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 201.53.7.16 (talk) at 14:09, 3 January 2009 (→‎Salsola (tumbleweed) needs info on native habitats: Disambiguation questions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconPlants Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.


Archives for WP:PLANTS (Archive index) edit


Article alerts

I've put a template at the bottom of WP:PLANTS which enables the article alerts bot, which is supposed to notify us when plant articles are nominated for deletion, featured article, and other such actions. I think it will take a day or a few to figure out whether it is working (that is, putting lists of affected articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Article alerts which then gets transcluded into the home page where the template is, I think). I'd appreciate it if we can leave the template there at least long enough to see what this thing can do, but beyond that, I'm open to other opinions about whether it is a good thing, where we want the output, and whether we have any options (for example, template work to control where it shows up and such). Kingdon (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has now run, although the transclusion to WP:PLANTS didn't seem to work (as far as I could tell), so I just made a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Article alerts. People might want to watchlist the latter page. So far, it found a PROD for the medicinal plant Sida cordifolia (this article should not be deleted, but fixed and expanded). Kingdon (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please check these edits

User:Abrajab has made a few edits to plant articles. The edits to Iridaceae deleted some text at the end.

Please will someone with more plant knowledge than I check on these edits‎? CBHA (talk) 05:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up. I've restored the last part of the article (that didn't require any plant knowledge; it would seem that Abrajab (talk · contribs) was just a new, clumsy, user). The part which might require plant knowledge is whether the family is in the Liliales or the Asparagales; a quick browse through the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website showed a lot of recent research on where to draw that line, with no conclusive answers. I didn't dig deeper than that, but I suppose following APG II (Asparagales in this case) is the safest route in a case like this. Monocot taxonomy is not for the faint of heart. Kingdon (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I thought of restoring the deletion but did not know if there a good reason for any part of the deletion. CBHA (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
If no reason is given in the edit summary and/or talk page, restoring the deletion is generally the safe course of action. But asking here was fine too. Kingdon (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flowering plant families

Hi, all. I currently have a copy of Flowering Plant Families of the World (Heywood, Brummitt, Culham, and Seberg, 2007) on loan from the library for the next couple of weeks. Any requests for info to be added to some articles? --Rkitko (talk) 01:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion request

Hi plant admins, we have 2 redirects from junior homonym - Erythrina speciosa and Erythrina caffra (see ILDIS). Some admin who thought homonyms = synonyms mucked around with these, removed the deletion requests, told me to get this discussed, and messed up the pages. But they should be quick-deleted so that the senior homonyms are redlinked again (presently we have a few erroneous redirects due to this). Since the redirect is clearly erroneous I really don't see any need for discussion here. If anyone of you could be so kind? Thanks in advance! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind sticking my neck out on this, but wouldn't our time be better spent turning them into stubs? Hesperian 01:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No response? Okay, I have stuck my neck out, as promised. Hesperian 22:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a shot at a stub for Erythrina speciosa (don't let all the taxonomy talk scare you away; at least for E. speciosa google and various web pages and google scholar hits all seemed to agree on what to call the thing and what it is like). I don't have any more time at the moment, but if people want to check my work and/or tackle Erythrina caffra, that would be great. Kingdon (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've taken a shot at Erythrina caffra too. Kingdon (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genus Curtisina

I am currently putting together an article on Charles Curtis (botanist), who was the first superintendent of the Penang Botanic Gardens. My sources say that Curtis was honoured by the genus Curtisina, so I was planning to create an article on this genus. On researching this, I find on zipcodezoo[3] that there is only one species of this genus – Curtisina penangensis. Googling further, I came across this article[4], which implies that Curtisina penangensis is a synonym for both Dacryodes longifolia and Santiria longifolia. Back to zipcodezoo, I see that there are separate entries for both these species at [5] and [6] respectively.

According to zipcodezoo, Curtisina penangensis is a member of the Sapindaceae family, while both Dacryodes and Santiria are separate genera but are both members of the Burseraceae family. I am mightily confused. Can anyone shed any light? Cheers. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Santiria longifolia King is a nomenclatural synonym of Dacryodes longifolia (King) H.J. Lam. From the first page preview of this paper I infer that back in 1932 H.J. Lam determined that some species of Santiria, including S. longifolia were correctly placed in Dacryodes, and at the same time identified Curtisina penangensis Ridl. as a taxonomic synonym thereof. Either Ridley made a mistake in placing Curtisina in Sapindaceae, or sunk Burseraceae therein (Burseraceae is in the same order as Sapindaceae), but without access to the literature I can't tell what was the case.
This wouldn't necessarily be the first time a botanist has placed a plant in the wrong family (see for example Cedrela alterniflora (a Luehea) and Capparis gibbosa (Adansonia gregorii)). One common cause is trying to identify a plant in the absence of flower or fruit material.
There's quite a few sites out there which have long lists of species names. But what they offer is lists of names; not lists of species.
Tropicos is often helpful on taxonomic matters, and does at least place Curtisina in Burseraceae, but in this case it doesn't have the species under any of the three names. Possibly it's been reclassified under a 4th name, but I suspect that in this case Tropicos is incomplete. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propopsed Physalis merge

It has been proposed that Physalis and Physalis peruviana be merged. I suggested to the proposer that he withdraw the proposal, but he hasn't done so. I suppose it could be rejected per WP:SNOWBALL, but if youall would care to contribute to the so far non-existent discussion. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you tag an article for merging, you're supposed to give a rationale on the talk page. To tag and run is discourteous to say the least. I have removed the tags as an "incomplete merge proposal". Hesperian 22:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flower October 2008-1.jpg

I need some help with the ID of this Brassicaceae. Looks like a Sinapis sp. but the leaves don't match. Thanks, Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your problem appears to be a incorrect family identification. It's Greater Celandine, Chelidonium majus (Papaveraceae). Apart from jizz one can tell that it's not a crucifer by the presence of more than 6 stamens. (Most crucifers have 6 stamens, a few have 4.) Another difference, not visible in the photograph is that crucifers have 4 sepals; papaveraceous plants have 2 or 3. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beautiful photo, btw.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions wanted on "global-temperate seasons" for the Bloom Clock

I'm hoping to have time this winter to work on comparisons between different regions to make a first stab at making "global seasons" for the Bloom Clock, but have a somewhat silly issue I could use some input on. The global seasons are one of the main goals of the bloom clock... it would take some time to find the diffs, but part of the motivation for collecting the data was to have a "geographically neutral language" for describing bloom times in Wikipedia articles, Wikibooks chapters, and other resources that describe plants (the problem is that when you cite a flora that says something blooms in March in, e.g., South Carolina, it's probably not blooming in March in Halifax of Moscow, let alone Melbourne). The rough draft compiles the monthly data we have from various regions (which uses categories), and divides the year into 12 seasons (early/mid/late summer/winter/etc.).

The problem is this: When I first started working on it last winter, I tied the Southeast Pennsylvania data to go with "the majority of the month", so December is late fall (since 2/3 of the month is technically Autumn), March is late winter, etc. The problem is that this seems a bit counter-intuitive to me, and I wanted to see if other people found it counter-intuitive as well. So here's the question (for a straw poll): Should the global-temperate seasons be toggled back a month?

Please weigh in on the Colloquium, if you have a minute to think about it. --SB_Johnny | talk 15:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ID Help

I need help identifying this rose. --Mr. Mario (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the hybrid teas, I think. Hesperian 22:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, there's a huge number of cultivars so it's difficult to be more specific than that. I note that the camera location currently links to northern Greenland ...global warming must be worse than I thought... --Melburnian (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only some kind of geolocation error. I'll try to fix it. --Mr. Mario (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it. --Mr. Mario (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found it. It's most likely to be the Hybrid Tea Rose 'Double Delight'. --Mr. Mario (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coelogyne

The Coelogyne article lists a number of hybrids, whose names are given in quotes, as if they are cultivars. Is this correct, or are they grexes? Lavateraguy (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you enter each of the following names in the "grex" box of the International Orchid Register search page [7] together with Coelogyne as the genus they give a positive result:
  • Memoria W. Micholitz (rather than Mem. W. Micholitz)
  • Linda Buckley
  • Burfordiense (rather than Burfordiensis)
  • South Carolina
An example of a cultivar is Coelogyne South Carolina 'Everglades' [8] Melburnian (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Lilac

Little dispute about identification of this Syringa species  : to be or not to be Syringa vulgaris ? Someone to find it out (with evidences please) ? And if not vulgaris, what species ? Lilac perfurmed thanks to win. --B.navez (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Delairea and Delairea odorata. Colchicum (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ID Help

Can someone identify the plants taken in this ---> . --Mr. Mario (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Begonia

I am currently creating an article on Richard Pearce (botanist) who discovered the "tuberous" Begonia in South America in the 1860s. When I've finished, I would like to create a "hook" for the DYK page, but at present the begonia article is very poor, and doesn't really explain why "tuberous" begonias are more important than any other variety. Is there any "begoniac" who can grab hold of the article and completely re-write it, so that it is less technical and more informative to the lay reader. Cheers. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Farandona

Is anyone here familiar (sorry, bad pun) with the Monimiaceae? If so, would you mind giving an authoritative answer whether article Farandona is a hoax? Hesperian 00:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check other contributions of Alexis B.C. (talk · contribs) as well. I suspect he might try to introduce other hoaxes. Paraceratherium giganteum, though not a plant, also smells like a hoax. Alexis B.C. is also active on Spanish Wikipedia (es:Paraceratherium_Giganteum). Colchicum (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have nominated both articles for deletion, indefblocked the creator, and asked Jossi to notify the Spanish Wikipedia. Hesperian 01:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple identifications

I have a few things that need identification and I'd appreciate some input:

  • I tried to get this: identified before here without much luck, and people asked for a bit of zoomed out detail, so here it is . The tree is about 3-3.5m tall and like that all over. Possibly a spirea according to the owner.
I don't think that they're the same plant. Gompare the smooth and glossy leaves in the 2nd photograph, with the rugose and crenate leaves in the first. I don't think either is a Spiraea either. The first has a single style (Spiraea has 5). I haven't seen a Spiraea with leaves as glossy as the second (unless you used flash to take the photograph). Lavateraguy (talk) 10:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No flash, and the tree looks pretty different from the other one, so it probably isn't. Plus they were flowering at different times of year. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Viburnum apparently. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The blossom isn't a Viburnum (I'd assume something in Rosaceae) - Viburnum has fused petals. The foliage doesn't jump out at me as being Viburnum, but there are a lot of different types. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also not sure about this Cymbidium cultivar.

Another succulent? Noodle snacks (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try Echeveria Lavateraguy (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks in advance for the help Noodle snacks (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cladistics

I've seen WP:RS suggesting that botanists are less enthusiastic about cladistics than zoologists are. It would be appreciated if Wiki-botanists could contribute comments and hopefully WP:RS with dates and 1-line summaries at Talk:Clade.

I know that Talk:Cladistics would be a more logical place, but there's a tactical reason for preferring Talk:Clade. User:Consist has been indef blocked for WP:DE rants about the deficiencies of cladistics, but has been posting at Talk:Clade, using a range of IP addresses. A combination of prompt reversion of rants and gradual accumulation of WP:RS that take a cold look at cladistics has quietened Consist down recently, and I think it would be good tactics to keep Consist's attention focused on Talk:Clade. --Philcha (talk) 09:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dicotyledon (Rated High Importance)

Very first Link on this page is broken (web site moved). I am too much a novice in these matters. Could someone try to re-establish the relevent link? Lucian Sunday (talk) 12:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hardyplants (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged; thanks Lucian Sunday (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flora of...

Could anybody please pay attention to the horrible condition of the articles Flora of... and subcategories of Category:Flora? I don't know if such things as Flora of Connecticut in its present form (unreferenced list of nine species) should be here at all. Moreover, many of them (e.g. Flora of Azerbaijan) fail to distinguish between flora and vegetation. Others are merely (incomplete) lists and at best should be renamed to List of the vascular plants of.... Colchicum (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dalbergia cearensis

Dalbergia cearensis has been moved (back) to kingwood. I'm don't have strong opinions on the move - it's a classic plant/product division, and apart from the lack of material would be a prime candidate from splitting - but in the process what little information about the species was there has been removed. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the mover's comment that "It is a famous wood, not a tree species," I've made a stub for the tree species, which certainly deserves an article.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simulacraceae

Not sure if everyone has seen this. Read and have a good chuckle. Do you think we need an article for the Simulacraceae? ;-) Rkitko (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read it a while back, but discovered it was already covered by section Simulacraceae in an informally named article. It is not within the scope of any universally cited, unambiguous and verifiable methods of nomenclature, so I have no objection to a wikilawyer setting themselves up as nomenclator to decide on the 'common name' of this family. cygnis insignis 01:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Priceless! Perhaps Rainforest Cafe flora? Maybe when we can get back to writing instead of squabbling over common names, I'll expand the section. The Simulacraceae was also profiled in a Scientific American article [9]. Thanks for the link, I wouldn't have found it otherwise. I created a redirect for it. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Automated creation of algal articles

Hi,

A while ago I started writing a bot to automatically create stubs on algal taxa. I've now got it just about working. If anyone has any constructive criticism to offer over the content and style of the stubs created so far, which you can view here here, I'd appreciate it if you could leave it here. To avoid duplication, and because I've asked for input from other Wikiprojects, please don't reply on this page.

Thanks, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora)

For those who haven't already noticed this discussion, our flora naming conventions have been called into question, and a link to the discussion posted on the Village Pump. Input from experienced editors who have applied WP:NC (flora), or who have noticed problems in the past with its application should provide their input, as we may have many non-botanists providing input. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion evolved into something unpalatable. I am tired of the hit-and-run trolls/wikilawyers. Why in hell do they care? I've never seen them editing anything related to botany. Colchicum (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Species Plantarum vs. Species plantarum

Shouldn't Species Plantarum, which was originally titled SPECIES PLANTARUM, be moved to Species plantarum? Latin is not English, this is not a proper name or name of a higher taxon, as Linnaeus called the kingdom Vegetabilia rather than Plantae, therefore the correct capitalization is Species plantarum, AFAIK. Colchicum (talk) 06:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a book title, right? I can't seem to find any Wikiguidance, and there are different approaches among style guides, but I think it's safe to say that it should be capitalized in the same manner as any other book title.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it is a book title in Latin. This guideline explicitely doesn't apply to Latin book titles. Colchicum (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I am opposed to title case irrespective of language; yet I am inclined to apply our convention consistently irrespective of language. Hesperian 22:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not our convention, it is a convention from outside Wikipedia + (neo-)Latin orthography. Colchicum (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take your word for it; you obviously know more about neo-Latin orthography than do I. Hesperian 00:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure that Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books) was once more explicit on book titles!? However, it does mention that article titles are based on published translations rather than OR. I have deviated from this when an author's work was deliberately lower case, although this example is much trickier. The solution might rest on how the most reliable sources render it. IPNI gives it title case and the publication's accepted abbreviation is Sp. Pl., is there another source that doesn't do this? Either way, which ever version is adopted is inconsequential. cygnis insignis 16:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bundesarchiv

On Commons at commons:Category:Images from the German Federal Archive, location Tibetexpedition there are quite a number of plant-related pictures needing identification and categorization. Colchicum (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flora of Pakistan

92.2.116.251 (talk · contribs) is adding the category to hundreds of articles. Should we do anything about it and about such categories in general? In my opinion, they are not helpful. Colchicum (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are not categories supposed to be supported by text in the article? I looked over some of them, and many were incorrect or to general to belong. Another thing - do we use Genus and family ranked taxon for these types of flora cats? This might - could be vandalism, is he/she making any contribution that increase the information of any articles? or just making one large cat as a joke. I know that Pakistan has a rich diversity of plant life, but.... 23:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou all for noticing; this has been driving me bananas.[10] I haven't opened a discussion because I was under the impression it was coming from multiple IPs; perhaps I'm wrong there. A visit to his/her talk page should be the first step.
Acanthaceae, Adoxaceae, Agavaceae, Aizoaceae, Alangiaceae, Alismataceae, etcetera most certainly do not belong in Category:Flora of Pakistan.
I'll take this opportunity to evangelise the practice of including only lowest-rank taxa and endemic higher-rank taxa. This doesn't necessarily ban families from those categories; for example, Austrobaileyaceae most certainly belongs in Category:Flora of Queensland, because it is endemic to Queensland.
Hesperian 23:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, basically I think all such categories do more harm than good because it is hard to watch if they are used correctly and the criteria for inclusion are not consistent (should the taxa be endemic to Pakistan to be placed into this category, should they occur in Pakistan, should the criteria be different for species, genera and families or not? Everybody decides for himself, there is no way to enforce any convention here). Such huge categories are not particularly useful anyway. The information would have been better organized into lists. Colchicum (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strenuously disagree with that. This is just what categories were made for. The problem lies in the implementation not the concept. If every category had a preamble that clearly stated its rationale and scope, as in Category:Flora of Australia (and indeed the entire Flora of Australasia category tree), we might not have to man the pumps quite so often. Hesperian 01:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took bold action: I did an AWB run removing all taxa above species rank. Have left a message too. Hesperian 11:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

92.2.116.251 (talk · contribs) is still at it, does anyone know...I have to look this up...Urdu or Siraiki or Sindhi; assuming good faith, my guess is that he/she does not understand English that well. Hardyplants (talk) 00:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lamiales

Beeswaxcandle tells me that Lamiales is abandoned in the third edition of Mabberley's Plant Book. APWeb has no hint of this. Does anyone know what the story is there? More importantly, what are the immediate implications for Lamiales, Category:Lamiales, {{Lamiales-stub}}, etcetera? Hesperian 11:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a "look inside" the 3rd edition of 2008, at Amazon. One doesn't get much context that way, but he seems to be still using Lamiales. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, but I have mis-read the source. The book has been re-structured between editions and I "lost" the orders which are now all in an appendix rather than in the main section. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IDs

Please help with the identification of these if you can:

  • No Idea - Hypericum one of the large flowering species, which one can't say off the top of my head? Hypericum calycinum [1]?
    No Idea - Hypericum one of the large flowering species, which one can't say off the top of my head? Hypericum calycinum [1]?
  • A lillium? not a true lily, I have seen this some were- will see if i can find it again. found a name - Sprekelia formosissima, [2].
    A lillium? not a true lily, I have seen this some were- will see if i can find it again. found a name - Sprekelia formosissima, [2].
  • (same as previous)
    (same as previous)
  • - Not enough info for the Zinnia like flower.
    - Not enough info for the Zinnia like flower.

The last two were slightly different colours but came out of the same or very similar plants. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice pictures- they should be added to the correct pages. Hardyplants (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as a gardener, the last two look like Calendula.[11] First Light (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The notching on the rays look right for Calendula officinalis. Hardyplants (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what clinched it for me, and I should have been more specific - Calendula officinalis is what I meant also. First Light (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a less aesthetic photo of the last flower. The particular specimen was just in the process of opening. I'd say Calendula officinalis is a good fit so will tag them for renaming shortly if no one objects with the additional photo. I think Sprekelia formosissima is a good fit for no 2/3 so have tagged them for renaming Noodle snacks (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's surely Calendula officinalis - I've grown it for 30 years. The first one may be Hypericum calycinum, based on these two photos.[12][13] First Light (talk) 05:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hypericum calycinum is looking pretty good to me, I found it independently searching as well. The leaves and height of the plant match pretty well. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And beautiful photos, by the way (along with the many extraordinary ones I just saw on your user page) - I like the last "less aesthetic" one here, also. The way the petals are unfolding, and the orange against the dark green background... First Light (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geranium dab stuff

Assorted dab stuff. Since the mv got lost in discussion, deal with it as you please. I will not have anything to do with it and do not want to have it clutter up my sandbox. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Each item is linked or at least referenced in some other article)

START OF DAB LIST

Geranium may refer to:

Plants

Places

Ships

Other

END OF DAB LIST

Oh BTW, since the mv didn't do ahead, somebody has to go through "what links here" at Geranium and fix it up - most of the links to "Geranium", except the spp. pages, probably should link to Pelargonium.
(But I shall give a barnstar to whomever will do this; it'll be well earned indeed. Just drop me a quick note when you're done.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I moved all your hard work to an "other" page listed at the top of Geranium. I am sure I did it wrong- so some may need to look at it and fix it. I will try to figure out how to do the "what links here" and start on those in a day or two. Thank you for all the work you have already done Dysmorodrepanis. Hardyplants (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got a handle on the "what links here" issue and have started on them. Hardyplants (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
THANKS! (Now I could clean up my sandbox and go on with my work; Odonatoptera has been duly created) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I recast this to remove redlinks, one link per line, and targeted pages like List of rocks in Western Australia in accordance with MOS on dab pages. Now what, overwrite the page?
Its already been done (more or less). I am done with the backlinks for geranium, any one have another page that needs to be done, I can plug away at another - as time permits. Hardyplants (talk) 13:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carambola/Star fruit article confusion

The article's talk page didn't seem to be well attended, so I thought I could bring my question here. The whole article seems to talk about the fruit of the tree, however the intro to the article opens with "The carambola is a species of tree". It seems to use carambola and star fruit (or starfruit, or Star fruit) interchangeably. Maybe the article should be moved to its common name, star fruit and have the intro reworded? -- MacAddct1984 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its already at a common name, and the binomial name is not even listed in the article (only the taxabox) the problem could be solved by moving the article to its proper binomial name (Averrhoa carambola) instead of one of the common names and beefing up the content about the plant. Hardyplants (talk) 21:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a distinct page for the species Averrhoa carambola, and moved the small amount of relevant material from the fruit page and then adjusted the intro. I will let those that are interested in the fruit to figure out a proper name for that article, both names seem to be heavily used. Hardyplants (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't they be a single article? We don't have separate articles on Apple and Malus domestica, and "carambola" is not a name that can be applied to the fruits of various species, as can "pear" or "cherry". Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The apple article does not have much information about "apples" but covers the tree mostly. If you want to clean up the fruit (carambola) info, maybe it can be merged under Averrhoa carambola. As far as I can see there is going to be perodic debates between people who think it should be Carambola or Starfruit for the name of the fruit. Hardyplants (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flower ID.

I've got a photograph of an interesting flower which I've not seen before but wonder if someone may know what it is. File:Unknown red flower.jpg. Bidgee (talk) 07:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen this somewhere too, does it grow outside year round in new south wales, or is in a hot house plant grown under glass? Hardyplants (talk) 08:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is your picture or flowers upside down? Looks like Coral tree (Erythrina) to me, but just making a guess and an assumption that the picture is showing the flowers the wrong way up. Hardyplants (talk) 08:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Outside and it's located at the Victory Memorial Gardens in Wagga Wagga's CBD. The photo is and was taken the right way round and thats how it flowers. Bidgee (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since that is the case, then its most likely Erythrina crista-galli. Hardyplants (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome. Thanks you for your help! It's been driving me nuts trying to work out what it was! Bidgee (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Phaedriel's orchid

Phaedriel's orchid

User:Rlevse suggested moving this to Commons, but it needs a proper name; anyone know? It was growing in a garden of a place I stayed on Nusa Penida. It was "named" as a gift to User:Phaedriel. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a Phalaenopsis hybrid. Melburnian (talk) 03:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It sure looks similar to me, but it's not my field. I find the coincidental similarity of that name to with the one I gave it amusing. I'll transfer this to commons once this section goes stale. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyatheatae

This is, according to the Cyatheales article, a subclass of ferns. Can anyone find me a reference to the subclasses, preferably on-line, reliable, but a journal or book anywhere would be fine. --KP Botany (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wikispecies page gives a source, but I can't tell whether it is properly related. Circeus (talk) 05:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one source,[14] can't say how good it is....fern taxonomy has been in a state of flux for almost as long as they and humans have been on the planet together. Glad to see you around again KP. Hardyplants (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Neither source contains Cyatheatae, just the order, and the genus. Both sources look fine, robust, by respected fern folks, though. Circeus, Hardy, good to see you. --KP Botany (talk) 06:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still bumbling about, just not doing sort of really big editing beyond mild copyediting here and there. Circeus (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget to mildly copyedit anything I write! I want to write a big article on plant evolution, a specific area, if I find time. --KP Botany (talk) 06:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to do a category

I forget how to create categories. I can't find a link to the instructions. Can someone start this category: Carlemanniaceae --KP Botany (talk) 07:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Just click on the red link, and create the category. All you really need to do is put it in a suitable parent category. Hesperian 10:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... although I note that this family contains only two genera and five species, for a grand total of eight taxa, if we include Carlemanniaceae itself. Personally, such small categories ought not be created. Hesperian 10:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do whatever is useful, then. I get too easily frustrated with the details. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 10:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS Hi! --KP Botany (talk) 10:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! (What Curtis said.) Hesperian 11:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need I.D.

Need help with an I.d. of this tropical plant. Thanks for any help, even if you can only narrow it down the right family. Hardyplants (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bromeliaceae? I thought I posted this earlier, with the little minus sign. I don't know tropical plant families, but that'd be my first guess, somewhere in that vicinity. Any other clues, like house plant, leaves? --KP Botany (talk) 08:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah, duh. When I was looking at it last night, my mind was in a different part of the monocots, and nothing fit.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly this plant had alternately paired leaves in a tight column, each leaf was monocot-like, about 12 inches long and 2.5 inches wide. The inflorescences was about 2.5 feet tall. Thanks for the help, don't need to over do it- it's not that important. I took the picture at our local zoo/conservetory (they had a lot of other Bromeliaceae too - so I will start my search there), it was planted under some very large palm trees, but I could not find a label. I am going back at the end of winter, and will ask them to I.D. it, if they can, assuming We can't narrow it down here. I am clueless about most true tropical plants too, . Hardyplants (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bromeliaceae looks right to me. Guettarda (talk) 04:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help KP, Curtis and Guettarda. Getting it narrowed down to the right family made it much easer to find, and I believe that I have found it [15] Aechmea maculata. Again thank you for the help. Hardyplants (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd swear that's it. People often don't notice what the inflorescences look like for the show of the leaves, when it comes to Bromeliads. However, if you've spent a year or so hanging out with a Puya you get a bit obsessed with the flowering spikes. --KP Botany (talk) 07:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paeonia rockii

Or Paeonia suffruticosa? This book, called The Genus Paeonia (p. 204) says it's P. suffruticosa subsp. rockii.[16] This page on IPNI,[17] supplied by Rkitko leans toward P. rockii, with an explanation of the suffruticosa version. Any Peony experts out there? Thanks. First Light (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. To avoid confusion, the picture on the right is in regard to the previous posting, Need I.D., by Hardyplants. First Light (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hardy. --KP Botany (talk) 05:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IPNI doesn't lean either way; it merely records that the two versions are nomenclatural synonyms. The new Flora of China ([18]) says P. rockii. (So does the RHS Plant Finder.) There was an article on this group (sect. Moutan) in The Garden (RHS journal) recently.
To be clear, it is a nomenclatural synonym of Paeonia suffruticosa subsp. rockii S.G.Haw & Lauener, not of Paeonia suffruticosa (subsp. suffruticosa).--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This paper has three species lying between P. rockii and P. suffruticisa; fide Google Scholar there's quite a bit of literature out there, but a lot of it isn't easily accessible. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all. This is also being discussed at Talk:Rock's Peony, with another good article linked there. As I posted there, I think I'm beginning to understand. Paeonia rockii is correct, and "Paeonia suffruticosa subsp. rockii" is a synonym? First Light (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that they are synonyms. The question of which is correct is a taxonomic judgment, rather than a nomenclatural one.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. First Light (talk) 20:19, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are splitter, then its P. rockii, and if your a lumper its "Paeonia suffruticosa subsp. rockii": Since the lumper camp has generally been more favored over the last 80 years, my guess is the rockii will end up under suffruticosa, or another name if that complex is reorganized, the naming of Peony plants can be messy, since many are highly variable and many of the names were applied to specimens that were collected from cultivated stock that was shipped to Europe. Hardyplants (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know enough to know if I'm a splitter or a lumper (kind of like asking a five-year old if they are a liberal or conservative...)—so I updated the article by adding "Paeonia suffruticosa subsp. rockii" as a synonym. I won't be too deeply hurt if someone wiser than I changes it, as I'm beginning to understand just how much I don't know.... First Light (talk) 03:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there is three species between these two, then this is unlikely to be purely a lumpers and splitters issue. Hesperian 04:50, 30 December 2008(UTC)
I am not sure that the three species have been demonstrated to be that distinctive (much depends on the criteria used), and I believe the issue is still very muddy. But your right that its not a "purely... lumpers and splitters issue" because its not that simple to resolve and there is no place to put the knife . I guess we wait for more difinitive data. PS. Thanks for the link to lumpers and splitters. Hardyplants (talk)
A more recent taxonomic analysis included both molecular and morphological data in its phylogenetic trees. The data appear to support the conclusion that the species are not as closely related as one would like in order to call them the same species. As I see it, though, it's always a lumpers/splitters issue. If you're an extreme lumper, you'd be of the opinion that there are only two species of Sarracenia; if you're an extreme splitter, you're approaching a dozen species and up. If you choose your morphological and molecular data carefully, you can support whichever hypothesis you hold. I do think that P. rockii is a little easier since cultivation has embraced the name, lending it legitimacy when the scientific literature backs it up. --Rkitko (talk) 05:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link Rkitko...an interesting study, Its still fuzzy and inconclusive about rockii. Its progress though. The trend in Horticulture is Paeonia suffruticosa rockii and away from from P. rockii. Hardyplants (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a source that might have a use on the article page: [19] call me a coward, but I am going to wait and see how it plays out befor I make a definitive call. Hardyplants (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An idea?

Before I continue too far and waste time, I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on assembling a list of plant families (or maybe to start, a list of flowering plant families). I have a copy of Heywood et al.'s Flowering Plant Families of the World (2007), which assembled a list of flowering plant families and notes how it is similar to and different from APG II. I've noticed a couple recent contributions to the project at the family level and wondered how many plant family articles remain unwritten (not to mention underwritten). I thought I'd reproduce their list and check for redlinks (any copyright concerns there?). In the process, it would be easier to meet a goal by getting at least a stub written for every plant order and family (of course the other vascular plant orders and families are easy, though I am ignorant on fern taxonomy and of course nonvascular plants and possibly green algae should be included in the list to fully cover our scope). Eventually, perhaps, we could develop a list if we felt it necessary or possible, given the current state of taxonomy at that level and all the various classification systems.

I know everyone is fatigued by the naming convention discussion, but I thought it might be a good idea for me at least to keep being productive elsewhere. Thoughts on this idea? Something I overlooked? Opinion on the feasibility of a list of plant families? --Rkitko (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot the link to where I started working on this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Families. Feel free to modify as necessary. With sufficient support, I'll continue creating the list to be de-redlinked as updated. --Rkitko (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you might be talking about the Lamiales families I added recently. I think at family rank and above, we should have an article whether or not the family is currently accepted. List of plant families would probably be too long. Look at how big the horribly outdated List of plant orders is. But List of angiosperm families/list of flowering plant families would be an accessible size, and would be pretty stable these days, and is an obvious list for us to have. Obliquely related: I recently subcategorised Category:Plant orders and Category:Plant families. Hesperian 05:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Egads, that list of plant orders! "Phylum" even? Thanks for the link, don't think I've seen that before or thought to search for it. Any ideas on how to format it? Pick one classification and stick with it like APG II or be a little wishy-washy like the list I started (Heywood and APG II with differences formatted in bold, etc. - may be more work than it's worth, especially since Heywood isn't a new classification; APG II would of course have the optional taxa mentioned anyway)? I'm not particularly attached to Heywood, it's just a reference I have on hand. Could easily just create the list based on APG II alone. --Rkitko (talk) 05:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even botanists who disagree with it seem to be using APG II for most everything. This would be a good thing to ask Curtis. --KP Botany (talk) 05:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, I've been out of that crossfire for a half-decade. A couple of observations, though: (1) an encyclopedia has to settle on a scheme, and one published in a book (Heywood et al.) is always a better choice than one that one published on a web site; (2) I, personally (and I get the impression that I'm not alone), find the APG families very satisfying. There were morphological conundrums (different characters supported different groupings, and not enough evidence to make a choice) that are now solved.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nicely hedge. My systematics book uses APG II, and, yes, it's rather satisfying even for the amateur. --KP Botany (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Angiosperm families would be good. Using the names from both Delta-intkey and AGP at mobot would pretty much covere all the plant families. No one owns the taxonomies. I'm wondering about articles on older names, though, how they should be written up? I have a few on my watchlist. --KP Botany (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think its worthwhile, and I like old families too...they are familiar(Gleason) to me and I am sad when they go into the dustbin of history. As KP and Hesperian say, they should be broken into groups so they are not so overwhelmingly large. It also lets us know that we have not covered allready ( red link and all that) Hardyplants (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I started adding the families from the list of APG orders on the talk page of the project page created by Rkitko. I don't have Heywood, so I can't see which ones he recognizes or not. I'd like to have a project page with just an alphabetical list of families, also. --KP Botany (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Like I said, we don't need to follow Heywood, but if no one objects, we could go that way. There's a "Look inside" feature at amazon.com: [20] in the book. Just search for "Classification" and then check out pages 10, 11, and 12. --Rkitko (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is a good idea to have a reference system from a book. I don't miss Brya at all, but she did have a good point (which she took too far) about mix-n-match classification systems. She alluded to a not-yet-published version of Mabberley, but if Heywood's a match to our needs, I say let's go for it, and mention it on the project page.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I'd rather do straight APG II. But I've looked at Heywood, it's in print, it's APG plus some others, and it would be doable. It's firmly secondary, whereas APG II used directly is primary. --KP Botany (talk) 03:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's cool. Heywood's cheap. Is it any good? --KP Botany (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fairly. It's not an extensive discussion of each family, but it's well written and mostly defers to specialists for certain families. The reason I got it in the first place was because Juliet Wege's CV mentioned her contribution to the book and I wanted to see if I could incorporate any of the information into the Stylidiaceae or Donatiaceae articles. It's nicely referenced, too, with footnotes at the end of each family's entry. I just have it on interlibrary loan and just renewed it for a full year! I guess it's not a popular item in the library... --Rkitko (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could have sworn I created this list years ago... A practical problem is that there are hundreds of additional uncommon names, like all the monogeneric families named by Takhtajan; if the goal is to find obscure names, then the list needs everything, both current and obsolete. Stan (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could have sworn someone created it, also. Still, I looked all over my watchlist and couldn't find it. Yes, I would like one central location with all plant family names, including all the Takhtajan ones no one else has ever heard of. Families are the major working unit. --KP Botany (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. So I think the goal would be two-fold. 1) Create a working list of angiosperm families or something similarly titled using APG II or Heywood or (insert reference here) and 2) Create a project resource list of all families published in the major classification systems so we can work on it. Sounds easy enough ;-) Rkitko (talk) 21:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguating common (vernacular) names

I rewrote the introduction to Category:Plant common name disambiguation and also created a template to use on disambiguation pages to put them in that category: {{disambig-plants}}. --Una Smith (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny. I just stumbled across that category myself. I was going to suggest we somehow merge the category with our assessment category, as it seems redundant to have both: Category:Disambiguation plant pages. --Rkitko (talk) 18:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Category:Disambiguation plant pages lists the talk pages of still more plant name disambiguation pages. Pages are put in that category by the use of {{WikiProject Plants|class=Dab}} on the talk page. How about merging or in some other way reconciling these two categories? --Una Smith (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you know, I just thought that Category:Plant common name disambiguation is really a daughter to Category:Disambiguation plant pages, since the latter can included other botany-related dab pages, including taxonomic dab pages. The former restricts itself to common name dabs only. Seems more useful to have both now that I recognized the distinction. --Rkitko (talk) 18:36, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I would prefer to move Category:Plant common name disambiguation to Category:Plant common names, the latter category to include all disambiguation pages, redirects, and articles concerning plant vernacular names. Also, put all the associated talk pages of disambiguation pages in Category:Disambiguation plant pages, whether or not the disambiguation concerns common names. --Una Smith (talk) 20:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. That would work nicely with the few categories we do have for common name redirects and dab pages: Category:Banksia taxa by common name, Category:Stylidium species by common name, Category:Utricularia species by common name. Seems like a reasonable approach to me. --Rkitko (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have changed the template so that the pages will be included in Category:Plant common names rather than Category:Plant common name disambiguation. Because this involves transcluded links, the change will take effect in a few days. --Una Smith (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, WikiProject Fishes has something similar: Category:Fish common name disambiguation. --Una Smith (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ironbark probably should be a disambiguation page; someone familiar with Eucalyptus please take a look at this page. --Una Smith (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles with talk pages on Category:Disambiguation plant pages are not yet included in Category:Plant common names. I got as far as Ice plant. Along the way, I found some disambiguation pages masquerading as articles:
Would anyone care to work on these? --Una Smith (talk) 18:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Carion flower and Ironbark are perfectly acceptable as articles and should not be redirected. These are common names in use for a particular phenomenon of plants, the first for large and stinky flowers or inflorescences, the second could be expanded. Plants are like this, common names can be used not only for a plant but for an aspect of a group of unrelated plants. The other articles should be strictly disambiguation pages, as far as I can first see. --KP Botany (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adenium arabicum

Hey folks. Sorry to keep spamming the project, but I keep coming upon issues that I need help on. I came upon Adenium arabicum, which has several issues. I couldn't immediately detect a copyright violation even though I suspect the descriptions of each type to be copy/pasted from somewhere. The larger issue is that Adenium says it's monotypic with "arabicum" an epithet at the subspecific level. I can't seem to untangle this one. Is it a cultivar? Adenium 'Arabicum'? Any help is appreciated. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 04:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help you, but regarding spamming: how dare you keep drawing our focus back to writing the encyclopedia?!
Thanks, it is just what we need right now. ;-) Hesperian 05:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This, perhaps?--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yep. That looks like the website the author is associated with. I assume the author intended to release any text that appears on the site even though there's a copyright notice, but a lot of it appears to be descriptions of his/her/their own cultivars. The author hasn't been active since s/he wrote the articles. Also take a look at this. I'm inclined to trim the page and merge some information into Adenium. If the species is valid (and I couldn't find any references to it in a quick multidatabase library search), we could treat it that way. --Rkitko (talk) 05:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my, it's so cute I can't believe it. Please e-mail me the name of the nursery if it's on the West Coast so I can go get one before you delete the ad. Thanks. --KP Botany (talk) 06:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I can across these plants, they were coming out of south east Asia. But that was over five years ago, maybe hes got a seller in the US by now.Hardyplants (talk) 07:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added Adenium multiflorum. Can't figure out if it is a subspecies either. Many of the African Apocynaceae used as Bonsai are also used as arrow poisons in their native lands and can be problematic to the grower for this reason. I once had to move a bunch of them and a helper got cut pretty badly, as did the plant, which panicked all the gardeners because of the sap. --KP Botany (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)IPNI has it, but not the Adenium obesum subsp. arabicum of the Adenium article, and none of the Google hits for the latter include an author. In my experience, a lot of succulent fanciers play fast and loose with nomenclature.--Curtis Clark (talk) 07:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IPNI tends to be incomplete with infraspecific names, so I don't think we can draw any conclusions from the absence of one. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is this[21] looks like hes saying that Arabicum is an invalid name and it should be- Adenium obesum. Hardyplants (talk) 07:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that site; my take was that they thought it was misidentified.--Curtis Clark (talk) 07:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adenium arabicum as known in horticulture is native to a narrow strip near the coast on the western half of the southern Arabian peninsula (in Yemen and Saudi Arabia). The correct name for these plants is Adenium obesum, and the African plants we know as A. obesum must properly be called something else. In cultivation they are usually shrubs with massive caudexes. Plants grow rapidly and develop large caudexes in only a few years. Most plants flower mainly in spring before leafing out. Better clones flower sporadically throughout the year.

when I followed the link this is what came up - but its not very authoritative. Hardyplants (talk) 07:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar comes up with Hargreaves BJ. 2002 How many species of Adenium are there? Asklepios no.85. 4-6 (2002), and Das AB, Mohanty S, Das P (1999) Chromosome number, karyotype and nuclear DNA content in some Adenium species of the family Apocynaceae. Cytobios 98, 95-104, which, if anyone can find copies, might be helpful. But this looks like another of those lumper-splitter things. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salsola (tumbleweed) needs info on native habitats

The article Salsola (aka the Tumbleweed, Saltwort, or Russian thistle) says: "Salsola ... is a genus of herbs, subshrubs, shrubs, and small trees ... native to Africa, Asia, and Europe". However, the article largely focuses on Salsola in North America. Can anybody add some info on Salsola in its native habitats? -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs some work on this and other parts. Thanks for pointing this out. I will see what I can do, and hopefully other plant editors can look into it. --KP Botany (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have two separate articles on "the" tumbleweed: Salsola and Sisymbrium altissimum. I think that we need to sort this out.
User:Una_Smith is requesting that the current disambiguation for tumbleweed be changed - see Talk:Tumbleweed_(disambiguation)#Requested_move.
I am neither a botanist nor do I understand exactly what the disambiguation issue is here (therefore I'm just assuming that User:Una_Smith is right about this. :-) )
Anybody here feel like doing anything with this? -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 14:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bamboo genera

I created this category to link all the bamboo genera onto a single page, but, now, it occurs to me this may not be the naming protocol for the category. Should it be called something else, surely not genera of bamboo? I will finish the categorizing, though, because I want them all in one place so I can start adding information. --KP Botany (talk) 08:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say this category is in pretty good company: Category:Alismatales families, Category:Angiosperm families, Category:Angiosperm orders, Category:Asparagales families, Category:Asterales families, Category:Asterid families, Category:Brassicales families, Category:Caryophyllales families, Category:Chlorophyceae families, Category:Commelinid families, Category:Ericales families, Category:Eudicot families, Category:Lamiales families, Category:Liliales families, Category:Magnoliid families, Category:Malpighiales families, Category:Malvales families, Category:Monocot families, Category:Moss families, Category:Myrtales families, Category:Orchid genera, Category:Orchid species, Category:Orchid subfamilies, Category:Orchid subgenera, Category:Orchid subtribes, Category:Orchid tribes, Category:Pinales families, Category:Plant families, Category:Plant genera, Category:Plant orders, Category:Plant species, Category:Plant subfamilies, Category:Plant subgenera, Category:Plant subtribes, Category:Plant tribes, Category:Poales families, Category:Proteaceae genera, Category:Pteridophyta families, Category:Rosid families, Category:Saxifragales families. Based on all of those, either "Bamboo genera" or "Bambusoideae genera" sound about right. Hesperian 10:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I debated Bambusoideae for one nanosecond, but then got rank confusion.... Thanks for the feedback. --KP Botany (talk) 10:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Disclosure that I created most of the above (although the "[Taxon] [rank]s" convention was already in place when I started. I've only done down to family rank but will gradually push down to genus level. My (illegible) notes on the topic are at User:Hesperian/Notes/Ranks. Hesperian 10:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Orchid species? If you really want to test scalability, go for Category:Beetle species.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not even rank amateurs are going to nibble that one,Curtis, even chocolate covered. --KP Botany (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't create Category:Orchid species, but I don't have a problem with it either. If it gets too big we can just break out Category:Epidendroideae species etc. Hesperian 03:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common name without commonly known scientific name

Category:Hybrid Rubus lists numerous articles about Rubus (raspberry) hybrids, titled using the most commonly used common name of the plant. These page titles may be a better alternative than using the scientific identification of the hybrid. Thoughts? --Una Smith (talk) 00:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On looking at more of these articles, I think all of them could be usefully gathered into a single article, Rubus hybrid, with each common name represented by a section in the article and a redirect. --Una Smith (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With common agricultural products there is enough information to write fairly lengthy articles, joining them, which seems at first a good idea to me, would only result in later splitting them. Also, I don't generally write about hybrids, but whatever the policy for hybrids is, all of these are commonly enough known like "wheat" to merit their own articles under their common names as the food-stuffs. Separate articles could be added pulling out the botanical information if the articles get long. That's my opinion, but hybrids are not my area. --KP Botany (talk) 00:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They all appear to be cultivars (Rubus also hybridizes in the wild), and so they are arguably articles about plant products. Also arguably, in some cases their parents may not be firmly established, so it would be less precise to use a hybrid formula than to use the common name.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{GRIN}}

We Aussies seem to be way ahead of the game when it comes to templating our online sources: {{APNI}}, {{Flora of Australia Online}}, {{SPRAT}}, {{FloraBase}}, {{NSW Flora Online}}.... Anyhow, I just created {{GRIN}}. Use it wisely. Hesperian 13:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants&oldid=261676529"