Archive 55

←

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

Archive 63

Archive 64

Archive 65

We now have quite a few pages about (living) people which say "importance=low" in the project box on their talk pages. I wonder if this can be avoided in some way. Of course, it makes sense that a wikiproject doesn't consider that particular person particularly important to the overall project, but it seems a bit of a slight, nonetheless. Does anyone else think that a way to avoid this would be worth considering? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you looked at or queried this at WP:BIOG | WT:BIOG? I haven't looked, but would think they would offer some guidance. Hamamelis (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography doesn't really do importance assessments, and leaves it up to other projects that might be concerned with the individual.

I've been working through the assessment backlog, and have struggled with importance assessment for botanists. Mostly, I've been skipping assessing botanist articles, but I've given an importance to a few in the past couple days. I haven't been concerned about a perceived slight in calling somebody "importance=low"; most botanists and most plants are pretty obscure unless you're immersed in the field. I do find it very difficult to assign importance to botanists; I know little about most 18th and 19th century botanists aside from their abbreviations. Low is the easiest importance category to assign: "there's hardly any information out there about this person, but they published several species, so I guess it's worth having an article on them".Plantdrew (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The other issue is that importance can be national or regional. I wrote an article on the James Eustace Bagnall. Internationally he's of no importance. Nationally he's of some limited interest, but definitely only "Low" (although he was elected to the prestigious Linnean Society). In the English midlands, where I live and botanize, he's of considerable importance; his Floras of the area are still consulted for their historical information, and the latest Flora (Flora of Birmingham and the Black Country, p. 5ff) treats him as a founder of floristic studies of the area.

My view is that every botanist with an author abbreviation is automatically worthy of an article. All the redlinks in the List of botanists by author abbreviation should eventually go! Peter coxhead (talk) 10:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

(And a few other botanists as well, including Richard Pankhurst, who has no page, who organized botany in a huge way, but didn't create any new names himself (there is a dandelion named after him).) So if WikiProject Biography doesn't really do importance assessments, could we follow their lead? As a bigger issue, do these importance rankings lead to much of a difference in the behaviour of subsequent editors? I haven't paid much attention to them. Are they important to the translation efforts and Simple English? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I certainly didn't mean that only botanist with abbreviations should have articles! I've always thought that the main point of importance ratings is to flag up articles for expansion, e.g. high importance stubs clearly need expansion. Presumably the same is true for botanists? Peter coxhead (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The Assessment guidelines distinguish between regional (Mid) and global importance (High), although this distinction might be more applicable to articles on plants than some of the other topics covered (articles on morphological terms can't be classed as regionally/globally important). I'm not sure that the importance ratings are that, umm...important, but I'd guess we have more botanists with importance assessed than unassessed. We could assess importance as NA for all botanists, though I'm inclined to attempt to assign a rating. Plantdrew (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Article alerts is a page I didn't know existed until I just happened upon this discussion (or rather, the comments that follow it). I'm guessing some other frequenters of this page didn't either. Hamamelis (talk) 00:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd been looking at the Article alerts transcluded on the main project page, but hadn't thought of watchlisting the Article alert page itself. That's a great idea. I'm inspired to add some other pages I manually navigate to (or see via transclusion) to my watchlist. Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Plant articles by quality log tracks changes in assessment, but also tracks all moves of Plant Project pages (not just the moves that went through an RM), so is useful if you want to keep an eye on page moves. The log is likely to be cluttered with reassessments notifications for the next few weeks as I work through some of the assessment backlog. I've also been keeping a manual eye on User:AlexNewArtBot/PlantsSearchResult for new articles related to plants (Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/New articles doesn't work). AlexNewArtBot returns a substantial number of false positives (not plant related) which I assume may be why the bot's results are not automatically incorporated into "Plants/New articles"; it'd be nice if the New article page were automatically updated somehow. Plantdrew (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on the articles about plant morphology terminology on es:wikipedia and the specific question is the one in Talk:Caudex, Simpson (2005) defines caudex, caudiciform stem, pachycaul and lignotuber, in a different way that is encountered here (though the book is cited as bibliography on that page). I understand english but I don`t have enough formal education in order to write an article in this language, and also I don`t know if someone here considers himself "curator" of those articles. The general question is if there is a more consensus terminology book with which english community works, I have found that Simpson's book tries to cover an interesting amount of terminology but limits are often imprecise (see comments about pachycaul on the linked page), there are not examples of much of the terminology, sometimes it doesn't look like if it represents consensus (definition of hypanthum for example) and in general it looks like "old" compared with Judd et al. (2007) (compare trichome types in both books for example, Simpson's book is not useful for glandular types), the last one covering very few terms. It is ok to stick with that book or there are any suggestions? --RoRo (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

We had a long discussion about this topic here. As often seems to happen, nothing got written up on the project page about the discussion. I've now added a bit at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants#Singular and plural with the names of taxa. There might be a bit more consensus than I've put there, but I don't want to presume too much. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I've now been through all the families in APG III checking how they open. My main purpose was to remove "Xaceae is the botanical name of" openings; the article is about the family not about its name. But I've taken the opportunity fix openings of the kind "Xaceae ... a family" into either "Xaceae is a family" or "The Xaceae are a family", depending on what was there already or whether singular or plural uses came next. (There are some other openings like "The family Xaceae is ..." which I didn't touch.) If I've changed an article you're watching and you're not happy with my change, feel free to revert. I didn't count, but my impression is that the singular (i.e. "Xaceae is") was at least twice if not three times as common as "[The] Xaceae are", but both are clearly widely used. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

All interested edits are welcome to join the discussion at Talk:Whitebark pine#Requested move to scientific name. —hike395 (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

May as well do some more - see Talk:Lodgepole_pine#Move_discussion_in_progress Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Opinions are invited at Talk:Nettle#Problem with article title about multiple overlapping meanings of the word "nettle", and how best to arrange various page titles. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

What an utter mess! An absolutely textbook example of the complete confusion caused by a highly ambiguous English name being used for an article, which different editors then add to based on different senses of the English name. It shows, yet again, how much better it would be if the WP:FLORA policy of using scientific names as titles was followed.

I simply couldn't resist beginning to sort it out, but much more work is needed. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Peter, for splitting the page! I think that what you've done, and keeping Nettle (disambiguation) makes sense, with the latter as a useful sort of list. Let's hope that nobody tries to merge any two (or three) of the pages again. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parodia

Please correct the name after which the genus is named: Parodia is NOT named after "Lorenzo Raimundo Parodi (1895–1966)", but after "Domingo Parodi" (see: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domingo_Parodi). This is clearly explained in the article by C. Spegazzini where the genus Parodia is described: Spegazzini, BREVES NOTAS CACTOLÓGICAS, Anales de la Sociedad Científica Argentina, tomo XCVI, 1923, p. 70. I give a copy below:

IX. Hickenia Britton & Rose (1922) = Hickenia microsperma (Weber)Britt. & Rose.

En The Cactaceae, III, página 207, se instituye el nuevo género Hickenia, el cual, desgraciadamente, se halla preocupado (Hickenia Lillo (1919), Asclepiaceae). Debiéndose, pues, cambiar el nombre a dicho género, propongo que sea substituido por el de Parodia Speg., dedicándolo a la memoria del doctor Domingo Parodi, uno de los primeros investigadores de la flora paraguaya, y que brindó los primeros artículos botánicos de la entonces naciente Sociedad Científica Argentina. La especie hasta ahora conocida llevará, pues, el nombre de Parodia microsperma (Weber). A la cual tengo que agregar una nueva especie que, desde largos.

NB: I am not botanist… — Preceding dsw2 comment added by 92.144.168.183 (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done This is also what Anderson (2001) says, so I'll fix the article if it hasn't been fixed already. (But you could do it yourself.) Peter coxhead (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether the article Unplaced in APG II should be replaced by a new article Unplaced in APG III. The taxa unplaced in APG II are mentioned in the APG II system article, but surely as a set ceased to be intrinsically notable once the APG III system came out so shouldn't have their own article. What do other members of this project think? Peter coxhead (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The best course of action would likely be to create articles on those taxa or merge the info in with existing articles. Incoming links are mostly from redirects or links to subsections discussing individual taxa and their treatment under APG II. That way info on Unplaced in APG II#Cynomorium would appear in the article apparently about the taxa, Cynomorium coccineum. I'm not sure an Unplaced in APG III article would be necessary; if anything it should just be more thoroughly dealt with in the APG III system article. Rkitko ^(talk) 16:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

That seems sensible to me. So if/when this is done, the article can be deleted? Peter coxhead (talk) 21:52, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Phototoxicity has been merged into Photosensitivity in humans, as there weren't any objections after the merge proposal. Comments welcome at Talk:Photosensitivity in humans#Merge. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 06:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Should a monotypic subfamily of grasses be at the tribe? -AfadsBad (talk) 23:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Hesperian 00:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

If there's a general rule here for monotypic taxa, it should be documented a bit better at Wikipedia:Flora#Ranks. I think that overall this means "in general use the lower rank except for cases where genus or family can be used", but it only gives examples for the principal ranks. It seems to me that with the present wording, it could be argued that subfamily is a better known rank than tribe so should be used in preference. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I picked subfamilies for grasses initially, because I think they are more used, but tribes are the more used for other families. Now I think this knowledge is hard to come by, you must be an expert or do advanced specialist research to learn. Overall, the rank of subfamiliy is better known, but is less used for some families. I will adhere to policy, but I have no help for deciding it. -AfadsBad (talk) 13:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm no expert either, which is why I'd like to see very clear wording in the guidelines. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

My impression is that grass subfamilies are better known/more widely used than tribes. The most important rank between family and genus varies from family to family, and our guidelines don't really address this particular situation. What are the Google hits like for the subfamily/tribe forms of the monotypic taxon you're working on? Plantdrew (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

For grasses, I know it is subfamilies, not tribes, but the policy seems to be to use tribes over subfamilies, in general. I am not confused about which is more important for grasses, just uncertain about the policy. -AfadsBad (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that if we say "use whichever level is better known in that group", we don't have a clear guideline and will end up with inconsistencies which are against the consistency criterion of WP:AT (and given that this project's support for scientific names as article title is regularly disputed, we need to be "squeaky clean" in regard to WP:AT). I suggest we move to WT:FLORA#Article titles for monotypic taxa and consider there how to fix the wording (if it's agreed that it needs fixing). Peter coxhead (talk) 08:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

"Monotypic" is a little too vague here, and the question is rather mystifying since, AFAIK, a subfamily with a single tribe is generally considered inappropriate in plant taxonomy (you basically don't put further ranks if you're not splitting). It seems clear to me that a subfamily with a single genus (more likely than one with a single tribe) should redirect to that genus. Which subfamily are we talking about, anyway? Circéus (talk) 17:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Grass subfamilies. According to the grass project, two are monotypic with a single tribe. Should I be suspicious and research it more, are you suggesting something of the sort, that it is likely incorrect? -AfadsBad (talk) 18:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

@Circéus Some taxonomists like the tidiness of having a name for every taxon of a given rank, even if it's not a principal rank, regardless of whether some are monotypic. Thus APG III has a subfamily Aphyllanthoideae to match the other subfamilies in Asparagaceae, even though it has a single genus. So we need to provide guidelines for such cases. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not quite comparable. If you divide Asparagaceae into subfamilies, every genus should be assigned to a subfamily, even if that makes a monogeneric subfamily. What you don't have to do is divide every subfamily into tribes just because one subfamily is divided into tribes.

What might have happened is that a subfamily may have been found to paraphyletic, and this resolved by raising one or more of its constituent tribes to subfamilial status. This leads to having groups that have been described at both subfamilial and tribal ranks, and monotribal subfamilies. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, I agree that mine is not the best example. But look at it a different way. If you start at the bottom with genera, just because you group some genera in a family into subfamilies doesn't mean that every genus has to be assigned to a subfamily. Article 3.1 of the ICN is clear that assignment higher than genus is not required. So, in terms of the Code, if you group genera in a family into subfamilies, there's no requirement for every genus to be assigned to a subfamily – they are "assignable", to quote the Code, but don't have to be assigned. But tidiness may suggest doing so, and in practice it's likely that only uncertainty of placement (incertae sedis) would lead to such non-assignment.

But the real point is that our guidelines have to be able to cope with whatever taxonomists legitimately do, and since the ICN allows a lot of freedom, we have to be flexible. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Back to subfamilies? Keep the tribes? -AfadsBad (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The existing policy, although it wasn't stated clearly, was to use the lowest rank in each particular case, with the sole exception of genus. So unless anyone else has different views, I think this is what you should do, as per Hesperian's original comment. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

"Cornflower" has been proposed to be renamed, see talk:Cornflower -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at this edit? It seems to me the section could do with some copyediting and rearrangement, but this is far outside my area of expertise. mgiganteus1 (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The edit was clearly GF, but unfortunately messed up further what was already not good material. I've added a bit, but the page is much too short, it doesn't even mention introrse and extrorse. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The capitalization indicates something about the quality. For such an important topic, it's a terrible article. Let's hope someone has time to improve it. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

This section could help, overall reference is Simpson 2005 unless specified in embedded references. Also now there is a "stamen diagrams" section in commons. Can I ask if someone will work on caudex/caudiciform/pachycaul/lignotuber articles? I'd like to see them well because a lot of spanish speaking people check english wikipedia also and they can be confused if they see very different definitions. And sorry if you feel I'm not asking for it nicely, I'm not used to chat in this language, but I'd like to see a response to my answer (nobody speaks english at the end of the world where I live). --RoRo (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Some information was added to the Rosemary article after a discussion between two users on a user talk page. The information was from a secondary source about a primary peer-reviewed research study. The information added originally just stated that a research study "raised an intriguing possibility," and, to me, this is not encyclopedic content. The research study was very limited in scope, and the secondary source that was cited in the article even concluded that basically the study amounted to not much, the results "could be due to chance or something else," (n=20, I believe). The user who originally requested the information be added to the article disagrees with my addition of the information that the findings were not significant. I think that, as the original research is primary research and came to basically no solid conclusions, simply speculation, and the secondary source largely discounts the study, the information is not encyclopedic in nature and gives undue weight to a single, inconclusive, limited research study. (All biases in this post are entirely my own.)

"A research study in 2012 raised the possibility that rosemary fragrance might improve speed and accuracy in mental performance, however, researchers discussing the study pointed out that, "the findings could be due to chance or something else besides the fragrance."[17]"

Some commentary and insight from more experienced plant editors is invited. I think the conversation belongs on the article talk page, but I post this here to notify additional editors.

Discussion here please.

Thanks. --AfadsBad (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Most of us know that the terms pumpkin and squash are used quite loosely. Look at the articles Pumpkin and Squash (plant). They are very similar and talk about the same 4 species. I think they should be merged. If not, I'm missing what's the systemic difference in the terms. Of course we'll have the pro "pumpkin" and pro "squash" camps ;-) PumpkinSky talk 13:12, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a tricky request, adding Gourd to the mess, because these common names for vegetables are used differently in American, British and Australian English. The articles could open better, for the reader to understand what is being discussed and align the differences in usage to what is being discussed in the article. I don't disagree with a merger, but the introduction to such a merged article would have to establish a lot about the topic.

If this will be discussed here, merge notices and a link should be placed on the article pages. ---AfadsBad (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand a pumpkin to be a squash with an oblate spheroid shape and a thick yellow to orange skin. That seems to be a cultivar group under Cucurbita pepo. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Both articles say they include all 4 species. To keep the articles separate, we'd need a firm definition of the differences. I've never seen a clear definition of the difference. PumpkinSky talk 17:01, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

In American English, a pumpkin, other than a giant pumpkin, is a cultivar of one species. Prize winning giants are a cultivar of a species of what Americans call squash. I do not know about British English, except that it is probably different, but I do know that Aussies use the terms differently, group the cultivars differently, from how Americans do. This information is readily available in horticulture guides, probably agriculture outreach sites, also. The terms may be used differently in South America, also. -AfadsBad (talk) 17:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, the traditional American pumpkin seen at holiday season is the Connecticut Field cultivar of C. pepo. The terms are used differently in different regions/countries. So how do we resolve that on wiki without a bunch of redundancy? PumpkinSky talk 17:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I've put "merge other" tags on the two pages, linking to this thread here, that way no one can claim one page was preferred over the other. Perhaps the first thing is to determine an agreed upon definition of pumpkin vs squash, if they are different. PumpkinSky talk 17:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I think redundancy is okay, the beauty of the medium, and I think the sources are abailable, but I M not sure I could write it clearly in English. To me, that will be the tricky part, and possibly outlining parallel introductions to three articles would help? -AfadsBad (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

there is way too much overlap right now and they are not clearly defined. What's the third article? If we keep separate articles, they need to be clearly defined in scope. PumpkinSky talk 17:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I just looked in two online dictionaries and in both the definitions of pumpkin and squash are virtually identical. PumpkinSky talk 17:57, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Gourd overlaps in some aspects. Online dictionaries are not useful for this, but if you prefer them to the sources I suggested, I can't help their deficincies. -AfadsBad (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's the most authoritative source I've found so far, with a good explanation, from Texas A&M: here The answer could be to fix the articles. PumpkinSky talk 18:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)...This article does not talk about C. argyrosperma/mixta but both the existing articles do. PumpkinSky talk 18:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Very useful, and this is the Aussie thing, they call all summer squah pumpkins or vice versa, and the culinary squash used for pumpkin pie is not a pumpkin. Good start, need more, but it a reliable source. -AfadsBad (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Pumpkin should remain a separate article. Whether it should be rewritten to more thoroughly explain the linguistic differences is another matter, but "pumpkin" as it refers to cultivars of mostly C. pepo with specific characteristics (big, round, orange) is a topic definitely worthy of a stand-alone article. ʍw 18:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

This one is good too, from Missouri Botanical Garden. Covers all 4 species. PumpkinSky talk 18:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

@Mysterious W...perhaps, but right now there is WAAAY too much overlap and confusion in the articles. PumpkinSky talk 18:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Gourd has a good lead, pumpkin, if a separate article, should likely be more like this one. PumpkinSky talk 18:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree there's too much overlap. The most obvious and immediate solution I can think of is to cut everything from Pumpkin that doesn't refer to big, round, orange, C. pepo cultivars, and add a hatnote and/or a paragraph to the lead directing people who might be confused to Squash (plant) or Winter squash. Of course, this may be biased towards American English, but I can't think of anything else to name a page about big, round, orange, C. pepo cultivars other than "Pumpkin". ʍw 18:39, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

That or use the Texas A&M definition, which has a botanical basis for defining it, which is stem-based, saying anything in C. pepo is a true pumpkin. Then the American-bias is removed as its botanically based. But then if we do that, how is pumpkin different from the Cucurbita pepo? PumpkinSky talk 18:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I admitted that it may seem biased, but we shouldn't get so wrapped up in 'countering systematic bias' that we avoid having an article on a clearly notable topic because we couldn't come up with a better title. If you can come up with a better title for an article about big, round, orange, mostly C. pepo cultivars, I'm open to it, as long as it does stay a separate article. ʍw 19:02, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

And, frankly, all but the lede and first two sections of Pumpkin already seem to be about only big, round, orange, mostly C. pepo cultivars; I may take a crack at rewriting those first sections if no one else is interested. ʍw 19:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I see assertions that "pumpkin" is a "clearly notable topic", but not yet any good arguments. To be a notable encyclopedic topic, it's not enough for it to be a term commonly used in English, it has to be a term capable of meeting the requirements of WP:AT, including precision. Pumpkin can't mean only "big, round, orange, mostly C. pepo cultivars", because according to [1], tinned pumpkin is a different species. Something like "Halloween pumpkin" might be a clear topic, but not "pumpkin", as far as I can see at present. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:33, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

We already have a halloween pumpkin article, it's a redirect to Jack-o'-lantern PumpkinSky talk 19:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but this article doesn't cover the botany of the plants used for the purpose. Anyway, that's not my real point, which is that it hasn't been established that Pumpkin is a distinct and precise topic. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll say it once more: that "pumpkin" may not be the best title for the page does not make the topic any less WP:NOTABLE.

As far as sources already presented: the Missouri Botanical Garden link seems to make the case that all pumpkins are squash, but not all squash are pumpkins. This could be made clearer in Pumpkin, but the distinction seems to support separate articles. Also, the Texas A&M link is interesting, but I can't find this stem-based definition anywhere else, and thus do not feel comfortable giving it much weight; if some other authoritative sources can be found using it, I may reconsider. There are sources using variants of my definition, for example: the University of Florida says "pumpkins have smooth, orange, and slightly ribbed skin.", your Missouri Botanical Garden link says "any round, orange squash used for pies or jack-o-lanterns is likely to be called a pumpkin", and my 1977 edition of Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, defines "pumpkin" as: "the usu. round, deep yellow fruit of a vine (Cucurbita pepo)".

In looking for sources myself, I found that nearly every one that tried to define "pumpkin" (or "squash", for that matter) noted 'confusion' and 'much scholarly debate' when trying to come up with anything scientific. However, Wikipedia does like WP:COMMONNAMEs. Let's see what pumpkin is commonly used to mean. The images in the following articles all depict a pumpkin as a fruit that's big, round, and orange: Jack Pumpkinhead, Headless Horseman, The Great Pumpkin, Pumpkin Fest, Circleville Pumpkin Show, Barnesville Pumpkin Festival, Pumpkin queen. Hell, do a google image search for "pumpkin" and see how few are anything but "big, round, and orange".

To put it another way: Zucchini is clearly worthy of a stand-alone article. And, yet, there are countless varieties and variations. Only a few characteristics are shared by these: they're green, oblong, picked immature, and most are C. pepo. Compare to pumpkin: they're orange, round, picked fully mature, and most are C. pepo. Seen that way, the only difference between the two cases is that, in Australia, all summer squash are not called zucchini (unlike pumpkin and winter squash), but, again, I think this minor linguistic quibble could be solved with a simple hatnote.

ʍw 20:24, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The zucchini argument is pretty convincing. But not all are green. PumpkinSky talk 20:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Quite right; green is most common, but there are also a few "golden" (yellow) and "white" (very-pale-green) "zucchini" varieties; just as there are a very few non-orange varieties of "pumpkin" (mostly very-pale-orange ("white") and orange mottled with green (as in the case of most oilseed pumpkin varieties)). ʍw 20:52, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

What I see, I'm afraid, is a very common and quite mistaken emphasis on WP:COMMONNAME, a.k.a. recognizability, which is only one of the five criteria at WP:AT. I still don't see any satisfactory use of precision. This thread started by asking if "pumpkin" and "squash" should be merged. To show that they should not you need to show how the two can be distinguished, as topics. I don't have any particular view either way, and am open to being convinced. You write, again, of "pumpkins" that they are "orange, round, picked fully mature, and most are C. pepo". The reverse is certainly true: orange, round mature, C. pepo fruits are almost always sold under the name "pumpkin". But canned pumpkin (which seems to have considerably larger sales in the US than fresh pumpkin; I'm still researching figures for this, but see here) has an equal right to be called "pumpkin" and numerous sources (one already given above, this one) say that it is usually made from different kinds of squashes/pumpkins. Putting it another way, the filler for "pumpkin pie" has as much right to be the topic of an article on "pumpkin" as the fruit used for decoration at Halloween (which is generally not considered edible). All the sources I've found on "pumpkin" used for eating confirm that that it is not distinguishable from "squash". Peter coxhead (talk) 08:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this won't affect anything, but in the U.S. I've never known of any large pumpkin that isn't also edible. Also, all types can be used to make jack-a-lanterns, even if most of the industry focuses on just a few varieties. We've always been able to eat some of the inside portion (including the seeds, which can be roasted and salted). However, most people don't know this, or don't wish to bother, and buy canned pumpkin or pre-made pies instead. Hamamelis (talk) 12:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think that canned pumpkin pie filling was ever pumpkin, but I don't think this should stop it from being in the pumpkin article, as it is what is called pumpkin. I think your final suggestion below, that writing the article, especially the introduction, might be a good way to see if this can be figured out. --AfadsBad (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

From WP:AT: "However, in some cases the choice is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others. This is done by consensus." You want precision, I (apparently) want recognizability (also, I think keeping "pumpkin" makes for better consistency (with the many other pumpkin-related articles), and naturalness (at least for non-Australian users)). I'm satisfied that the definition I suggested is "precise" enough (it's not completely unambiguous, but neither is Squash (plant)). Again, I really don't care what the title is, as long as it stays a separate page. And, again, I see nothing at WP:Notability that states an otherwise notable topic should be denied an article for lack of an agreed-upon title (and, yes, I have shown my definition is notable, by it's widespread use and appearance in reliable sources; we're really just left with what the title should be). All the sources I've found on "pumpkin" confirm that that it is a subdivision of "winter squash", much like zucchini is a subdivision of "summer squash". What Nestle can get away with putting in cans of pumpkin pie filling is immaterial to what a pumpkin really is; you might as well try to merge high fructose corn syrup with table sugar.

I've shown my definition can be sourced, I've shown that it's well used, and then there's the zucchini precedent. The burden is on you to convince the community why we need to make a change. I'm also open to being convinced, but at this point, I think you're grasping at straws. I've met every standard thrown at me, including at least one WP:AT criteria (by your own admission). But it's clear we won't hash out a real consensus alone. I am curious to see what other editors think. ʍw 12:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The corn syrup/table sugar argument is irrelevant; they aren't called the same. Even Nestle doesn't try to call corn syrup "table sugar"! But since Nestle apparently handles 85% of the world's pumpkin crop, what it calls a "pumpkin" needs to be properly dealt with by Wikipedia.

I have shown my definition is notable by its widespread use and appearance in reliable sources – ok, well, expand and improve the article then, using your definition, and let's see how it works out. But to maintain WP:NPOV you'll need to include information from the many other reliable sources that say that "pumpkin" and "squash" do not have distinct meanings. Equally, the Squash (plant) article needs a lot of work, part of which will be explaining the relationship with Pumpkin. I still think it's better to merge them, but it may be more obvious either way when both have been expanded and improved. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

There is an article for baked beans. On that precedent, perhaps the pumpkin/canned pumpkin problem can be resolved by having an article at canned pumpkin. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

With a hat note and redirect from pumpkin pie, the primary usage? -AfadsBad (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll have a go at rewriting Pumpkin. It would help if you could list a few of these 'many other reliable sources that [explicitly] say that "pumpkin" and "squash" do not have distinct meanings'; nearly every source I've come across makes it clear that pumpkin most often refers to only round, orange, mostly C. pepo or similar. Of course, there will be some note of the Australian vernacular.

As far as Squash (plant), while it could do with some general cleanup, there really isn't much specifically about "pumpkins" there, and I think rewriting it to incorporate much more would only worsen confusion. Perhaps a small paragraph, noting primarily the linguistics and common use, could be added to the lede, but I really don't anything else that needs to be changed (the lede already notes that most "pumpkins" are C. pepo).

While canned pumpkin will be mentioned somewhere in Pumpkin, I'm not convinced there's enough sourceable info available to allow the creation of a stand-alone article. But I'm not going to stop anyone from trying. ʍw 12:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice start. Other editors, not me, have the explicit sources for indistinct meanings, but I will do some searching for other sources for you as you write. --AfadsBad (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I was actually referring to Peter coxhead's assertions of having found many sources that explicitly state pumpkin always means all winter squash, though I do appreciate anything anyone else finds. ʍw 16:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

That isn't what I said at all. I said that many sources state that "pumpkin" and "squash" do not have distinct independent meanings or do not use the term "pumpkin" exclusively for a distinct subset of "squashes", in particular your "big, orange, round C. pepo" types. No-one disputes that "big, orange, round C. pepo" types are called pumpkins; the question is whether other types of "squash" are also called pumpkins.

• [2] – "any round, orange squash used for pies or jack-o-lanterns is likely to be called a pumpkin. But the term 'pumpkin' really has no botanical meaning, as they are actually all squash"
• [3] – "All varieties of 'summer squash' are in reality true pumpkins"; "The pepo species is usually recognized as the true pumpkin. Varieties within this group have bright orange skin and hard, woody, distinctly furrowed stems. But the group also includes gourds, vegetable marrow, Pattypan summer squash, scallop summer squash, gray and black zucchini and summer crookneck squash."
• [4] – "C. moschata includes butternut squashes as well as the Dickinson pumpkins used by Libby's, the producer of most of the canned pumpkin in North America."
• [5] – "The first one that will be described is the Pumpkin. No Halloween or Thanksgiving would be complete without the beautiful, glowing orange Pumpkins that signal the harvest season and the drawing near of winter. Two different varieties will be described below; C. pepo, the popular small- to medium-size Pumpkins that are used to make jack-o'-lanterns or pies, and C. maxima, which is really a giant variety of winter Squash usually grown for the 'biggest Pumpkin' contests."
• [6] "Generally pumpkins belong to the Cucurbita pepo, C. maxima, and C. moschata species. The C. pepo species are usually recognized as the true pumpkin."
• [7] "The term 'pumpkin' has been the subject of many scholarly discussions. The scientific name of most pumpkins is Cucurbita pepo (Jack-o-lantern types). Many of the large fruited types such as ‘Boston Marrow’ and ‘Mammoth’ are Cucurbita maxima, while the buff-colored sugar-pie or ‘Dickinson’ variety, Cucurbita moschata, are excellent for pies or processing. All pumpkins have hard shells when mature." Later in the same source, a table of Jack-o-Lantern types includes 'Big Max'.

I could go on. Now there are ways round many of these. For example, there's the "true move". The "giant pumpkins" can be said not to be "true pumpkins" (as in the 'Big Max' article and the source it quotes). In the same way, Dickinson pumpkins used in canned pumpkin can be said not to be "true pumpkins". But for every source that uses this terminology, there are others that use "pumpkin" in a much less precise way. Indeed, Pumpkin makes this very clear. To me, it's a kind of "set index article" – a discussion of the kinds of squash typically called "pumpkin". As such, it's o.k. but it could have been a section within the "Squash" article thus removing the need to repeat information. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's a useful article From Mother Earth News based on a fun book that I found online, The Perfect Pumpkin: Growing/Cooking/Carving By Gail Damerow. --AfadsBad (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Another good book: Pumpkin: The Curious History of an American Icon by Cindy Ott. --AfadsBad (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. "No-one disputes that "big, orange, round C. pepo" types are called pumpkins; the question is whether other types of "squash" are also called pumpkins." clarifies things a bit. I think that the Pumpkin article, as it is now, is not in direct conflict with that, or any of the sources presented. It's true that a few "pumpkins" are not C. pepo. But Big Max (and other C. maxima "pumpkins") and the Dickinson field pumpkin are still round and orange (though the Dickinson can be quite pale) with smooth, slightly ribbed skin, and so only violate the C. pepo criteria, hence the use of "mostly" C. pepo (they're the exception, not the rule). The definition I'm using is based almost solely on superficial appearance, and the fact that there is no agreed upon botanical or scientific definition for "pumpkin" is now noted in the article. Interestingly, as I noted in my most recent Pumpkin edit, there was a discussion at Talk:Pumpkin a few years back about how to phrase the lede where it was claimed (by multiple editors) that "pumpkin" is known in the UK to mean only the big, round, orange winter squash. That really leaves only Australia as a major English-as-a-first-language population where "pumpkin" might have any serious ambiguity, and that exception is now noted in the first paragraph of the lede of Pumpkin, as well as in Squash (plant).

You say: "it could have been a section within the "Squash" article thus removing the need to repeat", but I still don't think is could have. Sure, you could add a line about which squash are usually classified as pumpkins (as I did), but there's much more to the Pumpkin article than that. As the two articles are now, I really don't see much that's repeated (there was some, but I trimmed most of it). Similarly, the content on things like Giant pumpkins, Halloween, and Pumpkin festivals and competitions, is too long and detailed to move to a sub-sub-section of Squash (plant), and most of it wouldn't make sense there (they don't usually use other squash for jack-o-lanterns, 'punkin-chuckin', pumpkin festivals, etc). I'm not convinced a true merge is at all possible, without either loosing the majority of the info now at Pumpkin, or leaving Squash (plant) bloated and more confused than ever. ʍw 21:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, we seem to be more-or-less in agreement now. I guess there's a "splitter/lumper" distinction in article construction as well as in taxon construction: I'm a "lumper" in both and an opponent of redundancy (as an IT professional), so I would have preferred a section (not a line or two) in a squash article. But it's a matter of taste as to how it's done, so long as sources are respected, which your changes certainly do.

I suggest that you now consider how Squash (plant), Jack-o'-lantern, Cucurbita pepo and other relevant Cucurbita species and cultivar articles need to be modified to remove redundancy and be fully consistent with the revised Pumpkin article. For example, Cucurbita pepo appears to claim that C. pepo var. ovifera = pumpkin, which Pumpkin rightly makes clear isn't the case. As another example, in Jack-o'-lantern, "pumpkin" is used without explanation; the world record one is certainly not a "true pumpkin". Peter coxhead (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I second Peter here. You did useful work on cleaning up the pumpkin article, and it would be just as useful to readers if you could do the same for the other articles, including, possibly, gourd. Also, the little books I mention and the article have some good information; they appear to be largely on Google Books, but also any library could get them for you. --AfadsBad (talk) 22:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll be busy off-wiki over the next few days, and now that the Pumpkin article is straightened out and we have a "more-or-less" agreed upon definition, anybody could work on making the related articles agree. But if there's still work to be done by the weekend, I can probably make a dent in it. I trust there are no objections to removing the merge tags? ʍw 22:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree this has been productive and good job to all. @Peter, C. Pepo says ovifera is "a field pumpkin", which may or may not be, I don't know. But you say Pumpkin says that's not so yet Pumpkin doesn't even have ovifera in the article. I'm afraid i don't understand. I just googled "ovifera pumpkin" and the very first hit seems to say it's a field pumpkin. PumpkinSky talk 22:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Because terminology is so different between different sources, it's necessary to write very carefully. My problem is with "It [Curcurbita pepo] yields varieties of winter squash and pumpkin (Cucurbita pepo var. ovifera, a field pumpkin)". To me this could imply that the only fruit called "pumpkin" (or at least the only fruit produced by C. pepo called "pumpkin") is that of C. pepo var. ovifera, whereas it has been agreed that the primary use of the term "pumpkin" is to refer fruits of a particular shape, colour, and hardness produced by several species of cultivated Cucurbita. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. The world wide inconsistency makes this a real mess. I think we agreed, for our purposes at least, all pumpkins are C. pepo? How about ""It yields varieties of winter squash , summer squash, and pumpkin. The most widespread varieties belong to Cucurbita pepo subsp. pepo, which are summer squash." PumpkinSky talk 20:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Related to this discussion, I just came across the article Calabaza, which also describes a bunch of cucurbits indistinctly.Plantdrew (talk) 03:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

"Calabaza" is the Spanish term for any winter squash, pumpkin, or gourd. However, some quick googling seems to show that, in English, it refers only to a cultivar of Cucurbita moschata (sources: [8], [9], [10], [11] ). ʍw 12:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this just another example of the problems of assuming that because a name exists, so does a topic worthy of an article? I'm tempted to say that Calabaza should be merged into Squash (plant), but then what are the criteria that make "calabaza" so different from "pumpkin"? Peter coxhead (talk) 15:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. In this part of the spanish world, we used to call "calabaza" to any Cucurbita fruit mature, edible, orange, pear-shaped, and less hard than a pumpkin (just like with pumpkin, the name applies to the shape, not to a taxon). We used to call "zapallo" to what you call "pumpkin", and it is harder than the calabaza, so you can't make "dulce de zapallo" with calabaza because the little cubes don't keep the shape when cooked ("dulce" is not "mermelada"). Confusion arised when "neutral translators" from movies and television shows translated your halloween pumpkins into "calabaza", but pumpkins look so like a "zapallo", I think in Mexico they call "calabaza" to our "zapallo" (your pumpkins). Today we "solved" the problem calling "calabaza pumpkin" to your pumpkins (personally I still think they are just zapallos). I'm affraid I don't have references, you can take a look to Google Images. Also, it looks like in some part of the spanish world they call "calabacín" to what we call "zucchini". We also have "zapallito" that looks like a "zapallo" but is tiny and green (an immature zapallo). --RoRo (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's say "zapallo en almíbar", less ambiguous than "dulce de zapallo". --RoRo (talk) 19:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I forgot the word "anco", or "zapallo anco", applies to the pear-shaped (my calabaza), and it seems that everybody agrees that "anco" is that.

I just asked a Mexican person and he told me that they call "calabaza" to your pumpkins (as I thought), and "calabacín" to our zucchini. So "calabaza" means pumpkin in Mexico, and anco in Argentina (less commonly, means also pumpkin in Argentina, particularly in the english translations of the term as they are found in movies and TV shows). --RoRo (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Another use of the term that came to my mind is "mate de calabaza", in Mexico they don't drink mate, only in the south of Southamerica, and everybody calls "mate de calabaza" to the mate made with the pear-shaped orange mature fruit of Cucurbita.

Finally I see you see a mess on this topic, could I recommend to use taxon names to write about the taxa, and commons names just to define the shape and cultural uses of that shape, pointing to the various taxa it could belong. I ask myself if someone will post after me. I am doing a social transwikipedian exercise. --RoRo (talk) 20:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Searching a little more, I have found that in Spain, "calabaza" is the general term, and "zapallo" (pumpkin calabaza) is an indian term (quichua), probably adopted in the south of Southamerica because of the quichua influence in the culinary language. I also found that I made a mistake and "mate of calabaza" (also called "calabaza de peregrino" because it is used as a bottle), refers to the fruit of two species of Lagenaria, a cucurbitaceae with the pear-shape of every south-southamerican calabazas (Lagenaria only edible when green, it seems, and used as a container when mature, it seem that is the english "calabash"). --RoRo (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

A beautiful Lagenaria use as a container (our "calabaza mate") is named "https://www.google.com.ar/search?q=mate+burilado&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&gws_rd=cr&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=es-419&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=DLAeUrfpHMmsiQK3x4D4Bg&biw=1024&bih=430&sei=ELAeUu3oDsOLiwK37IHIAQ mate burilado" in Peru. What beautiful designs. All of these are pear-shaped or pretty relative. --RoRo (talk) 02:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

All very interesting, and probably worthy of a mention at Calabaza if it can be sourced. However, because this is the English language Wikipedia, the primary topic will be the terms' usage in English, which seems to be a cultivar of Cucurbita moschata that is nothing like a pumpkin. I don't feel strongly about whether Calabaza should stay a separate article, or be merged with something else, but I am leaning towards keeping it separate, because there do seem to be enough references available to clean it up and flesh it out.

ʍw 02:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

While we are at it, the definition at List of melons could be added to what needs work. I am going to get the two books I mentioned, and I will see if they can help either the straight-forward or it's all confusing write-ups with sources. --AfadsBad (talk) 13:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Back to pumpkin issue, I have found that horticulturally it is the name of a "cultivar group", a group of cultivars, circumpscript (apparently) in Paris (1986). In http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4255187?uid=3737512&uid=2473450443&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=3&uid=60&sid=21102597031427 this paper the text, eight groups named: pumpkin, cocozelle (Italian marrow), vegetable marrow, zucchini (courgette), scallop (custard marrow, patisson), acorn, straightneck, and crookneck. Cultivars are a different thing than taxa and a cultivar group may be composed by plants from different taxa if they fall in the cultivar group circumscription, and viceversa, not all plants from a specific taxon will fall in a cultivar group. More definitions: http://www.missouribotanicalgarden.org/gardens-gardening/your-garden/help-for-the-home-gardener/advice-tips-resources/gardening-help-faqs.aspx?questionid=274&afmid=4462 Missouri Botanical Garden says "squash" is the general term, "summer squash" the general term for tender squash, "winter squash" the general term for hard-skinned squash, and "pumpkin", in Northamerica, is the term for cultivars used for culinary purposes (as winter squash) but also that can be used as Halloween lanterns. --RoRo (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Here, Paris, H. S. (1986). A proposed subspecific classification for Cucurbita pepo. Phytologia, 61(3), 133-138. Defines summer squash, winter squash, gourd (=ornamental gourd), and cultivar groups including pumpkin. It has drawings. --RoRo (talk) 01:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

In a posterior paper, Paris 1989 makes a much detailed work, and defines pretty precisely what a cultivar group "pumpkin" is and the history of the term (it does the same with the other 7 groups defined earlier). There is a still posterior work, Janick and Paris (2010) History of the Cultivar-Groups of Cucurbita pepo on Horticultural Reviews, but I don`t have access to it. --RoRo (talk) 02:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I have updated Missing topics about Botany - Skysmith (talk) 09:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

From this list I made an article on Botanical expedition, and it could really be expanded nicely. I just had a few days off, but I am again going to be out of touch for editing.

I also created an ag virus article, and I might create a couple of more. Thanks for posting the list. --AfadsBad (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Re Botanical expedition, I have for some time thought there should be an article about the people who collected plants – the "plant hunters". At present, Plant hunter is a redirect to Plant collecting, but this isn't quite the same. There are five or six books at least about "plant hunters" – [12]. I wonder if this is a separate topic or not? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. Most of the plant hunters were appointed as part of scientific expeditions. If there are no exceptions, I might make it a redirect to botanical expedition, in spite of greatly preferring the name "plant hunter." --AfadsBad (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I changed it; a plant hunter is not simply a plant collector. --AfadsBad (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Looks like a Rondoletia. Here's something called Rondeletia amoena that looks close: http://blog.centennialparklands.com.au/rondeletia-mum/ Tdslk (talk) 07:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

If so (and it looks very plausible) its current name is Rogiera amoena Planch. according to WCSP and as reflected in The Plant List. We currently only have an article on the genus Rogiera – an opportunity to add one on this species? :-) Peter coxhead (talk) 08:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes - that is a match methinks....thanks folks - was growing in an old cemetery I was at today. I am not so good on non-Australian plants....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

NB: Species article begun....rubiaceae are such cool plants..... :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Each to their own family! :) Peter coxhead (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, if anyone wants to chip in to expand Rogiera amoena for a DYK, they are welcome - there are nice flower shots...just feeling a bit tapped out and unenthused looking at it I guess.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I always get frustrated when I try to categorise plants. Latest example File:Lagune Lamraro - Ambavarana 11.jpg. I understand the reason that everything is classified in latin, but it is not made easy. There is no guide to at least identify the correct upper classification. It would help if there are at least picture examples in the main categories. There are a lot of uploaders who are ready to do some research if it is made easy. Most uploaders dump the pictures in "Unidentified plants" (983 entries and 182 latin subcategories) or dont even bother about classifying interesting plants in the uploaded pictures. Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that plant IDs are rarely easy. The formal diagnostics are based on flower and fruit characters, which often aren't present in a plant you see (and even less likely to be present in a picture). When I look at that picture, I'm reminded of Montrichardia because it's a genus I'm familiar with. Even if I didn't know that, I'd guess it's an aroid, but to be certain I'd need to see the flower. (With plenty of plants, it's hard to even get that far using an image. When you get outside the most common, identifying a plant without flowers can be very difficult for all but the most experienced people. And experience, sadly, tends not to translate very well between different areas of teh world.) Still, it's a guess I'd be willing to go forward with.

The next question is: could it be Montrichardia? I'd need to know where the picture was from (categorising by country and including that info on the image description really helps here). If this is Madagascar (like the other image below), I could rule out Montrichardia. So the next step would be to find a list of the aroids of Madagascar (or if I'm really lucky, a list of the ones in that particular region of the country). You can scan a list like that, eliminate some you know (say, Pistia) and work from that. Anything I can find an image for, I can rule out of in. And then make an educated guess. Guettarda (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I suspect there is no category for this File:Madagascan pitcher plant I.jpg / File:Madagascan pitcher plant II.jpg / File:Madagascan pitcher plant III.jpg. I wil be uploading a lot of pictures of plants from my trip in Madagascar. Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The pitcher plants are almost certainly Nepenthes madagascariensis; the only other Nepenthes native to Madagascar is more rare and you would have been less likely to encounter it. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 11:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, these are definitely N. madagascariensis. Nice photos! mgiganteus1 (talk) 14:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The aroids look like the plants shown here, Alocasia macrorrhiza--Melburnian (talk) 14:05, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Because Alocasia macrorrhiza is cultivated I suspect it is planted here. The natives like to use every opportunity to raise food. In this deep swamp, this is the only posible crop. To much water for rice. Smiley.toerist (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

For your plant image uploads where you are unsure of the identity, I would suggest using commons:Category:Unidentified plants in Madagascar and putting in specific location information in your image descriptions and noting if the plant is cultivated.--Melburnian (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Good idea.  Done Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I uploaded some spiny forest plants in the new category "Antsokay Arboretum". Some have name plates on them, but others not. The Madagascan flora category is of little help as the subcategories are in latin. I cant select for spiny forest plants. This would narrow down the search.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Can plant editors contribute to creating more usable guidelines for assessing the importance of plant articles. I have started a discussion here. Thanks. --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC))

Can someone figure out which is correct, Prestoea montana or Prestoea acuminata var. montana? I am leaning towards the variety, but I don't have references or reference search capability for the next month. Thanks. --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC))

Can't say which is "correct" (who can?), but it's interesting that in 2013 alone Google Scholar finds 29 hits for "Prestoea montana", so sinking it into P. acuminata as WCSP and other sources do doesn't seem to have caught on. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

By correct, I mean which is sourced to a reliable source. I don't trust GRIN. I usually do find that a single authoritative source is available to point to which name to use. --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC))

This is where we get into difficulties, I think, over WP policies and guidelines on reliable sources and article titles. For palms, WCSP is based on Govaerts & Dransfield (2005), World Checklist of Palms. This is clearly a reliable secondary source of the kind highly favoured by WP:RS so the article content should definitely reflect what names it accepts, as well as any others that can be reliably sourced. But which synonym should be used as the article title is another matter. Strict followers of WP:AT would say it should be whatever is most commonly used, regardless of botanical accuracy – not a view that finds much favour here, I think. Anyway, good luck with finding "a single authoritative source". Peter coxhead (talk) 17:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I am practical; if WCSP is authoritative for palms, then I am comfortable using it. Wikipedia tends to think that Google is the authority for "most commonly used," which just perpetuates the myth that the entire universe is on-line and connected. It's not. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC))

Prestoea acuminata var. montana. The article lists Tropicos as the source for P. montana as the current name, but that link goes to P. acuminata var. montana. Tropicos tends to be a bit of a lagging indicator anyway. Govaerts & Dransfield go with P. acuminata var. montana,[13] and I'm inclined to trust them on palms. The name P. acuminata var. montana is actually credited to Henderson and Galeano which is AFAIK, the most up-to-date monograph on the genus.

The one dissenting voice of note is Pedro Acevedo.[14][15] I do take him very seriously on Puerto Rican plants, but he's clearly in the minority here. Guettarda (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually AT favours P. acuminata var. montana, IMO. It's not the weight of sources, it's the weight of recent sources reliable enough to take seriously. That said, don't just relegate P. montana to synonymy - document Acevedo as a dissenting voice. Guettarda (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll move it based on WCSP based on the Govaerts and Dransfield, but will document the native dissent. Thanks. --(AfadsBad (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC))

Actually it's probably better to cite George Proctor (in Acevedo and Strong])[[16] for the dissent; Proctor authored the section on the Arecaceae in Acevedo & Strong and has this to say about the matter (pp. 144-145):

Prestoea montana was reduced to a variety of the South American Prestoea acuminata (Willd.) H. E. Moore by Henderson & Galeano (1996). However, the present writer prefers to maintain the disjunct Antillean populations at the species level as they are easily distinguished from the Central and South American relatives. This Antillean palm has been the subject of numerous ecological studies, and recognizing it at the species level allows us to both retain the commonly used name Prestoea montana and to maintain nomenclatural consistency throughout the ecological and floristic literature. Prestoea montana can be distinguished from its Central and South American relatives by its usually glabrous and ± terete rachillae, and by its flowers and fruits being superficial on the rachillae [vs. rachillae pubescent (covered with crustose or granular hairs or with long, flexuous hairs) and angular, and flowers and fruits somewhat sunken in the rachillae].

While I doubt anyone knows Greater Antillean monocots better than Proctor, his species concepts might not be exactly be the most up-to-date (assuming he's still alive - the last info I can find on his was his release from prison in 2012[17] - he'd be 93). Guettarda (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The archive index for this talk page is a bit wobbly towards the end. Should those problems be manually fixed, or would that mess up the automatic processes? There is a missing entry listed in the archive index, "Happy 2013, Plant People". A set of entries, all belonging in Archive60, I think, are missing the subdirectory name (so it looks as if they are still active on this page, for example, Ravenala? ). Archive61 is not in the index. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I do believe that User:NotWith has been editing the flora category structure for some time now but I only recently noticed this one where plants categorized in Category:Flora of France, understood to be mainland Europe, are now divided into the ultrafine political subdivisions of Category:Flora of Metropolitan France and Category:Flora of Overseas departments and territories of France (e.g. Réunion‎, Saint Pierre and Miquelon‎, Martinique‎, etc.). While this is precise, this is getting farther and farther from the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions that we said we'd strive to follow in our flora categorization structure. And indeed, floras or monographs that I've seen that mention a plant being native to France never intend the statement to mean anything other than the territory in mainland Europe; if it is native to Corsica or French Polynesia, they say that instead. The categories are a mess and it will take some time to undo them, nominate them for merging and deletion; time, I unfortunately have little of. Dig in to the flora categories and you'll bump in to more examples of this. Rkitko ^(talk) 18:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, completely unsoureable for most of the changes. I think it does need deleted. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC))

We really could do with some very firm guidelines about the geographical units used for recording plant distributions, both in the text and in categories. There are endless edit wars at some pages, for example, over "Palestine" vs. "Israel", when editors add the former term based, e.g., on the "PAL" code in databases like WCSP. "British Isles" is another hotly disputed geographical descriptor for distributions, with editors constantly changing it to the more politically correct "Britain and Ireland" without understanding that they are not the same geographical area. Where is it documented that we are using the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions? It's the first time I've seen this mentioned. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

You're right - we were and are terrible at recording decisions, but it may have just been a simple agreement between the few editors working at the time in cleaning up flora categories. But it's clearly here in our archives. If I recall, Hesperian did quite a bit of work on this. But this was a response to the merge-happy tribe who, as a result of this discussion merged all US state fauna categories into the country category. They had their eye on plants next and there was a general mood of skepticism when categorizing organisms by broad political boundaries. So that scheme, if followed somewhat closely, justifies our categorization hierarchy. Rkitko ^(talk) 21:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Merged fauna of Alaska and Florida? Okay.... --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC))

Yep. And they followed that brilliant act with another: upmerging fauna of Iceland, the Ukraine, and all other European countries to the fauna of Europe category. Thankfully most of those categories were quietly resurrected just 7 months later. But hence the importance of maintaining a robust hierarchy that we can defend by pointing to the WGSRPD. I hope there won't be future challenges, but you never know what people will tune into. Rkitko ^(talk) 04:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I love this argument for deletion: "Indeed, animals do not mind human borders, so anything found in one country is likely also found in the next country over." And, hence, that is why arctic foxes are found in Gibraltar. I see you tried to fight the idiocy. It seems futile against personal agendas. --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC))

It seems like it would be useful to have a category for the articles on families that aren't recognized in APGIII (e.g. Peraceae), but I'm not sure what to call it. There's Category:Obsolete taxonomic groups, which is pretty general (taxa of many different ranks, both plant and animals), and Category:Obsolete plant orders. Obsolete plant orders seems to be intended for truly obsolete stuff like Tubiflorae (I'm pretty sure Tubiflorae isn't Code compliant). So maybe there should be a distinction between truly obsolete taxa (names that aren't code compliant, and which can't really be associated with any modern circumscription) and taxa that have been recognized in the recent past, but not in APGIII. What should categories for these be called? Plantdrew (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Peraceae seems to be a special case: as I understand it, it's not that the family is "obsolete" according to APG III (i.e. submerged like, say, Hyacinthaceae), rather that it's accept that Euphorbiaceae is not yet in a fully sorted, and so Peraceae might be needed. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Is Turneraceae a better example? Plantdrew (talk) 20:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

None of these would be 'obsolete' - they're validly published and meet the current rules. APG III is the best we have, but it's not perfect. After all, if you find that a family is polyphyletic, you can either submerge another family into it, or split the family. There's no rule that says you must do one or the other, and it's all a matter of who makes what case and how many people follow it.

In addition to that, people will continue to use these 'obsolete' families for quite a while into the future, so the term 'obsolete' is misleading. Guettarda (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Obsolete is inappropriate. So what would we call these? Category:Plant families not recognized under APG III? Or is it not worth categorizing them?

Well, I put "obsolete" in quotes, but the category is obsolete taxonomic groups, not obsolete names. So it's surely right to categorize dicots as a taxon in this way, regardless of the name used, whereas the taxon Hyacinthaceae is not obsolete, even under APG III - it's just not a family. Where taxa have been submerged in APG III, we usually have a redirect to the APG III taxon, not a separate article, so the question of categorisation generally doesn't arise. Personally I would turn Turneraceae into a redirect to Passifloraceae where the taxonomy section would discuss historical systems. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I haven't been keeping very close track, but we've probably got several dozen articles on non-APGIII families (Parnassiaceae is particularly well developed, better than most APGIII family articles). If anybody is interested in working on merges, I could get a list of most of them in a day or so. Plantdrew (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

There is an argument to not merge articles like this. I would strongly oppose doing so, as leaving behind a historical article on the family as it was circumscribed under different systems and a basic description of the genera it contains is useful and fundamentally different than the function of an article on, say, Celastraceae of which Parnassiaceae is now just one part. It's true our article on Celastraceae is small in comparison, but merging in the info would make it have a heavy Parnassiaceae bias without much representation from the other members of Celastraceae. Merging wouldn't solve any problems; it would only create new ones. Rkitko ^(talk) 23:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem with this approach is where it ends. Why not an article on "Liliaceae sensu Cronquist" for example? Broad circumscriptions of the Liliaceae are still in wide use – this topic is much more notable than Parnassiaceae. I understand your point, but without a clear guideline on what non-APG taxa to include, it seems to me to open a can of worms. Where families were basically monophyletic and have been merged, there's likely to be some rank below family which can be used as the article title, as with the subfamilies of Asparagaceae for example. If the family has been found not to be monophyletic, then any overall description is potentially misleading, so any article should at best be very short. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Clearly I'm not arguing against renaming articles when they receive new ranks. What I'm opposed to is merging the info into the family article, making it that much more difficult to tease out when necessary or to create a balanced article. As far as I'm aware, Parnassiaceae is in limbo - the genera have been transferred and it's recognized that they form a distinct group in the expanded Celastraceae, but no one has bothered to re-rank it at subfamily, supporting the choice with evidence. I agree, though, that multiple articles on the same group under different systems is usually going to be cumbersome and unsupportable. This is not that, however. Regardless, we still haven't addressed the parallel taxobox hierarchy that appears in these higher plant taxa in Category:Equisetopsida sensu lato - all sensu Chase and Reveal (2009). Those are equivalent to existing articles but described under a different system. Rkitko ^(talk) 14:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

For older families no longer in use under APG III, rather than those in APG limbo, I would like to see brief, no taxobox, articles, with the necessary information and the articles linked appropriately within families that have subsumed the genera. However, other circumscriptions of the Liliaceae should be covered within the taxonomy section of the Liliaceae, rather than the dense lists used by the "such a family" author, though, it would be more useful to cover what is different and why under the various circumscriptions. Some differences are due to new molecular data, others due to morphological information that is newly evident, and these reasons are usually lost under the droning text and long lists. --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2013 (UTC))

I think we need to go the other way - create a category of APG III taxa. Guettarda (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a good idea, but I think we should have both, an APG III cat, some way, then plant families, plant orders, other taxa higher than genera, below unnamed clades, and within the APG taxonomy cat, non-recognized groups. --(AfadsBad (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC))

I'm losing enthusiasm for this idea. Largely, I'm stymied by not being able to come up with a concise name for the category. Maybe a hidden category with a long name? It might be more useful for Plants Project housekeeping than reader interest (defunct families shouldn't have taxoboxes, and incoming links to defunct families from lower taxa may indicate outdated classification in a taxobox). My last couple of ideas for a category name Category:Non-APGIII angiosperm families (concise but too technical for the average reader), or Category:Historically recognized plant families (has the advantage of covering gymnosperm, pteridophyte, etc. families). Plantdrew (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

"Historically recognized" gives the non-technical reader a handle on it. --(AfadsBad (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC))

I'd be grateful for some advice from those with more taxonomic expertise than me. WCSP gives the following names and synomyms:

• Brodiaea coronaria (Salisb.) Jeps. = Hookera coronaria Salisb.
  • Brodiaea coronaria subsp. coronaria = Brodiaea grandiflora Sm., Hookera grandiflora (Sm.) Kuntze
  • Brodiaea coronaria subsp. grandiflora (Greene) Niehaus = Hookera rosea Greene, Brodiaea rosea (Greene) Baker, Brodiaea coronaria var. rosea (Greene) Hoover

Assume that these are correct and exhaustive (I'm not at this point interested in whether there are other synonyms, only what should be done with this set). What synonyms should be placed in the "synonyms" section of the taxobox at Brodiaea coronaria?

1. Only Hookera coronaria as per WCSP.
2. Hookera coronaria, Hookera grandiflora, Hookera rosea, Brodiaea grandiflora, Brodiaea rosea on the grounds that all of these are at least pro parte synonyms at the species level.
3. Something else.

In the past, I've tended to go for option 2 in similar circumstances, but I'm not sure that this is the right approach. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, that's a difficult case! Yes, If we aren't going to make a separate wikipedia page for Brodiaea coronaria subsp. rosea, then I think we should list its synonyms such as Hookera rosea as synonyms of Brodiaea coronaria. They would be heterotypic synonyms. If we do make a separate wikipedia page for Brodiaea coronaria subsp. rosea, then we should either make one for Brodiaea coronaria subsp. coronaria and each of any other accepted subspecies as well, or list some synonyms in both places.

Complications are that some of the relevant literature listed in Proposals and Disposals that might have had more readable explanations of what's going on is not available to me, and the appendices of the Melbourne code of nomenclature have not yet been published. There has been confusion about the dates at which the names were published, and the code of nomenclature has changed while these botanists were working.

There is a third genus name Hookeria Sm., a moss, conserved against Hookera Salisb. (page 239 of the Vienna code, and ING) which would have had priority because it was published slightly earlier, and they would fall into the confusingly similar names category (article 53.3 and others).

From IPNI: Asparagaceae Brodiaea coronaria (Salisb.) Jeps. -- Madroño 1: 61. 1917, which is in BHL, and says "The plant so long known as Brodiaea grandiflora Smith is in similar case, having been first published as Hookera coronaria Salisbury (1806). The correct name, then, is Brodiaea coronaria Jepson, n. comb." So Jepson made a superfluous name, since there was already a species name in the genus Brodiaea. A wrinkle, though, is that the name Brodiaea grandiflora Smith is illegitimate, which IPNI says is because it is superfluous; I don't know why that is (the description is in BHL), but perhaps it is a side-effect of the later conservation act.

The notion of a Conserved name was introduced rather later than Jepson's work, it removes the little-known name Hookera, but the type species of Brodiaea was also conserved (page 257 of the Vienna code, and ING). WCSP says that Brodiaea grandiflora Sm. is a heterotypic synonym of Brodiaea coronaria subsp. coronaria, which is interesting, it would mean that the type of Brodiaea coronaria Jepson is the type of Hookera coronaria Salisbury, not the type of Brodiaea grandiflora Sm., which makes perfect sense but had me stumped for a while. That's a reminder that a type is often notional, no actual type specimen having yet been designated.

So, back to the question, the synonym list for Brodiaea coronaria would, I think, be:

• Brodiaea grandiflora Sm.
• Brodiaea rosea (Greene) Baker
• Hookera coronaria Salisb.
• Hookera grandiflora (Sm.) Kuntze
• Hookera rosea Greene

Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! It seems we agree that my (2) above is the right approach for species articles and taxoboxes. As for the nomenclature of Brodiaea, I'm not sure that I really understand it yet, but what's currently in some of the articles doesn't seem to be quite right. I'm tied up for the next few days, but I'll get back to it if no-one else does. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

A further thought: Brodiaea grandiflora is illegitimate by article 11.4, the epithet coronaria had priority, and Jepson was in line with modern codes of nomenclature. Now I'm puzzled as to why Brodiaea isn't listed as illegitimate, but perhaps that doesn't matter since it is conserved. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, I would say that (under recent Codes) Brodiaea Sm. was illegitimate until it was conserved: you can't list a name as both nom. illeg. and nom. cons. – as soon as it is formally conserved it switches from the former status to the latter and becomes legitimate. The combination Brodiaea grandiflora Sm. was illegitimate before Brodiaea was conserved and remains so, as you note above and as IPNI, ING and WCSP all agree. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are absolutely correct. The wording of the code is "Conserved names are legitimate even though initially they may have been illegitimate" (article 14). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it's come up here, but there are thousands of plant photos on commons that need to be categorized so they can be used on the plant articles here. There is one category called http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_Gardenology.org which is particularly easy pickings, because so many of the pictures are taken at botanical gardens, and the plants are photographed, then the plant label is photographed in chronological order, so they can be pretty easy to categorize - but there are 12,450 pictures in this folder, so it's still a large undertaking. The first batch of pages have already been pretty well categorized, but when you get in a few pages, you'll get hundreds or thousands of uncategorized pictures, one after another. Some of them are quite nice, and are for plants with no photo on wikipedia. They've been languishing unlabeled for years from the looks of it, and a fair number of them are decent shots. Seems worth attacking, but it's a big project... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.131.196.48 (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

This notice is to advise interested editors that a Contributor copyright investigation has been opened which may impact this project. Such investigations are launched when contributors have been found to have placed copyrighted content on Wikipedia on multiple occasions. It may result in the deletion of images or text and possibly articles in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. The specific investigation which may impact this project is located here.

All contributors with no history of copyright problems are welcome to contribute to CCI clean up. This one is really brief compared to most, and your help could get it taken care of quickly. This is good for the articles as well as for contributors. Personally, I feel terrible for people who come in behind contributors who do this and improve content that winds up having to be discarded. The sooner we can get a usable base in place, the sooner we can begin building material we can keep. There are instructions for participating on that page.

Additional information may be requested from the user who placed this notice, at the process board talkpage, or from an active CCI clerk. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi everyone,

According to the The Global Compositae Checklist [18] Senecio erucifolius [19] and Jacobaea erucifolia [20] are two different plant species, with two different homeranges S. erucifolius [21] and J. erucifolia [22]. Could someone tell me his/her opinion about this, please? Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 08:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

A lot of Senecio species are now placed in genus Jacobaea. As reported in Commons, Jacobaea erucifolia (L.) Gaertn. et al. is a synonym of Senecio erucifolius L. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 12:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

That's indeed what The Plantlist tells us. Lycaon (talk) 12:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

That both names are accepted is an error - the names are nomenclatural synonyms and by definition cannot refer to different species. The different geographic ranges needs another explanation - I'd guess that one record takes a broad conception of the species, and the other a narrow conception (the rest of the range being occupied by a closely related species). Lavateraguy (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

OK thank. Thank you very much for your help and explanations! Regards. DenesFeri (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

If you look carefully at The Global Compositae Checklist entries, it seems clear that the statement that Senecio erucifolius is accepted is in error, because infraspecific taxa of this species are referred to Jacobaea erucifolia. (I sent them a query using the feedback form and got an automated reply saying that the editor is on maternity leave.) Peter coxhead (talk) 19:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

There are many Wikipedia categories having the form "Botanists active in ...." Is this supposed to mean living botanists only? Or also dead botanists who were active in those regions? See Category:Botanists by location of research. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems clear that it means anyone, living or dead, who was active as a botanist in those areas. In those categories I've looked at, all entries have been famous botanists of the past. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'll add a clarifying note. There are lots of Wikipedia categories for "active politicians" which seems to refer just to living people.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:20, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I edited the first paragraph of Thorns, spines, and prickles, if someone wants to correct the redaction. --RoRo (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to propose to change that name for something like "Sharp-pointed plant defensive mechanisms" because it has to cover more spiny structures than thorns, spines and prickles. I proposed that on the talk page and AfadsBad told me to post it here. --RoRo (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It should be discussed there, but it's good to alert people here. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

An article with a list of flora for one of my favorite ecosystems is up for deletion here. One cannot categorize plants by ecosystem, as the categories get deleted. A lst article seems perfect for this. I would appreciate support for keeping the article or suggestions for how to proceed otherwise from plant editors. Thanks. --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC))

File:Potato radiograph for CT.jpg has been nominated for deletion. There's been statements made at WT:MED that radiographs (X-rays) are unencumbered by copyright concerns; I have no idea if this would apply to a plant. -- 65.92.181.39 (talk) 07:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I recently started doing some New Page Patrolling; not a lot yet, but I've started. I've learned that we're to look for things that don't meet wiki standards such as articles that qualify for speedy deletion, hoaxes, obvious junk, etc. I just made three more new articles, my 21st-23rd. Full list is here: User:HalfGig/Articles. While I do work in a narrow area and my new articles are not usually large in size, I don't make junk. So why are a reliable editor's new articles required to be reviewed? It seems rather inefficient to me. HalfGig (talk) 23:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

You can apply for autoreviewer rights and then you won't have to worry about it anymore! Sasata (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah OK! I applied. And Sasata, thank you for your Did You Know tips, I recently filed my first request on the Did You Know nomination page. HalfGig (talk) 00:06, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I would review your articles for now, except, with the first one I find that all of the doi's are wrong. If you use the JSTOR template does it automatically fill in the DOI? Plant articles tend to be ignored on the list, because few editors are capable of the type of review necessary, or are scared. I got told, oh, it would only take a second, but it doesn't if you are clueless about plant articles. I have recently had to update a bunch by one editor to APG III. I don't think that's covered in reviewing articles, but editors are afraid of plants. --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:35, 28 September 2013 (UTC))

Mgiganteus1 told me the JSTOR template ceased filling in automatically some time ago. So I have to to them by hand but it does still build the DOI automatically, so there must be some glitch. That hardly warrants not granting auto reviewed, it's not like NPP is doing a Good Article or above level review. HalfGig (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it should not impact autoreviewed, but admins seem over enthusiastic about keeping a queue. Your articles are encyclopedic, written in English, sourced. I would check for copyvio problems, in general, before making an editor autoreviewed. For what it is worth, I will put in a word about your article quality at permissions. --(AfadsBad (talk) 01:27, 28 September 2013 (UTC))

The patrollers are doing a very minimal check; patrolling new articles doesn't require special expertise in any subject. New article patrollers are looking for stuff that could expose Wikipedia to legal issues (blatant copyright violations, libel about living persons), and making sure that articles are plausibly notable (not obviously hoaxes or spam). Broken references (or even lack of references) isn't something the new article patrol fixes.

It is quite helpful to also have somebody looking at new articles for other issues. References, grammar, taxoboxes, categorization, and stub sorting are good things to check. If you're interested in doing further review of new plant related articles, watch the page User:AlexNewArtBot/PlantsSearchResult. The bots algorithm does include some non-plant related false positives, but seems to cover most new plant articles. Plantdrew (talk) 02:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, good tip. I didn't know there was a plant specific listing. HalfGig (talk) 03:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

And having your articles appear on this list will matter much more than their being reviewed by a random user. I say don't worry about it, even though it is annoying, and keep writing! --(AfadsBad (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC))

I had trouble getting proper reference info for some species named after Forman. I asked Mgiganteus1 for help and he posted this in response: User_talk:HalfGig#Re:_Lewis_Leonard_Forman..."These might be quite difficult to track down. I've had a quick look and it doesn't appear that the journals in question have online back issues (or even content lists) going that far back. Searching for the species name + journal proved equally fruitless. Maybe someone over at WikiProject Plants could help?". References 4,5,6 need more info and there is one species I commented out because it was described in 1942 and claimed named after him but he was only 13 at the time, so it wasn't likely. Thank you if anyone can help. HalfGig (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Done, I think. The Gardner reference would be "Contributiones Florae Australiae Occidentalis XI", but I can't find an online copy to check the etymology of the epithet. --Stemonitis (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh wow, thank you! Very kind of you. HalfGig (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I just listed Cucurbita at Wikipedia:Peer review/Cucurbita/archive1. If anyone has time, would you be so kind as to look at this article, especially the medical/pharmacological issues, which are in Cucurbita#Chemical_constituents? The peer review page suggested asking at wikiprojects for help. I've also notified some users who have been helping me. I appreicate any assistance anyone can provide. HalfGig (talk) 01:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

RoRo--I will work on your comments. I've moved them to the peer review page as I think it's more appropriate there. I hope that is ok. If not, feel free to change it back. HalfGig (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh it's ok, that was the place. --RoRo (talk) 14:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a very meticulous article up for review at AfC, but I'm not sure how to approach it. Mind having a look? Thanks! FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The two things that leapt out at me are 1) I'm not sure the tree measurement wikis would be considered valid references and 2) formatting of many references could use some work. HalfGig (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

It's written as a how-to, and it needs to be completely rewritten. The references are a bit poor, as HalfGig states, and references to the wiki should be removed. The topic is notable, and it is an appropriate article for Wikipedia. --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC))

What's more, it's already a Wikipedia article; see tree measurement. The referencing is an issue, though. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Does Tabernaemontana heyneana and Tabernaemontana alternifolia are synonyms? http://www.flowersofindia.net/catalog/slides/Nag%20Kuda.html says so. Further, Wikipedia has only Tabernaemontana heyneana page and Commons has only Tabernaemontana alternifolia category. But Wikispecies has both species:Tabernaemontana alternifolia and species:Tabernaemontana heyneana. JKadavoor Jee 04:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. I've updated wikispecies (but am unable to see whether the GRIN citation disagrees with WCSP because of the indefinite shutdown of USDA services). Tabernaemontana heyneana has a move request now listed on its talk page. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. JKadavoor Jee 03:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank goodness for the Google cache of the GRIN entry. Appears there was a proposal to conserve T. heyneana against T. alternifolia and T. crispa. Ultimately, it would appear that conservation was not recommended so T. alternifolia is the correct name. Rkitko ^(talk) 03:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

The conservation proposal and the decision of the Committee for Spermatophyta are interesting. One of the points made in the proposal is that the plant does not have alternate leaves as the name T. alternifolia implies. The reasons for rejection include that the plant has a rather small distribution, and that most authors (but not all) had been using the name T. alternifolia. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I discussed this with Tony Rodd and his reply is

JKadavoor Jee 16:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

To clarify Tony Rudd's comments, as noted above the proposal to conserve T. heyneana was rejected (Taxon 55: 796 for those with access). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

As I understand, all proposals and responses in Taxon related to the ICN are open access (on the Ingenta site). Lavateraguy (talk) 20:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

That's useful information, because the same articles aren't open access on JSTOR. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

There's quite a bit of stuff that isn't open access on JSTOR, but is open access elsewhere. For example, IIRC, a lot of AmJBot. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Chloroplast is currently up for Good article nomination.—Love, Kelvinsong talk 01:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, first time I've contributed to Wikipedia, please delete this comment once someone in the know about how things are properly done has taken note of the point I'm making! And here it is: How come Carpodetus Serratus, Marbleleaf, doesn't appear in the list? Assuming this is just an oversight, could someone fix this up please? In the mean time, I'll have a look into how to do this kind of thing properly myself. Sorry to be a pain.125.239.209.6 (talk) 11:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Moved this item to the end and gave it a heading. Hamamelis (talk) 11:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I've added marbleleaf to the list of trees and shrubs in Flora of New Zealand (coupled with putaputaweta) and made a redirect for marbleleaf so it will appear in the Wikipedia search box. Does that cover your concern?--Melburnian (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying find out what this is. Many thanks for any help you can offer.

Other views:

• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unidentified_plant_in_Hainan_-_02.JPG
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unidentified_plant_in_Hainan_-_03.JPG
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unidentified_plant_in_Hainan_-_04.JPG
• http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Unidentified_plant_in_Hainan_-_05.JPG

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot of guesswork involved in this, but it looks quite a lot like Phymatosorus hainanensis, which should at least occur in the area. Pictures of the base of the frond would help to be sure, especially of the scales. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:28, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I'll get a pic of the rest of the plant as soon as I can find one. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks like it's epiphytic judging from the Pyrrosia (?) in the background. Does it have a "basket" at its base made of oak-like leaves? Could be Drynaria.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 22:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't notice the base. Next time, I'll get more comprehensive photos. Sorry to bother you all with this one. I kept thinking it could only be one thing. I have to get it through my head that there are bzillions of species. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:10, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Someone just wrote to the Wikimedia foundation noting that Kalpasi is a lichen not a flowering plant.

I see someone has made the same claim on the talk page.

I don't have enough subject matter knowledge to make the change, can someone help? --SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The IP's explanation at Talk:Kalpasi appeared to be spot on. I have fixed the article accordingly. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank-you very much, and good timing. I just got another email urging prompt action, so it was nice to be able to respond that it was done.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:23, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Does anybody here have a copy of Forest Giants of the Pacific Coast by Robert Van Pelt? This isn't a big deal, but the Thuja plicata article could use a page number in a citation. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Will this Google Books link help? [23] Hamamelis (talk) 02:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

No, unfortunately that limited preview will only let me see the index listing for the tree without actual information about it. Jsayre64 (talk) 23:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

If you type in Quinalt redcedar to the search box for that Google book, you will see that one of the preview boxes gives you a small image of the full information on pg 181. It lists it at 174'. The second ref in the article lists the Quinalt at 53.0 m, which is 173.885 ft; so it looks like the text of the article doesn't match both references. Perhaps someone changed it to reflect current growth, but didn't add a reference? If you need anything else in that book, they have a copy at my local library, just let me know. --Tom Hulse (talk) 17:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

‎In case this doesn't get noticed for a while (Heracleum maximum has less than 30 watchers), User:Johnvalo has brought up something that appears to need expert attention at Talk:Heracleum maximum#Classification. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Azolla terminology looks rather confused, but it may be the case that Azolla caroliniana is a synonym of Azolla filiculoides and the plant widely known as Azolla caroliniana is correctly called Azolla cristata. Anyone know anything about these questions? Lavateraguy (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello everybody. After a long, extended Wikibreak I'm back on enwp, and have just written an article on a plant - Silaum silaus. I've never written an article like this before, and would really appreciate having an editor more versed in botanical articles have a look over it; especially making sure I correctly 'translated' the species description from here into understandable English - is it enough to link to the words on Wiktionary, or should descriptions be provided on the page? How could I improve the article/what assessment grade is it as currently etc. I'm thinking of writing some more plant articles, so some feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Acather96 (talk) 09:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hi. Good new article there. My thoughts are: 1) Expand habitat, distributio, and uses sections. 2) This sentence: "With regards to the etymology of the binomial, "Silaum" is either derived from the yellow ochre -related to the colour of the plant's flowers -[2], could denote uncertainty[4] or refer to the Sila in southern Italy[4]." does not make sense to me. I'd suggest listing it at T:TDYK right away. HalfGig talk 00:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks very much :) The article appeared on the front page in the DYK section on the 5th of November, and I'm pleased with it! My next project will be Luzula sylvatica I think. Acather96 (click here to contact me) 21:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

There are a couple open plant related move requests at Talk:Big-cone pinyon and Talk:Tamarillo. Very few editors have weighed in on the discussions, which I assume is due to a lack of awareness of the proposed move rather than a lack of interest in commenting. If you are interested in staying abreast of move discussions, please consider adding Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Article alerts to your Watchlist. Notifications of proposed moves are not reliably posted on this talk page. Plantdrew (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Are there any bot operators around? Or has anybody interacted with bot operators who might be amenable to my request? I know bots played a large role in adding the banners for this WikiProject to many articles on plant species. I've come across several articles on species (most notably Talk:Mangifera indica) that were missing the banner on the talk page, but which were included in the taxonomic categorization scheme. Could a bot be made to drill through all the subcategories of Category:Angiosperms and add the project banner to all the categorized articles that haven't already been flagged for WikiProject Plants? Plantdrew (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

This should be possible (I'm not a bot owner, by the way), but it would need to be more carefully targeted. Not all subcategories of Category:Angiosperms are actually part of the taxonomic hierarchy; for instance, Category:Lettuce is a subcategory of Category:Lactuca, but we wouldn't want to tag lettuce sandwich for this project (similarly, Category:Chocolate is in Category:Theobroma, and there will be quite a few others). Perhaps if the bot checked that the category name was a term in the taxobox hierarchy (with or without a disambiguating term in brackets), that would limit it sufficiently. There would probably be more false negatives than false positives under that system, but it would certainly be a start. Alternatively, or additionally, it should be posible to use CatScan to report all the articles in the hierarchy not tagged for this project, and tackle the list manually if it's not too long; I've just dealt with Category:Malvales by that route, but there might be too many for this approach to be feasible alone. --Stemonitis (talk) 10:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Ooh. Thanks. That is what I was looking for. User:Choess mentioned CatScan to me a couple weeks ago, but I missed seeing Catscan version 2 when I did a search for Catscan (the previous version doesn't seem to allow searching for the intersection of categories/templates across Talk/Article space). Now that I can make CatScan do what I want, I see how many false positives (not very relevant to Plants Project) there are from a subcategory search. I'm happily poking through Category:Sapindales now for species articles without a Plants project banner. Plantdrew (talk) 03:28, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I've been trying to tidy up some of the angiosperm-related categories and have a question about how to handle categories which are too small.

Consider Category:Hernandiaceae as an example. This is clearly too small, having only 4 members: 1 subcategory and 3 articles. (A minimum of around 9–10 members seems in practice to be the target.) There are two ways of fixing this:

1. Move all 16 members of Category:Hernandia upwards into Category:Hernandiaceae. Advantages: all categories are of adequate size; there are no "gaps" in the category hierarchy. Disadvantage: the genus is large enough for its own category, so this is what editors and readers would expect.
2. Move all 4 members of Category:Hernandiaceae upwards into Category:Laurales. Advantages: all categories are of adequate size; the genus Hernandia has its own category as would be expected. Disadvantage: there is a "gap" in the category hierarchy at the family level.

I somewhat prefer (1), because I prefer not to have ranks missing while navigating down the taxonomic category hierarchy. However, it's a fine judgement.

Opinions, please. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I would very strongly favour option 1. Even with all subcategories merged in, Category:Hernandiaceae would contain only 19 articles. This is by no means too many to navigate easily (!), so there is no reason to split the category in the first place. Only when a category becomes cumbersome should it be split, which is unlikely to occur in this case, since the family only contains a few dozen species. There is no need for every genus, even every large genus, to have its own category; the decision to split a category into subcategories should be based on the size of the category before splitting. The minimum of 9–10 entries for a subcategory is therefore less important than the maximum size of a few hundred (a figure off the top of my head; there may be a guideline somewhere on this, but there would certainly need to be more than 100 articles before a split was required). It is often not worth merging categories up if it is likely that they will grow organically to reach an appropriate size, but that doesn't apply in this case. --Stemonitis (talk) 14:44, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, as no-one else has commented, I've fixed this case as per (1). I had thought this might work as a general principle, but Category:Piperaceae presents a counter-example. As of the time of writing:

• Category:Piperaceae had only 5 members, 2 subcategories and 3 articles, so needed dealing with.
• However, its 2 subcategories have 65 and 91 members, as the genera Peperomia and Piper are large.

So the solution seems to be to move all the members of Category:Piperaceae up to Category:Piperales, even though this leaves a "gap" in the hierarchy. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:47, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone help identify an image in Commons of a Brassicaceae species with yellow flowers, radish-like fruit, growing on a beach in Hawaii? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

It's Vigna marina. I uploaded it but miscategorized it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The flowers, at least, are wrong for that. It looks like a Brassicaceae species, as Sminthopsis84 stated. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm wrong. I'm sorry. I thought I'd added the Brassicaceae cats in err. I didn't realize until now. Here are all of them:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vigna_marina_(aka_beach_pea,_nanea,_notched_cowpea)_-_01.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vigna_marina_(aka_beach_pea,_nanea,_notched_cowpea)_-_02.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vigna_marina_(aka_beach_pea,_nanea,_notched_cowpea)_-_03.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vigna_marina_(aka_beach_pea,_nanea,_notched_cowpea)_-_04.jpg
• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vigna_marina_(aka_beach_pea,_nanea,_notched_cowpea)_-_05.jpg

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

All Vigna except #4 with the cruciform flowers, which is clearly growing in among the Vigna (love the last photo, by the way). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

From the fruits, I'd guess at Raphanus raphanistrum ssp. landra (Mediterranean radish). Lavateraguy (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks just like it! Thanks! We'll probably have to make do with identifying it to species for now, since Commons and Wikipedia are still hesitant about the subspecies taxonomy. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:29, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Update on this story: I just received a message to say that the labelling on the original photo, which is here, has been corrected. So, thanks to everyone who was involved in solving that puzzle, the world beyond the wiki has also benefited. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it worth putting something in the project guidelines suggesting the use of a particular disambiguator for genera with an ambiguous name? Current usage is pretty inconsistent, and I've noticed some moves from one disambiguator to another being reverted, so it might be worth discussing. There are 321 articles using "(plant)" as the disambiguator, 96 using "(genus)", 7 using "(plant genus)" 27 using "(orchid)", and 30 for fern/grass/moss/palm/legume.

I'm not a big fan of "(genus)"; it can still be ambiguous. I've come across maybe a half dozen articles dabbed with (genus) where there was also an animal genus with the same name. (plant) is less ambiguous and provides a little more information about what the subject of the article is. If a search engine gives lots of "wrong" results for an ambiguous genus name, I suspect that "plant" would be the most likely term added to refine the search. Disambiguators like orchid/fern/grass/etc. give quite a bit of information about the article subject, but detract from consistency in article titles. Should (plant) be suggested as the default disambiguator? It's presently the most widely used. Other terms might be appropriate on a case by case basis (e.g. the subjects of Vanilla (genus), Lotus (genus), and Asparagus (genus) can't be effectively disambiguated with (plant)). Plantdrew (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

This was discussed before, I can't remember exactly when but perhaps a couple of years ago, and the result was lack of clear agreement, though people's positions may have changed since then. An additional problem with "(genus)" is that it's verging on natural sciences jargon, and general readers may not know what it means. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

There was a brief discussion touching on this question here. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I would always favour using "genus" as the primary disambiguator (but obviously not when the name also exists under other codes). I'm not sure how widely it would be seen as jargon, but it's a concept that cannot be comfortably expressed in any other words. It is the disambiguator that requires the least amount of prior knowledge on the part of a seeker, which ought to be one of the main criteria. I may know that there is a genus called Lotus, but I may not know what sort of organism – or I might know that it's a plant but not know what sort of plant. (Even if I knew the family, would it be "Lotus (legume)", "Lotus (Leguminosae)", "Lotus (Fabaceae)", "Lotus (Papilionaceae)" or something else? I shouldn't have to know Wikipedia's conventions to find the article.) Using something like "(orchid)" therefore seems extremely unhelpful: it may well be that I'm looking the subject up to find out what it is, so the disambiguation shouldn't expect me to know beforehand.

WP:NCDAB gives a few examples, none of which is exactly analogous with this situation, but I think we can draw some conclusions. It recommends using "the generic class", with the implication (in my mind at least) that the most generic class (where reasonable) should be used. The article on the element mercury is at mercury (element), not mercury (metal); similarly, I would argue we should have the article at "Xxxx (genus)", not "Xxxx (orchid)" or "Xxxx (plant)". --Stemonitis (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem with "(genus)" is that it can't be used consistently (because of the cases where there is an animal genus). This makes it not comparable to "(element)", it seems to me. The most generic class which achieves the necessary disambiguation is surely "(plant)"? Peter coxhead (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I found the discussion from a couple of years ago (though there may have been others) - it's here. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for digging up the previous threads. I did a quick check of the (genus)/(plant) articles starting with "A". 22 of 42 "A" (plant) articles have a corresponding article at Category:Genus disambiguation pages. I checked GBIF and WoRMS (the single largest animal database I'm aware of, but far from comprehensive) for animal genera sharing a name with the plant "A" (genus) articles. 9 of the 18 plant "A" (genus) articles are homonyms with an animal genus!!! Granted, some of the animal genera are obscure synonyms, and unlikely to have a Wikipedia article, but there is still potential ambiguity. From my quick check, a minimum of 31/60 ambiguous plant genera starting with "A" would NOT be adequately disambiguated by (genus). Plantdrew (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I've now checked all the "A" (plant) pages against GBIF & WoRMS. 22 already disambiguate a plant and animal genus at the base title. 14 more share a name with an animal genus (but the animal genus isn't yet on Wikipedia). Of the 60 genus names I've checked, only 15 are unique to the plant kingdom. Depending on whether all the animal genera (including redirecting synonyms) are added to Wikipedia, 22-45 of the 60 pages I've checked require a dab term other than (genus). Only 1 of the 60 pages (Asparagus (genus)) doesn't work with a dab term of (plant). Plantdrew (talk) 22:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The distribution information needs to be fixed - this seems to be a tropical east Asian plant (fide Flora of China), but naturalised elsewhere in the tropics. I suspect that is naturalised, not native, in Mauritius. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I have recently come across a couple of other articles created by the same editor with similar errors in the distributions – in my cases species introduced to North America being described as native there, and ignoring their wide Eurasian native ranges. It's probably not wrong to say that "Sigesbeckia orientalis is found in Mauritius", but it does rather imply that that's its entire native range, which is not the case. (You were right; GRIN considers it to be introduced to Mauritius.) --Stemonitis (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that the redirection of Ligusticum lucidum to Ligusticum huteri should be removed. As you can see on EOL’s website, the species Ligusticum lucidum is not a synonym of Ligusticum huteri . Only the subspecies Ligusticum lucidum ssp. huteri is a synonym of Ligusticum huteri.--Laia-M. 09:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laia lion (talk • contribs)

 Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

You may wish to comment on a proposed move at Talk:Metrosideros_excelsa#Deviation_from_WP:FLORA.3B_brought_here_from_the_Help_Desk. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Just a heads up notification that, on Wikispecies, User:Stho002 has unilaterally revised the higher classification of plants. He has not been open to discussing these changes, and blocked me (I'm an admin there) when I tried to intervene and requested that he discuss the changes. Among the difficulties created:

• "Plantae" on Wikispecies includes the red algae
• "Bryophyta" on Wikispecies is now paraphyletic with the liverworts and hornworts included); this choice appears to be largely based on a single 2011 paper that included only 5 bryophyte taxa in the analysis.
• the pteridosperms are not part of "phylum Tracheophyta"
• "angiosperms" is unranked, but redirects to "Magnoliopsida", ranked as a class including all angiosperm orders.

The irony is that Stho002 insists that all classifications must be Linnaean, but he has replaced a plant classification system that was Linnaean (and used monophyletic groups) with one that is non-Linnaean and includes paraphyletic groups. I'm given up hope at Wikispecies, as Stho002 has become a monarchial dictator over the past few years, and brooks no debate. (my opinion) The rest of the community turns a blind eye to the changes, and focusses on parochial classification.

Just letting the community know of the difficulty, because this affects inter-project linking. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I first got involved editing Wikis at Wikispecies. My contributions trailed off before User:Stho002 was involved, bI've checked back in a few time in recent years. I'm appalled at how it's become a personal fiefdom, with consensus almost solely determined by one person. Dissent is handled by abuse of admin tools. Apparently if I want to contribute over there, I've got to figure out the right way of doings things via telepathy. If I do something the wrong way, I might end up blocked, but the vague style guidelines on the Help pages have barely changed in the last 5 years. Plantdrew (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I was a full time editor there for a number of years, working on the fossil taxa. I ran afoul of Stho002 soon after he was granted admin status when I contested some of his revisions. Failry soon after that I was temporarily banned. After that point I watched his power grow and decided to move back to working on full articles here. I really wish there was some way to have his tools revoked for destruction of the project there. As a note, he tried to edit here for a little while, and ended up getting banned for the same behavior.--Kevmin § 07:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I have heard nothing good about Wikispecies for some time now, probably since about the time Stho002 became king. I also have reservations (to put it mildly) about Stho002, since it was an interaction between him and myself that resulted in his indefinite block here (although he continues to add links to Wikispecies under a series of alternative accounts without, thus far, getting into mischief). It does seem that the Wikispecies project is being damaged by the presence of Stho002, but I can't think of any solutions to that problem. If we considered it a sufficiently serious failing, one step we could take (probably after agreeing it at a wider forum than this), would be to stop adding links to Wikispecies and to remove those that are present (they're almost all made through templates, so that could be easily achieved). WP:EL suggests we include links to "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." One might argue that Wikispecies had ceased to be "neutral and accurate". Certainly we can question the addition of individual Wikispecies links; not all are helpful. Note that links to Wikimedia sister projects are only "links to be considered", rather than ones that "can normally be linked" according to WP:EL. We are not obliged to link to them. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support link removal - Interesting discussion about something that I hadn't personally encountered. The whole idea of wikispecies is arguably useless. It isn't the sort of system that would make a tool for taxonomists, namely one that can handle many different classifications and be used as a workbench for developing a classification. In its present form, it seems to add nothing but an interlingual version of what the wikipedias could provide. I've added quite a few links to wikispecies when I've added links to commons galleries, but will stop doing that. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support link removal. I can't see the point of Wikispecies in its present form. Even if there weren't problems with dictatorial editors, it simply doesn't offer the possibility of a nuanced discussion of alternative classifications which can be achieved in the more extensive articles of the various language Wikipedias. Inter-language links are best handled by Wikidata, I suspect, although there appear to be problematic editors who are blocked here editing over there as well. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 18:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
• Support I have been tempted to remove the links from articles I edited/created for some time now. Given the very tenuous nature of WS as a source and the highly destructive nature of hte current autocrat, I'm going ahead with removal of the links.--Kevmin § 03:05, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia can focus on the endless inconclusive debates of higher classification, while Wikispecies can choose one classification on pragmatic grounds, and focus instead on the nomenclature and bibliography of the individual species, which is what it was designed to do ... RealityCzecher (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly have a check-user run on this account, as sockpuppetry is against policy.--Kevmin § 03:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

It would be stale. I don't think there's much question about the identity, but if we're having a semi-constructive dialog, I don't see the point in slamming the door just now. Choess (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Kevmin has started removing interwikis for no good reason, which I consider to be tantamount to vandalism (stated reason is erroneous, Wikispecies is no more a POV site than Wikipedia). I shall revert ...RealityCzecher (talk) 03:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikispecies was created to divert the energy of the TOL people, to stop them from creating "a million" species articles here (Look! Shiny!). We ignored that attempt, and built a huge collect of quality articles over here. I've never seen the point of that project. Guettarda (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Wikispecies currently has a very large amount of useful content that Wikipedia lacks. The two projects ought to focus on their own particular strengths and WP editors ought to stop being so territorial ... RealityCzecher (talk) 03:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• [comments from Czecher which they had randomly inserted in someone else's text]:As far as I can see, Stho002 blocked EncycloPetey, for one week, upgraded from a lesser block, for ignoring repeated requests to hold back and actually let Stho002 fix a specific problem that EncycloPetey has alerted him to, without reverting him at every stage. EncycloPetey is also an admin, and immediately unblocked himself/herself from the lesser block, only to revert Sthoo2 again and be blocked for longer. EncycloPetey did have the option of complaining to a beaureacrat or steward if he/she considered the block to be an abuse of Stho002's admin powers, but no such action appears to have been taken, or if it was, it was ineffectual ... RealityCzecher (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the paraphyly of Bryophyta is entirely unsettled and disputed in the literature. Not only is monophyly supported by this recent paper:

• Shanker, A.; Sharma, V.; Daniell, H. 2011: Phylogenomic evidence of bryophytes’ monophyly using complete and incomplete data sets from chloroplast proteomes. Journal of plant biochemistry and biotechnology, 20(2): 288-292. doi: 10.1007/s13562-011-0054-5
  

but it is also treated as monophyletic in this recent publication:

• Gordon, D.P. (ed.) 2012: New Zealand inventory of biodiversity. Volume 3. Kingdoms Bacteria, Protozoa, Chromista, Plantae, Fungi. Canterbury University Press, Christchurch, New Zealand. ISBN 978-1-92714505-0
  

In fact, Stho002 has followed this book for most if not all of the plant classification. The book was written by the professional botanical community of New Zealand, with input from specialists overseas, led by the botanists of Landcare Research Ltd. (a Crown Research Institute). Does EncycloPetey think that he/she knows better?? ...RealityCzecher (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

As a note Sthoo2/RealityCzecker has not opened a complaint against me at The admin noticeboard over the removal of ws links.--Kevmin § 03:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Stephen, two points. First, on the specific set of changes to plant classification. I'm as aware as anyone that top-level phylogeny is an ambiguous mess (try explaining "protists" to a general biology class these days), but as a pragmatic question, having radically different classifications between Wikispecies and en.Wikipedia has the potentially to make those links something of an attractive nuisance here, if people wander in and try to change our taxonomy to that of Wikispecies. Since the taxonomic navigation is all template-driven, I'm not quite sure I see how having a shifting top-level phylogeny threatens species-level classification at Wikispecies, or precisely what the virtue of the new classification over the old is. With respect to Gordon and associates, if they, like Wikispecies, are principally concerned with alpha taxonomy, their choice of higher-level taxonomy may reflect convenience over accuracy. (I have the impression that this was a fairly common response to the unsettled conditions which prevailed until recently in the suprageneric classifications in monilophytes, for instance.) In any case, the rationale for the changes seems a little unclear to me here, and I don't see any announcement on the Village Pump at Wikispecies.

Second, as regards governance in general. The principle "no man shall be a judge in his own case" long predates en.Wikipedia, so when I say it's odd to be blocking someone to settle your dispute, I don't think that's just a quirk of Wikipedian culture. It might be wise to consider a less arbitrary mode of operations on Wikispecies. I realize it's undoubtedly convenient to be able to make sweeping changes without having to engage in elaborate processes of consultation, but it's very discouraging to editors to be subjected to them without forewarning or clear rationale (see Plantdrew's comment above), and the deterrent effect on volunteer work probably exceeds your own savings in time. Choess (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

In response to your first point, firstly I can hear several "Gordon associates" choking at being labelled "alpha taxonomists"! At any rate, Wikispecies is now using a perfectly reasonable classification, based on 2011- literature from reputable sources. Furthermore, Kevmin has lost his temper (again!) and is removing Wikispecies interwikis from SPECIES AND GENERA pages, which is simply removing links to good content (on WS) for no good reason. I suggest that it is against NPOV to remove links to alternative points of view. RealityCzecher (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

In response to your second point, I didn't block anyone to settle my dispute, I blocked EncycoPetey as a regrettably necessary preventative measure so that I could actually fix the specific problem he alerted me to without having him revert me every step of the way. RealityCzecher (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm. It sure didn't sound like you regretted it. I've never seen a more blatant example of admin abuse. Drmies (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you have to have a fully Linnaean system (no clades), which does seem to have support from the few discussions I see, the Christenhusz et al. sequences does seem like the most logical choice. (I rearranged fern taxonomy to conform with their accompanying paper last year.) Had this been raised at the Wikispecies Village Pump before going in to carry it out, the ensuing discussion would probably have resolved this amicably rather than with a block-unblock-block sequence. I wouldn't generally consider en.wikipedia culture a model for dispute resolution, but we've more or less established that when disputes like this occur and someone reverts, it's time to take it to an appropriate talk page or forum and discuss before moving forward. (See WP:BRD, etc.)

I think it's a little early to jump in and start delinking—I'd rather let this discussion settle for a few days—but in general, we're not obliged to maintain external links to other websites if they aren't improving this encyclopedia. Choess (talk) 05:54, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Never really saw the purpose of the site, and the behaviour of that user seems bizarre, and should have been acted upon long ago. FunkMonk (talk) 06:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

RealityCzecher wrote: Wikipedia can focus on the endless inconclusive debates of higher classification, while Wikispecies can choose one classification on pragmatic grounds, and focus instead on the nomenclature and bibliography of the individual species, which is what it was designed to do ... This is a somewhat biassed view:

• Debates on higher classification are not all "endless" or "inconclusive". The intensive work by the APG has settled most of the internal phylogeny of the angiosperms, for example. Their clade-based classification seems to be stable, although the precise ranks are still debated (Scilloideae versus Hyacinthaceae, for example).
• Yes, one classification has be to chosen for Wikispecies, as it does for taxoboxes here, and that choice has to be on pragmatic grounds. Precisely for that reason, it has to be based on a consensus both of sources and of editors. Neither applies in the changes made recently in Wikispecies.
• As for the nomenclature and bibliography of individual species, for plants this seems to duplicate sources like IPNI when it's complete, and offer a partial view when it's not. Wikispecies may be more valuable for animals – I don't know enough about this – but I really don't see its value for plants.

Peter coxhead (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

• Weak oppose link removal. I hope the culture and administration at Wikispecies improve, but removing links here doesn't seem likely to affect change over there. Wikispecies can include information beyond what we have here (although, as a work in progress it rarely does so). We've got a lot of taxoboxes missing binomial authorities, which Wikispecies is better about (although I doubt there are Wikipedia articles with a Wikispecies link that are still missing authorities). Wikispecies is also better about citing original descriptions, although there's no reason we can't do more of that here. The best articles on Wikispecies include data on type specimens, which is getting a little too much into taxonomy trivia to be appropriate on a general encyclopedia. Wikispecies would be a good place for including the text of out-of-copyright Latin diagnoses. As it stands now, most Wikispecies links are useless (don't have anything beyond what's here). In theory, there could be some valuable information there. Plantdrew (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why you think we should be citing original descriptions. I sometimes see them cited in taxoboxes to support the authority, when I remove them in favour of a secondary source – the primary source is inappropriate. since it cannot deal with issues such as priority, superfluous names, rejected names, etc. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should make citation of origina descriptions a high priority here (it should be a high priority for Wikispecies). But citing original descriptions doesn't necessarily strike me as inappropriate. Secondary source is better for the authority in a taxobox, since the original description wouldn't employ the standardized author abbreviation we use in the taxobox. But if there's a statement in the text, "Jones described the species in 1950", it seems like citation of the Jones paper would be a useful reference. We do need a secondary source to establish that Jones's proposed species is accepted by the taxonomic community, and to confirm that the printed publication date is the actual publication date (sometimes it's not). I don't see that WP:PRIMARY prohibits all citations of the original description. Am I way off base here? Plantdrew (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I think that's right on. Citing Species Plantarum to establish that a given name was invented by Linnaeus is perfectly reasonable. Establishing that a name is still considered valid, is not an illegitimate later homonym, etc., is best accomplished by citing a secondary source such as a regional flora. In any case, I'm not a big fan of citations in taxoboxes; if you're digging up the original publication, you might as well bodge in a few lines on taxonomy on the body of the article. And it's arguably preferable to cite the primary source for some of these fine details; see, for instance, the note on Asplenium platyneuron where FNA goofed in listing a synonymy. Choess (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree that primary sources are good to have in a taxonomy section, and they can bring wonderfully detailed descriptions and illustrations, but don't belong in the taxobox. I don't really think that we should generally be citing sources for authority names in the taxobox either (in some exceptional cases, yet). Although it is distressing that the excellent databases like IPNI and APNI and Algaebase don't get citations that could be used to justify their existence, they have now reached such a high quality that a reader with just a little knowledge can be reasonably confident that what they'll find there is accurate. I think it is unnecessary to duplicate all of that here, creating a need for additional maintenance. (List of botanists by author abbreviation, though, is important because it provides answers to the sometimes puzzling question of where wikipedia has a page about the person.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia's deprecation of primary sources has some weird consequences. If I were reading about Albert Einstein#1905 – Annus Mirabilis papers in any other source with references in footnotes, I'd expect the footnotes to include citations of the Annuus Mirabilis papers themselves. Knowing Wikipedia, I was not surprised to find that these clearly relevant primary sources weren't cited in the most logical place. Plantdrew (talk) 16:30, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Rather than being due to deprecation of primary sources, might that not be a result of the hyperlink structure? The section starts with "Main articles: Annus Mirabilis papers ... ", and the sources are available there. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

My point was not that primary sources shouldn't be used, but that they shouldn't be used to support the correctness of a name. Sure, you could give a reliable secondary source (like WCSP) to show the name still holds together with the primary source, but this is surely overkill; the secondary ref is enough. For other purposes, primary refs are useful, e.g. when the etymology of the name is explained.

I personally don't agree that refs should not be in taxoboxes. I think that even if they duplicate the referencing in the text, they are important evidence for the correctness of the authority or the list of synonyms, etc. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

• Weak oppose Same as Plantdrew. While I find the description of the situation over there just as appalling, it's a fixable problem, and should really be dealt with by crats not by us. I still think WikiSpecies can be useful for its intended purpose of a taxonomic database, and thus falls under the "amount of detail" stipulation of WP:EL. True, it's more or less redundant at the moment, but that doesn't mean it couldn't improve. I would support immediate removal of WikiSpecies links in obviously clashing classifications though (which from I gather, seems to be mostly in the higher taxa). They, on the other hand, would be completely confusing to readers.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 20:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I see a clear consensus, albeit of a small group of editors so far, that interwiki links to Wikispecies should be removed. I see RealityCzecher has undone a number of Kevmin's changes (without explanation--and Kevmin did indeed give edit summaries). I can only conclude that RealityCzecher is edit-warring against consensus, and using mass rollback to revert their unexplained reverts of edits is acceptable, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 05:15, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I also reported to SPI based on the AN/I thread and this thread. Ansh666 05:23, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: RealityCzecher has been blocked for SockPuppetry, since it is apparently User:Stho002 under another name. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding bryophyte monophyly, RealityCzecher (User:Stho002) is mistaken. He found two oddball papers to support an a priori position which has not been accepted as a serious claim against the overwhelming consensus opinion of the bryological community that the bryophytes are paraphyletic. See, for example, the summary paper introducing the "Bryophyte Biology" collected papers volume published by the Cambridge Press, p135-137, which summarizes the literature with, "A monophyletic concept of bryophytes has gained little support in recent years...[Most] studies resolve bryophytes as paraphyletic, too, but differ in the position of hornworts..." Regarding the two papers User:Stho002 found suggesting monophyly, one was a flwed study, in which gene sequences were converted to phenotypes prior to comparison, so the data was processed, signal hidden, and then analyzed. The other included only 5 bryophytes in the study, which runs a huge risk of long-branch attraction, and misplacement of the root. Neither of these papers was published in a major systematic journal, and both run contrary to recent research with much larger data sets, e.g. those in "Molecular Systematics of Bryophytes" (vol 98) published through the Missouri Botanical Garden. I'd raise the issue on Wikispecies, but User:Stho002 is not amenable to discussion. He has ignored/refused to discuss his changes, choosing to block instead to win his little edit war. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The above demonstrates rather well the serious problem with wikispecies, that alternative views are stamped on and that battles between editors-with-admin-powers rage. The substance of that diatribe from EncycloPetey is WP:OR. I find "Neither of these papers was published in a major systematic journal" to be a particularly inappropriate complaint given the current state of academic publishing, i.e., the big publishers are making huge profits as a result of that attitude and they have the incentive to publish only "controversial" or "exciting" research (sometimes complete codswallop). It behoves all of us who care about science to judge papers by their content without any consideration at all of the place that they are published, or of the number of citations that the paper or the journal receives. We don't do OR here, we follow scientific consensus, but since it is OR to decide what scientific consensus actually is, we discuss what it might be on this page right here, and alternative views may need to be presented. My impression is that due to the efforts of a few editors here, we are actually doing a better job of presenting alternative views in the Taxonomy sections of various pages here than is happening in wikispecies. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it WP:OR to quote a source that states the scientific consensus? That's where I started in my comment. The remainder was addressing the issues with Stho002's "supporting" papers for going against scientific consensus. If I had access to better academic library resources than I currently do, I might be able to find a proper published rebuttal to cite for my analysis, assuming that anyone has bothered to do so. Many of these little "codswallop" papers that espouse non-mainstream views are never analyzed in the literature. And the place where an article is published does matter in some instances. An article published in Taxon would carry a lot more weight in its opinons with me than something published in Taxodium, because the former is a peer-reviewed journal with a clear focus, and the latter was neither peer-reviewed nor focused. Likewise, an article on a topic that is published in a journal completely out of its topical sphere begs the question "Why couldn't they get this published in an on-topic journal?" That's not to say that location of publication should be the primary consideration, but it shouldn't be ignored. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

@Sminthopsis84 – it's important to distinguish between situations where it's possible to discuss alternatives and situations where it's not. I don't think EncycloPetey was arguing that in text the minority view on bryophyte phylogeny shouldn't be discussed (if he was, I join you in disagreeing). But one classification has to be chosen for taxoboxes and for article hierarchies as in Wikispecies. This has to be chosen by consensus, both a consensus of the academic literature and a consensus of editors. Consensus doesn't mean simply voting or counting. The quality of a journal is a factor to be considered. At present it seems clear to me that the consensus in reliable sources is that traditional bryophytes are paraphyletic.

But the main point remains there has to be discussion among editors, and admins should not use blocking to prevent discussion, as seems to have been happening on Wikispecies. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a main point is certainly that editors shouldn't be beating one another up with admin powers (or even without).

Another main point is what is Wikispecies for? Wikispecies is multilingual, and discussion doesn't happen there: "actual discussion is omitted in Wikispecies and is instead strictly replaced by the taxonomic roots of the species at hand." I don't see how arguments can be avoided in that context. For a classification that's difficult to pin down, such as the Bryophytes, I don't like to see a dogmatic statement. (And the question of whether paraphylly should be permitted in classifications is also fraught.) By duplicating these somewhat arbitrary classifications in the two databases, we are compounding the errors by repetition. What we need is a good database that has been built by specialists, such as WCSP, and tremendous advances are being made, but the good ones are incomplete, and I don't think that wikispecies is one of the good ones because it is too vulnerable to battles between would-be editors.

If wikipedia has a decent article on a taxon, then what purpose does a link to wikispecies serve? As far as I can tell, the original aim of wikispecies was for it to not be readable by the general public, and for it to link to wikipedia articles, not the other way around.

Yes, there are high-quality journals where just about any paper will be good, but only a few journals these days have professional editors who are also scientists. Academics who pad their resumé with an editorship position are often not, in my experience, able to give the selection and improvement of articles the attention that it deserves. Nor are they, often, particularly gifted with editorial talents. Michael Eisen's blog is interesting reading on the problems with the highest ranked journals and the state of war in publishing (note: the first paragraph is just a teaser, not true). I don't bother to read those citation-index-chasing journals any more, unless pointed to a particular article, often an old article. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey all. Please participate in the discussion in Infraspecific name (botany)#Cultivar, etc. regarding how to proceed with the proposed creation of a page on the term "Infraspecific".-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL

Archive this. Plantdrew (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, all. I just finished creating a new article (Vataireoids) based on an informal (i.e. not recognized by the ICBN) legume clade that has been consistently resolved in molecular phylogenies over the last decade. I also updated the taxoboxen for the four genera included in this clade (Luetzelburgia, Sweetia, Vatairea, and Vataireopsis). I've also added a phylogenetic classification to the Faboideae article (in addition to the traditional, paraphyletic tribes already listed there). I have a few questions:

1. Is it worthwhile to create new articles for all of these non-ICBN-recognied clades? Or should they await formal recognition?
2. If it isn't worthwhile to create new articles for all of these non-ICBN-recognied clades, should I nominate Vataireoids for deletion?
3. If it is worthwhile to create new articles for all of these non-ICBN-recognied clades, should they take priority in the classification reported in taxoboxen of subordinate genera? Or should taxoboxen still report traditional classification (even if it's been shown to be erroneous)?

Thanks (in advance) for your input! Ninjatacoshell (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it's just as worthwhile to have articles on minor clades as having articles on minor ICBN taxa like Dalbergieae. Making articles on clades/tribes isn't something I'd spend time on, but I'm not really generating content anyway. If you're generating content and interested in focusing on these clades, go for it. Clade articles needn't be deleted. Formal naming under the code shouldn't be an issue as long as there are reliable sources for the clade name and included taxa. I'd lean towards following traditional classification in subordinate taxoboxes and mentioning the clade in the subordinate article's text. Plantdrew (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

We have agreed in the past that taxoboxes should have only the major clades – traditional or otherwise, so these clades should not be in the articles' taxoboxes. It's fine to discuss and wikilink in Taxonomy sections. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Peter; these informal taxa are perfectly appropriate subjects for an article (provided they pass general notability), but should not be included in taxoboxes. The high-level APG clades ("rosids", "asterids", "euasterids I", etc.) probably constitute the only exception to this. --Stemonitis (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree as well - certain clades of large families have had ample material published and are distinctive units in their own right, hence warrant an article and discussion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

For those interested but who aren't watching Moringa oleifera, please see Talk:Moringa_oleifera#additional_information. User:Anbruu and colleagues are submitting a draft for changes to the article, and would like others to comment. Hamamelis (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

There are some taxonomy templates specific to Rosaceae that are due for a major revision, now that the subfamily formerly known as Spiraeoideae has become Amygdaloideae, Maloideae has disappeared, and Dryadoideae has been added. Category:Immediate children/Rosaceae is seriously out of date, but I'm not confident about what to do. Does one remove a parent link from, say, Template:Taxonomy/Spiraeoideae? Would making these changes upset the other-language wikipedias? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Any general advice about deeply red pages such as Loranthaceae and Santalaceae? What happened with all of these links and is there any opinion about what to do to make them useful/better? __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

we've focused on species and family articles. Many genera are redlinks. Best get round to writing a few stubs then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

3 articles on my watchlist (Winged bean, Plectranthus esculentus and Telfairia occidentalis) have recently been substantially expanded by editors with no prior contributions. The expansions need some cleanup, but are generally good and well-referenced. None of the editors have figured out how to use "ref name" to consolidate repeated citations of the same reference, and the contributions have similar scopes (e.g., all involve a section on growing conditions/cultivation techniques), and all involve tropical food plants. I'm just kind of curious about the seeming coincidence and am wondering what's going on. Anybody else see similar expansions in any other articles? I'm guessing maybe there's a school project behind these? Plantdrew (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Repeating references is a common sign of inexperienced editors generally, but the timing is suggestive of something a bit more organised. There were also a couple of new articles that appeared without taxoboxes today; I tidied up Bromelia laciniosa, and Vetiveria nigritana could still do with being looked over by some experienced eyes. As in your cases, the editors in question had no previous history, and the species are all known from cultivation. There could easily be several more. (In case any of the new editors notice this, you're not in trouble at all – we're just interested.) --Stemonitis (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

This being Wikipedia, any explanation might be the correct one. I wouldn't be too concerned about it if the additions are generally OK quality-wise. However I will add that if anyone ever notices large lumps of odd text being added to articles by IPs which geolocate to Zaragoza in Spain, it might be worth flagging up - there's a previous history of trouble. Similarly with multiple additions/deletions on orchid articles. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

(Aside: yes, our Spanish friend is at it again.) It would be wonderful if wikipedia has finally reached some critical mass of material and trustworthiness so that multiple instructors are setting assignments to add some of the enormous amount of material related to environmental matters such as where food comes from. Somewhat similar work has taken place on Khorasan wheat and Food security, though that last one is easy to track to a particular course that is probably quite separate from the others. Vetiveria nigritana should really be moved to the accepted name Chrysopogon nigritanus; not sure whether to hold off on that to allow a putative student to complete their work first. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that the redirection of Encephalartos senticosus to Encephalartos lebomboensis should be removed. As you can see on EOL’s website, the species Encephalartos senticosus is not a synonym of Encephalartos lebomboensis. In addition, they were split in 1996, as you can see here.--Laia-M. (talk) 09:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians! I've been trying to improve Luzula arctica, but have come across a bit of a problem - the article may be titled under the wrong name? Some sources seem to indicate that L. arctica is not actually the accepted name, and that it should be L. nivalis instead - see 1, 2 and 3, but then others like this don't. What's happening here?- as for a non-botanist this is very confusing. I understood that scientists change the scientific name of a species if they find a name for the same species that predates the current one? Is this what happened here? Is there any way to find out when the change of name occured etc.? I just wanted to post here and get some advice before moving the article, as I just want to check I am understanding the sources right. Thanks, Acather96 (click here to contact me) 18:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Some discussion is provided here and here. In short, if one considers the type specimen of Luzula arctica Blytt and that of Luzula campestris var. nivalis Laest. (≡ Luzula nivalis (Laest.) Spreng.) to belong to the same species (and in the genus Luzula), then the correct (basically, oldest) name is Luzula nivalis (Laest.) Spreng. It seems to me at first glance that the majority opinion is that they are the same species, in which case a page move will be required. Let me know if you can't do that yourself, and I'll gladly oblige. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC);;

Thanks, I'll try and work on the article over the next couple of days. So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that the article should be titled under the L. nivalis name, with L. arctica and Luzula campestris var. nivalis listed as synonyms? I would imagine a section on the species' disputed taxonomy would be appropriate as well? Also, how did you find those sources - I can never track down very much besides USDA, EOl etc. - any tips? Thanks, Acather96 (click here to contact me) 21:22, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I was hoping to find some discussion of both names, so I searched for "Luzula arctica" + "Luzula nivalis". One snippet that showed up in the search results was "Very many authors have applied the name Luzula arctica Blytt 1861 for this ...", which looked like it might be an explanation rather than just a list of synonyms, so I looked there first. Writing about nomenclatural confusion for Wikipedia can be very difficult; the language of formal nomenclature is very precise and is hard to re-write for a generalist audience. In this case, it's probably enough to say that both names have been used, but that L. nivalis is the correct one. You could mention that not all authors consider them to be the same species, but probably only if that view has been expressed rather more recently than 1980. In case you want to get into more detail, this page states that Kirscher's 2001 lectotypification^{[L 1]} "finishes the issue"; I'm not sure how it does that, but apparently it does. --Stemonitis (talk) 07:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Right, I've tried to give a paragraph of info about the taxonomy of L. nivalis in the article - if someone could take a look I would be extremely grateful as technical taxonomy is quite new to me! Thank-you once again :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 22:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi everybody,

I'm trying to do a template ([24]) about plant structures, but I need opinions from people with more knowledge in botany. Thanks. Zorahia (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sminthopsis84,

Could you give me a help or suggestion about this template I'm trying to do: [25]? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zorahia (talk • contribs) 19:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Zorahia,

I'm not much of a fan of templates (sorry), as I prefer pages to be short, and information not to have strict boundaries around it. When a template of this sort appears on a page, I see it as similar to some of the vandalism that we see here, when a student adds a sort of short summary on a page that doesn't do the subject matter justice, such as this edit. I think that readers need to be encouraged to read the older botany books such as Goebel's "Organography of plants", Arber's various books, Esau's "Anatomy of Seed Plants". That's why I consider it counter to the spirit of education to lay down the law as is done at Epidermis_(botany) with "In some older works the cells of the leaf epidermis have been regarded as specialised parenchyma cells, but the established modern preference has long been to classify the epidermis as dermal tissue, whereas parenchyma is classified as ground tissue." A reader of an older book would be lost if they were trying to rely on a definitive statement that epidermis has no relationship to parenchyma.

A few random comments:

You could ask for suggestions at WT:PLANTS, and a particular question that other opinions would be valuable for is the classification. Although the classification of organisms is not definite, Wikipedia does in effect choose a particular one, and I'm not sure what the project participants have decided about Tracheophyta and Spermatophyta.

Similarly, what exactly a strobilus is depends on who you ask.

Gynoecium is not just a feature of flowering plants, though the page hides that information away (which is a problem with that page).

The central cell of flowering plants is also a gamete.

"Carpel/Pistil Stigma Style Ovary Fruit/pericarp Endosperm" is a rather jumbled list, with some sub-parts at the same rank as the structures that contain them.

If you have cork cambium, then you need phellem and phelloderm.

Xylem also contains other cells (fibres, parenchyma) and extra-cellular features such as gum plugs and resin canals.

With all but "oosphere" you seem to be omitting the algae, so perhaps you want to remove oosphere.

Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sminthopsis84,

Firstly, thanks by the comments. Templates can be restrictive, and sometimes visually polluting (the WP in German seems to hate them), but like it or not, they are very usefull, when well done - which clearly is not the case of my template... I think WP misses good templates about plant structures, like we have for human anatomy (Category:Anatomy templates). Zorahia (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting, I'm not able to judge the human anatomy templates. Wikipedia is missing a lot about plant structures, Glossary of botanical terms and Glossary of plant morphology are a good beginning, but could be twice as long and with many images. Do you see this new template as removing some material from the Botany template? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that it would be better to create three (or more?) new templates, for anatomy, morphology and development, to deepen the concepts we have in the Botany template.Zorahia (talk) 21:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it should be better to create templates about general terms and others for structures from specific groups.Zorahia (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This popped up for me on suggestbot. I don't care enough to improve the article, but it is interesting and definitely needs improvement, so throwing to the greater project: Prunus persica x Prunus americana. Montanabw^(talk) 03:55, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bothriochloa_ischaemum Courtesy >> user:KarlaSchaus Danger^Mouse (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

References 6 and 7 don't seem to support the text they are supposed to support. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It's hard work to work over this because it is jumble of misused references, not linked even to the abstracts. Unsalvageable, I'd say, though the page about the species as a whole, which already exists, could use some of those citations with appropriate statements attributed to them. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Review done. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Merry Christmas, and happy New Year :) - 12:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)Danger^Mouse (talk)

Various orchids are being added to Category:Orchids of Ireland, presenting the risk that widespread plants will get upwards of 100 categories, indeed every plant article could end up with a thicket of small geographic categories. Indeed, people might set up categories for regions within countries like 'Plants of Cornwall', say. A more measured approach might be to limit geographic categories to continent-sized regions (maybe something like 'Orchids of Africa', 'Orchids of the Western Palearctic', whatever), in which case the regions ought to be standardized. Islands or island groups which have many endemic species might also be good choices. What would be the appropriate categorisation approach for plant distribution? Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

While I don't always agree with User:NotWith's category work, this categorization scheme seems appropriate for plants. Most have restricted distributions. Our advice has always been to use the clearest, smallest category that includes the majority of the plant's distribution. If restricted to a few states or provinces, those categories will do just fine (e.g. Category:Flora of Florida). If more widely distributed, regional categories of some countries are warranted (e.g. Category:Flora of the Southeastern United States). If the plant's distribution does indeed include almost all of a country (e.g. Category:Flora of the United States) or continent (e.g. Category:Flora of North America), then those are appropriate. Occasionally, some large plant taxa require their own subcategories, such as these orchid categories. If the advice is followed and plants are categorized in the appropriate hierarchical region category, no article should have 100 categories. The difference between the Birds project, which I know you're familiar with, and our project is that we don't just restrict ourselves to continent categories. We have a large range of distributions -- from endemic to islands, states, and provinces to global -- to accommodate and tens of thousands of articles already to categorize with hundreds of thousands possible. Continent and some country categories would be overwhelmed and too large to navigate. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 17:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Common sense holds that species with large distribution ought to use regional categories, not national ones. IMO a species get upward of 5-6 categories of that type, the categorizer should start looking seriously at regional categories. Circéus (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I have noticed some problems with these definitions on this wikipedia too. You may be interested on this: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diferencia_entre_c%C3%A1udice,_tallo_caudiciforme,_paquicaulo,_lignot%C3%BAber Regards. --RoRo (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Any specific problems here? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:54, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

That was what I was talking about :) Do what you want anyway. --RoRo (talk) 16:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Hortibox ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I created a category commons:Category:Hibiscus hispidissimus in Commons per http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl/record/tro-19603609 But while checking the species page, it is redirecting to species:Abelmoschus esculentus, a very different plant. May be someone was confused by the similarity of the flowers. Could somebody fix it? Jee 07:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It's possible that the confusion is between H. hispidissimus A. Chev. and H. hispidissimus Griff. My notes have the former as a synonym of Abelmoschus moschatus (but I seem to have neglected to record a reference for this). Lavateraguy (talk) 11:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Why we have Orthosiphon stamineus and Orthosiphon aristatus; commons and wiki-species have only one. :) Jee 12:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Good question. GRIN supports the idea that the genus has only one species, Orthosiphon aristatus, of which O. stamineus is a synonym. On the other hand, GRIN isn't always right. I'm not sure what the best source is for Lamiaceae species. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, It seems that the genus Consolida is now included into Delphinium. Please, have a look on this paper : Jabbour F. , Renner S., 2011. Consolida and Aconitella are an annual clade of Delphinium (Ranunculaceae) that diversified in the Mediterranean basin and the Irano-Turanian region. Taxon 60 (4): 1029–1040. Gtaf (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Regardless whether that paper makes a case for sinking Consolida (with Aconitella) into Delphinium the paper doesn't make the transfer of the species. Until someone does so Wikipedia is stuck with the current classification.

From my reading of the paper, there's a small group of Delphinium species which should be transferred into a segregate genus, but we could do with more evidence for the sinking to be of Consolida. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

This is an example of an issue which regularly causes problems: papers appear which suggest that genera need to be merged or split or otherwise altered, but the authors don't actually do it down to the level of new combinations. (As another example, all the evidence shows that Meconopsis is not monophyletic because Meconopsis cambrica belongs in Papaver, but so far no-one seems to have had the courage to make formal proposals.) I think we have to be cautious – ideally, of course, waiting for secondary sources to take up such changes, although this isn't always realistic. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The MNHN and Tela botanica have changed the name of Consolida regalis into Delphinium consolida. Gtaf (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello - me again with a few questions. With categorisation, I'm not sure what the exact policies/guidelines are around the hierarchy of categories. Take Silaum silaus - obviously it should be in Category:Silaum, but should it also be in Category:Apiaceae? We have categories classifying plants by the year of their description, but we do not have the same for genera. Should this be implemented? Also, what are the rules regarding species names in articles - i.e. when would we say Silaum silaus and when would we say S. silaus. I was under the impression that it was at the start of each paragraph the full name was given, and other uses in that paragraph took the shorter version. Is it like that, or is it to do with sections/headings rather than paragraphs. If we mention another species in the same genus, would we call it Silaum besseri or S. besseri. Do these guidelines apply to all biological articles or just plants - i.e. would the same rules apply to extinct ant species? I'd really appreciate some answers to these questions which while minor, I can't seem to find an answer to. Thanks! Acather96 (click here to contact me) 10:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template#Categories. At the moment, there are only two possible articles that can be included in Category:Silaum, so it's not a viable category at the moment and should be deleted until there are (roughly) 10 articles. The family or subfamily categories would be more appropriate right now. // I don't think categories for genera by year of description are as important as species, but this has never been settled. // Follow general grammar guidelines on species names. It is always spelled out in full on the first mention (not necessarily in every paragraph) and if the species begins a sentence. Avoid beginning a sentence with a genus abbreviation. If you are discussing differences between species of the same genus or it's somehow clear from the context that a newly mentioned species, S. besseri in your example, is in the same genus, then it's fine to use the abbreviation. I would spell it out in full if there's any chance of ambiguity, e.g. in cases where two genera beginning with the letter S are mentioned. Rkitko ^(talk) 15:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. One more quick question as well - how is a chromosome number expressed in prose? I often see in sources things like '2n=12' or 'Chromosome base-number x=11.', and I'm not really sure how to actually write this up in prose, to include in articles like Silaum. Thanks, Acather96 (click here to contact me) 22:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

The rule for selecting a taxonomic category is simple; an article goes in the narrowest applicable taxonomic category and no others. (Deciding what taxonomic categories should exist is less simple, but working with the status quo is sufficient for most purposes.)

Writing out the name in full means that search engines see more references to the name on the page. The more references a search engine sees the more relevant it thinks the page is to a search term, up to a threshold imposed to prevent keyword spamming. So there may be benefits in writing out the name in full.

2n=12 translates to a diploid chromosome number of 12, and x=11 to a base (monoploid) chromosome number of 11. And n=10 to a haploid chromosome number of 10. 3x=27 means that the plant is triploid, with a base chromosome number of 9. Lavateraguy (talk) 01:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The rule for selecting a taxonomic category is simple; an article goes in the narrowest applicable taxonomic category and no others. Actually, it's not so simple. Firstly, the article goes into the narrowest applicable taxonomic category that is (or is likely to be) of a reasonable size – a minimum of 10 existing articles seems to be the generally adopted norm. So an article about a species is categorized at the genus if there are 10+ species articles, otherwise it is categorized upwards under the subfamily, family, order, etc. Secondly, there is an entirely separate parallel system of categorization for articles about genera, families and orders. An article on a genus in a given family would normally be categorized as "FAMILY genera", but again if there are few genera in the family, it is categorized upwards. Similarly an article on a family would normally be categorized as "ORDER families". Peter coxhead (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

We have regularly discussed how to categorize plant articles, either here as a whole WikiProject or amongst smaller groups of interested editors. However, as ever with this WikiProject, we haven't systematically documented our conclusions. There's some material at the parent ToL project, but there are some plant-specific issues, I think.

I've made an attempt to explain the principles behind the main "taxonomic categorization" at WP:PLANTS/Categorization#Taxonomic categories. Below it, there's a section (which requires more expansion) trying to explain the categories for "TAXON genera", "TAXON families", etc.

Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Categorization and/or edit my draft. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be an increasing tendency recently to burden plant articles with a great number of geographic area categorizations. I personally think this unhelpful especially as it is a mix of "Plants of Foo", "Flora of Foo", or even "Genus of Foo". It is worth looking at Anacamptis morio which currently has 28 geographic categories. Where a plant is an endmeic then categorizing it by its area of endemism seems appropriate. Otherwise, I would have thought that a category at Continent level would be appropriate. I also see little value in catagorization of the type "garden plant of Foo" as plants in cultivation can be grown just about anywhere where climatic conditions allow. As always I would welcome comments and proposals.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, I have only just seen the posts of 27th December which covers some of the same ground but which ends without any consensus resolution - so further thoughts that might lead to a reasonable consensus would be welcomed.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:06, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, but I suspect that some editors will add these categories whatever we might think here. Is it actually harmful, or just annoying? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I suspect harmful, in that the presence of one category and the absence of similar categories may lead to an inference about the limits of the distribution of a plant. If such actions are not harmful, then that also leads to a logical questioning of the value of geographical categories and might tempt the thought that they could be deleted with little loss of quality to Wikipedia.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:01, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

We have Wedelia calendulacea and Wedelia chinensis; but it seems Sphagneticola calendulacea is more acceptable name ^{[1] [2]}. Jee 10:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

That was a bit tricky. I moved the information at Wedelia calendulacea to Sphagneticola calendulacea, redirected Wedelia chinensis to Sphagneticola calendulacea and made Wedelia calendulacea a set-index article. The content at Sphagneticola calendulacea needs some work.--Melburnian (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Jee 16:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone have convenient access to Philippine Journal of Science for 1951? There was a phantom species Syzygium brevistylum listed on the Syzygium page, and it shows up moderately often in a google search, but is not known to IPNI and the other compilations. The authority names are said to be (C.B.Rob.) Merr.. The only similar name in the Myrtaceae listed in IPNI with authority C.B.Rob. is Eugenia brevistylis, so a guess is that it may have provided the basionym. A lot of Eugenia species were transferred to Syzygium by Merrill., so the question is whether IPNI needs to be reminded about this one, or whether people have been imagining that Merrill transferred all of Eugenia to Syzygium. The citation is 1951, Philipp. J. Sci. 79: article beginning perhaps at page 373. The species are apparently in alphabetical order, so it should be around pages 377–380. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Through some inspired use of "snippet view" on Google Books, I was able to get enough of page 398 to see that Eugenia brevistylis C.B.Rob. appears in his list of synonyms under Syzygium leucoxylon Korth. Something weird is going on, however; snippet view also pulls out an issue of the Philippine Journal of Forestry (v. 5, pub. 1947) which uses various Syzygium epithet (C.B.Rob.) Merr. combinations, including some that IPNI now attributes to the 1951 publication (e.g., S. costulatum). Snippet view also shows Merrill placing "comb. nov." after the binomials in the 1951 publication, so I incline to think that PJF used the combinations before they were validly published and that E. brevistylis was placed in synonymy before any such combination could be validly published for it. Choess (talk)

Oh, that's interesting, that Merrill's publications could be the source of confusion, and it seems very reasonable that he would decide that it belongs in Syzygium before he decides that it matches S. leucoxylon. BHL turns up this interesting footnote in a 1921 publication of his: "A number of species described under Jambosa and Syzygium are not here transferred to Eugenia, many of the specific names being invalid in Eugenia. These are enumerated alphabetically by their published names whether as Jambosa or Syzygium." That doesn't appear to be the publication with the combination Syzygium brevistylum, but perhaps there is a similar one that has it. That was a dark period for codes of nomenclature; it sounds rather as if Merrill wasn't able to access the documents he needed to sort out which names were valid.

So perhaps a reasonable approach for wikipedia is to assume that IPNI has correctly processed the 1951 publication with the necessary comb. nov.s, that there is no such validly published name, but the taxon is (probably) Eugenia brevistylis. An alternative would be to delete the redirect from Syzygium brevistylum, but that would invite re-addition of that name. The redirect is a guess, but it might perhaps be correct, and it is therefore, hopefully, not too utterly dreadful to leave it here. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

See User_talk:Sasata#Cucurbita.23Production_tables. Is there someone who can help me with: removing the source column (I tried several previews but they didn't work), and if and how to combine the tables (note the same 10 countries are not in the tables). HalfGig talk 00:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the source columns. It seems to me that these are really three separate tables, since the countries aren't the same. However, they could be set out side-by-side, perhaps, although this might make them difficult to view on a smaller screen (Wikipedia is often viewed on tablets these days). Peter coxhead (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

thank you for fixing this. Agree the tables like they are or side by side is a tough call; I can see both sides. HalfGig talk 21:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I know there's no right or wrong answer, but out of interest, what kind of things do you think WP:PLANTS editors should be focusing on at the moment? What's more important: expanding existing one-line stubs or creating new articles from redlinks? Is there any point doing mass stub-creation or is it better to have lots of red links and a few well-written articles? Thoughts? Acather96 (click here to contact me) 16:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, expanding highly viewed Start or C-class articles should be a focus. Most plant species are of interest only to people who already have an interest in botany, and botanically inclined people are likely to be aware of various other plant specific resources on the web that offer better vetted and more detailed information than Wikipedia does. Red-links and one-line stubs exist because very few people are interested in those species (and those that are interested aren't necessarily going to visit Wikipedia for information). The Luzula sylvatica article you worked on gets about 5 views/day. Quinoa gets 21,500 views/day. Efforts to improve Quinoa have a much bigger payoff in informing people about a plant than further work on L. sylvatica. Look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Popular_pages; lots of the articles that Wikipedia users are most interested in are pretty terrible (and quality assessments aren't especiallly consistent; Taro gets 1000 views/day, is rated B quality, and is essentially a list of taro dishes from different countries (although there's a little more info about the plant at Colocasia esculenta).

Which isn't to say that mass stub-creation (or expansion of one line stubs) isn't worthwhile. It's certainly a lot easier. Most of my editing activity is pretty brainless rote work (I often like to split my attention between TV and Wikipedia, and work through a bunch of maintenance edits; doing high quality expansions of content would require my full attention). I've resolved to put more effort into generating quality content this year (and have approval from my boss to spend work time doing so), and move away from strictly rote work.Plantdrew (talk) 22:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Although this is clearly a sensible argument, I would sound a note of caution based on personal experience. Articles that are often viewed by non-specialists are also often edited by non-specialists, and if you spend time improving them it can be very frustrating trying to prevent them getting messed up by the addition of usually unsourced information which is either of marginal relevance, not consistent with WP principles, or just plain wrong. I've taken some of those I used to watch off my watchlist; it was just too stressful. Any article about a plant that has a "folk medical use" (Onion, Garlic or Aloe vera are good examples) is constantly subject to additions by people who believe in the virtues of the plant, regardless of any evidence. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

About adding a lot of stub articles, which is certainly worthy work and might inspire a less experienced person than the participants in the above discussion: I wouldn't advise making a lot of stubs without autopatrolled status. One of the rather shrill components of wikipedia is new page patrolling, where inexperienced people sometimes try to help out, and may believe that specialist material should be deleted as non-noteworthy, especially when it starts out as a stub. Even if not deleted, the consideration of such pages takes up editor effort that could be spent on something else. Autopatrol status can take quite some time to arrange because considerable checking is done that a person is experienced and has a good understanding of the desiderata for pages. If someone wants to do this, perhaps plant people could get together to nominate that person for autopatrol, and promise to advise and watch what they do. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I've uploaded images to commons thinking they are Toona calantas, but after seeing this image on Swietenia macrophylla I'm not so sure anymore. All I know is that the tree is commonly known as the Philippine mahogany. Thanks. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

(I don't know these species.) The original description of Toona calantas, here, gives very little information apart from the size of the fruit, but perhaps that could be useful in this case. Do your trees appear to be growing wild in the Philippines? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it seems very similar to Swietenia. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 01:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

These are valuable trees, so it's understandable that you don't want to say where they are, so we can't know whether these are South American or Asian. Presumably, the trees are not now in front of you, so it is not possible to measure the length of the fruit. On to more complicated detective work, without the most informative material, which would be the flowers. The original description of Swietenia macrophylla here, unfortunately is missing part of the description (I've filed a bug report). Detailed illustrations are there, which could be a match for your photos. Looking at the description of Toona in Flora of China, it does look as if the fruit you have photographed is too solid to be a Toona species. That's just a guess, and is all that I can say. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

They're valuable, really? Anyways, these photos were taken in the Philippines (my backyard, specifically). The fruit are an average of 20cm in length. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 02:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

So the fruit is way too big for Toona calantas, listed here as 3-4 cm long. It is difficult to find information about exactly how big the fruit of Swietenia macrophylla are, and perhaps there are other trees that look similar. The images should be moved out of the Toona calantas category, and an "unidentified Swietenia" category would be a good guess. Would you be able to photograph the flowers when they next appear? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we can move Eclipta alba to Eclipta prostrata (http://www.theplantlist.org/tpl1.1/record/gcc-6746). Jee 11:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Done.--Melburnian (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks. Jee 15:40, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone suggest a good way to deal with material that is being added to a number of plant species pages that is barely readable? The citation for the original description is dumped into the text, and in other cases there is a condensed list of synonyms with their sources, but the source of the claim that these are synonyms is not given. (Sometimes the list contradicts the one in the species box that is sourced to TPL.) As we have recently discussed here, links to wikispecies bring problems due to a single (sometimes non-consensus) classification being imposed there by certain individuals, and telling this editor that his contributions would be better appreciated at wikispecies smacks of cruelty. Examples include: Prionosciadium_nelsonii (synonym not explained as such), Hymenocallis_choctawensis (original citation dumped in the text without explanation), Prionosciadium linearifolium (both additions, the synonym duplicating the taxobox entry). Should we come down hard on this editor? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Applying WP:AGF and WP:BITE, the first step, after articulating what is objectionable about the edits, would be to engage with the editor at his talk page.

If I understand correctly, the objections are that the text is not comprehensible if you don't know the conventions, that synonymies are uncited, and that the material unbalances the pages (undue weight). The use of quasi-random text strings for reference names also strikes me as less than ideal. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely, this person seems to be acting in good faith, and hasn't been bitten that I've seen. He has so far been fairly unresponsive to various people's efforts to engage with him, sometimes just reverting their fixes, so that it looks like edit warring. I was about to write a block of text on his talk page, but realized that some of what I would say is not sufficiently founded on consensus of plant editors, and that some discussion here would be helpful. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It would help, I think, if we, as a project, did a bit more work on the project page. Then when editors start making contributions to plant articles which aren't in our normal style, we would be able to refer them to it. For example, the section on synonyms has some very detailed information on the kind of synonym which it's sensible to include, but doesn't explain some basics, such as that a secondary source is needed for a synonym list. We need to explain prominently conventions like using the proper IPNI abbreviation enclosed in <small>..</small> for botanical authorities, and not giving full bibliographic details except perhaps in exceptional cases. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Peter, I've put a rough draft on the page for your first suggestion, and would be glad if others could look it over. In particular, I wonder if there are databases for African plants that should be included.

My list of floras and checklists might be of some help; the first checklist there is the African Flowering Plant Database. (Personally, for a synonymy I'd prefer a good monograph to the database sites.) Lavateraguy (talk)

I've tried to incorporate those excellent points, on the project page, and hope that you could check if more should be listed. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

About using the smaller font for botanical authorities: I find that a pain! How do you do it for longish lists? I generally obtain a sorted list of species names from TPL as a single column in Microsoft Excel. I could, and probably will, write myself a stand-alone Java application to pull these apart at the second space and insert the necessary bits of code, but that isn't a general solution. Help would be appreciated.

About full bibliographic details: would it be veering too far towards accepting primary sources to include "The species was described in 1848 by botanist Pieter Willem Korthals from specimens found growing on the mountain Gunung Pamaton, in Borneo" with full citation and link to the document in the Biodiversity Heritage Library? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I've cleaned up those linked above (and independently a couple of others which were on my watchlist). Peter coxhead (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

This editor has in the past, though less experienced then, just put back material that was deleted as a cleanup effort. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

That seems like a beginner's mistake, though. It can take awhile to learn about Wikipedia's practices with regard to reverts. This editor seems like a highly experienced botanist, we should be welcoming him to the project with open arms. Tdslk (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

(Note left on the user's talk page to invite him to join this discussion, and the project as a whole.) Tdslk (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The editor in question, Joseph Laferriere, is a prolific published botanist (see:IPNI plants named by Laferr.) and is on our abbreviation list. Hamamelis (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I am the "inscrutable" editor you have been discussing. I thank Tdslk for the kind and thoughtful invitation to join in the discussion. The charge that I am "unresponsive" to comments is just plain silly. I have followed most of the suggestions I have received, including ones from the person who charged me with being "unresponsive." That person complained of me replacing material s/he had deleted; I later went back and reformatted that same page (Yucca declinata) to satisfy those very same complaints that s/he had made. I suggest that s/he take another look at that page and see what I have done there. I am a retired botanist who spent many years doing traditional botany, mostly at the University of Arizona, some at Harvard and at Washington State University. I have been playing with Wikipedia just for fun, trying to be helpful in sharing my training the way I received it. The problems you describe stem from me following standards botanists have used in print for a century. Lists of full citations of synonyms are indispensable in traditional botany because of the priority rules, and are generally given in the format I have been using. I learned that when I was a research associate at Harvard. Another rule in traditional botany is never, ever, ever rely on secondary sources because they are very frequently wrong. I plead guilty to being unfamiliar with Wikipedia standards. Indeed, I am still not sure where to look to find out what these standards are. People suggest that I start doing one thing or another without explaining how to do things or where I can go to look up how to do them. The bit about small print for citations I had never heard of, nor had I seen it done, until a few days ago. So, I guess the problem here is that you are aiming Wikipedia at a different sort of audience than the audience of professional botanists that I have been taught to write for. As I said, I have been doing this just for fun and to help people by sharing my experience. If you want me to adjust the way I have been doing things, I am all ears. Joseph Laferriere (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not inscrutable, just written too technically for Wikipedia's intended non-specialist audience. The information is useful and appropriate to add. Synonyms require only listing in either the taxobox, or the article if there are a large number. As the reader is not a professional botanist, or not intended to be, the synonym should be cited to a secondary source or a database (IPNI, USDA, reliable on line floras), rather than the primary literature. A taxonomist would use the primary literature, but for a generalist encyclopedia written by amateurs, we have to find authoritative secondary and tertiary sources, botanists who have accurately read and understood the information in the primary literature and reliably presented it in another source. Wikipedia does not solve questions of names and priority, it just reports what others have done. Peter is a very helpful sort, maybe he will give you a hand. --AfadsBad (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Joseph. Thanks for coming here. I sympathize with your problems figuring out all of the Wikipedia standards. Many editors, myself included, are concerned about exactly that issue, that the challenges of figuring out how to edit and interact on Wikipedia deter too many beginning editors from sticking around. With your rapidly growing list of edits and attention to detail, though, you're well on your way, so I hope that you choose to stay here and keep contributing. Tdslk (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Very good. Glad we got this straightened out. One more thing, though. Someone mentioned guidelines for this sort of thing. Where can I find such guidelines? Joseph Laferriere (talk) 03:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the guidelines being referred to are on the "recto" of this page, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants#Guidelines, but the whole page is worth looking into. Someone else might offer you some other suggestions. Hamamelis (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hamamelis's link is the best place to start for botany-related issues. The official list is here. Fortunately, no one is expected to have actually read all of them, but they can be a good place to go if you have questions about how to do something. And if you have questions specifically related to botany editing, this page is probably the best place to ask them. Tdslk (talk) 05:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanx for the kind suggestions. On the subject of secondary sources, the generic Yucca page on Wikipedia (and also the Encyclopedia of Life system) give the "preferred" name of one species as "Yucca luminosa ined." Ummmm, the word "inedito" is Latin for "bogus name that does not really exist." Joseph Laferriere (talk) 10:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

For the record, looking at the history the change at Yucca was made to the entry for Yucca baileyi ined. (unless you meant a change further back). However, the source for those entries is the Kew World Checklist of Selected Plant Families, and their page for Yucca luminosa (here) does indeed show "Yucca luminosa ined.. This name is accepted." I'm no expert; is this an error at the Kew site? Hamamelis (talk) 12:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

inedito does literally mean unpublished (and thereby by the rules of the IC(B)N is not a valid name). However I have understood this to mean a name that is introduced in a work that is expected to be published in the foreseeable future - that has been submitted, and perhaps even accepted, but not yet published, while ms refers to a name introduced in a work for which there is at least no immediate expectation of publication. Yucca rigida (Englem.) Trel. is apparently preempted by Yucca ×rigida Deleuil, which is why it's down as a nom. illeg. at the Kew site. Yucca luminosa was apparently intended as a replacement name, which for some reason appears not to have been published in the last 10 years. What has happened is that the compiler accepted the validity of the species, but had to choose between two names, neither of which is acceptable under the code. (For comparison, I would have "accepted" Malva ×columbretensis before the combination was formally published; I am convinced that the taxon is real, and that it should be placed in Malva, rather than in Lavatera as originally described.) Lavateraguy (talk) 13:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanx, Lavateraguy. I figured it was something like that. I have seen several similar examples, unpublished names accepted by one of these on-line databases, and avoided making pages on those species to save myself the trouble of having to track down what the story was. The problem, of course, in using an "inedito" name in anticipation of become "edito" later on is that the name could get changed. Either the person intending to publish the name changes her/his mind about what epithet to use, or someone else beats the person to the punch. I am guilty of the former myself. One of the first species I described as a grad student, I had already shipped out isotypes, then changed my mind about what name I was going to use. I quickly learned not to do that. This is why they created journals such as Novon and Phytologia, with fast turn-around to get the names in print quickly.Joseph Laferriere (talk) 13:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your joining in the discussion here; we do need experienced botanists. However, my experience has been that it's quite difficult to write in Wikipedia on a subject in which you have been professionally engaged (which is why I edit plant articles not computer science ones). Things to bear in mind when working here include:

• Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. A significant number of non-plant editors have already expressed the view that the approach of WP:PLANTS is too specialized (e.g. our default policy is to have articles at the scientific name – see WP:FLORA – which is constantly under attack as violating WP:COMMONNAME). We need to be careful not to become more specialized.
• Wikipedia has strong policies on not including "original research" – see WP:OR – and on what constitutes an acceptable source – see WP:RS. In particular, there seems to be a strong feeling among some editors that Wikipedia must only paraphrase information already in secondary sources – at least this a not uncommon interpretation of WP:PSTS. This is particularly unnatural if you're used to writing papers or teaching at university level.

As I noted above, I think that our project documentation could be more helpful to new editors. I certainly learnt a lot by making mistakes and being corrected! Peter coxhead (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Point taken. Wikipedia is for general information, not for specialized research results. But on the other hand, I am sure you want the information to be accurate, not full of misinformation. Indeed, I have heard people say "Don't trust everything you read on Wikipedia!" That reputation is unfortunate and needs to improve. As for the issue of scientific names, most plants do not have common names, except ones that botanists have made up as translations of the scientific names (e.g., Ferocactus engelmannii being called "Engelmann's ferocactus"). Many other common names refer to different plants in different parts of the English-speaking world. A name as simple as "corn" means something totally different in the UK than it does in the USA.Joseph Laferriere (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

English Wikipedia plant editors are committed to using scientific names for plant articles in most cases for all of the reasons you mention, excepting only the most well known plants. As a professional botanist your ability to evaluate secondary and tertiary sources for their accuracy will be of great benefit to other plant editors and to readers of Wikipedia articles. --AfadsBad (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

That is how we justify using botanical names. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@Joseph Laferriere: Of course those of us here agree with you, and have used precisely the same arguments repeatedly. However, we are only one smallish project and we need to be careful not to go too far against community norms. See also WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, which has regularly been quoted in debates about scientific names, etc. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Related to WP:OR is WP:SYNTH, which gets in the way of taxonomy on Wikipedia often enough, as there often isn't a secondary source covering recent work. To get something as simple as a list of species in a genus often requires original research, in the form of synthesising several sources. (Which is one reason why I have my own specialist web site.) There's also WP:IAR which says don't let the rules get in the way of doing the right thing.

What people should say is "Don't trust everything you read". Primary sources are often wrong. Secondary sources (as you've noted) are often wrong.

A long running dispute in WikiPedia is between inclusionists (who want to include everything - but see WP:NOT) and deletionists who to restrict it's contents to what's notable. (I'm probably a moderate inclusionist.) It could be argued that only synonyms in common use are appropriate for inclusion in WikiPedia. I wouldn't go so far as to advocate stripping others out when they're already there, but I'd put them well down the list of things to add. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Lavateraguy: Including only synonyms that have been used within the last several decades sounds reasonable. As for primary sources being wrong, in the present context of plant nomenclature, no. A lot of times the question is "What the the primary source say?" A secondary source can be wrong about what the primary source said, but the primary source is not going to be wrong about what it says. Remember that Code is retroactive, and botanists of the 18th and early 19th Centuries were playing by different rules. Sometimes they said things that by present-day standards invalidate their own names, such as listing older synonyms after the description. Joseph Laferriere (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

If the primary source is just used for factual information (e.g. a quotation) and not interpreted in any way, then its use is acceptable within WP policies (as far as I understand them). However, as your comment above shows, usually there needs to be interpretation: "[s]ometimes they said things that by present-day standards invalidate their own names" – to say in Wikipedia that a name given in a primary source is now invalid (or to accept it as still valid) you need a reliable (necessarily secondary) source that says so. It's not enough that you as an experienced botanist know that the name is invalid or that I believe that it's invalid based on my reading and interpretation of the ICN. A reliable source must say so. Editing Wikipedia is partly a game that has to be played by Wikipedia's rules, whether one agrees with them or not. My experience is that it is sometimes a difficult game, and sometimes a frustrating one, e.g. when knowledgeable editors are clear that something is the case, but can't find a reliable source that says so. (The WP slogan "verifiability, not truth" is relevant here.)

For those families it currently covers, I tend to use WCSP as the secondary source for accepted names, authorities, etc. I've found that Rafaël Govaerts is very helpful in clarifying why a particular name has been chosen if this isn't clear, and also very quick to make corrections if errors are reported to him. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday I started going through some of the Yucca pages I created weeks ago, modifying them along the suggestions I have received. This may take a while, and I have other things to do. I found one with probably about 30 synonyms I had listed, interspersed with comments from some reviewer about how confusing this was. Okay, I must concede that this must have seemed cryptic to anyone not familiar with the format, and I had not done nearly enough to explain it. So I reformatted it completely, deleting all but the more important names on the list and moving was left to the taxobox. One thing I do want to explain: There are two types of synonyms: contypic and non-contypic. For example:

Washingtonia georgei T. Jefferson = Washingtonia marthae var. georgei (T. Jefferson) J. Adams = Madinsonia georgei (T. Jefferson) B. Franklin would all be contypic because they are all based on Jefferson's original description. All have the same type specimen, and must always be synonyms by definition. Botanical custom is to list all of these in the same paragraph connected by equal signs. However: Washingtonia georgei T. Jefferson and Wasingtonia denzelii M. Freeman would have different type specimens. A botanical expert might examine the two types and decide the are the same species, but some other expert might later disagree. Indeed, there has been quite a bit of this in recent years, people doing DNA analysis and deciding that two names regarded for years as non-contypic synonyms are not synonyms after all. Custom is to give each such name its own paragraph in synonym listings Peter coxhead: I can certainly understand that things need to be verifiable. I wholeheartedly agree. And these databases of secondary information are a fast and easy way to do this.Joseph Laferriere (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Would you be interested in participating in a user study? We are a team at University of Washington studying methods for finding collaborators within a Wikipedia community. We are looking for volunteers to evaluate a new visualization tool. All you need to do is to prepare for your laptop/desktop, web camera, and speaker for video communication with Google Hangout. We will provide you with a Amazon gift card in appreciation of your time and participation. For more information about this study, please visit our wiki page (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Finding_a_Collaborator). If you would like to participate in our user study, please send me a message at Wkmaster (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC).

Hi Plant folks! I've been working on a template (User:Animalparty/Taxonomy and nomenclature) to help integrate topics and terminology concerning the naming and describing of taxa (e.g. lectotype, synonym, trinomen, International Nomenclature codes, etc.). I envision this template judiciously placed in the articles or sections dealing with taxonomy and nomenclature in depth. It's still in a rough stage and I'm looking for input on how to best sort the topics, and there are probably others that are currently missing. You can post specific comments on the template talk page. This doesn't necessarily have to cover every relevant article, but hopefully it will help curious readers get a better handle on these often obscure terms. I'm much more unfamiliar with botanical nomenclature, so apologies if my first draft lacks crucial topics! Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

(first 3 posts copied from User_talk:Sminthopsis84#Prunus_dasycarpa ) I've made a very rough start on Prunus dasycarpa. Should we leave the name that or rename to Prunus xdasycarpa or Prunus x dasycarpa? HalfGig talk 18:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

If we use "x" I guess we should try to make the x smaller. HalfGig talk 18:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, that could be a question for WT:PLANTS. There are no instructions on the project page. Prunus × yedoensis has the multiplication sign, Prunus persica x Prunus americana has an x. My preference would be to name the page without the multiplication sign, but that might confuse some readers. There should be redirects for the versions with the x and the multiplication sign (and ideally there should be four of those, with the symbol separated from the species epithet and with it adjacent). Other opinions seem to be required. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

• • So, what should we do here? HalfGig talk 18:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

For once we have documented what to do! See WP:FLORA and Polygonatum × hybridum as an example.

• Use the proper hybrid sign, ×, being careful not to include it in the span of italics, as per the ICN. (On some system/font combinations, italicised multiplication signs are the same as normal ones, but not on all.)
• Put a space or non-breaking space on both sides of the hybrid sign, since this makes searches and text readers for those with vision problems work better.
• Create a redirect using the letter x instead of ×.

If you feel energetic, you can create redirects without the second space for both x and ×. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Peter! I'll get on this. And notice Sminth has found a photo for Prunus dasycarpa, which I'm about to rename per your help here. HalfGig talk 16:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello again. I have noticed a few errors in author citations in botanical articles. I have seen professional botanists get this wrong, too; indeed, years ago I got this wrong myself several times before someone straightened me out on it. I just wanted to make sure everyone editing wikipedia botany pages knows the scoop. There is a difference between "in" and "ex" in author citations. "Smith ex Jones" means that Smith suggested the name but did not write a description. Jones wrote and published a description using the name Smith suggested. "Brown in White" means that Brown wrote a description that White quoted verbatim in her/his book or article. Subtle difference, perhaps, but a major difference in abbreviations. "Smith ex Jones" can be shortened to "Jones." "Brown in White" can be shortened to "Brown." This may seem inconsistent, until you ask yourself: "Who wrote the description?" Whoever wrote the description gets the credit.Joseph Laferriere (talk) 23:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

However, we need to follow sources. For example, WCSP has the entry "Roscoea brandisii (King ex Baker) K.Schum. in H.G.A.Engler (ed.), Pflanzenr., IV, 46: 119 (1904)." Since we don't give full bibliographic details, this can be shortened to "Roscoea brandisii (King ex Baker) K.Schum." However, we can't amend this to "Roscoea brandisii (Baker) K.Schum." while using WCSP as the source. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Why can't you? It is done all over Wikipedia, although often incorrectly as JL points out, and I never saw it said not to. This is not a failure to follow the source; it is stylistic. --AfadsBad (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest citing the entire thing rather than abbreviating it. I was simply cautioning against abbreviating things the wrong way, which I have seen done.Joseph Laferriere (talk) 10:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)