Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

WikiProject Plants

Main page

Talk

Taxon template

Botanist template

Resources

Events

Requests

New articles

Index

WikiProject Plants was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 17 December 2007.

Archives since 2011

54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63
64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73
74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 30 days are automatically archived 2 or more at a time by if there are more than 7.

Split of Boraginaceae

Almost all the taxonomic databases now seem to follow the Boraginales Working Group (BWG) in splitting Boraginaceae into 11 families, as per the list in the taxobox of Boraginales. Plants of the World Online is the outlier in retaining Boraginaceae s.l. (See e.g. the sources at Codon (plant)#Taxonomy.) As per the discussion at User talk:Plantdrew#Codon and Codonaceae, I've made a start on implementing the BWG approach. It does require adjustments to categories as well as articles and taxonomy templates, so is not a 'quick fix'. I hope some other editors can get involved. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is very premature, see Vasile & al. (2025) who recognise 9 families. As APG V is in progress, I would not want to see Wikipedia diverge from APG IV for a group that is not settled. Weepingraf (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the number of families is not settled – the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website uses fewer right now than the BWG – but that there should be a split appears to be definite. Check the taxonbar links at Boraginales: GBIF, IRMNG, ITIS, NCBI here, WFO – all split Boraginaceae. Working through articles, I found that we had a muddle: some used segregate families, others Boraginaceae s.l.

If the actual family split ends up different in APG V (e.g. 9 rather than 11 families), this is much less work to fix than making the initial WFO/BWG split consistent, which I think I have now done. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:26, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's perhaps worth adding that as ever WFO is not always well curated. Right now you can get two different families for Rotula here (the December 2025 update) and here (the June 2025 version). {{Cite WFO}} generates the URL for the older one. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 10:13, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion regarding Papaver setigerum

I have started a discussion at Talk:Papaver setigerum on if the page should be retained under a common name as a garden plant or if it should be redirected to Papaver somniferum due to being a synonym according to Plants of the World Online. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 18:00, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Confused lists of Phyllanthaceae genera

Right now we have three lists of the genera in the family Phyllanthaceae:

There's an alphabetic list at Phyllanthaceae#Genera, which I've just updated to the latest in PoWO.
There's a classified list in the same article at Phyllanthaceae#Classification, which isn't entirely consistent with the list of genera below, and which is based on a 2006 set of tribes and subtribes.
There's an article at List of Phyllanthaceae genera which isn't consistent with the PoWO list of genera, and uses tribes like Amanoeae which aren't consistent with the system at Phyllanthaceae#Classification.

I would prefer a single list – I think just in the Phyllanthaceae article as there aren't so many genera that it would imbalance the article. There's a possible list at User:Peter coxhead/Work page#Phyllanthaceae based on the current PoWO genera and the subfamilies and tribes given for these genera in the genus list at APweb. My quick search of the accessible literature suggests the subtribes aren't stable at present, but it's not a group I know much about.

What do others think? Peter coxhead (talk) 12:04, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Plants described in ..." category for validly published but illegitimate names

Please see the thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Description in year categories#Illegitimate names and the newly added last example at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Description in year categories#Choosing a category. Are people here in agreement? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that seems about right. The earliest description of the taxa is used for the category of the article, even if the name used with that description was later altered. I'm in favor of adding taxa categories for redirects when the redirect reflects a name that belonged to a taxa that is now recognized at a different rank (like a species now accepted as a subspecies). Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Mess at olive articles

Please comment at Talk:Olea oleaster#Articles are a mess concerning two articles I regard as a mess: Olive and Olea oleaster. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Acer rubrum

Acer rubrum has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:00, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Potential co-nom for FAC

I'm curious, does anyone want to help me co-nominate an article for FAC? I haven't confirmed which article I want to work on, but I'm thinking either Ascarina lucida or Pectinopitys ferruginea. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:00, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The Pectinopitys ferruginea article looks the better of the two at the moment. The Ascarina lucida page has some issues, most conspicuously in poor grammar; the English possessive -'s should never be used with Latin scientific names ("lucida's" 🤢🤮); the multiple instances of this need eliminating. - MPF (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a stylistic choice to me (rather than a grammatical rule). Once a Latin binomial is used in an English sentence, it functions as an English noun phrase, not as Latin. English grammar allows -'s on any noun phrase that behaves syntactically as a noun, regardless of its origin. Do you have a source or style guide that claims otherwise? Esculenta (talk) 14:32, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Esculenta no, I haven't seen any such; but neither have I ever seen a style guide that specifies "do not print the first letter of each word in pink ink". It's so blindingly obvious, that it shouldn't, and doesn't, need saying. Find me one botanical, or zoological, textbook, or research article, that accepts it as a style. I've never seen it done in any published work. - MPF (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, here's six relatively recent journal article titles:

journal Taxon: "Arabidopsis thaliana's Wild Relatives: An Updated Overview on Systematics, Taxonomy and Evolution" JSTOR 27756719
journal Nature Communications: "Genome-wide association study of Arabidopsis thaliana's leaf microbial community" PMID 25382143
journal: Nature Communications: "Extensive local adaptation within the chemosensory system following Drosophila melanogaster's global expansion" PMID 27292132
journal PNAS: "Dispensability of Escherichia coli's latent pathways" PMID 21300895
journal: PLOS Computational Biology: "Genome-Scale Reconstruction of Escherichia coli's Transcriptional and Translational Machinery: A Knowledge Base, Its Mathematical Formulation, and Its Functional Characterization" doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000312 {{doi}}: unflagged free DOI (link)
journal: Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology: "Characterizing Escherichia coli's transcriptional response to different styrene exposure modes reveals novel toxicity and tolerance insights" doi:10.1093/jimb/kuab019

I suppose they haven't read the MPF style guide. Esculenta (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've rephrased stuff on Wikipedia to get rid of possessives with scientific names, but that was because I didn't know how to get italics to work properly when there was an apostrophe; I just now learned there was a template for that being used in the Ascarina lucida article. Plantdrew (talk) Plantdrew (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue if there should or shouldn't be possessives next to taxonomic names, but you can use {{apostrophe}} to add apostrophes adjacent to italicized or bolded words: ''The Big Old Book of Facts''{{apostrophe}}s produces "The Big Old Book of Facts's". I've used it when discussing books or in DYKs. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2026 (UTC) Oops, realized I misread that and that you were just made aware of this template. Oh, well... ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:41, 14 January 2026 (UTC) [reply]

Responding to MPF's initial comment. I'm curious, what are the other current issues with the Ascarina lucida article? It is mainly a South Island plant, where I live, and I'd like it to reach a high status if I commit to working on it. Pectinopitys ferrugenia would require more sourcing as it is a more well-known and studied plant, although I'm willing to work thru it. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:07, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexeyevitch Mainly cleanup edits needed and reducing some wordiness; Lavateraguy has already dealt with some of it; I'll have a go through and and pick out some more. One other I saw was that it has two varieties, but the link says 'subspecies' (not the same!). There is also nothing on uses; are there any recorded Māori uses for it? Is the fruit edible? Any traditional medicinal uses? Potential toxicity? I'd also been going to say it needs a paragraph about use in cultivation outside NZ, but I can't find anything; as far as I can see, it hasn't even been introduced into Britain (very surprisingly for a South Island native, which should be hardy in milder parts of Britain), let alone become widespread as a garden shrub like e.g. Griselinia littoralis or Cordyline australis have. - MPF (talk) 10:27, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexeyevitch done now. Also noticed needs adding, the difference(s) between the two varieties; unfortunately I don't have access to the 1961 Flora of New Zealand where the varietal combination is made (if you do have access, it's on page 173). - MPF (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MPF. Māori were actually not really attracted to Ascarina lucida unlike Pectinopitys ferrugenia (for example, lol). It's a very rare plant in the North Island, and is really only common in the South Island's West Coast Region. I'm not aware of any toxicity or recorded uses by European settlers. Research published recently has made sourcing easy for the Ascarina lucida article, which might entice me to push it to FAC. On the other hand, Pectinopitys ferrugenia is a more valuable tree, which (again) might entice me to push it to FAC. I'll also inform the NZ community about the articles' possible expansion. Either way, thanks for the cleanup on the page. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:43, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Marsileaceae

Marsileaceae has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Carl Linnaeus

Carl Linnaeus has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]