Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 58.169.107.35 (talk) at 03:53, 21 October 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Archives for WP:PLANTS (Archive index) edit



Please help identify this plant

Could someone please help identify the plant in this picture:

File:Red Banksia.jpg
Red Banksia

Rosidae/rosids etc

The higher levels of (eu)dicot systematics need to be straightened out; presently the information is strewn about and most articles are stubs. How about merging Rosidae and rosids? Under which name doesn't matter fron this user's POV; arguably "rosids" are better under the "if there's an unequivocal common name, use it" stance, while Rosidae would avoid taxobox problems.

For most of those who'll stick to ranked taxa will simply use APG II rosids -> subclass Rosidae ("most" because there'll always be researchers who against evidence to the contrary want to promote their private taxonomies). It is unproblematic, the changes are minor. And since Wikipedia uses ranks, "our" Rosidae ought to be = APG II rosids.

Same for Asteridae and asterids.

It would be better, because all these articles are presently stubs (though they are not marked so, there is hardly any content except a list of taxa contained) and it is not likely that this is gonna change anytime. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making Rosidae = APG II rosids, like making Rosopsida = APG eudicots, would be original research. Both are sensible taxa to include in a ranked classification, but we're not supposed to generate one ourselves. (I've checked the new Heywood and it, apart from some arbitrary differences from APG II, doesn't use supraordinal ranks either.)
So unless you think the policy of don't let the rules stop you doing the right thing applies (and you can achieve a consensus in support) ... Lavateraguy (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The original research problem is there whether we have merged or non-merged articles (the current, separate articles make assertions about the relationship between APG rosids and Cronquist Rosidae). Kingdon (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that an observation that most of Cronquist's Rosidae fall into the rosid clade, or an outline of those Cronquist taxa which fall into the rosid clade, rise to the level of original research. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not too worried about the current wording either, but think we can find a wording on a combined article which makes the distinction sufficiently well. A redirect doesn't imply synonymy any more than having Pepys Diary redirect to Samuel Pepys means that those two things are the same. Kingdon (talk) 17:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we have the clade name Rosidae published we can either have Rosidae (ICBN) and Rosidae (Phylocode), or one article covering two concepts. rosids would redirect to wherever we describe the latter. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I discovered a major publication this week that formally defines several of the better-suppoerted tracheophyte clades and defines them under the new PhyloCode. The authors do not assign a rank to any of the names they've tackled, but the authors include several APGII participants. One catch: the print version is a shorter summary; the electonic edition of the journal has a version that is nearly twice as long as is the preferred version to use. The article is:

  • Philip D. Cantino, James A. Doyle, Sean W. Graham, Walter S. Judd, Richard G. Olmstead, Douglas E. Soltis, Pamela S. Soltis, & Michael J. Donoghue (2007) "Towards a phylogenetic nomenclature of Tracheophyta". Taxon 56 (3): E1-E44. (The "E" indictaes electronic version")

The paper is so significant, I printed out a copy for use at home. It includes crown-group definitions, apomorphy-based definitions, and total-clade definitions for the major clades that are well-supported by published studies, including Isoetopsida, Monilophyta, Leptosporangiatae, Angiospermae, Magnoliidae, Monocotyledoneae, Eudicotyledoneae, Caryophyllales, Rosidae, Asteridae, and many others.

With this paper, we can avoid the pitfall of WP:OR in defining some of the key high-level clades in the flowering plants. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a merge (probably according to the Cantino et al paper nomenclature, as Taxon is pretty much the gold standard and the authors seem to be active in this field, although the caveat is to be cautious about anything new). Moving some of the information to a History section (as in, say, Monera or Angiosperm) might be a good way to organize material which is not currently used in systematic papers (although Cronquist and the like are currently used in other contexts like organizing species lists, herbaria, etc). As for whether the rosid/asterid articles are destined to permanently remain stubs, if that is so, I suppose the whole thing could be merged into eudicot but I'm not sure whether I'd go quite that far (depends, perhaps, on whether there is much to say about the biology/botany of one group which is cleanly separable from the others). Kingdon (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Rosid and Asterid articles wouldn't have to remain stubs. There is significant information available, such as good synapomorphies and many published phylogenies specific to these groups. Both pages would be good places to have a nice section showing the high-level phylogeny of included taxa. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen (the electronic version of) that paper. It doesn't justify us using a subclass Rosidae. If people are happy with unranked clade entries between class and order in the taxobox, then OK this paper gives us proper names to use. We do have the issue, which wanders in the direction of original research, of deciding which ones to use - between Magnoliophyta and Malvales we have Mesangiospermae (euangiosperms), Eudicotyledoneae/Tricolpatae (eudicots), Gunneridae, Pentapetaleae (core eudicots), Rosidae (rosids), and Malvidae (malvids, eurosids II). For regular taxa we have a rule of thumb we boils down to omit optional ranks from the upper parts of the taxobox, but that isn't applicable here. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, there are two separate questions here: (1) Which clades are worth having articles for, and (2) Which groups should be listed in the taxobox of progressively narrower subgroups.
I assume you're more concerned about the second question. Since this is going to affect a very large number of taxoboxes (most angiosperms), is it possible to consider working a change in the taxobox template itself? Namely, to permit something like "nonclasis" (not class), which would display in the position of clasis, but display (unranked)? If we could have "nonclasis" and "nonsubclasis", would that allow us to select two significant groups to use on the subgroups? This approach is not without serious problems, but is it workable? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. If every species is notable, then arguably every published taxon is. I wasn't so worried about the mechanics, but perhaps I'm mistaken about the capabilities of taxoboxes. Oh, and add question (3) Can we answer question (2) without committinh original research? We've already had disputes about standardising on APG, and that scarely flirts with original research? Lavateraguy (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An unranked_classis parameter exists, see for example [1]. As for unranked_subclassis, we could perhaps (ab)use unranked_ordo (which is above order) for that (they are unranked after all....). Or maybe it would be better to change the template to add unranked_subclassis. This would just affect articles for orders; family and below would go from phylum to unranked_classis (eudicot) to order without intermediate steps (at least, that's the choice I'd make). Kingdon (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've revised Rosidae to include the Phylocode sense. (The reference needs cleaning up by someone whose on top of citation mechanics.) If people are happy we the new version a merge of rosids can be proposed Lavateraguy (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can take care of formatting the citation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We also need a bit of tweaking there and/or elsewhere to make Rosa cinnamonea link to the right place. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is: the current taxobox is completely incompatible with the PhyloCode and the rationale behind it.
Re OR - I am not sure how/if this is defined in the ICBN (that's why I asked). We don't have it in zoology, but does the ICBN extend beyond families? Because then the OR point might be relatively moot (depending on how botanists deal with such matters these days) -
if the ICBN applies its type concept at subclass rank and if botanical SOP is (as is in zoology) to strive for monophyly of taxa, then the ICBN Roside are as regards their circumscription = APG II rosids (or whatever post-APG system you like)
My rationale is that there could well be just a single place to discuss the clade of "true" rosids, which as of now seems to be well and stably delimited. Taxonomic details ("contains the genus Rosa" vs the PhyloCode definition etc) and a discussion of the classificational history, what was moved in and what was moved out and by whom and why, could be the main content of such an article. So eventually the article would outline the history of how the rosids were recognized as an evolutionary lineage, and what characterizes them.
Essentially, make the article more about the clade than about the label that gets pinned to it, while respecting all the different labels that have been pinned to it.
(From zoological experience, I would advise Wikipedia to be "actively neutral" in the ICxN vs PhyloCode issue. Bluntly, both suck for different reasons: neither is there such a limited number of evolutionary levels or things like "Reptilia", nor does evolution produce a neat tree of lineages that have no population size, no geographic distribution and bifurcate in no time. doi:10.1080/10635150600960061 ought to be mandatory reading for anyone interested in this matter.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmmm, canis soup. -- carol (talk) 13:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Elegant point in case, thanks! Also very well written and readable. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I agree with "Essentially, make the article more about the clade than about the label that gets pinned to it". Writing, as you suggest, about the nomenclature/classification stuff as the bulk of the article might be a good first step, although ultimately we'd want information about synapomorphies, the biology of this group, etc (which is the point of coming up with such names/concepts in the first place). (P.S. I don't think types apply above the rank of family in the ICBN, but I'd have to research it to be sure). Kingdon (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Names of taxa above the rank of family are giverned by sections 16 and 17 of the ICBN. When the name is based on an included taxon, the name is "automatically typified"; when the name is descriptive, typification does not seem to apply. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Clear synapomorphies for the rosids have not been identified, although most rosids share several morphological and anatomical features, such as nuclear endosperm development, reticulate pollen exine, generally simple perforations of vessel end-walls, alternate intervessel pitting, mucilaginous leaf epidermis, and two or more whorls of stamens, plus ellagic acid" (Soltis & Soltis, American Journal of Botany 91(10): 1614-1626 (2004)).
Also, re typification, see article 10.7 of the Vienna Code. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of sequenced plastomes

I've been meaning to put together a list of plastomes for a while. I've now decided it might of well be on Wikipedia as anywhere else, so I've made a start. Anyone else is welcome to pitch in. Lavateraguy (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amomum

Hi, can any skilled editors evaluate the newly added species (do any need to be lumped together?), and add articles for any of them? Many thanks, Badagnani (talk) 01:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Amonum costatum and Amomum subulatum should be set up as redirects to Black cardamom, with a view to the last eventually being an article on the spice, and there being separate articles on the species. Any views? (PS: I've made some changes based on the bold assumption that the rest of Wikipedia is reliable.) Lavateraguy (talk) 01:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorting Amomum Names doesn't agree with several elements of that list (ex Wikispecies?) Lavateraguy (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flora of China gives a recent view on the Chinese species. Lavateraguy (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flora of China doesn't agree that Amomum compactum is Alpinia nutans. I'm also wondering if Sorting Amomum Names is wrong and Amomum zerumbet is Alpinia zerumbet, rather than Zingiber zerumbet. Lavateraguy (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.tropicos.org/NameSynonyms.aspx?nameid=34500581 Hardyplants (talk) 07:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buchanania

Thanks for help at Amomum above. Now, I see that Buchanania lists only 3 species, but this website has many more. Can someone help? Badagnani (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help with this? It would be greatly appreciated. Badagnani (talk) 18:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone kindly help with this? Badagnani (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 1993 edition of Mabberley's The Plant Book says there are 25 species in Indo-Malaysia and the western Pacific. Unless the genus has been reworked to synonymize most of the species, or unless a splinter genus has been broken off, then the site listing more species is probably correct. All our article says is that it "includes" those three species. The genus article was created by Polbot from a list of rare and endangered species, so only species of conservational concern were included in the initial page creation. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banana production in Côte d'Ivoire

I need botanical intervention with this article. I started an article on Cocoa production in Côte d'Ivoire in which I copied and pasted useful, although not yet checked, information from other articles on Wikipedia to cover the basic botany. However, bananas are beyond me. What I know about bananas is nowhere in Wikipedia, and I can't figure out the basics about banana botany. (I know they're a monicot, but I need specific cultivars, links to the correct species articles, what's a plantain, versus a banana, botanically speaking, and the parent of the dessert banana.) Bananas are a large, valuable, and well-studied export crop for Côte d'Ivoire, so detailed information about bananas in Côte d'Ivoire is available, but the general botany for bananas is not easy for me to find. Can someone add some basics about the botany of production to this article, and I will write the economics, agricultural details, and diseases around this? The help would be appreciated. --Blechnic (talk) 08:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a fair bit of botany at Banana and especially Musa (genus). As for where to find more, a google scholar search for "musa banana" gets a lot of hits but I don't really have a more targeted suggestion. Kingdon (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are problems with the article which leave me confused, and I am having trouble finding better information. The article says the dessert bananas are "species Musa acuminata or the hybrid Musa × paradisiaca, a cultigen," but then the Musa acuminata article mentions nothing about it being the parent species for the cultivated dessert banana, and in fact is so short as to be useless, hence confusion. There is no Musa × paradisiaca article for some reason, hence more confusion, it should be important, but maybe the name is different for cultivars? The Cavendish banana article is tagged all over with fact needed, but I did use it for my redirect from banana to the actual cultivar most used. I'll add a see also to the Gros Michel article, since I mention Panama disease, but this article is also practically useless. The article goes on to say that Musa x paradisiaca is also the name for the plantain, leaving me simply confused. The Musa (genus) article is too sparse in areas I need to be usable.
I can and will improve some of these articles on the agricultural and economic aspects of bananas, but google searches on the botany of bananas overwhelmed me. If someone could find me a single review article, I could get the information myself, but I can't find an article that discusses the cultivated banana, its parents, the cultivated plantain, its parents, and their relationship within the genus Musa, including what sections include edible fruit. There is too much information, and I'm not a botanist, so I can't enter the correct parameters to limit the search properly. Thanks for the feedback, though. Maybe someone else knows something already about bananas? --Blechnic (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Musa x paradisiaca is Musa acuminata x Musa balbisiana, fide Flora of North America. Musa acuminata is an AA diploid, Musa balbisiana a BB diploid; other bananas are AAA, AB, AAB, ABB, AAAB, AABB or ABBB (BBB is apparently not found). Try this for an overview of the taxonomy.
Most cultivated bananas are selections and hybrids of M. acuminata and M. balbisiana, but the 'Fei' bananas of the Pacific are also eaten.
My impression is that the distinction between plantains and bananas is rather like that between cooking and eating apples, and is of little botanical significance. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also Biodiversity International. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:01, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.sbmp.org.br/cbab/sisartigo/pdf/1(4)%202001/1(4)_399-436p-2001.pdf. Hardyplants (talk) 09:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two categories for pears

There seem to be two categories for pears (Category:Pears and Category:Pyrus) and there is a lot of overlap between them. Since I'm unfamiliar with how plants are categorised on Wikipedia, I thought I'd come here before going to CFD. Which is the standard category title in this case, and which category should be merged? Thanks, –Black Falcon (Talk) 23:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I want to rationalize the two after the fact, Category:Pears seems to be for pears which are eaten by people, and Category:Pyrus for all pears (thus making the first a subcategory of the second). With a few exceptions, such as Callery Pear being double-listed (when it would just be in Pyrus according to the above), this seems to be the current practice. Now, we could change this, and even if we don't do that should at least explain (for example, via a sentence at the top of each category) what each category is supposed to contain. Kingdon (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we had an article like Pear pudding, Pear liqueur, or Pear tart, plant people always remove it if we add a genus category, but those would work under a "Pears" category. Similarly, we have at Category:Chicken dishes category. Badagnani (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Bollwyller Pear existed (the article is a Shipova, rather than x Sorbopyus, and there's no redirect) that would be another one which would might go under Category:Pears and not Category:Pyrus. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I understand now. Thanks, –Black Falcon (Talk) 01:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need help

Is the proper genus Carum or Trachyspermum? Trachyspermum roxburghianum seems to also be called Carum roxburghianum , and I don't know which is most correct. We have both genera under Apiaceae, but I don't know if both genera still exist or if one has replaced the other. Can someone help sort this out? Badagnani (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't necessarily a right snswer to the question. This paper has both Carum and Trachyspermum as polyphyletic, so there's a good chance that both generic names should be recognised, but that doesn't help with your Trachyspermum roxburghianum. However Flora of China (warning 4.5Mb) treats this species under that name. While I don't agree with everything in Flora of China, it's probably as good a source as you're going to get on this topic. (I had a look at Plants India, but they don't seem to have completed their Umbelliferae list, and have both names in their raw data.)
The key character separating the genera in Flora of China is "Fruit oblong-ellipsoid or ellipsoid, base rounded" (Carum) vs "Fruit ovoid-globose, base often cordate" (Trachyspermum). Lavateraguy (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sago palm

Sago, about the starch extracted from the palm Metroxylon sagu, has several paragraphs about how sago is extracted also from the cycad Cycas revoluta (highly unlikely), followed by several paragraphs about how Cycas revoluta is extremely toxic (true). Both palm and cycad are often called "sago palm" in English, resulting in much confusion. Please help clean up this article. --Una Smith (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely? Perhaps. True? Evidently [2][3][4][5][6][7] (just in the first two pages of results for googling cycas sago starch food). This is not necessarily surprising; Aesculus seeds were used by several native American groups both as a fish poison and as a food, the latter after leaching, and castor oil and ricin come from the same seeds.--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Curtis, but I was hoping for something a little more scholarly. The first two Google hits you cite are to documents that conflate the palm and the cycad. The palm is monocarpic; the cycad is not. The palm flowers and dies at age 7-15 years; the cycad can live far in excess of 100 years and by age 15 most won't have any stem above ground. --Una Smith (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200113/000020011301A0425142.php Hardyplants (talk) 21:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Hardyplants. Una, you should know that a drive-by googling is much quicker than scholarly research, and can still frame the issue. Also, I don't see any evidence of conflation in the first two references; they are both explicitly about the cycad.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The conflation is where sago cycads are described as an important source of starch. I can find no reliable source re any cycad being a current commercial source of starch. Historically, there was one (see Florida arrowroot), and a few very traditional indigenous cultures still harvest cycads for starch, but primarily (only?) in times of famine. --Una Smith (talk) 14:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

cartilage in plants

Recently I've come across mentions of certain plants or plant parts being "cartilaginous". I hope one of you guys knows enough about plant tissues to tell me whether this sense of the word "cartilage" is the same as is used in the article cartilage, which doesn't mention plants at all? Hesperian 13:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daydon Jackson, A Glossary of Botanic Terms defines cartilaginous as "hard and tough, as the skin of an apple-pip". That's not unambiguous, but I would interpret the use with respect to plants are relating to the physical properties of the tissue, rather than to the composition. That's supported by material at WikiBooks that says that only animals have collagen (plus, nowadays, trangenic plants). However an article in the EMBO Journal reports the presence of collagen in fungi, so perhaps animals should read opisthokonts. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit conflict.

cartilagenous = hardened and tough, but capable of being bent. Dictionary of Botany George usher. I can't recall ever running into the use my self, don't have to many plants with this type of tissues, but I am sure that it could be applied to many tropical and some plants from arid locations. Hardyplants (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks to both of you. Now all I have to do is figure out the difference between "follicles woody" and "follicles cartilaginous", which is apparently a different sufficient to split at subgeneric rank; and how it is possible for one of my sources to refer to the follicles of that subgenus as both "soft" and "cartilaginous". :-( Hesperian 14:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a guess, but one is hard and brittle and the other is soft and pliable. Hardyplants (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I think you're (almost) right, Hardyplants. "follicles woody" means "follicles hard and tough and brittle"; "follicles cartilaginous" means "follicles hard and tough but pliable". My second source, which is horticultural rather than systematic, has picked up only half the meaning of "cartilaginous", and mistranslated the pliable bit as "soft". Thanks again. Hesperian 23:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hemsley writes of Pyrus s.l. "Fruit fleshy, 2- to 5-celled, cells 1- or 2-seeded, cartilaginous", which makes the tough bit surrounding the core of an apple cartilaginous. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Systematic_bias

PS: there appears to be some concern over too many US-related hooks nommed at DYK...so...(hint hint) big opportunity to address that with some plant article expansions. Remember multiplying stubs by 5x.. :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ulmus apostrophes

The page Ulmus 'Morton Plainsman' contains apostrophes in the name, as did Ulmus New Horizon (formerly Ulmus 'New Horizon'). The latter I moved, but seeing several of the former in fixing redirects I wondered if it was a MOS thing for cultivars and plants that I wasn't aware of. Does anyone know? WLU (talk) 13:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can not comment on the MOS thing- they do some things that I do not understand, but a cultivar should have the apostrophes, thus Ulmus New Horizon is incorrect. It should be Ulmus 'New Horizon' or can be U. 'New Horizon' with in the body of any work. Hardyplants (talk) 13:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See cultivar. Hardyplants (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) states that scientific names are to be used as page titles, with certain specific exceptions. Where a scientific name is followed by a cultivar epithet, the epithet is correctly expressed with the initial letter(s) capitalised and enclosed in single quotation marks. --Melburnian (talk) 14:30, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New WikiProject proposal: Biota of the UK and Ireland

I've proposed a new WikiProject named WikiProject Biota of the UK and Ireland which would encompass all species and conservation efforts within Britain, an extremely interesting area. The project would include vegetation classification, Category:Lists of British animals, Category:Conservation in the United Kingdom, Category:Ecology of the British Isles, Category:Forests and woodlands of the United Kingdom, Category:Fauna of the British Isles and anything else to do with the flora and fauna of Britain. If anyone is interested just leave your name on the proposal page. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tissue (biology)

While I am able to provide expert input into the animal aspects of this page, it would be very useful for a botanist to provide expert input for the plant tissue section of the page. LLDMart (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of input are you seeking? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synonymy frustrations, again

I can't figure it out: is it Asteromoea mongolica, or Kalimeris mongolica? I'm afraid I made both of those pages, so this is more or less an argument with myself at the moment :-). --SB_Johnny | talk 10:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny, Daisy taxonomy is a freakin' nightmare, with only 30,000 species and rising. Many huge genera have been partly revised and some until recently were still in limbo. I am not aware of the species you mention, but giving you a heads up (groan). If I get a chance I may ferret around a bit but am a bit busy. Asteraceae ain't really my forte. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a relevant paper in Ann. MOBot. - available at Botanicus and JSTOR. I only skimmed the first couple of pages, but it looks as if Kalimeris is correct. (I'll leave it to you to read the rest of the paper.) Lavateraguy (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I've updated our Kalimeris article. I didn't read the whole paper either (at least not yet). Kingdon (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bleh. I don't want to read papers... I just want to read wikipedia and get the scoop :-). --SB_Johnny | talk 19:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Automated creation of alga articles

Hi,

I'm writing a bot which will automatically create stubs on algal taxa, from the genus level up. While this doesn't strictly fall under the juristiction of plants, any feedback on the stub articles would be very welcome. Stubs will appear over the next couple of days here; more details are available here, where any comments would be gratefully received.

Thanks, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... whose classficiation system(s) are you using? And which groups of algae do you mean? Arguably, there has been more revision of algal systematics over the last 20 years than for any plant group. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin,
That's great news! :) I went on an enthusiastic spree roughly a year ago, making articles for most taxa of the Chlorophyta and Charophyta (the green algae) at genus-level and higher, but undoubtedly I missed some and new taxa have been added in the meanwhile. You might also consider developing a bot to improve those earlier articles with a fuller description, images, more links to literature and databases, etc. I did the best I could, but I'm no expert and they were pretty rudimentary. Thanks for your good work, Willow (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I made a few templates and categories to help with the work, which you might consider? I made separate categories for each of the (major) taxonomic levels of algae: Category:Algae taxonomic classes, Category:Algae taxonomic orders, Category:Algae taxonomic families, and [[Category:Algae genera. Secondly, I made two templates for linking to taxonomic references and databases, unimaginatively titled {{Taxonomic references}} and {{Taxonomic links}}. ;) We can modify or specialize them for you, if that'd help! :) Willow (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - it should be relatively easy to expand your articles, as they appear to use a pretty consistent format. I'll bear this in mind. It might be easier to leave any further discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/anybot#Test_pages to keep it in one place. Cheers, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 20:20, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question about avocado seeds

Illustrator LadyofHats created this diagram, and someone left her the following message:

  • "There is a mistake on your Wikipedia website about "Seed". The seed of an avocado (Persea americana, Lauraceae) does NOT contain any endosperm. The entire seed (apart from the seed coat) consists of the storage embryo with extremely short radicle and thickened cotyledons."

She would like a knowledgeable editor to confirm (or deny) this so she can change the diagram accordingly (or not).--ragesoss (talk) 01:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They do have an endosperm. I will post a reference soon. Hardyplants (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK that was not hard to locate after all; [8]

see page 121. Hardyplants (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the Avocado seed diagram, it looks like it might need to be adjusted though, the part marked as endosperm is not likely to be correct. Hardyplants (talk)
I'm not so sure. The image in the book is of a young fruitlet (including the flesh surrounding the seed), rather than a fully-developed lone seed. If the endosperm expands greatly, it could be correctly labeled.--ragesoss (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That my problem thus all the fudging with "might" and "likely", I do not know if the endosperm expands or is absorbed during development in avocados. I did not come across a good example of a labeled mature seed. Hardyplants (talk) 03:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My experience with mature avocados leads me to believe that all or almost all of the endosperm is absorbed by the cotyledons. Certainly the macroscopic storage tissue is all cotyledons. Even in the reference cited, the embryo already occupies much of the seed.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I would like to point out that the diagram i made actually disecting a avocado seed, so that what goes for the proportions i am quite sure of it. it is only the names what confuses me. becouse as far as i had understood it, the clear white section with the two arms IS the embryo and that everything else arround it was endosperm. but then again when the whole mass is not endosperm, then what is it? what would be the correct label in this case?-LadyofHats (talk) 10:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing that if you think back on your dissection, you'll remember that the surrounding tissue separated into two parts, which are the two cotyledons. Something similar occurs in peanuts, peas, and beans: the swollen cotyledons occupy the bulk of the seed, and the remainder of the embryo holds them together.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's completely contrary to my experience with avocado seeds. Most Magnoliid seeds contain copious endosperm and small embryos. The cotyledons are usually small and do not absorb the endosperm prior to germination the way that legumes do. I'm the one who recommended LadyOfHats use an avocado seed for a model based on a recent dissection. ... That said, I've looked for references or information. Most authors don't mention the embryo or seed anatomy (including FNA), and the closest I've managed to find so far is in Heywood's Flowering Plants of the World where he says of the Lauraceae that the seed contains a straight embryo and no endosperm. Cronquist concurs in his famiy description, so it looks as though the mass of tissue I had intrpreted as endosperm may be the cotyledons. What I wouldn't give for access to a microtome and decent microscope... --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A less practical option would be to germinate a seed and see if the seedling has large or small cotyledons. Or maybe find a picture of a seedling on the web. EncyloPetey, I have a good microscope (not often used any more), what would be much more practical would be a good stereoscope, I find what passes for a good substitution is a digital camera with a good macro lens, you can take a picture and enlarge it on the computer screen, the main problem is that its hard to hold the camera and a dissection probe at the same time. Hardyplants (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have germinated the seeds. The large half-ovoids remain attached to the embryo axis, and shrivel as cotyledons would.--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean for taking a photograph, I meant for examining the cellular structure of the tissues. A good anatomical invetigation might determine whether the tissue is strongly cellular, and thus unlikely to be endosperm. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You persist in mentioning that endosperm is not cellular, but that is not universally true. Commonly, endosperm has a free-nuclear phase, but cell walls form prior to seed maturation.--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The level of cytokinin activity in the endosperm is very high throughout the period that this tissue exists.

[9] and

Toward (f)ruit maturiy, the endosperm disappears and the seed coat shrivels and dies so that the pericarp and the cotyledons remain as the only active tissues in the mature fruit.

[10] Hardyplants (talk) 18:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry if i am a bit slow to understand this :P The avocado seed had a endosperm, but this dies slowly as the seed grows inside the fruit so that a grown up seed ( like the one in the diagram) has an embryo with two overgrown cotyledons( the mass arround the little white embryo). right? so to correct the diagram i remove the label endosperm and point the arrow of "cotyledons" to the two halfs of the seed(the big mass)..then what are the two little arms that are labeled cotyledons right now?

As Hardyplants mentions below, the little arms are probably the connectors of the cotyledons to the embryo axis, similar to petioles of a leaf. It's inaccurate to call the "little white" thing the embryo, as the cotyledons are also part of the embryo. I and others usually call it the "embryo axis".--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am really greatfull that you are taking so much work to answer my question :) and i also feel a bit embrased to interrupt you with yet another diagram -LadyofHats (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

he two "arms" might be rudimentary petioles attaching the cots to the seedling or are the leaves of the developing seedling, the cotyledons remain unmoved as the seed germinates and the seedling grows. If the seed in covered with soil, As the seedling grows it breaks the seed coat and produces a stem with true leaves and the cotyledons remain below ground. Hardyplants (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Hardyplants is correct that avocado has hypogeous germination: the hypocotyl does not elongate, and the cotyledons do not emerge above the soil. In this way it is similar to peas and different from beans.--Curtis Clark (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the diagram, still i will try to go to the bibliotec some time end this week and look for a couple of more sources :P thanks a lot for your help -LadyofHats (talk) 09:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wine grape diagram en.svg

I recently did this diagram under request from the Philip Greenspun illustration project the diagram should serve more the wine related articles, but still i tryed to make it as acurate as the sources allowed it. yet it would seem that there are some issues (especially arround the exact appearance of the locule and a disconnected vascular system on the skin )that are enough to make someone to call it a "botanical disaster" (full argument here) and i would like to know your opinion about it and which changes, if needed , have to be done to improve the acuracy of the diagram.-LadyofHats (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blechnic can be over to top sometimes in her comments, but that doesn't mean she's wrong. I don't have enough familiarity with grapes to know precisely how it should look, but it doesn't look right to me. For one thing, a locule is a cavity, so locular cavity sounds redundant. I can see how you could misinterpret this reference: it appears to be showing a collapsed locule as a thin line, the same locule that is more open in the less mature grape here. If the latter diagram were larger so I could read the labels, I could make more sense of what you should expect.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I don't know plant morphology well enough to help very much, but I would like to offer a few words of encouragement in that these diagrams are well-drawn (artistically) and are the kind of thing which I'd love to see more of, to illustrate some of these concepts (once we can make sure they are accurate, that is). Kingdon (talk) 05:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well i brought a kilo grapes yesterday so i will spend the day disceting them :P-LadyofHats (talk) 09:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help now becouse for starters the grapes i got have no obvious cavity [11], i got clear grapes becouse i was hoping i could realise more of the content of the fruit. but seeing them against the light didnt help much [12], i can recognise the 4 seeds and how they conect but no cavity as such, at must a darker area in the idle of the fruit [13]. but this one seems to be more line nerves than actually a tissue or a clear division. And actually it is far more visible when the grape berry is cut in the horizontal way [14] there one can also recognise that are like 3 lines.

is it posible that my grapes have not 2 but three locules? . anyway later on i desided to make thiner cuts to see a bit ore of detail [15],[16]. it was then when i realised that there was some sort of tissue that would divide the seed from the fruit [17]. and i was thinking this may be.. or?.. actually this whole thing with cuting grapes got me far more confused than i was. can you help me in this please? -LadyofHats (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're confusing grapes. Cultivated varieties often deviate from what one would expect in the wild species; for example, cultivated tomatoes usually have more than the two standard carpels. I see several things in these photographs that may be of use to you:
  1. The locules do indeed close as the fruit matures. I believe that the darker lines in grape4yd5.jpg that extend ± tangentially may be the collapsed remains of the locules.
  2. That same photo may very well represent a tricarpellate grape, with seeds in only two of the carpels.
  3. There are prominent axial vascular bundles in grape2ae3.jpg that extend to the stigma (this is expected). There are also peripheral bundles visible in that photo and also seen very clearly in cross section in the part of grape4yd5.jpg where the two halves are joined.
  4. The parts marked with red arrows in gape3gs0.jpg seem to correspond to the darkish lines around the center in grape4yd5.jpg.
Transillumination is indeed a useful technique for imaging many plant organs. I'd suggest getting some other grape varieties to increase your sample size. If you slice thick sections, and place them on a transparent or translucent flat background for the transillumination, you can even use dark varieties, since the pigment is in the outer layers.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any issues, but others should weigh in.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grass-stub

{{Grass-stub}} and Category:Grass stubs are presently defined as intended for "grass-related articles"; note that the word grass in that sentence links to Poaceae. Yet the article grass states that "Grass is the common word that generally describes monocotyledonous green plants." and "Poaceae are the true grasses ... [but] they also include plants often not recognized to be grasses, such as bamboos or some species of weeds called crab grass." On top of all that Category:Grasses is defined as "for what are commonly called grasses", where grasses links to grass. So now I am confused about the scope of this stub. Can I safely assume that all articles tagged with Grass-stub are Poaceae taxa? Should this stub be renamed "Poaceae-stub"? Hesperian 03:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only confusion is in the article about Grass. I have never heard the term applied to all monocots (lilies, orchids, palms!). Also, bamboos are in the Poaceae as are crabgrasses. So the problem is merely confusion in the article on grass. I think the article is trying to say that most people don't realize that bamboos and crabgrasses are actually in the grass family. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think your right about the bamboo and grabegrass, but there are a number of monocots that have grass in their common name, including: Blue-eye grass, Yellow Grass, Star grass, To the average person, "grass" has been used to descried what some plant looks like. Hardyplants (talk) 16:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's even a dicot (Grass of Parnassus), though it doesn't look like a grass. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the same is true of any common name. Consider: A pineapple is not an apple not does it come from a pine. This doesn't make categories based on "apple" or "pine" incorrect or confusing. A starfish, jellyfish, or crayfish (or any shellfish) are not fish, but that doesn't mean that a grouping based on "fish" isn't useful. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very true, but how many people believe or confuse starfish with real fish? A cat for true grasses is very much needed, but more than once I have been asked about the "Grass with small bright blue flowers" Sisyrinchium angustifolium 'Lucerne' is an attractive perennial for gardens. Hardyplants (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More often than you might think. I know a professor at Cal who worte a nasty letter in to Science (or Nature?) when they treated "shellfish" (molluscs and aquatic arthropods) as the same group. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this discussion seems to be centring on the meaning of the word grass, I had a look at what the OED has to say. There are four definitions relevant to this discussion:

  1. "Herbage in general, the blades or leaves and stalks of which are eaten by horses, cattle, sheep, etc."
  2. "One of the non-cereal Gramineæ [i.e. Poaceae], or any species of other orders resembling these in general appearance."
  3. "In agricultural use: Any of the species of plants grown for pasture, or for conversion into hay."
  4. "Bot. Any plant belonging to the family Gramineæ (Graminaceæ) [i.e. Poaceae], which includes most of the plants called ‘grass’ in the narrower popular sense (see 1) together with the cereals (barley, oats, rye, wheat, etc.), the reeds, bamboos, etc."

My reading of this is that there are three distinct scopes:

  • the broad, pragmatic scope of the farmer, to whom grass is anything he can feed his livestock;
  • the popular view, which encompasses the "typical" Poaceae but excludes cereals, bamboo and other atypical Poaceae, and includes non-Poaceae that look like Poaceae, such as some rushes, sedges, etc; and
  • the botanical view, in which grass = Poaceae.

I think there is a bit of work to be done in various articles to get all this sorted out, but to return to the main issue for me, I think we can probably agree that {{grass-stub}} has an ambiguous title. Since EncycloPetey created this template, it is certain that it was intended to circumscribe the Poaceae and only the Poaceae. Therefore I propose to move this template to {{Poaceae-stub}}. Hesperian 00:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I don't see that there's significant ambiguity here to merit all the work to do the change. Two of the four definitions in the OED are Poaceae-specific. Of the other two, one is arguably Poaceae (source of hay), and the fourth is a non-specific sense for which no category would be likely to be created. What articles have you seen in the stub category that shouldn't be there? Is this real ambiguity that's confusing people, or purely hypothetical confusion that might happen but somehow hasn't in the years that the stub category has existed? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only my own confusion. Okay, I'll assume that it is defined as Poaceae for now, and see what comes out in the wash. Hesperian 02:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is evidence of confusion between Category:Grasses and Category:Poaceae. e.g. Category:Bamboos is a subcategory of the former but not the latter! Hesperian 02:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not confusion but history. The Category:Grasses has been around for years and is where most subcategories were located. Then, in the wake of PolBot's additions, a decision was made to erect a set of taxon-based categories. So the duplicate, parallel category Category:Poaceae was created. So, this is the result of history rather than confusion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that makes sense. I'm still not entirely comfortable with Category:Grass stubs having a different semantics to Category:Grasses, but I managed to get a good night's sleep last night all the same. ;-) Hesperian 01:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the stub and category matched until June of this year, when someone decided to change the description of the category, creating a category fork. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deodar tree is in BAD need of a look at.

This is headed for DYK, but honestly, I don't know where to start with this mess. Circeus (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should it not go to Cedrus deodara or Cedrus. Hardyplants (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've proposed the merge into Cedrus deodara - there's probably something in there which is worth salvaging which isn't already duplicated at the latter.
As a matter of English usage, deodar tree is a phrase analogous to oak tree or linden tree - Deodar would have been a better article title. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion here --Melburnian (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've chipped in at Talk:Deodar tree. There's material there worth salvaging (in my opinion, anyway), but having two rather similar articles for the same species doesn't make any sense. Kingdon (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the author's talk page I discover that this is not the only questionable article. He got a DYK for Mysore mallige. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that Mysore mallige could use some cleanup. In particular, there is some confusion about the species(es) involved, for example whether it is about particular cultivars, all jasmine grown commercially in Karnataka, or what. Other room for improvement would be Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms, and shortening the text in the Geographical Indication section. On the plus side, I'm happy to see an article about this subject - unless I'm misreading the sources, there is enough for an article there. Kingdon (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Arctic flora and Wikipedia:WikiProject Arctic and Portal:Arctic

Would people here be able to help out with some work on Arctic flora? I (and others) have been working on Category:Arctic and Wikipedia:WikiProject Arctic and Portal:Arctic, but we really need someone who knows about plants and the Arctic to check out Category:Arctic flora and related areas. What we really want to do is identify the truly Arctic species and where the borderline areas are. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty general request, but I do note that a lot of good work seems to be going on at the arctic wikiproject. Hopefully you will find some interested people, but if you have more specific questions, by all means ask. One question: do you want articles like Littorella, whose range extends into the arctic but which is primarily subarctic or warmer? (This is for Category:Arctic flora and/or the wikiproject). I would think it would work better to restrict it to plants which are predominantly arctic, but perhaps you have already thought about this question. Kingdon (talk) 14:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I might be able to help, but I am not very active on Wikipedia and don't have most of the necessary books handy right now. Colchicum (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following sources could be useful:

  • Abbott R.J. & C. Brochmann. 2003. History and evolution of the arctic flora: in the footsteps of Eric Hulten. Molecular Ecology 12 (2): 299-313.
  • Böcher T.W. et al. 1968. The Flora of Greenland. Copenhagen: Haase.
  • Chapin, F.S. & C. Korner (eds.). 1995. Arctic and Alpine Biodiversity: Patterns, Causes and Ecosystem Consequences. Berlin: Springer.
  • Hultén Eric. 1937. Outline of the History of Arctic and Boreal Biota during the Quarternary Period. Stockholm: Thule.
  • Hultén Eric. 1963. The distributional conditions of the flora of Beringia. In J.L. Gressitt (ed.), Pacific basin biogeography. Honolulu: Bishop Mus. Press. P. 7-22.
  • Hultén Eric. 1968. Flora of Alaska and Neighboring Territories. Stanford, CA: Sanford University Press.
  • Polunin, Nicholas. 1940. Botany of the Canadian Eastern Arctic. Part 1: Pteridophyta and Spermatophyta. National Museum of Canada Bulletin 92.
  • Polunin, Nicholas. 1947. Botany of the Canadian Eastern Arctic. Part 2: Thallophyta and Bryophyta. National Museum of Canada Bulletin 97.
  • Polunin, Nicholas. 1948. Botany of the Canadian Eastern Arctic. Part 3: Vegetation and ecology. National Museum of Canada Bulletin 104.
  • Polunin, Nicholas. 1959. Circumpolar arctic flora. Oxford : Clarendon Press.
  • Takhtajan, Armen, 1986. Floristic Regions of the World. Berkeley, University of California Press.
  • Thorne R.F. 1972. Major disjunctions in the geographic ranges of seed plants. Quaterly Review of Biology 47: 365-411.

and references therein

In an earlier edition Takhtajan claims that there is only one endemic Arctic genus, Dupontia (Poaceae), while in the Flora of North America Thorne mentions Arctagrostis, Arctous, Braya, Diapensia, Loiseleuria and Oxyria as well, but those are arctic-alpine rather than strictly arctic. According to Takhtajan some of the endemic species (there are more than 100 in total, mostly in Chukotka and Alaska) are Ranunculus sabinei, Papaver polare, Salix arctica, Colpodium vahlianum, Сolpodium wrightii, Puccinellia angustata. However, at least some of them also occur much further south in alpine environments, so it is a mess. Colchicum (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the first question is whether the category is for (a) the plants occurring in the Arctic (there are about 1,000 species, but most of them have no articles on Wikipedia now), (b) the plants endemic to the Arctic or (b) the endemic arctic-alpine plants (and the boundary is sloppy in many cases). Another issue is how to make sure that all editors will use the categorization system correctly and consistently. Colchicum (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Volume III of the Flora of the Russian Arctic includes treatments of the following nine families: Salicaceae, Betulaceae, Urticaceae, Polygonaceae, Chenopodiaceae, Portulacaceae, Caryophyllaceae, Paeoniaceae and Ranunculaceae. The discussions are illustrated with 166 distribution maps. Once completed, the six volumes of the series will treat about 360 genera, 1650 species and 220 infraspecific taxa.[18]

Came across this while looking for another floraristic treatment for the USSR.Hardyplants (talk) 09:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Soursop

Please see and comment. There is yet another proposal afloat to merge a species article with the article about the fruit from that species. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Talk:Taraxacum officinale, although that's more genus article versus articles for each species. Kingdon (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been doing a little cleanup around Annona and species. I've just discovered that much of the text at Atemoya appears to be a copyvio (by a one shot IP user) - paragraphs have been taken unchanged from the reference. Anyone care to do a rewrite? Lavateraguy (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helianthus divaricatus

Right now, Helianthus divaricatus redirects to Helianthus microcephalus, but I don't think this is correct. Uncle Sam (i.e., USDA PLANTS Profiles) and Uncle Roger (... Tory Peterson) both list these as separate. Further, Uncle Roger says H. microcephalus has a small flower head (thus the name). I'm not an admin, so I can't delete the page, and blanking it seems to not be a good idea either. But I don't think I know enough about the plant to write an article. --Jomegat (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are indeed not the same species. I'll make a stub ; ) DJLayton4 (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done : ) DJLayton4 (talk) 22:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Jomegat (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please help identify this plant

Could someone please help identify the plant in this picture:

Silvereye
Weird. I doubt it is an oz native...(?) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a clue, but it was in a garden so it may not be. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a species of Cestrum Melburnian (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cestrum fasciculatum ? Noodle snacks (talk) 07:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly Cestrum elegans or Cestrum fasciculatum or a hybid involving either species. --Melburnian (talk) 07:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) With 200 or more species, it might be best to just say "Silvereye perched on a blooming Cestrum species" on the caption for the picture...... And Melburnian now points out that there are even hybrids, so this reinforces by belief that you should not claim a species if in doubt. p.s Nice picture! Hardyplants (talk) 08:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA nom for Commelina communis

I've been working on the aformentioned article for the past few days and I think it's more or less ready for GA. If anyone would like to review, copyedit or otherwise improve it, it would be much appreciated. Thanks! DJLayton4 (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article, and it looks like you (and/or other contributors) have done a lot of good work there. Kingdon (talk) 03:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is still waiting for a reviewer ; ) I would prefer it if someone from the project could do it as opposed to someone who is relatively unknowledgable about plants. If anyone has time it would be great. DJLayton4 (talk) 01:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When did it become possible to conserve a species name?

Ever notice how often a genus name is conserved but the species names are not? Until this morning, I had put this down to botanists being a bunch of lazy sloths. (In my defense, I formed this opinion based on something I read on this website: "Most of Robert Brown's generic names have thus been conserved.... However, the effort of having to endure the name conservation procedure for hundreds of species names was too much and we now use Salisbury's species names.") But I have just discovered that initially conservation was only allowed for taxon at ranks between genus and family, and was only extended to species some time in the last 40 years. I wonder if anyone knows precisely when? Hesperian 01:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was the Saint Louis Code, but I googled it, and found this. It turns out that conservation of specific epithets for major economic plants began with the 1981 Sydney Code, conservation of epithets for species that are types of conserved genera dates to the 1987 Berlin Code, and evidently all restrictions were removed (species were made equivalent with genera and families) with the Tokyo Code of 1993. Man, I feel old!--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks muchly, Curtis. Your googling skills are obviously better than mine. Hesperian 04:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images in taxoboxes of taxa higher than species

As far as I can see, currently they are chosen randomly. Shouldn't we use a picture representing the species to which the type specimen belongs instead? Sorry if I wasn't clear. Colchicum (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that picking the type could be one factor among many. Others could include the quality of the various photos, whether the photo illustrates typical features of the family/genus/etc (e.g. cross-shaped stigma at Oenothera), and whether a photo depicts a well-known species. Last time this came up there wasn't much discussion: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants/Archive10#Plant families, and I'm not aware of any official guideline (for example, Wikipedia:Taxobox_usage#Images doesn't mention it). I also tend to avoid using the same photo in more than one article (for example, although both Acer (genus) and Acer pseudoplatanus have a photo of A. pseudoplatanus, it isn't the same photo both places), although that's not a hard and fast rule either (mainly because we sometimes don't have enough photos to do it). Kingdon (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there are many factors, but one advantage of using the type species is that it will always be appropriate. I'm not sure which species is the type of Scrophularia, for example, but the use of a Scrophularia species in the taxobox of the Scrophulariaceae is much more long-lasting that the Veronica here (which is now placed in the Plantaginaceae).--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It should be sufficient to say "if quality is comparable, prefer an image of the type taxon". Now all we need to do is to document the types for each of our taxa... :-) Stan (talk) 12:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But Curtis, if the type genus is broken up, what then? I'm not talking about the simple case of splintering off new genera; I'm talking about the more complex cases that can and do occur as a result of synonymy and new research. Consider: the Linnaen type specimen for the genus Marchantia (on which all higher Marchantiophyta taxa are based) was synonymized into another taxon, leaving all ranks up to that of division with a major typification issue. And don't think that this is all that unusual. The type for Anthoceros (on which all higher Anthocerotophyta taxa are based, including the divisional name) was discovered to be published invalidly, leaving that genus with no type specimen. Two authors subsequently published papers naming new types, but their works broke the genus up into two groups where the name Anthoceros was applied to the opposite group in each publication and the second group given differing names. Proskauer's was first (and so has priority), but Schljakov's was more widely publicized by way of Schuster, and so for a period of several decades resulted in many bryophyte floras where all the hornworts had incorrect nomenclatorial combinations with incorrect generic placement. Not only that, but the correct type species for Anthoceros was used during this period as the type for a different genus. Picking the type does not avoid the problems inherent in using images of other species. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there are always issues with typification in some groups (and in other groups few issues at all). It's still better, all other things being equal, to pick a Scrophularia to illustrate its family rather than a Veronica or Mimulus.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think the same of Oxalis for its (mostly tropical) family? --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or Fagus for Fagaceae, or Malva for Malvaceae s.l. Yes. See below.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note first that not every higher taxon has a type species. After all, does anyone here know the "type species" for seed plants? Even in cases that do have type species, the type species is not always representative of the group's appearance and/or morphology. The type species for the Marchantiophyta is (of course) a species of Marchantia, but the thalloid morphology of Marchantia is an oddity and is by far a minority morphology among the liverworts, which are mostly leafy species. Also, the type for Magnoliidae (sensu Judd, Soltis & Soltis) is a Magnolia, which does not exhibit the characteristic trimerous floral morphology found in the majority of members. Types can also represent less diverse subgroups. The Salviniales is named for a species of Salvinia, a genus containing only 10 species, but the order also includes Marsilea, a genus of about 65 species. The type species of many higher taxa are the result more of publication priority than of biology. So, why should we ever choose the type species photo over a more representative one? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"10.7. The principle of typification does not apply to names of taxa above the rank of family, except for names that are automatically typified by being based on generic names (see Art. 16). The type of such a name is the same as that of the generic name on which it is based." (Vienna Code) So higher taxa are typified only trivially. I don't see any value to preferentially using illustrations of type genera for taxa above the family level. On the other hand, it's never a good idea to use species of uncertain affinities to illustrate their groups, no matter how pretty the photos are. Would Takakia have been a good example for Mosses? or Sphagnum? Are Equisetum or Psilotum good illustrations for Fern?--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how this connects to what I said above, so I assume you're agreeing with me that selecting minority group plants with "oddball" morphologies (even if it's the type) is a bad idea. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, I'm disagreeing, so let me be more clear. They're not called "name-bearing types" for nothing.
Let me be clear that I am talking about taxobox photos, of which there is ordinarily one per article. Given that other selection criteria are met (it is of adequate resolution, it is recognizable, shows diagnostic features, is attractive, etc.), there is then the choice of which species to use to illustrate a taxon that contains some amount of diversity. Let's take Family as the level, since we've used a lot of examples there. One could pick a photo of a species in a genus that has a large number of species, or that is widely distributed. One could pick a species of economic importance. One could pick a species that conforms to some perceived Bauplan of the family, rather than a morphological "oddball". Or one could pick the type species, or another species from the type genus.
All I'm saying is that the type represents the name, which is what the taxobox is about. Yes, there are issues with typification, but, all in all, if I wanted to pick a plant that would resolutely remain in the Oxalidaceae, I'd pick an Oxalis.
I'm interested by your statement 'plants with "oddball" morphologies (even if it's the type)'. How do we measure "oddball" in a typified group, except by reference to the type? I can think of only two ways that are scientific (although I admit that it's early morning here and I may have overlooked something): one could calculate the phenetic centroid of the group and measure deviations from that, or one could work out the minimum set of synapopmorphies for the group, and measure distance from the hypothetical basal member along the tree (in many families, these would give very different results). But the advantage of using the type as a reference is that it is tied to the name. That's all I'm saying: the type is, ordinarily, tied to the name.
I think in practice other criteria will govern selection of taxobox photos, and I suspect the Scrophulariaceae photo was changed from Veronica to Scrophularia about the time that the APG classification was incorporated into the article, and it seemed like the safest choice. But, all other things being equal, I honestly can't think of a reason not to use the type species or type genus (or even type specimen) in the taxobox.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The taxobox is not merely about the name; it is about the relationships. If the taxobox were merely about the name, then it would not include information about more inclusive groups containing the taxon in question, nor subgroups of the taxon. The taxobox does include the name and ideally a citation for the name, but that is all the information about the name comtained in any taxobox above the rank of species.
The article is the name. "7.2. A nomenclatural type (typus) is that element to which the name of a taxon is permanently attached, whether as the correct name or as a synonym. The nomenclatural type is not necessarily the most typical or representative element of a taxon." The (IMO correct) decision in Wikipedia to follow the codes of nomenclature does have consequences. As important as the relationships are, if the name is ambivalent they mean nothing.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the names of the articles on plant groups are the taxonomic names, the article itself is not about the name; it is about all aspects of the group covered, especially its biology. The image in the taxobox is the first image (and often the only image) used for a page about an entire group. The article should be illustrated with a good illustration for the taxonomic group, so the image must do more than illustrate the name. To pick an image solely to illustrate the name based on the type alone can do a great disservice to the reader.
I have never suggested that.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the Asparagales, which currently has an image of the type. The species Asparagus officinalis is an oddball member of the order, when one considers that most species are in the families (some APG II optional) Agavaceae, Hemerocallidaceae, Amaryllidaceae, Alliaceae, Iridaceae, and Orchidaceae. Does a picture of flowering asparagus really represent this group? No. The typical bodyplan of the order is quite different, which is why many taxonomists put the genus Asparagus into its own family in the first place.
Sorry, no, I already said that ranks above family are only trivially typified, and I'm not arguing for using their types.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Picking an iage to illsutrate the name, based primarily on wanting to "play it safe" with the nomenclature it a silly criterion. Conservation of a name, additional research, or the correction of an error can (and does) change the name of a group whose circumscription otherwise does not change. Example: The FNA volume on Asteraceae followed the latest published nomenclatorial findings and used the tribe name Cichorieae. But, Italian researchers who looked into the matter of nomenclature discovered this was an error, and Lactuceae is actually the correct name, because Cichorieae (while published first) turned out to be invalidly published (IIRC, it may have been something other than a validity issue). So, the name of the group changes, and we choose a different image, even though it's the exact same group?
I'm still not sure why you are so opposed to types, rather than being neutral about them. In the case you mention, many family names of flowering plants are conserved. The type of the Fabaceae is Vicia faba, but the family is not the "Viciaceae".--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, the argument that a type image will be more stable is spurious. The type and even the name of the group can change, even if the group's circumscription does not change.
I'm sorry, but this is simply wrong. Types are governed by the ICBN. Circumscription is a matter of opinion and consensus among plant systematists. Circumscription is much more often at issue than typification.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An additional problem I have not yet articulated is that of POV. The Linnean families were named based on taxa well-known to Europeans, so the types are typically European species. This introduces bias in illustration if we stick with using types to illustrate higher taxa.
I'm starting to detect that you are infusing the use of nomenclatural types with far more power than the ICBN does. Types establish the connection between a name and an organism. Wikipedia titles articles with names. There's nothing more to it than that. And I find it strange to refer to following the ICBN as "POV".--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding 'plants with "oddball" morphologies (even if it's the type)'. The classic example is Marchantia, whose morphology is radically and fundamentally different from the majority of liverworts in its order, class, and division. The features taught of this genus taught to students in introdroductory botany classes are the obvious ones, but they are features absent in most other members of the order, class, etc. Gemmae cups, for example, are limited to the family Marchantiaceae and one other genus. Dimorphic rhizoids occur in most members of the class, but not all, and do not occur in the other (much larger) group of liverworts. Most members of the order, class, etc. do not elevate their archegonia or antheridia on specialized stalks. In short, the genus is a morphological oddball. It would be like having Equisetum as the type genus for the ferns, or having Spanish moss be the type for the bromeliads. If Tillandsia usneoides were the type for the bromeliad family, would you want to use it to illustrate the family page? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you wouldn't object to using an image of Marchantia for the Marchantiaceae? And, without conservation of the name, Tillandsia usneoides would be the type of the "Tillandsiaceae".
I'm still having trouble understanding your hostility toward types. I've not heard you argue that taxa have any sort of mystical "essence" that determines what a representative member might be. I've mentioned some objective criteria for determining "representative" (species-rich genera, geographically widespread genera, morphological Bauplan determined phenetically or cladistically), but you haven't supported any of those or any others. So your criteria for "representative" are still unclear.
I have never argued that types are "representative". I have never argued that types are unchanging (although I continue to argue that the ICBN does have rules to deal with that). I have never argued that family articles shouldn't express the variability within the family (I hope I agree with you on that). I have never argued that an image of the type should be preferred even if images of other species are clearer, show family synapomorphies better, are higher resolution, or even "prettier". All I am saying is that using an image of the type has its own set of advantages.
If you'd like to propose a guideline that excludes the use of images of types in the taxoboxen, then I suppose there would be a reason to continue this discussion. If not, and since there is no other recommendation on the table, I'm done.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to say briefly that I value a high quality image of a representative species in which representative characteristics are clearly visible, regardless of the type status. DJLayton4 (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is way too much verbiage over something that is very often going to be case-specific anyway. Yes, there are cases where the type species is not that representative in form, or European-biased, or whatever, but image selection also has an unavoidably subjective element of aesthetics, so it's not something that can ever be reduced to formal rules. In the few cases where we're lucky enough to have multiple high-quality images for a taxon, and one of those images is of the type species, then we should favor it, unless there is a special reason not to do so, in which case we tell people to choose a better image and explain the special reason on the talk page. Done. Stan (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed about "too much verbiage" and "case-specific". I guess I'll leave it at that, since anything more I would say would worsen the "too much verbiage" problem. Kingdon (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Unidentified flowers

Please identify the flowers at Wikipedia:Unidentified flowers and delete the page once completed. Thanks. Suntag (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rosidae/rosids redux

Pardon the alliteration. I abstained from the previous discussion on his matter, because I was ignorant. I'm not anymore, and I believe the wrong decision has been made.

The PhyloCode is a draft; it has not yet been brought into effect; it states, explicitly, that clade names published before it is brought into effect will not be accepted.

Cantino's paper is a great read, but the names published therein are not validly published under any current code. Clearly the authors understand this; they are not claiming to have actually erected these names; they are merely putting forward a nomenclatural framework for discussion.

I think we have erred in choosing article titles Angiospermae over angiosperms, Rosidae over rosidsMagnoliidae over magnoliids, etc; and I think we have erred where we have used "Angiospermae" instead of "angiosperms" in taxoboxes and article prose. These are not valid clade names, and there is no guarantee that they ever will be.

Hesperian 04:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we relied only on validly published names, then some pages would have no name at all, or else a name that is logically impossible to apply. What would we do for seed plants? What would we do for the combined fern-Psilotum-Equisetopsida group? Some clades have been recognized solidly in multiple studies with extensive evidence, but have no name published under the ICBN. The only options are to (1) use a PhyloCode name, (2) use an incorrect name, (3) invent a name, or (4) designate the page and group with a number and tell people "this group has no name". Of these options, I prefer the citable published PhyloCode name, even if the PhyloCode is not yet formally in effect. Note that this only applies to a dozen or so plant groups at very high "rank".
The names "rosid" and "angiosperm" are just as invalid and unpublished, but are virtually guaranteed never to be adopted under any code. By contrast, the Cantino paper suggestions have a high likelihood of being adopted, since Cantino is one of the authors developing the PhyloCode. The citation information will change with the publication of the phylonyms volume, but the names should not. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that "angiosperm" is explicitly an informal name (and therefore cannot be incorrect), whereas "Angiospermae" is an informal name masquerading as a formal name. And we're doing everything we can to promote the untruth that this is a valid formal name. We even give an author citation for it, even though the cited source cannot and does not publish any formal names! To those who don't understand this stuff, our approach is deceptive; to those who do, it appears we don't.
I can't see any evidence that anyone out there has prematurely adopted these names in the manner that we have in here. APweb, for example, still uses "angiosperms" and "Magnoliophyta". Hesperian 02:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think any problems with the actual Rosidae article don't extent beyond the phrasing "under Phylocode", and we didn't grasp the nettle of merging rosids, or revising taxoboxes. 222 pages link to Rosidae, but a fair proportion of those would be sensu Cronquist.
I suppose we could always set a WikiBooks project "A New Classification of Embryophytes" and cite that :-) Lavateraguy (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; scratch that example. My issue is with us naming the flowering plants article "Angiospermae", and presenting that as a valid clade name, with author citation, in the taxobox. Ditto Magnoliidae. These are not validly published names, and it is improper for us to be presenting them as if they are. Hesperian 02:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with Hesperian, that it is better to use informal names that are obviously informal. Nevertheless, "Angiospermae" is a published ICBN name (it is even mentioned in the Code, Art. 16), with the same circumscription as the clade. "Magnoliidae" on the other hand may very well be a published ICBN name, but likely with a very different circumscription than the clade name.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We can't legitimately use a ranked taxon name as a clade name. Either we treat it as a ranked taxon, call it "Angiospermae Lindl.", give it divisio rank, and have people ask us why on earth we're using a name long since overturned in favour of "Magnoliophyta Cronquist, Takht. & W.Zimm."; or, we treat it as a clade, give it an informal name, and leave it unranked. Either way, "Angiospermae Lindley [P.D. Cantino & M.J. Donoghue]" is unacceptable. That name was published merely as nomenclatural food for thought, so to treat it as a formal name is to misrepresent the source. Hesperian 03:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm agreeing; yet another reason to use the informal name. Will you be changing Flowering plant, or shall I? --Curtis Clark (talk) 04:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hesperian, I'm confused by your reasoning. You don't want to use the Cantino names because they're not formal names, so instead we're going to use other informal names? I don't follow that reasoning. Why reject one set of informal names (with clear and explicit descriptions) in favor of vaguely defined names (whose definitions vary from publication to publication)? --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel we're going over the same ground here. (1) Better an explicitly informal name than an informal name that masquerades as a formal name; (2) I can show you a paper that recommends we refer to that clade by the name "angiosperms", and I can show you that that recommendation has been widely adopted. I don't believe you can show me a paper that recommends we refer to that clade by the name "Angiospermae" (Cantino would deny that his paper does that), and I suspect you couldn't show me a single paper that has taken up that name. Hesperian 11:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice if you had read the paper instead of guessing at Cantino's motives. Each name defined in the paper is followed by a full PhyloCode style citation. And, from the last paragraph of the paper's Introduction: "The objectives of this paper are to: (1) provide preliminary phylogenetic definitions for the names of some frequently discussed vascular-plant clades, thereby facilitating communication about phylogeny." Clearly, the names and definitions are intended to be used, not merely for show. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of flowering plant there's at least one perfectly good ICBN name for the clade (Magnoliophyta), so I don't see why we don't use that. Magnoliidae does seem to be a problem - the nearest ICBN name would seem to be Magnolianae, but it's not a particularly good match.
The Cantino et al names are published, and provide formal definitions of the clades. They're not (yet) validly published under any code. Is the last point essential - they're no different in that respect from the APG supraordinal clade designations. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as an "ICBN name for the clade"; ICBN names are for ranked taxa, not clades. Furthermore, as Petey said on his talk page, "there is no published name under the ICBN that circumscribes these clades in anything resembling the modern phylogenetic sense". I firmly agree with Petey on this point. Magnoliophyta is old hat, because angiosperm systematists no longer have any interest in ranking their clades. Hesperian 11:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no published name under the ICBN that circumscribes anything; the code provides handles for circumscription (types applied to names), but does not circumscribe.
As an angiosperm systematist (although with an old hat), I take issue with the last statement. Large numbers of angiosperm systematists (including the APG folks) still have interest in ranking families, genera, and species, while at the same time circumscribing them as clades.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "There is no published name under the ICBN that circumscribes anything"... you've misinterpreted what was said. No one said the name circumscribes. Your insistence on arguing semantics rather than concepts is tiring; please stick with discussing the ideas and avoid these tangential points.
Did Hesperian misquote you? I'm sorry you see it as semantics; perhaps your missing the concept was also at issue with your response to what I thought was a simple post on types.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is being said it that when we reference a particular author's publication by putting that information after the name, we are not merely referencing the name, but are referencing that author's concept of the circumscription meant by that name. There's no way around that, regarless of what the ICBN actually does. The majority of our users will know be that familiar with the Code to know. For example, anyone using the name Liliaceae must follow immediately with "sensu X" in order to be understood. There are multiple concepts of what that name applies to, so the name alone is now almost meaningless. Again, if you look at Lindley's circumscription of the "Angiospermae", it's simply inadequate, as it was published as a tribe. So referencing just "Angiospermae Lindley" when we are actually talking about all flowering plants is a disservice to our users. The same argument applies to any article/name combination here where the circumscription used in the article differs radically from the circumscription in the referenced article.
I find your conclusions bizarre, especially given your take on types. When we look at Malvaceae Juss., do we assume that we are using Jussieu's circumscription? Do you think Robert Brown's circumscription of the Oxalidaceae included Averrhoa? (Well, maybe it did, but I would guess not.) Do you think Linnaeus had Asclepias in mind with his circumscription of the Apocynaceae? If we "are referencing that author's concept of the circumscription meant by that name," we're doing it wrong. It is a disservice to our users to imply that ICBN names come with a circumscription.
Furthermore, a Phylocode name comes with a phylogenetic definition, but even that is not a full circumscription, since phylogenies are hypotheses: for example, one investigator may believe that a character of species A is an apomorphy shared with clade B, but another may assert that it is homoplastic. So even with phylocode taxa, there will be sensus. I hope I'm agreeing with you that it's important to have the sensu in the article.
On reflection, I realize that every circumscription is a hypothesis.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you have to characterize my disagreement with you as "semantics", but I suppose it's convenient to characterize it as "tangential". I assume you're using the third definition in Wiktionary, but I'm using the second, and I don't think there is any basis for discussing concepts unless we can agree on the meanings of the words.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, would you be happy if we structured the taxobox name for the flowering plants as "Angiospermae Lindley sensu P.D. Cantino & M.J. Donoghue? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inasmuch as the Cantino and Donoghue paper is a sensu rather than a published Phylocode name, that would work. So would "Magnoliophyta Cronquist, Takht. & W.Zimm. sensu P.D. Cantino & M.J. Donoghue", or even "angiosperms sensu P.D. Cantino & M.J. Donoghue", since the sensu is of the clade, not the name.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well then it sounds like the two of us, at least, have reached a workable solution to use "ICBN name sensu proto-PhyloCode name". Is this solution acceptable to others here? --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's take it a step further. Should there not be a sensu in every article above the level of species (which has a different set of issues)? Should the Apocynaceae article not say sensu APGII? That would make it clear that it's not your grandfather's (or even my grandfather's) Apocynaceae. Since a proto-Phylocode name is just another circumscription, it is as useful as any other. Hesperian, does this make sense to you?--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I understand that an ICBN name may be circumscribed in any way that contains its type specimen. I suspect that all three of us shared a consistent and correct understanding of the situation viz. names and circumscriptions, and that our disagreements on this point can be put down to laxity of language. I don't think there should be a sensu in every article above the level of species, as many taxa only have one circumscription, either literally or for all practical modern purposes. I do agree that a great many taxoboxes would be improved by explicit mention of which circumscriptions they are following. However, this is a cul-de-sac that has no bearing on the question whether we should adopt proto-PhyloCode names.
I think that's a good answer to my question above. Because I don't think we should adopt proto-Phylocode names, but I assume that EncycloPetey has solid reasons to want to do so (more solid than "because they are cool"), I'm trying to address what I perceive to be one of those issues, in hopes that we can address the real problem and move away from the ill-advised attempt to use proto-Phylocode. So yes, it's a cul-de-sac, but to me the next logical step, since in my mind the original question (use proto-Phylocode?) is answered with a resounding no.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I strenuously disagree with "Angiospermae Lindley sensu P.D. Cantino & M.J. Donoghue", as this would be a misrepresentation of the source, which has most certainly not offered up a novel circumscription of "Angiospermae Lindl. What it has done is (i) suggest that "Angiospermae" would be a good PhyloCode name for the angiosperms, and (ii) demonstrate how this name might in future be adopted by converting Lindley's ICBN ranked name into a PhyloCode clade name. There is no suggestion that Lindley's unconverted ranked name should be circumscribed as containing all the angiosperms; this would indeed be ridiculous given the rank at which Angiospermae Lindl. was published.
Hesperian 02:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, in my mind, the flowering plants are like the cacti and grasses: Who disagrees any more about the circumscription?
Second, if the article were to reference all the synapomorphies of flowering plants, it would contain a circumscription whether or not it were explicit.
Third, I think the only reason not to call the article Magnoliophyta or even Anthophyta would be that the phylum rank would be inconsistent with other seed plant articles. No one doubts any more that both of those names refer to flowering plants.
I still support Hesperian's call for using an informal name.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was concerned primarily with the high-level clades, but I could see doing something like that for families Apocynaceae and Liliaceae, where the circumscription is wildly variable among various authors. I wouldn't think it needed for groups like Cactaceae or Poaceae, though, since those families have consistent membership. I'm also not sure it would be useful much below the level of family, at least to the typical user of Wikipedia. I certainly wouldn't bother adding sensu information to articles about genera or species. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't kept up with the most recent literature, but I seem to remember that Helianthus was in good need of a circumscription, since the removal of a number of well-marked genera had left it massively paraphyletic, giving either Helianthus sensu lato, with the segregate genera submerged, or Helianthus sensu stricto with only the narrow group containing the type, and all the segregate clades removed. But I agree that it's not necessary for many groups.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The phylocode people have a recommendation for this problem, although I do not support putting proto-phylocode names in taxoboxes (see my comment below). The following is from the phylocode website:
Recommendation 6.1B. In order to indicate which names are established under this code and therefore have explicit phylogenetic definitions (and whose endings are not reflective of rank), it may be desirable to distinguish these names from supraspecific names governed by the rank-based codes, particularly when both are used in the same publication.
Example 1. The letter "P" (bracketed or in superscript) might be used to designate names governed by this code, and the letter "R" to designate names governed by the rank-based codes. Using this convention, the name "Ajugoideae[R]" would apply to a plant subfamily which may or may not be a clade, whereas "Teucrioideae[P]" would apply to a clade which may or may not be a subfamily.
Example 2. If the name Teucrioideae applied to both a clade (this code) and a subfamily (ICBN), they could be distinguished as Clade Teucrioideae versus Subfamily Teucrioideae. DJLayton4 (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that I agree with Hesperian. Taxoboxes are used to show Linnean taxa except when unranked taxa are invovled, and using Cantino's phylocode names that have different meanings in Linnean taxonomy have high potential to confuse. Sticking with the APG names is more sensible until (if) the phylocode comes into use. Adding sensu makes it unclear whether or not we are using accepted names in other places, so unless someone wants to change many articles, I think it's best to wait. Futhermore, I'm a bit curious as to why most in this discussion find the Cantino names more appealing considering the amount of resistance/lack of consensus towards the phylocode in comparison with the overall acceptance of the APGII phylogeny. Wikipedia should be a reflection of concensus in the botanical world, not of the preferences of Wikipedia editors; the Cantino paper is so recent that I think it's rather presumptuous of Wikipedia editors to assume that his new names will amount to anything. Indeed, that last sentence of Cantio et al.'s abstract is "The phylogenetic definitions proposed here should help focus future discussions of the PhyloCode on real definitions rather than simplified hypothetical ones". He explicitly acknowledges "future discussions of the Phylocode" and that the names are simply "proposed", i.e. not yet accepted. I honestly think it's irresponsible of us to use these names until other botanist start doing so on a regular basis. DJLayton4 (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The pre-existing consensus does seem to be to use APG names, both ranked and unranked.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
APG is fine for what it does, but it does not address all the issues I have raised. For one thing, APG only applies to angiosperms. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't we been talking about angiosperms? or did I miss something?--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I haven't understood, but could you sum up what it is that you think justifies our use of a system that botantists don't use yet and perhaps never will use? As far as I'm concerned, using a system in taxoboxes that is not accepted by the majority of botanists is against the principles of WP:UNDUE. It's probable that the PhyloCode will come into use eventually, and it's advantages are obvious, but until it does come into widespread use I don't believe that we are in any position to favour it over accepted taxonomic practise. DJLayton4 (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a majority of old fogey botanists; there are also some flaming cladists who oppose (or opposed) phylocode: Platnick, Nelson, and Nixon.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dandelion

I hate to intrude on this prickly discussion about upper level clads, but could I get some one to move the Dandelion page to Taraxacum. Thank you. Hardyplants (talk) 05:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Melburnian (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary history of life

I've taken on the insanely ambitious task of rewriting Evolutionary history of life. I've had comments that the new version covers animals more thoroughly than plants, and I agree. Unfortunately I'm no botanist, let alone paleobotanist. I'd appreciate input at Talk:Evolutionary history of life on this or other topics. -- Philcha (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance in clean up

Hey gang. I know a few of you have noticed the activity of Cottonapple4 (talk · contribs). This user created a whole bunch of articles with a standard format that need taxoboxes and proper formatting, etc. They're mostly the Photinia, Malus and Crataegus stubs if you go through the user's contribs. Any help in cleaning those up to our stub standards would be appreciated! Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user also moved some articles from scientific name to common name. I think I fixed most of them, but another set of eyes would be useful.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Plant

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific names in genus categories

There seems to be a bit of confusion when it comes to sorting scientific names in genus categories. Here are some examples:

It would be nice to have consistency within and between categories. Any thoughts? Melburnian (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Bot that can do the sorting? Once a uniform way to do the sorting is worked out.Hardyplants (talk) 04:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think they really have to be sorted by specific epithet, else you end up with every article listed under the first letter of the genus, which is no help at all. The remaining issue is whether to sort by lower case letter or upper case letter. I tried the former for Category:Banksia taxa by scientific name, and I thought it looked crap, so I settled on the latter. Hesperian 05:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I liked lowercase myself because it allows a neat separation of species from non-species article, but maybe that's just me. throw in Category:Acer under lowercase. Circeus (talk) 05:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC) Circeus (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally prefer sort by lowercase species epithet. I'm mid-sort on Category:Stylidium after having finished the sort at Category:Utricularia. --Rkitko (talk) 22:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Circeus makes a good point. I'm happy to change to lower case if that's what most others are doing. You haven't told us what you prefer, Melburnian.? Hesperian 23:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, the separation of species from non-species articles mentioned by Circeus leads me to favour lower case. Additionally, this reflects the lower case of epithets. Melburnian (talk) 00:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Will an editor please move Colocynth to its binomial name Citrullus colocynthis which is now a redirect? Thank you.

Monotypic genera naming convention

Hi, all. I've seen a bit of discussion on the flora naming convention point on monotypic genera as not being supporting by enough consensus or supporting logic. I've opened a discussion on this point at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora)#Monotypic genera. I'd appreciate your input. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help identifying flower species

Hi. I posted some pictures to the Science Reference Desk the other day, and someone helped me figure out what kind of plant I had photographed, and I've now added those pictures to the appropriate pages at the commons. I thought I'd try here this time, it being a more specialized place.

The flowers look a lot like the blooms of Ruellia angustifolia, but the foliage is entirely different. They're growing in a garden in North Texas. Thanks in advance if anyone can help out. If it would help to get a close-up shot of just one bloom, I could do that, too. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about Ruellia elegans. ? Hardyplants (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The pictures I'm finding of R. elegans on Google show the flowers to be red. Do they also come in light purple? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flower color is not a good way to ID many plants, especially those that are in the purple-red continuum. I am only making a guess, since there are more than 300 species of Ruellia. Hardyplants (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another plant to look at would be Ruellia humilis var. longiflora it is native to that area I believe. Hardyplants (talk) 23:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a dwarf cultivar of Ruellia brittoniana, possibly Ruellia brittoniana 'Katie' which originated in a Texas nursery. [19] Melburnian (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That looks right to me...here is another site with more pictures, note the variation in flower color.[20]Hardyplants (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The dwarf cultivar makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the help, guys. :) -GTBacchus(talk) 21:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to grow this plant, there is a new series of cultivars that should be available this summer. Ruellia brittoniana 'Southern Star' which comes in blue, pink and white, plus a mix - plants are said to grow 10 inches tall.Hardyplants (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help with flower identification

unidentified

G'day. Could anyone help me out with what the this flower is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodle snacks (talk • contribs) 00:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Were was the picture taken? Is the plant a small tree, shrub etc? Hardyplants (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tasmania, Australia, But I don't think it's a native. Reasonable sized tree, taller than I am (about 6ft). I could get a picture of the tree if can't tell from just the flower. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have a number of people here that are familiar with the plants growing in your part of the world, so lets wait and see what they might say. Hardyplants (talk) 01:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS. If it was from North America, my best guess would have been a species of Amelanchier. Hardyplants (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not native to Australia. It's within Rosaceae but beyond that I'm really not sure. For plant IDs, a series of photos showing flowers, leaves, bark (for trees) and whole of plant helps to narrow down the possibilities. Melburnian (talk) 06:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go for Prunus, on the basis of the single style. (Amelanchier has 5 styles; Crataegus monogyna has pink anthers.) I'd guess at subgenus Cerasus, but I find the easiest way of identifying species of Prunus is to read the label. Lavateraguy (talk) 07:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mojave yucca

An IP editor keeps adding a section claiming that this species was planted around fortifications in Florida, the Caribbean, and Central and South America, and I keep reverting because it is unreferenced, and I'm virtually certain that it involved native species rather than Y. schidigera. I've started adding WP:NOR warnings to his talk page, but he doesn't seem to understand the concept, and I'm sure he sees it as edit warring. I don't plan to violate 3RR, but this could go on for a while. I'd appreciate either some help or someone setting me straight by providing a reference.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try looking for Yucca aloifolia in this context. There's some JSTOR papers that look as if they refer to that species in the requested context. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got hold of the JSTOR article; it says that Y. aloifolia was used for slope stabilization at Fort McRee in 1851.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the anonymous editor doesn't seem to be discussing the matter, or providing references, I'm not sure what there is to do besides keep reverting it. Patiently explaining what is wrong with that text has been tried. This need not fall entirely to Curtis Clark; I've put the page on my watchlist and I see Stan was also on that talk page at least at one point. As for Yucca aloifolia it has been cultivated[21] although I didn't research the matter much. Kingdon (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason not to block after one more warning. What reputation we have partly depends on helping the boneheaded to go find something to do with their time... Stan (talk) 01:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image needs replacement

Hello all...

An image used in the Tulip article, specifically Image:2005-04-08.FH-616.Tulip.jpg in the gallery, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 00:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would just delete the Tulip image, Tulip pictures are a 'dime a dozen' so to speak, and easy to get. The picture of the stick with the nasty look, prickles/thorns and all that - is not so easy to replace. Hardyplants (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, commons:Category:Alluaudia has a dozen photos, including three of A. procera - two closeups by me, and one in habitat in Madagascar, so there is plenty of choose from actually. Stan (talk) 16:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and replaced the picture with the one showing the plant its natural mature habit. Hardyplants (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pratia or Platytheca?

Pratia is a genus article that has another name, Platytheca (which appears to be a different genus from another order), in the taxobox. I want to add a category for this genus to Commons (having obtained a third photo from Flickr, Image:Pratia.jpg). Which name should I use for the category, and why are they different here? Was it just an error by the uploader? Richard001 (talk) 09:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mea culpa; copy and paste error when I created one after the other. Pratia it is, thanks for picking it up, now fixed --Melburnian (talk) 09:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That seemed more and more obvious after I asked. Thanks for the confirmation; I have now created a category for it on Commons. Richard001 (talk) 01:42, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phellinus weirii and Laminated root rot

I've created Laminated root rot as a seperate entry than Phellinus weirii because the former is the disease and the latter is the fungus. I'm not expert, and I don't know how things work in WP Fungi, so I thought I'd post this here. The P. weirii article is still very focus on the disease rather than on the fungus so you might want to take a look at it.Headbomb {ταλκ – WP Physics: PotW} 09:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really aware of a consensus one way or the other about whether to combine the disease article and the pathogen article. See for example the discussion at Talk:Sudden oak death#Requested move which seemed pretty inconclusive and didn't have a lot of people commenting on it. Either way, there's plenty of room for expanding the Laminated root rot and/or Phellinus weirii articles. Kingdon (talk) 01:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image needs replacement - Juniperus communis

Hello all...

An image used in the article, specifically Image:Juniperus communis.jpg, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and replaced it on Juniperus communis with another image from commons. I think this means Image:Juniperus communis.jpg can be deleted but I'm not sure how to propose that. If someone is attached to this image, I don't think there is any copyright issue with the original at et:Pilt:Kadakas.jpg, just the color-corrected version at Image:Juniperus communis.jpg. Kingdon (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image needs replacement - Anthocyanin

Hello all...

An image used in the article, specifically Image:Juvenile anthocyanin.jpg, has a little bit of a licensing issue. The image was uploaded back when the rules around image uploading were less restrictive. It is presumed that the uploader was willing to license the picture under the GFDL license but was not clear in that regard. As such, the image, while not at risk of deletion, is likely not clearly licensed to allow for free use in any future use of this article. If anyone has an image that can replace this, or can go take one and upload it, it would be best.

You have your mission, take your camera and start clicking.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ficus Indica?

If I may ask,as a point of clarification, is the Ficus indica, known in the Philippines as baleting-baging, a currently accepted species designation, or has it been renamed or something? It's not listed as a classification under Banyan. Thanks. Alternativity (talk) 10:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ficus indica is given as cross reference to the tagalog phrase baleting-baging in sources on ethnopharmacology etc. Torkelson. Another source, NewCROP, states that it is a synonym of Ficus benghalensis (Banyan tree), which agrees with a unimelb database that states that F. benghalensis is the widely accepted name. The only certainty I can provide is that it is not Opuntia ficus-indica :-) cygnis insignis 17:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. Given the many names of Ficus benghalensis I don't now actually know how to rephrase it to incorporate the Ficus Indica or Ficus Indicus synonyms. Hehe. I do believe it should be there, though, to prevent confusion. It seems Ficus Indica/Ficus Indicus is in common use in the Philippines, at least. -- Alternativity (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've incorporated the synonym in the taxobox.--Lenticel (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between floristics and phytogeography?

What's the difference between floristics and phytogeography? According to Wikipedia, the former "studies distribution and relationships of plant species over geographic areas", while the latter "is concerned with the geographic distribution of plant species". It is all as clear as mud to me. Hesperian 03:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It hadn't crossed my mind that the distinction was unclear, but now you ask it's not trivial to put it into words - try - phytogeography focuses on the areas in which plants are found (and how they ended up there), and floristics on which plants are found in an area. Phytogeography is more theoretical, and floristics more descriptive. (See also zoogeography and faunistics.)
Or, phytogeography is the study of plant distribution; floristics the study of floras. Lavateraguy (talk) 06:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I get your drift. So if choose a locality and ask questions about the plant species that occur there – "What species occur here; why so many/few; why this species and not that species? what are the factors that have influenced the biodiversity of this locality?" – that's floristics. Whereas if I choose a taxon and ask questions about the localities in which it occurs — "Where does it occur; why such a large/small range; why here and not over there; how did it get here?" — that's biogeography. Does that sound right? Hesperian 06:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit conflict - I am just taking an uneducated guess here: Floristics tells us what plants live in an area with such and such boundaries, while phytogeography tells us what plants live under specific conditions. One says plants "x","y" and "z" live here while the other says plant "x" lives under these conditions and "y" lives under other conditions. Am I close? Hardyplants (talk) 07:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have long thought of floristics as a subdiscipline of phytogeography, probably because I learned it that way from Grady Webster. But I like Hesperian's distinction as a working definition.--Curtis Clark (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hardyplants: No. :)
I think you're right on floristics, but your second definition is more ecology (community ecophysiology?) than phytogeography, I think. Phytogeography (biogeography in general) is also interested in where plants are in relation to one-another. The spatial/locational aspects are important, as are the evolutionary relationships. For example, the set of adaptations that you find in Mediterranean climates is an ecophysiological question. The difference in the species composition between these regions is a phytogeographic question. Guettarda (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks that makes it more clear for me...It looks like I was to preoccupied with here and now issue of what plants live were and completely neglected the past and the how and from whom they came from questions. Hardyplants (talk) 18:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Identification help

I'm pretty sure this is a Leucopogon, probably Leucopogon parviflorus (Coast Beard Heath), but I have absolutely no knowledge in this area so some help in identifying this plant would be good (before I go uploading others under the wrong name)! The image was taken in coastal Victoria, Australia. --bainer (talk) 11:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that appears correct. [22][23]. If you can provide location/region info on the image description page, that would be great. Melburnian (talk) 23:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I didn't bother putting all the information onto that cropped image, that was only for identification purposes. I've uploaded the uncropped version along with some others to Commons. --23:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I've commenced a stub, thanks. Melburnian (talk) 01:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants&oldid=246654379"