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

Merger discussion at Talk:Wrigley Field ivy[edit]

The merger is proposed at Talk:Wrigley Field ivy. I invite you to comment there. --George Ho (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion is closed as "merged" to Wrigley Field. The merger is still in progress, so help is welcome. --George Ho (talk) 07:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Wall lettuce[edit]

Is there any reason why this should be at Lactuca muralis rather than Mycelis muralis. Fide Tropicos FNA has the latter, as do the standard British floras. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Seems like it should probably be at Mycelis muralis. TICA (which feeds into The Plant List) has a problem, listing both Lactuca muralis (L.) Gaertn. and Lactuca muralis (L.) Fresen. as accepted. Synonyms (including Mycelis muralis) are attached to the Gaertn. name in TICA and TPL, which is listed as unresolved at TPL. TPL has the Fresen. name as accepted. Plantdrew (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
The IPNI entry for Lactuca muralis (L.) Gaertn. is interesting and probably explains why some sources use Lactuca muralis (L.) Fresen., which is a later genus transfer.
Mycelis vs. Lactuca does seem to be a matter of taxonomic opinion; Stace (2010) uses Mycelis but notes that others use Lactuca. I'd go with Mycelis muralis based on the preponderance of reliable sources. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
TICA has AFPD, Euro+Med and the Cichorieae checklist with Lactuca and FNA with Mycelis. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
It would be interesting to know what primary sources were used for the alternative placements. I can't at present find any recent (say 2005 onwards) molecular phylogenetic studies including Mycelis muralis. The arguments for inclusion in Latuca seem to be largely based on pre-2000 work. There's a 2003 study here that places the species in Lactuca but it's only based on a cluster analysis of relative DNA content. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I begin to suspect that no-one's done a study of Lactuca and related genera with broad enough sampling. (Taxonomic boundaries are not easy in a young speciose clade like Cichorieae.) Mycelis seems to be outside core Lactuca and close to one Cicerbita clade, but the broader Lactuca looks paraphyletic. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


Loranthus says, without a source, "most modern systematists treat it as a monotypic genus with the sole species Loranthus europaeus Jacq." If this is so, then the taxobox should include Loranthus europaeus, and the article should be in a "monotypic genus" category. The Plant List shows that WCSP (in review) has only one accepted species, but also shows other "accepted" species from Tropicos – however it's well known that there are problems in TPL's handling of Tropicos. Anyone know more about this? Peter coxhead (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Most of the web pages saying that Loranthus is monotypic are copies of WikiPedia. I found two papers from the 1970s describing it in passing as monotypic.
At one point 99+% of the species in Loranthaceae were placed in Loranthus, so there's a lot of names floating around to confuse the issue. However Vidal-Russell & Nickrent (2008) has two species (L. europaeus and L. odoratus), as does Shavvon et al (2012) (L. europaeus and L. grewkingkii). The latter points me to Nickrent et al (2010) which says 10 species.
My tentative conclusion is that Loranthus is not currently considered monotypic. (Nickrent et al seems likely to be a reasonable summary of current opinion - is it a primary or a secondary source - as a synthesis of other work I'd call it secondary, but that might not be WikiPedia's definition.
Loranthus is an Old World genus, and Tropicos is not reliable on Old World species. The single species in TPL might be the result of a lack of a recent survey covering the group. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Reading between the lines at Nickrent et al, if Hyphear is segregated, then Loranthus might be monotypic. (I looked at TPL to see if that shed any light, but since even L. europaeus appears to have been placed in Hyphear at one time looking at which species have been placed in Hyphear isn't informative. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
@Lavateraguy: thanks for the response. Looking around the web, I too can't find any modern source that supports the statement about monotypy made in the article, and given that Nickrent et al. (2010) seems to be the latest review, I think the claim should be removed from the article, which I'll do. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I've now added a Taxonomy section to the article: the name Loranthus has a complex history of conservation, it turns out. I've listed the 10 species in TPL: the number matches the Flora of China and 8 of the names match the other two sources given. It would be good if someone could check what I've written about the nomenclature issue. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Should there (not) be a date accessed on Nickrent et al? Lavateraguy (talk) 10:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Move request at Talk:Mandarin orange (fruit)[edit]

There is a move request at Talk:Mandarin orange (fruit). Plantdrew (talk) 21:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Orchid photo dump[edit]

I have uploaded 400+ high-quality orchid photos to the Commons from Flickr user snotch in Japan. I didn't create a special category for the upload, so can they be viewed in my File list currently.

Thanks to the bot, there are no categories included but the original file names are very detailed. I am slowly adding to existing categories and will be creating new pages as I learn the taxonomy templates. There are quite a few cases where the titled species name differs from the Wiki. Any help from experienced users here would be greatly appreciated. Needless to say, many thanks to the author for licensing these great images! Qzd (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Coreopsis tinctoria photo with 4 stages of inflorescence[edit]

See photo at right.

Coreopsis tinctoria cultivar Uptick Cream and Red 12.JPG

This photo of Coreopsis tinctoria, cultivar Uptick Cream and Red, shows what I believe is 4 stages of inflorescence. I'm not sure of the growth sequence here nor what the reddsh-brown fuzzy stuff is. I was hoping someone can explain more about this to me. I'd really appreciate it. Here're the 4 stages, not necessarily in order of growth:

1 - several examples of young green buds that have not yet begun to open
2 - two reddish-brown buds of some sort
3 - two buds in different stages of opening the yellow petals
4 - one fully open flower
There are dozens of green buds on this plant. I can take many more photos if need be. Thank you. PumpkinSky talk 21:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
You have (in order of development) 1) capitulum buds in which then florets are still enclosed by the phyllaries (bracts); 2) an opening bud with some ligulate florets protruding; 3) a mature radiate flower showing by tubular/disc (in the middle) and ligulate/ray (at the edge) florets; 4) immature infructescences with developing achenes (fruits) surrounded by now spreading phyllaries; the corollas of the ligulate flowers have gone, but there may be withered parts of florets present. Lavateraguy (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
And in order of development, PumpkinSky's descriptive stages go 1,3,4,2. Plantdrew (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Lavateraguy and Plantdrew, THANK YOU BOTH!! So in laymen's terms what I called the "reddish brown" things are the seeds developing after the flower dies? PumpkinSky talk 02:22, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
@PumpkinSky: In layman's terms, yes, the reddish brown things are the seeds. In botanical terms, they are achenes, a type of fruit that is a hard dry shell surrounding the actual seed. Achenes are characteristic of the family that includes Coreopsis and sunflowers; think about sunflower "seeds" in/out of their shells. In shell sunflower seeds are botanical fruits. Shelled sunflower seeds are the actual botanical seeds. Plantdrew (talk) 02:38, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining all this. I truly appreciate it. It's probably not rare to capture such a photo of all 4 stages, but for me it was pretty neat. I'll try to capture photos of the achenes continuing to form.PumpkinSky talk 03:02, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Coreopsis tinctoria showing achene forming as flower dies

Talk:Perilla#Merger proposal[edit]

Hello! Please come to this discussion and share your thoughts. Thanks. -- (talk) 09:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report[edit]

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Plants.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Plants, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:That Poppy which affects Poppy, an article supported by WikiProject Plants. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Plant stomata?[edit]

Origanum vulgare leave with water droplet, showing epistomatic stomata.jpg

Hello! I've uploaded this image of a leave of Origanum vulgare with a water drop and what it seem to be epistomatic stoma. Asking to the Basque Public University science blog they have said that it could be that, but I want a second opinion before inserting the image on articles. -Theklan (talk) 11:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Theklan: Neat image. I think the structures are oil glands. In this micrograph of an Origanum marjorana leaf, there's a large gland in the center of the image, and about 20 stomata are also visible. Plantdrew (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
@Plantdrew: Wow! Thanks! -Theklan (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Please help with a draft at AFC[edit]

The original author of Draft:Fluence response stopped editing back in 2012, recently User:Legacypac "resurected" the draft as it seems probably useful, however it needs attention from someone who understands the topic. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Anyone knowledgeable on Hosta cultivars[edit]

Over here: on Commons at FPC we're having a discussion on exactly which Hosta cultivar is up for Featured Picture. If there's anyone here at WP:Plant that could help out, it would be appreciated. PumpkinSky talk 10:54, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Botanist template proposed for deletion[edit]

Please comment at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 June 9#Template:Botanist. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Just saw this notice and am glad the proposal was shot down. HalfGig talk 15:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

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)