Talk:Iridaceae

Isn't Hypoxis now in Hypoxidaceae? --N. Harris NaySay

Yes it is. But the family Hypoxidaceae hasn't been treated yet in Wikipedia. Anyway, I'll remove Hypoxis from Iridaceae. JoJan 09:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Photo donation

I have a photo of a similar (?) flower I am willing to donate to the wikimedia commons to be used in an article.

http://www.ee.ryerson.ca/~elf/show/img17.jpg

If you are interested, let me know: elf at ee.ryerson.ca

-Luis Fernandes Jul, 19, 2006

Starting over

I've changed the GA status to On Hold and restored it at GAN. Ultimately there is no obvious need to fully fail it ATM.

I'm also restarting the discussion on this Ixioideae/Croicoideae issue:

• Clearly the Crocoideae/Ixioideae article, as you point out, do not reflect any scientific consensus, so I'm merging them as Crocoideae.
• In this article, the confusion comes from the fact that when discussing taxonomy, youn simply cannot switch back and forth between two names, especially if they are taxonomic synonyms because then one by definition has priority and should be used exclusively. In this case, this is Crocoideae, so I'll be fixing this too.

Another small, unrelated issue I see with the text is in the "Phylogeny and evolution" section. Is it possible to add a bit of context to explain the significance of x= 10 as a chromosome number? Circeus (talk) 15:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Think that the Ixioideae/Crocoideae issue is over. The significance of x=10 was explained in the text, together with the concept of "complex translocation heterocigote" (I think that the given explanation is enough, but tell me what do you think). I take advantage of his opportunity to acknowledge you your efforts to improve the article. Think that it has now a better structure (i.e: evolution, origin and phylogeny inside the taxonomic section). I will read it again and will search information about Larentia, an orphan genus in the list. thanks again! --EnCASF (talk) 20:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Larentia is done. One thing I forgot to explain: I use to put the characters that unambigously define the family in the introduction together with the characters that differentiate it from its closest relatives. I think that it is part of the "definition" of the family and not a part of the description of it, but -again- I do not know the common structure here. --EnCASF (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Re:chromosome number, no, it's not explained. There is a lot of discussion of reduced numbers lower than 10, bit nothing to explain why it is so significant that many species have base numbers higher than 10 (rather than, say, 11 or 9). As far as I can tell, removing the second part ("and many genera have basic chromosome numbers higher than x = 10, which are derived from ancestors with fewer chromosomes") would not result in much loss.

Re:"Definition" it's an interesting question. I think an alternative approach to the issue is considering that we usually write the introduction as a global summary of the article. In this perspective, the "differential" does not fit well in the introduction, and if it is to be moved, the obvious location (well, to me anyway) is the description section. In any case, I think it is a great bit in the article: I've more than once deplored the difficulty of even finding the information necessary to write such material. Circeus (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Circeus: the short paragraph in the description is not good. It mix "liliaceae" with "Liliales" and states that Liliaceae and Iridaceae belongs to Asparagales, and that is not true. Think that it does not sum to the article. If you have doubts to include the "definition" in the intro, I can move this paragraph to the description and edit another intro. The other possibility is leave both sections as they are edited now. I would prefer ths last possibility, but tell me your opinion. Regards!, --EnCASF (talk) 05:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, major brain fart on my part there o_O Circeus (talk) 12:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Lists at end

How about moving Subfamilies and Genera to the end of the article, so that running, readable text comes before the lists? --Ettrig (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ettrig: thank you for taking your time for reading and commenting the article. The order of the sections follows the standard of the wikiproject. I will consult about your suggestion. Thanks again. --EnCASF (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would not be opposed to moving the section to a separate list of Iridaceae genera, but mileage may vary. If it included less details (personally, I'm not 100% convinced about putting the species number and range information), an option to consider would be to put it on two or three columns. However, I certainly do not like the idea of relegating the list elsewhere only to avoid "breaking the article" with a list. Circeus (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

My opinion is that the number of species and species range give important information about the diversity of the family and how this diversity is distributed, specially when many of the genera don't have their own page. With respect to moving the list to another page, when I consulted this issue I was informed that when the taxon has a great number of subtaxa (said 100) it is the norm, but I think that it is not the case. --EnCASF (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Iridaceae/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I'll be doing this review. I look forward to reading a family-level taxon article, because I intend to write a few fungal-related ones, and it will be interesting for me to see it from the "plant perspective". Will read twice, first for general copyedit (I'll be bold and just fix the non-contentious ones myself, as it saves us both time–feel free to revert or discuss if you feel otherwise); the second time checking refs (if possible) and focusing on content. Sasata (talk) 02:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Sasata! It will be highly useful to know your opinion about this article, taking into account your performance in writting so many GAs. --200.32.86.170 (talk) 11:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC) --EnCASF (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC) (now, logged!!)

Ok I'll start dropping notes as I go through the article section by section (slowly-sorry!). Sasata (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC).

Not as slowly as me!!...Sorry for delaying in starting the corrections, I was out of my home the last two days.--EnCASF (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Have done some more copyedit, and have generated the set of comments/questions following. Over the next couple of days I'll check references and recent literature. Sasata (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

• suggest adding the type genera and authority to the taxobox

Description

• "One of the most characteristic features of the Iridaceae is the perianth formed of two whorls of three tepals, all similar in structure, shape, and often color." I had to go to those other linked articles to really understand what this sentence meant. Would it be possible to find a diagram for this?

• "...where the corolla is reduced..." reduced in size?

• "...one whorl is firm and dry..." are whorls usually wet?

• "The characters that set Iridaceae alone apart," sentence construction sounds awkward, please rephrase

• "...(related families have six)" suggest to add an example or two of related families

• "The rootstock is a rhizome, bulb, or corm." Is rootstock different than a root?

• while reading this section I got the feeling that a picture showing the stem and leaves (preferably in close-up) would be a helpful addition to the text.. any chance of that?

• "Flowers may be either actinomorphic or zygomorphic." Would like to know what this means without having to go to another article

• suggest moving a flower pic up to the description section (would help understand descriptive info in third paragraph), and possible balancing pictures on both right and left sides throughout article

• "...with axile (rarely parietal) placentation in three locules." Jargon needs linking (or better, explaining)

Distribution and habitat

• "The family prefers open, seasonal habitats." Unclear what a "seasonal habitat" is, define or link

Taxonomy

• "The family name is attributed to Antoine Laurent de Jussieu's 1789 Genera Plantarum, secundum ordines naturales disposita juxta methodum in Horto Regio Parisiensi exaratam," would be nice to have this translated parenthetically, or a few words so reader can get a general idea of what this work is and why it's important
• sometimes "2n" is italicized, sometimes not, not sure which way is standard
• Citations only present in the first paragraph of the Subfamilies section; would like to see at least a ref for each bullet-point paragraph
• "Up to 66 genera have been recognised in the family, with a total of around 2,000 species worldwide." Source for these numbers? I read 1,500 species somewhere else.
• Need to decide whether to shorten "including" to "incl." or "inc."

Ecology

• "...the dormant corms are ready to burst into growth..." sounds a bit too dramatic for an encyclopedia

• "In the case of hopliine beetles (Scarabaeidae, Hopliinae), flowers provide a stable platform on which to congregate, and the value of pollen, which beetles sometimes consume, as a reward is uncertain." This mouthful of a sentence needs some repair – the last clause is especially clunky.

Uses

• "Several cultures have used species of Iridaceae as food, ornamental, condiment or medicinal plants. " sentence sounds awkward
• last paragraph needs citation(s)

Other comments

• if you're really looking for an exciting way to spend an hour or 2, consider putting all the citations in citations templates. Not required for GA level, of course, but a veritable necessity for FAC.

Just got around to checking references now. Unfortunately, the article needs serious work and rewriting to remove plagiarism. Please read Wikipedia:Plagiarism, and consider resubmitting after each referenced statement has been carefully checked against the source. Here's a sampling of problems from just the first dozen references I checked: Sasata (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Article:"The rootstock is a rhizome, bulb, or corm."

Source:"rootstock a rhizome, bulb, or corm."

• Article:"Species of Moraea are unusual in the family in having channeled leaves with a distinct upper and lower surface." Sources given as [2] and [3]. However, ref [2] does not mention this.

• Article:"Iridaceae species are usually pollinated by insects or birds." Sources given as [1] and [2]; ref [2] does not mention this.

• Article:"They have a hard endosperm, with reserves of hemicellulose, oil, and protein, and a small embryo."

Source:"endosperm hard, with reserves of hemicellulose, oil, and protein; embryo small."

• Article:"Species of Moraea are unusual in the family in having channeled leaves with a distinct upper and lower surface."

• Source:"Species of Moraea are unusual in the family in having channelled leaves with a distinct upper and lower surface."

• Article:"In most genera they are tetrahedral or variously angled and without obvious adaptations for dispersal." Same as source.

• Article:"In the Cape Floral Region alone, 707 species and 27 genera are recorded." Same as source

• Article:"Fewer species occur in savannas or the semi-arid central karoo, and very few in forests." Same as sources (with the exception that the source has the singular "forest")

Copyright problems

Unfortunately, this article was heavily edited by EnCASF who has displayed a history of copy-pasting content into articles and who seems to have done so here.

For instance, he added the following text:

All members of Iridaceae can be recognized by their petaloid, soft-textured and colorful perianth in which the three tepals of the inner whorl and the three of the outer whorl are alike in structure, shape, and often in color. This type of corolla, a feature of all families of Asparagales as well as the related order Liliales, distinguishes them from other monocots, such as grasses, palms or reeds, in which the perianth is either reduced or with the members of one of both of the whorls firm-textured and dry and often brown or green. The character that sets apart Iridaceae from other plants of the Asparagales or even the Liliales, is the male part of the flower, the androecium, which consists in three stamens while in the most related families there are six. Another character that distinguish Iridaceae from any other member of Asparagales is its inferior ovary, being superior in the rest of the families, with the exception of Orchidaceae. Apart from their flowers, the Iridaceae can usually be recognized by their characteristic leaves, sword-like and oriented edgewise to the stem with two identical surfaces. Such leaves are termed isobilateal and unifacial. In contrast, typical leaves -termed dorsiventral and bifacial- have upper and lower surfaces of different appearance and anatomy.

This is what we find in the source - Goldblatt, Peter; John C. Manning (2008). The Iris Family: Natural History & Classification. Timber Press. pp. 12–13. ISBN 978-0-88192-897-6. Retrieved 20 September 2013. - a copyrighted book:

All members of Iridaceae can be recognized by their petaloid, soft-textured and colorful perianth in which the three tepals of the inner whorl and the three of the outer whorl are alike in texture and general shape, and often in color. This type of perianth, a feature of all families of Asparagales as well as the related order Liliales, distinguishes them from other monocots, such as grasses, reeds, and palms, in which the perianth is either very reduced or with the members of one of both whorls firm-textured or dry and often green or brown. What sets the Iridaceae apart from other asparagaleian or lilialen plants is the male part of the flower, the androecium, which consists of only three stamens, where in most related families there are six. The flowers of the highly specialized Orchidacea, in contrast, usually have only a single stamen. Like the Orchids, the Iridaceae have flowers with an inferior ovary, with the single exception of the rare Tasmanian genus Isophysus. Apart from their flowers, the Iridaceae can usually also be recognized by their characteristic leaves, sword-like and oriented edgewise to the stem with two identical surfaces. Such leaves are termed isobilateal and unifacial. In contrast, typical leaves have upper and lower surfaces of different appearance and anatomy....

If you compare, you will see that - aside from a brief passage towards the middle - this differs from the source in superficial detail only. It is a blatant infringement of Wikipedia:Copyrights.

This is one randomly sampled paragraph from the content EnCASF added to this article. His history shows copying from multiple sources.

The article has had to be blanked because of this. All content added by this user needs to be rewritten or removed or the article restored to this version. (The Argentinian IP whose edits immediately precede EnCASF is likely EnCASF prior to log in.)

I'm extremely sorry for this complication and recognize that this is an enormous setback to the article and likely to be a great disappointed to other editors who have worked on the content that EnCASF pasted in. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Team-B-Vital Improvement Drive

Hello all!

This article has been chosen as this fortnight's effort for WP:Discord's #team-b-vital channel, a collaborative effort to bring Vital articles up to a B class if possible, similar to WP:Articles for Improvement. This effort will run for up to a fortnight, ending early if the article is felt to be at B-class or impossible to further improve. Articles are chosen by a quick vote among interested chatters, with the goal of working together on interesting Vital articles that need improving.

Thank you! Remagoxer ^(talk) 21:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)