Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

WikiProject Plants

Main pageTalkTaxon templateBotanist templateResourcesRequestsNew articlesIndex

cs.

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

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

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

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

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

Araguaney

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

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

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

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

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

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

Two Goldenrod Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Portal:Plants

Proposal to delete all portals

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

Herbarium type samples and copyright

Howdy hello! As part of my job I have access to a rather large collection of herbarium samples as well as several thousand type samples of plants. I was thinking of photographing many of them and adding them to Wikipedia articles, but then I wondered if that is a copyright issue. Obviously I could just photograph the plant itself, but can I include photos of the labels on these samples? Is the text of the description of locations/habitats/plants by botanists copyrighted? See for example [1]. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:04, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Senecio inaequidens/Senecio madagascariensis

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

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

Post originally by 134.106.34.199 12:29, 24 September 2019

References

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

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

Alnus alnobetula

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

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

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

Endangered plant taxa of insert your state here

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

There's ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Endangered flora of the United States ( 111 ) with no subcats. Also Endangered flora of Connecticut. I say go for it, but set a clear definition as to what can be included. --Nessie (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Which status system as default

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

Identify plants based on very little information

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

• 
  Unidentified W-plant
• 
  Another unidentified W-plant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tribe Echinocereeae

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

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

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

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

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

Draft:Healing of wounds in plants

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

Lycophyte question

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

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

Ignoring minor extinct species, these are related thus:

lycophytes broadly defined	†zosterophylls lycophytes narrowly defined

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

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

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

Family circumscriptions

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