Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive77

Will someone please look at this article and this draft and verify which is the accepted name for this genus and species? It appears that Neopanax is correct, but will someone please check? The draft, although probably misnamed, has more information than the article, so that the article should be expanded with information from the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon, I had a quick glance at POWO, and it lists Neopanax colensoi as an accepted name. If the draft creator does not respond or merge the information within a week I will copy the information over. Sound reasonable? Once that is done the draft could make a perfectly reasonable redirect to preserve the history. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 05:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks like Pseudopanax colensoi might be the newer name. POWO has Neopanax colensoi (Hook.f.) Allan as the accepted name (after Allan ((1961). Fl. New Zealand 1: 434) and Pseudopanax colensoi (Hook.f.) K.Koch as the synonym (after Frodin, D.G. & Govaerts, R. (2003 publ. 2004). World Checklist and Bibliography of Araliaceae: 1-444). The IUCN recognises Pseudopanax colensoi (formerly as Neopanax colensoi) and gives "(Hook.f.) Philipson" as the authority in the taxonomy section, citing the New Zealand Plant Conservation Network (2023) as the taxonomic source, which suggests they have changed the taxonomy since the 2018 assessment. The citation^[1] still uses Neopanax colensoi. I can't immediately find the date of Philipson's revision. As POWO synonymises Pseudopanax colensoi (Hook.f.) K.Koch rather than Pseudopanax colensoi (Hook.f.) Philipson, could this be a case where POWO should be asked for clarification?  —  Jts1882 | talk  06:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

This 2009 article still seems to reflect the situation: Neopanax had long been synonymised, and has then been resurrected by two (sets of) authors in the early 2000's. Since then, other authors have resynonymised it. It is probably one of the cases where it is just a judgement call, since the genera seem to be monophyletic both separately and together, and it could well be that there is not yet clear consensus among the researchers working in this group. POWO presumably followed the authors of the early 2000s and now prefers to err on the side of their status quo until clearer consensus has emerged. Felix QW (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

IPNI has a record for Pseudopanax colensoi K.Koch and one for Pseudopanax colensoi (Hook.f.) Philipson, with the K.Koch one listed as nom. inval. Since POWO does accept Neopanax, it might be the case that they should recognize Neopanax colensoi, but they don't have a record for the Philipson name. Plantdrew (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

As stated above IPNI says the Koch name is a nom. inval. Biodiversity Heritage Library doesn't have the publication but a German university website does. The combination in Pseudopanax was validated by Philipson in 1965. I have yet to decode the German to attempt to ascertain why Koch's publication is considered a nom. inval.

NZ Flora uses Pseudopanax.

Thanks for digging up the Koch publication. I checked BHL and didn't search further when BHL didn't have it. The relevant bit (translated by Google) is "The 3 New Zealand Panax species described by the younger Hooker: lineare, Edgerleyi and Colensoi are doubtfully found here and differ in a smaller number of non-fused styles. This also applies to P. Gunnii Hook. fil. from Van Diemen's Land."

"found here" in context is the genus Pseudopanax. Doubtful assignments aren't valid publications of a new combination as I understand it. However, IPNI/POWO have records for Pseudopanax linearis and Pseudopanax edgerleyi with authorship attributed to Koch, and no notes about them being invalid.

Philipson does claim to be publishing a new combination for Pseudopanax gunnii. IPNI has three records for P. gunnii, with authorship given as "(Hook.f.) K.Koch", "K.Koch" and "(Hook.f.) Philipson". The only one with a corresponding POWO record is the "K.Koch" one, but POWO gives the authorship for that as "(Hook.f.) K.Koch"

In short, IPNI/POWO are inconsistent in handling Koch's doubtful Pseudopanax species and are erroneous in doing so. Plantdrew (talk) 22:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

That seems a valid reason for the Koch combination is invalid. (I was wondering whether even the laxer requirements of the time were met, but failing to state the species belongs to the genus would trump that.) Will you be dropping a note to IPNI about the other combinations? Lavateraguy (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on contacting IPNI. Would you like to? I suppose I could, but in the past I've relied on Peter coxhead to alert Kew to problems we've found in their databases. Plantdrew (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Done. Do you want to see a copy? Lavateraguy (talk) 12:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

On the original question, while Pseudopanax and Neopanax are both monophyletic, they may be jointly paraphyletic with respect to Plerandra (Melanesian Schleferra clade - Schleffera pro parte and assorted previous segregate genera) and Meryta. I haven't managed to find a newer paper resolving this question. I think we should follow POWO and use the name Neopanax colensoi. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks like there are two philosophical approaches. If Neopanax is recognised both are monophyletic, regardless of the exact relationships between them and those other genera. Perrie & Shepherd (2009) take the view that there isn't unequivoval evidence that Pseudopanax is monophyletic or that it is not monophyletic, so leave the status quo. Given we generally follow POWO for page titles and taxoboxes that seems appropriate.

The new draft article is much more extensive. Perhaps Abbeyc5748 should add the new material to the Neopanax colensoi article. Then it just needs a short taxonomy section describing the two views.  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of if stays at Neopanax or gets moved I hope they do add the information to the article because I would like to see them get credit for the editing. It is a small thing, but they did a good job on their draft. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 22:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

@Plantdrew @MtBotany @Robert McClenon: I've just had a reply from Kew (delayed by last month's congress). POWO and IPNI have been updated, but the latter may not have yet propagated to the public facing data set. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi all, I just had a discussion with someone last night regarding the inclusion/exclusion of the year of publication of a name from its author citation and wanted to bring it up here. WP:TOL notes on its taxon template page that it is standard to exclude the year of publication as a part of the author citation for plant articles, however, this guidance is not included in the text of this project's taxon template, and has created confusion with at least one user that I know of regarding whether to include the year in the authority field of the taxo/speciesbox of plant articles. Could we update the taxon template to clarify this? Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Ethmostigmus Clarification: Do you mean the authority field in the species or taxobox for plants? Because I think the reason that is not in the PLANTS taxon template is that is not settled by the Plants project. There is a bit of a diversity of opinion among regular plant editors regarding if it should or should not be included in the taxobox. Traditionally in botany the year is left off unlike in zoology, but the contrary view is that including the year in the taxobox gives more information to readers of Wikipedia and it is a taxobox not a formal botanical name. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 04:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant, apologies for being unclear! The year is excluded in the example plant speciesbox in both the taxon template here and at WP:TOL, but only TOL explains this choice in the text. I would love to see everyone come to consensus on this, but even if this is not a settled matter, I do think it would be worth noting that fact in the text of this project's taxonomy template - "It is standard for botanical citations to exclude the year, however, consensus has not been reached and editors may use discretion when choosing to include/exclude the year of publication from the speciesbox authority field"? Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

It is best to leave the year out of the infobox and instead use categories such as Category:Plants described in 1753. Abductive (reasoning) 06:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Note - date of description and date of name are not always the same. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Wasnt there a list of AfD in WP:Plants, where do I contribute? BloxyColaSweet (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Did you mean article requests - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Article requests - rather than articles for deletion? Lavateraguy (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

No not really, im pretty sure there was a page that lists diffrent discussions on articles that you can contribute on, and all of them are plant-related articles. BloxyColaSweet (talk) 04:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The closest thing to what you're describing that I can think of is Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Organisms - is that what you mean? Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

You might be thinking of Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Article alerts. Pagliaccious (talk) 16:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok, i might take that suggestion... but why am I not getting alerted on replies? BloxyColaSweet (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You have to add each article to your watchlist. (I replied to your old comment on Acephala group.)

An alternative is to look at your Contributions page, and look for instances where your edit is not the latest edit. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I've run across a case of a trinomen being used for a plant in a list of synonyms. Malus paradisiaca dasyphylla (Borkh.) Koehne. What would this be described as? Just as an infraspecific? Would it be assumed to be a subspecies? 🌿MtBotany (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Here is the context for the name. If I recall correctly ICNafp has text on the handling of infraspecifics introduced by the old style notation of Greek letters. Lavateraguy (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

At taxonomic rank: "In a publication prior to 1 January 1890, if only one infraspecific rank is used, it is considered to be that of variety. (Article 37.4) This commonly applies to publications that labelled infraspecific taxa with Greek letters, α, β, γ, ...". Referring to the code, that does not seem to be an accurate paraphrase of the article. Also, the name in question here postdates the 1890 cutoff. I find the application of the code here unclear, but perhaps it would be Malus paradisiaca [unranked] dasyphylla. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I still have no idea how I'll treat it in my list of apple synonyms. It may or may not be notable enough for its own article depending on if I can find enough reliable information about the history of scientific names for the cultivated apple. And it is way too long/big to shove into the apple article even as a collapsed list. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I think I concur with Lavateraguy on Malus paradisiaca [unranked] dasyphylla. The protologue in question is here; It is a typical nineteenth-century publication which uses Greek letters for labelling intraspecifics without further elaboration. They cannot just be assumed to be varieties since the publication postdates 1890. It is a "name at new rank" whose basionym is M. dasyphylla, so it didn't need a new diagnosis or description. For what it's worth, GBIF seems to treat it as a subspecies. Felix QW (talk) 08:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

At POWO dasyphylla occurs several times in the synonymy of Malus domestica, as a species (the basionym) or as a subspecies, variety, or proles, of several species, including sylvestris, domestica and pumila. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Greek letters in this book are varieties, see p. 6 (where used first)

"Var. a) brevifolia Nuttall (als Art). Krone breit kegelförmig. Aeste auf­

recht oder aufrecht abstehend. Blätter 12—20 mm lang, 2 mm breit, mit sehr

kurzem, gelben Stiel, gelblichgrün. Höhe 10—25 m. — Insel Vancouver bis

Kalifornien.

B. o* Blütenstiel die Schuppen nicht oder wenig überragend.

a) Blätter im Sommer gelblichgrün, im Winter feuerrot (nach Beissner).

Var. ß) minor Michaux. Oft niedrig, dem Boden aufliegend. Aeste auf­" Weepingraf (talk) 20:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I wonder if anyone can advise me, please. I'm still rather new to Wikipedia, and I've been working on a new page for Aster incisus in my sandbox. Since beginning it I have realized that a stub article already exists under the alternative name Kalimeris incisa. I understand that the name is disputed, but haven't been able to find out for certain which name is preferred. Any advice would be very much appreciated. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 20:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

That's a mess. POWO accepts Aster incisus, as does the Flora of China website. WFO and the Global Compositae Database accept Kalimeris incisa (although the GCD record is flagged as unreviewed). Tropicos has Aster incisus accepted by "Flora of China Editorial Committee. 2011.", and Kalimeris incisa accepted by " Flora of China Editorial Committee. 1988-2013. Flora of China (Checklist & Addendum)." Given that Tropicos seems to be suggesting a change in the Flora of China treatment since it was physically published, I'd be inclined to go with Kalimeris incisa. Plantdrew (talk) 21:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

POWO has it in Aster; RHS has it in Kalimeris.

The old Aster got chopped into many pieces (the North American species ended up in Symphyotrichium and several other genera, and several European species ended up in Galatella, Crinitaria and Tripolium. I wondered if this pair of names was part of the same process, but on looking at Google Scholar this seems not to be the case. Instead several small East Asian genera, including Kalimaris, have been sunk into Aster - see this paper. For a fuller picture look at the references therein, and any citations made to it. Subject to further study, it seems appropriate to move Kalimeris incisa to Aster incisus, whereupon you can merge your material into it.

PS: comment crossed with Plantdrew's. With conflicting authorities we might have to commit WP:OR/WP:SYN. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Lavateraguy and @Plantdrew: I really appreciate your thoughts. I'm happy to go with the majority opinion (if there is one). Should I simply add the material on my draft page to expand Kalimeris incisa, and wait for a consensus on the name, do you think? ArthurTheGardener (talk) 08:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I think the simplest thing to do is expanding the existing article with your draft. Plantdrew (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you: I'll do that. ArthurTheGardener (talk) 07:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that at one time there may have been a fairly good page about Heterophylly, but recent history shows converting a redirect to something else. It is now an inappropriate redirect to Heterophily. Can someone who knows how to look at ancient page history work out what has happened there? Heterophyllous is showing as a red link in a few places such as on Pinguicula. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I did a quick add of both heterophyllous and heterophylly to the Glossary of botanical terms so we at least have that. Apparently it was listed for deletion and no one was watching it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_July_10#Heterophylly

I'm going to redirect to the Glossary of botanical terms and start working on an article for heterophyllous in the draft space if I do not see objections. Edit to add: Also, clearly I should try making a list of every possible botanical term and watching all those redirects for well intention people who do not know about plants editing them. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

That is much better, thanks! So there's no way to recover whatever was there ... I think there might have been this image

to show the extreme size dimorphism in the two leaves at a node in some Columnea species. That's not the easiest image to interpret, but unfortunately we don't have any pictures of Columnea hookeriana. (There are other types of heterophylly of course.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea if it is recoverable or not. I just did a search for heterophylly and found the redirects for discussion that I linked. If there was an earlier discussion for heterophyllous I did not find it, but my searching could be weak. I just tried searching for both terms on all the templates, template talk, and wikipedia talk with the assumption that a deletion discussion would show up. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 03:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I found the discussion by following the chain. Could you misremember it being an actual article as opposed to being a redirect? The discussion seems to be about a redirects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_July_24#Heterophylly

I've bodged up a first edit of a draft at Draft:Heterophyllous. I'm self taught and relying on books I've found on archive.org, so I would appreciate other editors working on it. Or even just pointing me at sources and saying, "Look there." For a basic explanation I think The Growth of Leaves has not lead me too far wrong on the difference between heteroblastic and heterophyllous. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 03:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah yes, I'm sure you are right, I have misremembered. That image is used at Anisophylly. There's a bit of variation in usage, but I'd be happy with a distinction being kept here between the two, rather than cramming that meaning into heterophylly. Perhaps the simplest solution is to restrict heterophylly to the aquatic plants and have a largish "see also" section on each page. However, we have seasonal heterophylly (and Lammas growth separate). It's a bit of a tangle. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

1) I think that the article should be at the noun (heterophylly) rather than the adjective (heterophyllous).

2) I think that the distinction between heterophylly and heteroblasty is as honoured in the breach as in the observance, but confirming that probably requires original research. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree about the noun form. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:55, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the good suggestions. I will keep looking and see if I can find any sources that discuss how heterophylly and heteroblasty are actually used in literature as opposed to how they are defined in theory. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 15:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Here is a paper which discusses both the theory and practice of usage. Lavateraguy (talk) 07:39, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Just dropping by to say that some inspiration may be taken from the related article of Heterostyly, or having multiple types of flower structures on one plant. Fritzmann (message me) 16:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I recently updated the taxonomy of Hibiscus × rosa-sinensis, treating it as a nothospecies. The treatment is accepted by PoWO and is based on:

Braglia, Luca; Thomson, Lex A. J.; Cheek, Martin; Mabberley, David J. & Butaud, Jean-François (2024), "Pacific Species of Hibiscus sect. Lilibiscus (Malvaceae). 4. The Origin of Hibiscus Rosa-Sinensis: A 300-Year-Old Mystery Solved", Pacific Science, 77 (4): 395–415, doi:10.2984/77.4.3

However, I can only access the summary of the paper; the journal isn't included in the Wikipedia library. Does anyone have access? Peter coxhead (talk) 06:38, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Tangentially, a paper on Hibisceae phylogeny was published a few months back (I missed it at the time)

• Hanes et al, Phylogenetic Relationships Within Tribe Hibisceae (Malvaceae) Reveal Complex Patterns of Polyphyly in Hibiscus and Pavonia, Systematic Botany 49(1): 77-116 (2024)

The authors are in favour of splitting Hibiscus and Pavonia, but only introduced 3 of the necessary new genera (Astrohibiscus, Blanchardia and Cravenia), though they do propose resurrecting quite a few older generic names. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not an expert.

Given that Flora of Turkey has further reading of Resimli Türkiye Florası do we actually need the uncited articles Flora of Turkey, Apocynaceae, Flora of Turkey, Betulaceae and Flora of Turkey, Fagaceae? Chidgk1 (talk) 13:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I have started a discussion about deleting List of inedible fruits. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Two species of genus Rughidia appear in the IUCN Red List, but neither the genus nor the species appear in Plants of the World Online or World Flora Online. Based on the GBIF occurrences, Rughidia cordatum may be a synonym of Peucedanum cordatum Balf.f. No idea about Rughidia milleri. Any insights? Tom Radulovich (talk) 23:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Interesting. It seems that Rughidia and its species are not listed in POWO/WFO/IPNI (though Peucedanum cordatum is) because none of them have been validly published. They are listed in the World Plants checklist and in several papers on Apiaceae, with the ined. (meaning unpublished) qualifier. I haven't yet tracked down the paper that initially proposed these names (will edit this comment if I do), but this paper from 2000 notes of R. cordata and R. milleri that "the name is not intended by the authors to be formally published in this paper; a formal description of this Socotran taxon is currently being prepared". It seems that no formal description was ever published, with articles as recent as this year still noting that these names have not been validly published. Not quite sure where that leaves us, though... Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

In our passes through Apiaceae while converting to automatic taxoboxes, Peter coxhead and I have intentionally left manual taxoboxes in place for these taxa (that is, we refrained from creating a probably unnecessary taxonomy template for Rughidia). Rughidia milleri at least should perhaps be deleted (along with a bunch of other articles created by Polbot for IUCN listed "species" that haven't been formally published). Plantdrew (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy with deletion for the genus article and R. milleri, but would it be better for R. cordatum to be moved to Peucedanum cordatum or just deleted outright? Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 06:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm curious. World Plants lists Rughidia cordatum (Balf.f.) M.F.Watson & E.L.Barclay; ined., but POWO accepts Dysphania incisa (Poir.) ined.. If ined. mean nomen ineditum and indicates an invalid name, why does POWO accept that one? Another question, if the description is published and meets the code, should a disclaimer matter in determining validity of the name?  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

In the case of "Dysphania incisa", POWO accepts only, that this species belongs to genus Dysphania. It was transferred to this genus as Dysphania graveolens (Lag. & Rodr.) Mosyakin & Clemants, but this name is a nom. illeg., and a replacement name has not yet been published [see https://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Dysphania_graveolens]. The oldest basionym would be Chenopodium incisum Poir., Encycl. [J. Lamarck & al.] Suppl. 1. 392 (1810). --Thiotrix (talk) 09:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I moved Rughidia cordatum to Peucedanum cordatum, with the unpublished synonyms R. cordatum and R. cordata noted in the text. Not sure what to do with Rughidia or Rughidia milleri. Tom Radulovich (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Catalog of Life gives the following:

Rughidia M. F. Watson & E. L. Barclay ined. is a provisionally accepted genus. https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/7B2L

Rughidia cordata (Balf. fil.) M. F. Watson & E. L. Barclay ined. is also provisionally accepted with synonym (and apparently supposedly basionym) Peucedanum cordatum Balf. fil., which is accepted in POWO. https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/6WXC7

Rughidia milleri M. F. Watson & E. L. Barclay ined. as provisionally accepted. https://www.catalogueoflife.org/data/taxon/6X9BV

It is my understanding that we don't make or keep articles for the unaccepted, including provisionally accepted. Moving R. cordata appears to have been the right call, and I think the other two could be fast deleted. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Cheers for moving that one Tom. I went ahead and PRODed Rughidia and R. milleri, as I expect little disagreement, but if any dissenting opinions arise I'll move forward to AfD and go from there. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Could someone please direct me to either a Wikipedia policy or essay OR something in the Plants project that contains discussion about when to create an independent article for a nothospecies (hybrid)? I have read this more than once, may have saved the information, but I can't find it now. Thanks! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't find any existing guidelines or essays that specifically cover hybrids. The WP:NSPECIES proposal suggests that hybrids be presumed non-notable unless they meet WP:GNG, and while that guideline hasn't yet been adopted I think it's reflective of the general consensus on how hybrids should be handled. Is there a particular one you had in mind? I would be happy to help research and check for SIGCOV if you'd like. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:33, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for checking! Yes, actually, if you wouldn't mind. Take a look at the list in this article (Cirsium greimleri#Hybridisation). Cirsium greimleri was nominated as a candidate for GA, and I pulled it for review. It surprised me to see seven hybrid species articles listed here, Wikilinked and all very recently created (July 2024). – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Interesting! I'll ping @Иованъ, as they are both the nominator for Cirsium greimleri and the creator of the various hybrid articles. Thanks for all your work on these articles!

Some of the hybrid articles (Cirsium × stroblii and Cirsium × sudae) don't appear to have SIGCOV, but others (eg. Cirsium × juratzkae and Cirsium × stiriacum) are more borderline - I would say there's enough literature to qualify as SIGCOV, but others may disagree, and I'm not exceedingly confident they would all survive AfD. I think there is more than enough to be said on the hybrids of C. greimleri to warrant more than just a mere list in the species article, but perhaps not enough to warrant individual articles for each hybrid - my gut instinct is to merge all of the hybrid articles into a collective article (Hybrids of Cirsium greimleri, perhaps?) and give each their own section. Currently, I think there is a non-negligible chance of at least some of these articles being taken to AfD and deleted or merged for failing GNG, but I don't want to see all this useful information (and hard work) go to waste. I think condensing all of the hybrid articles together and retaining their content is the best way of preserving the information without risking deletion, but that's just my opinion - curious to hear what others think on this. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for looking and for your input. What I did for List of Symphyotrichum species was include the hybrids there within their respective subgenera. That seemed to work out nicely. If the hybrid articles were to be deleted, the List of Cirsium species (which could use a lot of work) includes hybrids. Minimal information from any respective article could be added there. The hybrid article names could be made redirects. I'm not suggesting it be done that way. Expanding (and keeping current!) such a large list of species as is in Cirsium (lots of thistles!) and hybrid species would be quite the challenge. I'm curious about the policy, if any, of hybrid article creation in this project, whether or not we have ever had discussion about it, if something be written on the taxon template page about this, for example. When I did the Symphyotrichum list expansion in 2021, I was sure about this enough to place a footnote in the article that reads "Hybrids do not have their own articles.", not to state a policy internal to Wikipedia, but to let the reader know why they don't see a link to any hybrid articles. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for having me.

Thanks for all your work on these articles! My pleasure! Though it pales in comparison.

I am more of a "lumper" than a "splitter". Case in point? List of Glagolitic manuscripts (1.3 MB). But I would contend that keeping nothospecies articles separate is more consistent with established practice here (Category:Plant nothospecies). Since nothospecies are also species, and feature extensively on "lists of species" from authoritative sources such as PoWO, it follows that the species-related policies also apply to nothospecies. But let us suppose "nothospecies" were determined by consensus to not be species. For individual "species" sensu stricto, it is not required that their articles reach a certain size before being split off from the article of their genus. Rather, in imitation of established practice in paper encyclopedias, they are allowed their own "stubby" articles, thereby averting endless split-merge disputes. To draw a parallel from Notability (geographic features), the current practice per WP:NTOWN is to allow standalone stubs for any "populated, legally recognized places" no matter how small, while keeping unofficial entities merged until they are long enough to stand alone. Since these hybrids with valid names are in question, the botanical equivalent of "unofficial" would be hybrids without such names, some of which are indeed notable enough thanks to high coverage per WP:GNG.

Outside of the context of Wikipedia, with all its technical limitations, the idea to merge all of the articles into a single "Genus nothospecies" article is a good one. Especially if the individual articles are not expected to expand much. The genus Cirsium is itself rather "borderline", however, as there are nearly as many nothospecies as there are species, so all but the most cursory coverage would result in a prohibitively long article. If you want to see what Cirsium greimleri looked like when hybrids were included, you can read the "Hybridisation" section of its first version. More was added, and more still could (and should) be added for all but the very rare Cirsium × stroblii and Cirsium × sudae as has been correctly noted. There is far more literature on most of these nothospecies than my small selection would suggest, especially in German and Russian. Most of the information contained in the Cirsium hybrid articles is from Public Domain works, but most of what has been written on them dates to a later period, so one can imagine what sort of articles could be produced we had more time (we also wrote but have not yet published Cirsium waldsteinii among others).

Most hybrid articles are short, but not a few are longer: Asplenium × boydstoniae, Asplenium × ebenoides, Asplenium × kentuckiense, Asplenium × trudellii, Asplenium × wherryi, Cornus × unalaschkensis, Crocosmia × crocosmiiflora, Eucalyptus × alpina, Eucalyptus × brachyphylla, Eucalyptus × lamprocalyx, Eucalyptus × stoataptera, Eucalyptus × balanites, Eucalyptus × balanopelex, Eucalyptus × chrysantha, Eucalyptus × kalangadooensis, Eucalyptus × missilis, Eucalyptus × phylacis, Grevillea × gaudichaudii, Karpatiosorbus houstoniae, Kniphofia × praecox, Lonicera × bella, Lysimachia × commixta, Lysimachia × producta, Myosotis × bollandica, Myosotis × cinerascens, Nuphar × saijoensis, Nuphar × spenneriana, Nymphaea × daubenyana, Nymphaea × thiona, Phalaenopsis × lotubela, Platanus × hispanica, Polygonatum × hybridum, Populus × jackii, Quercus × deamii, Richea × curtisiae, Sabal × brazoriensis, Salix × fragilis, Seringia × katatona, Spyridium × ramosissimum, Taxus × media, Tilia × europaea, Typha × glauca, Ulmus × arbuscula, Ulmus × diversifolia, Ulmus × intermedia, Vanilla × tahitensis, Veronica × lackschewitzii, Verticordia × eurardyensis, Yucca × schottii. Few botanists want to write such articles; fewer still know they can.

Regards, Ivan (talk) 08:59, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Looking at some of those articles, many/most are accepted by POWO ("[t]his hybrid is accepted"), which can be used to support having an article (as we do for plant species), specially as these articles aren't bare stubs. I did find one that isn't: Populus × jackii Sarg. ("This name is a synonym of Populus × ontariensis"), although it also had the comment "[T]his name was accepted following an alternative taxonomy by these authorities: <<8 references>>. The article Populus × jackii doesn't mention ontariensis.  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the input, Ivan, Ethmostigmus, and Jts1882. I also sought input from Peter coxhead and Plantdrew.

It seems that there has been no substantial discussion about it on the Plants project pages that anyone can point to.

Since the discussion of what constitutes a notable nothospecies for an article is outside the scope of my question, I'll direct us back to that, which was, to paraphrase myself, "Where has it been discussed?" I likely saw someone's comment a few years ago and made an assumption that we generally don't create plants nothospecies articles. I don't think that was an incorrect assumption.

A discussion is in process now. As Ethmostigmus states above,

The WP:NSPECIES proposal [at Wikipedia:Notability (species) ] suggests that hybrids be presumed non-notable unless they meet WP:GNG, and while that guideline hasn't yet been adopted I think it's reflective of the general consensus on how hybrids should be handled.

It's a proposal. Whoever is interested might want to have a look at the talk page there. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Peer reviews active; do peer reviews still occur? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately not since 2009. But you can informally request one on a user talk page. Ivan (talk) 09:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Ivan, how did you know this so quickly? I couldn't find information about this, and that page makes it appear as though it is active. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

The subproject relied on requesting directly on that page. Most requests post-2009 come from student projects. See Talk:Fontainea venosa for user page request solution to subproject inactivity. Ivan (talk) 09:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be of value to resuscitate it. Thoughts, anyone? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

It certainly would be. Unfortunately, I don't have enough experience here to contribute. :-) Ivan (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Possibly... I hesitate to put myself forward for reviewing as I can be a little inconsistent in responding to requests that don't seem "fun" to my hindbrain. Despite the fact that I find it fun to go through every single citation on a page like Apple. Possibly because I do not have a ticking clock telling me to get that done and I check them as it amuses me. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 22:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I would be interested in participating! I don't have any experience with the GA/FA process, so I'm not sure how useful I would be, but I am quite happy to assist with research/copyediting/formatting etc. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Botanically interested editors, Two things I just noticed: The page Chloroplast DNA uses a linked "image" generated by {{Chloroplast DNA}}, which at least for me renders dreadfully and sills off the page margin. One could replace it with its SVG equivalent File:CtDNA.svg, but that would lose all of the wikilinks in the template markup. On a related note, our List of sequenced plastomes is hopelessly out of date, and I am not sure the advantages in genomics allow for a manually curated list of this form anymore. Anyone have any ideas on either score? Felix QW (talk) 13:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

An discussion to adopt a guideline regarding the notability of species has been opened at Wikipedia talk: Notability (species)#Proposal to add nothospecies. Ivan (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Onion has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, fellow editors. I have been researching a few plant species that I am currently working on improving the Wikipedia articles for. I have found a large amount of information on the early cultivation and history of one of these species, and I would like to add this information somewhere to the Wikipedia article.

Under what section of the article (Description, Taxonomy etc.) should I include this information in? Would there also be any particular layout to include it under or just as regular sentences?

Any advice or suggestions are greatly appreciated. Thank you. Lord.of.the.Proterozoic (talk) 07:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I like to include any information about the discovery and naming of a species and any taxonomic changes over time in a section titled "Taxonomy and history", and include information about cultivation and other human uses for a species in sections titled either "Uses" and/or "Cultivation" (you can use one or the other, or use both, depending on the information you have access to). I prefer include this information in prose, but depending on the situation a table may also be appropriate? If there's a particular article you had in mind and would like assistance with I am happy to give it a go :) Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Plants/Template is a useful guide. Gderrin (talk) 08:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I would appreciate some help with the article for the newly-described species, Grevillea milleriana, as well as a page creation for Grevillea gilmourii, described in the same paper, so you can reuse citations from the G. milleriana article.

I am currently researching and taking notes from my books to add more information to the articles of grevilleas of Greater Sydney, mainly Grevillea buxifolia, G. caleyi, G. sphacelata, G. sericea and G. speciosa, so I would appreciate some help for those or any other grevillea articles really. I hope to get these articles in particular to Good Article status.

Thank you for your help, @Ethmostigmus and @Gderrin

Best regards,

Lord.of.the.Proterozoic (talk) 10:12, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent project, I'm in :) I've already got a few small improvements in mind for the G. milleriana article that I can get done this evening. If there's anything in particular you need help with or want to discuss feel free to ping me or reach out via my talk page. Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 10:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Your help is greatly appreciated, and makes Wikipedia a better place. Lord.of.the.Proterozoic (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Do folks here think that Plants of the World Online –  World Checklist of Vascular Plants are definitive when it comes to accepted species names and synonyms?

If so (and feel free to explain why or why not), what ought we do with names and synonyms that aren't accepted by WCVP and/or POWO (Rughidia, Vatica latiffii, etc.)? Should they be always be deleted or merged? There may be a valid reason to keep such an article or redirect – POWO offers the disclaimer that "We aim to incorporate the latest published taxonomy but sometimes papers are overlooked". If such articles or redirects are kept here should they be consistently categorized (something like Category:Taxobox binomials not recognized by IUCN, but for POWO or WCVP)? I don't think Wikipedia benefits from having as many redirects as it does for misspelled or invalid taxa, since they invite more misspelling and ambiguity about names. And I know the process here makes it hard to delete questionable redirects. I'm curious what other folks think. Tom Radulovich (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

This may already be covered on one of the project pages. Try either the main page or the tax on template page. I would start on the main page 1st. I'm pretty sure it's covered there. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

My understanding has been that POWO/WCVP is not definitive, but rather is the best source available with worldwide coverage. Your question spurred me to look for a review about the reliability of POWO and I found a paper titled The big four of plant taxonomy – a comparison of global checklists of vascular plant names. It confirms there are major problems with POWO, but that the other three major sources also have major faults, though apparently not identical ones. Also, the fern fans here on Wikpedia largely prefer World Ferns/World Plants by Michael Hassler as POWO does a lot of lumping they disagree with.

My opinion is that here at Wikipedia we are free to ignore POWO/WCVP when it disagrees with many other reasonably current sources. In the particular case of Vatica latiffii, I looked into World Flora Online and World Plants and then did a search in JSTOR, BioOne, Wiley, and Springer. I only found one use of the name in one paper in Springer, and a passing reference at that. Since it is a stub with pretty much no information I'm inclined to just delete it until it actually shows up in at least one of World Flora Online, World Plants, or POWO. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The article for Vatica latiffii appears to have been created by the person who described the species, and while I don't have any reason to doubt their integrity or the validity of the species, I agree that the article is very much premature in the absence of any real external coverage. Plant species should at minimum have an entry in IPNI, WFO, or World Plants to even be considered for an independent article. I'll WP:PROD it. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 06:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

In the case of Vatica latiffii I suspect that the journal was overlooked by IPNI because of obscurity (or possibly because they're now relying on authors informing them of new names); I've created an account, and filled in a form for Vatica latiffii. Whether this will propagate to POWO, I can't say. Lavateraguy (talk) 07:21, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I did the same a few years ago with a newly published Symphyotrichum species. It was updated fairly quickly. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 07:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I've brought several overlooked names to IPNI's attention over the years (plus my sole published name - an intragenic horticultural hybrid). Also at least one spurious name, and assorted inaccuracies in records. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Cheers for that, please let us know if you hear back! More than happy to withdraw the PROD if it makes its way to POWO. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

No source is definitive. An encyclopaedia has to consider alternative views. However, there needs to be consistency across different articles (we can't treat half a genus with one name and the other half with a synonym accepted elsewhere), so the different projects choose one favoured guideline source for decisions on article title and the taxonomy used in the taxoboxes (there usually isn't much choice; plants and birds being exceptions). So for what is considered an accepted name and which the synonym, we'd follow POWO (above ferns) for decisions on the page title and taxobox and discuss differences of opinion in the text. If another source has additional synonyms to those in POWO these can be added to the taxobox with a reference (there is no need to limit them to those given by POWO). However, this doesn't mean exceptions can't or shouldn't be made if reliable sources are available and consensus can be reached (e.g. for ferns, which follows World Ferns, which follows PPG, the fern equivalent of APG).  —  Jts1882 | talk  06:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I think what you said here contradicts what the main page of the project says (not the part about POWO, but the part about using other sources for additional synonyms in the taxobox): "If another source has additional synonyms to those in POWO these can be added to the taxobox with a reference (there is no need to limit them to those given by POWO)." Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants#"Synonyms" of scientific names reads, in part, "... it is not appropriate to accumulate a list of 'synonyms' from multiple sources, since the separate sources may not be compatible with one another." – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

What would you do in the case of Peucedanum_cordatum, which as discussed above is accepted by POWO whereas others use Rughidia cordata? Searching POWO for Rughidia cordata or Rughidia finds nothing. I think the guideline is to prevent lists of synonyms gathered from many different sources, rather than prohibition of anything apart from POWO.  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Completely agree with MtBotany and Jts1882. POWO is incredibly useful, but lags somewhat behind WFO, excludes non-vascular plants, and makes particular taxonomic choices that not everyone else agrees with. It's usually the first taxonomic source I check for (vascular) plants, but it's definitely not the best or only source. WP:PLANTS guidelines instruct us to (generally) follow the classification put forth by the Pteridophyte Phylogeny Group for ferns and lycophytes instead of the classification by the RBG. For synonyms I sometimes find WFO preferable to POWO, as WFO seems to be updated far more frequently and can be more comprehensive, but checking all of the major taxonomic databases is certainly a good practice - they all have their own strengths and weaknesses.

A name having no mention in POWO or IPNI is not necessarily a red flag (neither database includes non-vascular plants, sadly), but a name having no mention in IPNI, POWO, WFO, or World Plants is, in my opinion, an indicator that the species has not been scrutinised enough to be included in Wikipedia, at least not yet. It's textbook WP:TOOSOON.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean about "questionable redirects" but I'm quite curious - could you give some examples? Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:11, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I've just started a discussion on the Chloroplast talk page about majorly reworking the article (and maybe reapplying for good article status when done) that people might be interested in (and I'd love people's input and thoughts on). Cyanochic (talk) 04:32, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

GA nomination might be overkill, but I am looking to improve an article as much as possible before publishing many similar articles in genus Cirsium and wondering if anyone is available. Thank you in advance. Ivan (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, article Cirsium greimleri is currently a GAN, nominated by Ivan, with me as the reviewer. Ivan is seeking input on the article. You can add your input to the GA review page, if you wish. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

After four years editing plant articles and being a part of the project, I still am unclear on a basic concept. Does the Plants project cover only what is in kingdom Plantae, no more and no less? It kind of says so in the introductory sentence ("Some Wikipedians have formed a project to better organize information in articles related to plants.") The Wikilink for "plants" goes to the page on the kingdom. Note: this question will have a follow-up question. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Well, it does cover humans who study plants (primarily taxonomists, not necessarily molecular biologists). Red algae (included in "plants" if that is defined as Archaeplastida) and green algae (included if defined as Viridiplantae) are tagged for WikiProject Algae, not this project (but some Charophytes are tagged for Plants (13 articles)). A smattering of diseases of plants caused by non-plant organisms are tagged for this project (~312 articles, but quite a few are lists of diseases infecting a particular genus/species). Several animals in Category:Nepenthes infauna had once been tagged for WikiProject Carnivorous plants, but it seems that the only one left now is Phyllocnistis nepenthae.

I am responsible for removing plant tags from some red and green algae taxa, but there were never very many algae articles tagged for plants. Plantdrew (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

You can get an idea where people are having trouble deciding edge cases by looking in the Unassesed articles list here. Some examples; botanical illustrators, legendary plants, ecosystems/habitats/ecological communities, drugs and other products derived from plants, websites and organizations related to plants, emergent effects of plants, and various cultural items. Abductive (reasoning) 10:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd would have said that the taxonomic scope is Embryophyta (land plants, though that term encompasses sea-grasses and various other aquatic plants) aka Plantae sensu strictissimo. Charophyceae/Charales are a bit of an edge case, as they have been treated as honorary land plants, and studied by phytologists rather than phycologists. (The BSBI's scope is Tracheophyta + Charales (there's a British Bryological Society that covers non-vascular plants), but Bing Copilot - as a proxy for the consensus of material online - places charology within phycology rather than phytology. I suspect that "stoneworts" as plants is now mostly historical, but their habit and habitat makes them potentially a fit for the attention of a field botanist.) Lavateraguy (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Recently, the same institute behind revival the formerly extinct Judean date palm through 2000-year-old seeds found in Herad the Great's palace in Masada grew another ancient seed into a never-before-seen tree. Is this an example of a de-extinction in the same way as their previous revived plant through germination of ancient seeds, or is this a Lazarus taxon in the same way as the coelacanth being rediscovered off the coast of South Africa after being presumed extinct for 66 million years?

Source: Mystery Tree Grown From 1,000-Year-Old Seed (msn.com) Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

In case someone else is interested, the findings have been detailed in a scientific paper.^[1] The case is a little different to the Judean date palm, since the latter does not seem to be a distinct species but merely a cultivar of the common date palm, Phoenix dactylifera. On the other hand, initial phylogenetic analysis suggests that the newly discovered 1,000-year old Commiphora is actually a species new to science. The reason it is not formally described as of yet is that the specimen they have grown has not flowered, as flowers are key diagnostic criteria of Commiphora species. Felix QW (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

So, this is an entirely new species discovered as opposed to a Lazarus taxon like the coelacanth which was known from fossils prior to its rediscovery in the 1930s? I think that I will list it under the successful de-extinctions section on the de-extinction page for now. I do not have enough knowledge on the subject to create a new page for this alleged tsori plant. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 13:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I hopped over from your Teahouse post! I'd also classify it separate from those 2 phenomena, maybe: List_of_longest-living_organisms#Revived_into_activity_after_stasis. My initial thoughts were of the new species described from melted permafrost alive. Specifically I'm thinking of that one bdelloid rotifer and the nematode Panagrolaimus_kolymaensis. (Maybe a new list one day for species first described when revived by humans :P) Cyanochic (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I put it on the de-extinction and endling articles as part of the successful de-extinction section and plant endling section. Since Sheba is technically an endling right now similar to Fernanda the Fernandina Island tortoise despite recent discovery and rediscovery, and I put it under successful de-extinctions due to Sheba's species being presumed extinct. I will list it on the longest living organisms and list of resurrected species article as well, thank you for the suggestions! I think that list of species first described when revived by humans list also may be necessary for if Colossal Biosciences is successful in reviving the woolly mammoth, because its behaviour was never formerly studied or described to my knowledge. Edelgardvonhresvelg (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh sweet! I mostly wanted to throw in my two cents, but since plants (and taxonomy) are not really my thing I definitely wasn't expecting it to have an impact on where it goes. If that list ever gets made, I'd definitely be down to help on the microbe/protist side of it! Cyanochic (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

It's official!

This article, created 10 October 2024 by user Treeenthusiast, is not in POWO, World Ferns, World Plants, COL, or WFO. The sole citation in text form "Dr. Paul Standley, Trees of Mexico, page 41" is given. It is currently an orphan article (other than category and assessment pages). I think this may qualify for deletion. Thought I'd throw it out here. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

It is a synonym of Sphaeropteris horrida. Plantdrew (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I think that you are correct. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

If that's the case, then it was supposed to be Cyathea princeps (W.Bull ex J.Dix) E.Mayer, so it was spelled incorrectly.

Cyathea principes

Cyathea princeps

– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 01:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested the move. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

An editor has requested that Cyathea principes be moved to Sphaeropteris horrida, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion.

Move completed. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 06:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I've been mulling over the idea of improving the project's over 61,000 stubs one by one. It sounds daunting, and I likely many of us already do this on a regular basis. My idea is to do a (perhaps monthly) drive of improving Stub-class articles to Start-class articles.

Why only to Start-class? To keep it simple, fast, and uniform. With taxon and botanist articles, we can already provide a guide for what should be included for Start-class.

Participation would be based on how much you can contribute, and you could do as few or as many as you choose during each drive.

Anyone think this would be worthwhile? Thoughts? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

That's definitely a lot of stubs. I think it's a good idea that can help some of them get to start. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Certainly worthwhile. Not too difficult either. Ivan (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

This I can help with. I tend to head all the way to "C" on my own time, but I can probably turn it down for a month. (Mostly) 🌿MtBotany (talk) 03:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd absolutely be interested - I have been considering proposing something of this nature for a while, but held off on account of my lack of experience. There are certainly plenty of plant stubs that can be brought up to Start class with relatively little effort... I think a drive is an excellent way to get more editors involved in this area and provide them with motivation. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Wonderful, Eucalyptusmint, Ivan, MtBotany, and Ethmostigmus! Thank you. For all who are interested, I'm working on a draft of a Stub-to-Start page that will be a subpage of the Plants project. Its intent will be to provide context and instructions. It is currently in my user namespace (in raw form and changing by the minute) at User:Eewilson/StubToStart. Feel free to take a look and comment on its talk page with your input, questions, etc. Thanks! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi folks. I've got a good draft of the drive instructions going. I spent most of the day on this thing. Gah. Want to look at it now and give me some feedback? I have a few things marked that I have to finish, but I'm brain fried tonight. I really would appreciate the love. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast! You're a bloody machine. Obviously it's not finished yet but what's there all looks good to me :) two things that came to mind as I read the draft:

• Under Step 1, you've only covered vascular plants - I would suggest both WFO and World Plants for verifying non-vascular plant names, I default to WFO but both are acceptable. I don't think orchids really need their own section and would generally recommend POWO and WFO as the "standard" resource for all vascular plants besides ferns and lycophytes. I think it may also be a good idea to suggest that editors check more than one resource to validate names before starting work on an article - sometimes name changes hit WFO/World Plants well before they reach POWO. We also may want to have a discussion about how to handle taxa that are treated differently by regional and international authorities (eg. the Australian Plant Census or Flora of China differing from POWO/WFO, as in the case of Glossodia major, which is listed as Caladenia major by POWO and WFO)
• The section on conservation status under Step 5 somewhat implies that all species will have been assigned a conservation status, which might be confusing to people not experienced with species articles. I would change "oFill in at least the first set" to something like "Fill in at least one, if applicable" and include a list of possible systems to be used, eg. NatureServe for North America, EPBC for Australia, IUCN Red List and CITES worldwide, etc. The documentation doesn't give much explicit instruction on what each system is and I figure if we want to pull new editors into this space it's best to spell things out as plainly as possible :P

Thanks so much for working on this, I'm very excited to participate! Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Please be aware of WP:WikiProject Plants/Resources#Pteridophyte classification. PoWO is very much a "lumper" for ferns and allies and should not be used for article names and taxoboxes, although of course discussed in the text. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

WorldFerns is the recommended database for determining accepted names for those, correct? I don't have that filled in yet because I wanted to confirm. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, correct. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay! I need some proofreaders as well as any additional input. This thing can obviously change, but I'm feeling pretty good about where it stands right now. After 2 or 3 of you look at it and provide input, or say that it looks perfect, or ask questions, or say something isn't clear, or tell me what I left out, etc., then it can be "finalized", and I can figure out the next steps. Also, if anyone wants to help coordinate (don't ask me what that will entail, because I have no idea), please let me know. The draft is at User:Eewilson/StubToStart. You can comment here (probably best so we can get additional input while this topic is open). – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

This looks great, thanks for putting it together (so quick!), it looks like all the pieces are there to help anyone get started. Other things that come to mind- is there a way to track how many articles are being de-stubbed and if so, should we include something like that to help track the progress? And as far as the duration, is monthly too frequent to where some may not find it as motivating? On the other hand, if keep it at monthly, then should there be a monthly goal for # of articles for de-stubbing and this number could also vary each month? This could help the momentum going, but not sure and thought I'd ask to get everyone's thoughts. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 00:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Great idea! We can use the number of pages in Category:Stub-Class plant articles to track progress - currently, it includes 61,508 articles, so lots of room for improvement :P When I participated in WP:FEB24 earlier this year the organisers had a chart tracking the number of articles removed from the category each day, so perhaps we could do something similar? I like the idea of setting a goal to de-stub a certain amount of articles per month (tweaked to match the number of participants), as it gives us a specific, achievable number to aim for. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Eucalyptusmint, Ethmostigmus, and Fritzmann2002, the three of you had suggested some way of keeping track of stats and/or progress. I have discussed possible ways of doing this and have some ideas. We can run into difficulty attempting to use our standard pull of articles (the one given on the draft Stub-to-Start page) because it shows all articles to present day and does not allow sorting. In the meantime, I have added a blank section on the page called "Appendix 4: the stats" (subject to change, if appropriate), and it can be filled in when a way of pulling this information can be found. We can each manually keep track of what we do and report our own numbers somewhere (perhaps a separate progress page that could be transcluded into the main page). The best case scenario would be the ability for anybody to pull information using the criteria we want. The variables would allow us to pull all species articles of Stub-class in existence on the start date, but I'm pretty sure there is no data stored that specifies something is a species article. Perhaps manually keeping track is the easiest way. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no data on Wikipedia that specifies something is a species article. Wikidata queries could be used to find species articles, but that isn't something I know how to do. Use of Speciesbox is a good proxy for something being a species article; at this point, only 0.2% of plant taxa have a manual taxobox, and most of those are genera. Plantdrew (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The speciesbox is a good approach as it will pick up articles on monotypic genera, as well as those with a species title.  —  Jts1882 | talk  16:36, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

This would unfortunately exclude any species articles not using Speciesbox. How would we pull that information? I know we can go to the page for the template and click on "What links here", but how would we get that into a query for our tracking purposes?

Using Wikidata is not a bad idea wrt determining taxonomic rank. It wouldn't give us the ability to pull the other information, so it would have to cross reference. It's got to be possible. It's just a matter of knowing how to build the query. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, using {{speciesbox}} will exclude articles using a manual {{taxobox}}. However, as Plantdrew pointed out only 0.2% of plant taxa have manual taxoboxes and most of those are genera. For tracking progress, this shouldn't make much difference. You can get a list of the plant project articles not using automated taxoboxes with Petscan.  —  Jts1882 | talk  06:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I think we're getting off track. @Eewilson:, what exactly do you want? I gather you want a list of stubs of species articles (not higher taxa/cultivar/botanist/etc. stubs), and you would like to sort/filter for long-standing stubs (long-standing by either article creation date or the time since it was assessed as a stub). Is that right? Do you want a real-time list or a report that is updated on some regular (monthly?) basis? Are you interested in excluding stubs that are newly created today? Is there anything else you would like? (I'd be interested in seeing stubs sorted by page views).

I'm not sure what is actually achievable with the tools available, but I'm also not sure I understand exactly what you would like to have. Plantdrew (talk) 19:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

That doesn't surprise me – that we are getting off track, or at least sounding like it. Let's see if the following helps or makes it worse.

Several people have suggested we have some way of keeping track of the progress of the drive. To me, that would entail that we a) know where we began and b) know where we stand. I would like this as well.

Specs: return a filterable (good) or sortable (good) (or filterable and sortable (better)) list using the optional criteria of

• class (stub, start, etc.)
• priority (top, high, mid, etc.)
• type (species, botanist, etc. – beginning with species)
• creation date range
• assessment date range

A bonus would be to be able to filter by or at least sort on

• creation user
• assessment user

The list returned would show all of these fields, plus article title (with link). It's similar to the OpenZIM list but with headers, sortable, and likely with different code (https://wp1.openzim.org/#/project/Plant/articles?quality=Stub-Class).

This drive has a focus of species articles only. Future drives could be for genera, higher taxa, botanists, etc. This drive has a no set end date – is ongoing.

(It is not the purpose of the drive to get editors not to create new articles that are stubs. However, those paricipating in the drive are asked not to do that. So, we will have stubs created during the drive. Outside of scope would be to track those, but not needed here, although the criteria listed above would allow us to do that.) – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Plantdrew, what do I need to do to get these drafts into the project space as subpages. Best way would be a move request to save history. If I shouldn't do that, I could just create the pages. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I have never had occasion to move a page from User space to Wikipedia space, but I assume it can be done. I'm not sure that it is very important to preserve history if the history is entirely edits by a single editor in their own user space. Plantdrew (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

For the most part it is. There are a few comments on the talk page, and people have signed up on the participants page already; thus, my enthusiasm. I'll keep the ones in my user space and just create the new ones. Fast and easy. Thanks! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I copied the text of the drive pages to subpages of the project, created an Events page that is now in the tabs at the top of the project pages and in the navbox, added this event to the Events page, created a shortcut WP:PLANTSEVENTS and for the drive, WP:PLANTSSTS. There is also an invitation you can use to invite other editors. It should be substituted. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

A user box has been created.

{{User WikiProject Plants STS}} – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi all, I am mostly active in the German Wikipedia, where I have been taking care of all the articles around the Lilieae for a long time now. Having a look into the English articles on the matter (there is always something to learn ;) ) I was pretty surprised to see, that Nomocharis still exists here, which has been moved to Lilium more than a decade ago. The article refers to a single reference (World Checklist of Selected Plant Families) that in 2014 still stuck to the classical view, but which changed their view meanwhile too.

I am not sure what is the correct way to handle this here at EN (redirect, delete, keep?), thus I wanted to bring it to your attention to handle this as you see fit. Best regards, Denis Barthel (talk) 12:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

@Denis Barthel I put in a technical request to move the one species article that exists here from Nomocharis aperta to Lilium apertum. Once that is done I'll just turn Nomocharis into a redirect unless you get to it first, it does not seem to be one of the ones to keep for historical reasons. Going to update List of Lilium species to follow the current list of species at POWO to make sure it is accurate and also check the Lilium genus page. Thanks for the notice. I've already updated the text of N. apertum to the correct name, but it is only a stub. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 19:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Probably a merge (partly to List of Lilium species, which doesn't have at least Nomocharis aperta (at least under that epithet). Alternately redo List of Lilium species using POWO, but there's probably still material suitable for merging into Lilium. (But on looking, de:Nomocharis still exists. I'm confused.)

I wondered whether the Nomocharis article could be redirected to an article on an infrageneric taxon (Google Scholar finds 3 papers referring to Lilium section Nomocharis; I haven't checked whether the combination has been formally published.)

A quick perusal of Google Scholar finds inconsistent phylogenies for Lilium+Nomocharis, but with most finding Nomocharis nested in Lilium. There seems to be rampant polyphyly among Lilium sections. There are species (e.g. L. liangeae, L. gongshangense) which go with the species of Nomocharis, but don't have combinations in that genus, so a merge looks the best bet. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @MtBotany and @Lavateraguy for taking care about this matter.

When it came to the correct infrageneric placement of Nomocharis-species in Lilium, I have treated them in the German article as incertae sedis and put them in a separate paragraph with an explanatory phrase below the list of the other Lilium-species. Maybe that's a way that might work here too?

Oh and by the way, Lavateraguy - the reason for the existing article in the German Wikipedia is, that we do neither delete nor merge articles on taxa that later turn out to be outdated (or do not fit into the currently used systematics at DE). We put a short sentence about the change in it and mark them with a box and a category as an "Alternative taxon" instead, the box then says

"The classification of living organisms into systems is an ongoing subject of research. Different systematic classifications exist side by side and one after the other. The taxon discussed here has become obsolete due to new research or is not part of the systematics presented in the German-language Wikipedia for other reasons."

We have decided to do so many years ago as these taxa can be considered to be of historical value and sometimes they even get reinstated later.

Sorry for the long reply, I appreciate your patience. Denis Barthel (talk) 21:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Long reply appreciated and informative. That's a much better approach than deleting articles on obsolete taxa. Wikipedia offers a unique opportunity to preserve information on historical taxa, so it's a waste to delete such content. It would also mean that taxonomy sections for recognised taxa can be more succinct and only deal with important historical taxa.  —  Jts1882 | talk  11:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jts1882 @Denis Barthel @Lavateraguy When a page is turned into a redirect, the information is not lost, it is simply hidden and easy to put back if needed. I think a merge of information into Lilium is appropriate as the information on the page is quite limited, though if another editor prefers to update it as a former/occasionally used genus I think that would be equally valid, I'll hold off on turning it into a redirect for a couple days. I updated the List of Lilium species using POWO and used World Plants for the ranges since it has more detail about province level distributions in China. If I run out of things to do in the stub to start drive I'll do Lilium stubs. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I realise the information can usually be recovered from the edit history (unless there is some overwriting to retain the edit history of the main page). However the information is only available to those who know what and where to look, and is lost to search engines. Another approach would be to leave the old article on the redirect page, just adding the redirect at the top. This is probably not allowed and might still be invisible to search engines.  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:17, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Whatever the view taken by taxonomists now or in the future, Nomocharis has long been recognized as distinct in horticulture. Thus all the bulb books on my shelf that I've looked at note the similarity to Lilium but say that the genus needs moister growing conditions; British texts regularly say that for this reason Nomocharis are easier to grow in Scotland than much of England. So if there's no consensus taxonomic classification, it should be treated as a historically recognized genus, and not just as a redirect. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this, the taxonomic aspects should not trump the cultural ones. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've done a first edit to indicate that it is no longer used as a taxonomic name. Hopefully someone with the right books or webpages will come along to add the horticultural information to the page. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

There is the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website published on mobot by Peter F. Stevens, but is there an official website by the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group where the APG IV is given (with any updates since it was published in 2016)? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 14:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Not that I know of, and the obvious searches find nothing. It would also be nice to know if there is a APG V in the pipeline.  —  Jts1882 | talk  14:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it, as there was a call for a symposium on the topic in Madrid in July at the International Botanical Conference: APG V AND THE CHALLENGE OF TRANSLATING PHYLOGENY INTO CLASSIFICATION WHEN GENE TREES CONFLICT.

Session information: Symposia Session 13.

– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 15:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Good find. That suggests that APG V already exists and was discussed at that July meeting. The entry on the symposium says pending (as if a proposal) but they all say that and the program suggests that Symposium 13 took place on July 26. Perhaps it is in press or undergoing review.  —  Jts1882 | talk  17:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no official APG website. Peter Stevens is a co-author on the APG publications, but APWeb is his own website, and not a product of the group. I was at a talk Stevens gave a couple of years ago where he mentioned APG V being in progress. I'm sure APG V will be easy to find once it has been published. Plantdrew (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

While APweb is Stevens' personal website, it might give clues about what to expect in APG V, as I wouldn't expect him to deviate from the APG system. His recognition of Huales (split from Oxalidales), Oncothecales (split from Icacinales), and Cardiopteridales (split from Aquifoliales) may be a sign of changes to come. The Symposium abstracts suggest that such findings from nuclear analysis will be incorporated in APG V. I could be wrong, though; he might just follow whichever phylogeny he thinks is best.  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

There is a request at Talk:Jabuticaba following on from a bit of edit warring and discussion in 2018 and 2019 to move the page either to Jaboticaba or to Plinia cauliflora. There are claims that the current spelling is unusual, rare in web searches, and not in line with Portuguese. Gbif calls it Brazillian grape tree. Janick & Paull call it Jaboticaba, GRIN common names list both spellings as Portuguese. Is there a wikiproject-plants policy to resolve this perhaps by resorting to that ancient tie-breaker, namely Latin? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

That wasn't edit warring so much as a descriptionless rollback of an incomplete edit. I don't think this change would be controversial to anybody in English language circles, as it's pretty much only *because* Wikipedia comes first in search results that it's ever spelled "jabuticaba" here (almost all of cited pages calling it "jabuticaba" are either articles by laymen written several years after the Wikipedia article became prominent, or Brazilian/portuguese-language articles). Dictionaries and encyclopedias have been responsible for spelling changes over the years, but it doesn't need to happen here. Most physical dictionaries and even Wiktionary actually use the "o" spelling, Wikipedia is a very odd outlier. The page doesn't get high traffic from Wikipedians (there's a lot of spelling and phrasing and formatting and translation inconsistency on the page in general, for example there are multiple instances of "jaboticaba" already on the page), so it's unlikely that things will ever change without a push. There was no dissent or even further comment in the original discussion for five years straight. In any case, I support moving the page to Plinia cauliflora because "jaboticaba" is a term that is used for multiple species, like "fig", in the first place. 2600:100F:B1C5:C6B3:A113:6D12:8834:771C (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

The formal way to do this would be the proceedure I used on Talk:kishu mikan. You can renew/reopen the request for comments if you don't get much response. Entertainingly, there, the holder of a trademark name made serious and successful efforts to genericize their own trademark, and also released their logos under open licenses, which may put them in a difficult legal position if they ever seek to defend their trademarks! HLHJ (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi all

I'm working with an organisation who might be interested in investing a lot of time to create articles on edible plants. I've seen a lot of estimates in different sources on the number of edible plants, eg I've seen 300,000 written in many news sources.

Is there somewhere that provides a breakdown of the list of edible plant species, even just a subset by type or by parts of the plant which can be eaten eg edible root vegitables, potato tubers can be eaten but leaves are poisonous. I'm aware of Edible_plants but I think I'm safe in assuming that these articles only list a subset of the edible species for each type.

Thanks for any leads

John Cummings (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The only source I have ever come across that seems to be what you are looking for is the website Plants for a Future. It is mildly idiosyncratic, but mostly correct and well sourced when it comes to food. The herbalism stuff is mostly junk as is typical for that kind of information.

I'm not sure where the 300,000 edible plants in news sources number might come from. The total number of plant species known to science according to Kew was 391,000 in 2016 (In Mongabay). I've seen articles claiming that half of these may be in some fashion edible (In World Economic Forum). But those are just estimates and highly speculative. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Edible plants is also extremely incomplete. Since some widely-eaten plants are edible only if carefully prepared, we might need some cats for that. HLHJ (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, everyone! I'd like to excitedly announce that as of today so far, the Stub-to-Start drive participants have reported a count of 61 species article upgrades! The list of articles upgraded is manually tracked at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Stub to Start drive/Statistics. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Wow. That is a great initiative, a lot of Wikiprojects need stub-to-start drives. Well done everyone! HLHJ (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Carrot has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

AgathyrsusAgathyrsus is currrntly an unlabelled {{R from singular}} to Agathyrsi. However, it also appears to be a junior synonym of Cicerbita (Agathyrsus macrophyllus) and possibly also Lactuca (Agathyrsus floridanus, Agathyrsus pulchellus, Agathyrsus sibiricus). Readers who have come across this obsolete genus name won't be helped by finding tremselves looking at a page about an obscure extinct Scythian tribe. Does anyone here feel like sorting out this mess? Regrettably, I lack the stamina.

Other leads include species:Agathyrsus (which includes links to non-English wikis), D.Don, and Category:Taxa named by David Don. (The moth Alcides agathyrsus can be ignored; specific epithets are rarely if ever notable.) Narky Blert (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

It looks like AgathyrsusAgathyrsus needs to be changed from a redirect to a disambiguation page, with the following two items:

• Agathyrsus, an ancestor of the Ancient people Agathyrsi of the Transylvanian Plateau
• Agathyrsus D.Don, a taxonomic synonym of the plant genus Cicerbita Wallr.

– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:ONEOTHER may apply. Narky Blert (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

True. Could change the redirect to point to Cicerbita and place a hatnote that says "Agathyrsus" redirects here. For the ancestor of Scythian peoples, see Agathyrsi. Or something like that. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Thar would surely be the best immediate solution, and I endorse it. Nevertheless, I still have the feeling that an article might be warranted - a distinguished namegiver, and several species now placed within another genus. Experience tells me to place little or no weight on what other wikis might say without further research. Are Don's papers in Biodiversity Heritage Library? Who reclassified the genus and those species? Narky Blert (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Bumping to avoid archive for a bit until I get to this. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Bumping again. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Change completed. @Narky Blert, thank you for bringing this up. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:45, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Shall Candelabra primula be moved from this common name to its scientific name Primula sect. Proliferae? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 11:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

There aren't very many articles on infrageneric taxa, but they are far more often titled by vernacular names than are articles for genera and species.

One consideration is that it's hard to know what readers might search for: vernacular name, scientific name with genus and abbreviated rank (Primula sect. Proliferae), scientific name with genus and unabbreviated rank (Primula section Proliferae), scientific name without genus (sect(ion) Proliferae). Articles on infrageneric taxa that don't use the vernacular name for the title are consistently titled with genus and abbreviated rank, but that seems kind of messy to me and not necessarily what readers are going to search for.

There other consideration is how precisely vernacular names for infrageneric taxa correspond to the scientific taxon. And I am not at all sure that they correspond very well. Rhododendron subsect. Pentanthera redirects to North American azaleas, but the subsection includes a species (Rhododendron luteum) that isn't native to North America (and are there other "azaleas" from North American that aren't in the subsection? I don't know).

Other articles ostensibly about infrageneric taxa with vernacular name titles are: snakebark maple, banyan, tree peony, bristlecone pine, pinyon pine, apricot, blackberry, bush lawyer (plant), rowan, blueberry, cranberry, mayhaw and Louisiana iris. Plantdrew (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Sectional names are not unique. (IPNI doesn't have Primula sect. Proliferae, but does have two sections of that name in other genera, plus a subsection and 4 series. Using the section name with the genus is like using a species epithet without the genus.)

As a point of pedantry, Wikipedia now restricts Sorbus to the rowans, with commentary on the former wider circumscription, so rowan no longer represents an infrageneric taxon. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Lavateraguy, true, a sectional name wouldn't be identifiable if it were written simply as "sect. Proliferae", but this is Primula sect. Proliferae, including the genus, and the Automatic taxobox in the article Candelabra primula has the parameter |taxon= set to Primula sect. Proliferae.

Plantdrew, I see this as an instance of a plant article having as its name the vernacular, and usually we don't do that. I came across this article and it occured to me that we should apply our standard protocol of naming taxa articles to this one, with a redirect from the common name "Candelabra primula" to "Primula sect. Proliferae". – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Plantdrew, that Rowan article needs some cleanup! First thing I see is that the taxobox does not give the scientific name of the subgenus as the taxon but the entire genus of Sorbus. That simply looks like an easily-fixable error. Everything else could work around that. I haven't read (or even skimmed) that article, but someone missed something. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll defer to the elders on this one. I don't know the taxon nor what would be best here. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to announce that I've gone ahead and created a category for lithophytes, similar to the existing Category:Epiphytes, as I realised there was only a category for lithophytic orchids and nothing for all the other lithophytic plants. I've already added a handful of articles, but would very much appreciate it if you all could add any other lithophytic plants that you come across in your editing :) Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:08, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The article Little leaf of brinjal was created in 2015. It appears to be attempting to describe a (possibly significant) disease of Solanum melongena (eggplant). "Brinjal" is a common name for eggplant in some areas of Africa and South Asia. I am suspecting that this could be made a redirect to an existing article for the pathogen that causes the disease that appears to be called "little leaf", "brinjal little leaf", or "little leaf of brinjal" OR that it could be added to the eggplant article. Eggplant § Cultivation and pests, last paragraph, looks suspiciously like it could be referring to the same disease. I have not investigated further. Does anyone have the time to take a look at this? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 05:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The last paragraph of Eggplant § Cultivation and pests does not appear to be referring to the same disease. It refers to a phytophagous moth (I wouldn't call it a disease), while little leaf is caused by a bacterium, and transmitted by a leafhopper (true bug). Lavateraguy (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Little leaf of brinjal is associated with several different Phytoplasma groups, but the commonest is Ca. Phytoplasma trifolii. Wikipedia does not appear to have an article for this. But a 2023 paper identifies that causal agent as a new species, distinct from Ph. trifolii; the paper is paywalled and I can't tell whether it gives the agent a binomial name. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The 2023 paper (and the 2021 one) are available through the Wikipedia Library (Snehi & Raj, 2023). Based on a quick skim,it looks like it is still a Candidatus species.  —  Jts1882 | talk  13:49, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

On a quick scan, they didn't give it a binomial. Also the abstract is misleading - it should be "A phytoplasma associated with brinjal little leaf" rather than "The phytoplasma associated with brinjal little leaf". The text confirms that several different Ca. Phytoplasma species are associated with brinjal little leaf, including Ca. Ph. trifolii and Ca. Ph. asteris. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Jts1882 and Lavateraguy for looking at this while I caught some sleep. Thank you Lavateraguy for at least making the article look encyclopedic. That really helps. So what do you folks think? Maybe further study of those sources, including the new ones? Maybe this could (eventually) be referred to in eggplant, and this article could refer and link to the several phytoplasma that cause it and the insects that transmit those phytoplasma? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I've just added a paragraph to eggplant thereby deorphaning the article.

On the previous cursory look on the web, the disease is notable and has enough sources to support an article. The article is extendable. The material on control measures in particular could do with some further clean up.

It appears that multiple Phytoplasmas cause particular diseases, and individual phytoplasmas cause multiple diseases (see Phytoplasma solani for example). I think that the diseases are more notable than the species, and references to the various species involved with little leaf of brinjal are liable to remain redlinks. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Excellent. Thank you for looking into this, Lavateraguy. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

There's no clear advice at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Description in year categories#Choosing a category as to what to do in the case of conserved names. The basionym of Euonymus fortunei is Elaeodendron fortunei dated to 1863, but the species was actually first described in 1851 as Euonymus hederaceus. However, Elaeodendron fortunei is conserved against Euonymus hederaceus. I'm inclined to use Category:Plants described in 1851, but I'm unsure as to whether this is how the category is meant to be used. Advice, please. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

On the category page, and likely on all of these year category pages, the first sentence is:

This category includes plant species that were first formally and validly described in 1851 according to the rules of the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature.

If the 1863 name is conserved, it means that another name was valid. If that is the 1851 name, and it was the earliest, then I think using the 1851 category is appropriate. You might want to put a comment in the code explaining the reasoning in case someone happens to want to change it later. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. That's certainly my view, but I couldn't remember any discussion of such cases before (although I'm sure there must have been). Peter coxhead (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I've added this advice to Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Description in year categories#Choosing a category. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:03, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know how many other editors use Archive.org for botanical texts, but for the last month it has been down due to hacking and then their tech team needing to do a good deal of work to secure the site. I have found that I have been able to log into my account and borrow texts again. I changed my password as a precaution, though I did not receive an official notice that it was necessary because emails and passwords were breached during the hack as reported in Wired. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Is it time to add Selina Wamucii plants to the list of deprecated sources because new editors are starting to regularly cite it? The last time this was discussed back in March 2024 it was more of a theoretical problem. In the last week I have removed three citations by two different editors and I'm wondering if other editors have started to see this.

Some examples of obviously erroneous information:

• Elodea bifoliata "small, aquatic plant native to Southeast Asia" later on the same page it lists the native range as "North America". It also says that it can be found in "North America, Europe, and Asia," but POWO does not list it as living outside N. America.
• Penstemon albomarginatus "native to western North America, from British Columbia to California, and grows in moist meadows and open woods." Actually a desert plant confined to the Mojave. Later contradicts itself saying, "drought-tolerant and can thrive in poor soils."
• Carnegiea gigantea "characterized by its large, barrel-shaped stems and white flowers," then later, "large, yellow flowers with five petals and a yellow center." Correctly states that the saguaro is, "native to the southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico," but later says, "native to India, Sri Lanka, and parts of Southeast Asia. It can be found in tropical and subtropical forests, as well as in disturbed areas."

Regardless of how S-W created their database it is stuffed with errors and contradicts itself even on the same page. Because it is unfortunately highly ranked by search engines for less well known plants it is natural for newer editors to mistakenly use it as a source and it is likely there are subtle errors that would not jump out like the glaring ones I have used as examples. There is no bad faith efforts to use S-W, but the edit filter would be a good way to let editors know that it should not be used. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

My 2¢:

1. I didn't know Wikipedia had a list of deprecated sources.
2. If it's not reliable (or even relevant), we should not be using it.

– Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Cheers for bringing this up MtBotany. I don't believe we should be using sources with direct commercial links like this (Selina Wamucii is a company that connects farmers to produce procesors/retailers) in the first place - the only website I would trust to provide both information and sell plants is perhaps the Royal Horticultural Society website. I find that information provided by sellers of plants tends to be unreliable, and I find it questionable to provide links to purchasable products on Wikipedia. I would support placing Selina Wamucii on the "caution" list at the very least. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 08:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Following up so it doesn't get dropped in an archive. Did this get dealt with? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

It did not get dealt with. There are only about 50 sources listed at Wikipedia:Deprecated_sources#Currently_deprecated_sources and it's a bureaucratic process to get them listed there (and the sources that are deprecated have much higher profiles than S-W). I'd support an effort to deprecate it, but so far it's only being used at a scale that I can handle by myself (mostly, thanks MtBotany). I came across a new article today that cited it and removed the content sourced to S-W. I've done a couple searches for S-W since I first brought it up here in March, and it looks like I've found 18 article since then that cited it. Plantdrew (talk) 02:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This warning by Alex Lees on Twitter about AI-generated websites may be of interest. It's about bird sources, but if there are many such sources on different subjects, Wikipedia may have to update its procedures to make it easier to blacklist AI-generated sources. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the current procedure for deprecating sources revolves mostly around sources with political/ideological biases (although a few are considered a problem for being user-generated). Most of the deprecated sources aren't actually black-listed. MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_additions may be the appropriate venue for doing something about S-W. There are thousands of black-listed sites. (I wouldn't say that S-W is getting spammed per se, but it looks like there have been a few sites that have been black-listed for being AI generated content). I'll try to get around to bringing it up there later today. Plantdrew (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I would recommend taking this to WP:RSN. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll post about the subject there. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I recently updated Hydrophylloideae a bit. I'm not really clear what to do about this group, particularly which genera should be included (e.g. via genus taxonomy templates). Recent papers and APweb now appear to reject the broad circumscription of Boraginaceae used in the 2016 APG IV system, recognizing, for example, Hydrophyllaceae and Namaceae. I haven't found a circumscription of the subfamily Hydrophylloideae which seems to me to be sufficiently recent to be acceptable, so in the Hydrophylloideae article I've resorted to using APweb's Hydrophyllaceae plus Namaceae. What do other editors here think? Peter coxhead (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I would use APG IV, discuss the papers, and talk about the website (what it is) and what it has now. Basically, what you just wrote here but elaborated encyclopedically. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I expect APGV will split Boraginaceae, but until it comes out (or until most taxonomic databases start splitting), we should retain Boraginaceae s.l. Using APweb's as you've done seems reasonable for now. Plantdrew (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree, wait for APG V for any change. The current treatment is a good example of how to treat a common alternative taxonomy that differs from the guideline source.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:03, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

On sources, Hilger & Cole have a Boraginales Phylogeny Poster and a Boraginaceae Phylogeny Poster (both 2020). They list the genera with subfamilies and tribes where they exist. I assume it will be very similar to the APweb treatment.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for your comments.

@Jts1882: I think I did at one time know about these posters, but had forgotten. I've added the Boraginales one to the article as a reference.

@Plantdrew: all the non-redirected genera I've now listed in Hydrophylloideae have taxonomy templates with Hydrophylloideae as the parent. It seems that you created them in May 2017, but the refs field is empty. Do you recall what source you used?

Let's hope APG V appears soon and is followed by the major taxonomic databases. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead:, I don't recall. May 2017 is close to the beginning of my efforts with automatic taxoboxes in February 2017, and I'm now surprised to be reminded that I had tackled a family that had a subfamily classification that early. Early on, I was checking The Plant List to confirm genus placement to family (without adding it as a reference to taxonomy templates), and generally avoiding working on families with subfamily classification since The Plant List didn't have that. I'd guess I went with GRIN for Boraginaceae subfamilies since that was (and still is) the reference for subfamilies in the Boraginaceae article (although that is now out of date; GRIN is currently splitting Boraginaceae). Plantdrew (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: yes, that's the problem: sources like GRIN that give subfamilies do seem to be splitting Boraginaceae. Maybe we shouldn't be using Hydrophylloideae as a parent in taxonomy templates at present. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe not. NCBI also splits Boraginaceae; NCBI, GRIN and APweb are the three sites I would consider reliable sources for infrafamily classification (along with some other sites that cover a single family). I do look at iNaturalist and Wikispecies to see what they are doing, but wouldn't cite them (note that they don't split). Most of the genus taxonomy templates just have Boraginaceae as the parent.

Boraginoideae is written as if Boraginaceae were split, and {{Taxonomy/Cynoglossoideae}} assumes a split (it would just be a tribe in Boraginoideae otherwise) Plantdrew (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Cocoa bean#Requested move 7 November 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Raladic (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Endangered species by reason they are threatened has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.

About 70 subcategories, the oldest from 2015, are also being proposed for deletion. Plants are underrepresented in the species categorized. HLHJ (talk) 03:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

My watchlist has informed me of a proposal to move division (biology) to division (taxonomy). (This would be a move over redirect.) Lavateraguy (talk) 09:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Can somebody help recognize there flowers:

• File:Flowers at Indo American Hybrid Seeds (2024) 31.jpg
• File:Indian Independence day celebration 216th flower show 2024, Lalbagh, Bangalore 186.jpg ..?
  --Gpkp [u • t • c] 07:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

They both look like Gazania to me, but I couldn't tell you what cultivar. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Ethmostigmus:. --Gpkp (talk) 07:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd've said that the second looks like a Dahlia. The buds in the background are out of focus, but the associated involucres look like Dahlia and not Gazania. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Lavateraguy:. --Gpkp (talk) 11:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

I just removed a statement about the number of hybrid cultivars from Orchid. The claim had been in the lead of the page and completely unsourced since it was first created. If anyone has ideas about sources for an accurate figure that can be trusted not to have circularly got their information from wikipedia in the first place, please join in at Talk:Orchid#Number of cultivars. Averixus (talk) 08:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as a taxo/information box for groups of plants that were previously regarded as a species, genera, etc., but are still used in horticulture and so we are retaining the article? The most recent one I'm aware of like this is Nomocharis. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 21:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, our WP:PLANTSTEMPLATE says no. So it would seem that taxobox should be removed. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed, I was hopeful that there would be an equivalent of the of the notice put on the German language wikipedia, example Nomocharis at de and my rough translation.

The classification of living organisms is the subject of ongoing research. Different systematic classifications exist alongside and following each other. The taxon dealt with here has become obsolete as a result of new research or is not part of the not part of the systematics presented in the German-language Wikipedia.

Quick facts WikiProject Plants/Archive77, Scientific classification (obsolete) ...

WikiProject Plants/Archive77
Scientific classification (obsolete)
Kingdom:	Plantae
Clade:	Embryophytes
Clade:	Tracheophytes
Clade:	Angiosperms
Clade:	Monocots
Order:	Liliales
Family:	Liliaceae
Subfamily:	Lilioideae
Tribe:	Lilieae
Genus:	Nomocharis

Close

Though it would be even better with an infobox under it showing where it was previously classified. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I've never understood the argument against using taxoboxes in articles on obsolete taxa. If there are reasons for having the article in the first place, then a summary of taxonomic information is appropriate and taxoboxes do that. There is a |classification_status= parameter which can be used to note the status.  —  Jts1882 | talk  08:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I think one reason may be that editors didn't want to create taxonomy templates for obsolete taxa, particularly when automated taxoboxes were in a minority. There's still an argument for not creating a taxonomy template for an obsolete genus, I think, since its absence may act as a signal if someone creates an article on a species in an obsolete genus. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

My understanding of the reason for removing taxoboxes is that it is impossible to say where APG would place an order or family that it doesn't recognize, and pre-APG classifications at the ordinal level varied highly between different systems. That reason doesn't apply so much for genera which APG itself doesn't list at all, and where classifications may generally agree about family placement. There are a lot of articles on obsolete orders and families (relative to the number of recognized orders/families), and few articles on obsolete genera (again, relative to the number of accepted genera).

I'd support some kind of notice or taxobox for obsolete genera. Plantdrew (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, in my comments above I was only really thinking about genera. It is indeed difficult or impossible to put old suprageneric ranks into any currently recognizable taxonomic hierarchy, and we shouldn't try. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The newly adopted notability guidelines for species reads, for Eukaryotes, "All eukaryotic species that are accepted by taxonomists are presumed notable. Acceptance by taxonomists is proven by the existence of a correct name for plants, fungi, and algae, or a valid name for animals and protozoa." The example in this thread is a genus, not a species, but I don't think we should be keeping the article without a very good reason, regardless of what other wikis do. I remember the discussion about the page a few weeks ago on this talk page. I didn't get involved but am surprised that the article was kept rather than being merged (or written) into the article(s) for the acceped genus/genera. I don't have a strong argument for or against a taxobox for unaccepted taxa – yet. I want to make sure, though, that we are remembering Wikipedia's guidelines and not just having a discussion here then making a decision without knowing the broader implications. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey everyone, it wasn't my intention to shut down the discussion.

We could probably use {{Taxobox}}. And we could make a wrapper template for it for obsolete taxa if we wanted. I think before doing that, we should be clear on why, when, and where we should use it, which is why I brought up notability.

It could be a handy tool to use inside the article of the accepted taxon – if we don't want a separate article. And of course using it in a currently accepted taxon article's taxonomy section could be editor's choice.

If we do it, we should document it and make sure we include the information on the project taxon page – why, when, and where to use (and not to use).

A personal note: I am having trouble with my astigmatism, and I think it is affecting my ability to read right now. Eye doctor in January. So if I repeat something someone else said, and it appears like I am making it my idea, it is absolutely unintentional. Second, I read and respond on talk pages using my phone a lot. After about five or six indents, it gets next to impossible to read. I know that the Reply button is convenient, but I would like to request that if your reply to a thread is going to be the fifth or sixth indent, instead of using the button, edit the thread manually and use the {{od}} template to return to the left margin. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 05:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

For whatever it's worth, I'm inclined to agree with others that articles like Nomocharis should generally be redirected to whatever recognized taxon now contains them, and the circumscription of the obsolete taxon described in the "Taxonomy" section of the recognized taxon's article (which might sometimes warrant splitting off of a "Taxonomy of..." article and summary style). Taxa that only figure in a single system (e.g., Kubitzki system) might be redirected to the page on the system instead. In general, I think our non-prose features (-boxes, -bars, etc.) are presumably being consumed by readers in a hurry, or by automated systems. Rightly or wrongly, they are taken as appurtenances of legitimacy, and we're better off folding obsolete taxa into article prose (not always an easy task) than trying to fit them into current systems and adorn them with those features. Choess (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Really, the only articles that should be kept are ones where the debate itself rises to the level of notability, such as (the now valid again) genus Brontosaurus. Abductive (reasoning) 10:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there is simple way of finding appropriate links for taxon authors when making lists of species in genus articles and other taxon lists? When I link authors with potential articles for prominent authors it usually involves guesses and disambiguation pages, which is time consuming and means I often don't add links. Is there a list somewhere or would such a list be a useful tool?  —  Jts1882 | talk  18:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you know about the ever-growing List of botanists by author abbreviations? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Besides the list Elizabeth linked above, I primarily use WFO (which conveniently links to the author's Wikidata item, when applicable) or IPNI, which you can search by the author's standard abbreviation. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 04:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. I hadn't noticed the author links on WFO Plant List. The author isn't linked on the main WFO site. I've noticed that the taxonbar now links to the Plant List version of WFO (following a request by one of the WFO development team at Wikidata). This doesn't include the descriptions and distributions. While there are links between the versions, I wonder if both should be linked from the taxonbar.  —  Jts1882 | talk  11:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, if you are on a taxon page in POWO, scroll down to get to the IPNI link. It will take you to a page where you can click on the IPNI link(s) for the author(s). – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone know if there is a template for citing NatureServe Explorer? I have looked and don't think there is, so I wrote one with documentation in my user space today as a needed distraction. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

A long overdue template for citing NatureServe Explorer has been created. Template:Cite NatureServe. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

You're a legend for this, thank you! I actually tried to figure out how to write a template like this for this exact purpose the other day, because I spend a lot of time adding conservation statuses to speciesboxes, but decided against actually publishing it as I have 0 experience creating templates and wasn't convinced it would actually work. Now if only there was an easy way to convert all the existing Template:Cite web references.. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Hike395, I also noticed a false positive with this new template. Let me do some testing and get back to you. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 04:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

That sadly makes sense. We can put an exception into Module:Footnotes/whitelist, but again we'll have to decide what {{sfn}} should use as a harvid. — hike395 (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Eewilson: Added the CITEREF as it stands today to the whitelist. Let me know if we should be doing something else. — hike395 (talk) 15:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Hike395, that looks good for Cite NatureServe and appears to fix it. Thanks! – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Bryonames does not give suborders and subfamilies for liverworts (Marchantiophyta Stotler & Crand.-Stotl.). I have not checked its other categories. Do you know if this is typical of Bryonames (similar to POWO also not giving subs)? Did Bryonames once recognize these and now does not? How should we handle this in our taxonomy templates, and if we wish to use these levels, where are we to get our information? @Peter coxhead, @Plantdrew – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I've never done much on bryophytes, so can't help, I'm afraid. I think that some of the major taxonomic databases, like PoWO (and indeed the World Spider Catalog which I use a lot as I edit spider articles as well) deliberately avoid 'minor' ranks because they tend to be less stable and more disputed. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Bryonames doesn't use suborders or subfamilies for mosses or hornworts, either. Is there a classifications with suborders and subfamilies that is more recent than those in Goffinet & Shaw's Bryophyte Biology (2nd ed, 2008). The Söderström et al (2016) classification of hornworts and liverworts didn't use either rank. [Correction: they used both] Subfamilies are used for hornworts in Villarreal & Goffinet's online classification, which is based on the chapter by Renzaglia, Villarreal & Duff (2008) in the book, although there are some changes updates (I'm not sure of the date). There was a similar online classification for liverworts (ca. 2013-14), but I can't find it (it may have been on the late Ray Stotler's website). —  Jts1882 | talk  10:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the online classification of liverworts is this archived one: Liverwort Classification at the Rank of Genus and Above. It's based on the book with updates from a 2009 work. It included suborders, but not subfamilies.  —  Jts1882 | talk  16:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Söderström DOES include suborders and subfamilies, and is largely following Crandall-Stotler (the author of the liverwort classification chapter in Goffinet & Shaw). Crandall-Stotler lists suborders but doesn't list subfamilies. Saccogynaceae and Stephaniellaceae are two families that Söderström recognizes that weren't recognized by Crandall-Stotler; Bryonames accepts both. I'm not sure if that means that Bryonames is largely following Söderström, with the changes recommended by Bechteler, or if Bryonames is cobbled together from various references post-Crandall-Stotler (i.e., whatever sources Söderström followed in recognizing Saccogynaceae etc.).

Bryonames is a product of MOBOT, and is largely generated from Tropicos. While Tropicos includes records for taxa at minor ranks, it usually does not assign children to them; liverwort suborders are an exception to that. I do see that Bryonames puts Jubulaceae in Jubulales while Tropicos has it in Porellales (and suborder Jubulineae). Tropicos records for Jubulaceae and Jubulineae were lasted edited in 2017 (post-Söderström, pre-Bechteler). I would guess that Bryonames may have once included suborders.

I don't think Wikipedia has any articles for liverwort subfamilies and suborders (but I have created redirects for them when they were monotypic in Söderström). I guess we could just omit them from taxoboxes. Crandall-Stotler is old enough that I wouldn't want to cite it, but the more recent options are Söderström (also getting kind of old now) or Bryonames; Bechteler is not a comprehensive classification. For taxonomy templates, I generally prefer citing journal articles over websites that are following the classification from a journal article; the journal article is static, while the website can change at any time (it's not helping my opinion of Bryonames that it has updates that aren't in Tropicos). Plantdrew (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, what I did was updated taxonomy templates from Bryonames, and if parent was set to a suborder, I changed it to the order and cited the source Bryonames gave for the taxon change. The site has the most recent source on the taxon page when the taxonomy has changed. When it was available, I checked the source as well. The suborder taxonomy templates still exist. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 08:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)