Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
EnCASF (talk | contribs)
→‎Mystery flowers: thanks Circeus!!
Line 1,344: Line 1,344:
:::Agree with the ID. The Flora of North America goes with ''H. tubispathus'' [http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=242101649] [[User:Melburnian|Melburnian]] ([[User talk:Melburnian|talk]]) 02:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
:::Agree with the ID. The Flora of North America goes with ''H. tubispathus'' [http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=1&taxon_id=242101649] [[User:Melburnian|Melburnian]] ([[User talk:Melburnian|talk]]) 02:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
::::Some of these databases seem to include the genus is [[Amaryllidaceae]], and others in [[Liliaceae]]. Reading the latter page, I guess that's pretty normal. -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]<sup>([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]])</sup> 02:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
::::Some of these databases seem to include the genus is [[Amaryllidaceae]], and others in [[Liliaceae]]. Reading the latter page, I guess that's pretty normal. -[[User:GTBacchus|GTBacchus]]<sup>([[User talk:GTBacchus|talk]])</sup> 02:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

:::I agree, They are very good pictures of ''Habranthus tubispathus'' formerly known as ''Habranthus andersonii'' or sometimes ''Habranthus texanus'', blooms in the summer after a good rain. The variety ''texensis'' is found in Texas and Louisiana and is yellow-orange with streaks of bronze. This info together with some other pics can be seen [[http://pacificbulbsociety.org/pbswiki/index.php/Habranthus here]]. ''Habranthus'' is considered a member of [[Amaryllidaceae]] (''sensu'' APGI and APGII) or a member of Liliaceae in the older system of Cronquist. Many floras (such as FNA) still use this later system. Thanks Circeus!! :-) (I am quite bussy to enter every day...I will try to continue my job this weekend). --[[User:EnCASF|EnCASF]] ([[User talk:EnCASF|talk]]) 02:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


==Tree-stub==
==Tree-stub==

Revision as of 02:31, 3 July 2009


Archives for WP:PLANTS (Archive index) edit



Taxoboxes

An IP address has added Gunneridae and Pentapetalae to the Rosid taxobox, as subclass and infraclass. These are unranked taxa, but the taxobox template doesn't appear to accept unranked_subclassis and unranked_infraclassis as parameters. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the style, probably the same IP editor which has been making changes to Eupatorieae. On the whole, the contributions are good ones, but I probably haven't been as active as I should be about adding my own edits or pointing out things which I would improve. I'm not even sure where to suggest that the user create an account, although I did mention it on Talk:Eupatorieae. On the Rosid taxobox, I drastically reduced the number of ranks in that taxobox, per longstanding policy and (mostly adhered to) practice elsewhere. I'm sure there is room for tweaks in terms of exactly which ranks get included, but the general thrust of keeping the taxoboxes simple shouldn't be especially controversial (as far as I know). Kingdon (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's been busy on Thymelaceae as well. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added support for unranked_subclassis and unranked_infraclassis to the taxobox. Hesperian 14:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, folks. Looking for opinions on this and the other content fork articles linked on the page. Some clearly just need to be deleted (e.g. Herb (Translation of herb names)), but I'm at a loss on what to suggest to the editor for these serialized articles (e.g. TCM Materia Medica (Root), TCM Materia Medica (Root Part 1), etc.) I'm not entirely sure Wikipedia is the right place for this article content. I suggested Wikibooks or, at the very least, just making it one large list sans the TCM acronym. I know this doesn't really fit in with our project here, but I trust all of your opinions. Any ideas, opinions, or suggestions? --Rkitko (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is policy on list articles?
Therea are a lot of lists on Wikipedia, e.g., List of Dinosaurs and List of placental mammals and the two I added (List of Microsporidian genera and List of sequenced plastomes), etc. While I don't care for the TCM abbreviation, it's not obvious that a list of elements of the Chinese pharmacopeia isn't eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. On the other hand, unless we'all were going to link out from the list to individual elements, an external link might be preferable. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, the naming is totally off. I had no idea what TCM meant before I looked at the articles. And iirc we aren't supposed to use abbreviations in article titles. And "materia medica" isn't English either; I can figure out what it means, but it isn't common usage. (Imagine that - me complaining about Latin in article titles!) They all need to rename into something that makes sense. As for the structure - long lists are sometimes broken out into sub-lists, so in theory the structure of the lists isn't horrible. Guettarda (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find materia medica to be a problem as a title - materia medica is a technical term (more or less the same as pharmacopoeia), but so are lots of other Wikipedia article titles. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. But I still don't think it's the most meaningful article title for what would normally be titled "List of plants used in traditional Chinese medicine". Guettarda (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From herb usage - "Most "herbs" are plant-based, but a few are mineral-based, and some are even based on animal products." This implies an intent to cover the whole materia medica. (Of course that would make "Traditional Chinese Materia Medica" a better title than "herb usage".) Lavateraguy (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-plant-based herbs...ouch. Guettarda (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The content is a much thornier problem. Very little of it is referenced, but it makes medical claims of a sort...that will be a problem at some point, but it doesn't have to be something we need to worry about. But the structure of the lists is problematic and the content doesn't make sense to me. Under the column "Latin name" I expect a linnean binomial. Instead there are things like "Radix Abelmoschi Crinti". I suppose the first step would be to tag them all with {{wikify}}, although to be honest, {{context}} might be a more important starting point. Guettarda (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Missed the herb usage article. That has serious problems, not the least of which is its title...if I had to guess what would be at "herb usage" I'd think cooking. My second guess would be usage of herbs globally. That article either needs to re-write to give it a more global scope, or it needs to be retitled. Guettarda (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List policy (in terms of what lists belong) is WP:SALAT. I'm no expert on Traditional Chinese Medicine, but I would suspect that most of it has been published somewhere, and so in principle could be referenced (and cross-referenced to botanical names). If so, I don't see why this kind of list is any less legitimate than List of Asteraceae genera, List of culinary herbs and spices, or List of freshwater aquarium plant species. As for article renaming, merging, cleanup, etc, I agree, and would suggest titles like "List of roots used in Traditional Chinese Medicine" (probably as one page unless there is something non-wikipedia-specific to the parts 1-4 which I don't get), "Herbs used in Traditional Chinese Medicine" and the like. As for Materia medica, I don't think I'd use that term unless there is some real value beyond "medicinal plants" or the like but it seems to be a well-established, standard term. Kingdon (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Materia medica includes more than just medicinal plants. For example Epsom salts is included - as magnesii sulfatis heptahydras. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - I don't think that the existence of these lists is especially problematic. Content, on the other hand... If you take a look at the first column (just as an example) of TCM Materia Medica (Root Part 1)
Herb Name (Pinyin) Herb Name (Chinese) Common Name Latin Name
huáng qié huā gēn 黄茄花根 root of crinite abelmoschus Radix Abelmoschi Crinti
Presumably this is Abelmoschus crinitus, although I would prefer not to simply guess. The list provides four columns of information - two transliterations of the Chinese name, one "common name" which reads like a machine translation and a Latin name which is in Latin. It's not the scientific name. Guettarda (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Latin name here means name in Western pharmacopoeias, which is not the same as the botanical name (pharmacology counts as a science). For example flores malvae arboreae, which is the flowers of Alcea rosea. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, we shouldn't take it for granted that these are real names in Western pharmacopoeias - Radix abelmoschi crin(i)ti doesn't come up on Google at all. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A real "List of herbs used in traditional Chinese medicine" could easily be organised by species, and list the parts used. That would be something that the average reader might be able to gain something from. I just don't see how there's enough information content in these lists to justify their current form. Guettarda (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the comments. You echo my concerns. I hastily and without much thought nominated a bunch of these for deletion. The author responded to my criticism that the items don't mention a specific species with a biological species concept reply - how do we know the biological limit of one species? More to the point, though, a lot of these traditional Chinese medicine herb usages rely on manuscripts from centuries ago. My guess is that no one really knows what some of these plants actually are. Regardless, my main concern is the lack of useful content and the organization of the forked lists. I like what Guettarda puts forth above. A list like that would be useful. As an aside, I do believe the "common names" are transliterations. The editor has even made an article out of external links to translation sites: Herb (Translation of herb names) (per WP:LINKFARM, a few of those might be salvageable links for an EL section of herb usage, but that article should be deleted). --Rkitko (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I received an email yesterday from someone who uses the following in his sig:
Nomina si nescis, perit et cognito rerum - "If you don't know the names, your knowledge gets lost". C. Linnaeus, 1737.
Fits well here. Guettarda (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there's actually no way to know what these species are, then all we'd really have is a list of Chinese words which apparently apply to plants. China has a solid scientific tradition - I would be rather surprised actually if no one has identified the species used in Traditional medicine. Guettarda (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the author's talk page, I find that there's already a Chinese herbology article Lavateraguy (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, all, for the time you've put in looking at this. I just added four more articles to the list below that the editor has created today. So what to do? My deletion argument wasn't well received, partially because my argument wasn't really compelling. Should I invite the editor that's creating this content into this discussion so we can persuade him/her to try forming this content in a more Wikipedia-friendly way if possible? Certainly context would help. --Rkitko (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's a fresh AFD on some of these articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herb usage Guettarda (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Article list

Just to get a sense of the issue, here's a list of what I could find using Special:PrefixIndex and searching for "Herb (" and "TCM". Isn't this why we have Wikibooks? Guettarda (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of articles
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I'm asking a favour, could anyone find a picture of a leaf to add to this article. Lucian Sunday (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This any use? Failing which dig around here. Regards --Herby talk thyme 11:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful Herby!! - Thank you Lucian Sunday (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More input needed on speedy of herb usage

I disagree with the reasoning behind the deletion, listed and linked above, and would appreciate more input from plant editors on this situation. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herb usage In my opinion, it will be a future problem for plant articles that are about herbs used medicinally if these articles are deleted en masse for the stated reasons,

"Group of articles all created by one user. The majority of the content is a directory of herbs with their supposed uses, not encyclopedia material. May be better suited for Wikibooks."

For example, "group of articles all created by one user" could lead to IceCreamSocial's native California plant species stubs being deleted. Yes, that's not going to happen, but this isn't a reason for deletion, and when articles are deleted for non-reason, particularly a group of plant articles, I think it could set precedence for future deletions of this nature.

"Herbs with their supposed usage" is called Economic botany, and sadly, we don't have an article on that topic, but, again, this should not be allowed to establish precedence for a type of deletion for plant articles. I do historical research in this area and already have to battle the anti-pseudoscience quackery on Wikipedia to insert historical references into articles about plants and their usage.

Economic botany is inherently encyclopedic. Just do a google book search on the topic.

That said, the articles are sad and worthless in their current states and need plant editors to go over them and decided what is what, if anything is salvageable, if they should be in Wikipedia under their current titles. The goal of an historical article on the use of herbs in traditional medicine is worthwhile and an article Wikipedia should have. Will these be starting points?

Please focus the conversation on these articles and proper reasons for deletion if there are any and please make it clear that herbs and their usage is encyclopedic, and "group of articles by one user" is not a reason for deletion. --KP Botany (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The stated reasons for deletion are forking and synthesis, so the deletion of Herb usage did not set a precedence for future deletion of plant articles. i have no desire to be a contributory factor in the deletion of plant articles. That is why i will not merge deleted content into existing plant articles, or create new plant articles with them. However, if anyone wants a copy of the deleted articles, including verifiable journal citations, i will send a copy over. Cottonball (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Cottonball. You must be disappointed. I merged content from one of the deleted articles (prior to deletion) into related articles, and added reliable sources (articles abstracted in PubMed), but a WPMED editor deleted the content with the reasoning that as the sources do not show efficacy, there should be no mention of the use. Perhaps that is an issue that should be discussed among the relevant projects: Plants, Pharmacology, and Medicine. --Una Smith (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bag of mixed feelings, as i am both disappinted and relieved: i no longer need to continue with the article, an activity that has been exhausting. i understand the reasons for deletion, one of which is that the article is unreadable, especially the Chinese herb names. i hoped that using the exact names can serve as a bridge between time and cultures, but it proved to be an insuperable barrier, if not the final straw. Cottonball (talk) 04:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the names are better dealt with as interwiki links between English and Chinese Wikipedia. --Una Smith (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If i do that, i will probably have two sets of AfD to deal with, one in English and the other in Chinese Wikipedia. :-) It seems like a recipe for a nightmare. That's why i've started an account with a Chinese name, and will participate in Chinese Wikipedia instead. Cottonball (talk) 05:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that bad. See for example Trichosanthes, one genus mentioned in your deleted articles as used to treat hyperlipidemia. It needs expansion and some more interwiki links; a related article is on Chinese Wikipedia here. See also this (my browser displays mostly gibberish but I can see there is an article there). This Japanese article appears to be a translation of the English article (or vice versa). --Una Smith (talk) 06:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i am no expert on Hyperlipidemia but hope that you can find these articles useful. If you cannot find the articles, just let me know, and i'll be happy to help. (Some of them are animal studies, so i am not sure whether they are acceptable to a WPMED editor.)

“Hypoglycemic and hypolipidemic effects of flavonoid rich extract from Eugenia jambolana seeds on streptozotocin induced diabetic rats” Food and Chemical Toxicology, Volume 46, Issue 7, July 2008, Pages 2376-2383 Bhavna Sharma, Chandrajeet Balomajumder, Partha Roy.

“Hypolipemic activity of polyphenol-rich extracts from Ocimum basilicum in Triton WR-1339-induced hyperlipidemic mice” Food Chemistry, Volume 108, Issue 1, 1 May 2008, Pages 205-212 Hicham Harnafi, Hana Serghini Caid, Nour el Houda Bouanani, Mohammed Aziz, Souliman Amrani.

“Influence of Tribulus terrestris extract on lipid profile and endothelial structure in developing atherosclerotic lesions in the aorta of rabbits on a high-cholesterol diet” Acta Histochemica, 9 March 2009 M. Altug Tuncer, Bengi Yaymaci, Leyla Sati, Sevil Cayli, Goksemin Acar, Tuncay Altug, Ramazan Demir.

“Keishibukuryogan ameliorates glucose intolerance and hyperlipidemia in Otsuka Long-Evans Tokushima Fatty (OLETF) rats” Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, Volume 80, Issue 1, April 2008, Pages 40-47 Takako Nakagawa, Hirozo Goto, Ghazi Hussein, Hiroaki Hikiami, Naotoshi Shibahara, Yutaka Shimada.

“Soy, phytoestrogens and metabolism: A review” Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology, 9 March 2009 Christopher R. Cederroth, Serge Nef

“Hypolipidemic and hepatoprotective effects of flax and pumpkin seed mixture rich in ω-3 and ω-6 fatty acids in hypercholesterolemic rats” Food and Chemical Toxicology, Volume 46, Issue 12, December 2008, Pages 3714-3720 M. Makni, H. Fetoui, N.K. Gargouri, El M. Garoui, H. Jaber, J. Makni, T. Boudawara, N. Zeghal.

“Cinnamon extract inhibits the postprandial overproduction of apolipoprotein B48-containing lipoproteins in fructose-fed animals” The Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry, 6 November 2008 Bolin Qin, Marilyn M. Polansky, Yuzo Sato, Khosrow Adeli, Richard A. Anderson.

“Hypocholesterolemic effect of stilbenes containing extract-fraction from Cajanus cajan L. on diet-induced hypercholesterolemia in mice” Phytomedicine, Volume 15, Issue 11, November 2008, Pages 932-939 Qing-Feng Luo, Lan Sun, Jian-Yong Si, Di-Hua Chen.

“The effects of A. senticosus supplementation on serum lipid profiles, biomarkers of oxidative stress, and lymphocyte DNA damage in postmenopausal women” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, Volume 375, Issue 1, 10 October 2008, Pages 44-48 Young Jin Lee, Ho-Yeon Chung, Ho-Kyung Kwak, Sun Yoon.

“The butanol fraction of Eclipta prostrata (Linn) effectively reduces serum lipid levels and improves antioxidant activities in CD rats” Nutrition Research, Volume 28, Issue 8, August 2008, Pages 550-554 Dae-Ik Kim, Sung-Hyen Lee, Jin-Ho Choi, Hyun Soon Lillehoj, Mi-Hee Yu, Gun-Soon Lee.

“Combination of simvastatin with berberine improves the lipid-lowering efficacy” Metabolism, Volume 57, Issue 8, August 2008, Pages 1029-1037 Wei-Jia Kong, Jin Wei, Zeng-Yan Zuo, Yue-Ming Wang, Dan-Qing Song, Xue-Fu You, Li-Xun Zhao, Huai-Ning Pan, Jian-Dong Jiang.

“Evaluation of antioxidative and hypolipidemic properties of a novel functional diet formulation of Auricularia auricula and Hawthorn” Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, Volume 10, Issue 2, April 2009, Pages 215-221 Yangchao Luo, Gang Chen, Bo Li, Baoping Ji, Yi Guo, Fang Tian.

“Extraction of BaChu mushroom polysaccharides and preparation of a compound beverage” Carbohydrate Polymers, Volume 73, Issue 2, 19 July 2008, Pages 289-294 Hou XuJie, Zhang Na, Xiong SuYing, Li ShuGang, Yang BaoQiu.

cheers Cottonball (talk) 07:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another article fork

Please see Talk:Plant#"Plant" vs. "Viridiplantae" and discuss there. --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Popped up at DYK. This one was actually created by an anon. Circeus (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, pretty good job. Not only is the content accurate (as far as I know), but it offers a level of detail which isn't (and shouldn't) be in the other articles like Angiosperm which of course refer to the Mesangiospermae but aren't really the place to get into any depth on over what time period those groups might have diverged, what the synapomorphies are, etc. Very nice to see someone really writing rather than just creating stubs (I say that as someone who has been doing a lot of the latter....). Kingdon (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trillium ID

This photo of a trillium flower was taken at Radnor Lake in middle Tennessee. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if it's a Trillium cuneatum or Trillium sessile as both are native to the area and look very similar. I've tentatively labeled it a Trillium cuneatum as that seems to be the more common plant. Any second opinions would be welcome. Kaldari (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think sessile is also the most likely. As far as I can tell, the flowers of cuneatum normally have petals erect, but spread. Circeus (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, cuneatum flowers also commonly have petals which meet at the tip, so that's not a good characteristic to judge by. I got ahold of a copy of Wildflowers of Tennessee and according to it, the differences in the species are:
  1. cuneatum smells like bananas, sessile smells like rotting garbage (unfortunately, I didn't smell the flower)
  2. cuneatums leaves are "mottled", sessiles leaves are "vaguely or not at all mottled" (looks mottled to me)
  3. cuneatums leaves are "broadly elliptic", sessiles leaves are "broadly ovate" (hard to tell, could be either, IMO)
  4. cuneatums leaves are 3 to 6 inches long, sessiles leaves are 2 to 4 inches long (they look quite large to me)
  5. cuneatum is "frequent", sessile is "occassional"
Since characterists 2, 4, and 5 all lean towards cuneatum and none of them lean towards sessile, I think cuneatum is a better bet. Kaldari (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes you just can't tell. In which case, rather than assigning an incorrect species, one should, imo, accept the ambiguity. --KP Botany (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ID?

Pls help me identify this. from Tamil Nadu, India. --Docku: What's up? 04:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

damn. :) i could have done it. thanks anyway. --Docku: What's up? 04:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This I believe is Manilkara? wonder what the species???? --Docku: What's up? 04:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judging my the file name (and, the locality) my first guess would be Manilkara zapota, the sapodilla; the fruit look reasonably close, and it is very widely planted. I would have to delve quite a bit deeper to be sure, but it's certainly a reasonable candidate. Guettarda (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the fruits and leaves appear to be the same, assuming the current pictures in the article are correctly placed. --Docku: What's up? 21:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely a possibility. I'm just not sure if there are other species of Manilkara with almost identical fruit. I'm guessing no, but it's hard to exclude what you're never heard of, and I know nothing of non-Neotropical Manilkaras. But that in itself is a good argument, since any species with such large fruit is likely to be cultivated, and thus not unknown. Guettarda (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IDs

Not 100% positive on the Banksia, all of the leaves had that truncated shape. Size was 2m tall or so, but it was only planted a few years ago. The pinaceae is also a baby. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 looks like a ginger lily (Hedychium and 2 looks like Norway Spruce (Picea abies), but I wouldn't swear to either. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: the Banksia, those leaves would be unusual for B. integrifolia; they are more typical of B. marginata or B. canei. I'm sure Cas could give you a better answer; I'll ask him. Hesperian 10:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards Banksia marginata. Hedychium gardnerianum and Picea of some sort for the other two. Melburnian (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure the banksia is integrifolia - leaves look too big for marginata (except for some unusual inland forms) - Noodle Snacks, where was the banksia photo taken? A photo of an old flower spike will 100% confirm species. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4 looks like an Erigeron to me—which one is hard to tell. E. glaucus maybe?[1] First Light (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3 appears to be an Echeveria cultivar. Melburnian (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to say that. I was wondering whether it was Echeveria undulata (or should that be Echeveria 'Undulata'). Lavateraguy (talk) 09:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5 would appear to be a Gaura - compare Gaura lindheimeri 'Whirling Butterflies'. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gymnocalycium pflanzii

I recently uploaded some photos I took at the Volunteer Park Conservatory (Seattle). I followed their labels for identification, but now I notice that there is enough variation among what was listed as Gymnocalycium pflanzii c-1234 that I wonder if there might either have been mis-labeling or I might have made a mistake in my notes. If someone more clueful wants to help out, have a look at Commons:Category:Gymnocalycium pflanzii. - Jmabel | Talk 19:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I have any expertise, but I can stare at photos like you can :-). Just to start by stating the obvious, one of the photos is Gymnocalycium pflanzii ssp. argentinense, and some are c-2315 instead of c-1234. So we can account for those. In the c-1234 there seems to be variation especially in terms of the top of the catus (whether it is spiny; whether the areoles merge together in the middle). My first reaction is that this kind of thing could be due to age or other such factors, but it is hard to be sure. I don't even know whether c-1234 refers to an open pollinated variety, a vegetatively propagated cultivar, a certain collection site in the wild, or what. But I wouldn't automatically distrust your notes just because there is some variation. Kingdon (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need help at Rubus coreanus

New article at Rubus coreanus, can someone help flesh it out? Badagnani (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, folks. I recently opened a discussion at WT:TOL that needs your input regarding the categorization of species by year of description. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Category:Species by year of formal description for more info. Thanks! --Rkitko (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just came across this tongue-in-cheek. ANybody willing to help making it a DYK? Circeus (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's already a DYC. Hesperian 00:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To qualify as a Did you know (DYK), it has to be 1500+ characters (bytes) of prose according to the counter DYK uses. I expanded the article a bit today but got only as far as 372 characters and pretty much ran out of content. Does anyone know who coined it? --Una Smith (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably an LBJ.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh heh. Can you work that angle into a catchy hook for DYK? --Una Smith (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General Taxonomy Question

I'm new here, and wanted to test the waters by authoring a few articles on a family of plants I'm particularly fond of - the Melanthiaceae. Many of the genera listed on the page are currently out of date (a very recent paper totally shifts the landscape), but they are names used most frequently. So do I (1) keep the old names for the sake of ease of users' navigation, or do I (2) change the list to reflect the recent taxonomic changes? I anticipate I'll be encountering similar situations with other families. --DDennisM (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, welcome aboard.
Ideally, our articles should be kept up to the minute with modern taxonomic changes. You need to be reasonably confident that the new taxonomy is going to be accepted—we don't want to endorse some maverick's unusual point of view—but so long as you're comfortable with that, by all means update the articles.
Hesperian 00:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the broad subject of taxonomy, Google Scholar came up with A. Borhidi, An attempt to transform molecular cladistic trees of angiosperms into a comprehensive system, Acta Botanica Hungarica 49(3-4): 305-309 (2007). Paywalled, so I don't know what it actually says. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Generally yes (subject to the caveat that some brand-new taxonomic research is too tentative, incomplete or unclear to really use, and in those cases it is wise to largely stick with better-established usages). Either way, names which are widely used should be mentioned in the text, have WP:REDIRECTs, etc. Kingdon (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Botanist-inline2

Template:Botanist-inline2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Hesperian 01:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I came across this article yesterday. It's pretty poor at the moment for such an important subject and could do with a lot of work. I've improved what's there but it could probably do with some new sections. Smartse (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exogen and endogen

Should our ancient and neglected stubs exogen and endogen be redirected to monocot and dicot respectively? Hesperian 12:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Somewhere it would be nice to discuss the formation of "wood" in different angiosperm groups (I don't see anything at Dicot#Compared to Monocotyledons for example, although there is a brief discussion at Woody plant). But having little duplicative stubs doesn't make that easier, it makes it harder. Kingdon (talk) 00:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot generating plant stubs

Hello plant people! I've just started diving into the plant realm on Wikipedia. Unlike most of the other areas I've worked in, it looks like Wikipedia is still missing a lot of articles on plants. In fact, this may be the last great frontier on Wikipedia. Regarding that, I wanted to start discussing an idea with you guys. Several other projects on Wikipedia have sponsored bots to flesh out basic stubs on their topic of choice (Polbot for mammals, Rambot for U.S. cities, etc.). For plants in the U.S. there seem to be several sources that would be easy to scrape information from: NatureServe, USDA PLANTS, ITIS, Germplasm Resources Information Network, Native American Ethnobotany Database, etc. Obviously such a project would require a lot of planning and discussion, but I was wondering if you guys would even be open to such an idea. If so, I can start working on a demo project and generate a couple articles for you guys to look at so I can get further feedback. Thoughts? Kaldari (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Polbot also generated ~10,000 articles on plants based on the IUCN database and it took a while to clean up after it. In principle, and if planned out appropriately, I'd support such an initiative. I'm wary of bot-generated content on subjects that require taxonomic classification, though. The USDA PLANTS database, GRIN, ITIS, etc., can be quite out-of-date when it comes to some taxa. The big databases can't keep up with the tiny taxonomic shifts that happen in the literature. Heck, ITIS still lists Trithuria (Hydatella) as a monocot and that shift happened two years ago. Not sure how any bot could compensate for the database's failings, which is why I might be inclined to value our slow pace at adding new articles (not entirely slow, either! On average a dozen or more a day?) over inaccurate bot-generated stubs. Just my initial thoughts, though. --Rkitko (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've very familiar with the mess caused by Polbot (I helped in the clean-up efforts at WikiProject Mammals). Most of it could have been avoided if they had just waited a few more months for MSW3 to be published. On the issue of taxonomic accuracy, I think the issue isn't bot-generated vs. non-bot-generated. The issue is which source to use and the timing of when the articles are created. Although I know some plant articles are created by professional botanists with up to the minute taxonomy, the vast majority rely on the taxonomies provided in online databases, accurate or not. I don't think bot-generating more articles is necessarily problematic as long as we do two things:
  1. Use the most accurate and up-to-date database(s) for the taxonomic info
  2. Make sure we don't run such a bot right before a huge overhaul of the taxonomy (what happened with mammals)
Kaldari (talk) 20:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we could always choose to limit such a project to individual plant families with well-established taxonomies, or customize which databases are used for the taxonomies of different families. If you had to choose a couple of plant families that have accurate up-to-date info available online, which families would they be and what online sources would you use? Kaldari (talk) 20:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Limited runs might be a good idea at first. I'm really only familiar with a few families and I'm slowly adding their content. I'll think on this, though, or maybe someone else might have a good idea for a family that is represented accurately in a specific database. Personally, I prefer to source my information for stubs from taxonomic monographs and recent publications of individual genera. --Rkitko (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It does raise the question of whether we want a set of stubs, or whether we'd rather create articles. If consensus is that stubs are better, then we should start by encouraging people to create more plant stubs. I'm still a little embarrassed by the raft of Coccothrinax and Copernicia articles I created in 2007. That said, I'm interested in what people think - are stubs better than nothing? Guettarda (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must confess I've created quite a few stubs myself, mostly because half of the wildflowers that I've photographed had no articles. That's actually what led me to this idea. I realized that I could actually write a program that would produce better quality stubs than the ones I was making by hand. Kaldari (talk) 21:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously have no problem with stubby articles. I like having the framework in place to expand upon. I suppose that makes me an eventualist to some degree. I think stubs are better than nothing. It's not really fair to ask you, Kaldari, to show us an example of such an article if the time spent on generating the program would be too much of an investment unless you knew it was going to be used, but it's hard to know what kind of stub you could generate from these databases unless we see an example. Did you already have something in the works? --Rkitko (talk) 21:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stubs are fine. I don't like bots writing articles, but stubs are fine. I think that what would have helped would be a complete list of the bot generated articles, and editors could run through them, check for problems. Even if there are a thousand bot generated stubs, editors could run through them quickly and mark which ones might be problems. The polbot articles were only listed by Alex, as far as I remember, so they had to be caught individually. Staying away from scrophs and mints without prior notice might help. --KP Botany (talk) 22:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, the response so far has been encouraging. Please note that I am also very critical of bots creating articles. If it isn't done is a well-planned, well-controlled, and well-monitored way, it can easily create more work than it alleviates. With that in mind I would like to get some suggestions for what would make a good starting point for such a project. Maybe just a single family or genus that is lacking a lot of species articles. If I could then get suggestions on what the best online data sources are for that taxa and what kind of information would be best to include in the article, I could build out the bot, generate a dozen stubs or so and let everyone take a look at them and evaluate the work. I would never be comfortable turning such a bot loose to create thousands of articles at once. What I would prefer is to just do one family or genus at a time so that people can continually review the articles. Kaldari (talk) 23:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, they don't necessarily have to be "stubs", I'm just imagining that there's only going to be a couple paragraphs worth of info that can easily be scraped from the online databases. I could be wrong though. Kaldari (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the risk of being a cold blanket, I think I'm going to have to oppose on this one. My rationale is that our coverage of plants is decent (plants are not the last frontier, protists are, or perhaps viruses or bacteria), and that bot-generated stubs tend to be a mess. We'd end up with half of the genera in the Plantaginaceae listed under Plantaginaceae and half under Scrophulariaceae (just to pick one of the easy to solve examples). If people don't agree with me, I'd advise at least keeping the run to a thousand or two. I just don't see how we could have any hope of cleaning up 200,000 stubs (one for each plant species). Just changing (whatever the database uses) to eudicot would be a big project. Kingdon (talk) 01:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who's worked on WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles for several years, I'm afraid I must beg to differ with your statement that "our coverage of plants is decent". Our coverage of movies is decent. Our coverage of video games is decent. Our coverage of plants is most definitely not decent. If half of the common American wildflowers that I photograph don't have Wikipedia articles, I can only imagine how sparse our coverage of less popular plants is. The only reason I proposed this idea is that Wikipedia seems to have very poor coverage of plant species. However, I certainly have no intention of creating 200,000 stubs, as I thought was clear from my posts above. Kaldari (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I really don't like bot-generated articles. To me mass-produced standard format articles have a brain-numbing effect. I prefer to see the diversity of articles that we currently have, with differing approaches taken by various authors (within the guidelines). My other concern is that there is a real danger of introducing systemic bias when produced from one particular country's databases. The US databases mentioned above as sources of data contain many plants not native to the US and using them to generate plant articles for these will introduce common names and spelling which are foreign to the region to which that these species are native. For instance the USDA PLANTS database contains the following:
  • Atriplex cinerea - gray saltbush (APNI: Grey Saltbush), Coast Saltbush, Bariilla)
  • Eucalyptus grandis - grand eucalyptus (WTF?) (APNI: Rose Gum, Flooded Gum, Scrub Gum)
  • Corymbia ficifolia - redflower gum (APNI: Red-flowering Gum) Melburnian (talk) 02:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up a great many of PolBot's miscategorisations this last year. Common errors were: the creation of categories for monotypic genera; creating genus categories as subcategories of family categories that didn't exist; putting species in unrelated categories whose name happens to match the genus; not to mention following outdated taxonomies. On top of that I have seen many erroneous links created, to pages whose title is the name of a taxon, but which is not actually about that taxon; e.g. disambiguation pages. I would be quite annoyed if a bot were to introduce many more such errors for me to clean up... and frankly, I can't think how you would code a bot that would avoid making such errors. Therefore I could only support the proposal for more bot-created articles if it was given a very tight scope, and kept on a very short leash. Specifically, you would need to do the necessary legwork to ensure that the bot is well-informed of the various articles, categories and stub types relevant to its scope; and you would need to manually create in advance whatever new categories the bot will need. Hesperian 01:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which online database has the most up-to-date angiosperm taxonomy

This is partially related to the thread above, but I would also like to know this for my own personal Wikipedia editing. If I'm putting together a quick wildflower species article (without digging into all the academic journal research), which online database(s) are the most reliable for taxonomic information? Kaldari (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the world and any particular plant families? [2] is often where I start first, but only some of the floras there tell you anything beyond a species list (such as classification, habitats, descriptions, etc). It isn't unusual for me to find the academic journal research much easier to make sense of than someone's incomplete attempt to summarize said research. Your mileage may vary. Kingdon (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How about the U.S. and Brassicaceae (since our coverage of this family is abysmal)? I tried efloras.org but couldn't find any information for any of the species I looked up. Surely, there has to be something useful besides academic journals. Kaldari (talk) 15:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, taxonomies are pretty much the domain of taxonomists. They are published in taxonomic journals (Taxon for plants), and their information is then used by others, but not necessarily published. Kew may have some taxonomies, and USDA since it's Brassicaceae, but, no academic journals are where taxonomies are published, then monographs on the taxon, then textbooks. Usually for wikipedia you want it used in a secondary source, but that tends to mean systematics articles in academic journals. --KP Botany (talk) 23:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you're saying that no one besides botanists should bother creating plant articles. I could understand your position if we were talking about proper references for featured plant articles, but I'm just talking about stubs (mainly just infoboxes for stubs). Do you really think it is unacceptable to use online databases as taxonomic references for any plant article, no matter how basic? Kaldari (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the USDA taxonomy for Brassicaceae is rather different than the one given in the current Brassicaceae article:
Wikipedia = Plantae: Angiosperms: Eudicots: Rosids: Brassicales: Brassicaceae
USDA = Plantae: Tracheobionta: Spermatophyta: Magnoliophyta: Magnoliopsida: Dilleniidae: Capparales: Brassicaceae
Which of these taxonomies would be better to use for infoboxes on Brassicaceae species articles (or should I use something else entirely)? Kaldari (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Adding a note here - the USDA PLANTS database uses the Cronquist system. Melburnian (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I didn't say anything about who should write plant articles, particularly I did not say only botanists should write plant articles. I said what literature should be used, imo, for the most up to date taxonomic information. Although, I also pointed out that's not the same information to be used by wikipedia. So, I think it was a bit much tying that into saying I seem to be saying who should write plant articles.
The technical literature is not a closed domain available only to botanists, by the way. Anyone can read it. The American Journal of Botany has most of its issues on-line, all except the latest, for ease of searching and accessing without a subscription.
I did not say that it was unacceptable to use online databases as taxonomic references for plant articles, either. Again, you asked about "most reliable on-line database for taxonomic information," and I pointed out that specifically most reliable taxonomic information is not in the domain of on-line databases, it's through the technical literature that has already been used by other scientists in peer reviewed journals.
Wikipedia taxoboxes uses APG II when updated. I would use the current en.wikipedia one, if it's APG II. Also, we don't use all levels on taxoboxes. However, if your concern is only the taxobox, pick one, mention which one you used in the edit summary and someone may change it or leave it. For genus and species, copy the upper level ranks from the family, leaving you with little additional research. --KP Botany (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only difference between the two classifications you give which is a big deal is Capparales versus Brassicales, and is discussed in the sentence "Brassicales sensu APG II includes families classified under Capparales in previous classifications" at Brassicales. If you want to learn all about this (and the other terms like rosid, Spermatophyta, etc), most of the answers are in wikipedia or the sources which it links to, but if you just want to write some species articles, I won't worry about it too much. You can generally just copy the taxobox from a related plant and you won't be too far off (for example, the taxobox at Capsella, with the obvious modifications, should work for any genus/species in the Brassicaceae). There's also plenty of taxonomy expertise in this wikiproject, so feel free to ask. As for the Brassicaceae at efloras.org, that family isn't in Flora of North America yet, but according to the schedule, it should be available soon (if all goes well). There is Flora of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Georgia, and Surrounding Areas by Alan S. Weakley, but actually for many purposes you probably don't need anything that technical. Works like Wild Flowers Worth Knowing, Fire Effects Information System and various wild flower web sites might be more what you need to write a good article. Kingdon (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the useful information. Not to be antagonistic, but it was a bit like squeezing blood from a stone :) Maybe I just wasn't asking the right questions, though. As I'm sure that I will not be the last person to come to WikiProject Plants wanting guidance on how to best write a "casual" plant article (or stub), I would suggest that you guys add this information to your permanent project pages. For example, there should be a prominent section of your project site devoted exclusively to taxonomy. Many other Tree of Life Projects have such a section and they go a long way to keeping the taxonomies relatively consistent. In this section it should say "For angiosperm taxoboxes, we generally use APG II, although exceptions may be made if more recent information is available." Right now you guys do mention APG on your resources page, but it doesn't explain that this is the de facto standard for angiosperm taxonomy on wikipedia, and the link doesn't even work. Kaldari (talk) 04:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added that wording, and expanded the US section of the resources page. Kingdon (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(re Kaldari) bit like squeezing blood from a stone - the problem is that you asked a question that doesn't have an answer. There are lists for some groups and for some regions, but there's no complete list, and what lists that exist are not necessarily consistent (for example AFPD (and the African literature in general) unites Microcos with Grewia while Flora of China (and the Asian literature in general) separates the two groups). I could probably dig up another dozen nomenclatural and taxonomic problems in Malvaceae s.l. in short order.
(re Kingdon) the existence of Dillenidae in one of the classifications is a big deal - Dillenidae has turned out to be an artificial group. A less significant point is that K&B (for example) use Capparales for the clade that APG denote as Brassicales. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I painted with a brush which was a bit too broad there (another such difference is the replacement of the paraphyletic Magnoliopsida with the monophyletic eudicots). I was closer to the mark when I said someone can write a wildflower article without worrying (much) about this. Kingdon (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capriopholis

Anyone want to take a look at Capriopholis before I WP:PROD it as a hoax? Kingdon (talk) 01:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say it's hoax. At the very least, it can't be verified and should be deleted immediately. If no one objects, I or one of the other admins can take care of it quickly. --Rkitko (talk) 02:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Melburnian (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How boorish of you, others may have wanted to see the joke. Was it a good hoax? Now I'll never know. Oh, wait, google cached pages, the tool to not having to bother to ask an admin to give you a deleted page. Wow, google returns a lot of hits for hoax. How long has this been up? --KP Botany (talk) 08:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article was created on 30 September 2008, and linked from Orobanchaceae on 1 April 2009. Melburnian (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's bad. Thx. --KP Botany (talk) 08:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the hoaxer. They haven't contributed since June, so probably there was little point in doing so. But at least this way we will know if they return, and can keep a close eye on them. Subtle hoaxes are the worst kind of vandalism. Hesperian 01:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to go through PROD based on "Note that hoaxes are generally not speedy deletion candidates" at Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes. But I suppose Wikipedia:SNOW applies as I have little doubt it would have been deleted whatever the process ended up being. Kingdon (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

synonym skeptinym

I expanded Basellaceae. While expanding the family article, it seemed natural (but not easy) to expand Basella and Basella alba at the same time and I did that also. That being stated, by the time I was working on Basella alba, it became clear to me that it is only recently that this species is being considered a synonym of Basella rubra which is the type species for the genus/family. Most descriptions of these species were separate -- granted, most descriptions of this species were not from this century or, even the last century; however, the declaring that one is a synonym of the other seems to be extremely recent.... Now, my cynicism: if the papers that use Basella alba to make and verify their claims for the family were not paywalled (a word I found here, thank you for that) I think I could have found that the reason for the synonymation of Basella rubra had to do with some study that needed Basella alba to be the type species.

Perhaps I was looking at this stuff and those paywalls for too long, but then I read the note on MMNPD about it.

I have implicated many questions here, but I ask only this one. Who is stopping me from splitting Basella rubra from Basella alba and why? -- Dr CyCoe (talk) 05:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia rules, just report the facts, no original research, that's all. Publish elsewhere, then, after it is mentioned in a secondary source or used generally it can be reported her. Maybe someone can check these out and verify? --KP Botany (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS Very well written article on the family, by the way. Thanks! --KP Botany (talk) 06:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is actually the reason that I did not (at the time) make an article for Basella rubra. It would be a nicer article if the literature that they use to support their claims for defining the family were available to be read by everyone. -- Dr CyCoe (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See Novon 9(4): 561-562 (1999). The synomymisation turns out to be ancient - see Roxburgh, Flora Indica 2: 104 (1832). I don't have an explanation as to why Basella alba is used instead of Basella rubra.
Note: Basellaceae has 3 different dates for the recognition of the family (1836, 1837 and 1840). I expect that Rafinesque's Basellides (corrected to Basellaceae in modern usage) qualifies as publishing the name. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Novon article was such a great example for what is the typification process and reading it really improved the references in the article. It is kind of cool that this new century has made the technology and resources available to collect the history of these things -- at least it seems cool to me. Only a few things are missing now for the article about the history of this species up to World War II and the one that bothers me the most is where they determined Basella japonica Burm.f. to be a synonym for Basella alba also. Such public domain fun! -- Dr CyCoe (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to the Novon article, then it would be open access fun, not public domain fun. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Difference noted. The fun I had, however, was when the article pointed at PD documents and I actually spent more time trying to find and beginning to understand where PD falls off at the other end of the time extremes when I was trying to figure out what publication "Hermann herb." was the abbreviation for. It was nice to end up finding the information I needed here. And some "publications" are rightfully not PD or open access. Oh, and that article did point at documents which were not PD and not with open access and in my albeit brief experience with them, not fun. -- Dr CyCoe (talk) 22:57, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that both of these are second to the potato as root crops in the Andean region. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would add a section on how to grow Gardenias as house plants, which is very difficult.

According to Reader's Digest's Success with Houseplants, 1987, they need a sunny window, and a lot of humidity. The pot should be sitting on a tray of pebbles filled with water and the plant should be sprayed at least twice a day. When the plant is blooming, don't let the water fall on the blooms or they will turn brown. The soil should be a proprietary mix of one appropriate for lime-hating plants. Alternatively, one can use half peat moss and half leaf mold; however, this is not as nutritious. Fertilize once a month between March and November, using a lime-hating fertilizer. Prune in the spring to keep the plant bushy. --Julcal (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)julcal[reply]

Go ahead and add it (in your own words), although as there are 250 species in the genus Gardenia, it would be be best to determine which species the book is referring to (Gardenia jasminoides?) and add it to that article. Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a how-to manual and information should be descriptive rather than given as set of instructions. Also, it's advisable to leave out information on months as this will vary depending on region.Melburnian (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A hint on avoiding having your work pruned for violating the 'how-to' prohibition: don't use terminology such as "fertilize once a month", "prune in the spring", "don't let the water fall on the blooms", etc. These are all advising people "how to" take care of the plant. By my understanding, you can write a description of cultural points such as "water on the blossoms will cause them to turn brown", "they prefer soil that is....", etc. This may sound like it's bending the rules, but in fact the 'how-to' prohibition states that "a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions" (emphasis is mine). First Light (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Häpe

I was wondering if someone could tell me what the English word is for this tool. I know it's either for gardening or winemaking, or both. Link: http://www.feiner.at/grafiken/f_grafik/120_g.gif

Sickle.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:35, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bill hook. --Una Smith (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Billhook-- that's it. Thanks! Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 05:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Julcal (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC)julcal[reply]

Dipsacus

Are Dipsacus fullonum and Dipsacus sylvestris synonyms or not? Colchicum (talk) 10:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that without the "authority" mentioned on those articles that the best answer to that question is a decisive "yes or no". Heh. Just a real quick look at a not very reliable place and it seems that Dipsacus fullonum Thore is a synonym of Dipsacus sylvestris Lam. but not of Dipsacus sylvestris Huds. or of Dipsacus sylvestris Mill.; and that is just one combination.... -- Dr CyCoe (talk) 11:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dipsacus sylvestris Huds. is commonly cited as a synonym of Dipscaus fullonum. As this was published earlier than either Miller's or Lamarck's names, it is the only valid instance of this combination; the others would be isonyms or later homonyms. Dipsacus sylvestris does seem to be a synonym of Dipsacus fullonum, but there seems to be a body of opinion that Dipsacus sativus is a separate species, and I find it plausible that the Dipsacus fullonum of some authors (non. L.) is Dipsacus sativus. The Linnaean typification project mentions that rejection of Dipsacus fullonum as a nomem ambiguum was proposed, presumably on the grounds that it wasn't clear whether Linneaus was describing fullonum (sylvestris) or sativus. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the proposal to reject the name was not accepted:
In 1753 Linnaeus described D. fullonum with a new diagnosis and included a variety beta based on 'Dipsacus sativus' of Bauhin. In 1763 he actually named the variety as sativus, this being later raised to specific rank by Honckeny 1782 and applying to the cultivated Fullers' Teasel. As convincingly argued by Ferguson and Brizicky (l.c.), and in accordance with what Dr Jarvis believes is the first explicit lectotypification by Willmott (l.c.), it seems clear that the typical element of Linnaeus's D. fullonum is the Wild Teasel. However, in 1762 Hudson applied D. fullonum to the Fullers' Teasel and described the Wild Teasel as D. sylvestris, thus implicitly typifying D. fullonum by the beta variety; this treatment has been followed by some authors, particularly in North America where D. fullonum has usually been applied to the cultivated Fullers' Teasel and D. sylvestris Hudson to the Wild Teasel. Correct application of D. fullonum, in line with Willmott's first formal typification and with Ferguson and Brizicky (L.c.), has probably been as common as the incorrect usage, and is followed in Flora Europaea 1976. It may be noted also that some Floras, such as recent editions of that by Clapham, Tutin and Warburg, have treated both taxa as subspecies of one species under the name D. fullonum, albeit with incorrect subspecific nomenclature. Although some members point to the fact that the name had been rejected as early as 1907 by Schinz and Thellung (l.c.), and later by Mansfeld (l.c.) in 1939 and by the Committee on Stabilization (l.c.), a majority of the Committee feel that it is inap- propriate to apply Art. 69 in this case, and rejection is not recommended. The name D. fullonum should be used for the Wild Teasel. (from Taxon 1986 35:559.
Another site you might like for proposals/disposals that I use nearly every day is this one: [3]. --Rkitko (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so how should we deal with this couple of stubs? Colchicum (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been bold, and converted sylvestris to a redirect, with corresponding modifications at Dipsacus and Dipsacus fullonum. We might want to break the information for sativus (currently a redirect) out of Dipsacus. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add material to this page. it only contains a few lines. My information comes from Reader's Digest Success with Plants. the information I add would only be about the plant itself, not how to take care of it. --Julcal (talk) 20:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)julcal[reply]

You don't need to ask permission to add material to a page. See WP:BOLD. You should however not add copyrighted material, which in this case means that you should use your own words, and not the Reader's Digest's. You would also be encouraged to cite your source. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But you should be aware that the material in Reader's Digest's "Success with Plants" does not necessarily apply to all species of the genus, and the information may be more appropriate to one or more species articles. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you --Julcal (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)julcal[reply]

A heads up - our IP editor who tags all taxa levels with Category:Flora of Pakistan is back at it: [4]. Anyone interested in helping clean that up? --Rkitko (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last time this happened, I bludgeoned the category with a very blunt instrument: I removed it from every article that wasn't a species. And I'll do the same thing again unless someone with a little more finesse beats me to it. Hesperian 05:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also did birds, mammals, fish, marine mammals. Still, he/she knows where Balochistan is, and is literate in English, so don't piss him/her off, as I'm one of the very few editors who speak English and edit articles in this arena. --KP Botany (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked them, removed that particular category where not applicable and left it when it is applicable or I was unsure. Melburnian (talk)
Bravo! Hesperian 13:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adlumia

Adlumia fungosa needs to be merged with Adlumia (monotypic genus). Colchicum (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Done. --Rkitko (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'd like to ask for your opinion and advice. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wulfenia

Wulfenia is not monotypic, yet now it redirects to W. carinthiaca. Please fix this. Colchicum (talk) 23:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started a substub, feel free to add to it. --Rkitko (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing sub about it; well done. Personally, I delete these all the time. A red link is always better than a blue link that redirects to a non-monotypic parent taxon. Hesperian 00:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IDs, please

I would appreciate a couple flower IDs so I can incorporate into articles if they are lacking. They both are in upstate New York.

Thanks in advance! ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 16:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 - a cultivar of Hyacinthus orientalis (not native), 2 - Sanguinaria canadensis. Colchicum (talk) 16:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent; thank you very much! ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 21:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to identify a plant.

Hey everyone, just wondering if anyone has any idea what this plant is? It's some sort of succulent or cactus, with a fleshy, triangular stem with a row of thorns and small leaves on each corner. I've had it about two years and the main stem is 38" from soil to tip, with a lot of smaller substems coming off it. As far as I'm aware, it hasn't flowered.

Any ideas would be gratefully received! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 13:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Euphorbia trigona? Commons images here. --Rkitko (talk) 13:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! That seems to be the one! :-) Colds7ream (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a hoax, only contribution of an SPA. If it's meant to be legitimate, it grossly oversimplifies and misstates.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd call it patent nonsense. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this phenomenon could really occur with green algae such as Ulothrix (or eventually Acrosiphonia) Channer (talk) 17:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the "extended periods of time", "sympatric speciation", and "adaptive radiation" that I doubt. Some ferns also do weird things with their gametophytes, but I've never seen those terms applied. And I thought about "patent nonsense" for a speedy, but it seems more like a hoax, which isn't covered. If an admin wants to speedy it, I'm in favor; otherwise I'll prod it.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, no google hits and I wasn't able to locate the term in academic database searches. Could be misspelled? Doubt it though, the content is dubious. I'd support a speedy or prod. --Rkitko (talk) 19:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PRODed.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, gametophytation would make more sense as a spelling, but there's no Google hits for that either, nor for gametophytisation. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, but leave it to a Yank to look for "gametophytization". It seems to always be in the context of "precocious gametophytization of the MMC" (megaspore mother cell) and there is a patent for using it to make apomictic plants.--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another strange article

Kirsch Pink Colchicum (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a cultivar of Salvia microphylla. I added the species, a cultivar infobox, and another ref. More digging might turn up more. Seems notable enough for a cultivar article on its own. --Rkitko (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ID

File:Flower1 Like I care.jpg, Please help me identify. Picture taken in MD. Thanks. --Like I Care 03:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a cultivar of Prunus serrulata. Melburnian (talk) 08:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Melburnian. --Like I Care 18:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Interesting Illustrations

This was kind of eh, for lack of a better word, fun:

http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/238722 <--1830
http://www.google.com/books?id=2h0aAAAAYAAJ&pg=PT138 <--1852

It seems that the author has a wikipage here Gilbert Thomas Burnett and the botanist template has been commented out.... -- Dr CyCoe (talk) 12:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably commented out because it was placed below {{reflist}}, causing a big red error message noting that a ref exists, but it can't be used because it's after the reflist or <references/> tags. I went ahead and fixed it. --Rkitko (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A new page that seems like it should be merged with whatever the plant actually is. Smartse (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't support any merge on this article to a species article. It's speculation at best which species those ancient writers were discussing. --Rkitko (talk) 16:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto Rkitko the merge, unless it has already been researched and determined precisely what it is and the plant could not support a stand-alone article about its role in the Roman Empire. --KP Botany (talk) 21:35, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another doubtful article

Carper (vellum) bean. A lot of the supposed Google hits are repurposed from Wikipedia, and the alleged scientific name only shows up in this article.--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I nuked it. No entry for alleged author Carper on IPNI. No hits for "carper bean" not linked directly to this hoax. No hits of "bennish bean" not linked directly to this hoax. Journal of West African Agriculture doesn't exist. Hesperian 01:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IDs

Above are a few more IDs. I've seen two in the bush in a number of places, it grows on other plants. Thanks. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2 - Billardiera sp.
3 -Haemanthus coccineus Melburnian (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4 - Leptospermum squarrosum.
In general, any information on location and/or setting (garden, park, bushland) would be useful, particularly on the image description page at commons for ID and encyclopaedic purposes. A second image showing the whole of the plant would also be useful for ID purposes. Melburnian (talk) 09:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1 - Chives --Melburnian (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5 - Melaleuca sp. Melburnian (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stevens

I searched the APG II paper for occurrence of the word "Stevens" in it. I really wanted to find that the name was not there and thus be justified to suggest eradicating that site from the plant articles here. Unfortunately my plan failed as the name Peter Stevens was clearly mentioned in the author list along with many other notable names....

My problem is not with the content of the web site but with the fact that the site seems to be designed to not want to be a reference.

Does anyone here have access to any of the people involved there to ask them what they were thinking when they designed that site and if there are any plans to make it more obvious to a casual user/peruser that they actually intend to be a reference? -- Dr CyCoe (talk) 23:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does take a while to get your head around the way the information there is organised, doesn't it. But once you've figured out how to read it, it is an invaluable resource.
Having said that, citing APWeb is a little bit like citing Wikipedia: rather than citing APWeb itself, it is often better to use APWeb to discover the papers that you should be citing.
Hesperian 01:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ID

I assume this is an azalea. Can anybody be more specific? ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 15:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is nearly impossible. It is Rhododendron subgenus Rhododendron, and not, strictly speaking, Azalea. My first guess would be a PJM cultivar, but it could easily be something else. Colchicum (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this within the scope of Wikipedia?

Species Tulips. WP:NOTHOWTO, any salvageable content should be in Tulipa. Colchicum (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC

If I had to guess, I'd say that the article was excerpted from the single book referenced. Check out the talk page of the main contributor -Barte (talk) 00:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Lame edit-warring

Actinidia kolomikta. Colchicum (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't follow the reasoning for rejecting mention of the Soviet Union, a list containing both Russia and the Soviet Union does seem odd. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They're not the same thing, either geospatially or timewise. The Soviet Union did introduce a number of new cultivars to their citizens. If it's edible, and the cultivar originated in that area, it likely was introduced under the Soviet Union. If it's still being cultivated today, it's being cultivated in Russia. The article discusses only the present tense so Russia is correct and Soviet Union is not. If something about the timeline of the cultivation can be located, including information about the plant under the Soviet Union might also be appropriate. --KP Botany (talk) 15:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the breeding program was started in the Soviet Union by this guy and is still reportedly active. Colchicum (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When talking about the natural distribution Russia would be appropriate, but the bit of the article under contention uses the past tense. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Michurin seems likely, which means it was originally cultivated in the USSR. However, the sentence reads now, "There are a number of named cultivars bred for the latter purpose in Russia and Poland," and, you, User:Colchicum changed it to read, "There are a number of named cultivars bred for the latter purpose in the Soviet Union, Russia and Poland."[5] This is not correct, because there is no Soviet Union in which "a number of named cultivars are bred," because there is no Soviet Union. You can say a number of named cultivars were developed in the Soviet Union under agricultural programs directed by Michurin, but you can't say that they are being bred in the Soviet Union, because they're not.
This has nothing to do with politics, so neither of you should be discussing politics in edit summaries. It has to do with tense. What's happening now is placed geopolitically in places that exist now. You can use a historical place for what happened; but, please don't say it's happening now in the Soviet Union, which could make readers think it was plagiarized from something printed before 1992 and has not been edited since--and that's anteWiki.
Lavateraguy, this sentence is in the present tense. Is there more to this battle? Anyway, the natural distribution belongs in Russia (and elsewhere), as it's not a Soviet distribution. --KP Botany (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without getting tangled up in the minutiae of grammatical nomenclature, the relevant clause of "There are a number of named cultivars bred for the latter purpose in the Soviet Union, Russia and Poland" appears to me to be in a past tense. Compare "There are a number of named cultivars bred in Ming-dynasty China", or "The are living people who were imprisoned by the Soviet government". Lavateraguy (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would say, "There are cultivars grown today that were first bred in the Soviet Union," if that is what I meant. Of course, they may be bred today, also, if they're hybrids of some sort, this fuller sentence allows this. English can be used to make meanings precise, in particular to the lay reader, and this is a case where a few more words go a long way. --KP Botany (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And, if I meant past tense, I would say, "There were a number of named cultivars bred for ..." --KP Botany (talk) 08:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with new article

Jimbu. Badagnani (talk) 05:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with species

Need help at Talk:Buchanania. Badagnani (talk) 05:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy sources

As a zoologist with a passing interest in botany through plants' role as animal food... What are the primary sources for scientific names in botany. For example, who decides/dictates whether Ragwort is Jacobaea vulgaris or Senecio jacobaea? Most moth-related sources use the latter name, which is the major contributor to the article List of Lepidoptera that feed on Senecio, but the plant itself is "indexed" under the former name on Wikipedia. Thanks—GRM (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The prinary sources are the botanical literature - in floras, monographs, taxonomic journals, systematics journals, horticultural journals, etc. But did you mean to ask about primary sources, or about authorative sources? The latter don't exist, unless you count recent monographs and checklists, which do exist for a few groups. While there are rules (ICBN) on nomenclatural issues, and a committee to resolve some issues, there is no central authority for taxonomic issues, and each worker has the right to draw his own conclusions. In the case of your example you have a taxonomic issue. The genus Senecio would appear to be paraphyletic (see Pelser et al, Tacking speciose genera: species composition and phylogenetic position of Senecio sect. Jacobaea (Asteraceae) based on plastid and nrDNA sequences, American Journal of Botany 89(6): 929-939 (2002), but I would like to see better resolution). Consequently several recent authors have ressurrected the old segregate Jacobaea, in which Jacobaea vulgaris is the correct name for the plant long known as Senecio jacobaea. There doesn't seem to be any enthusiasm for transferring yet more species to the already unwieldy (~1500 species) genus Senecio, so opinion falls between recognising Jacobaea now, or waiting until more information is available on how to dismember Senecio. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully this gives some idea of how complicated these things can be. If both names are in reasonably wide use, we should mention both in the article, and make sure a redirect exists from the "other" name. Kingdon (talk) 02:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that clarification—GRM (talk) 17:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flower ID

Flower sp.?

Any idea what flower is in this picture? It's probably native to the US. Unfortunately I don't have any other pictures of it or information. Kaldari (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salvia greggii ? Melburnian (talk) 01:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll just say "sage flowers" in the description to be safe. Kaldari (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Eupatorium articles

There is a proposed merge at Talk:Eupatorium fortunei#Merge. I did find something in a Flora of China draft which seems to address the matter, but I'm not really sure whether this is considered authoritative or complete. Please discuss there. Kingdon (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I just noticed this category, which does not fit into any established scheme for either fruits or the desert. Either a CFD candidate, or some work needs to be done to integrate it. Postdlf (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been quietly loathing this category for about a year now. I do lots of category "integration", but have avoided integrating this one on account of that loathing. At the very least it should be renamed to something more boring, like "Fruits of arid climates"; at most it should be terminated. Hesperian 23:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's also Category:Fruits of Angola, if you need something else to quietly loathe. Postdlf (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fruits of the Angolan deserts? (Whew. I'm glad that was a redlink.)--Curtis Clark (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know about Flora of Angola; it's bad but not that bad. Ditto Category:Grasses of Punjab. Ditto Category:Native grasses of Oklahoma.
I think the worst category we have is Category:Flowers. WTF does that mean? Angiosperms? The reproductive organs of angiosperms? The reproductive organs of angiosperms when aesthetically pleasing? Angiosperms with aesthetically pleasing reproductive organs? The reproductive organs of angiosperms when aesthetically pleasing and therefore of economic importance? Angiosperms with reproductive organs that are aethetically pleasing and therefore economically important? The reproductive organs of angiosperms when aesthetically pleasing and therefore of economic importance to the cut flower industry? Angiosperms with reproductive organs that are aesthetically pleasing and therefore of economic importance to the cut flower industry?
There is also an annoying cluster of categories for "flora of an arbitrary North American landform". I've sent quite a few of those to the bin but there remains Category:Flora of the Great Basin desert region, Category:Flora of the Great Lakes region (North America), Category:Flora of the Plains-Midwest (United States), Category:Flora of the U.S. Rio Grande Valleys, Category:Flora of Appalachia (United States), tree categories for each of the preceding, Category:Trees of Eastern Texas, Category:Trees of Western Texas....
See? Once you get me started you can't shut me up.
Hesperian 02:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wrt the Texas categories, west Texas and east Texas are not quite as different as Western Australia and New South Wales; it's more like Alice Springs and Brisbane. El Paso is closer to Los Angeles than it is to Texarkana. (Not that I'm defending the categories.)--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does this situation also apply to Category:Flora of Northern Florida? Hesperian 04:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be more like Brisbane and Cairns.
The problem with all of these is boundary. I can stand with one foot in Texas and one in New Mexico, crushing the same flora under each, but the boundary is precise enough for lawyers. Where is the boundary between western Texas and eastern Texas? Or between the Great Basin and the Mojave Desert? Despite the failure of most political divisions to correspond to ecology, at least we know where they start and end.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Flora of Southern Florida (analogous to Flora of the U.S. Rio Grande Valleys) would make more sense; if I am correctly informed Southern Florida has a flora with more in common with the Caribbean than with the rest of the continental US. Flora of Northern Florida looks like a candidate for deletion. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and recategorized the only article in the Northern Florida category (Sarracenia flava) and deleted the category. As it stood, there weren't enough articles to justify the category and I agree with Curtis' point about boundaries. Unless the boundary is objectively defined and widely agreed upon, I don't think that kind of category is very useful to us. --Rkitko (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bigger problem can be seen at Campanula rotundifolia. I hope it isn't the recommended practice of this Wikiproject to categorize plant species by every subnational entity in which they can be found, yet there are Category:Flora of Mexico by state, Category:Flora of the United States by state... None of these subnational entities are, of course, mentioned in Campanula rotundifolia, which just states that it is extant in North America. At such a fine level of division, list articles should be used instead of categories. Postdlf (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks okay to me. Hesperian 06:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arum maculatum, Cuckoo Pint

This is my first time on Wikipedia, and I'm not familiar with any guidlines etc. My interest in the above plant is that I've always been told it's a poisoness plant, but the other day I met a group of Kurdish people gathering up the leaves and flowers of the plant. When approached and informed that it was a poisoness plant, I was told that it was a plant they recognised and ate regularly in Kurdistan. They told me that the plant was boiled twice at 70! Now here's the rub, was it 70 degrees fahrenite, or 70 degrees centigrade, or for 70 minutes each boiling? It was then stored in the freezer till winter time when it was eaten along with eggs, and other delicases. I have read about the starch/starch flour derived from the plant but there seems to be nothing about eating the leaves and flowers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.64.242 (talk) 11:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arum maculatum is poisonous. It contains several toxins. One is Calcium Oxalate (which is also the toxin in rhubarb). This appears to be present in the tubers and leaves, and perhaps all parts. The plant also produces nastier substances, including alkaloids, saponins and perhaps cyanogenic glycosides. I suspect that these are concentrated in the berries.
Some parts of some plants, while toxic in the natural state, are safe when suitably prepared. For example, cassava, cycad sago. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is one of the toxins in rhubarb leaves; rhubarb is believed to contain an additional, possibly unidentified toxin (at least according to the sources we are citing at rhubarb; if memory serves the oxalate concentration is insufficient to account for observed toxicity). Another example of a plant which is toxic raw but can be eaten with suitable boiling is pokeweed. Kingdon (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More IDs, please

A few more flowers to ID, please:

  1. File:PurpleFlowerWade.JPG: Flowers are about the size of a US nickel. This is a ground cover that is no more than 3 inches tall. Located in upstate New York
Looks like one of the prostrate Phloxes. My best guess would be Phlox subulata, but it is only a guess. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. File:BleedingHeartPlant.JPG: I know this as a "Bleeding heart" but the two plants listed at the disambig page don't show this flower. What's the real name?
Dicentra spectabilis (Bleeding Heart or Dutchman's Breeches) (you needed to go one wikilink further) Lavateraguy (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. File:BlueFlowerWade.JPG: Flowers are about 7mm across. This is the entire plant (my full-grown cat in background for size reference—or because he doesn't respond to "move!").
Brunnera macrophylla Lavateraguy (talk) 20:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 19:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks Lavateraguy! ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 03:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wildflower ID

flowers and fruit

Found this flower by the side of the road in Northern Texas. It had small pea-like seed pods (not pictured), and the plant itself was very small (much too small to be ornamental). It definitely seems to be in the pea/legume family. I'm not from Texas, so I have no idea what it might be. Any ideas? Kaldari (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No ideas? Kaldari (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could be Astragalus, which doesn't narrow it down much. :-) You'd likely need closeups of leaves and fruits to have a chance of IDing - in any given area there are a number of species, and the flowers tend not to have reliably distinct characteristics. Stan (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The closest resemblance to the flowers that I can find image-wise on the net is this which is tagged as Astragalus nuttallianus. Melburnian (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. Thanks! It looks like this is the first photo of it on Wikipedia. Kaldari (talk) 15:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's enough basis for a positive ID. What other Astragalus species are in the area? Around here (Las Vegas) we have 20+ species (including A. nuttallianus var. imperfectus [6]), several of which can only be distinguished from each other by close examination of the fruits. Put a wrongly-IDed picture in the article, with no additional pictures confirming key characters, you can mislead a lot of people. (I have lots of Astragalus pictures that I pass over because positive ID is not possible.) Stan (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also did some further research on Google. I'm not sure what variety it is, but I'm 95% sure it's A. nuttallianus. The only other species I found that were similar were Astragalus humilimus and Astragalus desperatus, but they both had significant differences. If you find any info that conflicts with the ID, feel free to remove it from the article. I've uploaded another photo that shows the fruit as well if that helps. Also, if you can figure out the variety, that would be extra cool. Kaldari (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another photo I found that is very similar. Apparently there are 5 varieties that exist in Texas. Kaldari (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we're in luck! [7] has online copies of a flora of north-central Texas, with excellent detail including keys. Interestingly, there is less Astragalus diversity in 40,000 sq mi of Texas than in the few hundred sq mi around Las Vegas, and the smooth banana-looking fruit pretty much eliminates everything they list except A. nuttallianus. Varietywise, a key character seems to be whether some leaves are not notched, but all the ones I see in the photo are notched, which reduces to var. macilentus or var nuttallianus - those two need a ruler to distinguish, but macilentus tends to occur farther south, so I think it's safe to call it for var. nuttallianus. (One of these days I'll get my photos of var. imperfectus uploaded...) Stan (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couple more IDs

Here are a few more flowers that could use IDs:

  1. File:LilacFlower.JPG: I assume this is a lilac, but is it possible to be any more specific?
    probably Syringa vulgaris, but there are hundreds of cultivars Lavateraguy (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. File:WadeWhitePinkFlower.JPG: These are flowers on a tree in my back yard. Between the size of a US nickel and US quarter.
    something in Maloideae (Pyrinae), I think. You can narrow it down by counting styles, and the foliage also helps identification. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. File:WadeYellowStalkFlower.jpg: Flowers on a small stalk, which stands about 6-10 inches tall; stalk is about 3mm wide.
    Yellow Archangel (Lamiastrum galeobdolon agg) - there's two forms growing in my neck of the woods, so I'm going to have to do a little digging into the taxonomy. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. File:WadeBrightPurpleFlower.JPG: Flowers are about the size of a US nickel. The leaves surrounding the flowers are not associated with the flowers (they are surrounding plants).
    Wild Pansy (Viola sp.) - I can't tell which species it is offhand, especially as I don't know about the American species. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of these plants were photographed in upstate New York, today. Thanks again; this group is great for fast, reliable IDs; it's a big help! ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 19:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weed ID?

This weed is growing in my back yard. Does anyone know what it is? The leaves remind me of Maple leaves, but I'm pretty sure that's not a maple tree. The stalk isn't at all woody. Oh, I'm in Denton County, Texas -GTBacchus(talk) 20:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a species of ragweed? It's not Ambrosia trifida, but looks quite similar and there are a number of species in the west. --SB_Johnny | talk 12:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What makes you say it's not A. trifida? That seems to be a pretty close match. I definitely think that's the genus at least. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaves aren't quite right (too many lobes), or at least they're a bit different from the local variants I often kill see around here :-). One question for you: are the upper surfaces of the leaves quite rough to the touch? --SB_Johnny | talk 13:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm in a university town, so maybe I can find a botanist familiar with the local species. Thanks for helping me narrow it down to a genus! -GTBacchus(talk) 04:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a species of Heracleum, probably Heracleum maximum - Ambrosia species don't typically have the veiny-wrinkly leaf surfaces we're seeing here. Stan (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The surface of the leaves is weird and clingy. Running my finger out from the central vein to the edge was not smooth, but going the other direction, the leaf felt quite sticky and clingy. It's not the same as goosegrass, but definitely not smooth. In the Heracleum maximum pictures on commons, the margins of the leaves seem much more serrated, and the sinuses between the lobes a bit pointier than in my specimen. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing picture 1-1 with this picture, I'm inclined to favour Ambrosia trifida. Both pictures show plants with both 3 and 5 lobed leaves. I think picture 1-3 focusing on emerging juvenile foliage might be a bit deceptive in terms of usual leaf texture. Melburnian (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just in the last day, I've noticed more specimens growing in the southwest corner of the yard, which clearly match this one, yet which have a lot more of the 3-lobed leaves, like A. trifida in the pictures. I think the one I photographed is just bigger than a lot of them ever get to be, so it has more of the bigger leaves. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's also:

That looks as if it may be Lactuca serriola (prickly lettuce); the line of spines along the underside of the midrib is pretty distinctive. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right. Thank you. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and

A Campsis? (if it is a climber coming through the fence) Imc (talk) 11:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After doing some reading, I think this is probably C. radicans. It certainly is a climber, that comes through the fence and attaches to it with aerial roots. I think it would pull the fence right down if I didn't keep after it. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


That's all for now. Thanks in advance to anyone who recognizes these plants. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Locoweed

Anyone for making Locoweed a disambiguation page? --Una Smith (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded Locoweed more than 5x and in the process I made Locoweed (disambiguation). Most of the content now in Locoweed concerns locoism. The content about locoweeds per se (an increasingly historical concept), I am leaning toward moving to Wiktionary. I would like to move the article to Locoism and the dab page to Locoweed. Comments? --Una Smith (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Large crop of IDs

Just recently, Neelix uploaded a very large group of images, many of which are of flowers and plants. Many of these images are extremely good and could be used very well in articles, but none of them have identifications. If members of this wikiproject are interested, we could use IDs on these. Please feel free to update the image pages with the ID and then strike the image after you've updated. I will then begin transferring the images to Commons once they've been IDed (I'll make sure to use the ID as the new file name). Many thanks in advance to anybody that may help! ~ ωαdεstεr16«talkstalk» 06:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a few... they should upload to commons next time though, since some of the Germans in particular are real whizzes at plant ID from photos. --SB_Johnny | talk 13:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Know anything about ovule anatomy?

I wrote an article about a 1820s botany paper you've never heard of—a paper that would be non-notable except that it contains a digression about which it has been written "no more important discovery was ever made in the domain of comparative morphology and systematic Botany." That got your attention, didn't it?

Writing the article required me to pretend that I know something of the anatomy of the ovule. This was great for me, because it means I learned something. But it probably wasn't great for Wikipedia. If you know a bit about this area, please take a moment to check Character and description of Kingia for stupidity.

Hesperian 13:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good; I don't see any problems. (I caught a small error in chalaza—didn't know we had the article.)--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. "Integuments" redirects to Integumentary system, which is an article with a backbone. The botanical use is perched in the hatnote.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I added that hatnote while working on the article, but forgot to alter the link. Thanks. Hesperian 23:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 02:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Backyard weed ID

I'm guessing it's some kind of Asterid. These have been coming up all over my yard in Denton for a few weeks now; I don't think I've seen any of them flower, or in any way take it to the next level. The brick in pictures 3 and 4 is there for scale; it's ordinary-sized. Thanks in advance. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there actually a purpose to getting all these weed pictures identified? All of the weed pictures you had identified a week ago are still uncategorized with no useful descriptions. Indeed it looks like some of them have already been deleted. Are you actually planning on using any of these pictures to illustrate Wikipedia articles? If so, I would suggest that you try to take some better pictures. Most of the ones you've uploaded so far are blurry and poorly lit. You may also want to try venturing outside of your yard as chances are most common weeds already have images on Wikipedia. Kaldari (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm re-uploading those from last week with useful descriptions now. Those that were deleted, have been replaced by better-titled ones, so I requested their deletion. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. If you consult my contribution history at Commons, you can see what I'm up to.

If you don't like my pictures or my choice of plants to photograph, I don't know what to say. Most of the photos I've taken have been different from what is already on Commons for those species. If I see that my picture is redundant, once I know what it's a picture of, I skip it. Also, once I've got something ID'd, I try to only re-upload the high-quality ones. I would welcome constructive suggestions on how to better photograph plants.

Once I feel confident that the plants on my own property are well-documented... we'll see. I am learning as I go, and I suspect that I'll be troubling you with fewer of these soon. If these questions are truly unwelcome, I'd like to know that, so I can properly go away. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you check my user page at Commons, you can see my pictures, with links to the relevant pages. On each page, I think these pictures are providing added value, but if not, I'd like to know that. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see the information is actually being put to good use. Regarding plant photography, here are some tips:
  • If it is a flowering plant, wait until it is flowering. This will aid in identification and give you more interesting pictures.
  • If you are not using a tripod, make sure your shudder speed is very fast so that your images are sharp. If you're shooting with an automatic, this means you'll want to shoot on a sunny day.
Hope that helps. Kaldari (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would do well to find a tripod, or something like one. I do think there is value in photographing young plants, before they've flowered, because it might aid readers in identifying something (like ragweed, or trumpet creeper) growing in their own yard without having to wait all summer for it to flower. Especially for pest plants, I would think that early ID is worth something. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I KNOW I've seen this this a LOT around my home back in Quebec City, but I'll be damned if I can remember whether I even managed to ID it. A few thoughts: my instincts push me toward a Brassicaceae (though it could be something else: I'm not eliminating the possibility it is a young Solidago or Oenothera, but those have much sturdier stems than Brassicaceae). In any case, it is very difficult to ID most plants without flowers. Circeus (talk) 04:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conyza canadensis?--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be my guess too. Stan (talk) 13:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that looks just right. Thank you. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

M. His

Does anyone know the full name of the French botanist whose surname is "His"? It is ungooglable. The text I'm working with refers to him as "M. His". I followed a citation to an article which is signed "Ch. HIS." That's all I know. Hesperian 07:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any dates for the articles? (But I looked at IPNI's author database, and the most plausible entry was Wilhelm Hisinger (1766-1852) - there was no entry for a Charles.) Lavateraguy (talk) 08:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I checked IPNI. Nothing there, but all that tells me is he didn't publish any names.
The cited article, signed "Ch. HIS.", is from Journal de Physique 65 (1807): 241. It is a description of a teratological Ophyris specimen. This is consistent with the premise that his contributions were in anatomy and physiology rather than systematics, but it is also consistent with the premise that he was just a random lucky bugger who discovered a freak.
Hesperian 11:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, it turns out that IPNI has authors (e.g. Valmont, Rutty) for which their database has no published names. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The index to that journal gives the authorship of that article as "M. Hiss", which then becomes a little more googleable. There is a "Charles Hiss or His, Versailles, France, about 1843-1870", who is credited as raising several tree paeony cultivars. He appears to be too recent to have been active in 1807 - perhaps it is his father that you're looking for. However I can't find any actual mention of such a person. (If you could find a French national biographical dictionary ...) Lavateraguy (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be Charles His "un amateur de botanique" per this reference [8] Melburnian (talk) 14:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou very much! Hesperian 23:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iridaceae

Hi!, I'm new to WP:EN and to this project. I've been writing botanical articles in the spanish wiki during the last two years. I am finishing the edition of Iridaceae and I would be very glad to know any opinion or suggestion to the article. Thanks in advance!, --EnCASF (talk) 01:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Dear wikibotanists, I am editing Amaryllidaceae and I found this page list of Amaryllidaceae genera. Is there a convention or an usage for the "lists of genera" of a given family (to put them in the page of the family or to create a new page with the list??). Currently, the list of genera are in two different pages and seems to be better to put them only in one of them, perhaps in Amaryllidaceae, in the section with discuss the taxonomy of the family. What do you think? Thanks in advance! --EnCASF (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list usually get separated if it is too unwieldy (usually around 100 species, e.g. List of Rutaceae genera). As is, I'd redirect it to the main page and adjust links were appropriate (such as in the infobox.). Maybe consider organizing the list taxonomically since the subarticles are not yet created? Circeus (talk) 14:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Circeus!, I used to do so in W:ES but I didn't know here. It is a good suggestion to arrange the list taxonomically....but I didn't know if I will get all the needed information about tribes and subtribes. I will check! Thanks again. --EnCASF (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's just me, but isn't it a bit useless to have a list of tribes if it is impossible to tell where each genus goes? As an aside, I'm going to give this and Iridaceae a good sweep. I've already started a bit at Iridaceae. I think we now have structures we can consider as ideal start points for other family articles, though a shuffle of some sections might be necessary (taxonomic history/evolution is usually placed higher, for example). I'm going to have a thorough look at those family articles that are more rounded and see about a global unified structure we can use for later articles. Circeus (talk) 14:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with you...the list of subfamilies and tribes in Amaryllidaceae is older than my modest editions...Now I got information to unify both lists together with a morphological description. It sounds fine for me to have a basic (and concerted!) structure to go ahead with the articles of the families. Thanks! --EnCASF (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jewel Orchids

Hi folks - I'm a jewel orchid enthusiast disappointed with the jewel orchid articles here on Wikipedia. The first thing that struck me is that Jewel Orchid redirects to Ludisia discolor. Ludisia discolor is certainly not the only jewel orchid out there! It is true, however, that when people refer to a jewel orchid as a single plant that they generally mean Ludisia discolor, but jewel orchid also refers to a wide category of orchids grown for foliage rather than flowers, including the Macodes, Goodyera, and Anoectochilus genus. Maybe a disambiguation page to differentiate between the category and the plant would be best? I'll be trying to add as much as I can to pages about jewel orchids, but I'm very much an orchid novice (not to mention a Wiki novice) so I most likely won't be submitting any more than stubs for the time being. Cheers. ThePixelGuru (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an issue that is not easy to deal with. Most likely you'll want to make a semi-disambig article at Jewel orchid (note capitalization, article titles should use sentence case, we'd redirect the other there) whicj would discuss what orchids are called/considered jewel orchids, with links, possibly mentioning more prominently those species most often called just "jewel orchid". The reason why jewel orchid redirect there is that (I'm not sure why) it was originally created as a redirect to the #Leaves section of Orchidaceae, where it is mentioned under that name. This is the kind of things that occur on a collaborative encyclopedia, and we'd be very happy if you were to help improve it! Circeus (talk) 18:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now Jewel orchid is a disambiguation page. --Una Smith (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rewritten article template

I've looked at the information structure found in existing FAs and the excellent articles written by EnCASF (talk · contribs) and completely rewrote and expanded the recommended template so it actually reflects most of the practices. I'd like to have to have some input about it. Circeus (talk) 20:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love it. My personal preference is to place taxonomy above description, which I have done in numerous fungus and bird FAs, but that bully Hesperian made me do it this way (like the template with description first) for all the banksia articles. ;) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's gonna cost you your lunch money, Liber. Hesperian 05:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit split, honestly. There is an argument for putting a discussion of what the species "concept" is first, but the description is arguably much more practical content to put up first. I went this way mostly because both the Banksia and the other plant FAs did it that way. Circeus (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with putting description before taxonomy, since the taxonomy is in most cases informed by the description.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. In general the characters described helped in discussing later the taxonomic relationships. --EnCASF (talk) 03:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'd written a lot of the text which was there before (other than section headings), and your edits/rewrites look fine to me. Kingdon (talk) 02:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An user suggested here to move the taxonomic section (list and descriptions of infrafamilial classifications and list of genera) at the bottom of the article, after -for example- conservation status, uses, and economic importance. It sounds good for me. What do you think about?. Perhaps it is different for a family (a great ammount of info regarding taxonomy) or for a species. Regards, --EnCASF (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd strongly recommend an introductory bit of text that notes (a) it's intended for species pages, and (b) not all sections apply to all kinds of plants. I say this based on GA discussions where I had to explain these points to the reviewer in some fashion. Specifically, in the review of Marsileaceae (a relatively obsucre fern family), where the reviewer complained that I didn't fully cover the cultivation and economic uses (of which there are very, very few, of course), but the reviewer was going by the template to judge this completeness. I'd like to have those caveats in the article template before I try to write a page on a major liverwort genus, lest I have to go through the explanations again. I don't want to have to explain about the absence of cultivation information for the genus Plagiochila, or such. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it ensued normally, but I understand the issue. I would tend to agree, though, that the overall organization of the article is rather... idiosyncratic (I'd probably consider failing the article for that and lacking any sort of nomenclatural discussion, but I'm a sucker for regularity across articles, and it's past 1am, so I'll only expand on this if you're interested). Circeus (talk) 05:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See what editing at 1am makes me do? Anyway to cut to the short bit, as of my typing this, the template clearly does state (IMHO anyway) that some sections are entirely dependent on their relevance. Longer bit: I do think that, although it was good enough two years ago, the article could use a healthy jiggling about of information, if only because "Natural history" feels to me like it is an exceedingly vague header. Circeus (talk) 05:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italicizing article titles

Wow, if you do this, the article name is italicised.

(a) do we like it (I am warming to it)
(b) a bot to do it?

Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I distinctly remember reading a mention of it somewhere, but I couldn't remember where and had been looking for how to do it just a few days ago XD. I personally like it very much. Circeus (talk) 23:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like it as well. The relevant discussion can be found here. mgiganteus1 (talk) 23:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately it doesn't seem to work all the time. I haven't examples to hand at the moment, but in my travels I have some across numerous articles that lacked the italicised title for no apparent reason. Hesperian 05:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The trick is that the article must have no defined "name" parameter. If one is used, it will not work (as a downside, this means reusing the article title automatically is only possible, I believe on Latin-titled articles) Circeus (talk) 16:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{italictitle}} can be used if removing "name" doesn't work. This also works if the title has a bracketed section e.g. (genus) - it only italicises the first bit - see Homo (genus). I've been doing this recently and I really think that all species/genus articles should be italicised - at the moment some are and some aren't which isn't desirable in my opinion. It does seem like a job for a bot to do. Smartse (talk) 09:36, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there is an ongoing discussion at the Tree of Life talk page, here regarding the implementation of this more widely. Smartse (talk) 19:52, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flower IDs

Any ideas what kind of flowers these might be? The first one varied in color from white to magenta. Kaldari (talk) 01:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the first one seems to be a Dianthus. --EnCASF (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and the second one Nigella --Melburnian (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aronia melanocarpa -> Photinia melanocarpa

I sent a picture of an unknown flower to NPIN over the weekend and they got back to today me saying it was "Photinia melanocarpa (formerly Aronia melanocarpa)". Assuming NPIN knows what they are talking about (and I do assume that), how can WP be updated to reflect that? Aronia melanocarpa redirects to Aronia, so I can't just move it. Could someone create a Photinia melanocarpa and make Aronia melanocarpa redirect there? Are more species of Aronia "formerly" too? --Jomegat (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, nevermind. After having read the Aronia and Photinia articles, I can see that there is a dispute about the genus. Not wanting to wade into the middle of that, I'm thinking maybe Photinia melanocarpa should be a redirect to Aronia? --Jomegat (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I created redirect pages for Photinia melanocarpa and Photinia pyrifolia. If anyone has a strong opinion (or a more informed opinion than me), feel free to do something else. --Jomegat (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Following Weakley (cited at Aronia), I'd stick with Aronia (at least more evidence/consensus shows up). We definitely need the redirects from whichever name we don't pick, so I'm fine with what Jomegat (talk · contribs) did. Kingdon (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genus confusion

Lychnis coronaria redirects to Silene coronaria. Is this a Lychnis or a Silene? Can someone who knows which is correct please change this. Thanks Smartse (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IDs

Built up a bit of a backlog. My book couldn't help me get more specific with these. Any info would be appreciated. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 - Spathiphyllum, 2 = Hippeastrum, 7 - Lychnis coronaria. 5 might be a Dahlia. PS, it's Grevillea, not Grevillia. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3,4 Protea, 6 Silene/Lychnis coronaria see "Genus confusion" above, 7 Lycianthes rantonnetii, 8 Hebe , 9 Grevillea rosmarinifolia Melburnian (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cistanthe umbellata photos

Anyone want to take a stab at confirming or denying the identification of the photos at Cistanthe umbellata? The one in the taxobox seems to match the photos at CalPhotos (although I'm somewhat confused by the fact that the Jepson manual and FNA both specify white petals). The one recently added seems to be a different species, more of a raceme than an umbel for one thing, although the photo doesn't seem to show the leaves. Kingdon (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the new pic is a better match for Cistanthe monosperma - C. umbellata is supposed to have red/yellow stamens, while this pic shows the rose/pink stamens of C. monosperma. Pics like [9] seem like a pretty good match too. Cistanthe petals tend to wither quickly, so the heads will often end up looking reddish or brownish overall. Stan (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another photo of the same plant as in the new picture. Melburnian (talk) 07:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the new picture out of the Cistanthe umbellata article and put it in to the Cistanthe article as Cistanthe sp. for now. Melburnian (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Help me ID this one?

Dunno!

I can't seem to figure this one out. It's not in any of my field guides, and searching the innerwebs has proven fruitless. Sorry about the poor quality of the photo. I can get a better shot Monday if needed. Photo was taken in Concord, NH (USA) on June 4. --Jomegat (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's Cynanchum louiseae[10][11] syn. Vincetoxicum nigrum. Melburnian (talk) 02:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll see about getting a better picture next week, as the Commons doesn't have a wide selection. --Jomegat (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mission accomplished: File:Cynanchum louiseae_3800.JPG. --Jomegat (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed creation of a WikiProject on tobacco, which would relate to a degree to this project. Anyone interested please feel free to so indicate on the proposal page. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions#Strengthen COMMONNAME Hesperian 00:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lodd.

The Kew checklist gives the authority for Sabal glaucescens as Lodd. ex H.E.Moore, Gentes Herb. 9: 287 (1963). According to IPNI, Lodd. is the author abbreviation for Conrad Loddiges, who lived from 1738 to 1826 (although our article attributes the author abbreviation to his son, George, but even he died no later than 1854). MoBot's Tropicos agrees, suggesting that it isn't simply a typo. Tropicos lists the type specimen as an undated collection by Bailey[12] from Quinam, Trinidad (been there, know the population of trees!). Despite the fact that Bailey lived to be 96, he still doesn't overlap with Loddiges. So what is going on? Did Moore validate Loddiges' name by publishing an unpublished description from over a century ago? Is that even allowed? Sadly, I don't have access to Gentes Herb., so I can't look it up. Guettarda (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPNI has a record reading "Sabal glaucescens Lodd. ex Mart. -- Hist. Nat. Palm. iii. 320, nomen". Looking that up on Botanicus finds a bare reference to the name (as implied by the IPNI record) - "S? glaucescens Lodd. - Insula Trinitatis". The dates of Hist. Nat. Palm. aren't immediately obvious, but Botanicus has 1823-50, which predates Grisebach and Wendland's publication of Sabal mauritiiforme (1864), which is what is given as the accepted name in Tropicos, and Karsten's publication of the basionym Trithrinax mauritiiformis "mauritiaeformis"(1856). S. glaucescens Lodd. ex Mart. is nom. inval. nom. nud. Regretably this still doesn't clarify matters. It's possible that Moore thought glaucescens was specifically distinct from mauritiiforme, but I suspect that he was just validating a name lalready in circulation, with a new description, rather than publication of an old unpublished one. (Like everyone else I don't have access to Gentes Herb.) Lavateraguy (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Sabal mauritiiformis is the accepted name. I was starting an article and came across the apparent oddity when putting together the synonymy. If Moore thought that the Trinidadian populations belonged to a distinct species (which sounds far from unreasonable, given the patch distribution of the species from Mexico to Trinidad) he might have resurrected Loddiges' name and given him credit. Guettarda (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I read Grisebach correctly, the type of Sabal mauritiiformis is from Trinidad, but was a cultivated tree. However the range given in Grisebach is just Trinidad and Venezuela. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it's based on a collection by Crueger, presumably from the botanic gardens in Port of Spain. It's a pretty common tree, and I'm guessing that it would have been widely cultivated in the 19th century since it's the main species used for thatch. Thanks for the pointers. Guettarda (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fascinating - Crueger called it Copernicia (Outline of the flora of Trinidad, p. 22; "Carat" is the common name for this species in Trinidad). Guettarda (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black-eyed Susan

Hi. I've got a bunch of Rudbeckia growing in my back yard, and I'm trying to decide if they're R. fulgida or R. hirta. My (Wikipedia- and google-based) research seems to indicate that R. hirta has hairy stems and leaves, while R. fulgida is less hairy. The plants in my yard seem not to have any hair at all on the stems or leaves, so I'm leaning towards calling them R. fulgida. Is that a reliable way to decide? Is there some other good way to distinguish these two species? Thanks in advance for any help... -GTBacchus(talk) 21:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a key here. Whether the plants are rhizomatous or not is probably a good starting point. Guettarda (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say they're not rhizomatous. Whether I'm seeing a small taproot or a fibrous root system is less clear to me.

That key seems very helpful, but I'm working through it rather slowly, what with all the vocabulary that's unfamiliar to me. I just learned about root systems, for example. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first option allows for either a taproot or a a fibrous root, so either way you'd go to (3). So the next thing you should look for is whether the hairs on the stems and leaves feel soft/woolly or course/hard. If it looks like R. hirta (which is likely, based on where your user page says you are) you've got 4 varieties to choose from[13]. (Based on distribution R. hirta var. angustifolia or R. hirta var. pulcherrima are probably the most likely options.) The language of botanical descriptions is rather challenging, even if you have a good glossary. (Illustrated glossaries are best.) But there are probably lots of people here who would be happy to help. Guettarda (talk) 00:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The most common in gardens (as far as I've noticed near Washington, DC, anyway) is Rudbeckia fulgida var. sullivantii 'Goldsturm'). I think the growth habit might be the easiest way to tell the two apart (e.g. "Plants stoloniferous (rosettes forming at stolon apices" from the Flora of North America key), although there are differences in the hair (both have at least some hair) and I think leaf color as well. One disclaimer: the Flora of North America key is aimed at wild/naturalized populations rather than garden cultivars, although that doesn't seem to be causing difficulties in the discussion so far. Kingdon (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IDs June 11

A few images that need IDs:

All images taken yesterday in upstate New York. Thanks! wadester16 04:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These appear to be cultivars of, respectively, Gazania, Oenothera and Allium. Melburnian (talk) 06:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since primrose was mentioned, the vernacular name of Oenothera is evening primrose - but it is not closely related to primrose (Primula vulgaris) Lavateraguy (talk) 07:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the Allium is Allium giganteum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EnCASF (talkcontribs) 13:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! wadester16 14:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image ID

Certianly not tobacco!

The file and sign in the file say this is Tobacco (Nicotiana), which clearly isn't the case. Is there enough development to relaiably place this in the correct genus? It looks like something in the Aristolochiaceae to me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arborology vs Dendrology

Question: Arborology isn't even in my dictionary... is this an accepted term or is Dendrology the actual field of study? Thanks, Noah 13:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the google test dendrology wins out by a thousand to one ratio. Even xylology beats arborology 10 to 1. See also arboristics, arboriculture and sylviculture. I would consider arborology to be a variant term - compare graminology and agrostology. I would deprecate it, but others might disagree. Arboristics and arboriculture seem to the more common terms for the field defined at arborology. I suggest a redirect to arboriculture. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The accepted term is dendrology. The problem (linguistically) with "arborology" is that it puts a Greek suffix on a Latin stem arbor. You're not supposed to mix Latin and Greek parts in the construction new words. Of course, that doesn't stop some people from doing so, but you're not supposed to do that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awww EncycloPetey you beat me to it...anyway, I was going to say what he said so it goes double :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about arborology, but an arborist doesn't study dendrology. The question is whether arborology is sufficiently different from arboriculture. I'd redirect the former to the latter, rather than to dendrology. Guettarda (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Algae articles AnyBot writing nonsense

Anybot created 100s, maybe 1000s of algae articles, incorrectly gathering and using the information from an on-line database, AlgaeBase. The articles have the incorrect taxonomies in their taxon boxes, among a variety of errors too numerous to enumerate. The bot owner was explained the taxonomy problems by two other IP editors.

Other errors, in part: Extinct species have articles that make them appear as if they are extant taxa. The number of species is incorrect, and the wording is incorrect. For example where the database has verified 7 names, the bot wrote that there are only 7 "taxonomically accepted species," something not stated in the database. Articles contain terms that are not defined on wikipedia or descriptive terms that are not the same as those used in the taxonomic parent article, or use contradictory terms within the same article, confusing the reader on top of misinforming them. Higher taxa are not the same from genus to family.

There is an article, for example, about a diatom with a long history in the sedimentary record. It's important in oil exploration. Dozens of wikipedia mirrors have copied this article making sure the wrong information now dominates general online searches about this organism.

The bot owner has oddly passed me the responsibility of correcting his errors of fact[14] in spite of claiming to be a PhD student in evolutionary botany.[15] I do know that anyone can claim any expertise they want on wikipedia, a good reason to avoid claiming any.

He suggests I write the algorithm for his bot to correct the articles, but there are too many and diverse errors for a script to correct them.

--69.226.103.13 (talk) 08:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've worked with Martin (User:Smith609, the bot owner) before and appreciate some of the work he does and have nothing but cordial conversations. I, too, found these errors and corrected some, but it seemed to be systemic, so I reported what I found back in March. Take Chroococcus for example. If Anybot was gathering information correctly from AlgaeBase, it wouldn't have made the mistakes it did (calling a cyanobacteria an algae, placing it in Eukaryota...). Having even mentioned this again to Martin in April, I've still received no reply on whether or not he's working on fixing all the mistakes. I have no reason to doubt Martin's abilities or motives, but I'm puzzled as to why he hasn't attempted to fix these serious errors. We can take the advice at Wikipedia:Bot policy and take this discussion to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and/or Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard. --Rkitko (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does any of this have to do with the hundreds of algae-related by 213.214.136.54? Are the edits by the IP okay? Sciurinæ (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bot has nothing to do with me and my edits. I have just tried to fix the most serious taxonomical errors because the bot owner seems to be unable to fix them. I've done this manually, and I've spent three long days with this unpleasant work. I would be delighted if anyone could help with cleaning this mess.
--213.214.136.54 (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The IP edits I've looked at are OK. Diatoms are not in the same group as green plants and red algae, for instance, and the IP has corrected this sort of problem for many articles. I can't say that every edit is perfect, but they look like improvements to me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can not promise that every correction I made is just perfect. For example, I am not sure which one of the many lower-level classification systems of bacillariophytes should be used in Wikipedia.
All cyanobacteria-related articles created by the bot are still seriously incorrect: the bot has classified cyanobacteria as eukaryotes!
--213.214.136.54 (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a note on Martin's User page. If he doesn't respond to the issues raised by later this week, please let me know. Kaldari (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For now can someone stop the bot from writing more articles? The algorithm is bad. The discussions Martin had about taxonomies indicate he did not understand the area well enough to write the program. The articles are, meanwhile, being copied all over the net by wiki mirrors. Martin is creating more. And, he won't be able to deal with the matter until October; meanwhile, as his errors sit and get copied, he's editing 100s of articles in other areas.

I checked about a dozen of 213.214.136.54's edits, they are fine. Another IP also corrected many major errors.

This is a volunteer encyclopedia, but is it usual to find someone has inserted bad information into hundreds of articles, inform them of this, then allow them to continue writing more articles?

--69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin's bot has written about 6000 algae articles. Every one I investigated contained serious misinformation, except for those that had been later edited by other writers. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This suggests problematic behaviour by the bot as well - edit-warring between bots. (True, it's kinda funny, but it suggests that there's a serious problem with the bot's code. Guettarda (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC) And here it's edit-warring with human editors. Guettarda (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is funny. Maybe funnier without the 6000 bad articles. That is another major issue with the algorithm: overwriting existing articles. I think all bots would be coded to prevent that, unless they are a specific code to rewrite the text it is replacing, such as formatting citations. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin has indicated he is willing to work on a script to correct the problems. However, he needs detailed information on what needs to be corrected and how (which sounds reasonable). If you have constructive information for him, please post it on his talk page. Kaldari (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of the articles that I have checked include incorrect statements and some include nonsense. The red algae articles, for example, are written as if the common life history of a member is either a single generation or a simple alteration of generations, but the description does not differentiate among generations. All descriptions of genera in the red algae should be deleted.
The taxonomies within the article equate the verification of species names on AlgaeBase with the correct number of species for a genus. The two are not equal. All sentences about the number of "taxonomically correct" species should be deleted.
The bot should probably remove everything but a simple sentence in the cases where the article is about a seaweed. Where the article is about one of the less familiar groups, such as diatoms, the entire article should probably be deleted unless the script can change it to, "Genusthisone is a diatom."
All articles about extinct species should be identified as such, but this cannot be done if the bot does not know which species are extinct/extant.
There are so many errors and so many different types of errors that it is impossible to address each one other than by individually editing each article. I don't write science articles without checking sources. It would take me hours to verify each one. Why is the bot putting together random information culled from deep within text anyhow to create these truly strange articles on red alage? It should never have done anything but pull specific tagged data from the article.
I assume it would take about 12000 hours to identify all of the errors in 6000 algae articles of this nature. And that by experts in their field. I'm a paleontologist/stratigrapher, not a phycologist. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for whether this is still going on, see [16] which says that any edits by AnyBot after April were a mistake (and can be reverted in bulk if anyone has a technical means to do that). As for the errors, I expressed some scepticism about bot-generated algae articles before AnyBot started, but I'm not sure I know enough about algae taxonomy (or AlgaeBase) to have been a lot more forceful than I was. For what it is worth, I now oppose any further bot-created algae or plant articles. Kingdon (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a notice at the Administrators' noticeboard to see if anyone can help with this situation. Kaldari (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which are the problem edits?

I see a lot of smoke above, but little light. According to [17], edits after April were done in some unauthorized manner and the bot is now blocked until it is determined how this may have happened. Are there problems with the edits in April or earlier, or is it just the later edits? If there are errors in the earlier edits, are they due to bot error or error in the source data (which was apparently approved by WP:PLANTS)? Anomie 01:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: Yes to both. AlgaeBase uses outdated taxonomy, which had been mentioned, I believe, before Martin started the bot. The bot also messed up sufficiently on its own, clearly parsing data incorrectly or assuming some data need not be parsed (see my example above with Chroococcus). If the bot had parsed the data correctly from AlgaeBase, it would not have 1) called all cyanobacteria (about 2000 articles?) an algae in the text, 2) not have placed it in Eukaryota, and 3) not have placed it in the Archaeplastida. This information is correct in AlgaeBase, as far as I know. These edits are all pre-April shutdown. There were also some other systematic problems, like categorizing articles into non-existent categories and not creating them, essentially leaving them uncategorized, save for the stub category (e.g. Asparagopsis). Oh, and the supposed "approval" by WP:PLANTS archived discussion link you quote contains a comment by only one regular WP:PLANTS editor. I remember there being another discussion on this, since I remember commenting on it, but I can't seem to find it. The response there was lukewarm at best. --Rkitko (talk) 02:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps #Bot generating plant stubs above? Hesperian 04:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rkitko's Chroococcus links for your convenience:
I can see no reason to doubt 69's statement that
"Martin's bot has written about 6000 algae articles. Every one I investigated contained serious misinformation, except for those that had been later edited by other writers."
A lot of smoke with little light?!
Hesperian 02:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Rkitko, that was helpful. Anomie 03:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rkitko and Hesperian. I would like to make it as clear as I can: the articles are worse than useless. In spite of being called rude I am trying to say this as politely as possible. The bad articles started in February with AnyBot's first posts. ALL of this bot's articles that I have reviewed are WRONG. Not in a minor way. Here are some examples from the first set of edits the bot made:

  • Feditia created by Anybot in February. Our article includes a taxobox making this a diatom, but it is listed as a brown alga in AlgaeBase. It's a kelp, not a diatom.

In addition the article states: "The only taxonomically valid species is F. simuschirensis."

this is not what AlgaeBase says. AlgaeBase says:

There is only one species name in the species database at present, of which 1 is flagged as currently accepted taxonomically.[18]

I don't recall where I said it, but I do recall a few months back pointing out this particular class of false inference from AlgaeBase. (But whether it was in respect of anybot, or someone manually writing articles, I don't recall for sure.) [Wikipedia ES has the reverse problem in its plant articles - it's got synonyms in its species lists; I've cleaned up a few genera, but I expect that the problem is widespread.] Lavateraguy (talk) 09:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gayliella is also listed as a diatom that reproduces using tetraspores in an article written by Anybot in February. It's not a very unusual diatom. It's a red alga.[19]
  • Costularia is another kelp for which AnyBot has written an article classifying it as a diatom. Written in February.[20]
  • Chloroclonium is a green alga listed by AnyBot as a diatom. Again, created in February.[21]

The errors are HUGE. EVERY article created by this bot has errors of this nature. The taxonomies are wrong. The terminology is used incorrectly. The Rhodophyta descriptions are nonsense. The only exceptions I found were the few articles I came across that had been edited by a couple of IPs. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to correct the mess

Do you think the articles can be fixed (by a bot) or are the issues too complicated (in which case they should just be deleted)? Kaldari (talk) 03:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be best to move forward now under the assumption that every algae article created by AnyBot and not edited by a human editor is wrong and consider what to do about getting these 6000 articles off of wikipedia or corrected ASAP? The more I look the worse the errors are.

My suggestion is they be deleted from Wikipedia, except for ones edited by humans, IPs or registered users. These last should be listed to allow them to be checked thoroughly. Is that possible?

I thought at first a script could be written to pare the articles down to a single sentence, but that was before I realized there are taxoboxes labeling red/brown/green algae and fungi as diatoms. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a bot to delete the articles may be quite difficult, as bots are typically not allowed to have admin status and thus the ability to delete articles (for good reason). Is there any possibility of systematically correcting the taxoboxes and stubifying the rest? Kaldari (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could delete the taxonomy boxes and stubify the text. This is still a problem because the bot called all genera "algae" which is poor usage at best, 100% wrong at worst (fungi listed as diatoms). But, stubifying inaccurate text still leaves inaccurate text. How many other algae that are not algae or distant relatives (fungi are nowhere close to algae) are there? Do you want to risk leaving articles of this nature on wikipedia? Is it worth it?
Because so many of the articles are wrong with their taxonomies, the only way to correct it is with another bot that would get the correct taxonomy from AlgaeBase (if the genus is there, as it would not be in the case of fungi).
Possibly in two steps the articles could be stubified ASAP, while another bot operator writes a script to get the correct taxonomy from AlgaeBase then changes "alga" to "diatom", or "brown algae"? Is that workable in a reasonable amount of time? I'm still concerned about how many articles we have that list really distant genera as algae. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it seems you want to keep the taxonomy boxes. This would require a script. AlgaeBase lists division/class/etc. A bot could pull simply the class and rewrite the taxobox, with an agreed upon taxonomy from plant or phycology editors. If the bot comes across a taxon not in AlgaeBase or without a class or division, the bot could post that article somewhere to be checked by a human editor? AlgaeBase uses variable taxonomies, which makes it problematic for bot scripts to begin with, but, using only higher order taxa (division/class) and having the script work according to wikipedia taxonomy use could deal with that issue. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen a tool in use that can list all of the edits made by an account as diffs, grouped per article with bytes added/removed, on a single page. Unfortunately, I do not remember where it's kept or what it's called. It may even be an external program. IMO, it's probably easier in the long run to just delete anything suspect and start over with a clean slate. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This could be very useful for finding articles where the bot rewrote other articles to create a redirect. Please try to find the name of this tool. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've asked over at the Administrators' Noticeboard. I saw it in use there (or at ANI) not so long back. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Possibly this could be used to find any articles inadvertently changed to redirects by the bot. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to prevent the same mess from reoccurring

I do wish that people monitoring bots had been more careful as part of the problem is lack of oversight. The bot made a sample run, then was authorized to go forward without seeking input from editors verifying the articles, such as checking the taxoboxes and descriptions against the data. The bot owner does not have the time and may not be the best person to correct the errors in the articles. Probably, as complex as "algae" systematics is, having the articles written by a bot run by someone who is not a phycologist nor a taxonomist, was not a good idea, as pointed out. It would be nice if the wikipedia community as a whole addressed this issue to prevent this happening again. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Martin did notify projects (e.g. PLANTS) and there were a few constructive responses at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/anybot after his message here. Perhaps it wasn't a thorough enough response, but a conversation did occur. --Rkitko (talk) 03:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My major concern is that after the first batch of articles was created, the sample run, the articles were not fact-checked by phycology editors (or plant editors) before the final approval of the bot. The process did not seem to require that at any point. This is a mistake, imo.
Also the depth of the articles created by the bot is a problem. Algae sensu latissimo are taxonomically difficult organisms even for phycologists. It seems unreasonable to expect that a bot run by a non-phycologist could create elaborate articles that include descriptions of red algae culled from databases. A bot writing morphological descriptions of red algae genera?
I think these are the biggest mistakes rather than Martin's errors in programming: no basic stops to prevent it. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of Anybot's edits using ContributionSurveyor

At User:Kurt Shaped Box/Anybot edits. It's a very long list (1MB, give or take) but everything should be pretty self-explanatory. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Martin has done a decent job of cleaning up the most egregious errors (replacing articles with redirects). Kaldari (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This accounts for only a small number (how many, less than 100?) of the 6000 bad articles and only cleaned up the writing over of articles, but the resulting articles are still wrong.
It does not address the factual errors in what appears to be every one of the 6000+ articles.
Doesn't wikipedia require factual accuracy? Reliability? Referenced materials to agree with what is referenced? The bot created 6000 bad articles.
The bot did not pull the correct information from the database, or did not render it correctly. It did not correctly extract the existing taxonomies. Wikipedia has articles about red algae, green algae, flowering plants, and fungi that list them as diatoms. 1000s of such articles? Wikipedia has 1000s of articles listing bacteria as eukaryotes.
It is hard on wikipedia to point out a mistake. This is a surreal discussion to point out 6000 bad articles and be told the worst of it has been fixed because the worst of it was not that the bot inserted 6000 bad articles on wikipedia but that it overwrote dozens of existing articles. Every article on wikipedia has someone fighting to keep it. But why are you fighting to keep these 6000 bad articles?
The bot did not write the articles correctly. It created 6000 bad algae and bacteria articles. These were created from day 1.
Here are some more errors, Kurt Shaped Boxes' list also shows that the
  • Gloiothamnion is a synonym. Nesaea is a synonym. It says this in AlgaeBase, but the bot created articles for synonyms. This is a basic error in the programming algorithm.
  • Phacus, a photosynthetic Euglenozoa, is classified as a plant.
  • Discolithus, coccoliths are also plants on wikipedia, although, again, click on their taxoboxes and their higher taxonomies disagree with the articles AnyBot wrote, like the Euglenozoa. Also, although not taxonomically accepted, the first species in the list is included under taxonomically valid names in the wikipedia article. This is not consistent, but occurs often enough that all articles edited by the IP should have the first item in their species list verified.
  • ditto Nematoplata It appears that when the first name is not taxonomically valid, AnyBot sometimes included it anyhow. These are basic errors in the underlying algorithm.
  • Phormidium, a cyanobacterium is described as having a crustose thallus. The term filamentous used in articles about cyanobacteria should be carefully distinguished as a bacterial colony's sheath. However, since our cyanobacteria articles make them eukaryotes the reader may not understand this is a bacterial colony not a multi-cellular organism with undifferentiated tissue (a thallus).
  • Codium/algaebase article created in spite of existence of Codium article. This genus contains "palisade cells" according to the AnyBot article, but not according to AlgaeBase: it contains a "palisade-like layer". Bad article name. The size is wrong, Codium grow huge, and are not limited to 1cm in size as our Codium/algaebase article states. Again, these are basic errors in the algorithm. The bot does not extract size ranges, only a single unit of size (and these are genera, not species, articles). The bot did not catch hyphenated words. Again, basic errors in the coding algorithm due to a failure to understand how the database was organized and how to extract biological information from databases.
  • Discoaster The species list contains dozens of species that are unverified in AlgaeBase, but are listed as valid in the AnyBot article. Again, the algorithm or the code is incorrect.
  • When the bot was used to correct bugs introduced on April 18th ("last night") it added text to articles that were not impacted by the bugs, for example, it added non-verified species to the list of "valid" species in the Lithophyllum article. [22]
  • Thalassia is a sea grass, a flowering plant, not an algae. It says this in AlgaeBase, but the bot was improperly coded and, again, the database was not examined before coding, and wikipedia has prokaryotes and angiosperms listed as algae.
  • Predaea The bot also did not correctly count the number of species it inserted in some articles it created in February. [23]
  • Kuetzingia some articles created in February did not consistently discuss the same organism. This article is about Kuetzingia in its first sentences and Sporolithon in its second. [24] Were all these errors corrected?
There are, again, many problems and a variety of problems, new problems not noted before. There are seagrasses on AlgaeBase, so AnyBot wrote Thalassia (alga). The bot created articles for synonyms. The number of species in some lists is counted wrong (this is a coding error, a basic one). The bot included the first listed species in some articles, even when AlgaeBase indicates it is not a valid name. It created nonsense names in one case when the article already existed (Codium/algaebase for Codium), again, a basic coding error. The sizes are wrong (Codium grows large, the Codium/algaebase article says it grows to 1 cm). When the data base find key terms the article includes the term whether appropriate or not (palisade-like layer becomes "has palisade cells" in our article). Some species lists include dozens of names that are not valid.
I assume the solution now, with the statement that Martin has corrected the most egregious errors, is the wikipedia solution: the articles stay. 1000s of cyanobacteria listed as eukaryotes. Synonyms given species articles. Flowering plants called algae. 6000 nonsense articles copied all over the net by dozens of wikipedia mirror sites.
Not one of these articles has contributed to writing an encyclopedia. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to calm down and take a deep breathe. We know the articles are terrible and filled with errors. We know that Anybot has created a huge stinking mess. Talking about that isn't going to solve the problem. We need come up with a specific plan of action on how to tackle the mess. Kaldari (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there are articles you want deleted, give me a list. I will personally delete them. For the rest we will need to formulate a bot request for stubification. Kaldari (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. I also have the delete button. I realize that this may be an unfair thing to ask of 69.226, if the number of incorrect articles with nothing salvageable is '6000' (just for the record, I know absolutely nothing about this subject, so I'm limited in what I can do, correction-wise). As I've mentioned before, it might actually be easier to simply delete any article started by Anybot that has not since been corrected/improved by meat-based editors. At least that way, the errors are going to stop getting propagated across the web. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not discuss me, just the articles, Kaldari.
I am trying to get across how bad these articles are and you seem to be trying to find ways to save them. They are not savable without writing a script that pulls information from the database. Easier to write a script that recreates the 6000 articles. To save these articles would be harder than to delete them and recreate them. Writing code to extract information from databases is simple. Algorithms exist. There are existing programs in a number of languages. But data must be extracted with knowledge of the type of information contained. This was not done. This would require input from plant article writers, better phycologists. I've offered other solutions. You've announced that the worst of the mess has been cleaned up. I disagree. The worst of the mess is the collection of 1000s of bacteria articles listing them as true nucleated organisms.
I would like all of the articles deleted. I cannot see a better solution because of the number of errors and the number of types of errors. I thought stubifying to "thisGenus is an alga" would be good, as you suggest. But it won't work, some 1000s of the articles are not algae. So creating stubs with one sentence would require accessing the database to find out what the organism is, a cyanobacterium, a flowering plant, a red algae, a diatom, in order to create that sentence. Otherwise the sentence is "Thisgenus is." Even that won't work because some of the species are fossils. The stubs would be "Thisgenus", if the database is not accessed for corrections. However, this too is complicated by the fact that some of the articles were created by pulling random information from the article, like the fungus. It's an author's name, not a genus. So the code would also have to produce a list of articles that are not genera or taxa in AlgaeBase.
The number of tasks for a bot to rewrite the articles might create some of the same sloppy coding errors that created the problem. Only primary information that is tagged should be extracted from online databases. To write a bot to do this is straight-forward, if wikipedia has the coders with this ability. If wikipedia does not have coders with this ability, it does not have programmers with the ability to write the more complicated script needed to rewrite these articles.
I think that the nature of the errors and the diversity of the errors requires the articles be deleted.
Kurt Shaped Box remind me articles subsequently edited by an IP or registered editor (meat) could remain, but a list should be made of them for checking. The one IP corrected only taxonomies. Articles edited by another bot should be deleted. This is usually AddBot adding a banner that says the article is an orphan.
But for starters, one of you please individually delete the absurdly titled Codium/algaebase and move Thalassia (alga) to Thalassia (genus) and delete the incorrect Thalassia (alga). --69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS Thanks for the list, Kurt Shaped Box.

No worries. Done those for you. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I wasn't trying to say that most of the damage had been corrected. I was simply saying that the most egregious individual cases of error had been corrected (which is a small but positive step). I have no preference if the articles are kept or deleted. I don't understand why you think I'm pushing to have these articles kept. I was just trying to evaluate the different courses of action available. Since I am a bot-writer I thought maybe I could help, but I don't have the technical scientific knowledge to be able to fix the articles without very specific instructions. But it looks like it doesn't matter anyway, since you are favoring mass deletion. Kaldari (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I start to believe there are errors in the code. For example, the bot cannot even do basic counting. In Borzia, the bot listed 7 species yet the lead sentence says the genus is consisted of 2 species. I have to correct this factual error myself.[25] In Algaebase, it described this genus as "There are 16 species names in the species database at present, of which 7 are flagged as currently accepted taxonomically" so I have no clue where the information "2 species" came from. I have notified this error a month ago,[26] yet there's no response from bot owner. And I would like to take this opportunity to thank the IPs, namely 69.226.103.13 and 213.214.136.54, for raising the alarm. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, can you see any more blatantly wrong entries on the list that require immediate removal? It's probably a good idea to clear out the obvious howlers and get them off of Google before we do anything else. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The most blatantly wrong articles are not the wrong number counts. The most blatantly wrong articles are the 1000s of bacteria identified as eukaryotes, wrong by possibly as many as 2 billion years rather than by 1, or even 37, incorrect species. There could hardly be something more scientifically wrong on wikipedia than calling a bacteria a eukaryote, fundamentally changing billions of years of evolutionary history on earth.
In addition number counts on all articles are incorrect. As Lavateraguy points out above the bot was coded on an incorrect inference. That a list of species in AlgaeBase has been verified as taxonomically correct has nothing to do with the number of species in a genus. So, if an incorrect number count is considered blatantly wrong enough to require immediate removal all articles meet this requirement. The number counts are wrong because AlgaeBase does not include the information about the number of species in the genus except for monotypic genera, and with most monotypic genera I've reviewed anybot pulled the wrong number, for example says there is one species then lists two or says there are two for a monotypic genus and lists one. Amoebophyra "The two species currently recognised are A. stycholonchae." --69.226.103.13 (talk) 05:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So... Would it be easier to ask you for a list of the articles that are worth keeping? ;) *Sigh* - what a bloody mess. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have searched for categories of articles that could be saved, such as all of the green algae or red algae or diatom articles anybot created, but I cannot a single group of savables. The more I look the more different types of errors I find. If anyone wants to save some of the articles, the ones edited by the IPs or registered user are savable, but they need a few more edits. This is probably a list of about 100 articles. I could do subsequent edits on these articles if listed, but I don't know how to generate the list.
I looked at other well-written and referenced phycology articles to see if there was a writer on wikipedia already who could identify savable articles, there are about half a dozen editors who do phycology articles outside of the green algae (which appear written and maintained by WillowW, EncycloPetey, Hesperian, Eugene van der Pijll, Lavateraguy and the list of authors below). These authors appear to have expertise at some level in the obscure groups of algae, they write well, although one is not a native English speaker, they use proper references, their terminology is correct, they understand the lifecycles and can accurately describe the morphology, and they have a grasp of at least one of the currently accepted higher level taxonomies, although they appear to disagree among them as to which one:
  • Josh Grosse (inactive)
  • Werothegreat (inactive)
  • TheAlphaWolf
  • KP Botany
  • Onco p53
  • Osborne (highest level of expertise, but don't dismiss the others)
  • Esculapio
  • Arcadian
  • Daniel Vaulot
Possibly one of them could help. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 15:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how I got in the list above (3 trivial edits and 2 reversions to brown algae and a typo fix in Nostocaceae, but I have to disclaim expertise. (I could probably fix articles to stub standard with the aid of Google, but it wouldn't be a rapid process.) Lavateraguy (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clear it up, I included 5 authors who write green algae articles, this includes you. Only the last 7 authors, of the bulleted list of 9 should be considered consultants in algae in general, non green algae in particular, the biggest problem area. I think mentioning green algae authors was necessary because these plant authors are probably capable of correcting or verifying articles about the other photosynthetic organisms, whereas general plant authors who don't edit green algae articles may be no better than a general biologist. I missed Rkitko who had a useful higher level taxonomy conversation, but I did not see this writer in the higher level taxonomies I reviewed. Its the higher level taxonomies outside of the green algae that will be most difficult, and I tried to find authors who can handle that. Once these are settled, competent botany writers with a background in marine photosynthetic organisms (if only green algae) could be useful if effort is made to save a large number of articles-this is why both lists are important, potential phycologists and a starter volume of general plant editors. If an effort is made to save, or if a contentious (large number of opposes) AfD is launched, this gives a dozen writers identified as potentially helpful. There are probably many more that helpful editors, but this is just an idea of who might be able to deal with the mess from the start. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has become very clear that this is too big a screw-up to be fixed piecemeal. I'm scraping a list of articles created by Anybot out of the API now. It will take a while. Come Monday I anticipate posting the biggest bulk AfD nomination in the history of Wikipedia. Hesperian 06:30, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a bot (crosses fingers) could add a statement to each page stating that it is proposed to delete the page on such and such date (+7days?) due to errors in an automated page creation process, and if anyone thinks that any particular article should be retained they should make their opinion known <somewhere> (here?). This is to avoid deleting any articles that have been fixed and/or extended since creation. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could this be used, then, to identify meat-edited articles as Kurt Shaped Box calls them? Can these articles be identified? --69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Anybot's algae articles

I've listed Anybot's algae articles for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anybot's algae articles. Thank you. Hesperian 00:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger of Arecales into Arecaceae

Someone proposed a merger of Arecales into Arecaceae - discus here. No idea myself, just thought I'd place here and get as many folks as possible to figure it out...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed reasonable, given the fact that we combine genus + species for monotypic genera. But then I started wondering - how do we deal with families that consist of only a single genus? Guettarda (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe that monospecific genus and monogeneric families are currently both at the genus level. I'm not clear what the status for orders is, but I seem to recall it is toward placement at family-level. In any case, a merger is certainly appropriate, unless there is significant variation in how the order is circumscribed. Circeus (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bot to automatically italicize titles

If you're interested there is a request to approve a bot to automatically italicize titles with a parameter and by removing the name field in the taxobox. [27]

The bot owner asked for approval although the issue is still being discussed in another project. [28]

This might be an issue that leads to problems. The bot owner seeks and gains approval although article writers are still discussing whether it is a good thing or not. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This involves coding and input from the bot owner who wrote anybot, but does not seem to involve plant or tree of life editors. If bot owners are discussing changing how plant and animal pages on wikipedia are coded this should probably included input from the wikipedia plant and animal community. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperbole. The bot has not be approved for the task yet and the bot-owner said he will hold off until the RFC wraps up. I've also seen several ToL editors express their opinions. The RFC, however, appears to have hit a snag. A bunch of WP:IDONTLIKEIT opinions have been expressed against italicization from editors who don't seem to understand the scientific nomenclatural need to italicize certain taxa if we can. The RFC has also been muddied by the confusion of two issues: 1) Do you support italic titles in general? and 2) If yes, which articles do you support their use for. There seems to be almost no support for book articles, etc., but split support for taxa vs. no italicization. --Rkitko (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear on the bot board that input from article writers will be considered. The RFC appears to be a tangent. This may be my confusion. From an outside perspective the issue appears to be should the titles be italicized with the parameter or by the field name in the taxobox. This issue could define the utility of using taxonomy boxes on wikipedia. This makes it matter more to writers who create articles on living things.

Plant, animal, and protist editors should decide the issue before a bot is created to do the work. If Martin is having trouble fixing his bot, putting off this discussion of creating another bot might free up time for bot writers, including Martin, to write scripts to fix the algae mess.

Tree of life editors making the decision first could have prevented the major problem with the algae articles: requiring an active go-ahead from those who write the articles before the bots do the work. It puts a burden on the projects to examine the content.

Focus on getting approval first could lead to better algorithms from a well-defined task created by the editors with expertise in the area.

--69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomic to vernacular name

Heads up: Talk:Euphorbia pulcherrima#Requested move. --Una Smith (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ID by anecdote

Question: Can anybody ID a lichen or moss that, when rubbed on a humid day, will turn red (possibly being mistaken for blood)? It is apparently the source of purported "blood" coming from the decapitated neck of an angel statue at a local cemetery, whose article I'm cleaning up. Want to include the info under an upcoming "Urban legends" section, but would like an ID first. Source is here (Ctrl+F lichen). wadester16 04:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A query on creating articles

Hello, I work on the "Articles for Creation" team and we've recently come across a request for an article on a rose, but I am not sure if the subject is notable enough for it's own article, nor am I sure the website used as a source for the article is reliable or not. So what better place to come to than here? Anyone care to give me an opinion on this article 'Rosa' Precious Platinum, either here or on my talkpage?

I don't see any obvious grounds for asserting notability, but regardless the spelling should be Rosa 'Precious Platinum'. However there is precedent for including rose cultivars('Abraham Darby', 'Alain', 'American Beauty', 'Angel Face') ...) - see also Category:Rose cultivars Lavateraguy (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do we want Category:Rose cultivars linked into rose somehow? Lavateraguy (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a good idea. Melburnian (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The website appears to be reliable and is used as a reference for other rose cultivar articles. The name Rosa 'Precious Platinum' is accepted in the Royal Horticultural Society[29] database and is is mentioned in a multitude of books [30]. The subject does warrant an article under its own name in my opinion under Rosa 'Precious Platinum'.Melburnian (talk) 11:11, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the input, I will create it under the suggested name. MPJ-DK (talk) 13:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to thank everyone who chimed in, I'll make sure to ask this project again if I come across more plant related articles in the Articles for Creation process.MPJ-DK (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hitchcockella

The article Hitchcockella is incredibly brief. Could someone please take a look and possibly expand it? Read more at Talk:Hitchcockella. DotComCairney 20:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dalibarda repens

Fertile flowers?

This evening I took what I think is a very nice photo of Dalibarda repens. All the photos the Commons has of this plant were taken by me either last year or this year. This is the first nice looking blossom I had a shot at this year, and my photography skills have improved somewhat since I uploaded my first one. White petals in shady forests are challenging to me. I thought it would be nice to update the article to use the better photo, and I noticed that the article had been moved from Dalibarda repens to plain old Dalibarda (it's apparently a monotypic genus). So my question: Should I recategorize all the photos I put on the Commons as plain old Dalibarda, or just leave them alone? --Jomegat (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a question to ask on Commons, and I'm not sure how they handle such things. Putting the images there at the species ought to be fine. On the English Wikipedia, the page for a monotypic plant genus is placed at the genus name, but that's only a guideline here on the English Wikipedia. Other language Wikipedias may not follow the same guideline, so categorization at Commons does not have to mirror what we do here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about Commons policies, and as EncycloPetey says, it could well be different from how we name articles. I'd leave the photos where they are, unless they seem to be causing a problem. Kingdon (talk) 04:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I was reading here that though D. repens is locally endangered or threatened in many areas, it is globally secure (unless I'm misreading this article)? I assume that means the taxobox should be updated to reflect the global status? --Jomegat (talk) 04:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I thought that was strange too. Kingdon (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having read up on this plant a bit, and learning that it has self-pollinating flowers hidden beneath the foliage, I thought it might be a good idea to seek some out (since they are blooming in my woods right now). Here's what I found, but before I add that to the article, I thought I should have it fact checked here first? --Jomegat (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Input from Venus Flytrap experts needed...

(I also posted this over at WP:CPLANTS - posting it here for more eyes, as that project's talkpage seems to be fairly low-traffic.)

File:Insectivorous Plants Drew's copy.jpg
The passage from Drew's book

Hi there. Could someone who's in the know about Venus Flytraps, so to speak come and take a look at this question at the Science Reference Desk? We have a user (Drew R. Smith) with a copy of Darwin's "Insectivorous Plants" which states that VFTs are native to the rainforests of South America - he's scanned the passage in question for us. Now, another user's copy of the same book states that the VFT is "found only in the eastern part of North Carolina", which would seem to agree with WPs Venus Flytrap article and most of the web, from what I can gather.

I'm bringing this here, just in case Drew and his book are correct and WP is helping to propagate a 'common misconception', based on an error in an early edition of Darwin's text. I/We'd appreciate your thoughts on this issue. Cheers. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you dig into Internet Archive you can find several editions of the book, so you could look into the history. (The 2nd edn of 1888, edited by Francis Darwin, says (pg 231) North Carolina.) Lavateraguy (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For confirmation of the facts Weakley's Flora says "This monotypic genus is endemic to the Coastal Plain of NC and SC; it has been introduced in various places, including panhandle FL, Yancey County in the mountains of NC, and s. NJ, where it persists and spreads to varying degrees". Lavateraguy (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I posted over at the relevant discussion on this, as well. I really want to know where this book came from. Unauthorized reproduction that introduced an error? Does that look like hand typesetting or is that dot-matrix printer? I really haven't got a clue why a book labeled Insectivorous Plants by Charles Darwin would have this error, except for the inaccuracies introduced with each reprinting. Someone got sleepy while typesetting! --Rkitko (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Rain forest"? In a book that was published in 1875? IIRC, the term "rain forest" was coined by Schimper in Pflanzengeographie which, according to our article on Schimper was published in 1898. Guettarda (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What would Darwin likely have referred to it as? Jungle? Thanks for the input and clearing-up-of-the-issue here and at the Sci Desk, by the way... :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't know. I would recommend asking Dave Souza - he really knows his Darwin scholarship. Guettarda (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books has the 1915 edition of Darwin's Insectivorous Plants. It says North Carolina.[31] --Una Smith (talk) 23:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, gbooks ALSO has the 1875 edition: "It [...] is found only in the eastern part of North Carolina, growing in damp situations." (p. 286). Circeus (talk) 01:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Darwin Online has full scans of three editions of this book [32] Guettarda (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ID help please

Hi there, spotted this little guy when out for a walk the other day, the head is roughly 7cm long and it was on the end of a single stem maybe 25-35cm off the ground, I'm pretty sure it's a pterostylis species of some description but a precise ID would be greatly appreciated. Regards. Flying Freddy (talk) 03:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be Pterostylis nutans. Melburnian (talk) 04:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic, thankyou. Could you tell me, are there any particular diagnostic features that would be sensible to try to photograph when taking pictures of orchids? Flying Freddy (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This University of Tasmania site gives a key to orchid genera. If you explore this, you will discover the defining characteristics for orchids in Tasmania, and therefore which characteristics need to be captured in one or more photos. A closeup photo of the flower (showing all the features labelled on the orchid flowers information page) and another of the whole plant is a good starting point. Melburnian (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project Ipomoea

I've took the liberty on making an Ipomoea wikiproject.It's still in a proposal stage but if we have enough people joining the project and editting the page,we'll be able to make it into a complete project. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals/Project_Ipomoea --Alocaluser (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My advice to you is that wikiprojects only work when they are organising existing collaboration. If you find your talk page is full of discussion about Ipomoea articles with the same people; if your user subspace is full of collaborative lists, notes and drafts on Ipomoea; if you already have a group of people committed to an ambitious goal with respect to coverage of this topic; then, and only then, a wikiproject is a good idea. If you're missing these things, your wikiproject will prove a pointless waste of time. The "if you build it they will come" theory has been proven wrong time and time again. Hesperian 11:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I see you have less than a hundred edits, of which just five are to a single Ipomoea article. I highly recommend you wait a few months, to see if Wikipedia is really your thing, and find out whether you're happy focussing on this topic in the long term. Hesperian 11:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it is via a wikiproject, thanks for your contributions to Ipomoea articles and I hope you keep at it. I don't know what the best sources are for this area, but a quick look around found: Flora of China treatment of 29 species found in China, phylogenetic analysis of subgenus Quamoclit, various online papers concerning various species. Kingdon (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Natural history and the "Natural History Network"

The article on natural history has a short paragraph (under Societies) on an organisation called the Natural History Network. It seems out of place there to me; see the talk page for full comment. Briefly, I don't think it's important enough to be in such a general article. Since the talk page over there seems pretty quiet, I thought I'd drop a line here before removing the content. Feedback, please.

Pertusaria (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ID Question

Saw this on the Science Ref Desk, thought it might be a fun question

I was hacking down plants with a machete in my brothers backyard today and I came across a very tall, non-woody-stemmed plant (about the size of a small tree). It has a reddish-purple stem and huge, long, pointed ovoid leaves. The stem is very thick (two or three inches at the base)and when I hack it open, the pith inside is divided into little segments all the way up by little white membranes. The tiny, white flowers near the top have five petals and seem to be in the process of turning into little green berries. I don't have the slightest clue what this plant might be and I'd really like to find out. Any help would be appreciated.

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Strange_plant_in_northeast_Kansas.

Guettarda (talk) 17:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like Solanum nigrum on steroids. Hesperian 23:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anybot redux (post AfD)

See User:Kurt Shaped Box/Anybot edits for an updated list of the AnyBot edited articles remaining following the conclusion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anybot's algae articles. During the course of the AfD, 69.226.103.13 indicated that many of the redirects created by Anybot (which were not included in the discussion) were also erroneous. Now, I'm not an expert in this field, so I don't know if this is a 'very big ask' or not - but I'd appreciate it if the 'algae guys' here could have a look at the list and indicate which of the redirects (as far as I can tell, everything on the list from Signiosphaera downwards) are in need of deletion or re-targeting. Or alternatively provide a list of the redirects that are correct (if that's any easier). I'm happy and willing to spend time on cleaning this mess up - if you'd be so kind as to give me an indication as to what exactly needs doing here. Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started cleaning the mess up, but there are bots tagging me as an abusive vandal and interfering with my work, so I can't do it. The articles require either a phycologist or a general plant editor comfortable with the green algae-high level knowledge editing, but not botable, and not a general editor, they have to be individually checked. Most are redirects. Some were created by others and edited by anybot. Some were created only by anybot and not deleted for some reason. I found one that still called a cyanobacterium an algae. The bad ones are obvious and you can see they're bad by clicking on the algae base link. The redirects cna be deleted or removed. User:Kurt Shaped Box will delete articles directly if you need them deleted and can't do it yourself. The list is about 889 articles. It would take little work to clean up the list.
But, I'm not going to do it and be labeled an abusive vandal for my hard work. The very least wikipedia can do to keep experts is not insult them. That should not have to be said.
--69.226.103.13 (talk) 06:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this weirdly written (It should be at Paphiopedilum 'Hsinying Quatal', for a first) article, but am not sure whether to send it straight to AFD or just move it. Any thoughts? Circeus (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears on the RHS International Orchid Register [33] However, everything in the article except the first three sentences appears to be about the genus Paphiopedilum in general, rather than the hybrid itself. Melburnian (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My thought was more along the line that a hybrid requires more than existence to be notable, but I'm not clear what our de facto guideline on this point is. Circeus (talk) 05:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would lean that way, but we've just nodded through a rose cultivar. Lavateraguy (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the notability of hybrids/cultivars varies enormously. Some are highly notable, others not. For this particular cultivar, I can't find (at least on the net) any depth of information that couldn't be handled in a list. I would not object to having the notability of this article tested at AfD. Melburnian (talk)
I didn't see any notability in the rose cultivar nodded through. However, start a Paphiopedilum hybrids page? Lavateraguy (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the rose cultivar meets the notability threshold - "Precious Platinum Rose" gets quite a number of hits in Google Books[34], one of the hits that gives a full preview has a detailed description [35]; "Hsinying Quatal" on the other hand gets 0 GBhits. [36]. I agree that starting a "Paphiopedilum hybrids" (or similar) article is a good idea.Melburnian (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hsinying Quatal Melburnian (talk) 07:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to invite interested people to the newest plant-related wikiproject, WikiProject Forestry. Guettarda (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dock

Dock, a disambiguation page, is pending disambiguation of its incoming links. But first, please take a look and see if you can improve Dock. --Una Smith (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question re plant common names template

See Template talk:Plant common name/doc. --Una Smith (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery flowers

Hi. These things have been popping up all over Denton, and I seem unable to identify them via the usual tricks I've learned so far. They seem a bit like poppies, but I don't think they're poppies. The petals are pointy. Are they some kind of lily? As lilies go, they're not very fancy-looking.

I'm also open to photography feedback. Are any of these pictures good? I think I've improved the lighting and focus since the last time I was poking around. I think I like #s 2, 5 and 7 the best, but I wonder what others think. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Taxonomically species, they're not even close to poppies; they are some kind of monocot; I don't know much about this area, but as an educated guess I'd say it is some kind of amaryllid. Hesperian 01:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On further investigation, a Habranthus. Hesperian 01:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask EnCASF (talk · contribs) if he can give it a look. Circeus (talk) 01:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They're "lilies" is the broad non-phylogenetic sense of "monocot flower with six tepals", but they're in the Asparagales not in the Liliales. On a quick check, I agree with Hesperian that they might be Amaryllidaceae. Specifically, I think they're Habranthus texanus (the only Habranthus species in the Texas flora), and these are better pictures than the one currently on the Habranthus page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: I should say that H. texanus is the only species listed in the Manual of the Vascular Plants of Texas. A check of the Texas Flora database turns of no records under that name, and all but one of the records returned under that genus are for the species H. tubispathus. There may have been a genus revision since the Manual was published. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
According to [37] and [38], tubispathus and texanus are synonymous (or texanus is a variety), with tubispathus apparently more standard for the specific name. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also notice that the Habranthus page currently says that species in the genus have flowers in umbels of 2-3. That is clearly incorrect for the Texas species, at least. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the ID. The Flora of North America goes with H. tubispathus [39] Melburnian (talk) 02:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these databases seem to include the genus is Amaryllidaceae, and others in Liliaceae. Reading the latter page, I guess that's pretty normal. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, They are very good pictures of Habranthus tubispathus formerly known as Habranthus andersonii or sometimes Habranthus texanus, blooms in the summer after a good rain. The variety texensis is found in Texas and Louisiana and is yellow-orange with streaks of bronze. This info together with some other pics can be seen [here]. Habranthus is considered a member of Amaryllidaceae (sensu APGI and APGII) or a member of Liliaceae in the older system of Cronquist. Many floras (such as FNA) still use this later system. Thanks Circeus!! :-) (I am quite bussy to enter every day...I will try to continue my job this weekend). --EnCASF (talk) 02:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tree-stub

I've nominated this for deletion. It clutters up the bottom of articles that invariably already have a taxon-specific stub tag on them, and I don't think it has an audience. Who amongst us has a specific interest in perennial woody plants with a single, large, supporting stem expressing apical dominance? Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion/Log/2009/July/3 Hesperian 01:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the articles in question are categorized in a tree category, I don't think the stub is needed any longer. The was a person helping to flesh out tree stubs long ago, but the number of stubs has grown far faster than he was ever keeping up with, and no one else has stepped in to make use of them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]