Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive69

The Pteridophyte Phylogeny Group, analogous to the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group, published a consensus classification for "pteridophytes" in November 2016.^[1] To the level of subclass it is as follows:

"Pteridophyte" is used as an informal term for lycophytes + ferns

Class Lycopodiopsida Bartl. – lycophytes

Class Polypodiopsida Cronquist, Takht. & W.Zimm. – ferns

Subclass Equisetidae Warm. – horsetails

Subclass Ophioglossidae Klinge

Subclass Marattiidae Klinge

Subclass Polypodiidae Cronquist, Takht. & W.Zimm. – leptosporangiate ferns

Although we should, as always, discuss historical and alternative classifications in articles, I believe we should adopt PPGI for article titles and taxoboxes. It's a consensus system, with authors from many countries and 68 academic institutions. Our articles at present are confused and inconsistent.

Problems and proposals:

• We are not using "Pteridophyta" consistently: the redirect Pteridophyta correctly points to pteridophyte, but Category:Pteridophyta is used for ferns, as are Category:Pteridophyta genera and Category:Pteridophyta families.
  Proposal: Given the historically confused terminology, this is a case where the English name is actually more precise, at least at present, so I propose moving Category:Pteridophyta genera and Category:Pteridophyta families to "Category:Fern genera" and "Category:Fern families".

   Done As there was no disagreement, and I've been working on sorting out other plant categories (particularly those left by Caftaric/NotWith/sock puppets), I have now set these up at Category:Ferns, Category:Fern genera and Category:Fern families, in each case with a note to say that horsetails are included. The articles in Category:Ferns have not been altered. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• We have articles at Lycopodiopsida, Lycopodiophyta and Lycopodiidae, but these are just different ranks (Class, Division and Subclass) for the same taxon. We don't have articles on taxon names but on taxa.
  Proposal: These articles should be merged to Lycopodiopsida.
• We have articles at Equisetidae and Equisetopsida (Subclass and Class) for the same taxon.
  Proposal: These articles should be merged to Equisetidae.
• We have articles at Ophioglossidae and Psilotopsida (Subclass and Class) for the same taxon.
  Proposal: These articles should be merged to Ophioglossidae.

Comments below please. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• I found a recent article on Equisetum phylogeny, which seems to have references questioning the sister group relationship of Ophioglassales and Psilotales, which places a question mark against your last proposal. I'll comment further when I've done more than skim the article. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
• In general this is good. The ambiguity over whether "pteridophyta" includes lycophytes makes it undesirable, and I'm comfortable using "fern" in our category names. (Of course, this means we have to think of horsetails as ferns, but that's not such a bad option.) PPG I only covers living taxa, and we will need to accommodate fossil taxa (particularly in lycophytes and horsetails) but I think that's generally at the ordinal level of below, so moving down to subclass should be OK. We have a bunch of articles that were created according to the original Smith taxonomy (which ranked the current subclasses as classes), but subsequent systems have stabilized on the subclasses as delineated here. (Current disagreements have to do with familial and generic circumscription.) Choess (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Would Pteridophyte/Pteridophyta be included in the taxonomy templates as an unranked clade above Lycopodiopsida and Polypodiopsida? And this would all be done in {{Automatic taxobox}}es? --Nessie (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

  I've set up the taxonomy templates for the PPG I top level taxa, and the articles at its names use Automatic taxobox. I haven't included Pteridophyta s.l. because only exceptionally would we include informal grade taxa. We don't include the traditional Bryophyta s.l. for example at Marchantiophyta, and neither pteridophyte nor bryophyte have taxoboxes. This does leave open the question of what Division the lycophytes and ferns belong to, but there's no consensus that I can see on what the ranked subdivisions of Plantae/Viridiplantae should be. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

  According to Embryophyta lycophytes are sister to euphyllophytes, which would make Pteridophyta s.l. a paraphyletic taxon, which we'd prefer to avoid including in taxoboxes. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• There is the usage of Equisetopsida for Tracheophyta as well as for Calamophyta/Equisetophyta, so there may be a case of retaining a separate Equisetopsida article. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

  On second thoughts would a set index page (pointing at Equisetidae and Tracheophyta) be appropriate for Equisetopsida? Lavateraguy (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

  Actually we had an edit conflict because I was just suggesting exactly the same thing. I think that several set index articles may be the answer – simple redirects are clearly not enough given the muddled usage. The advantage of SIAs, which Plantdrew has pioneered for plants, is that you can have more explanatory text than in a DAB. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I now find that there is an Equisetopsida sensu lato article. Perhaps this should be merged ("articles on taxa - or more generally taxonomic concepts, not names") with something else (Tracheophyta?. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Lavateraguy: yes, although I'm beginning to think that an article on historical pteridophyte taxa/classification might be justified, given the enormous muddle there is. See also my comment below about Category:Equisetopsida sensu lato, which is on my list to fix if no-one else does. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:47, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• Per the other respondents, pteridophytes s.l. are a grade, not a clade, so I wouldn't expect them to have a taxobox. I think it's useful to have an article about some of these groups united by symplesiomorphies (eusporangiate ferns being the other one) but without taxoboxes. I like the idea of set indexes for dealing with now-abandoned names of varying circumscriptions. (The pre-molecular taxonomy of ferns is a flagrant mess; I have a copy of Pichi Sermolli's review and will probably add some historical circumscriptions eventually, but for currently-used taxa, I usually don't go back further than the circumscription under Smith et al. 2006.) Choess (talk) 13:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• (Side comment: the contents of Category:Equisetopsida as of right now are a great illustration of Caftaric/NotWith confusion. It contains Category:Equisetopsida sensu lato, when of course this category, if it were justified, would be a parent of Category:Equisetopsida. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC))

I can see two responses - take it to categories for deletion, on the grounds that there are not enough articles not in (unstated?) subcategories, or rename it to something more easily found/less confusing, on the grounds that there are enough fossil taxa (etc.) that don't fall into the subcategories (e.g. rhyniophytes, if they don't get their own category) - maybe take it to categories for deletion anyway, and argue out the issues there. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

As you may have already noticed having categories Equisetaceae and Equisetum is currently redundant. (There are a couple of fossil genera which could changes this. But there are so few articles we might as well collapse everything into one category (Equisetidae?) Lavateraguy (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• Have you looked into the Pteridophyta of X categories? If they include lycophytes they shouldn't be under ferns; if they don't should they be renamed? Lavateraguy (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The problem I have with PPGI is really a problem with their going for compatibility with Ruggiero 2015. Ruggiero ignores fossils, which we can't do. While we're not really doing anything useful with the class rank (since it's not used for angiosperms under APGIV, and many of the traditional divisions only have a single (living) class), it feels weird to me to have the 3 bryophyte groups as phyla/divisions and most of the other traditional divisions as classes. Should the taxoboxes of vascular plants simply omit division (as ferns are doing now), or include Tracheophyta as a division per Ruggiero? Plantdrew (talk) 20:29, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Is there any ranked classification which handles all the fossils well, or should we be looking into incorporating unranked clades into taxoboxes? I note that we have a paraphyletic Category:Pteridospermatophyta. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Plantdrew and Lavateraguy: the reality, I believe, is that there is currently no classification, ranked or unranked, which has consensus across the whole of the "plant" part of the tree of life (starting with a lack of consensus as to what "plant" means). Taylor & Taylor (2009)^[1] is the last secondary source I can find for paleobotany that uses a rank-based classification. Most paleobotanists use clade-based systems, but rarely venture outside their specialist interest, so it's WP:SYNTH to join them up. Ruggiero (2015) is available, but is there clear evidence that it commands widespread support among plant scientists?

For extant embryophytes, there's some logic in treating Tracheophyta as a division along with Marchantiophyta, Bryophyta s.s. and Anthocerotophyta, since these four completely partition the extant embryophytes. But once you introduce extinct groups, this fails. Either Polysporangiophyta becomes the fourth division alongside Marchantiophyta, Bryophyta s.s. and Anthocerotophyta, or else you need to slot in extra divisions for Horneophyton, Aglaophyton, etc., which is hard to justify, partly because of the paucity of fossil evidence.

So it's a mess, with no easy solution. But PPG I has at least as strong a claim to widespread support as APG IV – possibly more, because there's still widespread use of Hyacinthaceae, Alliaceae, etc. – so I think we just have to live with the fact that the systems used for different groups of plants just don't join up. Peter coxhead (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Maarten J. M. Christenhusz links to the DAB pages Aquarius and Oceana, allegedly genera. Neither is mentioned under the respective families, Alismataceae and Cymodoceaceae. Expert help in resolving these puzzles (which may need consequential editing on more than one page) would be welcome.

Aquarius is in Global Flora (as gen. nov.), but may be a synonym of Echinodorus, see Atlas of Florida Plants.

Oceana also is in Global Flora (as gen. nov.), but IDK if the name has been, or is likely to be, accepted.

Synonymy and unconfirmed splitting are perennial nuisances. Narky Blert (talk) 09:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Zanthoxylum parvum was merged to Zanthoxylum americanum back in 2016, on the basis that http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/tro-28100560 lists it as a synonym. USDA and ITIS list them as separate species. Could this please be reviewed and one or the other fixed. Thanks ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

TPL (and POWO?) takes the status from Tropicos, which treats it as a synonym, citing a thesis and a 2017 monograph on the genus. VPA treat it a species, giving no source. The FNA treatment of Rutaceae isn't published. I'd tend to treat USDA as a reliable source (for North America north of Mexico), but I'd also tend to defer to recent monographs, and the conflict. I suggest that we

• • retain Zanthoxylum parvum article
  • remove the Zanthoxylum parvum material from Zanthoxylum americanum (merge anything useful)
  • add a note that some botanists consider Zanthoxylum parvum from Davis Mountains of west Texas an isolated and divergent population to Zanthoxylum americanum
  • do the same at Zanthoxylum parvum

Lavateraguy (talk) 11:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

i agree with Lavateraguy's plan. Monographs are the standard we usually aim for, and if the databases disagree you go to the sources. But you know, we're not the boss of taxa, we should just report what's out there and reliable. I don't envy whoever is going to demuddle the wikidata items though.--Nessie (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Vascular Plants of the Americas, a MOBot project. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

How does it relate to Tropicos, apart from both being MOBot projects and it being hosted on tropicos.org? The Wikipedia article on Tropicos says it is mainly neotropical species (but is referenced with a single dead link). The Tropicos project page suggests a much broader scope and list the VPA as one of its projects. I generally get confused by the relationships between all the overlapping plant databases.   Jts1882 | talk  08:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

(Side comment) I don't know about the MOBot databases, but I agree about the confusion between all the overlapping plant databases, including those hosted at Kew. I have an e-mail from Kew in response to a query which says that WCSP and Plants of the World Online are both generated from the same underlying database, although PoWO is only updated intermittently, whereas if you point out an error, WCSP is updated straightaway. But none of this appears online so can't be sourced. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Don't take my understanding as gospel, but TROPICOS is a database of taxonomic opinions, updated when MOBot staff read papers, etc., and is biased towards the Neotropics because that's where they do most of their research, while VPA is a checklist formed from a synthesis of (mostly) preexisting checklists. (There's now a pretty good coverage of the Americas by checklists - Venezuela, Colombia and bits of the Caribbean are I think the principal gaps. I haven't found documentation of their sources, but I guess that they took their Anglo-American data from USDA. As of now VPA seems to be a bare checklist without other information.) Lavateraguy (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. So really this is a new combined checklist using the Missouri database. The sources are listed in Ulloa Ulloa et al (2017).^[1] It is ten local/regional checklists covering Mexico, Central America, South America and the West Indies, plus two flora projects covering Mesoamerica and North America North of Mexico. The latter seems to be the source for the USA and Canada.

Seems VPA and other projects use the same ID, which might cause problems getting a wikidata item to use in the {{taxonbar}}. Now I look closely, I see the main Tropicos item lists the projects an item is part of. So Acanthura mattogrossensis on Tropicos is http://www.tropicos.org/Name/100141 and the VPA item is http://www.tropicos.org/Name/100141?projectid=83.   Jts1882 | talk  13:53, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I doubt Wikidata will add IDs for Tropicos projects that are the same as the base Tropicos ID; there was some resistance to adding POWO since POWO uses IPNI's IDs. And POWO can't be directly accessed from IPNI. Tropicos projects are accessible from the main page for a taxon.

Lavateraguy's understanding is pretty much correct. There isn't anybody specifically tasked with adding general data to Tropicos. Data is added as needed for particular MOBOT projects. Tropicos is biased towards regions where MOBOT works; it's strong for the Neotropics, but also China, Madagascar, some other African countries, and North America. And it's biased towards taxa that MOBOT scientists specialize in. For a project I'm involved with, all legumes included in ILDIS were added to Tropicos. Plantdrew (talk) 16:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I recently created Hugh Wilson (American botanist) about a botany professor in Texas whose primary claim to notability was his being named an AAAS Fellow. There’s also Hugh Wilson (botanist), which is about a botanist and author from New Zealand. I don’t know a lot about this field, and I’m trying to determine the best way to disambiguate these two entries. Both subjects have the middle D; one was born in 1943 and one in 1945. Should one or both of the entries be moved to a title that better distinguishes between them? Larry Hockett (Talk) 04:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd say move the NZ one to something like Hugh Wilson (New Zealand botanist), and then include some sort of hatnote (such as template:Distinguish, i.e. "Not to be confused with the other Hugh Wilson who happens to be a botanist") on each page that links to the other. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 06:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - that's what I was thinking. Larry Hockett (Talk) 07:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The American frequently went by his middle name (e.g. here on Wikipedia as HughDanielWilson (talk · contribs))), though that may not be an appropriate solution for the Kiwi. Plantdrew (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Indeed; using the middle name (or initial) would not have been an appropriate solution for the Kiwi. @Larry Hockett: what you do once you've got incomplete disambiguation (e.g. Hugh Wilson (botanist)) is to tidy up the incoming links (in this case, point them to Hugh Wilson (New Zealand botanist)) and when done, the incomplete disambiguation should point to the main dab page (i.e. Hugh Wilson (disambiguation)). Note that this is to include the term "(disambiguation)" so that it's clear that it deliberately redirects there, even if the main dab page doesn't use a disambiguator. I've done all this already for this case. Schwede66 17:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for your replies. I’ve done a lot less content creation in the last few months, so I haven’t had to think about disambiguation too much. I found it interesting that he made a few talk page edits here earlier this year. Thanks again. Larry Hockett (Talk) 05:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Some edits from Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Catawba College/BIOL 3575 Plant Tax (2018) may be popping up. The ones I've seen look pretty decent. Choess (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Just after opinions on the infobox picture for Mentha suaveolens. Nice picture but it has more similarity to Mentha aquatica in my mind. Any opinions? Cheers, Cesdeva ^(talk) 19:31, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that it's Mentha aquatica - possibly Mentha ×piperita - but I have difficulty identifying mints even with a Flora in hand. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Buendia22, any insight? My concern is that the leaves just aren't anywhere near rounded enough. It's also unusual for M.suavelens to have a purple stem. Although i observed a purplish colouration this year in the stem of some cuttings, i'm sure it was just a reaction to the potting soil as the clone-parent had a green stem. Cesdeva ^(talk) 22:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll check it. I would probably just call Botanical Garden of Erlangen and ask them directly. Buendia22 (talk) 06:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

User:Buendia22, any luck? Cesdeva ^(talk) 19:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Mentha is often stoloniferous and we need more gardeners in the Botanical Garden of Erlangen (misdescription). Stem and foliage has similarity to Mentha x piperita. Next summer I take a picture of Mentha suaveolens. Buendia22 (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for investigating. Cesdeva ^(talk) 20:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC) 

Hi, reading about rhubarb from various sources including wikipedia. Begining to suspect there is no standardisation in terms used between UK and US for common garden rubarb?

• Rheum x hybridum -- I can see that the Royal Horticultural Society uses this term, which they also state is a synonym for Rheum × cultorum. The latter term cannot be found on wikipedia at all. This source (again, UK) states that R. cultorum is also termed Rheum undulatum, however according to the wikipeida article R. undulatum appears to be treated as a distinct species from garden rhubarb.
• Rheum rhabarbarum -- this is the term used on the main wikipedia article for "garden rhubarb". Is this the preferred US term?

Confused about this, do Rheum x hybridum, Rhuem x cultorum and Rheum rhabarbarum all refer to the same thing, i.e. common garden rhubarb? Many thanks for help. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Based on this source Rheum rhaponticum, Rheum x hybridum, Rheum rhabarbarum, Rheum x cultorum are synonymous? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

POWO has the first three as accepted names, and doesn't mention the 4th at all. Looks like some digging is needed. It might be a lumper/splitter issue. (One paper has Rh. undulatum, a synomym of Rh. rhabarbarum, as the sister to Rh. rhaponticum.) Lavateraguy (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

May I ask if any of these sources holds authority as far as naming convention on wikipeida goes? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

@Matthew Ferguson: as far as I can make out, the wild species is Rheum rhabarbarum, which will have priority as a name if there are synonyms for this species since it was named by Linnaeus. However, as often happened, Linnaeus gave names to cultivars as if they were genuine species, which has caused endless confusion (banana names are an excellent example). The Flora of China here seems to agree that Rheum rhabarbarum is a wild species, not cultivated in China, but cultivated in Europe (and by extension I guess North America). However, it seems to be agreed by both the RHS and the Missouri Botanical Garden (see ) that the cultivars used for their edible leaf stalks are derived from a hybrid, not a wild species, which they name Rheum × hybridum. (I wouldn't take much notice of POWO unless it's clear where its data came from. It seems to be just a "data dump" at present, with little or no curation, unlike, say, WCSP. POWO has never responded when I tried to point out quite obvious errors.) I haven't been able to find any molecular phylogenetic studies yet. I think that the article Rhubarb with its mention of both names is the best that we can do for now. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Several sources say that hybridum is rhaponticum × palmatum. (I did find some molecular studies on Rheum, but they didn't shed any light.) Lavateraguy (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi people, sorry, bit late to the party. I studied the entire genus many years ago, was attempting to grow the Himalayan species (no cigar). If I remember correctly, garden rhubarb is among the newest vegetables (along with witlof, rucola, sugar beet, some others), having been created by an Englishman around 1800, thus post Linnaeus, and Rheum × hybridum is the correct name. The wikipedia article is ambiguous regarding taxonomy; if I remember correctly, the ancients used a Chinese species (R. officiale), and it was only around the time of Catherine the Great that Russia usurped the trade with another species (R. rhaponticum). Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 12:27, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Leo, thanks for info. Where in that case does R. rhabarbarum fit in? Should the encyclopedia article state Rheum x hybridum as the binomial term alone if we are discussed "garden rhubarb"? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 18:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

It was a long time ago, and I can't remember my sources... R. rhabarbarum is confused; fide FNA R. × hybridum is a synonym of it (ditto R. × cultorum) however in the Species Plantarum Linnaeus applies this name to a Chinese/Siberian species, which might be what I earlier called R. officinale, so it appears the FNA is misapplying it. Linnaeus doesn't mention a species as a potherb/vegetable, only 3 wild plants from foreign areas. If the garden plant is a recent man-made allotetraploid hybrid then R. rhabarbarum cannot be correct as it is a nothospecies. A look online shows confusion. I also see the name R. × rhabarbarum being used in recent floras, and R. rhaponticum has been misapplied to garden rhubarb in the USA in the past. I'm afraid you'll have to dig deeper, there must be something on the history of the breeding of the plant out there; how a plant cultivated for its rhizomes ended up being grown for its stalks (possibly a similar story to that of witlof). Perhaps searching for earliest recipes might tell us something -was it always eaten as today? Regarding Linnaean names and the history of the original medicinal rhubarb, it might be worthwhile to look at the earlier sources that Linnaeus or de Jussieu cite. Cheers, Leo86.83.56.115 (talk) 22:37, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Uh... "Should the encyclopedia article state Rheum x hybridum as the binomial term alone if we are discussed "garden rhubarb"?" I still think this is the correct name, but I may be wrong. Priority applies for whatever nothospecific name is correctly applied to the type, and I think R. × hybridum is oldest.86.83.56.115 (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I can't help myself. Prospero Alpini was likely the first to identify R. rhaponticum (then called differently) as being the plant of which the rhizomes were imported in ancient times. In Dodoens Rhaponticum scariosum is confused with the roots of Rheum, known then as the rha of Pontus or Turkey. John Gerard (pg. 392) apparently considers a plant somewhat like an Arctium to be "Turky rubarb", and calls that of Dodoens "bastard rubarb", but he follows Alpini in calling what we know now as R. rhaponticum the true "Pontick rubarb". Parkinson first described growing this plant in England. Here's a book regarding initial culinary use. This report claims cultivation started in Germany around 1850, and started in the Low Countries around 1900, but considering what both sources say about John Gerard... I see nothing about eating the stalks in his Herball. According to the unsourced German wikipedia it was first grown as food in 1753 in Chelsea then Yorkshire, and in Germany it was first grown in 1848 around Hamburg. Also note the page 'Yorkshire Forced Rhubarb' in German. Nothing about the hybrid though. Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 00:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

±::::Easy to believe that Yorkshire was involved in the early selective breeding /hybridization of "garden rhubarb", since there is the Rhubarb Triangle in that region.

These sources might be of use?

• "common garden rhubarb, Rheum x cultorum [...] is derived from Rheum palmatum, and from Rheum officinale". listed synonyms are "Rheum rhaponticum, Rheum x hybridum, Rheum rhubarbarum". Source also states that Rheum palmatum is not a synonym for Rheum rhaponticum.
• and the pages on Rheum x cultorum which states "This species is probably of hybrid origin, R. rhaponticum x R. palmatum" which seems to contradict the above source.

Let me know what you think. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Matthew. I don't think either source has much taxonomic weight. I believe the name R. rhaponticum refers to a 'good' species, the wild 2n=22 chromosome rhubarb from the steppes in eastern Europe, first grown in western Europe in the 1500s, but it has been misapplied for the 4n garden hybrid, especially in the USA, and as such is only a synonym where misapplied (i.e. syn. R. rhaponticum auct. non L.). R. rhubarbarum is a confused name, I am unclear exactly what Linnaeus is referring to in his description, but he doesn't appear to be talking about the hybrid, but a wild species from China (I'm afraid though that it may be a synonym pro parte). This name has also been misapplied to the hybrid (again, syn. R. rhubarbarum auct. non L.). R. palmatum and R. officinale are also good species, both wild species from eastern Asia, with R. officinale being the purported source for the medicinal roots imported by the Ancient Greeks (disputable), and R. palmatum var. tanguticum being a beautiful oversized ornamental plant in my collection.

That the exact species used in the hybrid is not clear in the sources is annoying -I can't find an easy answer; PROTA for example says it is an unknown hybrid with R. rhubarbarum (which does make sense as we known this Chinese species was in Europe in the 1750s fide Linnaeus). You'd expect a karyotypy study could shed light on this, but I can't find anything quickly. The correct name for the garden hybrid is clearly R. ×hybridum Murray, 1775 and not R. ×cultorum Thorsrud & Reisaeter 1948, which is a junior synonym. Logically, should it be a hybrid with R. rhaponticum, ergo this hybrid could only have been created when the eastern Asian species were brought to Europe, and plants from China only really started coming in in the 1700s, so the timing looks right. In Murray's original description of the hybrid in the Novi Commentarii Societatis Regiae Scientiarum Gottingensis , he claims, if I'm reading it right, that the hybrid was created in 1769 with the pollen parent being R. palmatum, which he states was amply cultivated in England at the time (see also the English-language agronomic sources he refers to from the 1760s (Hope, Dossie)). Cheers, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it would be good to incorporate some of this content into the article. I will draft something this weekend. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Not a ton of page watchers on the /Assessment subpage, so cross-posting a link to this here. See discussion and provide input if interested: WP Plants talk/Assessment#Taxon-specific quality guidelines & WP Plants/Assessment#Quality scale Thanks! —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 17:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

See details/refs in my comments in the S.t. talk page and the curatorial notes on the species in iNaturalist.org philiptdotcom (talk) 03:15, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

In going through my list of orphaned taxonomic articles, I found Pelargonium sp. Striatellum, a taxon which lacks a formal scientific name. I added it to the List of Pelargonium species, but was reverted by Peter coxhead (courtesy ping) with the reasoning that it was not notable. Normally I would agree that unresolved taxa are not notable, but in this case it's well-sourced - enough that it meets GNG, in my opinion. It's listed as endangered by the New South Wales Scientific Committee (), included in the Australian Plant Names Index (), and NSW Environment maintains a profile on it (). Peter coxhead suggested I ask for opinions re: notability here. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Might be worth pinging Melburnian, seeing as they created the article. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

• My general issue is not wanting to have articles on taxa that have not been formally named and described, although I can see that this may be an exception. I'm happy to go along with what others think. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:37, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

In Australia it has been estimated that about 92% of our plant species have been formally described, so we have about 8% undescribed. This means that many rare or threatened species are undescribed and legislation may be required to protect these. Legislation requires documentation, and this documentation along with state herbarium descriptions will in most cases provide the verifiable evidence for Wikipedia notability, which I believe is the case for Omeo storksbill. Melburnian (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that undescribed taxa are as a rule non-notable; it's just that the automatic presumption of notability for species (deriving from the existence of a published protolog/description for each one) doesn't apply. If they meet the GNG, I don't see an issue with having articles about them. Choess (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

In case my edits are again reverted, perhaps somebody could take a look at the unsourced (and inaccurate) claim about hardy palms occurring naturally in Southern Illinois (note that the photos added by the same editor show yuccas, not palms): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Southern_Illinois&diff=prev&oldid=876749300 108.51.174.100 (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I do agree that the claims are unsourced and thus questionable (a Citation Needed template ought be added). I've never heard of an Illinois palm, but then again its not a region I work in. This source seems to support the idea of cold hardy palms, and suggesting palm survival down to 5 degrees. Considering that most of Southern Illinois is USDA zone 6 or 7, that could mean palm survival. This source seems to support the idea too. This source supports palm trees, albeit not overwintering trees (read the article its quite bizarre actually). And more evidence of Illinois palms.

There seem to be two photos in question, neither of which is very good. The first shows a very low res photo of a backyard set of palms (and its almost too grainy and low quality to be useful, but it is geotagged in Illinois. However I support removing it, since the article already has a lot of good images. The second photo is quite clearly in Illinois (Illinois bank in the background) but it doesn't look like any palm I've ever seen. It appears to be a species of yucca -- the leaves are long and pointed with sharp tips and appear somewhat succulent. Again, kind of poor quality. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 18:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the second one clearly isn't a palm, while the first one is too small to know. More importantly though, even if true, we can't use geotags in an image to write about species distributions that aren't otherwise sourced. That strikes me as the very essence of OR. Guettarda (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Also pinging BusterD about this conversation. Guettarda (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• A USDA state search for Arecaceae in Illinois comes up blank, which more or less puts the kibosh on "naturally occurring", except very perhaps as a recently established naturalised population.
• Other Wikipedia pages refer to (some) palms surviving as far north as the Ohio, so the hardiest palms surviving outside in southern Illinois may be within the bounds of possibility.
• I still doubt "naturally occurring" - I'd expect any unusually hard winter spell to see them off.
• They were edited into a section on climate - undue weight and trivia policies might apply. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

At Talk:L. Inc.#Requested move 5 January 2019 there is a proposal that the redirect L.L. ( → Carl Linnaeus ) be replaced with the article at L. Inc.. Members of this project may be interested. 92.249.211.146 (talk) 04:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Someone did a snow close. cygnis insignis 01:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

I reverted some additions of "Data Deficient" to taxoboxes by エリック・キィ (e.g. at Allium pskemense) because (a) this is what I have seen happen previously (b) I don't think that "DD" is a useful status.

Has this been discussed before, does anyone know? If not, what do others think? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I too had previously thought that DD status should be omitted but, on reviewing the above species, I've come to think it might be included after all. The IUCN entry for the species has some information that could usefully be added to the article, such as that the species is considered endangered in Uzbekistan. Thus expanding a stub using with reliably sourced content. And if citing IUCN in the article, the status and status_ref might as well be put in the Taxobox. Also, an IUCN entry appears in the Taxonbar in any event, perhaps leading an attentive reader to wonder why it wasn't included elsewhere in the article. Declangi (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Include - Usually when a species is DD it is after much consideration, and not given lightly. It often seems like they really wanted to give it a different rating like CR, but the taxa has little information on it so they just cannot. It also shows that the taxa is of ecological concern, else they wouldn't even study it. --Nessie (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello--I would like to ask why there appears to be no labels, no distinction, no vocabulary, in the taxonomy or description of grasses, between taxa which have a central distinct persistent stem exactly where the seeds attach, and those in which the seeds are attached one to the next in a string, with no stem, whether a single stem or branched. A couple of simple examples from where I live in South Texas USA: Chloris sp., and Bouteloua sp., with stems, but Andropogon sp., and Schizachyrium sp., which have no stem on which each seed attaches. Only a bottom or basal seed attaches to the stem. I do not know if this characteristic is consistent throughout each of these genera. I appreciate the help. SophoraDeceased (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Howdy! Its not clear what you're asking for. What Wikipedia pages are you referring to and what questions/policies are you unsure about? Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing changes to wikipedia and is not a general discussion forum. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 19:35, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Chloris and Bouteloua have sessile spikelets with a single, presumably basal, female-fertile floret, on an unbranched inflorescence (if you count the spikes of finger grasses as separate inflorescences). What you are looking at is a combination of characters - an unbranched infloresence, i.e. all spikelets attached directly to a single axis (the rachis), sessile spikelets, and spikelets either single-flowered or with a single basal female-fertile floret (I suppose that "single-fruited" would cover both alternatives, but according to Google that term has been used exactly once in the context of grass spikelets). I have no reason to expect that the jargon would have a name for this particular combination of characters. (Also, Chloris is known to sometimes have 2 female-fertile florets.) Lavateraguy (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I can't make this any clearer. Some grasses have distinct persistent stems after the seeds fall off, even leaving a stub or mark where they were attached, just as we can clearly see where leaves were attached at a node, while the seeds of other species have no integral stem to which seeds are each attached, the seeds actually being their own stems, attached to one beneath, and the next above. These are species-specific differences, but there seems to be no recognition of this, no terms to show that distinction. If I could figure out how to put photos up here, I would. I can go outside, pick grass stems and see this distinction in seconds. Specifically, I have examples of the 4 Tall Grass Prairie species of North America, 2 of which have persistent seed-attachment-points-stems--genera Panicum and Sorghastrum, and 2 have seeds which leave behind no attachment points--genera Andropogon and Schizachyrium. I can find Chloris, Setaria, Bouteloua stems with dozens of seeds on stems, and marks where seeds were previously individually attached, just like a leaf node. With all the blizzard of terms used, this clear distinction seems to have been ignored, or is lost in the cloud of terms. SophoraDeceased (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you just mean that the spikelets are sessile, i.e. unstalked? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

"the seeds actually being their own stems, attached to one beneath, and the next above" - I don't think that that is an accurate description. (Did you omit a word, such as "on"? If that was the case, in what way did my previous reply not answer your question?) Florets (and caryopses) are attached to the rachilla of the spikelet, or perhaps in the case of sessile single-flowered spikelets directly to the main inflorescence axis. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

No, I said what I meant. Sessile leaves have no stalk between the blade and stem. It does not mean that leaves are attached one on top of the other base to apex to base to apex.... The seeds I refer are attached one directly to the next. Only one at the bottom is attached to a stem or rachis, which may be sterile and may persist. There is no remaining stalk of any sort once the seeds fall off. The other type of grass has persistent stems. visible long after the seeds have fallen off. Can't be any simpler or clearer. SophoraDeceased (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I think that you're misinterpreting the situation. There are no grasses in which the seeds are attached directly to each other, though there are grasses in which they're densely packed on the rachilla. What may be misleading you is that in some grasses the whole spikelet, rachilla and caryopses and all, falls off the plant, sometimes as a unit, sometimes in pieces. Lavateraguy (talk) 23:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Of the species I know in Bouteloua, both seem to keep their spikelets in one piece, but one (Bouteloua gracilis) has the spikelets fall from the stem of the raceme, the other (Bouteloua curtipendula) has the whole raceme fall and the raceme looks kind of like a spikelet because it's so short. — Eru·tuon 06:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

While this is an interesting conversation (I research Bouteloua chondrosioides and do have a soft spot for grasses) I fail to see how this relates to Wikipedia. As I mentioned above, talk pages are for improving Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a forum and this page is not for answering random folk's plant questions (I note that solidly half of SophoraDeceased's edits are about this discussion). Unless this relates to a Wikipedia page/problem/debate/conversation I'm a fan of putting this whole conversation in an offtopic template. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 06:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

I personally found the conversation useful, there are some really important grasses that need articles and I gleaning all sorts of things from this discussion. And which user may have answer to a troubling question or point to a helpful source, not provided in uncreated or stub articles on the topic, become known to those using this page. Others seem happy to reply, no one is really obliged to reply, the topic here is plants and improvements to articles are often the consequence of that. cygnis insignis 10:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

And, no, I am not 'misinterpreting' anything. I have 1000s of stems of _Schizachyrium_ _scoparium_ within feet of my house, with full complements of florets/seeds present, down to nothing but what might be a sterile basal floret, and every number of florets/seeds in between. The florets/seeds are attached DIRECTLY ONE TO THE NEXT. Each breaks off from the one above or below. Again, many are broken off at any position in this series. The only stem is attached to the base of that lowest floret/seed.

It is hard to understand why this is considered to be not germane. Seems anything that advances understanding in science is valuable, to all and to Wikipedia. I am simply looking for a term that describes what I see. It also seems that this difference is seen in comparing 2 taxa, subfamily Chloridoideae and Panicoideae, several species of each which I have at my place.

Having found no useful answers here, I'll just go to Facebook, put up some photos for illustration and clarity and see who understands. Good-bye. SophoraDeceased (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

@SophoraDeceased: I can only say that I am sure that you are misinterpreting the anatomy. If you put a link here to any photos you put on Facebook or elsewhere, it would be helpful. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

@SophoraDeceased: I didn't mean to scare you off, perhaps my reading of WP:NOTFORUM was incorrect; at any rate its more of a guideline than a hard rule. We would like to be able to help you, but we need more information. If you could upload a photo (that you've taken, there are some pages which describe how you can put them on WikiCommons) or link one that you find on the internet, that'd be great. I still question what you're getting at, I don't know of any grass species whose seeds are attached solely to other seeds; there is almost always some stem or other ovary structure to which seeds attach. If there wasn't, how would the seeds up the chain get enough nutrients pumped to them? Stems and ovaries have vascular tissue, seeds don't. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 19:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

FYI: Categories for discussion nomination for Category:Invasive plant species. I started this for one of the bigger categories of invasive species (currently 622 articles). Spurred by some conversation on my talk page, User talk:Hyperik#Invasive species de-categorization, if you want more background.

See also: Category:Invasive plants, which I had created as a more suitable title for articles about plants being invasive. Wasn't sure whether to go with that name or Category:Invasive flora... —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 20:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I was at the garden centre earlier and they had a plant going by "Echeveria Forest". I can't find anything about this species online (including here), so I was wondering whether anyone knows whether it's a synonym or something along those lines. Cheers, Anarchyte (talk | work) 08:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It could be a "proprietary" breed of Echeveria, although if so I might expect it to be named something like Echeveria somethingius forest. Could also be a hybrid species, but then I don't know why its not say Echeveria somethingius x. Forest. Regrettably we have rather few pages in the Echeveria genus, although there are certainly many many species; this could be a good chance to make a page for a species. Do you have any pictures/descriptions of the plants, or any idea of the company that grew them? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 08:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I grow quite a few echeverias, and have learnt that the names attached when bought are not to be trusted. Also, planted troughs or similar with groups of plants have been sold as "echeveria forests". In cultivation, they are much hybridized and almost impossible to identify – impossible out of flower. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I may be able to take a photo of the one I bought sometime tomorrow, but this online shop sells what I assume to be the same thing (both have a reddish hue on the outer leaves). Anarchyte (talk | work) 10:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: the illustration looks like any one of a number of species of Echeveria in cultivation. Plants of the World Online lists 184 species. Some have greyish leaves, so would be different from this one, but many look very like E. agavoides when not in bloom. Cultivation instructions for that species would cover most commonly grown echeverias: good light, free draining compost, careful watering, high potash feed occasionally. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Here are the flowers. Anarchyte (talk | work) 02:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Some time ago there was a Papaver tatewok in circulation. It was finally identified as Papaver miyabeanum Tatew. - the species epithet has been lost, and the author's name mangled and turned into an epithet/cultivar name. One might suspect that something similar had happened here, but according to IPNI neither F.Forest nor H.S.Forest has published in Echeveria. Google tells me that there is an Echeveria 'Black Forest', but that looks like a different plant. There's also someone selling Echeveria mexicensis with a specified pine forest provenance. Echeveria 'Forest' potentially could be a cultivar name, but cultivar names are usually more specific - you'd expect 'X Forest' or 'Forest X'. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

My experience of plant names in horticulture is that they are often not precise, for various reasons. Cultivars get mislabelled, even by reputable establishments (for years the Beth Chatto Nursery sold Penstemon 'Stapleford Gem' as P. 'Sour Grapes', before realising their error). Trade names - which can be numerous for the same variety - run alongside cultivar names. People spell names incorrectly. Some sellers might even be unscrupulous, and try and pass off imitations with a similar name (there is a relatively new Fatsia cultivar called 'Spider's Web' that has very intricate and very white variegated marbling on its leaves - it is a fine-looking plant, but slow-growing and hence expensive; shortly after its introduction, I began seeing much cheaper but very inferior quality variegated Fatsia being sold as 'Spider Web', with no possessive apostrophe......). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:15, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Re 'Stapleford Gem', twice I bought a penstemon labelled 'Sour Grapes', each time from a reputable nursery, once being assured that "this is the real 'Sour Grapes'", but they turned out to be 'Stapleford Gem'. Moral: don't buy perennials that you want for their flowers unless they are in flower! Peter coxhead (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

What does "nom. illeg." mean? Over on Ixora chinensis it's got two synonyms with this: "Curtis, nom. illeg." and "Sims, nom. illeg.". I don't know what to link or what this actually means. Anarchyte (talk | work) 12:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

See Nomen illegitimum.   Jts1882 | talk  12:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jts1882: Ah, don't I feel silly for not just linking that and seeing what happens. Google didn't help much so I came here after. Anarchyte (talk | work) 12:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the wikilink [[nom. illeg.]] works, and should be used at the first occurrence. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I just noticed that a lot of articles use the term "higher plant" or "higher plants". I think, that in most cases the correct term would be "vascular plants" instead. Please refer to this question on biology.stackexchange.com for a detailed explanation. Am I right that this should be changed? As this affect 700+ pages, should/could a bot edit all those pages? Eule (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

The potential problem with letting a bot loose is that we don't know without looking at each individual case whether higher plant has been used consistently as equivalent to vascular plant. The stackexchange article suggests that higher plant could mean anything from Magnoliophyta sensu lato to Embryophyta. Lavateraguy (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Right, no bot then. But is there a tool on Wikipedia where we could insert all articles that contain "higher plant(s)" and keep track wether they the use of "higher plants" as already been checked or edited? Eule (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Google finds 153 instances of "higher plant" and 984 of "higher plants" on Wikipedia EN. Some of these are in references and shouldn't be changed. The Rhum article refers to "higher plants and ferns", so in that case it seems it means seed plants, rather than vascular plants. Flowering plant used it for Embryophyta - I went ahead and changed that instance to land plant. Lavateraguy (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I think 'higher plants' is a deprecated term that we should avoid. I agree a bot is too crude, but the term should be changed when found. --Nessie (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Finding a precise definition of higher plants will be like finding a definition of plants. The term is used in different senses and will depend on context. While in most cases it will mean vascular plants, a bot won't be able to determine intent. We should nearly always prefer a more precise term unless there it is in a historical discussion of higher and lower plants where it should also clarify how it is used. It's used in a surprising number of titles for academic works.

Higher plant redirects to Vascular plant so one concern might be wikilinking examples where it refers to something else. For instance, the plant virus arcicle days "Plant viruses are pathogenic to higher plants", which the tool tip informs me means vascular plants. Does this imply there are none that are pathogenic to mosses?   Jts1882 | talk  09:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

If a section of plant were to discuss the historical concept of higher and lower plants higher plant could redirect to there. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Lower plant redirects to non-vascular plant. That article doesn't mention the old usage covering fungi and bacteria. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

What about own articles for Lower plant and Higher plant with an explanation of the concepts? Eule (talk) 20:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Lower and higher plants or even just lower and higher (taxonomy) (we see the distinction made in several other clades, e.g. animals, fungi, primates) crossed my mind. There is also the existing Great chain of being#Scala naturae in evolution. I am a little concerned about WP:UNDUE, but it's not a taxonomic concept lost in the mists of time, but a usage which persists to the present day, so it's worthy of coverage. An argument for lower and higher plants as a single article is that the two groups are defined by opposition.

I looked up Protophyta, and found that it redirects to thallophyte. I'm not sure that is correct, but on a quick google I find that there is one usage which corresponds to thallophytes - I was only aware of the usage in which protophytes are unicellular plants. There's also a stub for cormophyte. Perhaps this should redirect to vascular plant, or to wherever higher and lower plants are discussed, as thallophyte and cormophyte seems to correspond to one of the ways plants are divided into higher and lower plants (cryptogam and phanerogam is another). I imagine that a higher and lower plant article would have a table showing the imagined scala naturae, and the various divisions into lower and higher plants. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I created an article on Prunus himalaica Kitam., and sources seem to be saying that it was originally described as Maddenia himalaica Hook.f. & Thomson, but when I looked at GBIF it says it is a synonym of Prunus himalayana J.Wen. What is the truth? There are some discrepancies in the description given in various places too. I can't proceed without some assistance. Abductive (reasoning) 07:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

According to Wen & Shi: "Revision of the Maddenia clade of Prunus (Rosaceae)" (PhytoKeys. 2012; (11): 39–59 , these are two different species. When Maddenia himalaica Hook.f. & Thomson (1854) was combined in genus Prunus, it had to be named with a new epithet Prunus himalayana J.Wen (2010), because the name Prunus himalaica Kitam. (1954) already existed for another species. (see below fig. 1 in Wen & Shi 2012). --Thiotrix (talk) 08:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm working on Dorotheantheae at the moment and I'm having a little bit of trouble figuring out the accepted genera and species names. The Plant List says all three genera exist (here, here, and here) but the Catalogue of Life, NCBI, and GRIN all say the only official genus is Cleretum and the others are synonyms. I've attempted to summarise why this may be in the article but I'm yet to find anything that says the 2012 study actually resulted in the modification of the names.

Should I change the article so that it's more along the lines of "The following genera are accepted, per The Plant List, though other databases consider them synonymous"? If so, what would happen to the type genus and all articles that use these "incorrect" names (e.g. Dorotheanthus bellidiformis)? Anarchyte (talk | work) 11:42, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Anarchyte: The Plant List is well out-of-date now, and is not being maintained any longer. It has effectively been replaced by Plants of the World Online. I would incline to use this as the default standard now. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:02, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that, Peter coxhead. Should I leave the type genus as Dorotheanthus despite it being no longer recognised? Also, should Dorotheanthus bellidiformis be moved to Cleretum bellidiformis and the Aizoaceae article be modified to remove the mention of the other two genera? Anarchyte (talk | work) 12:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

My answers: (1) Type genera don't change even when the genus is no longer recognized. (2) I would definitely move articles to achieve consistency. (3) Don't remove the "mention" of the other two genera, but explain that they are now treated differently. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

"yet to find anything that says the 2012 study actually resulted in the modification of the names." I'm not sure what you mean by this. The 2012 study by Klak and Bruyns is quite explicitly modifying the names. Klak published five new combinations (Cleretum booysenii, C. clavatum, C. hestermalense, C. maughanii, and C. rourkei); any source (e.g. POWO) which accepts these 5 species as members of Cleretum is implicitly following Klak, even if the source doesn't explicitly say it's following Klak. You do realize that there isn't some kind of committee that ratifies taxonomic proposals, right? Databases/taxonomists can choose to follow Klak or not, and while it would be nice if they cited Klak explicitly, you can tell whether or not they are following Klak by what species names they accept. Plantdrew (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Anarchyte (talk | work) 03:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The articles Macarthuriaceae and Macarthuria say that family is monogeneric. If this is correct, then the family article should be merged into the genus article. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Before it was created in December it was one of two APGIV recognized families that was a red-link (Microteaceae is the other). Plantdrew (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

However, according to our standard treatment of monogeneric families, Macarthuriaceae shouldn't have been created, but instead described at Macarthuria, unless I'm missing something. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: new classification scheme for eukaryotes, which asks for comments on how we should deal with a proposed new classification system that has widespread ramifications across the tree of life. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Input sought At Wikipedia talk:Automated taxobox system/Archive 1#Fixing inconsistent ranks in taxonomy templates I've suggested some alternative ways of fixing inconsistent ranks in taxonomy templates. They could make it easier to deal with the problem of inconsistent classification systems, e.g. the ones used for birds and dinosaurs, or the ones used for mammals and dinosaurs. Be warned that it's a long post, but it very much needs input, particularly from "old hands" at using the automated taxobox system. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Some recent changes to taxonomy templates for the 'upper levels' of plant classification used one of the systems put forward by those working on deep eukaryote phylogeny. This caused "Kingdom: Plantae" to disappear from automated taxoboxes in some cases. Several of us (including Plantdrew and myself) noticed this, and I made some ad hoc fixes using the dreaded skip taxonomy templates. I've now implemented a complete 'variant' system using "/Plantae" taxonomy templates as the value of |parent=. This ensures that "Kingdom: Plantae" appears in any automated taxobox for these groups of plants.

The table below shows what I believe is a currently acceptable consensus taxonomy for extant plants, more specifically embryophytes, which I have implemented. The names and ranks used vary between sources, so I've used informal names in the table below.

Are there any objections to this scheme and my actions? Peter coxhead (talk) 11:43, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thea (Q163459) says "generic name, use Camellia", but also gives a reference that Thea is Linnean, while Camellia (Q212815) says "genus of plants", but also says that taxon common name = camellia (English). So I'll just leave this here for someone more knowledgeable to inspect.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:10, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

All the identifiers for Thea say it's a synonym for Camellia (except for EPPO, which thinks it's a beetle). I've heard Camellia as a common name for flowering species of Camellia (i.e. not for C. sinensis), but not Thea as a common name. --Nessie (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Everything's fine. Thea is a synonym of Camellia and camellia (lower case, no italics) is used as a common name. I've removed the EPPO ID from Wikidata. To keep SuccuBot from readding IDs pertaining to a homonym, edit the identifier for a particular database, click on and select "no value" (make sure the database doesn't actually have IDs for multiple homonyms). Plantdrew (talk) 20:13, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

If anyone has any spare time, I have an 6-month old unanswered peer review here. It's over List of Hypericum species, a genus of about 500 species with some medicinal and historical interest. I'm trying to bring the genus to Featured List status, but getting a comprehensive review of the article before I send it to FLC has proven difficult. If any of you lads could give me a hand, that would be much appreciated. Thanks, Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 17:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• I was about to refer you to a paper on the fossil (seed) record, but I see that you already reference it. Hypericum pollen is probably not as rare as you imply, but it's not very distinctive.
• The "show" links on the table look as if they should mean "show references", rather than "show table". I don't know whether adding an otherwise empty column to hold them would be more or less ugly. There may be other alternatives that have escaped my attention, or which I don't know about. (Is adding an otherwise empty (apart from a tile) row workable?)
• POWO gives 498 species, so I guess that it's taken its data from the same source as TPL (which you reference). POWO seems to be better maintained that TPL, so switching the reference may be worthwhile. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I have made some comments for you there. Abductive (reasoning) 09:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

As seen in Category:Angiosperms by location and its subcategories such as Category:Flora of Chile by taxonomy, there seems to be an WP:Overcategorization problem developing. First, there seems to be no biological reason to deviate from the WGSRPD in favor of nation-states. Second, it cannot be said to be particularly useful to create WP:Category intersections for every taxon and every country in the world. Thoughts? Abductive (reasoning) 09:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I could not agree more strongly. In my view, categories can be created too easily. Over-enthusiastic editors have created far too many unnecessary categories. Subdividing the WGSRPD categories is almost never useful, and often just feeds a nationalistic view of flora distributions. Intersectional categories have been created with no discussion or consensus. Why do we have "Trees of ...", "Grasses of ...", "Bunchgrasses of ..."? Shall we go on to have intersectional categories for every plant family or large genus by every country? If anyone has the time and energy to sort this out, go ahead! Peter coxhead (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Peter. Categories need to be manageable, and this new organizational scheme could lead to a slippery slope of hundreds of new categories, for no good reason. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 19:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. It is always useful to be able to see which species of a taxon are represented in a country. The fact that an WP:Overcategorization guideline exists does not mean this is actually the case. Likewise the category Category:Trees of Chile is also an intersection, yet it is not being an Overcategorization concern..? So, under which criteria are Chilean and Argentina taxons intersections being considered overcategorized? Sietecolores (talk) 20:00, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

On the contrary, "Trees of Chile" is just as bad, if not worse, given the ambiguity as to what a tree is. Categories are not lists. They do not exist to show which species are present in a particular political unit, but to allow navigation by defining characteristics, in this case, of taxa. Being a "Tree of Chile" or a "Myrtales of Chile" is not such a characteristic. Intersectional categories are redundant because Petscan allows you to find category intersections. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Think about all the work. Not only would Wikipedia need a dedicated, knowledgeable person for each country, somebody has to put the categories into every single plant article, often multiple categories. Meanwhile, there are thousands of articles on actual plants that have yet to be written. It would be easier just to improve the Flora of Chile article with tables and subarticles as necessary. Abductive (reasoning) 20:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Peter coxhead, I tend to think you are taking natural classifications preferred in academic writing to the extreme. Ordinary people understand geography by countries. Sietecolores (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

No, it is you who are not getting the message. I took this issue here rather than going directly to WP:Categories for discussion and getting them deleted in order to avoid having you quit editing in anger. The best course of action for you is to delete the categories yourself and edit the Flora of Chile article instead. Abductive (reasoning) 00:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

So, the Category:Flora of Australia by taxonomy and is derivatives are valid? If so, what makes such categerory valid? That it is an island/continent should there then be a simmilar category för Antarctica or South America? We need clarity. Sietecolores (talk) 15:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Nothing makes it any better. Just because some undesirable categories exist doesn't justify creating more. I repeat that intersectional cstegories are unnecessary and so redundant. Take it to WP:CfD if you don't agree. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I have nominated all three categories for deletion:Category:Flora of Argentina by taxonomy, Category:Flora of Australia by taxonomy and Category:Flora of Chile by taxonomy, will see what happens. Yet Im am not really sure about the rationale so I leave up to others to discuss. Feel free to join the discussion. I also wonder if Australia, being a continent/island may get an exception but still Australia has a lot of non-endemic and even cosmopolitan species. Sietecolores (talk) 10:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Category:Flora of Australia by taxonomy is or was intended to contain natives only, to reduce overcat and painting the Australian flora with geographic labels at articles on widespread and introduced taxa. Some areas of Australia have extreme endemism and political boundaries are about the only regular means of dividing them up. cygnis insignis 13:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  But (a) Flora distribution categories are only ever for natives (b) we have subcategories for endemics. There's no need to divide up by intersectional taxonomic/distribution categories. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

  I'm sure I don't know, and you would know more about this. I add categories to stop my articles being tagged as needing them, however, this is about the only tree I ever used to find an endemic whose name has slipped my mind. cygnis insignis 13:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I am working on an article on windbreaks for another wiki, however some of the content could be used to expand the article on wikipedia.

In the background section, I am discussing how movement of air affects plants. I discuss how stagnant air promotes various diseases, and that movement of air improves gas exchange.

However I am now unsure about what exactly is going on when movement of air around a plant is increased. Does the rate of photosynthesis increase because of fresh CO2 is supplied? Does the rate of transpiration improve because fresh oxygen is supplied? I also realised that I am not sure if oxygen is taken in mainly through leaf stomata or mainly via the roots (I know this is why a plant dies if it roots become waterlogged). The wikipedia article talks about CO2 enterring via stomata, and loss of water vapor. However I need clarification on this.

I have also been told by a gardener that movement of air (e.g. in a glasshouse) results in stronger stems due to the physicial stimulation provided. A plant which grows in completely sheltered environment would not develop as strong a stem. However, I cannot find any article discussing this.

Have tried to find this info on wikipedia articles such as stoma and gas exchange#plants. Since I have not easily found this info, this may highlight a need to add clarification to some articles to help readers. Many thanks if you can help. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 22:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Well....

• "stagnant air promotes various diseases": sounds like nonsense to me. Disease vectors cause disease, not bad air. This was a popular belief/superstition among the pre-Koch European populace, as in "miasmic vapours" of swamps causing malaria. Logically, it is nonsense: have you ever seen those sealed bottles with Tradescantia fluminensis in them? There's one a schoolteacher made in England which is going strong after 65 years abouts. On the other hand, certain pest like spider-mites or fungus gnats are encouraged by low wind.

• "rate of photosynthesis increase because of fresh CO2": Hard question actually: no, for CAM plants -as photosynthesis and CO2 fixation are decoupled. As for other plants, I doubt it is a limiting factor in nature -in horticulture photorespiration and heat-stress are generally the main factors in limiting growth. If I remember correctly from this computer algorithm used to model a tomato we played around with in Uni, CO2 only became a limiting factor after other inputs were optimised. On the other hand it is quite common in horticulture in closed environments to boost CO2 ppm to promote growth -usually using a computer-controlled system of butane torches (which double as a heating system), although other set-ups exist. I remember this one guy growing Cannabis using these disgusting buckets of rotting potato peels. Of course, "more air movement" is not the same as actually increasing the percentage in the air.

• "rate of transpiration improve because fresh oxygen": No! Remember transpiration is loss of water vapour due to evaporation. Perhaps you mean respiration? Actually O2 from the air is only used by plants in their non-photosynthetic reactions (i.e. after being used by their mitochondria to generate ATP), the O in the glucose produced during photosynthesis is completely derived off the O in H2O; so O2 respiration is only indirectly coupled to these anabolic processes. I would also not see the benefit in higher respiration for the farmer -you want the plant to produce more, not burn it up respiring. More O2 ppm is bad, but just because it's windy doesn't mean the plant breathes any more O2 (i.e. hyperventilation in plants due to wind is not possible).

• It must be remembered that diffusion rates for these gasses are far higher than the plants' usage. You can do the maths. It is impossible for the plant to "use up" the available CO2 in it's surrounding air before new CO2 is diffused in from elsewhere (besides, the diffusion gradient increases as CO2 is "used up"). But for CAM plants this is different. You could theoretically kill a cactus by giving it 24hour light from all angles forever, so it's stomata never open. See also the C3 pathway. Instruments can "see" CO2 usage by satellite, but we're talking about slight differences in partial pressures.

• "oxygen is taken in mainly through leaf stomata or mainly via the roots"... No idea, generally both as much I suppose -O2 is used to power all kinds of reactions -cell streaming, fission, pumping water and/or nutrients through gated channels, you name it. I think the answer to this question would depend very much on species, time of the day, season... A question is how root respiration actually works, as roots lack stomata (see also pneumatophores). Simple diffusion? Another tricky thing is that not all underground structures are roots, i.e. rhizomes, runners, corms, etc.

• "movement of air (e.g. in a glasshouse) results in stronger stems": This is very true, your gardener is correct. A nice high school experiment. Daily propagation stuff for me. A quote should be easy to track down in books on terraria/paludaria construction and/or greenhouse horticulture.

Regards, Leo 86.83.56.115 (talk) 11:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for the responses. I am now more aware of the difference between transpiration and respiration, thanks. The info about C3 and CAM plants is new to me, while very interesting I think this is overly complex for these purposes. The context is windbreaks to create a favorable microclimate for a temperate climate forest garden, so I think CAM plants would not be likely be involved? As you pointed out we are purely talking about air movement here, not alteration of carbon dioxide or oxygen levels. I have looked for content in some hopefully reliable sources and the section is currently as follows: Matthew Ferguson (talk) 09:52, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: In a roundabout way, stagnant air can promote disease. Stagnant air close to the plant is likely to be more humid, and many fungal diseases need high humidity to take hold. Having good air flow also dries standing water off plants, which is another factor in fungal disease spread. Its well established practice in integrated pest management to ensure good air flow in crops and wind rows so that plants can be dried off faster after rains or irrigation. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 18:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Matthew: Well, if your sources back that up, I'm good with most of it. I'm surprised at what you wrote about diffusion in the second part. Sure you're not mixing up an intracellular cytoplasmic diffusion gradient with diffusion in air? My understanding is that the air cannot 'run out' of CO2 as brownian motion works to diffuse air molecules at an extremely fast rate, despite still air -individual molecules can be moving at an incredible speed, some spores can even diffuse by brownian motion I thought. I also understand that were one to completely seal up a cultivated patch of ground (i.e. terrarium), in most cases the oxygen % would decrease in the 'stagnant' air, and CO2 would go up -there is often more organic matter rotting in our gardens & pots than autotrophs. Either way, an equilibrium is reached in such a situation and no wind is expressly needed to 'mix' gasses. But as Eek says, in many farming situations no air movement is unwanted, as it is often accompanied by high humidity which in turn promotes fungal diseases -say ergot or rust in grain. You generally don't want droplets on leaves to stand for too long -Phytophtera and all. And some air movement helps make stronger stems when striking cuttings, that's pretty important. So air movement can be useful, but it really depends on what plant in what stage and for what reason, and I don't think it's a physiological necessity.

Eek: Sure, in some cases, but it might be simplistic to put it all on 'stagnant' air. I had/have a problem with Botrytis cinerea in the Begonia collection, turns out this fungus can actually be out-competed in highly humid, stale, dank but very bright conditions -it likes relatively dry air. Many gesneriads are best grown under bright light in dryish soil but humid air conditions, best done in 'stagnant' containers. And extremely moist conditions are best for things like Anubias or Marcgravia. Many cuttings are best rooted in such conditions. As long as you maintain sterile conditions 'stagnant' air is not the problem. But to each plant it's microclimate! 86.83.56.115 (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes two source definately mention the boundary layer of still air (Adams + Lange) as the model by which gas exchange and temperature transfers between leaf and surrounding air are infleunecd by wind speed. Lange goes into great detail about this concept in the chapter "wind as an ecological factor".^[1] I am not sure if it is all scientifically proven without doubt, or this is the theorized model which represents current understanding. As I mentioned above, I was making this section as background for the windbreaks article on another wiki, however once the draft is finished, I might merge this content into e.g. Wind#Effect_on_plants + Gas_exchange#Plants on wp. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 07:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Huh. Guess I am wrong then. Surprising, I am always right. Cheers, Leo86.83.56.115 (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Glossary of plant morphology terms and Glossary of botanical terms seem to be substantially duplicative. Why do they both exist? Abductive (reasoning) 06:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

One is a list of terms used in plant morphology grouped by organ structures, it shows relationship of terms based on structure, the other is terms used in plant sciences broadly in alphabetical order. Hardyplants (talk) 08:50, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I've come across a number of article with titles like Buddleja 'Podaras11' = Flutterby Lavender, which, if they aren't improper, should be. Should I just move them to (for example) Buddleja 'Podaras11'? Abductive (reasoning) 09:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Flutterby Lavender is the trade designation (which to conform with the ICNCP is formatted using {{Tdes}}), so it's likely to be much better known than the cultivar name 'Podaras11' which is just used for formal registration. So there's an argument for moving the article to Buddleja Flutterby Lavender, rather than Buddleja 'Podaras11'. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't the whole series of articles on Buddleja cultivars (see Category:Buddleja_hybrids_and_cultivars) be better condensed into a few list articles? E.g. one for the 'Podaras' series, another for Buddleja davidii, and so on. A lot of the articles are very similar. For instance, the "The shrub is reputedly hardy to - 29° C" phrase appears repeatedly and flags itself for its overprecision: -20°F (-29°C) would be better.   Jts1882 | talk  12:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Ptelea:. As article creator you should have input here.   Jts1882 | talk  12:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I absolutely hate this modern situation. The cultivar names are deliberately chosen to be unpronounceable (because a patent can only be enforced 20 years as opposed to a trademark), with the intention of never using them, and will be no where on the label when you buy the product. In the patent, the trademarked marketing names are no where. The holding company owning the trademarked name may choose to stop production or ™ licensing after the patent expires, market the same product under another trademark, or decide to market the product under different trademarks depending on marketing territory. I'd like to ignore the trademarked names, but then no one will find the articles. An example: The species Plectranthus ornatus is patented by a German company in the USA as ...something like Coleus canina 'xyz1345' (sic) but is marketed there as a 'Dog-be-gone' (in the patent there is no real mention of a basis for the marketing spiel), in Europe it was unable to patent the species but markets it under 'Piss-off' (Britain), Piss-A-Lot (Netherlands, early), or something (now marketed as discouraging cat piss) and the company trademarked another dozen names for the species (-Wikipedia has it under the wrong species). I can think up a few more examples with modern cultivars being sold under multiple trademarks. Concurring with Jts1882; these products generally aren't notable enough to deserve individual articles.

In this case we have a new product commercialised in 2011, with the Wikipedia page written about it a year later (hmmm, fishy). In 2031 when the patent expires it is doubtful the product will still be in existence. During the commercialisation of the product I understand the marketing incentive in new products being promoted on Wikipedia, but by the same dint every time McDonalds comes out with a new menu item it should immediately get a new Wiki article page with 3 reference links to commercial marketing materials and 2 links to the nearest location where it can be purchased and consumed.

Brrr, IP in botany. Capitalism is breaking nomenclature. Leo, 86.83.56.115 (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

There's certainly an argument that, in most cases, we won't know whether a cultivar, under whatever name, is noteworthy until several years have passed and it's still available in multiple trade catalogues. Yes, the use of cultivar names that aren't intended to be used after registration is an abomination, but we have to report the world as it is, not as we would like it to be.

I do agree, though, that articles on series of cultivars is all that is needed. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I think this article does a good job outlining the issues with unpronounceable cultivar names and euphonious trade designations. Honestly, I don't think people engaged in this practice really understand all the legal ramifications. Some plant Facebook group I'm in had the breeder/IP holder for a cultivar proudly share pictures of their cultivar, with the trade designation enclosed in single quotes. I pointed out that he was self-diluting his own trademark by treating it as a cultivar name.

I haven't spent any time looking into Category:Rose cultivars in detail, but I know we have articles in there putting trade designations inside single quotes. Articles under Category:Food plant cultivars don't generally follow ICNCP with cultivar names in single quotes, but there is certainly some mixture of trade designation and cultivar names there as well (Honeycrisp is not a cultivar name). Plantdrew (talk) 17:15, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

What about the issue of non-notability? Just because all species are considered automatically notable doesn't mean that all cultivars are notable. These particular cultivars don't seem to have secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 05:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Is there currently a special guideline on hybrid notability? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} 05:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I would say that they do not get special treatment, so they must follow the GNG. Abductive (reasoning) 07:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Leaving aside the issue of notability, there is the issue of utility, what best serves the reader. Would someone be looking for information on a particular cultivar or would the interest be more generally on cultivars of a species? To me is makes sense only to split off subspecies, variety, hybrid and cultivar information into seperate articles when there is sufficient material that makes the parent article unwieldy, in which case there must be sufficient material to make the new article notable. If someone is really looking for information on cultivar Rosea X5 gamma-52 then they probably know something about the cutivar and are looking for a detailed article so a start class article is not particularly helpful. In this particular case, with the large number of very similar cultivars, the list article approach seems the best, especially as it could have a column for trade names of the cultivars.   Jts1882 | talk  07:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but there would be an awful lot of work involved. Abductive (reasoning) 05:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I have largely completed a reassessment of the importances of all the Wikiproject's articles. I reassessed quite a few articles upwards, and a smaller number downwards. The remaining 13,623 Category:Unknown-importance plant articles are all going to be Low-importance, and either Stub or Start class. Even among the articles that do have an importance assessment, there remain huge numbers of Stubs that should be re-classed as Starts (and Starts that should be Cs, etc), if anybody is looking for something to do. Abductive (reasoning) 11:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Accidentally merged Spoonwood with Kalmia latifolia without putting in an edit summary. Originally was going to mark Spoonwood for speedy deletion, as it appeared to be a small disambiguation page, but decided to merge with the only real article in the list (Kalmia latifolia). Did it and forgot to add an edit summary. Feel free to whack me with a trout. InvalidOS (talk) 01:10, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it's just me, but I find the articles Holarctic, Boreal Kingdom = redirect Holarctic Kingdom, and Circumboreal Region confusing in terms of their definitions and the relationships between them. Suppose, for example, I want to summarize the distribution shown in the map for Oxyria. Before I started editing it, the article contained the unlinked description "circumboreal" which I've piped to Boreal Kingdom, but without much confidence that this is correct. Is there anyone here knowledgeable about ecoregion definitions? Peter coxhead (talk) 21:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The biogeographical artcles are rather haphazard and could do with more coordination. The Phytochorion article has the best description of the phytogeographical kingdoms and lists Takhtajan's kingdoms, regions and provinces. As I understand it, the kingdom article refer specifically to the floristic kingdom, while the Holarctic article refers to the more general biogeographical region (presumably they largely overlap).It's odd that the latter deals mainly with animals as the zoogeographical regions split the new and old world. The Cirumboreal region is the northernmost part of the holarctic kingdom, so is definitely an inaccurate description for the range of Oxyria which has a much wider distribution throughout the holarctic.   Jts1882 | talk  14:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

We've discussed Rhubarb and its scientific name before (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive69#Rhubarb - question about naming). I've been working on Polygonoideae and its genera and species – a taxonomically highly confused group, but which seems to be settling down a bit now. I've just been looking at Rheum and its species.

I now realize that the question "what is the scientific name of rhubarb?" is badly formed. As per Talk:Rhubarb#Confusion over the meaning of "rhubarb", "rhubarb" has (at least) two distinct meanings: "medical rhubarb" (the root) and "culinary rhubarb" (the leaf stalks), and these were (and are) derived from different plants. The Rhubarb article badly needs re-organizing. For now, I've left the taxobox using the name R. × hybridum, which is as good as any for culinary rhubarb, but not correct for medical rhubarb.

Please join in at Talk:Rhubarb if you are interested. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I've raised some questions about the newly created article at Talk:Coix lacryma-jobi var. ma-yuen#Separate article?, and would appreciate additional input. The article creator seems rather new, so maybe some Plants project members could help give guidance on current practice. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that WP:WikiProject Hypericaceae should be marked as historical and all its talk page templates be converted into WikiProject Plants talk page templates. Is there any set procedure for doing this? Abductive (reasoning) 09:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

It was only setup last September. Why do you think it is historical?

Yeah I am an active project member, not sure why this should get marked as historical? Where is this coming from? And also should definitely notify the other project members @Pagliaccious and Hyperik:. Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 00:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Looked DOA to me. It should be a WP:Task Force anyway, if people were planning an improvement effort. People are already wasting time tagging talk pages instead of editing articles. Abductive (reasoning) 06:24, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

What about WP:BANKSIA then? That project was on a single genus, but has done a world of good in bringing dozens of articles to GA or FA status. Just because the project is specialized doesn't mean it needs to be a task force. Myself and a couple editors wanted to edit a specialized area cooperatively, and making a WikiProject was the best way to do it. Besides, tagging talk pages is something that needs to be done either way, whether under the banner of WP:PLANTS or WP:HYP, and provides useful editing and progress metrics as well as a quality check for readers. Those are just my two cents, anyways. Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 19:49, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Fritzmann2002, I agree with everything you say, except that banksia covers a single genus. cygnis insignis 21:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

This all seems like plant blindness. WikiProject Animals has more than a dozen daughter projects, and WP Plants has people thinking four is too much? --Nessie (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the value of the topic, it is purely a bookkeeping issue with the Assessments. See my post below. Abductive (reasoning) 06:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

NessieVL, take this with a grain of salt, because it something said about the Irish: the language makes no distinction between grey and green, yet is rich in subtle and descriptive terms for the types of grey-green. cygnis insignis 15:22, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with any of these daughter projects, but I do think that creating them as Task Forces within PLANTS would make more sense for things like reporting in assessment tables. (I assume that if they have their own templates, they have their "class" categories.) I'm not saying these things shouldn't exist, I just wonder what the benefit is of a daughter WikiProject over a Task Force. Guettarda (talk) 04:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Making it a Wikiproject within Wikiproject Plants is messing up the re-assessments that I am doing. For example, because the article Hypericaceae is Top-importance in Wikiproject Hypericaceae, it was showing up as Top-importance within Wikiproject Plants. That was how I came to post here in the first place. Another example, which I just came across, is Westea, a fungus that afflicts Banksia and was templated with Wikiproject Banskia. It therefore showed up in a list of Unknown-importance Wikiproject Plants articles. Abductive (reasoning) 06:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok then, so instead of debating the very idea of these projects, I think the focus here should be on how to work them around the assessment of WP:PLANTS, since that seems to be the pressing issue. How do they do it over at WP:ANIMALS with their sub-projects? What actually is getting messed up with the assessments you think needs to be fixed? Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 15:13, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Isn't that more a reason for a WikiProject and against Task Forces? Then you can set up Hypericaceae as |importance=top for {{WikiProject Hypericaceae}} and then |importance=mid for {{WikiProject Plants}} or whatever. Plus most projects include in their purview pests and parasites of their target group. Look at all the viruses and worms in {{WikiProject Cats}}, {{WikiProject Dogs}}, {{WikiProject Poultry}}, {{WikiProject Rodents}}.... Not to mention all the articles that are not about a taxon at all, like Moby-Dick in {{WikiProject Cetaceans}}. --Nessie (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

What tool/report is being used that shows Hypericaceae as being Top-importance for plants? The templates for WP:BANKSIA, WP:CARNIVOROUS PLANTS and WP:HYPERICACEAE all support |plants-importance= that gives a separate importance for WP:PLANTS from the subproject (Hypericaceae is Mid-importance for plants). If a specific tool is having a problem with that, can that tool be fixed?

It was showing up, but not since somebody fixed it. I noticed that. I still feel like that is too much work; more things to deal with on the talk pages. Abductive (reasoning) 19:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Hypericaceae importance ratings are unchanged since October 2018. Plantdrew (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

It appeared in Massviews or Rater while I was doing something else, that's how I came to post here in the first place. Abductive (reasoning) 21:31, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I kind of wish the subprojects had been set up as task-forces since there are some searches I do that would be simpler if every plant had {{WikiProject Plants}} on the talk page (and if no taxa that weren't plants had that banner; there are a few fungal/bactterial plant pathogens that are taggged for WP:PLANTS). Ultimately task-force vs. subproject comes down to how that decision affects tools/searches/reports that editors are using. Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Article alerts is one of the most important reports, in my opinion, and it can't pick up articles in subprojects; it would be better to have all the article alerts appearing in one place, with more eyes on it, rather than being split across 4 projects. On the other hand, I think the Cleanup listing is also a very important report, and it is rather daunting with 12,538 issues needing to be addressed. Splitting the cleanup listing across some smaller subprojects would make it a little easier to address. Plantdrew (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

We could ask for a bot to do the work. Abductive (reasoning) 19:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Which work? Replacing subproject banners with new banners for task forces? Plantdrew (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. Start with the ones that are no longer active. I think this is a very easy job for an existing bot. Abductive (reasoning) 21:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• I would prefer the term 'task group', if there is any renaming, a little thing that bothers me. cygnis insignis 19:58, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

That is something the Wikiproject Council came up with in 2007. Abductive (reasoning) 21:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd have assumed it was from the milhist project cygnis insignis 23:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

A move request at Talk:Field pea could use some further comments. Plantdrew (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I mentioned this problem on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Algae, but it is broader than just algae.

The user User:Galactikapedia has been creating countless redirects from species to the corresponding genus, such as Porphyra guangdongensis and Erythrotrichia vexillaris (which redirect to the original pages, Porphyra and Erythrotrichia respectively). He's done the same thing on many other plant and animal pages as far back as 2017 (see Ephemera annandalei). In my opinion these redirects should be deleted and this contributor should be prevented from doing more damage. --Polinizador (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, but this needs admin action. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Has anyone explained to the editor why redlinks are important for Wikipedia? (S)he could be under the impression that removing red links was like fixing errors and if s(he) has been doing this since 2017 with no one commenting would be none the wiser.   Jts1882 | talk  17:47, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

This isn't really an ongoing thing. They created ~5000 redirects in July 2017, and were barely active from then until February 2019, when they created another hundred redirects. I came across their redirects sometime last year and added their user page to my watchlist as a reminder for future clean-up efforts. I didn't think it was worth raising the issue at that point since they had stopped the initial round of redirect creation and appeared to be mostly retired. They haven't made any edits since the February 2019 redirects were noticed by Polinizador. They've now been informed that the redirects are unwanted. Action with the redirects is needed, but it's not clear that action with the editor is needed until they respond to their talk page (or make more redirects). Plantdrew (talk) 18:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

While I'd be happy to delete redirects if needed, but not 5000. (I think Special:Nuke could do it, but I've never used it, and it might only work if they have no other edits, or someone can craft an appropriate search term.) I think that something on this scale should go to RFD. A mass-listing could then be deleted by a bot. I think. Guettarda (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

A GA request has been placed on this article. It does need some citations, but is otherwise in good health. Was hoping someone from this project might be interested in fixing it up so it keeps its GA Status. AIRcorn (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Cleretum bellidiformis should be Cleretum bellidiforme, if it really has to be reclassified... 86.83.56.115 (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Seems supported here. It is based on this paper (I accessed here via JSTOR). The paper starts by refering to the particular speceis as Dorotheanthus bellidiformis, but concludes that In the absence of clear, diagnostic characteristics for separating Cleretum and Dorotheanthus, a revised classification for the Dorotheantheae is proposed in which the tribe consists of a single genus, Cleretum. Thus it renames Dorotheanthus bellidiformis as C. bellidiforme (Burm. f.). Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Eek. Sorry if I was unclear. I just mean the spelling in Wikipedia is wrong! 86.83.56.115 (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done – moved. (Right now, the entry in IPNI has the wrong protologue; PoWO is correct if you look at the original. I've e-mailed IPNI, so hopefully this will soon be corrected. Corrected now.) Peter coxhead (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Great. I suppose it is not a stub any longer.86.83.56.115 (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

@86.83.56.115:Thanks for bringing that to our attention! You've definitely helped that page expand majorly and to fix a taxonomic typo. You clearly seem interested in plants, you should register an account and join this WikiProject! Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hiya Eek. Ya, I am a plant guy. I have a huge collection: Gasteria, Ruellia, Hoya, Ribes, Iris, Ficus, Salvia, Haemanthus, Lampranthus, Sedum, Plectranthus, Adromischus, bromelias, Commelinaceae, Sansevieria, Begonia, Arum, Mentha, Scutellaria, Crocus... Like a lot! I (try to) collect only wild plants, with accession numbers, localities. I used to write this stuff elsewhere, now I'm settling in here. But I am a bit of a weirdo, don't sign up to anything if I can. I live totally devoid of social media, advertisements, cookies, even google's (okay, I wonder how long I can keep it up). Actually also not very computer proficient compared to you guys. I have also never read any of the manuals or rules. It therefore took me half a year to realise MOS meant "manual of style"; pro forma, don't click on that stuff. I actually did sign up many years ago, apparently, I saw myself in the history of an article I liked! Interested in Rheum the past month. By this time next month I'm hoping to have 9 species, all collected in the wild in cool places (found some great sources), growing the big new rock garden I (we) spent the whole day building on my new allotment (yay!). So I really love plants, but for now will keep it like this, it works fine. It is very possible I will get more busy with other stuff. Let me end this by saying I'm actually quite excited about rhubarb -if I can just figure what is up with the taxonomy... Cheers, Leo86.83.56.115 (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Could people take a look at Osmanthus americanus? Somebody has annotated the article to state that the whole genus Osmanthus has been deprecated. Is that possible? Abductive (reasoning) 18:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't say that the whole genus has been "deprecated". What's happened is that one section of Osmanthus has been found (Guo et al, 2011) to be closer to Olea than to the other section (sections?) of Osmanthus, and the old generic name Cartrema has been resurrected for the first. Nesom (2012) makes the combinations in Cartrema for the two American species. IPNI tells me that the combinations for the 5 Asian species were made later in a paper published in 2015. I've reworked the article, but it's not perfect yet. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

PS. A genus name could be deprecated if an earlier valid name for the genus was rediscovered, though that is not what has happened here. A genus could also be sunk in another genus, or its members all dispersed to various genera, though again that is not what has happened here. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

So, move Osmanthus americanus to Cartrema americana? Abductive (reasoning) 05:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

We don't automatically follow every published new classification (we wait for a consensus among taxonomists), but there seem to be enough secondary, reliable, sources to justify the move, e.g. FNA, if published. (I haven't checked out the original DNA paper to see how solid the result is.) If so

• convert Cartrema from redirect to article
• revise Osmanthus, especially list of species (note that Nesom's paper sinks O. mexicanus in C. americana).
• move Osmanthus americanus and any other relevant articles. Lavateraguy (talk) 07:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I've made a start by creating a Cartrema article. I see that there's a redirect from Cartrema americana, so someone with the relevant privileges to do a move over redirect will have to deal with that. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

I see that Oleaceae already includes Cartrema - otherwise that would have been another needed change. Guo et al (2011) indicates that section Notosmanthus is not Osmanthus, and possible ends up in Nestegis Lavateraguy (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Can someone do a move over redirect for Osmanthus americanus, please. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done May need some more cleaning up, e.g. the distribution extends into Central America according to PoWO. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

According to some of the literature the Central American distribution is spurious - it's recorded from Chiapas, and was included in a Flora of Guatemala as a plant that might extend across the border. Lavateraguy (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

The Scaphopetalum blackii description is in Latin. Is anybody here able to translate it? Abductive (reasoning) 07:37, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I've stuck a partial translation into botanical jargon, with some assistance from Google Translate, on the article's talk page. If you were to compare the protologue with photographs of the plant that would assist translation - it removes ambiguities.

It's not a copyright violation 'cos it's out of copyright (in the public domain), and not plagiarism since it's cited, but people have got into trouble before for not making quotations clearly quotations (because of the nature of this text it's less likely to be mistaken for the editor's own words). Lavateraguy (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

I added a very few more translations, but of course the botanical jargon itself needs to be translated before it can be used in the article! An hour or so with Stearn should do it... (I'm not volunteering!) Peter coxhead (talk) 20:45, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a (somewhat shorter) English description here. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Both the Narcissus (plant) and Taxonomy of Narcissus articles have a "Names and etymology" section (here and here respectively). Any chance these could be combined to avoid duplication? Please discuss at Talk:Narcissus (plant) if you care. —  AjaxSmack  15:29, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

There's a discussion at Talk:Sequoiadendron about whether there are reliable sources that support or dispute the existence of a worldwide distribution of Sequoiadendron in the Pliocene. Please feel free to join in the discussion, especially if you have background knowledge about the topic. —hike395 (talk) 14:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I have added a few references and tried to clarify a few things on this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paubrasilia), but it still needs some help. The linked to page is clearly on a species, not a genus (Paubrasilia echinata, is the only species in the genus, so it might not need its own page), so it seems the page name should be Paubrasilia echinata, not just Paubrasilia. I tried "moving/renaming" the page, but there is a redirect page named Paubrasilia echinata and I didn't know how to navigate that. If folks agree with my assessment, could someone help make the change? Waughd (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

In the situation you descibed, the practice has been to place the article at the genus name and redirect to that from the species name. You cannot move over a redirect if it has been edited more than once (without a too)l. I expressed a view that did not favour the proposal, I just ignore (but abide by) the oddness of that guideline now. cygnis insignis 02:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Cygnis, if that is the WP practice, than I will go along with it. I would argue that species have more relevance than the particular genus they are currently assigned to, but this is most likely a pedantic point. It would seem more logical to me to have the genus page redirect to the lone species, than the species page redirect to the genus. Waughd (talk) 02:39, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

The leading sentences in those articles are sometimes awkwardly written or incorrect, seemingly in an attempt to accommodate wikipedia's arrangements, but I did favour the redirect to species solution and am probably swayed by my position some years ago. It still perturbs me, but I am less bothered than I was. Note also that the genus name is the default title for monotypic families, eg, Cephalotus. cygnis insignis 15:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Is this sort of thing legitimate? Solanum chrysophyllum's "exact identity and name remain undetermined". Huh? Abductive (reasoning) 06:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

it is poorly phrased, if I am reading the assessment-information at IUCN correctly. The species was named, described and cited, but there is no specimen [in an Ecuadorian museum]. cygnis insignis 08:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with this, although IUCN's treatment is confusing. According to Tropicos, the type specimen is in Paris, and there's a photo of the type in Chicago. Plantdrew (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

[Corrected] Thanks, I presumed IPNI verified IUCN and thought no more about the validity. I was squinting at something about European gardens, but there was too much font and German to glean if it was cultivated there. cygnis insignis 15:13, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

So really, it exists and it might be called Lycianthes chrysophylla, but nobody has gotten around to publishing that in a way that that satisfies ICN requirements? Abductive (reasoning) 19:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

So it seems, perhaps suggested but not verified. A worker might examine the material, compare it with other species, and arrive at a different conclusion, a better theory that provides a new combination. Relocating the plant in its native environment would be more interesting, and it is potentially useful group of plants. cygnis insignis 02:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I accepted a submission (Ocimum basilicum var. minimum) at WP:AFC, however on a second look it appears to be a alternate name of Ocimum minimum, just wondering if anyone can confirm?--Phospheros (talk) 13:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I did a bit of googling, and I'm not certain. The photo of Ocimum minimum was too poor for me to compare morphology, but they do appear to have some resemblance, which would lend credence to the idea that they are the same. With cultivated herbs like these, scientific names can get confusing and aren't always clearly delineated, especially with hybrid or cultivar names. If someone proposed a merge, I'd probably support it? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Interesting, this website uses the same photo as Ocimum minimum, but calls it Ocimum basilicum var. minimum. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

EPPO lists them as synonyms. IPNI/Tropicos/TPL/POWO don't list Ocimum basilicum var. minimum at all. I'm inclined to think that the variety name hasn't been validly published. There isn't any sourced content in Ocimum basilicum var. minimum that isn't about O. basilicum in general. POWO says O. minimum is from South Asia (Linnaeus lists habitat as "Zeylona"). List of basil cultivars gives Ocimum basilicum var. minimum and Ocimum minimum as scientific names for "Greek basil" (some other online sources also associate "Greek basil" with minimum). Greek basil seems to be a rather confused term; I suspect it refers to one or several cultivars of Origanum basilicum. I think the picture in Ocimum minimum may perhaps be the cultivar Spicy globe basil.

In short, it's a mess. Ocimum basilicum var. minimum doesn't exist. Ocimum minimum is poorly studied, and if it's not just a synonym of O. basilicum (or some other species), it's from South Asia. Online sources talking about "Greek basil" don't really have any idea what they're talking about. Ocimum basilicum var. minimum has no content actually about the supposed variety. Plantdrew (talk) 19:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I have been (re)assessing a lot of articles in the Project, and I thought I'd explain my reasoning since I am not error-free. First off, I use the Massviews tool to get a picture of what articles are (un)important to the lay readership. At first setting Massviews to "All time" would often crash my browser, but as I reduced the number of unassessed articles that has ceased to be a problem. One thing that the Massviews have shown me is that the majority of Wikiproject Plants articles get only 0 or 1 pageview a day on average.

It turns out that if a species (or variety) is cultivated at all by any humans anywhere, or is a garden/ornamental/bonsai plant, or is used for its timber, or has edible parts, or used for traditional medicine, or used in some sort of ritual, or is a weed/invasive, it almost always will have pageviews on the order of 10 or more per day. I have caught articles that say nothing about any cultivation but that have lots of pageviews, researched the species, and invariably found that they are a garden plant or something. So, I have instituted a system of assessing any article that mentions any human use (or weediness) at least Mid-importance. Note that this still leaves 10 times as many Low-importance articles as Mid-importance articles. Abductive (reasoning) 06:46, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

This seems pretty reasonable to me. Our readers are humans, so human use is going to drive reader interest. Thanks for your work updating assessments. Plantdrew (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

a slight twist on meanings discussed here above - editors are human too - the Australian biota project is recently in the process of being upgraded - trying to remove the backlog of massive amount of unasessed items - (with at least the use of Rater some things improve speedily) we find massive amounts of inadequate tagging/assessment - anything on the part of plants project editors assistance in making sure when they - as humans place a tag in the Australian biota project - that they do it as fully in their knowledge as possible please - partially filled project tags are an immense drain on the biota projects resources - thanks. JarrahTree 00:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Apologies. I honestly don't know how I would estimate importance and happy to let someone gauge that, I'll put in mid on the basis that I was interested? Maybe if I know how the output is used I would have a better idea of the flag to fly. And maybe I'll get the rater gizmo to promote my own stub to start, an impartial judge and less critical than my own lower estimate. Is there anything else I can do? cygnis insignis 02:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

If you have no idea if a species is important, it is assuredly not important. Just assess everything as Low-importance, you'll be correct 90% of the time. (Actually more like 97% of the time, since most species that people are interested in have already had articles created.) Furthermore, here is another huge hint; if your article is constructed out of primary sources (scientific articles) and the taxonbar databases, and you can't find any secondary sources, then it is Low-importance. There used to be a Bottom-importance, and maybe it should be brought back. I'd estimate that 70% of plant articles are truly "Bottom" grade. Literally nobody is reading them. Abductive (reasoning) 08:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I probably that deserve this reply. — cygnis insignis 10:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree on the "Bottom Importance" thing. Think if any project should have that rating, it's this one. If a page is only getting one or two views a week, it doesn't even deserve a Low-importance rating.Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 11:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. My working heuristic has always been "what is the importance of this topic to the field of knowledge" rather than "what is the importance of this topic to readers". After all, we expect different ratings for the same article by different WikiProjects.

I've always considered individual species "low" unless there's some reason not to. Families, despite getting limited traffic are, in my opinion, more important to the project than individual species. Uses should not affect our assessment - that's what the Agriculture, Forestry and Horticulture & Gardening WikiProjects are for. Guettarda (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The vast majority of plant articles are species, and I don't believe they should all be be Low. "what is the importance of this topic to the field of knowledge" is worth considering for topics that aren't species (higher taxa, morphology terms, physiology, etc.). I did some work on importance ratings for families a few years; I felt that the importance ratings at the time were very inconsistent, some quite large families being rated low. I made most families Mid importance, with High importance for the largest families. I did put some families as Low importance; my rough rule of thumb there was that Low was for families with <50 species, restricted to one continent, and not widely recognized pre-APG. Although orders are a higher rank, I think they should mostly be Low importance. Orders weren't very stable pre-APG, and aren't readily diagnosable morphologically (they never appear in keys). Plantdrew (talk) 15:02, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like we need to update the documentation:

The criteria used for rating article importance are not meant to be an absolute or canonical view of how significant the topic is. Rather, they attempt to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Thus, subjects with greater popular notability may be rated higher than topics which are arguably more "important" but which are of interest primarily to students of botany.

--Nessie (talk) 16:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think any update is needed. Abductive is basically following the current documentation. They've added importance for most of the 25% of articles that were missing an importance rating a few months ago, and have changed importance rating on thousands of articles that already had a rating (and they've probably reviewed 10s of thousands of ratings without making a change). Arguably, importance could be bumped up a notch for fundamental topics in botany that don't receive all that many page views, but the current documentation reflects current practice.

Ultimately, the importance rating isn't really, well, important. It ought to be inspiring editors to improve higher importance but lower quality articles, but I don't think that's really happening. I appreciate Abductive's efforts to assign importance where it is missing, largely because I find the assessment table more aesthetically pleasing when it indicates no missing values. One other benefit of getting missing importance down to zero is that it will make it easier to spot new articles. Some New Page Patrollers will add project banners with a quality (usually stub), but without an importance. With a large number of unknown-importance stubs, new pages get lost in the mix. When new pages are easier to spot in the table, they can be checked by plant knowledgeable editors. Plantdrew (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

In fact, lay readership and scientific importance are not independent. Take, for example, the problem of weeds. There is no way that Wikipedia can have a Category:Weeds. But weeds are important to the environment, to farmers, to gardeners and to scientists. So I am confident in importance-assessing all weeds as at least Mid-importance. By contrast, higher taxonomic ranks are not inherently more important. Example; Asparagales vs Najadales. Everybody, including scientists, are more interested in the Asparagales, which gets 700 times as many pageviews as Najadales. Google scholar shows 19,400 results for Asparagales but only 721 results for Najadales. Abductive (reasoning) 20:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that, NessieVL. I'd like to blame it on the fact that I haven't actually re-read WikiProject importance rating rubric since 2006 or so, but the truth is I probably never read them. I do find myself consulting the quality rubric every time I make a page rating that isn't obvious - and sometimes even when they are - because they're nicely detailed. On a side note, for those of you who haven't tried Rater, I highly recommend it, since it lets you rate a page from the article tab, which is nice. It also lets you add WikiProjects using predictive text, so you just need a decent guess at what they're really called to find one. Thanks to Abductive for rating so many articles(!), which is how I discovered Rater. Guettarda (talk) 20:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I have noticed that the page Amomum tsao-ko has been moved to Lanxangia tsaoko. Similar moves have been performed by the same user, User:Brett Cox also on Wikidata and Wikispecies. The user has been banned from Wikipedia, so I was wondering if this is a legitimate edit. The name does appear to exist elsewhere, but there is very few results for it and is definitely not in common use (Wikipedia in other languages is still using Amomum). Since I’m not a botanist, I figured it’s not really my place to decide whether or not the edit was done with malicious intent. I was hoping someone here had some knowledge on the topic. LvdT88 (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the new generic name was proposed in 2018, so I'm not surprised that there is little mention of this new combination. It might be too early to tell if this new name has been generally accepted. Waughd (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

See here (paywalled). IUCN, GRIN and POWO have adopted the new name. The Zingiberaceae article however doesn't reflect the resurrected and novel genera from that paper. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The binomial name of gooseberry is almost always given as R. uva-crispa in horticultural texts (and the wikipedia article is no exception), however according to this source, cultivated gooseberries are derived from both R. uva-crispa ("European Gooseberry") and Ribes hirtellum ("American Gooseberry").^[1]

While the wikipedia article Ribes hirtellum references this source, but the gooseberry article makes no mention of it. If the source is correct it should definately be mentioned on the gooseberry article. If it is not correct it should be removed. Please advise, many thanks. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

See also: Ribes hirtellum "It is one of four American species that have been interbred with R. uva-crispa to produce resistant cultivars similar to the original R. uva-crispa cultivars.^[2]" What are the other 3 species? I suspect Ribes divaricatum is one but I have no access to this source. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

And as a side note, there is an unanswered query on Talk:Ribes divaricatum concerning the possible extinction of Ribes divaricatum var. parishii. Kind regards, Matthew Ferguson (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Please see comment Talk:Peach#"larger and more compressed", about a comparison between the stone of newer varieties and that of older ones.--Thnidu (talk) 16:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

{{Infraspeciesbox}} is set up to give subspecies names in the form P. d. subsp. mlokosewitschii. It is of course perfectly normal to abbreviate the generic epithet like this, but I have never seen the specific epithet abbreviated, and I believe it is not nomenclaturally correct. Thoughts? Hesperian 01:10, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

It is context-dependent. But it is standard, as can be seen in the lead of first article I picked at random, Homo sapiens idaltu. Abductive (reasoning) 05:18, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

'Ghastly!' is my immediate thought. cygnis insignis 15:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I question whether we need that line at all; just have the trinomial in a box with no extra line for variety/subspecies. Same thing for binomial and species in speciesbox. This has been discussed before at some length, with no consensus. Plantdrew (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Abductive: Homo sapiens is not a plant. Plants and animals are named under distinct nomenclatural systems. I'm here at WT:PLANTS suggesting that abbreviating the specific epithet is not nomenclaturally correct for plants. Hesperian 02:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• It seems to be common usage (yes, for plants) in the scientific literature and see Infraspecific name#Abbreviation of infraspecific names. Also, it is heavily used on Wikispecies. Abductive (reasoning) 04:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

In context, when necessary, like when someone starts running out of paper or needs to reduce the wood count. The names are substituted with abbreviations across wikipedia as if it is compulsory, introducing a sort of algebra that is unlikely to improve the information being conveyed. My opinion of the usage in animal articles and annoying to see it applied to plants. The linked section needs a citation, I think it was Peter who added the plant example you edited. cygnis insignis 06:53, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

From a stylistic point of view, one should only abbreviate in lists, whether columnar lists or prose lists. This "ugly" method of abbreviation is made necessary by the requirement to never leave specific epithets (and infraspecific names) denuded of the generic (specific) name. I have no problem with spelling out names wherever possible (such as in infoboxes), but I don't want a blanket ban. Abductive (reasoning) 16:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Bananas is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Bananas until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Despite the many Wikipedians who edit content related to organisms/species, there hasn't been a Tree of Life Newsletter...until now! If you would like regular deliveries of said newsletter, please add your name to the subscribers list. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
• List of garden plants to feed honey bees in Canada (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I have frequently read desciptions of plants in books and on wikipedia which immediately use the above term as a basic category.

While it may seem self explanatory, I am wondering if this term implies that there are other types of shrubs?

However the article on shrubs seems to immediatley define all shrubs as having "multiple stems", distinguishing them from trees (although of course some trees can have multiple stems/trunks, and some plants might be capable of growing with multiple stems or with single stem depending on conditions or pruning).

If all shrubs are multi-stemmed, then what is the use of qualifying the term shrub which seems to already define itself as multi-stemmed? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Just reading another source (Crawford, M (2016). Creating a Forest Garden: working with nature to grow edible crops. Green Books. ISBN 9781900322621.) which frequently defines some plants as "single trunked, multi-stemmed shrub" (e.g. referring to gooseberry), or "stooling multistemmed shrub" (e.g. referring to blackcurrant). The only botanical references to "stool" I can find are in the context of coppicing. What is a stool when talking about natural, unmodified growth? I can sort of see what the former means when I look at some of my own plants, there is a very short single trunk from which many branches originate. Does anyone have any good sources for this or links? I can;t easily find any on google books. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Bump. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 08:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't take what I say as definitive, but my impression is that a stool has no meaning without human intervention. The stool is a stump cut to encourage new growth (e.g. in coppicing). I suppose it could happen naturally if a beaver cut a tree, but that is speculation. Another use of stool is in mound layering (aka stooling) which is a method of encouraging new root growth before dividing a plant.

I think there is always going to be a problem looking for precise botanical definitions for some terms used in horticulture and gardening. What is the difference beteen a shrub and a tree? When does a large shrub become a small tree? Both are woody plants and one is larger than the other. One usually has multiple stems/trunks while one usually has one, but there are many exceptions. The two (height, number of stems) are probably related as cutting back a tree encourages multiple branching at ground level. And the distinction is arbitary as multiple stems reflects branching below ground instead of above ground (your typical tree).   Jts1882 | talk  09:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Well we have the article living stump, which readers are directed to from the DAB stool, however the latter term is not used in the article (it probably should be?). So usually a stool is created by purposeful coppicing, but occasionally by burning, or a disease process. So I'm still not sure why that book above used the term "stooling multistemmed shrub" seemingly to describe a natural form. You would assume that it means a short thick trunk from which many branches emerge. But then, the book also uses the term "single trunked, multistemmed shrub".

I have slightly expanded the detail on the definition on the article shrub, based on a dictionary source: "...which branches below or near ground into several main stems, although it has no clear main trunk." It seems then that some shrubs can have single trunks, but these are very short, and divide into multiple stems near ground level. So in answer to my original question, it may be worthwhile to specifiy a shrub as "single trunked, multistemmed" if it branches just above gorund level) or multistemmed (if it branches below ground level).

You have a very good point about all this being arbitrary, from the distinction between tree and shrub and subshrub, to whether branching below or above ground. Any definition will seem to throw many exceptions. Furthermore, different sources vary in their definitions. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 08:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Is there a good source which gives pronunciation for these? Many wikipedia articles are lacking a pronunciation for the scientific name, e.g. Lonicera caerulea. Regards, Matthew Ferguson (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Matthew Ferguson 57: There is no canonical pronunciation of scientific names, and previous discussions show no enthusiasm for routinely including pronunciations. Some people favor pronunciations that follow classical Latin, while others use pronunciations modeled more along the lines of contemporary English. Lonicera would be "lone-eek-era" in classical Latin (where C is alway hard), but I usually pronounce it "lawn-i-Sarah" (with a soft C and where the "i" sounds like the "i" in "miss"). A few articles do have pronunciation, often sourced to the Sunset Western Garden Book (if your curious about pronunciation for personal reasons, that could be a good source to consult).Plantdrew (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

In the article Honeysuckle, the latter pronunciation is used (soft C), and indeed is linked to the text you mentioned. Yes this Q is for my own learning, but as a frequent reader and occasional editor of wikipedia articles I noted that this information was absent. When you say there is no consensus for pronunciation, do you mean among wikipedia writers or do you mean there is no consensus in the wider scientific / academic sphere? I'll look up the book you mentioned. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

These articles seems to address the question Botanical Latin, Syllable stress of Botanical Latin, and the 2nd citation looks worthwhile. Many thanks, Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

No consensus in the scientific community for a single "correct" pronunciation, and no consensus among Wikipedia editors to included pronunciations. Among scientists it varies regionally to some extent; continental Europeans are more likely to insist on C always being hard than Americans or Brits. When I'm talking to botanists from Latin America I make more of an effort to give vowels their Spanish values (which are basically Latin), and follow Spanish rules for hard versus soft Cs (which are basically the same as in English). That 2nd citation (William Stearn's Botanical Latin) is THE standard reference, but it only has 2 pages on pronunciation, which mostly lay out the differences between the two major systems (Classical Latin vs. contemporary English). Plantdrew (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_186#Pronunciations_for_Latin_taxon_names for the most recent discussion about the topic that I recall. Long story short, sort-of-consensus is that the pronunciations should be provided on case-by-case basis and preferably sourced to a good dictionary. No such user (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Having read the above, assuming I want to add a pronunciation to a plant article... it might be best to state that pronunciation is variable, linking to discussion on Botanical_Latin#English_pronunciation, and then give a few sourced examples of the pronunciation, from dictionaries and so forth. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

That's probably the best approach.--Nessie (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:

• Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and feedback (example)
• From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to Wikipedia (example)
• Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia (example)

Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project

From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to Featured article review, but bridging the gap with external experts, implementing established scholarly practices, and generating citable, doi-linked publications.

Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm wondering if the dividing lines between WP:PLANTS, WP:WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening and WP:WikiProject Agriculture have ever been hashed out? I tried looking in the archives. Abductive (reasoning) 23:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm no expert on the projects, but I usually err on adding more projects then fewer. If it is a plant cultivated for food or industry, then use WP:WikiProject Agriculture and WP:Plants. WP Agriculture covers animals and other organisms, so there's a venn diagram. I understand WP Horticulture is for ornamentals, but I think species and varieties should also be listed in WP plants. But i never really venture into WP Hort. I'm sure others have more well-informed opinions though. --Nessie (talk) 02:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Horticulture is cultivation in gardens. The WikiProject is defined as including pomiculture, olericulture and floriculture (but not sylviculture or viticulture), so not just ornamentals. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Another project which overlaps with WP:PLANTS is WP:WikiProject Forestry. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Or as a work-group. I've only noticed content that touches upon that aspect, but there is a lot of overlap with biota articles (beyond the cultivated species themselves). cygnis insignis

There's going to be overlap between PLANTS, Ag, Hort and Forestry, but I think there are reasonable ways to draw some lines

• PLANTS is (or should be) about plants rather than plant products. Taxonomy, systematics, evolution, anatomy, morphology, physiology. There's a border on the micro side I'm fuzzy about (Arabidopsis genes are not, IMO, PLANTS) and on the macro side (ecological communities are outside the project's purview as well)
• I would leave most plant products outside PLANTS - food, fibre, textlines, drugs, building materials. I'd leave agronomy outside PLANTS, including plant breeding, and cultivars. Crop management - be it in corn, geraniums, or pine trees - should be outside PLANTS
• The border between Hort and Ag/Forestry tends to do with whether your focus is on the crop, or on the individual. Are you producing a bulk product, or a collection of individual things? There's going to be overlap - a commercial tulip grower is more ag, but I can see its kinship to hort. Market gardening is probably ag, but treated like hort. Huge apple orchards are ag in my mind, but hort as defined by the projects.
• Forestry tends to be pretty clearly distinct, until you get into agroforestry, which despite the name is probably closer to hort than anything else. But I'd expect it to be tagged by Ag and forestry, not hort.

I suspect the idea of pushing all cultivars out of PLANTS and over to Hort/Ag/Forestry (depending on the way they're used) would be controversial, but I do believe that would be the right way to go. Guettarda (talk) 14:01, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Very helpful, thanks guys. My concern at the moment is Importance-assessing. This discussion makes me think that cultivars should be always be templated with WP:Hort&Gard in addition to PLANTS. Correct? Abductive (reasoning) 17:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it would be bad to template cultivars for Hort&Gard as well Plants, but it's not the status quo and would take some work. There are articles for about 3190 cultivars (number is a little on the high side since it picks up a few non-cultivar articles). 2294 cultivars have a Plants template. 239 have Hort&Gard. 127 have both. There are 748 (grape) cultivars tagged for WikiProject Wine (126 of these also have a Plants template). There are a few cultivars articles that don't have a template for any of the three projects, but the status quo is that non-grape cultivars are largely templated for Plants (only) and grape cultivars are largely templated for Wine (only). Plantdrew (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I suspect most people here have seen it, but just in case, there's a related discussion going on over at WP:Biology about revamping that project where the topic of useful mergers has come up. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I have a question about listing the conservation status of a species. Does it have to be listed on the IUCN site (or other conservation site) to support inclusion in the taxobox? For example, for Pseuduvaria aurantiaca there is an reputable source (Su & Saunders Monograph of Pseuduvaria (Annonaceae), Systematic Botany Monographs Vol. 79, 2006) that says the following:
"IUCN conservation status: VU D2. Only five localities are known for P. aurantiaca although several collections are relatively recent (up to 1994) , including those from a proposed wildlife reserve in Pulau Kobroor (1700 sq-km), SE Maluku. The Aru islands are exposed to logging for industrial and agricultural purposes, and there is a lack of strict enforcement by government forestry agents (Hidayat 1998). The "vulnerable" (VU) category is therefore recommended."
However, the species isn't listed on the IUCN site. Based on the Su & Saunders reference would it be acceptable to designate it as VU in the taxobox of a Wikipedia article? Gcopenhaver1 (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Gcopenhaver1

My take is that the conservation status listings in the taxobox should reflect the actual determination of an authority (IUCN, NatureServe, etc.) and not simply proposals. If I understand the above correctly, the authors have proposed VU D2 status for the species based on application of the IUCN's critera, but this has not been made official. I would suggest omitting the status from the taxonbox but summarizing Su & Saunders' recommendation in the section of the article that deals with conservation. Choess (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Choess: Thanks. That seems like sound advice. Gcopenhaver1 (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Gcopenhaver1

To my eyes, the image from the USDA looks less like American holly and more like Ilex aquifolium with dark, shiny, spiky leaves. I am not much of a botanist, so I figured my best approach would be ask here. Either I'm onto something, or you can tell me I'm definitely not much of a botanist. Thanks. BiologicalMe (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

It seems about right for I. opaca to me. I thought I. aquifolium had somewhat deeper sinuses and longer spines. Choess (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. My limited experience — one I. opaca in my back yard and two I. aquifolium by the house — don't offer much on a sense of range. The latter far more resemble the photo than the former, but I know I'm going on superficial features that may not be distinguishing. BiologicalMe (talk) 15:42, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I have just created an article on Lannea welwitschii. I found several photographs of the tree on Commons, but I wondered whether they were misidentified. My main source states that this tree has pinnate leaves, each leaf having several pairs of leaflets, but the images on Commons show enormous, heart-shaped leaves. I wonder whether the leaves might belong to a vine climbing up the trunk of the tree. What do others think? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: I think you're correct, it probably is a vine. I think it's not misidentified as much as having two species in the same shot. It looks more clear in this picture. --Nessie (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I have changed the image to that one and added a caption. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi all! I've been slowly working my way through the massive backlog at Category:All_articles_lacking_sources, and I've stumbled upon a number of unsourced plant articles that I'm hoping more knowledgeable folks here may be willing to help add a ref or two to. Listing a few below:

Any help with these would be much appreciated! Feel free to edit this post to strikethrough or remove them from the list as you get to them to avoid duplicating efforts. Thanks a million! Ajpolino (talk) 04:35, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Maybe Primula hortensis should be changed to a set index article, or just deleted, as it's a name which has been misapplied to various taxa. I've removed the taxonbox (and removed the image and link from Primula). Lavateraguy (talk) 09:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The taxonbar is a navbox with sources in it (drawn from Wikidata), so these articles can't really be said to be lacking sources unless the the taxonbar only lists Wikidata and Wikispecies. Abductive (reasoning) 05:46, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The above article has been significantly expanded from the 2 sentence stub (which looked like a copy and paste from plants for a future), complete with new images.

I have no formal training in botany / horticulture, and this was the first "plant article" I have done on Wikipedia. Overall I think the article would benefit from a quick review by someone more familiar with the plant article format on Wikipedia and more knowledgable of the wider topic than I.

Remaining issues -

• I could not find any good quality source to explain why the name tricolor was used. Possibly it is because of the 3 colours of foliage, flower and fruit... but currently this is sourced to the website of a nursery for want of a better source. Can anyone find a good reference for this?

• I could not find any good quality source that stated if birds and mammals eat the fruit which is a natural part of the plant's evolution (and why the seeds need to be stratified if they have not passed through the digestive tract of an animal), only one (not very good quality) source which discusses the genus as a whole in these terms. Can anyone find a better source for this?

• Due general lack of sources, I have used online plant databases such as plants for a future, plants of the world online, efloras, etc. Are these considered OK sources? If anyone has any other sources which discuss this species in detail, would it be possible to expand the article with these? If you don't have time to expand the article yourself it would be great if you email me an image of the relevant section in the source. I think I have exhausted all freely available online sources at this point.

• I found the taxon template fairly confusing and difficult to follow since it is not just giving advice for articles about individual species but also "higher taxa". Please could someone check the layout and sections are appropriate, many thanks. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Matthew Ferguson 57: great job on the article. The taxobox looks fine. One thing I like to do, which seems oddly rare, is to look up the original description for a taxa. While this is by definition not the most current information, it is especially helpful with etymology. However, many times (especially in ye olden days) folks just gave a Latin/Greek name and expected everyone to know what that meant, and did not give an explanation. In these cases, you can just say the epithet translates to whatever, but note that the author did not specify a meaning. In your case, I hope your Latin/Google translate skills are good: https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/5010801 . --Nessie (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I've just fixed up the taxonomy a bit. A subtle point which I missed at first is that in Focke's protolog linked above, the species name is followed by "ad int.", i.e., provisional. Therefore, Focke's description does not represent a valid publication of the name, but Prain's inclusion of it by reference in supplement 4 of Index Kewensis in 1913 does recognize it and incorporate the description by reference, hence the attribution Focke ex Prain. The Latin of the protolog does explain the choice of epithet.

Efloras is usually fine as a database; it's a reproduction of published standalone sources. I'm a bit more dubious of the other two, which seem to do sparsely-verified aggregation of other sources, but their use seems appropriate here.

All in all, this was an excellent job. Choess (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for reviews. I'll remember these factors for any future articles. Kind regards, Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a current proposal at Talk:Taraxacum to move the genus article at Taraxacum to dandelion that people here might want to comment on. Melburnian (talk) 02:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Most book sources I have state that Jostaberry is a hybrid between blackcurrant (R. nigrum) and European gooseberry (R. uva-crispa). These sources typically state the binomial name is Ribes × culverwellii, and only occasionally Ribes × nidigrolaria. The Royal Horticultural Society website also states that it is a cross between the 2 species above.

The wikipedia article states that 3 species are involved, adding R. divaricatum, giving the binomial name as Ribes × nidigrolaria. It states that Ribes × culverwellii is the "Jochelbeere", created by crossing R. nigrum and R. uva-crispa. This portion of the article is supported by the source Germplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN).

We seem to have a contradiction in the sources, which source is factually accurate? Many thanks, M. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Could you give more info about the book sources you have so we could assess their reliability? Often in a case like this, the page may need to explain in text the disagreement between sources, saying something like "Sources disagree on the exact hybrid name of the Jostaberry, which stems from a disagreement over exactly how many species are required to create the hybrid." Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

They are gardening books, which tend to only mention Jostaberry in brief. This book found on google books (p.7-9) seems to clear things up to a degree. And this source even further. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a merger discussion between Ricinodendron and Njangsa on this page . Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Could someone knowledgeable about plants give some advice on what to do with Fleroya ledermannii? The redirect Mitragyna ledermanniiMitragyna ledermannii points there, and the only source in the article calls it by that name, yet the article is titled Fleroya. Which is the currently accepted genus? Wugapodes [t^hɑk] [ˈkan.ˌʧɹɪbz] 06:38, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

The genus article cites TPL for Fleroya and says the WCSPF agrees. OTOH, POWO has it as Mitragyna. So we have duelling sources. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2019 (UTC)