Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
Sunflower Flats wildflowers, BLM Elko District Cropped.jpg

WikiProject Plants

Main page Talk Taxon template Botanist template Resources Participants Index
WikiProject Plants (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Archives for WP:PLANTS (Archive index) edit

Kolkwitzia vs. Linnaea[edit]

Somebody has moved (prematurely in my opinion) the Kolkwitzia amabilis article to Linnaea amabilis. This is based on a single reference by somebody who is not a specialist in this group and appears to be a minority view. There is no consensus that Linnaea should be expanded to include Kolkwitzia, Abelia, and a couple of other closely related genera. I would also note that the Linnaea article makes no mention of these changes, and the articles for Abelia and its various species remain under that genus. The recent (2016) treatment of Caprifoliaceae for the "Families and Genera of Vascular Plants" continues to recognize all these genera as distinct. Because Kolkwitzia amabilis is a well-established name for a well-known species, I would recommend returning the article to that name until a clear consensus on the generic classification of this group emerges, with a mention of the proposed changes in the articles for the various genera. (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Moving to Linnaea amabilis does seem premature. I haven't yet to find any sources (other than then Christenhusz paper that proposed it) that accept this treatment. Plantdrew (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree the move was premature. It was made by Chiswick Chap, presumably to tidy up the situation left by an IP editor, who had changed the content to use the name Linnaea amabilis, but hadn't changed the article title. I think it should be moved back, for now at least. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Go right ahead, I just adjusted things for consistency. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I moved the page back, and tried to tidy everything up. A source is needed for the description; the online Flora of China should be good but seems to be offline right now. Please check, as there were a fair number of redirects, etc. to be fixed. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Monotypic genus[edit]

I am editing the article on Asteraceae (maintenance, italizing names, updating use of Compositae). (Long story about getting to Asteraceae from "Icicle plant"). So far I have ran into three examples of a monotypic genus. Is there a "standard" for handling these? Personally, I would create an article for the species, then create a redirect for the genus. But this is not done consistently. This example happens to be a monotypic clade: Hecastocleidoideae; Only species: Hecastocleis shockleyi, I added the wikilinks. Only an article on the genus Hecastocleis exists, no redirect pages. Obviously if articles are ever created for Hecastocleidoideae or Hecastocleis shockleyi, they will not be linked to by the Asteraceae article. Personally, I have no problems with red links but I think there are bots that find and report them. This implies they should be fixed. Advise.User-duck (talk) 01:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@User-duck:, see WP:MONOTYPICFLORA. When monotypy is involved, articles titles are supposed to be the lowest monotypic rank (but no lower than genus [except when the genus name is ambiguous with another title on Wikipedia]). Redirects are to be created for the other ranks. This scheme is more complicated than it might need to be (I personally would have gone for lowest rank down to species), and isn't completely consistently followed. However, it's much closer to being consistently followed than having articles covering monotypic genera at the binomial title. Hecastocleidoideae and Hecastocleis shockleyi redirects do exist, and they should be linked to from the Asteraceae pages; redirects are not broken (WP:NOTBROKEN), and when there is a reason to display the text "Hecastocleidoideae", there is no reason not to link directly to that redirect rather than piping a link to the target of the redirect. Plantdrew (talk) 06:00, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
To be really precise, "the lowest monotypic principal rank". WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA leaves out the word "principal" but the examples imply it, so I think the guidelines are actually the same for plants and animals.
I agree with Plantdrew that it's overcomplicated, and it would have been better to leave off the requirement to use the genus rather than the species when the genus doesn't need disambiguating, but we are where we are. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
@Plantdrew:, thank you, I would never have found WP:MONOTYPICFLORA. I will look at it later. I assumed there was a standard process but I could not find it documented. I had assumed that "Hecastocleidoideae" and "Hecastocleis shockleyi" were not wikilinked because the redirect pages did not exist, I know, my mistake. Since double redirects are not supported, that explains creating a genus article instead of a species. Now, if I want to create an article for a species in a genus (with multiple species) that has no articles for either genus or species, which article should be created first, species or genus?
I created the Vlokia ater article first. Lucky for me a second species has been described and published. I then created the Vlokia article. It has a red link to the second species, Vlokia montana. The German wikipedia does not have an article for the second species. I plan to write the Vlokia montana article for the English Wikipedia. I am still working on editing skills. And my German fluency is minimal.
Sorry about italicizing the subfamilies. Either the (non-Wikipedia) article I read was wrong or I misunderstood.
Thanks, Plantdrew. I probably will not be editing FAUNA articles (still learning botany).User-duck (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
@User-duck: it doesn't really matter which order you create articles, but there's some sense in working downwards, even if the top level articles are initially stubs mainly containing a list of the next level down.
Some sources do italicize ranks above genus, some don't. So you may well have read advice to do so elsewhere. Our convention is (except for viruses) to italicize genus and below only.
At Vlokia you originally wrote should be pronounced "Flow-key-a" . There are different schools of thought on the pronunciation of Latin names derived from personal names. One view is that they should be pronounced like the name in its own language, which is clearly the view of the source you gave. This is supported by the 'bible' (Stearn's Botanical Latin, p. 51: "the ideal method with most names commemorating persons is to pronounce them as nearly as possible like the original name but with a Latin ending"). However this is not universally agreed; other sources prefer to pronounce the name as it would be in 'normal' botanical Latin. So I think it's wrong to write "should" here in Wikipedia's voice, and I've changed it. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Maybe I should quote Steven Hammer's article: "Growers who talk to their plants and address them formally will want to know that the genus should be pronounced Flow-key-a." I am not sure quoting is appropriate for an encyclopedic article. But I found the statement lightened up the article. :) I added my statement because it is extremely rare to get the pronunciation of a new word from the source. And I would think the source can say how a word is pronounced.User-duck (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
@User-duck: my point is certainly not that the pronunciation information should be removed; it's useful. My point is that we don't write "should" which suggests that Wikipedia is endorsing the pronunciation. Just neutrally report that one source says it can be pronounced this way. See WP:WikiVoice – how a scientific name should be pronounced is an opinion, not a fact. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

British 'Pea Beans'[edit]

They seem to be called red calypso beans in the US- mottled dark red and white coloration, oblate shaped , and i wish to add some pictures .Also they were formerly and incorrectly called phaseolus egypticus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

You may need to be clearer, both about what you are referring to, and what you want to do. (Are you referring to Borlotti beans?) Lavateraguy (talk) 13:20, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Cycad / Cycadales[edit]

We have an anon editor claiming that cycads share no common ancestor with other plants, so they are not related to other groups of plants. The anon is reverting edits of both Velela and myself, who have tried to explain the mistake.

We may need some level of temporary protection on the two pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Capsule (botany)[edit]

I am requesting a move of this page because there is more than one meaning of "capsule" used in botany. Discussion at Talk:Capsule (botany)#Requested move 6 July 2017. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

This page now has moved to Capsule (fruit), as proposed. Links may need to be updated. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

IP editing at Plant epithet[edit]

An IP is editing this article and changing references, but is not taking part in talk page discussion. Independent editors are invited to assist. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Alafia landolphioides acceptance confusion[edit]

At WCSP here, A. landolphioides is an accepted name with one synonym being A. scandens. However, under the "Not Accepted by" tab WCSP/Govaerts are listed twice (in 1995 and 2003) and refer to A. scandens. I'm wondering how to interpret this. Does it mean WCSP formerly did not accept the name but now does? Note: I created the Alafia scandens article a while back, but on revisiting it am now unsure if it should actually be A. landolphioides. (My other source for that article, Medicinal Plants, indicates A. landolphioides as accepted) Thanks Declangi (talk) 03:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Declangi: yes, the tabs mean that formerly (up to 2003 anyway) WCSP did not accept this name as being the correct one, but now it does. We can guess that this is in response to Akoègninou et al. (2006) as per the "Accepted by" tab, but WCSP doesn't give reasons for changes it makes. A Google Scholar search suggests that Alafia scandens is still in use, e.g. here in 2008. I haven't found a taxonomic discussion of the genus, so there doesn't seem to be strong evidence either way. Personally, if in doubt, I would go with WCSP. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks @Peter coxhead: another reference is at African Plant Database with this record indicating their acceptance of A. scandens. Despite this, as you say, I would also go with WCSP. I previously created a redirect from A. landolphioides to A. scandens, thereby blocking a page move on my part. But if you or someone else wished to make this move, I'd be fine with that and could clean up other parts of the article like synonyms and using WCSP as the taxonomic reference. Declangi (talk) 03:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
@Declangi: move done. I cleaned up a bit, but more is needed, including changing the refs. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks again @Peter coxhead: the move looks great. I did some more cleanup on the article and updated the genus species list at Alafia (plant). Declangi (talk) 07:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

GRIN site downtime[edit]

Just curious if people have seen the GRIN site down on any frequent basis? I'm asking because InternetArchiveBot has sometimes tagged GRIN references as dead and rescued their URLs to archived, but I haven't been able to reproduce the issue. (For example, I have noticed WCSP sometimes down during the GMT "wee hours", presumably intentionally for site/DB maintenance) There was a time when some older format GRIN URLs would fail, but it looks like GRIN have since implemented a redirect scheme that catches such URLs. Thanks Declangi (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Page name[edit]

Is Ulmus americana 'Lewis & Clark' = Prairie Expedition a desirable article title? I'm not very familiar with the conventions for plants, but it seems a little strange. (I'm not watching this page, so please {{ping}} me if you need a response from me.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: I moved it back to the original name, before it was moved by Ptelea in 2012. It surely contradicts MOS:TM/STYLE at least. I'm not sure what the common name is, but that should be resolved on WP:RM. No such user (talk) 09:49, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Crescent Ridge Dawn Redwoods Preserve[edit]

Can someone with familiarity in the Deletion process nom Crescent Ridge Dawn Redwoods Preserve for deletion. Everything I can find on it points to it possibly not even existing, and even if it does, it does not meet the notability criteria, with the majority of the article sourced to the CRDRP website (even the IMDB entry is just copy/pasted from the website).--Kevmin § 22:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Proposed_deletion for the howto.
While I wasn't able to find an unambiguously independent source I doubt that it is a hoax. It does seem to be non-notable. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Fallopia japonica -- Japanese Knotweed and the genus name[edit]

I know some people are reluctant to see this familiar name change, but TPL is our reliable source, and the taxonomy has been changed for a while now. The article needs moving to Reynoutria japonica, and the related articles also need their taxonomy adjusted according to TPL's taxonomy. Does anyone feel this idea is unacceptable, and if so why? Invertzoo (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

If there are no objections here or on the article talk page, after about 4 or 5 days I will move the title of the article and the related articles to correspond with that TPL is using. Invertzoo (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, British usage is still Fallopia.
If you move japonica you ought to move sachalinensis and multiflora as well. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I think we need time to review the literature. TPL is based on pre-2013 sources, so could be outdated. USDA seems to use yet another name. T.M. Schuster et al. have a series of papers on the phylogeny of Polygonaceae. From my reading so far, it seems to be a disputed area, with agreement that Fallopia s.l. isn't monophyletic, but less agreement on how to break it up. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Apparently TPL has been recently updated -- it is no longer based on pre-2013 sources. Invertzoo (talk) 11:00, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
@Invertzoo: really? I can't see any evidence of this. Can you point me to the update? Peter coxhead (talk) 06:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I do believe that my expert -- Daniel Atha of the New York Botanical Gardens -- said that was so. Let me try to check with him on this. Invertzoo (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Some of the underlying databases (e.g. WCSP) continue to be updated, but my understanding is that version 1.1 is the final version of The Plant List and it will not be updated further. Future development of the global checklist of plant species will be at the World Flora Online. World Flora Online doesn't have any record for Fallopia japonica/Reynoutria japonica/Polygonum cuspidatum, but claims to have a similar number of accepted species (350k) as The Plant List, and larger number of total names (1.34 million vs. 1.06 million). I find it rather concerning that WFO doesn't include (and improve upon) the entirety of the TPL dataset at this point. With the International Botanical Congress going on in Shenzen this week, there's no better time to show case the World Flora Online. Plantdrew (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
@Plantdrew: thanks! I don't see how the WFO has 350k species when at least half of those I just searched for aren't there. Let's hope it improves rapidly. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Classification of Fabaceae[edit]

There's a new classification of Fabaceae here. It's already been added to Fabaceae#Taxonomy. An important change is "The traditionally recognised subfamily Mimosoideae is a distinct clade nested within the recircumscribed Caesalpinioideae and is referred to informally as the mimosoid clade pending a forthcoming formal tribal and/or clade-based classification of the new Caesalpinioideae." Some automated taxoboxes have been updated to this system, but we should be consistent. Views? Peter coxhead (talk) 06:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: All of the taxa currently assigned to Mimosoideae on Wikipedia should indicate that they now belong to subfamily Caesalpinioideae. I've just about finished doing that (I just have Acacia left!), but I haven't been using automatic taxoboxes. I've been changing Mimosoideae from a subfamily to an unranked tribe and piping the link thus: [[Mimosoideae|Mimosoid clade]] with a reference to the publication reorganizing the subfamilies of Fabaceae. My thinking was threefold. First, this would make it easy for editors unfamiliar with the recent change to verify the classification and (hopefully) prevent them from changing it back to say subfamily Mimosoideae. Second, it would continue to recognize the mimosoid clade as a unique, identifiable, monophyletic group—just without assigning it to a Linnaean rank. Third, it would save us from the trouble of moving Mimosoideae to Mimosoid clade and then moving it again whenever the formal tribal classification comes out (Fig. 1 of this paper informally suggests Mimosoida). The LPWG first floated the idea of revising the subfamilial classification in 2013 here and especially here, but they didn't reach a consensus and publish until four years later here. The tribal classification of Leguminosae seems to be even thornier, so it could be quite a while before this promised revision actually sees the light of day. If that is the case (i.e. that Mimosoid clade would be stable for several years) then it might make sense to go ahead and move Mimosoideae to Mimosoid clade. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
@Ninjatacoshell: thanks for all the work you've done on this. (I'd have used automated taxoboxes, but that's always my preference.) As you note, nomenclature isn't settled, and your proposal seems sensible to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:45, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about template "Template:Taxonbar"[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Taxonbar#Proposal: Switch Taxonbar template to use Module:Taxonbar, which is about a template that is within the scope of this WikiProject. There is a proposal to use a Lua module as the basis for the template, which will result in some changes to the template's appearance. Thank you. Ahecht (TALK
) 21:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Plant ID request[edit]

Can someone tell me what these two plants are? I think the one on the outside may be some kind of Coleus, but not sure. This was taken in the Butterfly House at the Norfolk Botanical Garden, Norfolk, VA.

Plectranthus scutellarioides NBG LR.jpg
Thank you very much. PumpkinSky talk 00:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
@PumpkinSky: I don't feel this is an appropriate place to ask for plant identifications. I believe the plant is Plectranthus scutellarioides, but please post your inquirers elsewhere in the future. Here are some places I suggest for identifications:
--MCEllis (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Photo of Euphorbia tirucalli's flower[edit]

Hi, I took a photo of the flower at home.

The photo with the red background have been taken with a Reflex but I couldn't take the sky as background (minimum zoom too big). The other photo have been taken with a bridge. Lower quality but the background is so much better.

Unfortunately, in city, there is everywhere a bad background. What do you think about theses 2 photos ? Are they good enough to be include in Euphorbia tirucalli ? Should they be crop or photoshopped ?


Euphorbia Tirucalli's flower.jpg
Euphorbia Tirucalli's flower with background.jpg

Bansan (talk) 04:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Crop the first picture to concentrate on the inflorescence and it will be fine. The second's background is just too distracting, even if cropped. It's always better to find a sheet of plain coloured paper to use as a background for "studio" shots. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Phytotaxa paper sought[edit]

If there's anyone who can access locked papers in the journal Phytotaxa, I'd be grateful for a copy of this paper. I'm trying to write about Drimia, where, as with the Scilloideae/Hyacinthaceae generally, there are sharp divisions between a "lumper school" and a "splitter school". As the lumpers seem to write in journals to which I have access (usually open access ones) and have the support of WCSP, whereas the splitters largely publish in journals to which I don't have access, it's hard not to be biassed in favour of the former, which I'd like to redress. Drop me an e-mail, please, if you can help. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

You can request a copy from the authors via ResearchGate. Lavateraguy (talk)
Ok, I'll try that. It's a pity that Phytotaxa seems to be in the process of becoming one of the major places new plant names are published, but most of its articles aren't open access. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:52, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 Done I've got a copy now, but the general point about Phytotaxa remains. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)