Talk:Urticaceae

Diseases

As there were only five diseases listed, and this article was short, I was bold, and merged List of foliage plant diseases (Urticaceae) into this article. --Bejnar (talk) 06:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

stinging -- all?

What percentage of the 2600 species have stinging hairs?-71.174.181.39 (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cladogram

@Ninjatacoshell: I'm uneasy about the number of references for the cladogram. I've looked at a few, which don't contain all the genera shown. Is this actually a synthesis from many sources? If so, it's not acceptable here as per WP:NOTSYNTH. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: The relationships shown are generally shown in all the references, though most don't have that depth of taxon sampling. The actual tree in the article is from the Wu et al. 2013 paper. I did add in the position of Zhengyia from the Deng et al. 2013 and Kim et al. 2015 papers. That's easily removed. Aside from that, it's just Fig. 1 of Wu et al. 2013. Since we're on the topic, I haven't indicated all the genera that are polyphyletic (e.g. Boehmeria), mainly because the tree is already pretty big. I also displayed genera that are nested within other genera (e.g. Hesperocnide within Urtica) as sisters since they haven't been formally synonymized. If that's a problem, they can be collapsed and change the leaf to say something like "Urtica (including Hesperocnide)". What are your thoughts? Ninjatacoshell (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, this could probably be handled better if there were pages for each of the tribes. But I don't feel like creating that content, hence the huge tree. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ninjatacoshell: I think I would explicitly say in the article what you have above, i.e. something like "The following cladogram is based on Wu et al. (2013),^ref with the addition of ...^refs" You can then add "Similar results were obtained in other studies" followed by a long list of refs. This will make it easier for anyone to check, and also make the limited extent of the synthesis clear.

I think showing nested genera as sisters isn't right. I'd just put Urtica + Hesperocnide.

I'm always doubtful of the value of articles on minor ranks lke tribes – who's interested apart from taxonomists, who read the original literature anyway? So I'm happy with the cladogram size. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter coxhead: How does that look? I went ahead and played it safe. I removed the synthetic insertion of Zhengyia, put back in the polyphyletic genera, collapsed the misleading 'sisters' into single leaves, and moved most of the taxonomic references into a parenthetical. Also, like you mentioned with tribes, it's usually just us taxonomists who care about cladograms. Since this one's a bit large, I hid it so the uninterested can be spared. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 02:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ninjatacoshell: looks good to me. (Hiding isn't liked by some editors apparently, but here seems quite appropriate.) Peter coxhead (talk) 07:07, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]