only automated messages). So I left a redirect here, where interested editors may find interested peers. It's just a redirect. It can be undone by anyone. Ajpolino (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ajpolino: Incorrect. The project, WikiProject Aquatic plants has been deleted. The page has been redirected, yes, but the content was removed and the WikiProject is no more. I also did not realize that I am a robot. I do agree that the project never really got going, but that's really the point, isn't it? It is very hard to start a WikiProject or task force. I think that before toppling over someone's sandcastle, maybe talk to them and the related/tagged projects. WikiProjects are supposed to be communities, and are not just articles, so shouldn't there be community input? --Nessie (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@NessieVL: I certainly agree; it is very hard to start a WikiProject or task force. It is not hard to create a page titled Wikipedia:WikiProject Something important with one sentence and a signature. A page created in such a manner is not a WikiProject in the sense intended here or here. It's just a page in project space with "WikiProject" in the title. It is not a community. It is a personal project by one editor. If editors want to start a collaborative project on aquatic plants, this page probably won't help them... Sorry, I'm not intentionally being dense (it just comes naturally to me), but what are you concerned is being lost here? Ajpolino (talk) 18:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Aquatic plants was started by one editor, with zero discussion (indeed, the editor made only 2 edits to any talk pages in their career). It didn't go through the rigorous process for creating a WikiProject through the WikiProject Council. It wasn't even discussed here at WikiProject Plants. Nothing worthwhile was lost by turning Aquatic plants into a redirect. Plantdrew (talk) 18:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ajpolino: It wasn't a separate community, but intended to be one. @Plantdrew: I do not see the WikiProject Council proposal for WikiProject Plants anywhere, so obviously that's not a requirement. It also seems like you wished there were more discussion at WP creation. I am merely asking for the same when a project is deleted, merged, or moved. --Nessie (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

May it be the first of many useless, dead Wikiprojects to die. Abductive (reasoning) 06:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Generic names as common names

I know that among many houseplants (example: philodendrons) and some garden plants (example: hostas), the generic name is the common name, and that it is then acceptable to use the common name, uncapitalized and unitalicized, in Wikipedia articles. I am thinking of making list articles along the lines of List of Award of Garden Merit rhododendrons, such as List of Award of Garden Merit allium or List of Award of Garden Merit sarracenia, but I am wondering about how to title them in cases where the generic name is not typically used as the common name. Should it be "Allium", "allium", "alliums" or something invented like "ornamental onions"? Abductive (reasoning) 06:38, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Ornamental onion is a term that exists: [4] [5]. Most of the links on the first page of a Google search for "allium" are gardening websites that aren't italicizing the genus (but there's not much consistency in whether it is capitalized). I think "allium" can be seen as a common name (there are also culinary sources that use "allium"; [6]). Either "ornamental onions" or "alliums" (English plural to be consistent with other AGM lists using generic names as common names) would be OK in my view. 16:42, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree; both terms are definitely in use. I have the book Alliums: the Ornamental Onions by Dilys Davies, for example. (I can't immediately find a source, but I think the terms might also have been used more widely to cover Allioideae/Alliaceae.) Peter coxhead (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

But how about even more obscure ones such as Sarracenia? Abductive (reasoning) 01:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Ipomoea marginata

I just made the article for Ipomoea marginata but there's conflicting information as to whether it's an accepted name or a synonym for Ipomoea sagittifolia. Wikispecies has it under the latter name and the Commons category also goes by that. Does anyone know how to resolve this? Anarchyte (talk | work) 11:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Neither Wikispecies nor Commons are remotely reliable sources. Plants of the World Online has it at "Ipomoea sagittifolia" here. That's what I would use. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Flatbergium

It appears that there is a second species of Flatbergium. I'm busy trying to meet the Atlas 2020 deadline, so does anyone else want to revise the Sphagnopsida articles. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Leafy Spurge

Is there a more efficient way to identify and correct all dubious links to a specific plant species? I was reading information on the Flea beetle and the author refers to, and links to Euphorbia esula. It wasn't until I read the whole page before I found the note at the end which clarifies confusion between the two subspecies, and then I realized the correct link should have been to E. virgata. While I recognize that I could just correct the link on the "Flea Beetle" page, I'm not certain the information is still valid with the other plant subspecies, and, I suspect there are more pages than just this with an incorrect link. Is there a site wide editing method for this? Perhaps links to Leafy Spurge could go to its Index page (with a note identifying E. virgata as the North American invasive weed)? Or if that's not possible, could someone provide a proper note clarifying E. virgata as the N.A. invasive weed at the top of the page? Any thoughts? Thanks for reading. (Hopelessly still a Wiki Novice) CanucksGirl (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

CanucksGirl, Howdy hello! Thanks for your intesest in WikiProject plants. As a note, please add new discussions at the bottom of pages, not the top. In terms of Leafy Spurge, I'm afraid there is not a site wide way to do this. The links would need to be examined one by one and sent to the appropriate taxa. However you can use the "What links here" button on the lefthand side of an article to get a convenient list of articles that link. I invite you to make the change on the flea beatle page, and wherever else you feel like! Another plant editor may have a better suggestion than I do however. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, A reference. Lavateraguy (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

CaptainEek, Thank you for the reply, and for your 'note' on where to place new discussions, and for the tip on "what links here". I'll consider editing the 'beetle page' (or at the very least, I'll leave a comment). And Lavateraguy, thanks for the link. CanucksGirl (talk) 00:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Short descriptions

Is there a consensus view yet about the wording of plant short descriptions. It seems to me that "Species of plant" which is being applied by some editors is less informative than it could be, given that there are several hundred thousand of them. Plantsurfer 11:15, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the "Species of plant" descriptor really adds nothing to the article; I think that the descriptor could be far more useful in knowing what the article is about at a glance. I am for either keeping the "Species of Foo" style, but having it be at a lower nomenclatural level (ex. "Species of flowering plant" at the vague level or "Species of Rosid" at the more specific level), or for using the short article description to display the species' common name (ex. article descriptor of "Common St. John's Wort" for the article Hypericum perforatum). Not sure if there is any consensus on this either, but those would be what I would want to see at a glance at the article. Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 12:21, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

I see the short description for Chelidonium majus has just been changed from "Species of plant in the poppy family" to "Species of plant". I don't think that kind of change is helpful. Plantsurfer 14:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

It certainly is unhelpful. The short descriptions at Wikidata often have this vagueness, e.g. "Species of plant" rather than "Species of fern" or "Species of arachnid" rather than "Species of spider". Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Acer diabolicum

Guys, could you check my work on Acer diabolicum? I'm especially concerned about distinguishing styles from stigmas, as these form the "horns" that give the species its names. Abductive (reasoning) 22:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• I have nominated it for DYK, stigmas seems to be correct. Abductive (reasoning) 20:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Machaerina or Baumea

Didn't really look hard at this, which paper is being used, but both versions of TPL, PoWO and New Zealand gov. websites consider Blumea a synonym of Machaerina. Some Australian websites and gardeners continue using Blumea. On Wikipedia... well, see for yourselves. A number of pages might need moving here. Cheers, Leo Breman (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I assume you meant Baumea rather than Blumea? Plantdrew (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Eh, you assume correctly! Leo Breman (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

New bot to remove completed infobox requests

Hello! I have recently created a bot to remove completed infobox requests and am sending this message to WikiProject Plants since the project currently has a backlogged infobox request category. Details about the task can be found at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/PearBOT 2, but in short it removes all infobox requests from articles with an infobox, once a week. To sign up, reply with {{ping|Trialpears}} and tell me if any special considerations are required for the Wikiproject. For example: if only a specific infobox should be detected, such as {{infobox journal}} for WikiProject Academic Journals; or if an irregularly named infobox such as {{starbox begin}} should be detected. Feel free to ask if you have any questions!

Sent on behalf of Trialpears (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Replacement names

I still find the ICNafp's terms replacement name and replaced synonym somewhat puzzling at times, particularly so when I was struggling to understand the authorship of the synonyms of Pseudolycopodium densum. So I turned to the section Nomen novum#Algae, fungi and plants but didn't find it very helpful. I've attempted to re-write it, but it would be good if others could look it over. It seems an excellent example of the obscurity of parts of the ICNafp! Peter coxhead (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

You might like to add an example of the common case of a clash of epithets when a species is moved from one genus to another, e.g. Lavatera cretica → Malva pseudolavatera (or for a more recent one Rosmarinus officinalis → Salvia rosmarinus). Lavateraguy (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

The Rosmarinus officinalis → Salvia rosmarinus case is a good idea, I think. I'll add it if no-one else does first. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done Peter coxhead (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Project page needs pruning

The project page is appearing in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. At the moment, the only things not showing are a couple of navboxes at the bottom of the page, but they should be visible if considered necessary. Are there some things that are no longer needed or is there a section that could be moved to a subpage?   Jts1882 | talk  16:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Looking through very quickly, sections that could most easily be moved ("advice" sections) don't actually seem to have many templates in them. Um... Peter coxhead (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the "bigger" sections don't have many templates and no section stands out as have a large include size, which is why I didn't suggest anything. The Resources section at the bottom is 138k and there is a Resources subpage, so perhaps combining them is the simplest solution and moves the bits that aren't visible anyway.   Jts1882 | talk  17:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Seems a good solution. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

That didn't work. Should I revert or is it more logical anyway.

The guilty party is the New articles section, where the {{scrolling window}} template for the new articles isn't showing. Without it the main project page is only 300k/2000k in post-expand includes size. A new subpage for this content is the only solution, as it only just misses the limit on its own.   Jts1882 | talk  09:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Image issue

An IP editor pointed out that an image then used in the taxobox at Baragwanathia was in fact of Phlegmariurus squarrosus. It had been called File:Baragwanathia artificial model.jpg by the person who uploaded it to Commons. Because it was included in the Wikidata object, those language wikis that pick up taxobox images from Wikidata were all showing it. I've now had it moved, and removed it from our article and Baragwanathia (Q1452954).

This example makes a familiar point about the problems with both Commons and Wikidata: there's no equivalent of referencing at Commons, so there are many misidentified images; picking up information automatically from Wikidata removes a level of editor scrutiny and responsibility. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:21, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

I ran into this the other day with commons:File:Aloe erinacea, Jardín Botánico de Múnich, Alemania, 2013-05-04, DD 01.jpg (I've had it moved; it was titled as Orbeanthus hardyi originally). It was in Wikidata as Orbeanthus hardyi, and spread across other Wikipedias from there. It remains a Valued Image on Commons, and although I've asked how to get that status reviewed, it remains unclear to me. That's at least the third photo on Commons taken at a botanical garden with an egregious misdentification I've come across (egregious in that a non-botanist would easily recognize it as a different plant if they compared it to a correctly labeled photo). If I'm adding an image to an article I prefer to go for botanical illustrations and photos from botanic gardens as they are most likely to be correctly identified. However, botanical garden labels may end up being mis-associated with an adjacent plant (the other two egregious misIDs I recall on commons involved the label (visible in the photo) for a dormant herbaceous perennial being associated with a nearby shrub. Plantdrew (talk) 21:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Intersectional distribution categories (again)

I hate the kind of muddled categories I see on fern articles as I've been working on converting them to PPG I. As just one example, see Pellaea truncata, but almost any article in the "Ferns of ..." category hierarchy shows the same muddle.

• Because the "Ferns of ..." categories are far from complete (see e.g. Category:Ferns of the United States by state), editors have used "Flora of ..." to fill in the gaps, resulting in a mixture of the two categorization systems.
• Parent categories in the ferns categorization system are present with their child categories, probably to try to produce complete coverage given the many missing ones.
• While the "Flora of ..." system at least tries to use the consistent WGSRPD system, the "Ferns of ..." system has whatever random geographical units appealed to their creators (mostly the blocked Look2See1 and/or NotWith).

Personally, I would like to remove all the "Ferns of ..." categories from articles, just use the normal WGSRPD "Flora of ..." categories, and then nominate the "Ferns of ..." categories for deletion. Intersectional categories, in this case mixing taxonomic category with distribution category, are unnecessary, and misleading unless complete (which I'm certainly not going to work on).

Views, please. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Get rid of them. The category description says the categories contain native ferns, which may not be true. And native/naturalized/invasive status isn't a can of worms I want to see opened any further (I know there are extensive categories for endemics, and some categories for invasives, but as far as I'm aware, the only other categories that specify native or naturalized are found as subcategories of Category:Grasses of the United States

Fine with me. I think trying to make the category system work with geographic data like this that doesn't neatly divide on national boundaries is a somewhat Sisyphean task, so I don't object to stripping them out. Choess (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm entirely in favour of this. The intersectional categories have created a category mess on so many plant articles. They should certainly be removed from articles. Nominated for deletion too, though there are some on CfD discussions who seem opposed to any geographical categories. So the categories should be nominated as being superfluous to the well-developed and WGSRPD-based "Flora of..." category scheme. Declangi (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Categories; Interspecific plant hybrids vs Plant nothospecies vs Hybrid plants

What is the difference between Category:Interspecific plant hybrids and Category:Plant nothospecies? I have probably been assigning these all wrong, but it would help if the category page for Category:Interspecific plant hybrids didn't list Nothospecies as a member, and it would help if there was guidance on each page. Or could they be merged? Abductive (reasoning) 07:27, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, Category:Hybrid plants is probably wrongly populated. Abductive (reasoning) 07:29, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, the subcategories of Hybrid plants are a mess, inconsistently named and populated. The plant nothspecies category was my creation but may not be needed. Nothospecies is a nomenclatural concept; all nothspecies are interspecific plant hybrids, but not all interspecific hybrids are named as nothospecies (Papaver somniferum × bracteatum is not a nothospecies; probably there are also some articles on cultivars that are interspecific hybrids, but not named as nothospecies (although I'd think cultivar hybrids should have a category of their own)). Clean up of the hybrid categories is needed. Plantdrew (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The 2020 WikiCup is on!

2020 WikiCup

Do you want a fun and exciting Wiki challenge? An opportunity to get involved in some of the most important editing on Wikipedia? A giant shiny cup to display on your userpage? Well then you should join the WikiCup challenge! Folks of all experience levels are welcome to join. It's a good way for veteran editors to test their mettle, and for new users to learn the ropes. The competition revolves around content creation, such as good and featured articles, DYK's, reviewing such content, and more. See Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring for full details. Over the course of the year, users compete to create the most and best content in a round based format. The top performers in each round will advance to the next, until just 8 remain in the final round. Out of those, one Wikipedian will walk away with the coveted silver Wikicup. Could that user be you? Find out by signing up! Signups are open until January 31, 2020. May the editing be ever in your favor! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Let me just take this opportunity to urge my fellow editors here at the PLANTS Wikiproject to participate in the Cup this year. I'm sure most of you are at least aware of the WikiCup, but this year they have loosened up the rules to our benefit. They have gotten rid of the "pools", finally. Also, importantly, you can get points for articles started in 2019 and nominated for DYK in 2020. (It looks like articles nominated for DYK in 2019 but posted in 2020 may qualify for points, but don't quote me on that.) So some of us already have points for the asking.

Finding articles to create or improve that get a multiplier bonus for appearing on many other language Wikipedias is easy for plants. Why? First off, you can use a query on Wikidata to find, say, all species in your favorite genus that don't have an article on the English Wikipedia but have over 10 articles on other Wikipedias. There are shockingly (some might say embarrassingly) many such species. This is not generally the case for animals or insects. Second, such popular plant species often are interesting, or they wouldn't have articles in 12+ other languages. Some even have gained the Royal Horticultural Society's Award of Garden Merit and don't have an article in English. Species, not cultivars. Species. This makes it easier to write an article long enough to qualify for DYK or to expand to Good Article status or whatever. Again, this is not generally true of animal and insect articles.

Let me know if you need help running the query on Wikidata. Abductive (reasoning) 23:15, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Grass authorities

What authority are we using for grasses? I'm working on creating pages for all of the Boutelouas, and as with all of these obscure grasses, the taxonomy is always a bit foggy. I'm using ITIS at the moment, as its what I use in my day to day field research, but I realized that Wikipedia might use a different one. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:19, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Plants of the World Online (POWO) is the best general database at this point, but other sources can be followed if they can be shown to be better. GrassBase is the major specialized database for grasses that I'm aware of, but as it and POWO are both products of Kew, I expect that POWO probably follows GrassBase (but I haven't checked for discrepancies). I implemented automatic taxoboxes for most grass articles a couple months ago; I was following Soreng et al. for infrafamilial classification. Most of the grass articles still using manual taxoboxes are in genera not recognized by Soreng. I intend to revist the remaining manual taxoboxes, but haven't decided how to handle cases where Soreng and POWO/GrassBase disagree. Plantdrew (talk) 01:52, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:GRIN fixes requested

Please see these three requests at Template talk:GRIN. --CiaPan (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

One request – my own – handled by myself, which probably resolved the other one, too. One in still waiting:

GRIN is not a grin.

CiaPan (talk) 07:42, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Thank you, Hike395. --CiaPan (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Expanded Papaver

Plants of the World Online sinks a number of genera in tribe Papavereae of the Papaveraceae into Papaver, which in their circumscription includes Meconopsis, Roemeria and Stylomecon, which our family article keeps separate, and two of which have their own article. The molecular evidence for the para/polyphyly of traditional Papaver has been clear for a long time, but horticulturalists in particular have fought to keep Meconopsis separate from Papaver (excluding M. cambrica, which is clearly in Papaver, although the type species of Meconopsis). However, there does seem a trend towards accepting the merger, as exemplified by this paper.

That paper rejects the merger. What it proposes is transferring Meconopsis cambrica and Stylomecon heterophylla into Papaver, splitting Cathcartia from Meconopsis, and moving two groups of Papaver into Roemleria and Meconopsis respectively. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

@Lavateraguy: sorry, I should have written "at least parts of the merger" in relation to the paper; carelessness. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Can the genus name be retained if the type species is moved? Is there any precedent for such a move?   Jts1882 | talk  08:55, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes. There's a mechanism for overriding the rules of priority in taxonomic nomenclature to reduce disruption by the discovery of old names or reclassification of groups.

"As Grey-Wilson moved the original type Meconopsis cambrica out of Meconopsis, he (2012) proposed conservation of the generic name Meconopsis for the Asiatic species with a new type: Meconopsis regia G. Taylor. Because the Nomenclature Committee for Vascular Plants recommended Grey-Wilson's proposal (in Taxon 62(6): 1318. 2013), we use the generic name “Meconopsis” for the Asian species following Article 14.16 of the International Code of Nomenclature (McNeill et al. 2012)." Lavateraguy (talk) 09:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

It does seem uncontroversial that Meconopsis cambrica should be treated as Papaver cambricum; as Lavateraguy notes Meconopsis is conserved if the Asian species are treated as a separate genus. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone have any views on what we should do? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• I have moved Meconopsis cambrica to Papaver cambricum, as this seems to be uncontroversial. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Plantae Barnstar

Introducing Template:The Plantae Barnstar Jerm (talk) 21:23, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Taxonomic inconsistency

Genus Mauranthemum, but species Leucanthemum paludosum. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

GRIN and PoWO favour Mauranthemum paludosum, so a move seems justified. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

More data points - BSBI and Stace 3rd edn. have Mauranthemum as does Euro+Med Plantbase. Tele-Botanica however uses Leucanthemum. Lavateraguy (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

As does Stace 4th edition. Unless anyone objects soon, a move is right, I think. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

FNA, FloraBase (Western Australian herbarium), Flora Italiana and Flora Iberica all use Mauranthemum. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Extended Template for Wikipedia articles on Invasive Alien Plants

→ Template for Wikipedia articles on Invasive Alien Plants of Union concern

At the WikiThon on Invasive Alien Species held in January 2020 in Krakow, the participants developed a template for the description of Invasive Alien Species of Union concern.

As a next step, I compared it with your Taxon template and extended the structure of chapters 6 (Distribution and habitat) and 7 (Ecology) to fit required descriptives for Invasive Alien Plants. Details of the adaptations can be seen in the google sheet Wikiproject Plants - Template for plant articles, adapted for Invasive Alien Plants.

We would be grateful if you could critically review our template and check if it fits the "Wikiproject Plants" requirements.

Kind regards, Christian Ries (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

"Jankaea"

The article for Jankaea needs to be updated with the correct spelling as Jancaea. I haven't touched it because the article title also needs to be changed; see references on the talk page. 160.111.254.17 (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed that IPNI, etc. have this spelling, but as I understand it, the genus has been sunk into Ramonda now, so more drastic changes are needed. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Domus solis?

Just wanted another opinion on this. Draft:Domus solis seems like a hoax to me, but that name has too many false positives when I search. The author hasn't contributed much else to Wikipedia. --awkwafaba (📥) 15:09, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

The Heliconiaceae is a monotypic family, and plants aren't classified into families based on smell, so that undermines the credibility of the article. No genus Domus shows up in an IPNI search, so that's another strike against it. Guettarda (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

No Google hits for "Domus solis" Heliconiaceae, or "Domus solis" Alacalufes. Hoax. (Zingiberales have a variety of reductive modifications from an ancestral two whorls of three, but single stamen was a red flag - a single stamen is what you might expect to find in a highly reduced male unisexual flower, not a showy flower. Alacalufes is another red flag - it is in Chilean Patagonia but Zingiberales are a tropical clade. And Kahlil Gabran is another red flag - would a Lebanese author with no obvious connection to botany have introduced the English name of an obscure plant species. Note also that if Heliconiaceae is commonly considered monogeneric that would imply Domus solis was a new description, which is inconsistent with a connection to a Lebanese author who died many years ago.) Lavateraguy (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

For me, Kahlil Gabran was the red flag that pointed to it being a hoax. Plantdrew (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

New botanic garden

A new botanic garden has recently opened, the Delaware Botanic Gardens. I've added references and links to it in a couple of articles but there is no article about the garden yet. The DBG is notable in part because of its meadow garden designed by Piet Oudolf. I can't create a new article as I don't have a Wikipedia account (and don't care to create one, been there done that!) but if anybody cares to do so, you can find more info at their website: http://delawaregardens.org 108.51.174.100 (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Commons help requested

• 
• 
• 
• 

Anyone interested in helping out with identification on some photos: there are tens of thousands of photos in Commons:Category:Unidentified plants and its subcategories, and any help there would be very welcome. I suspect that we actually have photos of no small number of the plants for which photos have been requested, but lack identification. Plenty of very nice photos, as you can see from the few examples I've given above. - Jmabel | Talk 05:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

The first is a Fouquieria splendens; the second is almost certainly Salvia confertiflora; the third is the seeds of a Paeonia; the last is an apple (in Minsk). Easy! Leo Breman (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Pteridophyte classification

I've added a short note at WP:PLANTS/Resources#Pteridophyte classification arising from a recent issue over the use of the genus Zealandia. I hope this has consensus; do please check it. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Potato onion

Potato onion: I'd thought I'd quickly fix this article, but it's a mess. Maybe the article should be folded either into Tree onion or shallot. To wit: Maud Grieve calls it Allium x. profilerum, but her description of the crop places it in Aggregatum Group. Ken Fern's Plants for a Future has it as Aggregatum, but the image he shows is clearly of profilerum (bulblets in place of flowers). There are three sources in the article, each contradicts the other in some way in their descriptions. As far as I can tell, this may just be an antiquated British name for shallot, but on the other hand it was also called an Egyptian onion according to Grieve, which I've always considered to be profilerum. What to do? Leo Breman (talk) 16:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Streptocarpus question

I've done some work on Streptocarpus sect. Saintpaulia and articles on species within this section, following the sinking of Saintpaulia into Streptocarpus. More is needed at both genus articles on why the merger was made.

The Streptocarpus article is very poor, and needs a lot of work. One immediate question I have is whether it would be worth splitting it into two: a genus article, and an article on Streptocarpus in cultivation. I think we've usually only made these splits for fruits (e.g. Musa and Banana). I personally think that articles like Dahlia and Chrysanthemum, that attempt to cover both botany and cultivation, become rather muddled. What do others think? Peter coxhead (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Eh, if you move all those instructions to the Wiki project on "how to do" things (forget the name), you're left with a much shorter article. The instructions are not half bad, but are unsourced and not encyclopaedic. The pictures are correctly identified as far as I can tell, that's good -there's lots of confusion in horticulture with names. Bit of undue emphasis on Dibleys in my opinion, there are a few other growers outside Britain which are equally up to scratch. I was unaware Saintpaulia got subsumed, though come to think of it, many of the wild forms are very similar to S. saxorum and friends. So I'm not really answering your question! It depends on the length of the article I suppose; I'm not against what you're suggesting in any case. Leo Breman (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Lists of some kind

Okay, I think I'm ready to tackle writing some botanical lists and disambiguation pages. I'll ping Casliber and Michael Goodyear since they've written a lot of botanical articles that have been thoroughly reviewed, but all opinions are welcome. I don't really know what I'm doing, but I have access to many of the sources and some knowledge of the WP:FLC process and Botanical Latin. I'm not doctrinaire ... I'm happy to adopt any consistent writing strategy that plants editors are generally on board with. Some observations:

• My motivation is that a lot of the articles I've been pulling up relevant to gardening have been either missing or unsourced. There's a lot of work to be done.
• I'm thinking of a series of "List of X species" pages, where X is often a genus, unless that would make the list too long. Other ideas might work, as long as the approach to building the lists is consistent.
• I'm open to suggestions on sourcing (but not The Plant List, please ... that's been superseded since 2013).
• The need for consistency and the fact that some lists will be quite long puts limits on how much information can be included on each item in a list. I would think free images for each item would be important (if they exist).
• There are people who have written code to generate various species tables ... whether their code will help us at all will depend on what you folks would like to see in the tables. Here are some examples of Featured Lists of cultivars and animal species ... maybe these will give us some ideas to work with: List of Narcissus horticultural divisions, Basil cultivars, List of invasive species in the Everglades, List of canids.
• Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 17:35, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea - they have to be well-defined enough to be manageable. What candidates do you have Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:43, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

My preference would be to pick a few families and cover as many genera in those families as possible ... preferably families with species that non-botanists might recognize, such as Aster, Grass, Lily, Rose, etc. I have a fair number of books on binomial names that might be suitable for etymology and disambiguation. The big question for me is which taxon databases I should pull from ... I'm guessing it will be one or more of the ones at User:Dank/Plants#Taxon resources. I can't really say much about other sources until I know how much space we want to allot to each item in a table. - Dank (push to talk) 20:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

So, I guess my main question is: which of those databases should I use to populate a list, and which ones should I search for other information to include in the list? (If there is some kind of consensus on those questions already, I haven't been able to find it.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Agree in principle, and I see you have referenced one of mine, to which you could add List of Narcissus species. As far as lists of lists, there is Category:Lists of plant species. In many cases I have simply transferred long lists of species off the genus page to a separate list, because they were dominating it. See also my advice under the taxon template on this project. There is no simple answer to your question about sources. New species are being described all the time. As you say, The Plant List has been superseded, leaving Plants of the World Online and World Flora Online as the two major modern sources. And therein lies the problem, these two sources are not in agreement. So my advice that lists should be sourced, but there is no gold standard. --Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉ 01:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Excellent, that gives me enough to start creating tables that I can produce here for your (dis)approval. Any objection to a table that lists any species (in the genus or section) that appears in either POWO or WFO, with a column to indicate if those two sources are in disagreement? - Dank (push to talk) 03:18, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with List of Narcissus species - there's lots of scope for arguing about Narcissus taxonomy, but I can't see any way that Narcissus pseudonarcissus can be omitted. (Take further discussion over to Talk:List of Narcissus species?) Lavateraguy (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to touch on this, I had started List of Hypericum species a while back but never got around to finishing it just because of the huge amount of time commitment that would require. That kind of tabled list divided by section was what I had envisioned for these "List of Foo species" articles in order to convey the most amount of information as efficiently as possible. Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 16:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

There are quite a few genera that don't have comprehensive lists of species (either in the genus article or as a stand alone list). "Selected species" is often a red flag for incomplete species lists (there really isn't any "selection" going on with these except for maybe adding blue-links). Here's a quick and dirty search for some articles with selected species sections: [7]. Not all of these are plants, and some cases do have more comprehensive species lists on a separate page. Plantdrew (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

If I can make some suggestions;

• Of the 4 things you've mentioned, only "species of lily" sounds doable to me. Start there. With 12,000 species of grass: that's just too much. Equally, comprehensive and accurate lists of cultivars of lilies, roses or asters will be huge and a pain to work out -the info is on dozens of supplements to checklists of dozens different ICRAs and almost nothing is online. The taxonomy of rose and aster species is also fuzzy. With Aster species, the taxonomy was being looked at by The Global Compositae Checklist, which is probably where PoWO & WFO copied their data, although I'm not 100% on that -this project never really finished and stopped working on it in 2011. I won't get too much into the problems in these taxa, but there are many.
• There is already a List of Lilium species; first, all you will need to do is put it in a table. Despite what Fritzmann said, his List of Hypericum species is darned good; I'd use that table as a template.
• Best only have one column for references; then as many as you want can be added, + others can be added later if people want.
• The present List of Lilium species is referenced to the Kew World Checklist of Selected Plant Families. That is pretty much the gold standard, at least where treatments for specific families exist, and it's updated from the Index Kewensis up to 2019; PoWO & WFO simply copy their taxonomy from this -the only thing left to do is verify that everything is correct in Wikipedia (also distributions).
• As far as I know, the last actual Lilium monograph is from the 1940s, a massive and expensive work, but it is based an equally massive previous monograph by Elwes from 1877: it might be rather out of date, but it is available online and it should be easy to download pictures of species at the BHL and upload them to Wikimedia Commons for species missing pictures, and it might be nice to add the urls to the pages of individual species.

These are just suggestions, of course. I'm not entirely sure where you're going with this. To quote Aleister Crowley: "do as thou wilt"! Good luck and cheers, Leo Breman (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

All of this is stuff I can work with, but what jumps out at me is List of Hypericum species ... I think I might be able to offer some advice on that list's talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 00:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Some personal observations:

• A regular problem has been lists of species compiled from multiple sources that end up containing the same taxon under synonyms. Even when a list starts off consistent, if not constantly watched, well meaning editors add out of date names from other sources. Where at all possible, a single source is best.
• The Kew online taxonomic databases, like WCSPF and POWO, are now based on an underlying database. At present, WCSPF is updated more often than POWO, so where a family or genus is in both, it's better to use the former. (Right now, POWO also has a minor problem which WCSPF doesn't – unusual characters in authors' names are not reproduced correctly; e.g. "Č".)
• Kew taxonomic databases are, generally speaking, curated by "lumpers" compared to some of the more narrowly focussed databases. The difference between POWO and the Checklist of Ferns and Lycophytes of the World is an extreme example.
• Early spider editors, for what seemed good reasons at the time, created a system in which there are separate pages with lists of species by genus for each large family, and then, in most cases, lists of genera on each family page and lists of species on each genus page. This redundancy causes serious problems when taxonomy changes. We must never create such redundancy in plant articles!
• It's highly desirable (essential even) for lists of taxa to have a header with an "As of" template, to make crystal clear when the list was updated, as well as explicit source(s). Many non-biologist editors seem to believe in the fixity of scientific names.

Peter coxhead (talk)

• • Thanks kindly ... I haven't figured out what I want to do yet ... except that I know I'd like to write and help with taxonomy lists. - Dank (push to talk) 22:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • There's a conflict about page length over at Talk:List of Hypericum sect. Adenosepalum species. I've reacquainted myself with WP:FLC over the last couple of months, and I've been impressed all over again with how easygoing the reviewers are. I think the odds are high that they'll go along with just about any reasonable formats that people are happy with on this page (and people were saying nice things about List of Hypericum species above, so I'm assuming that format is okay). But that list is already too large to get through FLC, and it will get bigger as the blank spaces are filled in, and bigger still if some of the information currently at List of Hypericum sect. Adenosepalum species is added to it. So ... if you like tables like that, then we need some rough guidelines for when to break lists up. (I almost said: or maybe we should just avoid FLC for some lists ... but I don't think the revewers are being unreasonable, their ideas about list length are IMO within consensus and policy.) - Dank (push to talk) 22:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC) P.S. List of Hypericum sect. Adenosepalum species seems like a good length to me, but maybe lists of other sections of Hypericum will be too short ... if so, they can always be combined with other sections, grouped perhaps geographically or by clade. - Dank (push to talk) 23:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

You know, sorry to be a contrarian, but I disagree with splitting the list. My motivation is: say I were to search for a specific species, I'd use Control+F to find it. If the list is split, I'd first have to know in which section the species had been classified before I could find it, which isn't immediately apparent nor easily found -I'd end up having to look at each list, or use search/a search engine, which sacrifices utility and slightly of defeats the purpose of having a list in the first place. Geography is also problematic; many species are found in more than one region. Some genera are just large, no fault of anyone, 'nuff said. Same with small genera: if they're small, they're small -inflating them by artifice to fit some preconceived sense of proper length would be silly. The converse should also apply. That being said, I don't really care about Wikipedia assessments that much -seems a shame to make something less useful for this reason. I also saw some comment about redlinks, here also I disagree. Every organism can/should get a page eventually, might as well redlink it for posterity; might motivate editors to create necessary articles. That's sort of modus operandi; reviewers of biology articles should know this. Leo Breman (talk)

On the redlinks, I totally agree, I just thought it would be a good idea to run a couple of species lists through FLC with more blue links first, so that the reviewers would have a frame of reference when we talk about why so many species are going to be red-linked. On the rest: I'm here to write some botanical pages and to help out, within the confines of my skill set. A list of Hypericum species was suggested. It failed WP:FLC because it's too long, among other reasons. It's up to you guys whether you want to discourage people from creating lists that can pass FLC (not that anyone is doing that ... just sayin'). If so, that wouldn't be a problem for me at all ... I'm just as interested in working on disambiguation pages as on lists. (I didn't understand the "searching" objection ... of course there's going to be a table, or bare list, or some kind of page that lists all the Hypericum species, and you can search on that page.) - Dank (push to talk) 04:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

With regard to list lengths I would think that WP:IAR applies - if a list needs to be a certain size it needs to be a certain size. But I'm not completely convinced of the blanket value of species lists, as opposed to providing an external link to someone else's list. There are arguments in favour of species lists - I can think of some of them myself, such as a means of linking to species articles (but categories) - but there's also a tension with WP:SYN. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I only speak for myself & no discouragement intended! What I was thinking last night is that the reason I'm reading a list article most often is to see if there is an article on a species (there are categories, sure, but for some reason I never use them) or if I can't completely remember the spelling of name & quickly want to check. If you say there will be a table, or bare list, that nullifies my concerns. But also, what is the actual point of a List of Hypericum sect. Adenosepalum species? I mean for the wider public. PS: you might want to check out the Banksia pages -really well done. Leo Breman (talk) 13:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

I've about used up all the "air time" that's usually allowed to an individual before Wikipedians start getting cranky, so I'll just end by saying that I'll be working on disambiguation pages and helping Fritzmann with lists, and hopefully I'll learn something along the way about what works and what doesn't. - Dank (push to talk) 18:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

The Plant List down or closed?

The Plant List hasn't been available for a few days now. As it hasn't been updated since 2013 they may have decided to take it down. A few searches reveal that it is cited or linked to on over 8000 pages, with thousands using {{cite web}} or {{citation}}. On some pages it is the only source (which is why I found out it was down). Unfortunately few of them have archived links. Should something be done and if so what? —  Jts1882 | talk  09:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jts1882: this happened with some other database recently, i can’t remember which. It’s also happening with HBW on WP:Birds now. I seem to recall someone contacting Internet Archive about it, but it may be too late in this case. IABot would be a good first step though. --awkwafaba (📥) 12:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't think it's been taken down. Missouri Botanical Garden hasn't yet anointed World Flora Online as a mature successor to The Plant List.Plantdrew (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

The domain seems to be registered until December 2021 (whois), but the server seems to be down since the weekend. They are revamping Tropicos so perhaps the two are connected. Both use the same name servers. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Tropicos was also was down for a while, but it and The Plant List are now online again. I assume the temporary downtime was related to the Missouri Botanical Garden updating their website for the new Tropicos. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

More likely that IT staff was overwhelmed last week getting everybody set up to work from home, and keeping The Plant List running wasn't a high priority (Tropicos is more essential for working from home). It went from a recommendation that staff who can work from home should so for the next two weeks on the 16th, to all non-essential businesses in St. Louis will be closed for a month on the 22nd and non-essential staff prohibited from garden grounds. Plantdrew (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

A link to a DAB page

Andricus inflator links to the DAB page Brachium, in relation to a leaf. This term isn't in Glossary of botanical terms. Can any expert help solve the puzzle? Narky Blert (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Web searches aren't shedding any light. brachium is from the Latin for arm, though there's some disagreement in Neo-Latin usage as to whether it applies to the whole arm, the aftarm (medical usage) or forearm (definition given in Daydon Jackson). It is said in botany that it is used for branch (but ramus would be more usual), but actual occurrences in English text seem to be thin on the ground - the adjectival form branchiate meaning widely branched is more common - but it turns up in Latin diagnoses. (Going to Biodiversity Heritage Library finds zoological usages (scorpions, starfish, ...) dominating.) If it's not an error it's obscure. I think the answer is to find a source for details of the gall (e.g. https://bladmineerders.nl/parasites/animalia/arthropoda/insecta/hymenoptera/apocrita/cynipidae/andricus/andricus-inflator/ ), and rewrite the description.

[MOBOt say that it is used for the branches of the orchidaceous column or stigma. Searching for brachium Orchidaceae brings up some hits, especially in binomial names.]

[brachyum doesn't find anything helpful.]]

(Brachium was used in botany as a unit of length - the distance from the armpit to the tip of the middle finger, or roughly 2 feet.) Lavateraguy (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources useful for putting together disambig pages

Quick question: I've found four sources that I think might be helpful for creating disambiguation and redirect pages:

• Allen J. Coombes. The A to Z of Plant Names (2012). ISBN 978-16046-91962. 103 en-Wikipedia citations. Covers "the most commonly grown plants in the UK and in temperate areas of North America" (p. 19).
• D. Gledhill. The Names of Plants (2008). ISBN 978-05218-66453. "Intended for use by botanists, gardeners and others" (p. viii).
• Lorraine Harrison. Latin for Gardeners (2012). ISBN 978-02260-09193. 415 en-Wikipedia citations.
• William Stearn. Stearn's Dictionary of Plant Names for Gardeners (2002). ISBN 978-03043-64695 (Warning: that ISBN directs you to an older edition of the book, at least on Amazon.)

Please let me know if any of these are unsuitable. Also let me know if there's a suitable source I'm missing ... preferably a book updated within the last 20 years that's widely considered authoritative and frequently cited on en-Wikipedia, and that's aimed at gardeners as well as botanists. - Dank (push to talk) 17:26, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Sigh. I've talked with a couple of admins who are active in disambig deletion; they expect some kind of pushback if I create a bunch of disambiguation pages for the most common abbreviation in all of science, the shortened binomial name. (Of course, if some internet meme involving Justin Bieber pops up next week, disambiguation pages are fine for that.) I'll try to find out if I'm going to get the same pushback for useful redirects. If so, then the project shrinks to just creating lists of Binomial Latin names. Thoughts are welcome, and if I do get to create redirects, feel free to stalk my edits (or probably easier would just be to wait for John and me to create the lists and look at those). - Dank (push to talk) 14:29, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I think going ahead and creating a couple of lists along the lines you are thinking is the best approach. When starting a discussion to get consensus, the negative comments tend to dominate (it's easier to see potential problems) and consensus approval is often silent. There haven't been strong objections to your proposal, mainly constructive criticisms that should help. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:50, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I see the wisdom in that, and I hope I didn't give the impression that the conversation above was discouraging or unhelpful. I'm still enthusiastic about the lists. - Dank (push to talk) 15:10, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

If shortened binomial names are ambiguous, we should have disambiguation pages for them. I'm the most active admin when it comes to creating disambiguation pages, and I will push for them. BD2412 T 15:46, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

I support disambiguation pages for common names and for scientific names or abbreviations. Make sure you tag the talk pages with {{WikiProject Plants}} or another appropriate template so we can be notified if there is an AfD. --awkwafaba (📥) 13:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

As an active DABfixer/creator, I'm very much in favour of DAB pages of the form G. speciesii. Those DAB pages sometimes contain species from more than one kingdom. Narky Blert (talk) 14:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

If I recall correctly this has been discussed before and the consensus was against it. (I don't see where dab fixing comes in here - if G. species is used in an article G. should be obvious from context, and if wikilinked it should be piped.) Lavateraguy (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

No objection from me ... does anyone recall where this has been discussed? - Dank (push to talk) 19:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, submitted for your approval: User:Dank/Latin and Greek botanical names (V–Z) and its talk page. I need a few minutes to tidy up the refs and to doublecheck information in the linked articles, and later I'll be adding an introduction, images and more Vs, but it's close to finished. There are a variety of goals, but the thing I'm trying to optimize the list for is to serve as a reference when you want to know the original Latin or Greek meaning of a binomial Latin word. It currently uses the four sources listed above ... I'd be happy to add sources of a similar gravitas. Other sources, not so much (for now). Discussion (probably on the list's talk page) and edits are welcome. If the page is acceptable, I'll put it up at Peer Review in a few days. - Dank (push to talk) 15:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I just took the page down while I consider adding a source. Should be back up sometime today. - Dank (push to talk) 13:42, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Stearn's botanical names (U–Z) is now up at WP:FLC ... comments are welcome. In a couple of days I'll get to work on some disambiguation pages that come directly from that list (and anyone else can create the pages, too, if you like) ... any objections? If not, I'll ask at WP:AN to make sure no one thinks that will lead to trouble. - Dank (push to talk) 18:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Are there copyright issues involved here? Even if you're reprinting Stearn's words there is compilation copyright. It would be OK to compile your own list of generic names and epithets with etymologies and meanings (though I'd check whether this comes under WP:NOT), but I'd be surprised if you're allowed to take Stearn's list. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I posted the question yesterday at WT:Copyrights. No replies yet, but I'm not expecting it will be a problem (and if there are specific problems, they'll be fixable). - Dank (push to talk) 19:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

15,000 photos of plants, plant diseases, and plant pests now in the public domain

I am pleased to inform you that all images at https://www.flickr.com/photos/scotnelson/ are now CC-0 public domain. If you find any of use, please upload them directly to Commons using the template {{Cc-zero-Scot Nelson}}, which contains the corresponding OTRS ticket. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Abbreviating names between genus and species in taxoboxes

WikiProject Plants/Archive70
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Plantae
Clade:	Tracheophytes
Clade:	Angiosperms
Clade:	Monocots
Order:	Asparagales
Family:	Asparagaceae
Subfamily:	Scilloideae
Genus:	Scilla
Section:	Scilla sect. Chionodoxa
Species:	S. cretica
Binomial name
Scilla cretica

At present, if there is a rank between genus and species for a botanical taxon, e.g. a subgenus or section, then by default the taxobox displays the name of this rank with the genus spelt out in full, as in the taxobox for Scilla cretica shown here, which uses Template:Taxonomy/Scilla sect. Chionodoxa as the parent taxon.

WikiProject Plants/Archive70
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Plantae
Clade:	Tracheophytes
Clade:	Angiosperms
Clade:	Monocots
Order:	Asparagales
Family:	Asparagaceae
Subfamily:	Scilloideae
Genus:	Scilla
Section:	S. sect. Chionodoxa
Species:	S. cretica
Binomial name
Scilla cretica

This can be over-ridden in the taxonomy template, as in Template:Taxonomy/Scilla sect. Chionodoxa/abbrev. When this is used as the parent taxon, the result is as here. I prefer this format, since it is more consistent with the way the species is displayed outside the "binomial box". It's the standard in most botanical taxoboxes; see e.g. Pinus glabra and other Pinus species.

However, the problem with putting the abbreviation in the taxonomy template (as is the case for the subgeneric Pinus ranks) is that if the taxon is the 'target' of the taxobox, the name is still abbreviated, as here. (It will automatically be in bold if it's a self-link as it will be on its own page.)

WikiProject Plants/Archive70
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Plantae
Clade:	Tracheophytes
Clade:	Angiosperms
Clade:	Monocots
Order:	Asparagales
Family:	Asparagaceae
Subfamily:	Scilloideae
Genus:	Scilla
Section:	S. sect. Chionodoxa

WikiProject Plants/Archive70
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Plantae
Clade:	Tracheophytes
Clade:	Angiosperms
Clade:	Monocots
Order:	Asparagales
Family:	Asparagaceae
Subfamily:	Scilloideae
Genus:	Scilla
Section:	Scilla sect. Chionodoxa

I think that it's better not to abbreviate the target taxon, in line with the way that the binomial box doesn't for a species, so I prefer this taxobox.

The effect I personally prefer can be achieved by changing some of the automated taxobox system code, so that in a taxobox a taxon name containing a connecting term will be abbreviated unless it is the target taxon. I have some code in sandbox versions that achieves this so far as I can tell in tests (but full testing of automated taxoboxes is difficult until the changes are live). Note that if implemented this would only apply to names with connecting terms; zoological names would be unaffected. (Their formatting is anyway much less consistent; for a subgenus for example, the bare subgenus name, the full genus name with the subgenus in parentheses, and the abbreviated genus name with the subgenus name in parentheses are all found.)

What do editors here think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter coxhead (talk • contribs) 18:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with your preferences. The full name should be displayed in the last row of the classification, if possible. While it might not be worth a major effort (at italics level) if there are unexpected problems, I see no reason not to implement your new code if it works. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Prunus lannesiana and Prunus serrulata var. lannesiana

Help is needed here: Commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/12/Category:Prunus lannesiana--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Identify plants based on very little information (again)

As before, can anyone identify the plants shown in these illustrations, given that we know only the first letter of their names? DS (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

• 
  M plant
• 
  N plant

My guesses would be:

• M - Kalmia latifolia ("Mountain laurel")
• N - Urtica dioica ("Nettle")

Though someone more knowledgeable than me will probably show me I'm mistaken... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Kalmia and Urtica are both correct, and the species match to within the limits of the medium. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Healing of wounds in plants

Could somebody take a look at Draft:Healing of wounds in plants. To my non-botanist eye, this looks like a really interesting and promising draft, and I commented to that effect six months ago. Unfortunately, the original author seems to have left the project. Still, it seems like it would be a shame to lose what looks like a nice piece of work, so I'd appreciate if some botanists could take a look at it and give me some feedback on whether I should accept it or not. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

RoySmith, I took a look at it, cleaned it up, and moved it to a more appropriate name. It certainly needs much more cleanup, but its not getting any better sitting in draft. I'd say approve it, throw a cleanup tag on it, and we'll go from there. If I have some time later this year I'll try to improve it, maybe take it to GA for the WikiCup. Its definitely a notable topic, surprised we don't currently cover it, but I couldn't find an existing article in that vein. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

CaptainEek, Thanks. It's at Wound response in plants now. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I commented on its talk page back in October. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Angel wing begonia

In trawling through "Expert needed" tags I came across Angel wing begonia. It's a hybrid begonia species, very poor quality. I bring it up because I'm not sure if it should merit a standalone article. What is our take on the notability of hybrids like this? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Policy is that all plant species are notable (pace disputes as to what is a valid species). It seems to me that major horticultural crops are more notable than, say, apomictic whitebeam species - to exclude them would be adopting an unreasonably academic viewpoint for a general purpose encyclopaedia. I wouldn't encourage articles for individual cultivars as a general practice - though as a moderate inclusionist I oppose deleting many such articles when someone has done the work - but angel wing begonias aren't a cultivar, in spite of the impression previously given by the article lede, but a group of hybrid begonia analogous to say hybrid tea roses, or floribunda roses.

It could go in the Begonia article, along with other groups of Begonia cultivars, but I think that plants such as rex, tuberous and wax begonias are significant enough to be worthy of articles (though the articles seem not to be exist), in which case why not include one for cane begonias as well. (Cane begonias may be more important that I realise because they're only a greenhouse subject in Britain.) At first glance Begonia × benariensis should be sunk into a wax begonia article; they seem to be a series of wax begonias, like Dragon Wing begonias are a series of angel wing/cane begonias.

Cane or cane-stemmed begonia might be a better title, with a redirect. I need a reliable source to tell me whether angel wing and cane begonias are the same, or whether cane begonias are a wider group including plants of different parentage. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

This page from the American Begonia Society indicates that "cane-like" begonias are a superset of angel wing begonias. Reading between the lines "superba" begonias are cultivars of Begonia aconitifolia.

At the Begonia article I think we should drop the cultivar and cultivar groups section - it mostly duplicates the horticultural nomenclature section (rename this?) and the residue isn't notable. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Lavateraguy, Good finds. Are you suggesting a separate article for Cane begonia then? Or is it article worthy? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Also I have implemented a reworking of the cultivars on Begonia CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd suggest a move of angel wing begonia to cane begonia combined with an expansion of scope. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Lavateraguy, Exactly what I was thinking! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 10:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Bruguiera (genus) page: Seems unusual to have species synonyms listed on the genera page

Repeating a post on the talk page of Bruguiera: As the topic line above says, it seems unusual. I am ambivalent about this, on the one hand it means that it makes it easier for a user to find the taxa they ultimately are wanting info on, on the other hand, "search" does this as well. What do people think? Brunswicknic (talk) 10:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I see no objection to including the information, but the simple listing makes it difficult to determine the number of species from that section. And as some synonyms are redirected there appear to be more species articles. It would be better to list the six species and give the synonyms indented below each or as a separate list. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I reorganised the list and self reverted to illustrate a different arrangement, see here. The repetitive "synonym of ..." text could be replaced by synonyms on a single line. Whatever the decision I think the current list should go, reorganised with synonyms or replaced by a simple species list. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Jts1882, lovely work, yes that alternative is great, shows the accepted species clearly, but allows users who have come across superseded names (which occurs in much literature, particularly in the Majority World) to see where they need to go to find info. It would be hard for a speciose taxa, Eucalyptus, Acacia for instance, but in this case it is not too much. Amongst the help for users, it recognises the work of the previous editors. Thanks. Brunswicknic (talk) 07:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Arthur Whistler

Can anyone with some familiarity with Pacific botany add a bit to this article? I'm pretty sure he meets the WP:GNG, if not the tightly-delineated WP:PROF, but the article right now is mostly sourced to his obituaries and CV, making that difficult to demonstrate. Choess (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Ziziphus cambodianus

I have edited Ziziphus cambodianus, but I haven't. That name is accepted, but it redirects to Ziziphus cambodiana. That page had strong issues. I have edited it. Could someone with power change the heading, and redirection away from cambodianus, please. Wikidata still lists it as cambodiana and its links lead nowhere, presumably because of the wrong name, therefore the "q" number ("Taxonbar|from=Q17251852") gives nothing, is there some way this could be changed? Thanks for your work. Brunswicknic (talk) 09:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that cambodiana is correct in spite of databases like IPNI and POWO using cambodianus. Most Latin tree names ending in -us are feminine, despite the high school teaching the 1st declension nouns ending in -us are masculine, but masculine forms of adjectives were often incorrectly used as epithets due to an incomplete command of Latin. (An exception is Euonymus, which is a borrowing from Greek, and is masculine.) Ziziphus may be Neo-Latin, being a borrowing from Persian, which makes its gender uncertain, but if you look at lists of species lots of other species have feminine epithets, so it looks as if Ziziphus is considered a feminine noun. I've dropped a query to IPNI, but they're understaffed for the duration. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, Google search results are 9:1 in favour of cambodiana. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry Lavateraguy, while I respect your work to improve Wikipedia and your knowledge of Latin, you are not correct in your assertions. IPNI and POWO are publications of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. They are not merely a database, they are an authority on international botany. Rules from a dead language do not trump them. Google search: yes I believe that cambodiana was formerly the standard name, BUT it is not now the standardized, authorized term for Ziziphus cambodianus. That is why I reverted your edits on the appropriate pages, and repeat my call for the name to be used at the two Wikipedia pages, and at Wikidata. Brunswicknic (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I waited for confirmation from Kew before making the changes. (IPNI has now been updated, for this, and 4 other names.) Their response mentions that of the 301 entries in IPNI for the genus only 5 used masculine epithets. (Short of actually counting I'd guess at 100-150 using feminine epithets, and the rest being nouns in apposition, and cases where the feminine and masculine forms are the same.)

"rules from a dead language" may not trump them, but the ICN does, and that says that orthographic errors, including errors in grammatical agreement, are to be corrected. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

As Lavateraguy indicated, the rules of the ICN are not superseded by the existence of an entry in IPNI. It's not an uncommon occurrence to do what he did: find an error, email IPNI, and get the entry updated; I do it more or less frequently with ferns. Your condescension and deference to its infallibility is misplaced, and unimpressive to those of us who have taken a hand in making the sausage, as it were. Choess (talk) 16:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, that was unnecessarily hostile. It's true that we shouldn't conflict with IPNI solely because of individual editors' interpretations of the code. However, it's likely enough that editors here will uncover cases like this where IPNI is wrong, and the use of talk pages to solicit opinions on those interpretations and further correspondence with IPNI/POWO is to be encouraged. Choess (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused. Which should it be? More importantly, we need to use one consistently, even if only temporarily until a consensus is reached. At the moment the page title and taxobox title use cambodiana, while the article text, taxobox species and taxobox binomial use cambodianus. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

When Jean Baptiste Louis Pierre described the species in 1894 in Flore forestière de la Cochinchine he used the spelling Ziziphus cambodiana. However the rules of nomenclature say that when the epithet in a botanical name is an adjective it should agree with the gender of the generic name; if the original author got it wrong it should be corrected. So the question that needs to be answered is what is the gender of Ziziphus? There are three possible sources of an answer - classical usage, botanical consensus, or a declaration by the author who coined the name. Ziziphus (or Zizyphus) has been in use in the botanical literature since the 16th century (Valerii Cordi, 1561, for Ziziphys, Rembert Dodoens, 1583, for Zizyphus) so we can exclude the last. Dodoens gives Ziziphos or Zizyphos as the Greek forms, Ziziphus or Zizyphys as the Latin forms, and Zezulus as a variant/alternative name due to the 13th century writer Petrus Crescentius. An online Latin dictionary gives ziziphus and zizyphus as feminine variants, and ziziphum and zizyphum as neuter ones. These observations suggest that the words are classical, but are not irrefutable evidence. Kew agrees that it's feminine, and have corrected IPNI, but seem to be relying on botanical consensus - 5 names out 301 in their records using masculine epithets. The source of the conflict is that later botanists had a lesser command of Latin, particularly in the 20th century, and believing -us to be universally a masculine ending miscorrected names to use masculine epithets (or incorrectly used masculine epithets in descriptions of new species). Valerii Cordi treated it as feminine; Philip Miller, the first author to use it after the publication of Species Plantarum, also treated it as feminine, as have most subsequent writers. Bottom line - it's cambodiana. (IPNI and POWO can have errors - I've reported quite a few to IPNI over the years.) Lavateraguy (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. IPNI, etc. assign the authorship of the genus to Miller. If you look at Miller's original here, when he attaches a Latin adjective which has a distinct feminine to the genus name, he uses the feminine, e.g. Ziziphus argentea. There seems no reason not to follow the gender used by Miller, which is common for trees. Thus Quercus alba, Fagus sylvatica, Taxus baccata, Pinus nigra, etc. The masculines are errors to be corrected. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

In case there's any confusion on this point, IPNI and POWO are descriptive, not prescriptive - something isn't true just because it's stated by them. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand. IPNI and POWO represent a consensus derived from scientists, botanist, taxonomists, professionals, academics, &c. Editors of wikipedia may individually be one of these, but they do not represent the collective consensus that the staff at the Botanic Gardens, Kew endeavour to follow. I'm sorry, you are saying that "I know best, ignore the accepted authorities". We can argue all we want, but as a worldwide source and authority on plant names, I believe IPNI/POWO/Botanic Gardens, Kew above wiki-contributors. Correct me if I am wrong, but we must reference our wikipedia entries to an authoritive source, I have, the name in current use is cambodianus. Can it be changed as per wiki-rules. Brunswicknic (talk) 02:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

IPNI and POWO and other botanical databases are not 100% accurate (for example the recent Brasil checklist used a nom. inval. later homonym for a species of Helicteres). In this case IPNI and POWO are internally inconsistent. A genus has a grammatical gender. Adjectival epithets for species in that genus must (ICN) agree in grammatical gender with the genus. IPNI now has all species of Ziziphus using the feminine form of adjectives (i.e. cambodiana). POWO has most species using the feminine form, with a few species (e.g. cambodianus) using the masculine (I expect this will change shortly). We have a prescriptive source (the ICN) which represents the consensus of botanists which says that this cannot be correct - this means some of the entries in POWO must be using the wrong form of the name, and therefore we cannot blindly accept the name in POWO. Looking at the names of Ziziphus species in general in IPNI/POWO/other botanical works finds a strong consensus for the feminine form. For context, we know that mistakenly using masculine agreement for 2nd declension feminine nouns with -us stems has historically been a problem, so we can infer that one of the sources used by IPNI/POWO committed this error. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

To put it in stark terms the choice is that either IPNI has 5 names in Ziziphus wrong, or it has 100 or so names in Ziziphus wrong, and similar numbers for POWO. Even if you don't realise it, you are arguing for the latter, in spite of your appeals to authority. Now, in theory it could be the case that the latter is true - we had the same issue with another -us stem genus name some years back where the balance of numbers was more even. I cited one Latin dictionary which gave it as feminine. It turns out that Perseus gives it as masculine. But the preponderance of botanical usage treats it as feminine - I wouldn't be surprised, if someone made a case for it being masculine, that botanists turned round and declared it feminine ("conserved with feminine gender" - cf Balanites). Lavateraguy (talk) 10:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I have undone the revision on the Ziziphus cambodianus page, that changed it all to cambodiana. Why? There is no authoritative reference for this name. You have not provided a reference. You have here asserted individual opionions, appealed to guidelines, and yet you have no references for the current accepted name being cambodiana. I note that it was cambodiana in the past. It seems to be have been changed, presumably with discussion. The current accepted name from authoritive sources is cambodianus. If that is a problem, argue with authoritive sources, not me. Brunswicknic (talk) 02:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

This matter is still under discussion and you don't have consensus for the change you want to introduce. Whatever the final decision (I am neutral here) the article should use one name throughout, not a mixture of Ziziphus cambodiana and Ziziphus cambodianus in various places, something your edits introduced. While the discussion continues, the page should follow the title (the only way to be consistent). The IPNI is now using Ziziphus cambodianua so your original argument for following authority no longer applies. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

The 2007 "A Checklist of the Vascular Plants of Lao PDR" from RBGE and a couple of Laotian institutions uses Ziziphus cambodiana. You don't have an authoritive source for a deliberate change from cambodiana to cambodianus - that is your inference. You should at least listen to people offering an alternative inference. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Now that IPNI has corrected its entry, the matter is settled; the reliable sources for the feminine are clear. PoWO will follow later; it uses IPNI, but is updated less often. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Help formatting Infobox cultivar

Hi! I have two articles for hemp cultivars that could use an expert's help on many things, but especially including how to format {{Infobox cultivar}}. I'm not sure what the rules are for italics, single quotes, etc. The articles are Finola (hemp) and Tochigishiro. Just for extra complexity, the second one is a Japanese word so I italicized it in the body but I'm not even sure if this is proper. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Hiya. Had a looksee. Very nice, interesting stuff. I do see some problems. Finola is a (new) brand name, a trademark I think; the cultivar is actually called 'FIN-314'. Cultivar names should be in single parenthesis. Latin (and Japanese (with caveats -transliterations I put in quotations)) should be in italics, also in the infobox. Also the references need work. Otherwise I see little wrong and commend you or whomever on two good and useful articles... isn't a group of Italian hemp cultivars of prime importance for fibre in Europe?Leo Breman (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the help -- your recommended changes have been incorporated. I don't believe I've ever used six straight quotes in a row before.

As for Italy, I'm not really up to speed (yet). There is a List of hemp varieties for EU, if it's important it's probably listed there. It would be interesting to find out what's grown in France too, to round out Hemp in France, also my creation. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome! ...but sorry. Should of been clearer. Per ICNCP cultivar names should always been in normal font, not italics, irrespective of the language, as in Cannabis sativa 'Tochigishiro'. Per MOS non-English words in prose should be in italics, as in "the Japanese word tochigishiro translates as ...". Cheers, Leo Breman (talk) 07:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts...

I'm working on cleaning up Coconut, and was wondering if you folks could provide some insight or thoughts about its origin and especially dispersal. I'm trying to figure out how much weight to give to various hypotheses about where it evolved, and how it spread to its present range. There a few different takes in the literature, i.e. that it is Asian, South American, or Pacific in origin. How it spread, whether via natural forces or via humans is also contested. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, I've always favoured the South America origin theory. Also thought much of the modern distribution is human-assisted. Remember reading something about the first coconuts in Australia and some discussion about if it were to be regarded as an invasive species in Florida. Also it was distributed to new areas and planted in large amounts during the copra era; for example, I think it was introduced to Wake Island fairly recently. And it is regarded as a Polynesian 'boat plant'. But it is obviously adapted for some sea dispersal. The Australian stuff had something about the survival rate of coconuts at sea (not invincible). Leo Breman (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The most recent material I have access to (2011) indicates an "Old World" Tropics origin for the domesticated coconut, see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?type=printable&id=10.1371/journal.pone.0021143. This is for the domesticated Cocos nucifera, where the original wild taxa came from is less clear, though quick scan shows fossils around the Indian sub-continent.Brunswicknic (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Very interesting. I liked that the conclusions on Indian Ocean introductions were also seen linguistically. I found a bit more on this, a commentary on the Gunn article and a 2019 work on South American coconuts, which supports the conclusions of dual import of the two domesticates. Seems pretty convincing. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:27, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

This 2016 thesis is highly redacted, but Appendix 1 on the origin of the Central American populations looks to be of interest. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Royal Horticultural Society Award of Garden Merit

Tons of plant articles note that particular cultivars have been granted the Royal Horticultural Society's Award of Garden Merit (e.g. Symphyotrichum novae-angliae). It hardly seems important or interesting to me that some cultivar of a plant is one of some 7500 that a particular regional organisation thinks are good garden plants. From what I've seen this information is only ever cited to the primary source. But I'm not well-versed in the world of cultivated plants, am I missing something? Someone has clearly spent a lot of time adding this information. It's maybe better than not mentioning cultivation at all, but any reason not to remove it from articles that already have an overview of what kinds of cultivars exist and how they are used? I feel like it's making this "award" sound much more important than it actually is. Somatochlora (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it should stay. It is by far the most important award a plant can get as a horticultural product. When you buy a plant here in continental Europe, if its AGM that acronym's usually printed on the label; as in Hylotelephium x. 'Herbstfreude' AGM. The same in product lists at nurseries or in seedlists. Now that I think about, I can list which of the species/cultivars I grow have AGM from memory, which is odd. In the SE USA the "proven winners" thing might be come closest, but there is something up with the PBRs with that and the RHS holds extensive trials -the fact a cultivar got a AGM means that somewhere out there is a fat .pdf detailing why, and that the cultivar in question is superior. A breeder might/must pay to bring his new plant to the government facilities in the Netherlands so it can be trialled and certified as good for a specific area, but that really isn't similar. When cultivars over here get AGM status it's news in the trade mags, like some grass recently. The auction-houses organise a plant of the year here (house plant, 'student' plant, innovative product, yaddayadda) and in Germany there is something similar, as far as I'm concerned such an award is also relevant and notable. Sales actually increase. Perhaps you are uninterested in cultivation, but I assure you that others are! Cheers, Leo Breman (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay thanks. I'm not entirely convinced. There are plenty of meaningless awards out there in various fields, and businesses (growers and nurseries) are going to hype up the award to sell their products. It's like how every car ad lists various awards and rankings that the car has won - these shouldn't be mentioned on the Wikipedia page for the car unless they are actually important, and as far as I can see they mostly aren't mentioned. The Award of Garden Merit article right now provides zero indication that anyone cares or even notices when a plant is given this award, hence my question above. If it e.g. increases sales, can we get a source saying that? At a (very brief) look all the secondary sources I found were either trying to sell me something or only mentioned the award in passing.Somatochlora (talk) 15:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The RHS is rather more than just "a particular regional organisation" - it is the UK's leading gardening charity (according to the RHS, it is the world's leading gardening charity), with a membership of over 500,000 and annual revenue of £100M. Why not read the society's 2019 Annual Report to get an idea of its scale of operations? It isn't a commercial trade organisation, and when an AGM is awarded, it is only done so after prolonged assessment based on garden worthiness, and as such is an important indication of a cultivar's quality, and is often referred to in reliable sources e.g. The Telegraph, BBC, The Guardian. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

The importance of the Royal Horticultural Society's Award of Garden Merit cannot be overstated. Most plants get two important events in the lifetime of the species; their initial description by a botanist, and a trial at the Royal Horticultural Society. In fact, not getting or having the Award of Garden Merit revoked is as important an event as anything that ever happened to most species. I have systematically gone through and made sure that no plant that has won the AGM is assessed "Low" on the PLANTS banner on the talk page. They are all "Mid" or higher. Abductive (reasoning) 04:49, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that the award of the RHS AGM is notable, I'm not convinced that this alone makes a plant article of "Mid" importance to this project, which is primarily concerned with botany. Such articles are likely to be of such importance to WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:19, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, the page views show that any plant species that has any use to humans, or is a weed, gets orders of magnitude more views than species that have only, to be kind, their original botanical description. There are 320,000 species of plants. Most do not have an article. There are 69,422 Lows, 7425 Mids, 683 Highs and 80 Tops. This makes WP:Plants much more heavily skewed towards the Lows than most Wikiprojects, and would be made even more so if all the remaining species were added. Also, I have not automatically made cultivars, subspecies or hybrids that won the AGM "Mid", just the species. Abductive (reasoning) 19:02, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Help with the identification of a species

Good morning. Greetings to all the fellow editors!

I have several photographs of the Hippeastrum genus and I would like that my pictures could illustrate the articles that correspond to it's species. But since I’m not a botanist, I can’t identify it.

I have created a gallery in Commons to show the photos in question, so that some of you can help me easily: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Unidentified_Hippeastrum_in_Venezuela

I thank you in advance for any support in this regard, and I hope that you are doing fine. --Sebastián Arena... 02:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, the first question is whether it is a species or a cultivar. The size of the flower and the thickness of the scape are what I would expect of a cultivated "amaryllis" (as they still seem to be called by those who sell them). Recent cultivars with this general flower shape tend to have broader tepals, like 'Minerva'. Older cultivars are difficult to identify, because they disappear from sale. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh, sorry for my ignorance! I didn't know there was a difference between “species” and “cultivars”. I did see the resemblance of my flower to “Minerva”, but I had my doubts because the color is not the same. So I didn't want to make a mistake putting the pictures in the wrong category of Commons. --Sebastián Arena... 17:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I also see the resemblance with “Gilmar”, but I'm not sure. --Sebastián Arena... 17:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Could easily be a hybrid. Do you have any way of checking the box it came in, or if you ordered it online, the online order form? Abductive (reasoning) 23:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer! Well, I don't have any way to check that. The flower has been many years in my house, and it's really from my mom. But I could ask her how she got it in the first place. So, there is no way to know if it's really an hybrid or not, with just photographs? I mean, the only way to know for sure is taking the flower or a piece of her to a laboratory of biologists? --Sebastián Arena... 02:46, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Given the history of the plant, I would be reasonably confident that it's a cultivar. Bearing in mind that colour in digital photographs depends on the lighting, it seems to me that 'Gilmar' is highly likely to be correct; all the detail of the markings are correct, and the colour difference is a reflection of cool versus warm white illumination. ('Gilmar' seems to be popular in Brazil judging by the number of ".br" hits Google finds searching for "Amaryllis Hippeastrum Gilmar".) Peter coxhead (talk) 06:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help! I will change the name to “Gilmar” then, although knowing that it's a cultivar makes improbable that any of my photos would be on an article, right? Well, as the song says, “you can't always get what you want”. --Sebastián Arena... 20:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Persicaria polymorpha

Which plant is Persicaria polymorpha? On Wikipedia, Persicaria polymorpha redirects to Koenigia alpina, although it isn't listed as a synonym. One of the synonyms that is listed however is Persicaria alpina. According to the RHS, Persicaria polymorpha is one of the synonyms of Persicaria alpina. So that seems to establish a connection, at least in a horticultural source, between Persicaria polymorpha and Koenigia alpina. Yet the plant commonly sold in the horticultural trade as Persicaria polymorpha tends to look like this, a rather robust and imposing herbaceous plant that grows 1.5 - 1.8 metres high. The RHS page has a similar looking plant. Whereas the images at Commons of Aconogonom alpinum (another Wikipedia-listed synonym of Koenigia alpina, and where our article links to for images) look to me rather less imposing - not nearly so statuesque or substantial, both in foliage and flowers. Is this just a species with very variable morphology, or is the horticultural trade supplying something different, and if so, what are they supplying? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 03:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Fleeceflower (a dab page) has both names (and also has both Fallopia and Reynoutria japonica). It looks as if it could do with a bit of a tidy up, if one could establish usage and disentangle taxonomy. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I had/have it in my collection as Persicaria wallichii. I was under the impression the accepted name should now be Koenigia polystachya. It's a really cool plant! (when kept in a huge pot and watered constantly)... Leo Breman (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, Koenigia polystachya is the name Plants of the World Online accepts for the species with the synonym Persicaria wallichii. It doesn't list Persicaria polymorpha either as an accepted name or a synonym. It does however list Polygonum polymorphum as a synonym of Koenigia alpina; the generic boundaries in the Polygonoideae are notoriously variable between sources.

However, I believe that the plant known in horticulture as "Persicaria polymorpha" is actually the cultivar previously known as Aconogonon 'Johanneswolke'. I have discussed this before; see User talk:Peter coxhead/Archive 19#Polygonum polymorphum. See p. 88 in this PDF. It's sometimes called Aconogonon × fennicum 'Johanneswolke'. See the image and names here. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

The nothospecies Aconogonon × fennicum is in IPNI, with the parents given as A. alpinum and A. weyrichii. Both are now put in Koenigia, so it is Koenigia × fennica in PoWO. So I suppose the plant in question should be called Koenigia 'Johanneswolke' or Koenigia × fennica 'Johanneswolke'. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:57, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I will go with Koenigia × fennica 'Johanneswolke', I clearly have that one. Thanks, Peter. This will be the fourth time in five years I rewrite the label for that plant. I used to have a little Persicaria collection, but almost everything got moved to new genera, darnit. Leo Breman (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

I've now created an article at Koenigia × fennica which includes 'Johanneswolke' and put a hatnote at Koenigia alpina. I hope this will help readers to find the plant in cultivation. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

I've also now redirected Persicaria polymorpha to Koenigia × fennica § 'Johanneswolke'. The name "Persicaria polymorpha" is not in IPNI; it seems to be a horticultural usage and not a published synonym of Polygonum polymorphum. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:15, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Peter, I appreciate your digging up of all this information and creating the article, and apologies from me for going over this ground again - I had actually forgotten about our earlier conversation until after I made the post above, and then I didn't have the energy to search for it (I don't have much energy available for Wikipedia these days). I was prompted to ask about this again because a year ago I bought a plant labelled as Persicaria polymorpha from a nursery in Norfolk, only it so far hasn't grown into the plant I was expecting from previous growing experience, and so I looked again at our article on Koenigia alpina and at the associated pictures at Commons, and I thought 'I don't think that's the same plant that I've grown before' and it made me wonder what I had bought this time. I agree with Leo Breman that Koenigia × fennica 'Johanneswolke' is a great plant, especially if - as I do - you like plants that look like they've taken a few steroids... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@PaleCloudedWhite: actually I had forgotten too! Google found the archived thread when I searched for "Persicaria polymorpha" and it was only when I looked at it that I remembered. So I thought I had better forestall forgetting again by creating an article, which I found quite interesting.

It would be good to have a photo of the cultivar uploaded to Commons, if either you or Leo Breman could manage that. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:44, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Great article. One problem; how sure are we about the spelling? This cultivar is German I gather, and the most common spelling by far on German websites is 'Johanniswolke' (usually identified as Aconogonon speciosum); RHS Gardening also spells it thus, as does the German site we're referencing. You know, I'm quite sure of myself, I'll go ahead and change it.

I visited a grower today here in the Netherlands, and she was selling it as Persicaria polymorpha, but I identified mine (cutting from a garden) as P. wallichii years back because someone else was selling it as so at the time. I see someone, PaleCloudedWhite assumedly, already added some good pics; I'll split/repot the plant this week and get a rhizome pic, I've been curious as to how that looks (it also had a thick taproot). Will also add some info to the article from German sites, I see a few interesting tidbits... such as "Stinkt die 'Johanniswolke' nach Schweinestall?". Cheers, Leo Breman (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm now questioning if 'Johanniswolke' even exists at all? The cultivar name came about because it was first misidentified when it was first marketed in the 2000s. There is only one thing for it... order an original Koenigia × fennica from Sweden. Leo Breman (talk) 22:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Moving Poaceae to Grass

There is a proposed move discussion underway, in which the article Poaceae would be moved to Grass. You may express your opinions on this proposal at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Poaceae#Requested_move_28_May_2020 Nick Moyes (talk) 22:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Having reread Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(flora) I interpret it to support using Poaceae. However, is it worth making it explicit the ICN names should be used for plant families and orders? (There are other families where the ambiguity argument doesn't apply - families were a vernacular name is derived from an old or current familial name, plus Orchidaceae - leaving the consistency argument.) Lavateraguy (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Glebionis segetum

I'm somewhat concerned that the image at Glebionis segetum is actually of Glebionis coronaria var. discolor. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree, and I have replaced the image. Looking at all the images at commons:Category:Glebionis segetum, there are others I doubt too.

This is yet another example of the problems caused by using Wikidata in other wikis. The infobox in the commons category got the suspect image from the Wikidata item, so this is the image that multiple language wikis have used. I've now changed the Wikidata item to use what appears to be a correct image. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Plant in Stuttgart-Rotenberg

• 
  What is this?

• Found in: Württemberg, Germany
• Time: 31st May, 2020

I am not very well versed in plants, so maybe you can help me: Is this a Sambucus ebulus? Thanks in advance.--Alexander-93 (talk) 14:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Alexander-93: how tall was it? Were the stems branched? From the photo it could also be young stems of Sambucus nigra, e.g. a plant that had been cut back. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: I guess not higher than 2 meters. I don't know, if the stems were branched.--Alexander-93 (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Stace (the standard British flora) says that Sambucus ebulus reaches 1.5m. And that would only be later in the year when it reaches full growth. So if this is 2m high then it's probably (you do on occasion see plants that are bigger than the books admit to) too big to be Sambucus ebulus, so Sambucus nigra or possibly one of the exotic elders. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

The foliage looks to me to be consistent with S. nigra after it has been cut back hard and is putting on vigorous regrowth. Also a scan of images of S. ebulus at Commons shows foliage that's more 'refined' in appearance (less coarsely serrated), with possibly more folding along the length of each leaflet, than the image shown here. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with both the comments above; it's most likely to be young stems of Sambucus nigra. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

It's certainly not S. ebulus, looks like S. nigra (S. canadensis is pretty much identical). Leo Breman (talk) 11:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Lavatera phoenicea

Shouldn't Lavatera phoenicea be moved to Malva now? Leo Breman (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

It's the sister group to the rest of the expanded Malva so placement in the monotypic genus Navaea is also tenable, and seems to have more usage per a google search (84 versus 41 if you look at the actual results returned rather than the headline numbers). But POWO, Euro+Med and AFPD all place it in Malva, so, provisionally, yes. 10:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't Lavateraguy be moved to Malva now? Ehm, sorry, couldn't help myself. AFPD is the CJB's African Plant Database I assume? Right, I'll try to move it and write up something on tax. Leo Breman (talk) 18:43, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Lavatera assurgentiflora needs moving as well, but I can't move it (Malva assurgentiflora already redirects). Leo Breman (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Done. - Dank (push to talk) 22:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Sigh... Yet another set of slides and photos in talks I give to be edited once more to update the scientific names. Malva/Lavatera acerifolia/canariensis, a beautiful plant of the Canaries, has a particularly tangled history of labels. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Biscuit flower.jpg

I don't think a "biscuit flower" exists. Can someone please correctly identify this flower? Thanks, im temtem • hOI!! • fsfdfg • alt account of pandakekok9 11:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Looks like Catharanthus roseus. (A search for "biscuit flower" is dominated by hits for a musician and for creating flower-shaped biscuits, but there are sources for it as a vernacular name for the very different Sarracenia flava. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I will be renaming it on Commons. im temtem • hOI!! • fsfdfg • alt account of pandakekok9 06:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Superasterids - many missing species

Our article Superasterids says they contain “more than 122,000 species”. Is that right? Adding up the counts in the contained clades, one obtains:

Clade	Species	Source	APweb species
Berberidopsidales	3	WP	4
Santales	1,000	The Angiosperm Phylogeny Group: An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG IV. In: Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, vol 181, 2016, p. 1–20. doi:10.1111/boj.12385	1,992
Caryophyllales	11,155	WP	11,620
Asterids	82,980	(from table below)	1000,593 (sic) 101,273 or 97,275
total	95,138

Asterids:

Clade	Species	Source	APweb
Cornales	600	WP	590
Ericales	8,000	WP	12,005
euasterids	74,380	(from table below)	88,678 or 84,680
total	82,980		101,273 or 97,275

euasterids:

Clade	Species	Source	APweb
lamiids	40,000	WP	51,448
campanulids	35,878	(from table below)	37,230 or 34,232
total	74,380		88,678 or 84,680

campanulids:

Clade	Species	Source	APweb
Aquifoliales	536	de:Stechpalmenartige	536
Asterales	28,500	WP	26,870
Escallionales	130	WP	130
Bruniales	80	subclades	79
Apiales	5,500	de:Doldenblütlerartige	5,489
Dipsacales	1,096	subclades	1,090
Paracryphiales	36	WP	38
total	35,878		37,230 (stated) 34,232 (adding above)

Lamiids:

Clade	APweb species
Icacinales	202
Metteniusales	55
Garryales	18
Boraginales	3,120
Gentianales	20,145
Vahliales	8
Lamiales	23,755
Solanales	4,145
total	51,448

That is, we are missing about 27,000 species. Even by the standards of a rapidly changing field, that is an enormous discrepancy, more than double the deviations found in other clades. What are the missing species? ◀ Sebastian 23:14, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Some of the WP number are fairly old. Caryophyllales cited APweb from 2007 gave 11,155, whereas the current version has 11,620 species (updated). That's a 5% different, albeit short of the 25% missing you've identified. APweb's Asterid page unhelpfully gives "1000,593" species, which if it means 100,593 species could explain most of the difference.

Using the order numbers from APweb gets around 115k. There is some mismatch in their numbers, presumably as not all pages get updated at the same time. That's not inconsistent with an estimate of 122k. What is the source of the 122k? —  Jts1882 | talk  07:42, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Working from the other direction a figure of 225,000 is given for eudicots, and 70,000 for rosids. If basal eudicots, Saxifragales, Vitales and Dilleniales add up to 30,000 (which may be generous - if I'm not forgetting something Ranunculales and Saxifragales are the only speciose clades in there) that leaves 125,000 for superasterids. (Working from the list of largest families at flowering plant gets us to around 80,000, which leaves a big gap to be filled by smaller families.) There is a possibility that some numbers are estimated species counts, and others are counts of described and accepted species. Lavateraguy (talk) 06:59, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Asterales gives 26,000 species for Asteraceae, but Asteraceae says 32,000. Lavateraguy (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Lavateraguy, where do you get the figure for eudicots from? Jts1882, the article Superasterids indeed has no source for the 122k. But it couldn't be less if we look upwards:

• core eudicots=210k, with superrosids=88k (itself 5k more than its subclades, but at least sourced) and a few basals
• eudicots=217k (adding basal eudicots=6k, primarily from Ranunculales=5k according to http://www.mobot.org/MOBOT/Research/APweb/orders/ranunculalesweb.htm#Ranunculales)
• flowering plants=291k, which is already less than the 300k given and sourced in that article. ◀ Sebastian 09:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

If I didn't see the number on some page (I've just failed to relocate it), then 75% of 300,000. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

And where do you get the 75% from? ◀ Sebastian 10:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Flowering_plant#Diversity. (And I now see that flowering plant is internally inconsistent, with a figure of 175,000 for eudicots elsewhere in that article. (I think that problem is an apples and oranges issue - between estimated and known numbers of species. Between sources of different dates, using different species concepts, and different interpretations of number of species one might have to commit synthesis to get a coherent set of numbers - APWeb is my best guess for a current, reasonably consistent, source.) Lavateraguy (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I found an even bigger discrepancy for the number of eudicots=175k, sourced in the article Flowering plant dating to 2004. With that, the 300k given in the lede of that same article seem far too big to me. But that's another can of earthworms; it doesn't help us find any missing superasterids, and I'd rather focus on them now. ◀ Sebastian 10:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Christenhusz & Byng (2016) give 115,208 for the superasterids, 100,990 for asterids, 52,565 for lamiids and 35,312 for campanulids (my calculations from their table 1), which is pretty close to the APweb totals. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Between new discoveries and splitting the number of species has increased substantially between 2004 and now. (The current figure for Malvaceae at APweb is 4225+; but I assembled a list of 4800+ some years back, and I'm missing some recently described species.) Lavateraguy (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Ranunculus species

There's a question at Talk:List of Ranunculus species#About the list, regarding the number of species in the genus, that might be of interest here. The questioner seems correct to assert that there are many more than indicated. Plants of the World Online lists 1,654 accepted species! But with the present format of the list (including common names, distributions and images), expanding would be a huge task. Thanks Declangi (talk) 05:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I think POWO may use a rather wide circumscription of Ranunculus, including things like Ficaria that are often treated as segregates. Choess (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

The maintainers of PoWO (Rafaël Govaerts in particular) are generally "lumpers". I discovered this when working on ferns; PoWO follows Christenhusz, Maarten M.J.; Fay, Michael; Byng, James W. (2018), The Global Flora: Special Edition: GLOVAP Nomenclature Part 1, Plant Gateway Ltd., ISBN 978-0-9929993-6-0, rather than the consensus Pteridophyte Phylogeny Group system (PPG1). One example is that Blechnum has about 30 species in PPG1, but about 250 species in Christenhusz et al. (2018) and hence PoWO, since their genus corresponds to an entire subfamily. I've since noted that this extends to some other higher level taxa. It does mean that PoWO cannot be taken as the definitive guide if other, perhaps more specialized, taxonomic databases and/or up-to-date regional floras take a different view, which is a pity. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Someone should make a real and globaly accapted species list about the plants. DenesFeri (talk) 07:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

@DenesFeri: wishful thinking, alas. Decisions as to what species belong in what genus, and how far to lump or split taxa, are subjective, and so taxonomists will continue to disagree. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Ferns

HI, I apologize in advance if this is wrong place, but I don't know where else to put it. It seems that in the boxes of many ferns, they are listed as Polypodiopsida (it doesn't help much, that the link leads to Fern), when in accordance to this page, they should be outside of Polypodiopsida. For example: Ophioglossum,Equisetum HlTo CZ (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Look a little farther down on the fern page; it seems that the taxonomy you're looking at has been superseded. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, if you look at the table comparing different classifications, the recent ones use Polypodiopsida in a broader sense to include all ferns, whereas Smith et al (2006) used it more narrowly for the leptosporangiate ferns. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the consensus here is to use the Pteridophyte Phylogeny Group classification of 2016 (PPG I) for taxoboxes and article titles, although, of course, discussing alternatives in the text of relevant articles. The classification of ferns has been a muddle for a long time now, but the PPG offers a chance of stability. The Checklist of Ferns and Lycophytes of the World (aka World Ferns) at [8] is the prime source for fern classification following PPG. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Should Fern#Subdivision be reordered to put PPG at the start? Lavateraguy (talk) 18:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

@Lavateraguy: yes, good idea. Explain first the current classifications, then have a separate section on the history of classification. Sadly, I think the "current" section has to include both PPG I and the GLOVAP lumping approach (Christenhusz, Maarten M.J.; Fay, Michael; Byng, James W. (2018), The Global Flora: Special Edition: GLOVAP Nomenclature Part 1, Plant Gateway Ltd., ISBN 978-0-9929993-6-0) adopted by PoWO and Kew generally. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)