Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 → Archive 20

John Doe (plant)

File:IMG 8934.JPG
Doe, John. (plant)

Could someone please identify this plant for me? About 1-2 foot high, seedlets or plantlets grow on the egde of the leaves, which are 1-2 inches long and dark green. I have no idea what it is. Thanks! SGGH speak! 21:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a Mexican Hat Plant/Mother of Thousands/ Kalanchoe diagremontiana

Thankyou SGGH speak! 22:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Category:Asteraceae stubs oversized

Thanks to you-know-who-bot, these are on WSS's 'to be split' list. I've proposed doing so, here; my guess is that by tribe will be the best way to do this (assuming some way of determining the tribe for these articles can be achieved). Please comment if you have any thoughts on this. Alai 00:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Where is this "to be split" list? Oh, I found it. Anyway, I suggest subfamilies, then tribes per Panero and Funk 2002(?) according to Reveal, as researchers in higher level categories of Asteraceae are few and far between:

Skip it, too many problems, let's just use tribes, unless someone who knows Asteraceae better than I do (I know nothing it appears), has a subfamily classifiation that is usable. KP Botany 20:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Whee, I found a tribe article that actually has a list of genera: accordingly, I think I'll start with Category:Senecioneae stubs, unless anyone has any objections and/or better ideas... That'll have 106 existing stubs by my reckoning, and hence enough to be "viable" as a stub type, and to take a respectable chunk out of the oversized parent. Alai 12:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Good hunting. It can be changed later, if necessary, but from just the reading I did yesterday, I can't see that anything besides tribes will be a viable way to go. Have fun. One of the tribes is monotypic, though, I think. KP Botany 17:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not immediately suggesting stub types for each tribe; eyeballing the number of tribes, vs. the current number of stubs, suggests that a number of them would be undersized (wrt the stub-sorting convention of new stub cats having at least 60 articles). Not to mention that I'd have no idea which genera most of them consisted of... If one wants to be thorough, though, upmerged templates for all would be perfectly feasible. Alai 20:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
What's an "upmerged template?" We used to have an editor who methodically created our categories, it works better having existing categories when using a taxonomic basis for categorization, and doing them all at once. Of course, you've seen the realistic issue with this already, with your expression of delight at actually finding an article that lists the genera. I have a book on one of the tribes that should have a species list, that I will do. What is this about 60 articles? If we have a tribe with 43 taxa it can't be a category? Huh? KP Botany 21:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
"Upmerged" means "merged into the parent [usually category]". Circeus 21:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
60 articles is the minimum for stub categories. Our taxonomic categories can have far fewer articles in them. --Rkitko (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
But what's the point of having a mininum for stub categories? Again, if you have 43 of one tribe and 51 of another you have to merge them into the higher level so that people who actually have a monograph and could work in the genus can't find it? Thanks for posting the style guides, I hadn't thought of checking one, but I've most recently had to use MLA on everything (it drives me insane), and it doesn't have anything in it about common names or capitalization of proper nouns. KP Botany 22:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
You'd have to ask WP:WSS. I'm sure they explain it somewhere on their project page. I think the point is to not have too many stub categories that are entirely too small to be viable.
On the style guides: No problem. I prefer to follow the Chicago MOS and it does indeed have a notation about common names. MLA drives me insane as well. Never did like it one bit. --Rkitko (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, this is only the case for stub categories. (The point being that stub cats are a resource for getting articles expanded, so a stub type that's so small and out-of-the-way that no-one ever notices or visits it is (in theory, at any rate) about as bad as one that's so large that individual articles are swamped therein, so stub-(re-)sorting tries to avoid either extreme.) "Permanent" categories for each tribe (or whichever other taxons people deem appropriate) are much less constrained, if at all. "Upmerging" a template means, in this context, that you'd have a separate template for each tribe (let's say), but those that are undersized would feed into either the existing parent, or perhaps a subfamily category. Alai 22:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I get it now. The category sizes don't matter, so we can use the taxonomic ones, it's the stubs that are dealt with this way. Does anyone edit Asteraceae stubs? I created a few the other day.
Rkitko--yes, MLA makes me want to burn books. KP Botany 22:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
It's probably desirable to follow the taxons for the stub cats too, insofar as is possible, just with some "lumping" where required. Just splitting out one tribe would get the Asteraceae off the immediate WSS "work queue", but if a systematic split by every viable tribe would be useful for people working on same, I can do that, too. Pointers on resources on what's in 'em appreciated, where there's no article here, or where the articles lacks a list of sub-taxa. Alai 22:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem is the taxonomy, the family has been recently revamped, and things redone, so we'd have to agree which to use, which is why I proposed tribes over subfamilies. I will post what I can find, as I find it, for you to use, as I greatly appreciate your doing the stub categorizing. KP Botany 00:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that tribes are much more stable than subfamilies.--Curtis Clark 04:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Pol bot stubs importance ratings

I propose that we request the bot give importance ratings to at least plants with certain IUCN statuses. Any thoughts or suggestions from someone more familiar with the IUCN ratings? I mean the bot-created stubs, but it could do any plant articles with IUCN ratings, I suppose. KP Botany 19:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Common names revisited

There is a discussion about common names of faunal species on WP:MOS. The intention appears to be to change the policy to only allowing non-capitalizatin of common names. I realize that in WP:Plants we've decided that it is the article writer's choice, in particular because one of our editors is strongly in favor of capitilization. I feel strongly that this is a policy change that should be done with the input of ToL and WikiProject editors, rather than a group of strong-willed editors who don't know that bird common names are standardized within regions, while other animals aren't, and that see newspapers as the guideline for how Wikipedia should stylize science article, remember that newspapers generally don't italicize binomials anymore. See the discussion here.[1] Common names simply are not standardized in plants, and it seems to me excessive to standardize their usage on Wikipedia, but I could be wrong on this, and would like to know if other plant editors feel this issue should be revisited in plants, or whether we should bother to weigh in on this, as the editors discussing it don't seem to realize, yet, as usual, that plants are living things, also. KP Botany 01:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for opinions

Greetings. Polbot is a bot that reads information from the IUCN and creates new stubs on plant and animal species. There is currently a request for opinions here regarding the linking of biologists' names. Any comments on that page would be welcome. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

What scientific name should this be under?

Sleepy grass. Feel free to move it, if you like, otherwise I will, but I don't know what name, the species or subspecies? KP Botany 18:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Achnatherum robustum (Vasey) Barkworth, [2]--Curtis Clark 18:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow, I wasn't even in the ballpark, but I vaguely knew there was something about this that meant I shouldn't move it without an opinion. Thanks. KP Botany 19:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I know Mary Barkworth, and I know she would never forgive me if I left it as a Stipa. :-) --Curtis Clark 23:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Very cool, her grasses manual. I admit I know nothing about grasses, although I did learn to identify them, and researched and photographed some, I think it was like watering in volcanic soil. Evolutionarily I'm fascinated by them, and I love them in my garden, but I can't seem to get interested in their taxonomy for some reason. KP Botany 02:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


Herbal remedy pages and commericial links

Hello - didn't have time to recover my username and password today and wanted to put a quick note on a talk page about a commericially sold herb. Then I noticed that there have been other similar complaints, not resolved (maybe deleted instead of addressed??? i don't know enough about how this site really works to understand how complaints work here.) see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pueraria_mirifica&action=history The Pueraria_mirifica entry is cited as a reference on commerical sites, and other commericial sites are cited as external references on the Pueraria_mirifica page. Please somebody who knows more about local standards and such take a look. -G.W.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.157.148.134 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure what you're asking--can you ask a direct question that indicates what you are asking? I deleted the advertisements from this article, though. Thanks for the alert. KP Botany 16:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I saw your post on the article's talk page--good posting. I've taken care of it. Thanks for the alert. KP Botany 17:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Hum... any google search for the species or compounds appears overloaded with sellers for this "miracle breast enlargement" herb, but I did find these on miroestrol: [3], [4], [5], [6]. As for the plant itself... It might be, like numerous "pop remedies", marketed under a wrong name: [7]. Circeus 17:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's why it is safest just to delete these claims, unless tied to scientific journal. There is a BBC article on it, though, and I'll add the various unsupported claims from the new article when I get around to it. KP Botany 17:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, nice, the fda doc. KP Botany 17:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Decurrent up for deletion

The article might have been mildly dictionary-ish, but I'm pretty sure there is more relevant material that can be added. Someone has also pointed out it should probably be moved at decurrence. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decurrent. Circeus 16:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Decurrent is what is usually used, or another term, but I haven't heard decurrence used in general. Still, I'll look at the article, look at some research, and save it if it seems worthy of its own rather than a merge--it's an odd choice for a solo article, though. KP Botany 17:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Its my odd choice....I would like to add descriptions for terms used to describe morphological features of plants but do not know were to put them and how to best link those terms in articles. The linking problem is a deficiency in my "wiki" skills that could probably be easily fixed if I was pointed in the right direction.

Instead of making single pages for each term, can pages be made that cover all the terms used to describe structures such as how plant parts are attached and different types of plant hairs? I am in the process of taking pictures for these terms but ambivalent about doing the work of creating pages that will be deleted or not used.Hardyplants 21:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest merging with & redirecting to phyllotaxis; meanwhile the latter article could be expanded considerably. Oops, never mind, I'm confusing my botanical terminology (shame on me!)--I was thinking of "decussate". MrDarwin 21:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, in the meantime, Mr. Darwin, can you think of the noun term that is used for decurrent? And I don't mean decurrence, there's another word. Hardyplants, don't worry about your articles being deleted, you don't generally write the sort that are a problem. You can always created them in your sandbox and ask someone to look them over first, too. There is the leaf page which shows various examples, and it could be used as a guideline for a different sort of page. KP Botany 04:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess my point was simply that such articles and terminology, rather than being split into what approaches dictionary definitions, should be combined into broader articles. In this case "decurrent" refers to a character of a leaf and/or petiole so it may belong under one of those articles. (Since the petiole is technically part of the leaf, maybe everything relating to this should go under leaf.) MrDarwin 12:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with this approach (and decurrent would also be in the tree crown article), but it won't be easy. If no one has done it by the time I retire, I'll add it to my list.--Curtis Clark 14:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I generally think this is best. Decurrent is interesting in crown formation, though, because of questions about evolution of crown habits, and its dominance in Angiosperm trees. But, probably best as a dab and redirect to various articles. I think, though, it has some major prominence in liverwort taxonomy, but really don't know a liverwort from that green crap that gets in with my overwatered plants. KP Botany 17:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Speciesist! ;) You're thinking only of the thallose liverworts; the term decurrent is used for distinguishing genera and families of leafy liverworts. The problem with combining decurrent with articles on phyllotaxis or with any leaf-related article, is that liverworts have no vascular tissue or true leaves. So any such merge would fundamentally change the scope of the article that acquired the information. Unfortunately, there isn't any general term I'm aware of that would cover the various issues pertaining to liverwort "leaf" attachment/arrangement/morphology. I'm also not certain whether the term applies to moss "leaves" as well, but it might. (Bryologists tend to specialize in either mosses or liverworts and largely ignore the other group). About the only possible solution that comes to mind is to start a Plant Morphology book on Wikibooks, and include an illustrated glossary. --EncycloPetey 01:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Marchantiophyta

splitting off as new section

Meant to say this a while ago but the opportunity presents itself now. Excellent work you're doing on the liverwort articles. I've seen a good number pop up on the bot-generated new plant article list. Keep up the good work :-) Rkitko (talk) 02:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've also been revamping the Wikispecies listings for that group this week, and have organized at categorized all the images I can find on Commons as well. However, my biggest WP goal over the next few months is to make Marchantiophyta into the best phylum/division level article on WP (many articles for such groups are sadly of very poor quality right now). I'd like to have it as a Featured Article, if possible, which means a lot more work to add certain areas of information currently missing from the article.
I would appreciate help with getting the citations for Marchantiophyta cleaned up a bit, since I'm not clear on how to combine multiple citations from the same source the way some articles do. I spend most of my time working on Wiktionary these days. --EncycloPetey 02:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks great so far! I was about to go merge the references for you when I noticed that you use page numbers in each reference. You could do something similar to what I did at protocarnivorous plant (though I didn't use page numbers--perhaps I should go back and alter that) and split off a "Notes" sections which can simply say "Schuster (1966), pp. 243-244." and then just a list of alphabetical references below the notes. But to merge references, all you need to do is the following in the ref markup: At the first instance of the reference, write out the full reference:
<ref name="Schuster 1966">Schuster, ....</ref>
Then at the second instance of the same exact reference (disregarding differences in page numbers if you don't use those):
<ref name="Schuster 1966" />
The name field, when it matches, calls up the reference from the last ref tag that used that same name. I'll be glad to help merge the refs on that page if you decide what to do with the page numbers. I think they're important to maintain. In the meantime, I simply switched the references to {{Reflist}} with two columns to make it look a bit more tidy. Let me know where I can help! --Rkitko (talk) 04:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, nice work on all the liverwort articles, it's thrilling to go to the new plant articles lists and see all yours and click on them, and, 'yup, more liverworts. Good job. KP Botany 06:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Botanical terms

What should we do with articles such as Decurrent overall? I think as solitary articles, they may not tend to be that useful. Although this term in particular is well-used in the biological sciences, this is not the case for the majority of these terms, many of which we don't have on Wikipedia in any form. Mainly, I mean descriptive terms for plant taxonomy. I think the leaf page is useful, should we create similar pages that discuss habit terms, other terms, then link them all together in a glossary, or use a glossary as the French use? Any ideas? KP Botany 07:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The advantages of the glossary model are that it is easy to maintain, and easy to link to. The disadvantages are that it doesn't use the words in context (and a specific definition may be missing), and there's no way to deep-link to a specific word.
The advantages of the put-it-in-a-relevant-article model are that the word is used in the exact context, and if it is a section head, it can be deep-linked. The disadvantages are that editors may not be aware of the articles when they make wikilinks, and the article itself ends up having a glossary section, whether or not that would otherwise be appropriate.
I'd give a slight edge to the French glossary style.--Curtis Clark 14:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Deep-linking can be achieved with span ids: <span id="Decurrent"/> placed in front of the definition would relate to links such as Botanical glossary#Decurrent just like a subheading would. --Rkitko (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
If somebody was really ambitious, they could create a new article titled Plant morphology--which, curiously enough, currently redirects to Plant anatomy. Both articles could be expanded greatly to provide definitions and descriptions of the various terminology used in these fields. (But don't look at me, I'm too busy with other things right now and spending very little time at Wikipedia lately.) MrDarwin 13:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
A better term might be Phytography.--Curtis Clark 14:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


Decide on the name that should be used for A title and I can group together a number of terms and brief descriptions under subheadings, to start the page off. Never did like plant anatomy but have always found morphology and the descriptive terms interesting. Hardyplants 21:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I have quite a few sources that I'm using for some research I'm doing now, and I'm willing to add some defintions and notes, particularly if Hardy is kind enough to actually start and format the article. The appropriate name, though? KP Botany 21:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The name Plant morphology works as a starter page name. However, I imagine that as specific sections swell the length of the article, they may bud off as independent articles on Floral morphology, Leaf morphology, Algal morphology, and so on. Such articles can be referenced from sections saying "See main article at...". But having a general article to start with, where everything may be collected and organized, would help. I'm very familiar with Plant Morphology, and would be happy to chip in as my schedule allows. (I only decided not to take Dr. Kaplan's excellent class while I was at Berkeley because I knew everything he said in the introductory lecture, and often anticipated what he was going to say before he said it--by following his topical progression and recognizing the species in the slides he projected. I would still highly recommend his book when it comes out, I've seen draft chapters and he's an excellent instructor with clear presentation. His book may even be out already.) --EncycloPetey 22:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
My issue with Plant morphology is that the term already has a meaning, and it's not "glossary". The way I explained it when I taught an eponymous course was with this table, illustrating the differing terms used (for historical reasons) in botany and zoology:
Zoology Botany
Study of cells and tissues histology anatomy
Study of organs and organ systems anatomy morphology
Although one would be hard-pressed to find such a definition in print (or maybe I've not looked hard enough), the use of the word seems to follow this meaning. Inasmuch as I can't imagine the article Anatomy being just a glossary, I'm concerned that we are selling botany short by relegating Plant morphology to such. (A former graduate student, whose partner is an astronomer, told me that astronomers use the term "botany" to refer to the accumulation of terms and observations, as contrasted to "real science".)--Curtis Clark 23:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
In my opinions, no article on Wikipedia should simply be a listing of terms, so I share your concern. I envision an article that does more than simply list and define terms; I imagine one that will use the terms in context and show the underlying principles that relate the various terms. Different kinds of phyllotaxis, for instance are a result of cellular development patterns and the auxin gradient in young shoots. A section on phyllotaxis will explain this, in addition to defining and illustrating the relevant terms, such as "opposite", "alternate", and "whorled". --EncycloPetey 23:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense to me. The article could also provide a framework to link to specialized articles as they are created, including existing ones such as phyllotaxy and strobilus, and yet-to-be-created, such as leaf architecture.--Curtis Clark 01:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
To accompany that, how about a List of botanical terms. A table outline with a definition or quick example next to each term might work as a "glossary" and could even be promoted to featured list status. Or would that be making more work for ourselves? --Rkitko (talk) 01:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't know. Why don't we give both ideas a whorl whirl, and see how they work? --EncycloPetey 01:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Rkitko is this how it should be done with the "span id" and how are the dirrecting links generated?

  • Arachnoid - having entangled hairs that often give the appearance of being covered with cobwebs.
  • Canescent - with gray pubescent hairs.

Over time some of the different groups of terms might need to be broken off into separate pages, since there are a lot of different terms and some groups of plants have their own detailed terminology Hardyplants 21:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That's correct. Those span ids would now relate to the links Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Arachnoid and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Canescent. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Clark relates to the span id I placed at Curtis Clark's comment above for another example. It's a way to avoid having a really huge TOC with headings. Though of course the span id is to be used sparingly. They're used mainly to link easily to the types of WP:CSD justification (e.g. WP:CSD#G1). If you feel the need to link two different terms in one definition, you can use two span ids next to each other, such as in the case if people might link to two different spellings of the same term. --Rkitko (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
So I didn't quite follow the consensus if any on the title. I do agree that we should have a proper Plant morphology article at some point, so can we call this article a Phytography glossary? (Or a Whatever glossary.) Whatever other articles we create later, or wherever else we put the same terms? KP Botany 02:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
One of my thoughts on this is that a glossary might be frowned upon by the en-Wiki editors (not sure of the opinions on other language wikis). Some might want to transfer the whole thing to wiktionary when we're done -- a lot of the terms already exist there. I've even seen some editors link to wiktionary from Wikipedia for terms like filiform. My suggestion above was that a list of botanical terms might be better suited for the job. Featured lists often have definitions, examples, photos, explanations, etc. so there would be no limit to the amount of discussion, within reason, of course. If a single term deserves more discussion than we could fit on a featured list article, it deserves its own page. Anyway, just my opinion :-) I'm okay with whatever. --Rkitko (talk) 03:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I like the French list, as a first approximation; it needs more photos and diagrams, and more extensive definitions of many of the terms. I agree that making it a list would make it more acceptable to en:Wikipedia.--Curtis Clark 03:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I've never heard the term phytography before, so I think it would be a poor choice. It could be a Phytomorphology glossary or List of plant morphology terms, though. But, yes, a "glossary" is likely to have people wanting to dump it off on Wiktionary. --EncycloPetey 03:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
That's cause you're not ancient like me (and don't have a copy of Radford, Dickison, Massey, and Bell). I'm fine with List of plant morphology terms.--Curtis Clark 03:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a list is fine with parameters as described by Rkitko, and List of plant morphology terms is fine for a title. I've never heard of phytomorphology, either, but did find it in most of my older books and glossaries--not ancient, merely older. It's a useful term as it describes in one word what we mean, yet it is not, as EncyloPetey points out, not much used. KP Botany 03:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Plant morphology

I have made a start on a proper separate article for this important botanical subdiscipline. I have finished all I plan to do on that article for a while, so others are encouraged to have a go at it without worry of edit conflicts (at least from me). --EncycloPetey 03:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Do people think this is at "B" status yet? The article does need more illustrations. --EncycloPetey 03:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Front page! The plant morphology article was included on the main page as a "Did you know...?" selection for 17 August 2007. --EncycloPetey 21:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! You've made a great deal of progress quickly here. Kingdon 02:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Huge boxes on article pages

Agriculture
History
On land
Hydroculture
Related
Lists
Categories
grain Agriculture portal

What is with the huge agriculture box and the horticulture and gardening box on the weed article page? They're hideous and completely detract from the article. What is going on? How many articles are these being added to and since when? I'm trying to look at an article on a smaller screen than I usually use and the article is 100% unreadable because of these tags. KP Botany 04:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Can the boxes be made wholly or partially collapsible? More importantly, when did Botany become a sub-discipline of "Gardening"?--EncycloPetey 04:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not really a subdiscipline of agriculture, either. They can be collapsed wholly by deleting them, then discussing with others their appropriateness for articles. They're just a series of links, not all necessarily related to the article in question. Articles should link usefully, not spamfully. KP Botany 04:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks like the user that created it, Wassupwestcoast, also created the project banner by copying what they saw at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglicanism. This template box is a modified copy of {{Anglicanism}}. To be honest, I don't think WikiProject Hort and Garden needs such a template. It's useful for large WikiProjects that have core philosophies, beliefs, or or articles that deal with the broad topics within a WikiProject (another example would be {{LGBT sidebar}} for WP:LGBT). --Rkitko (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've had a go at compacting the horticulture one, as it was way, way too big. I don't see this as a final solution - I'm sympathetic to KP's suggestion that they shouldn't be there in the first place. Hesperian 04:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It is certainly odd collection of links. The link for Horticulture is listed under "Gardening" (not "Horticulture"), and Thanksgiving seems to be a major topic for "Gardening Customs", while garden isn't listed at all. --EncycloPetey 04:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Project banners go on talk pages, though, not on article pages. I posted a note on the template itself, but server is locked, we'll see. KP Botany 04:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Not locked now. I've made a few changes to the template, adding garden and arboretum, removing weed and insect as too non-specific for the subject. --EncycloPetey 04:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I re-compacted it, with an image wider than tall. Circeus 13:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wildlife of Pikmin

I have a question referring to their Binomial names. I find it interesting that Nintendo decided to give them false binomial names, but I am unsure of they follow the Binomial nomenclature correctly. For example, I know binomial nammes are supposed to be latinized, but are they latinized for correctly? Does the specific epithet describe them correctly? I'm asking because the articles Kingdom, Order, Family, Genus are within your scope, so I thought asking here would be better. THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 18:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "are they Latinized for correctly?" In Botanical Latin it is required that the specific epithet be Latinized and agree with the noun. The specific epithet is not required to be descriptive of the plant. Sometimes they are descriptive of the plant, other times they are an honorofic, or a geographical.
Hope this helps. KP Botany 18:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Example conerning if its Latinized correctly? (made typo. I didnt correct cause I was vry busy with another article): Wollywog (Amphicaris albino) you say latin is required for the epithet, bit albino isn't latin. Did you look at the article? Even looking at a few of the binomial names would understand my concern.. THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 04:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're asking this quesiton on the Project Plants page; this is a question of Latin grammar. The root caris is feminine, so Amphicaris abida or Amphicaris alba would be grammatically correct. I'll only say that much; you really want to find someone familiar with Latin grammar rather than a botanist, since none of these are plants, or even real. --EncycloPetey 04:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The answer to your question is generally, no - the specific epithet does not describe the majority of them "correctly". Many of the specific epithets are wordplays such as napalmens, explodus, doofenia, electrodea, and circusmaximus which remind me of similar wordplays used in Wile E. Coyote and Road Runner cartoons. For some of the others (but note that my knowledge of Latin and Pikmins are limited) I would say albino should be alba, folliculus should be hirsuta and spotticum should be maculata. You can have a look at List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names to see some of the most commonly used epithets. --Melburnian 05:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Stachys lanata

Could someone check the name on this plant? Thanks. KP Botany 18:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

S. lanata is an old name for a form of Stachys byzantina, the name is still used in some horticulture areas but is being replaced slowly with the correct name.Hardyplants 19:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Hardy, is the issue settled enough that S. lanata should only be a note in the S. byzantina article? Do you have a solid reference for this, and can you deal with the matter? I know that horticulturists retain old names, but I don't know that we should on Wikipedia. KP Botany 19:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Likewise, these need some help identifying: Gugulu, Kaulim, and Uyot. --Rkitko (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll look these up. KP Botany 19:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The Gugulu I moved and made a redirect to its scientific name, an article that already existed. I can't find anything about the Kaulim, and because it's an Indian name maybe transliteraterated the article is useless without a scientific name. I think it should be deleted, unless someone although someone might see if they can find a similar sounding scientific name in the Flora of Pakistan, one of the on-line e-floras. I still think it should be deleted. Uyot seeds are used to make rattles in parts of West Africa, but I don't know what the plant is. Can someone search this to find out? Thanks for posting Rkitko. KP Botany 20:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, KP Botany! I'd agree on deletion. I did another search and couldn't find anything. Not sure on Uyot. I can't identify either with google searches. We may have to delete both--we've done this in the past with unidentifiable plant articles where we couldn't find out which species the common name relates to. --Rkitko (talk) 22:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't be the first time. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homaid. If they are extant, then we can always ask the recreator for sources. Circeus 23:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Coleus

Anyone know what the current status of this is? A lot of confusion on the article page with taxonomy. --Rkitko (talk) 19:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Garden Coleus are the result of complex hybrids, do not know if its a legitimate genus though. Looks like I should have gotten a copy of Hortus after all. Hardyplants 19:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I know some species are now in Plectranthus, but I don't know whether the genus name Coleus has any species left, or how many. My (old edition) of Mabberley indicates Coleus is now subsumed into Solenostemon. The genus Coleus no longer exists, but the common name "Coleus" is still used for species of Solenostemon and Plectranthus. --EncycloPetey 04:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that info! IPNI proves to be useless here. A search for Coleus species turns up plenty of results but the individual species entries don't mention "=Solenostemon...". Know of any other source so that we can update the sentences that are still using the genus abbreviation "C."? I'll check around on JSTOR to see if I can find anything. --Rkitko (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I used to use the Gray Index, but Harvard has merged that into the INPI. The Index Kewensis is only available online that way as well. There is the Index Nominum Genericorum through the Smithsonian, but it doesn't seem to cover published synonyms and draws heavily from INPI. I can't think of another resource to try, unless one of the major herbaria offers something I don't know about. You might look at the following and see what they have; I've only pulled some possible links without investigating them fully:
Oddly the Musee d'Histoire Naturelle homepage no longer seems to exist, although I've little faith that they have on-line resources. (As of the mid-1990s, you still couldn't reach their herbarium by phone or fax, let alone by e-mail. If you wanted to look at specimens, you had to know someone.) --EncycloPetey 17:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
IPNI provides primarily a list of names along with when and where they were published, but with a minimum of taxonomic information and numerous errors; more recent entries have more information on typification, synonymy, etc. but the older records are a mess. Although far from complete, the Missouri Botanical Garden's Tropicos is probably the best source of information on currently accepted names, synonymy, homonymy, etc., and is especially useful because it cites references that can be checked for further information. MrDarwin 18:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Plus IPNI only lists nomenclatural synonyms (names based on the same type), never taxonomic synonyms.--Curtis Clark 01:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Template:Botany

How do people feel about this template appearing at the bottom of the listed pages?

I based the list of articles on those current listed as Top priority, with some editing. --EncycloPetey 06:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. I would put Botanical nomenclature as the bottom heading and move Botanical name into the listing to the right of it. --Melburnian 07:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I like it, too. Go for it :-) Rkitko (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
OK; it's on all listed pages now, and I added cell wall as well. --EncycloPetey 23:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

A few project notices

  1. Discussion has stalled on the additions to the naming convention at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora). Everything else seems to be OK with all editors, but questions have come up on the proper naming of hybrids and cultivars. I'd like to get some more input from everyone.
  2. It's been a while since BotanyBot has crawled through the categories to find new plant articles that don't have the {{WikiProject Plants}} banner on their talk pages. A few editors have been monitoring the bot-generated new article list but the bot went on vacation a while back and missed some articles. I just ran a difference count between the plant categories and the assessment categories (basically all plant-related articles vs. ones with plants-project tags on them) and found around 1200 articles! I could have BotanyBot tag them, but I found quite a few articles from the early Polbot contributions that need to be cleaned up (e.g. lightgreen taxobox instead of pink, italics, bolding, categories), so I've been going through them by hand. Feel free to join me! User:BotanyBot/sandbox2 - beware, some of those articles may not be within the scope of WP:PLANTS and shouldn't be tagged, but they show up on the list because they were in subcats of subcats of Category:Plants.
  3. I created a new template for when you notice new users joining our participant list (you can watchlist it if you're one of those Wikipedian's that likes to welcome people to the project). Just add {{subst:WPPlants Welcome}} to the new participant's talk page.
  4. Don't forget about our plant articles that need taxoboxes, need images, or need attention for some reason or another. Thanks! Rkitko (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Phlox alyssifolia has been marked as "needs immediate attention", and has been since April, when it was added to the project. Likewise for Fagara coco and probably others (I didn't try to look at them all). Do we just look at these, and get rid of the "needs immediate attention" flag unless there is something really obvious like signs of a copyvio, unreverted vandalism, etc? What is that flag for, anyway? Kingdon 21:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
When I assessed the Phlox article as needing attention, it lacked a taxobox and needed some other help. "attention=yes" should have been removed by now, yes. And honestly, I can't remember why I tagged the Fagara coco article as needing attention. Perhaps possible copyvio? By all means, remove the parameter when you find nothing wrong with the article. I've removed a couple from the needs-taxobox category because they had taxoboxes added a while ago but weren't untagged. Generally, I use it as a catch-all, but we can certainly modify it. We could add parameters for other instances. "copyvio-check=yes", "vandalism=yes" for articles that get persistent vandalism? --Rkitko (talk) 22:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've started going through the "needs attention" ones. Nothing too interesting yet except aneda, which was easy once I figured out the more common spelling is annedda. Kingdon 23:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Top priority stubs

moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Collaboration

Polbot

Greetings, botany-folks! I run a bot called Polbot, and she creates new stub articles based on information from the IUCN redlist. She's done all the animals, and I'm getting her ready to do the plants. I have a few questions for you folks, though, before I start. I'm trying to find a way to automatically assign an appropriate stub type, based on the species' taxonomic information. But it's harder than I thought it would be. The plant stub-types are all listed at Category:Plant stubs. The first one I looked at is {{asterid-stub}}, and the asterids article says asterids all belong to the same unranked clade. The IUCN data only lists Kingdom, Division (which it calls Phylum), Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species. Nothing else. Okay, I thought, I'll just make a list of all the ranked taxa that are asterids. Not easy. The asterids article lists ten orders and twelve or thirteen separate families -- but many of these aren't listed in the IUCN. (Wikipedia articles don't always use the same taxonomy as the IUCN.) So the Wikipedia article says the Oncothecaceae family is an asterid, but the IUCN doesn't return any hits when you search on "Oncothecaceae". Is that because the IUCN doesn't list any species in that family, or because the IUCN calls it something different, or because the IUCN considers "Oncothecaceae" to be a superfamily or subfamily or whatever. It's very difficult for a non-botanist like me to figure out. So would any of you fine people be willing to help me? For each plant stub-type, what IUCN classes/orders/families should I give that type of stub to? Thanks for any help, – Quadell (talk) (random) 22:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The IUCN will not be up-to-date for plant nomenclature. There have been many recent innovations in the way plant taxa are arranged and that plants are classified. I have personally been adding Bryophyte high-level taxa, and have had to make many adjustments. I have been coordinating this effort with Wikispecies. I know that the mosses and most liverworts now match classification structure for both WS and en-WP. The pteridophytes also mostly match (except the Lycopodiophyta) between projects. I have not spent any serious time with seed plants to know their status, but do know that WP uses ANPG II as the basis for its angiosperm taxonomy. If you have a list of genera for bryophytes or pteridophytes, I can point you to a family (and higher) classification. I think those groups have all pages in down to the orders, and links to nearly all the moss and pteridophyte families. Only the liverworts are lacking many family links among those groups. --EncycloPetey 22:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
In general, it is a pretty difficult problem, as plants are getting reclassified a lot these days. Some of the common cases should be easier, though. For example Template:grass-stub, Template:orchid-stub, Template:palm-stub and Template:monocot-stub should correspond to Poaceae, Orchidaceae, Arecaceae and the rest of monocot. The only plants or families which have been moved into or out of the monocots are Hydatellaceae, a small family, and I don't think those three families have had plants moved in or out of them. Anything tagged as Asteraceae should be Template:asteraceae-stub (no reclassifications in or out of this family, as far as I know). Template:legume-stub shouldn't be too bad as long as you can figure out whether IUCN is using Fabaceae sensu lata or sensu stricta. There, I just listed some of the biggest plant families (should be at least half the plant species if you handle the cases above). Maybe the stub sorting people can advise about how much work you should spend on this, or when you should just tag them as Template:plant-stub and let someone worry about it later. Kingdon 02:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Giving the stub-sorters the same problem: gee, thanks. :) Actually, the likes of the asterids are already on the verge of needing to be split into more specific stub types on size grounds. I'd suggest prioritising those species which can be mapped between the IUCN's taxons and "Wikipedia's" (WP's de facto practice, that is). If the WP article for a taxon marks it as deprecated, then as Kingdon says, one has to do a finer-grained analysis at a lower taxon. If WP completely lacks an article on a higher taxon, then I think we're rather in trouble until that's rectified. Having numerous articles on species of particular order or family seem of dubious value without that article to put it context (especially since the bot-created articles are themselves going to be rather lacking in specifics), and will be a real nightmare to stub-sort. For example, I recently had to create some really crappy family-level articles, just to avoid a stub type required to contain numerous stubs of said families themselves having redlinks in the template and category... Hopefully knowledgeable editors can be found for these, and the process "rolled out" in a somewhat top-down fashion. Alai 01:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Alai, I was actually going to suggest splitting apart the asterid, rosid, and perhaps monocot stubs by order, but was waiting for Polbot to complete its run. We might also want to think about completing the upper-level APGII set of stub types. Particularly important will be some kind of magnoliid as there are quite a few Laurales and Piperales being created, but they warrant their own stub categories, in my opinion. I'm also in the process of getting BotanyBot approved for stub sorting, so your bot will have some help :-) Rkitko (talk) 01:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Splitting those sooner rather than later makes a lot of sense to me. Even if they don't meet the size threshold at present, we can "upmerge" the templates, in anticipation of future need (possibly not so very "future", given this discussion). If Quadell were to give us some indication of likely size of "run" on a per taxon basis, we'd have further grist to the mill. Alai 02:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I've looked at the monocots; the only new stub that looks worthwhile to split off presently would be one for the Araceae. There are about 500 monocot stubs and about a third of those are Anthurium. Note that creating new stubs according to ANPG order names won't be helpful, since Polbot isn't using that system of orders. --EncycloPetey 03:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
At the order level, it looms like Asparagales, Alismatales and Liliales would all make viable stub types. Alai 04:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
...yes, but the latter two are very likely to be misinterpreted over and over by contributors. In any case, IUCN doesn't know about Asparagales and so doesn't use it, and Polbot doesn't put the Araceae in Alismatales. It wouldn't use the stubs correctly. (Or we could get the bot to use the stubs correctly, then the stub order would be a mismatch with the order in the Taxobox). --EncycloPetey 04:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Could you elaborate on the first point? I may be a little tired and punchy at this stage... On Araceae, if that's now a settled reclassification, can't we just bot over both the stub type and the "ordo" field at the same time? Or is there more to it than that? Alai 04:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Because the circumscription of those taxa has been significantly reduced (for Liliales) and significantly expanded (for Alismatales) under ANPG II, contributors adding stub templates by hand will likely not know how to correctly label new articles. Of course, the Asparagales doesn't have this problem because it's relatively novel. Where do get a high count for Liliales? There aren't many families or genera left in that order any more.
While I suppose we could bot the Araceae, that one family is huge and will likely swamp out all other inclusions in the category, I think going straight to family level for a new stub (as we've already done e.g. for grasses, orchids, and palms) would be a better approach for that group. The remainder of the Alismatales should fit comfortably in the monocot-stubs. --EncycloPetey 05:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if we should go straight to family level. It's certainly less controversial and easier. Have any ideas on the other proposed order stubs? I got all the potential stub counts at WP:WSS/P from the category structure, which seems to follow the APG II changes. --Rkitko (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I guess wht I'm really asking is whether the count was donr before or after I fixed the order names on the Polbot articles. --EncycloPetey 16:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I did the counts by category intersection. For example, an intersection of Category:plant stubs + Category:monocot stubs with Category:Liliales and its subcats yielded an approximate count of all (listed) stubs within the Liliales order. That assumes the categories are correct, which for the most part they are. Polbot is placing the new articles in genus and family categories. Most family categories already existed. --Rkitko (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
But the families are going to be incorrect in some cases, since Polbot is not using current nomenclature. Remember that at one time the Liliales included most monocots that weren't arums, palms, orchids, or grasses. Most of those are now in the Asparagales. If you could generate a list, I could sight-check it very quickly as I have a familiarity with monocot genera (and up). --EncycloPetey 22:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Polbot should not add bryophyte articles. Of the added bryophyte articles I've seen, the taxobox classifications are incorrect, the categories are incorrect, and the stub type is incorrect. Could someone provide a list of Polbot additions so that I can fix them? --EncycloPetey 02:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The taxonomy on the IUCN often uses a less popular (and sometimes no longer accepted) circumscription. IUCN uses Leguminosae and Scrophulariales, apparently. Polbot's additions should appear on the bot-generated new article list and on the assessment log in the next few days. --Rkitko (talk) 02:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't excuse its creation of whole new genus-based categories for single bryophyte articles or using the incorrect stub type. At least Leguminosae and Scrophulariales were in use when I was in college; the bryophyte classification they're using went out of fashion around the time I was born. --EncycloPetey 02:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The genus-based categories were my suggestion. I'm not sure if Polbot could count how many articles it was going to be creating and then decide to create or not create a genus category based on the number. I made the suggestion because the family-level categories were getting overstuffed with new articles and some sort of organization seemed prudent. I didn't realize the IUCN was so out of date on bryophyte taxonomy. Oh, I meant to ask you, also, if everything looked OK with the new {{Bryophyte-stub}} and Category:Bryophyte stubs that just passed WP:WSS/P. Feel free to change the photo in the template if you know of a better one. I just grabbed one that I thought looked OK at a small scale. --Rkitko (talk) 02:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for the new stub type. There are already 85 articles there. The problem with taxon-based categories is that they tend to go all the way to the top and mimic classification. Wikispecies already does this. One problem with this is that you have to already know the classification in order to find the article using categories. It also means that lots of useless one-item categories are created. Since Lunularia cruciata is the only species in that genus, there is no sense in having a Category:Lunularia; and since that the family Lunulariaceae has only the one genus, it is silly to have a Ctageory:Lunulariaceae. For some genera and families, such a structure could be useful (either now or eventually), but for bryophytes no such categories would be currently useful. There are fewer than 200 existing bryophyte articles, and most of the species articles are for separate genera. Offhand I can't think of any two bryophyte species articles that are for the same genus. The current bryophyte categories are only for the division level. --EncycloPetey 03:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I also note that the genus categories are very frequently have redlinked parents. I think that goes to the same general point of, would be much better if this worked in a more top-down manner, seeking to correlate with existing content to a much greater extent. Alai 02:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Rkitko: if it can create 'em, it can count 'em. I gather this isn't precisely the way it's working at the moment, given the repeated edits to the genus articles, but it seems straightforward in principle. (Easy to say when someone else gets to do the coding, of course...) The new stub type looks fine. I must admit I just tend to grab an image from the corresponding article, unless it's a very "non-landscape" shape, or has very bad contrast... and even then, if I can't find anything else within a few clicks... Alai 04:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, Polbot is putting all the flowering plants into "Phylum Tracheophyta". Looks like all the taxoboxes will have to be corrected after the entries are created. --EncycloPetey 23:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

That's because the IUCN puts them all into phylum Tracheophyta. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Then IUCN is clueless about plants. The ICBN advocates the use of divisions (divisio) for the botanical rank between kingdom and class. Botanists do not use phyla. The "phylum" Tracheophyta went out of vogue in the 1960s. (and that page is a redirect here). It also doesn't explain why thy don't include ferns as vascular plants! The fern articles were created with "phylum Polypodiophyta". --EncycloPetey 00:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
According to Art. 3.1:
The principal ranks of taxa in descending sequence are: kingdom (regnum), division or phylum (divisio, phylum), class (classis), order (ordo), family (familia), genus (genus), and species (species). Thus, each species is assignable to a genus, each genus to a family, etc.
Unless the new Code has changed, division and phylum are treated as equivalent ranks and the ICBN does not advocate the use of one over the other. Botanists have traditionally used division rather than phylum, although I've seen "phylum" used in some recent classifications. I don't know if that indicates any trend towards recognizing plant phyla or not. The real problem is that there is still little consensus on what taxonomic rank (or name) to assign to various groups like "ferns" or "flowering plants". MrDarwin 17:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
But if you're going to recognize "vascular plants" (Tracheophyta) as a group, you would presumably put all the vascular plants into that group, not just some of them as IUCN does. In any case, I have never seen phylum used in a published classification or textbook for botany. --EncycloPetey 22:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through the Polbot additions so far and corrected the Taxoboxes for all non-dicots. I don't know the ANPG dicot classification well enough to work through them with any speed, whereas I learned my monocot higher classification through Dahlgren so I can handle those easily. The only ones I did that I'm not completely sure about are some of the "Blechnales" ferns. The WP classification of ferns hasn't been fully revised to match the Smith et al. classification, and I don't have a copy of that paper (yet). Otherwise, I've cleaned up all the bryophytes, ferns, cycads, a conifer, and the monocots that Polbot added as so far listed on the bot-generated list of new plant articles. --EncycloPetey 04:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's excellent; thanks for doing all that work! --Rkitko (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Common names and taxoboxes

User:Kotare (contributions) has been modifying the taxoboxes in numerous plant article to change the botanical name to the common name, even when the article's title is the botanical name of the plant, with the edit note "changed name in taxobox as per guidelines on taxobox page". For example, see Avicennia marina, Schefflera digitata, Phyllocladus trichomanoides, etc. I don't generally edit taxoboxes but this does seem to follow the guidelines at Wikipedia:Taxobox usage which state that, for plant articles, "The name should be the most common name when one is in widespread use, and a scientific name otherwise." Unfortunately this strikes me as something that's going to re-open the common name can of worms, as editors argue over what is the most common, appropriate, or "correct" common name. MrDarwin 17:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously that section needs to be changed to 'The name should be the same as the name of the article, except in those cases where the article name is altered from the name of the organism (e.g., by substitution of "x" for the hybrid sign "×"); in those cases the name should be unaltered.'--Curtis Clark 17:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, it does say "The name should be the most common name when one is in widespread use...". I take that to mean that is there is not a common name in widespread use, the "common" name should not be used. --EncycloPetey 19:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
My concern is that it requires an additional level of analysis by the editor, it contradicts Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora), it allows for contradiction of the article (a common name could be inserted that was not otherwise mentioned), and I can see no rationale for having the taxobox and article name disagree.--Curtis Clark 19:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Same for me. I think we agree and are saying the same thing with different emphasis. --EncycloPetey 20:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I've started discussion of the change here.--Curtis Clark 21:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I think MrDarwin's concern is over a re-igniting of the very nasty edit wars we had about a year ago (and a similar one nearly a year before that iirc). Keep in mind also that the consensus to name articles using scientific names is also a relatively new thing as well (in fact, when I first started editing one might have been scolded for using either common or scientific names for stub articles). Common names can differ radically from region to region (like bittersweet and bittersweet), be seen as offensive or misleading by different readers and editors (like nigger daisy or eastern red cedar), or in some cases the "common names" one finds in the reference materials are far less commonly used than the scientific names (like plantain lily). The taxobox usage policy as it stands is likely just a relic from before the adoption of the flora naming conventions... probably good to change it for plants (though I think the animal people might want to keep the common name usage in the taxobox). --SB_Johnny | PA! 21:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not that old. Just 2 months ago MPF ignited it again. Circeus 21:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm interesting, yeah I can see that it is a bit of a difficult issue. Firstly, Please be aware that it wasn't my intention to cause problems and I'm keen to discuss these issues. You may have realized this but I was basically going through the "trees of New Zealand" category and changing the names of the taxoboxes where I thought appropriate. I consciously tried to avoid replacing the scientific name with a common name in trees which also grew in other parts of the world and which thus have several common names ( ie: Dodonaea viscosa) as it's very difficult to judge which is the most widely used name in these cases. Most of the changes are pretty valid in my opinion however, Tanekaha (Phyllocladus trichomanoides), Miro (Prumnopitys ferruginea) Karaka (Karaka (tree) among others are examples of trees where here in New Zealand there is only one common name which is widely used. To be honest, I think there is a case for renaming alot of these articles with common names which are widely used..Kotare 00:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Some might be valid, but at least one of them probably is not. Phyllocladus trichomanoides has multiple common names. The only one that I've ever heard or seen is "Celery pine", but more often I see it referred to as Phyllocladus trichomanoides. It is widely grown in botanical gardens outside of New Zealand, and we don't always choose the local common name for an article. Consider that the local common name for Metasequoia would be in Chinese. --EncycloPetey 01:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
That would open a can of worms that many editors hoped was safely closed with the latest changes to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora). But I'm sure you'll agree that it's better to address that directly than to use the taxobox name as a "back door".--Curtis Clark 00:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Although I'm a proponent for using botanical names for the article title, I do tend to think that using a well-accepted common name (where it exists) at the top of the taxobox has advantages:
  • Provides assurance for those searching by common names that they have arrived on the correct page e.g. Tree of Heaven
  • It is the general practice across all Wikipedia taxoboxes (provides familiarity for users)
  • Avoids the redundancy of having the botanic name twice in the taxobox.--Melburnian 02:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
If "well-accepted common name" weren't so problematic for so many species, I'd agree. But, to take a page from MPF's arguments, a taxobox labeled "Scotch broom" would be puzzling to most people in Britain (and perhaps offensive to some), whereas a California reader might be puzzled by "Common Broom", the official UK name.--Curtis Clark 03:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the common name (where it exists, is widespread, yadda yadda yadda) deserves a place in the taxobox, and I prefer to avoid the redundancy of having the scientific name listed not once not twice but thrice for species (name, species, binomial). The inevitable conclusion is that the name parameter should be used for the common name where possible. This is what I ahve been doing, but with some misgiving as I believe it gives it way too much prominence. Hesperian 04:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
This makes sense to make (where there really is a suitable common name, which as has been pointed out many times is only the case for a small percentage of species, although many of them are the best-known). "Too much prominence" kind of depends on whether it is really a well-known name (like "Oaks" on Quercus), or a semi-well-known name. Of course if it just one of those silly or little-used common names (like plantain lily) we need not put it in the taxobox at all. As for the New Zealand trees, I don't know enough about them to say, but if those common names are reasonably widely used, I'd say they should be the name in the taxobox. Kingdon 12:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
  1. My general impression is that other infoboxes repeat the article name. AFAICT the biggest resistance to the taxobox doing so is that the scientific name will be repeated in the taxobox. But for species without common names, this will always be true.
  2. I'm concerned that using a common name will re-open Common Name Wars, as in the broom example above. Perhaps the main reason that the broom article is at Cytisus scoparius is the (not unexpected) failure of the editors to agree on a common name. An article can hold a multitude of common names, a taxobox only one.--Curtis Clark 13:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Guys, let's not play "dogpile on the rabbit"... most common names will sooner or later prove controversial when given prominence, and while our friend MPF is rather notorious for this, he's certainly not the only one tangoing. Besides, wp isn't paper, there's plenty of room in the articles themselves to list and discuss common names. It took a very long time to reach consensus on the naming conventions for plant articles, but hopefully it can be a relatively easy discussion to just make the taxoboxes fit the article names. --SB_Johnny | PA! 16:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not bagging on MPF at all; I agree with his concerns, and only disagree with his solutions.--Curtis Clark 21:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Numerous copyvio pages

Started by User:Vasant Salian contribs, copied and pasted in from a wide variety of webpages (sometimes two or more used on a single page). I've deleted several already, restarted some (e.g. Swietenia mahagoni, Hibiscus schizopetalus), where there had been subsequent gfdl material added, but not bothered with others which were almost pure copyvio. Plenty more to do! I've left the contributor a note. - MPF 11:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Got all the obvious copyvios removed now - MPF 14:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
There's Dodecatheon pulchellum. Someone reworded a bit of it, but there's plenty of long phrases that would make some copyvio hunters nervous. --Rkitko (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, MPF. Hopefully we can straighten this contributor out, as he has also made constructive edits. Kingdon 16:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I tried several phrases from Dodecatheon pulchellum (as of the relevant historical version) and couldn't pin anything down, so I'm regarding that one as legitimate (as you say, some of his contribs are good!). - MPF 17:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course Dodecatheon has just been synonymized under Primula and all its species transferred to the latter genus by Mast & Reveal... MrDarwin 13:28, 27 August 2007

(UTC)

Its an attractive monograph http://128.8.90.214/emeritus/reveal/pbio/fna/dodecatheon.html, but I hate to lose Dodecatheon into Primula, its such a nice distinct looking group of plants. Hardyplants 14:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, hadn't seen that. Reveal's online monograph includes the Mast & Reveal combinations in Primula, which were made earlier this year, in synonymy under the names in Dodecatheon. So does Reveal accept the union of the two genera or not? One reason why we should treat unpublished material we find on the web with caution... MrDarwin 15:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
(exdenting) I've added a note about the synonymization in Dodecatheon. I'm all in favor of caution; I don't think we should move articles around and that sort of thing unless/until this move seems to be catching on. Kingdon 18:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Brownea coccinea

User:Stormbay has queried the identity of the photos added at Brownea coccinea. I'm not familiar enough with the genus to confirm the pics or not - can others give them a look over, please? - thanks, MPF 21:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

List of vegetable oils

I have proposed the demotion of List of vegetable oils as I feel it is a bad example to those looking to improve lists on Wikipedia. Plainly put it is badly formatted and inconsistent. See my reasoning at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of vegetable oils. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 06:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Move help

Is there someone here who can move Geothallus tuberosus to Geothallus (and leave behind a redirect)? It is a monotypic genus, and policy is to put such pages under the name of the genus. Currently the redirect works the wrong way around, and I can't make the move becuase Polbot created the Geothallus article. --EncycloPetey 19:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Done --Melburnian 00:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! --EncycloPetey 00:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Vitis vinifera and other vines

I know Vitis vinifera is only a High for you guys (despite being one of the most economically important of all Plants?), but the Wine Project are trying to do something about our 6 remaining Tops left at Start, of which Vv is one. The main weakness of that article is on the botany, which leaves us drinkers at a bit of a disadvantage. ;-/ I don't suppose one (or more) of you guys fancy doing enough to the botany to get it up to a B?

Whilst I'm here, the articles on the American vines are also pretty stubby, if anyone fancies a go :

TIA - I'll try and make some contributions to some plants articles in return. FlagSteward 20:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look to see if I can do something for Vitis vinifera, but I may not have much to offer with the resources I have at hand. Understand that where our rating is concerned, an article on a single species is not of critical importance to understanding the whole of plant biology...except possibly Arabidopsis thaliana, which is a laboratory model organism. The most vitally important economic plant species would rate "High" at best. A rating of "Top" is for more generally applicable articles underpinning the whole field of Botany, such as photosynthesis, cell wall, and flowering plant. --EncycloPetey 21:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Some information and snippet facts from V. H. Heywood. 1993. Flowering Plants of the World pages 188-189 (Oxford University Press) ISBN 0-19-521037-9.
  • Vitis vinifera originates from the Orient and northwest India, which means it is not originally native to Europe. (contrary to what the article currently says)
  • "More than 25 million tonnes of wine are made annually"
  • Viticulture is a scientific study.
  • Dried fruits from this species include raisins, sultanas (seedless variety), and currants (Corinthian variety)
  • Because of the vulnerability of this species to attack from the insect Phylloxera, most European vines are now grafted onto rootstocks of American species, which are resistant.
None of this information is in the current article. Further research in Mabberly adds that Phylloxera is the root louse, and was a major pest in 1867, after which time American species of Vitis, especially V. labrusca, were crossed with French species to produce new resistant strains.
You might look at the article on Grape critically; much of the information there supposedly pertains to the genus Vitis, but actually applies only to the species Vitis vinifera. --EncycloPetey 21:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Yep - Grape was a bit of a shocker, wasn't it? I've done a very crude shuffle of a load of Grape stuff into Vitis (genus) to try and push them in different directions but you're right, really those two plus Vitis vinifera (and arguably the other species articles) need to be worked on as a whole. Don't forget that wine (and hence grapes) is produced commercially from at least 5 different species, so a lot of the grape stuff you were objecting to is more a Vitis thing than a Vv thing. My feeling is to shove a lot of the 'uses' stuff like a summary of raisins into Grape rather than Vv and use Vv to emphasise the plant more - we've got quite good articles on things like the History of wine already, there's the potential for a lot of overlap apart from the botany.
While on the subject of Vitis (genus) - we need an admin to move it to Vitis. I've done a taxobox for it modelled on one of the other genera in the family, and then shoved the species list from grape into it. Looking at that list more closely I see that it includes some of the hybrids like labruscana which have linked articles but probably belong in the body of the article rather than the taxobox? And presumably there are more species to list, if someone wants to add them, although I notice that some taxoboxes don't list all the species in a genus. Would someone mind adjusting it to the house style? FlagSteward 20:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll do the move tomorrow if no-one else beats me to it. The currect disambig page at Vitis only has a fairly insignificant Austrian town as the competitor for the name so I'll kick it across to Vitis (disambiguation) - MPF 01:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Ta. I'm not sure of the etiquette, but can't you just nuke the disambig and rely on the For.... tags that are now at the top of both articles? FlagSteward 05:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Done. I think I've got everything sorted, say here if I've missed anything - MPF 11:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I had tried to make the same move previously--see Talk:Vitis (genus)--but was blocked apparently due to "Vitis" previously being an article about the Austrian town (which I had moved to Vitis (town)) and don't have admin privileges. Could you please also move the talk page associated with the article Vitis (genus), which got left behind in the move? MrDarwin 13:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Done --Melburnian 13:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Monophyly and paraphyly in Sapindaceae

I'm reading Gurcharan Singh's Plant Systematics: An Integrated Approach (2004), and there's one bit stumps me on page 440 because it sounds pretty contradictory:

Sapindaceae is often narrowly circumscribed to exclude Hippocastanaceae and Aceraceae, but their separation leads to paraphyletic Sapindaceae.

This contradicts what is currently said in all three articles, which imply that Hippocastanaceae and Aceraceae can be kept separate without removing monophyly. Right after, this puzzling addition:

Xanthoceras [...] is sister to [the] rest of Sapindaceae, and the genera included in Hippocastanaceae and Aceraceae are monophyletic sister taxa.

So, if I read this correctly, Xanthoceras is sister taxon to the combined "rest of Sapindaceae," Hippocastanaceae and Aceraceae, right?

The first bit is sourced to Judd et al (1994), "Angiosperm Family pairs: Preliminary Cladistic Analyses." Harvard Pap. Bot. 5. The other is from Savolainen et al (2000), "Phylogenetics of flowering plants based on combined analysis of plastid atpB and rbcL sequences." Syst. Bot. Both are APGII papers, I think. I can't look up any of them or the Hutchinson paper for the time being. (I still need to learn my new college's online access system, if any.) Circeus 20:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well....it depends on the level the comparison is made if all the info above is right then Sapindaceae is sister if it encompasses Hippocastanaceae and Aceraceae, But I am always happy to throw Cladists out the door so they land on their ears. Hardyplants 21:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course, it might just be that the conclusions of these two sources (Singh and Hutchinson) are contradictory, but I'd like to know which way to swing these articles. Circeus 21:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I've mostly reorganized Sapindaceae. A review would be appreciated. Circeus 22:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Re "This contradicts what is currently said in all three articles, which imply that Hippocastanaceae and Aceraceae can be kept separate without removing monophyly" - if I remember rightly, it used not to say this, but a certain editor (now banned) changed it to say that - MPF 01:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep [8], [9] - MPF 01:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
  • sigh* Well, I don't have the resources at hand right now to fix this. Anybody willing to dig a paper or two? Circeus 01:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The most recent source I have on had that deals with this issue is Zomlefer's Guide to Flowering Plant Families. The "preliminary" study referenced there (Judd, Sanders, Donoghue, 1994) based on molecular evidence puts the Aceraceae as deeply nested within the Sapindaceae, so that merger looks like a good one. The Hippocastanaceae situation isn't as clear from the information I have. --EncycloPetey 02:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with merger these. Eichler, Endlicher, Bessey, Hallier (only Aceraceae), J. Hutchinson (only Aceraceae), Melchior, Wettstein, Engler (F. Pax), Goldberg, Cronquist (1988), Takhtajan (1997), Dahlgren, Reveal, Watson, L. & Dallwitz, M. J. (Delta Website), recognized this families as separated, and the main researcher in this area, Radlkofer in his monographic work Das Pflanzenreich kept them separated as well. After P. F. Stevens (APG Website): "There is no reason other than convention or convenience why any group should not be segregated into several smaller monophyletic groups, or merged to produce a larger unit; we can talk about one large thing, or about several smaller things." Heywood et al. 2007 say: "The only question over the delimitation of the family [Sapindaceae] is wether the Aceraceae and Hippocastanaceae should be included or not." Berton 12:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I also oppose any merger of these articles, although possibly for very different reasons--Aceraceae and Hippocastaneaceae are historical entities, even if there is eventually a consensus that they are should be absorbed by Sapindaceae. It's not Wikipedia's place to enforce or recommend one circumscription over the other, only to report on the various circumscriptions and the reasons behind them (and tradition has not served us well in plant classification). The Aceraceae and Hippocastaneaceae articles should certainly address the paraphyly of Sapindaceae with respect to these families, and the inclusion of these families in a more broadly defined Sapindaceae in some newer classifications, and likewise the Sapindaceae article should explicitly address the s.s. and s.l. circumscriptions and the reasons for them. MrDarwin 13:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The historical tendency of Taxonomy is to split taxa in units more and more smaller, when advancing the knowledge about them. APG based on "cladogenetic analysis" and in holophyletic concept changed this, lumping all, of anti-taxonomic way. Berton 14:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
If there is any historical tendency in plant classification, it's one of several alternating periods of splitting and lumping. We seem to be entering a splitting period, and I have no problem with that as I tend to be a splitter myself. But while the APG system engaged in some lumping, it has supported the splitting of numerous well-known "traditional" families such as Liliaceae, Amaryllidaceae, and Scrophulariaceae (even as it supported the monophyly of numerous smaller, better-defined families). I suspect that in the long run the APG system is going to hold up better than many because it is explicitly based on phylogenetic relationships, rather than simplistic morphological definitions of families. The problem is that we are in the middle of a major upheaval in plant classification, and it's hard to predict what consensus will emerge after the dust has settled--probably not for another 5-10 years. In the meantime it's going to be extremely difficult to write family-level articles for Wikipedia, and problems with defining and circumscribing families are going to continue to arise. As I've said before, the research and opinions of the specialists in the various plant groups (rather than the formulators of overarching classification systems) should be given the greatest weight in writing about any particular group. MrDarwin 15:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
But I think that in the long run who will prevail is that one to present the most practical system, in other words, in last analysis, with morphological synapomorphies.Berton 15:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a somewhat similar problem when writing an article on the Bryophyta. The group is broadly defined as including mosses, liverworts, and hornworts, or narrowly defined to include only the mosses. In this case, because there are two clear and distinct meanings, the decision was made to have the articles at Bryophyte and Moss. I made Bryophyta into a disambiguation page, and given that there is a strong trend towards three divisions of bryophytes rather than one, I included that information on the Bryophyta page. With a family like Liliaceae, the situation is far more complex, but any good article will include a section to explain and document the various views about circumscription of that group. Likewise for Aceraceae and Hippocastanaceae. However, that does not mean that the information must reside on a separate page. If there is strong reason to believe that Aceraceae is a deeply-nested, morphologically-distinct group within the Sapindaceae, it could be treated on the Hippocastanaceae page with a section of its own to discuss the issue. In other words, splitting and lumping are issues of Wikipedia article writing as much as they are of taxonomy. --EncycloPetey 15:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
From Wikipedia Neutral point of view: "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view". "The taxonomy of many groups is in a state of flux, and it is not always possible to find a single satisfactory classification, and we would be doing a great disservice by pretending otherwise." Aceraceae is fully distinct from Hippocastanaceae and Sapindaceae, thus, it should treated in its own article.Berton 15:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
...and that is your point of view. The very nature of article placement subtlely advocates a certain POV, which is my point. --EncycloPetey 15:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
"As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints." Berton 16:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Please reread your comment "Aceraceae is fully distinct from Hippocastanaceae and Sapindaceae, thus, it should treated in its own article." This is not NPOV, it is the advocation of one POV over another. The NPOV "means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view", so the very choice of having a separate taxon article cannot be NPOV ...ever. That is my point. --EncycloPetey 00:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
EncycloPetey, I was never against the APG's PoV and any other, I think very important that Wikipedia registers which APG considers correct, because it, is in fact, very important. What I am totally against is that Wikipedia would be transformed into an APG's mirror site, only with its points of view and without considering the other classifications, for this reason I think that each family should have its own article, with the several classifications discussed in each one of them. Note: Harrington et al. also are from APG. Berton 01:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you're reading more into what I'm saying than I'm actually saying. Please read what I wrote above and don't assume anything I didn't explicitly say. --EncycloPetey 01:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Just coming on this as an outside who knows nothing about the specific case, it strikes me that EP is looking at it the wrong way when he says the very choice of having a separate taxon article cannot be NPOV ...ever. I'd say that if there is reasonable doubt about whether Taxon B is a subgroup of Taxon A or separate, then it is less NPOV to include Taxon B in the Taxon A article than it is to have separate articles about A and B with big disclaimers saying that "B might just be a subgroup". Both express a POV, but keeping them separate for the time being seems like a relatively more NPOV than lumping them together IMO. After all, if people think that it could be a different taxon, B must be reasonably distinct from A and thus possibly merit an article in its own right. Set against that is the convenience of talking about very similar organisms in the same article when you've got so many species stubs to kill ;-/ Of course when there's doubt about whether there's 1 taxon or 2, you have to have a POV whether the current debate is best represented by 1.1 (almost certainly 1 taxon) or 1.9 (almost certainly 2 taxa). In the 'reasonable doubt' cases of 1.5, I'd regard two articles as more NPOV. FlagSteward 14:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Zomlefer's book, while excellent, is a bit old for this situation, and even she acknowledges some omissions due to lack of information so early on. KP Botany 03:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So... has anybody actually looked at the references already cited in article, particularly the Harrington et al. reference, to see what they actually say? From the title it sounds like it directly addresses the issues at hand. When in doubt, go to the original sources... MrDarwin 13:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
According to Harrington et al. 2005:"Given the possibility of long branch attraction being a confounding force in this placement, the opposite conclusion—that Aceraceae and Hippocastanaceae are distinct, monophyletic families easily distinguished from nearly all Sapindaceae – cannot be ruled out on this basis alone. Nevertheless, support for the basal relationships between the constituent main clades in our analyses are much weaker than the overall support for Sapindaceae s.l. ..." Berton 14:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Berton left out a couple of key sentences; the full quote provides better context: "The analyses presented here reinforce the close relationship between Aceraceae, Hippocastaneaceae, and Sapindaceae s.s. implicit in the broader taxonomic concept of Sapindaceae s.l. adopted by recent workers. It also provides limited evidence for the inclusion of both within Sapindaceae s.l., but this conclusion relies on the placement of a single taxon (Xanthoceras) among the 112 sampled. Given the possibility of long branch attraction being a confounding force in this placement, the opposite conclusion—that Aceraceae and Hippocastanaceae are distinct, monophyletic families easily distinguished from nearly all Sapindaceae – cannot be ruled out on this basis alone. Nevertheless, support for the basal relationships between the constituent main clades in our analyses are much weaker than the overall support for Sapindaceae s.l. ..." At any rate, the authors favor the inclusion of Aceraceae and Hippocastaneaceae in Sapindaceae. Here is the abstract of the paper:
Phylogenetic relationships within Sapindaceae sensu lato are assessed using sequence data from two plastid genes, analyzed separately and together. A total of 46 rbcL sequences (31 of which are new), and 89 matK sequences (75 new) representing 64 genera were subjected to parsimony and Bayesian analysis. The results support three major lineages, relationships between which are only weakly supported. Xanthoceras sorbifolium is not clearly a member of any of these lineages, and there is some support for it being the first lineage to diverge within the entire assemblage. Support for a broadly defined Sapindaceae incorporating Aceraceae, Hippocastanaceae, and Xanthoceras is very robust. A division into four subfamilies is proposed: Sapindoideae (including Koelreuteria and Ungnadia); Hippocastanoideae (including taxa previously referred to Aceraceae and Hippocastanaceae, plus Handeliodendron); a more narrowly defined Dodonaeoideae; and a monotypic Xanthoceroideae. Tribal groupings are critically evaluated in light of the analyses. Although many of the current tribes appear paraphyletic or polyphyletic, there is support for the monophyly of some core groups of genera that suggest realignments of tribal concepts that would render them more informative of relationships. MrDarwin 14:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Bootstrap values for these groups (Aceraceae and Hippocastanaceae) after Harrington et al. are > 98%, then strong support for "monophyly", the question is about leaving Sapindaceae s. l. paraphyletic, this is not a taxonomic (evolutionary) question, but cladogenetic one. Berton 14:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Fork in plant sexuality

Would someone familiar with this area look at Monoicous and see whether anything there is worth merging into Plant sexuality? There seems to be a lot of redirect cleanup needed in this area. Dioecious → Monoicous, but Monoecious → Plant sexuality... Circeus 21:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Should these term be more fully described in plant sexuality and redirected to that page? it seems that some of them are used outside of plant science too. Expanding the defs of mon, di and tri-oicous would not be hard to do in plant sexuality if that is were the definitions should be that other pages link too. Right now plant sexuality just lists basic definitions for those terms, assuming that the other pages would over time expand. Hardyplants 23:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind that there are many, many more terms besides. (See for example List of plant morphology terms#Bryophyte gametangium terms). Also keep in mind that monoicous is not the same as monoecious, and the distinction between the two generally doesn't occur in other groups of organisms besides plants. All sexual animals are diploid, so they are never monoicous or dioicous. Someone at one point did try to organize all the plant sexuality pages, but he received little support, so the project fell apart. Personally, I think the information could and should all be covered at Plant sexuality, with appropriately condensed versions in key locations (such as the pages for Bryophyte, Fern, and Seed plant). I'm of the opinion that to make such an attempt work, we need an outline of major topics to be covered laid out in advance. Otherwise, it will be a tangled mish-mash not much better than the current situation. --EncycloPetey 23:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem with plant sexuality right now is that in covers mostly seed plants and ignores none seed plants, I agree that an outline would be very helpful and there is plenty of ground that needs to yet be covered in plant sexuality- I have been adding to the page in small amounts here and there, mostly since I am clueless as to the how the page will finely be organized. Hardyplants 23:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The article itself says "monoecious or monoicous", so my confusion is an honest one. Circeus 00:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Which article? I don't find the term monoicous doing a search of the Plant sexuality article. --EncycloPetey 00:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Monoicous. Circeus 01:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, I see what you mean. The article tries to show the similarity between the concepts before explaining the differences. --EncycloPetey 02:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Stub expansion for Passiflora tarminina

I thought I'd have a go at expanding some of the stub articles since a few of them are species I'm familiar with. I've had a first go at Passiflora tarminiana (that's the "banana poka" of Hawai'i). It is probably a pretty low importance species but it is one I know and have access to most of the references so it seemed as good a place as any to start.


The expanded article is sitting in my sandbox at the moment. I'd welcome any feedback or edits to improve it. Specifically, I'm really not sure about the way I've done the references. I'm used to writing things where everything is referenced like this but it may not be appropriate here. It looks a bit messy anyway.


My worldwide distribution is a bit incomplete and I'm still working on sources for that. I'm trying to avoid adding anything where I haven't seen a reasonable original source for the presence of this species. Unfortunately, the literature is a bit of a mess for this particular species because of the previous taxonomic confusion. In many cases, references to P. mollissima actually refer to P. tarminiana, but sometimes they don't. So I'm not assuming that a reference to P. mollissima is P. tarminiana unless I see a picture associated with the name.


The original stub translates the Hawai'ian name as "offal banana" but I haven't been able to confirm this and have found sources contradicting it.


Link to the article in my sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Solanum_dulcamara/Sandbox#Description

Solanum dulcamara 11:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work! I think you're well and truly ready to incorporate your sandbox text into the main article space. It's probably best that others don't edit in your sandbox as the GFDL could be compromised by subsequent cutting and pasting of the work of multiple editors into the main article space. Also discussion of the article can then be centralised on the article talk page. --Melburnian 12:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks very nice. Your level of referencing is good. I know it may look messy, but future editors who contribute to the article will find it helpful (and wikipedia doesn't yet have a mechanism to show/hide references or the like). My only comment is a small one: link to cultigen. I'd say move it to the main article as soon as you want. Kingdon 14:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks, I've put the article on to the main page for Passiflora tarminiana so anyone with feedback or who wants to edit it can do so there. Solanum dulcamara 00:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Bot archiving of this page

Knowing how you guys like your bots ;-/ I was wondering if there was any merit in getting this page automatically archived by Miszabot? It's one less thing to worry about doing manually, and it's easy to set up, see User:MiszaBot/Archive_HowTo. FWIW our settings on the Wine Project page are : |maxarchivesize = 130K |counter = 5 |algo = old(9d) |archive = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wine/Archive %(counter)d They are probably a bit aggressive - 15 or 22 days would probably be better, and the way you guys ramble on you probably need bigger archive pages ;-/ (or do date-based archiving). FlagSteward 12:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've thought about bringing that to this page, but the bot couldn't determine which conversations are still on-going. We can also have some dryer periods in discussion here, thus standard archiving would be quite messy. The archiving as it's currently set up also requires a short list of some of the more important discussions in that archive, so it'd require human attention anyway. --Rkitko (talk) 13:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
It's reasonable intelligent, as long as people timestamp their posts and use headings - it would leave the #Top_priority_stubs thread for instance as that's had recent activity, whilst leaving the Template thread that was started afterwards but hasn't been added to since. The one thing it doesn't do is detect activity that isn't timestamped (for instance crossing off killed stubs in that thread), but people here are fairly good about that. I just figured that even semi-automatic has to be better than completely manual ;-/ and (slightly) more frequent archiving might make the 'active' threads more apparent to everyone - me and EP are probably the only ones watching that Stubs thread for instance, as it's buried deep in the 200kb of this page. ;-/ As for the 'messy' charge, you can archive by size of archive rather than just date. FlagSteward 15:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
There is also a "Sinebot" [sic] that I've seen active, which auto-signs for people who forget to sign their posts. If it's a diligent bot, then all the posts should get a time-stamp. It might be worthwhile to have the High/Top Stub lists on a regular project page. If we did that then archiving that discussion wouldn't present a problem. --EncycloPetey 21:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd not thought about adding Sinebot to Mizlabot, nice combo. But in practice it doesn't seem to be a problem (in 6 months I don't think we've ever had a thread where the last post wasn't signed), and it allows you to do minor edits like just scratching out a stub. Another idea for tarting this joint up a bit - should I add the stats table to the front page, like most Projects do? Or would that get too depressing? :-)) There's some code to transclude it, but the originals are at Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Plant_articles_by_quality_statistics - you can look at the history to see how many stubs Polbot has added in the last few weeks - it was about 8000 in the week to 26th August ;-/ FlagSteward 12:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't know the bot could do that. Thanks for the info. I suppose the page is a bit long, but I don't mind manually archiving it, since it does require a description in our archive navigation box. I usually waiting until near the end of a month to archive the previous month's discussions, but I suppose I could archive along the way (there are already August threads that could be cut into an archive). Instead of telling the bot how many days to place in one archive, can you tell it to archive by month? I prefer this as it makes the archive description in the navigation box above easier than dates such as 2007-08-02 - 2007-09-04. --Rkitko (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you've quite understood how it works - the 'days' thing only applies to the decision to send to the archives, it archives any thread where the last edit was >x days ago. The way the archives are organised is a separate decision, you can have either by month or by size. So you might have "if the current archive is >200kb, set up a new one and dump in there all new threads I get sent by the thread-grabber" or whatever, and it might get labelled "March-May 2007". I guess the one thing that might be a minor problem is the way the archive list is presented, I'm not sure how much flexibility there is on that - I suppose you could have Mizla surrender the list on this page to your manual control.FlagSteward 12:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yet more plant stub types

Several plant stub types are oversized again (extremely so, for the main plant-stub); usual reason. I've proposed a number of new taxon-based types to deal with this; some of these may need scrutiny from someone who knows what they're talking about, due to large numbers of stubs using taxonomies including orders and families that appear to be deprecated, according to the WP article on same; usual reason. Proposals are here and in the following three sections. Alai 01:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hormones

A few years ago I has a series of essays deleted which were theories on hormonal action based on this site from this user. He seems to be actively editing plant hormone articles again adding material based on his synthesis of scientific literature; these articles are in pretty bad shape regardless so it would be nice if some interested editors could help make these article more reliable. The Arabidopsis book is a pretty good place to find current information on the known biological function of all the major plant hormones. Thanks --Peta 03:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

He is partially cleaning up some of the messes he made previously. But totally agreed that this area could use attention and better sourcing. Kingdon 17:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Nectar disk

Any opinion as to whether Nectar disk should be an independent stub or something under nectar or flower? The concept is anatomically important, but not mentioned yet anywhere in Wikipedia. Circeus 20:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

My first reaction is that nectar is the right place (Floral Nectaries and Extrafloral Nectaries are already there), and that it is easier to split it out later, if desired, than to manage articles-in-progress when related topics are spread across many articles. I guess the main advantage to having a separate article for every concept is that it make it easier to link to Nectar disk (as opposed to Nectar disk or Nectar disk or some such). But that has the tendency to skate close to WP:DICT and make it hard for readers to see related concepts in context with each other. I don't know, I'm not thinking of any really strong arguments one way or the other. Kingdon 22:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
You can just redirect Nectar disk to nectar. I would do it myself, but there's nothign about it at nectar (which is a poor article, too. I just assessed it as High Stub). Circeus 22:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sisyrinchium montanum

Can someone look over this article? Could be problems. I dont have time right now. KP Botany 23:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I attempted to rewrite it in a more accessible fashion, but the FNA account and what was there were so jargonic that they could have been written in Ancient Greek, so my writeup can probably apply to just about any species of the genus. Circeus 00:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I've done a bit more, with info sourced from Atlas of the Plants of British Columbia (a very good website, if anyone is ever seeking info, provided the species occurs in BC). I have also (please note!!) taken out the naturenorth.com ref/link; while the info in it is good enough, it is a commercial ext link supported by ads, and a particularly obnoxious one as its ads auto-reload every few seconds: to get out of it I had to click the 'back' button over 40 times. Nasty. I'd strongly recommend that this website be added to the list of banned ext links for this reason. - MPF 20:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants/Archive13&oldid=1137369048"