Cannabis Indica

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

WikiProject Plants

Main pageTalkTaxon templateBotanist templateResourcesRequestsNew articlesIndex
WikiProject iconPlants Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mangifera[edit]

While updating the page, I've discovered a couple of nomenclatural issues with Mangifera where the spelling used for the Wikipedia articles differs from that used at POWO (austro-indica vs austroindica, persiciformis vs persiciforma). I suspect these of being orthographical corrections by POWO.

Also, if we are following POWO a merge is needed of Mangifera torquenda (which has some content) into Mangifera similis (a bare stub); the problem is that what is true of Mangifera torquenda may not be true of the broader Mangifera similis so content can't be moved across blindly. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:26, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

austroindica resolved - austro-indica is correctable per article 60.9. I've performed the move. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having attempted to interpret the Latin I think that Wikipedia and IUCN are correct with Mangifera persiciformis and POWO, WFO and IPNI are wrong with Mangifera persiciforma. Next step is to contact IPNI. (There's a can of worms involved - I think that there are 17 names in -forma/um that should be corrected to formis/e, and I see a few questionable spellings among the 8150 records with formis/e.) Lavateraguy (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
forma is obviously a noun (as it is e.g. an infraspecific rank) so it looks fine to me, something like peachy form, persiciformis being formed like a peach. Perhaps not what they intended exactly but not wrong. Weepingraf (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand, epithets are either adjectives, genitive forms of nouns, on nouns (nominative case) in apposition. To use a noun in apposition it has to already exist, and I doubt that persiciforma did. For comparison epithets amygdaliformis, botryformis, cerasformis, cucumiformis, maliformis, pruniformis and pyriformis, and more broadly bacciformis, nuciformis and pepoformis exist. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No less an authority than Stearn's Botanical Latin (p.93 in the 4th paperback edition) is clear that -formis constructs adjectives whose nominative endings are -is (m & f) and -e (n). I note that PoWO corrects at least some of the spellings in IPNI, e.g. IPNI's Lithocardium cuneiforma is Lithocardium cuneiforme in PoWO. I have no doubt that the Chinese authors of Mangifera persiciforma made an error and the name should be corrected to Mangifera persiciformis. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I still think that Mangifera "persiciforma" is an error, but further study suggests that it's not so obvious that it's correctable – it seems that there's more reluctance to change the original authors' names under the current version of the ICNafp than there used to be. It's been pointed out to me that my example of Lithocardium cuneiformaLithocardium cuneiforme is not the same, because this is a transfer from Cordia cuneiformis so is clearly adjectival. We'll have to see what the IPNI and PoWO editors think. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:26, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a reply from IPNI. They are correcting epithets in -formum to -forme. They've tabled for further consideration the issue of epithets in -forma. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of move request[edit]

There is a move request at Talk:Tupelo (disambiguation) proposing that the disambiguation page replace Tupelo, currently the article name for genus Nyssa. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 05:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There move request to replace Tupelo with Tupelo (disambiguation) is still ongoing. There are two issues with this move, currently. If it needs to be moved because of WP:NOPRIMARY, a good new article name is needed for genus Nyssa. As the plant project would we prefer Nyssa (genus) or Tupelo tree as the target?
The second issue is that it is not clear that is is a case of NOPRIMARY as the disambiguation page only has 4.5% of the long term views of Tupelo article though some editors are discounting this saying that the unmeasurable navigation through search engines like google means that Tupelo is not the primary topic. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 17:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a reason why Nyssa should be one of the exceptions to policy of using botanical names. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Nyssa is a disambiguation page. But I think Nyssa (plant) (not Nyssa (genus)) would be appropriate as a title. The tree genera that have vernacular names as article titles are generally widely distributed in the northern hemisphere and occur in the UK, US and Canada: oak, maple, pine, fir, alder, birch, beech, willow, elm. Tupelo stands out in comparison to those as something that only occurs in a small part of a single English-speaking country (although it's range isn't restricted to English-speaking countries). Plantdrew (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Invasive species[edit]

Invasive species has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the name in common use for this species is not the nomenclaturally correct one. The combination was published twice in 1826 (per IPNI); as a new species description by d'Urville for the species now known as Colobanthus subulatus, and as a new combination based on Spergula subulata by Presl, the latter being what is commonly understood by that name. A replacement name was proposed in this paper, but Sagina hawaiiensis Pax (a rather unfortunate epithet for a European species) has priority and has been adopted by POWO.

Having referred to Stafleu and Cowan (Taxonomic Literature 2) the date for that latter name is October 2026; the date for the former name is not completely clear - I think that it's 1825, but I can't completely exclude 1826 and 1829(!).

Given two centuries of usage for this species in the European literature I'd be tempted to consider this a candidate for conservation.

Do we just do a move to Sagina hawaiinensis, with a section on the nomenclature, or something else. (Sagina subulata C.Presl. is still in widespread usage, for example the Euro+Med database uses this, with no mention of the other two alternative names.) Lavateraguy (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sambucus#Requested move 29 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Declangi (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taxon publication/transfer year in taxoboxes[edit]

There is a discussion here about including the date of taxon publication or transfer in taxoboxes that could benefit from additional opinions, particularly from those editors affected by it (i.e., taxa under the ICNafp umbrella). Esculenta (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about a couple of journals[edit]

In trying to gather sources about Coccothrinax, I have found articles (see the list on Talk:List of Coccothrinax species) from journals named Palms and Palm Arbor. I haven't been able to find out anything about those journals. Does anyone know anything about them? Donald Albury 16:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://palms.org/journal/
https://ucanr.edu/sites/HodelPalmsTrees/PalmArbor/
Lavateraguy (talk) 17:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Donald Albury 17:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selina Wamucii: AI generated?[edit]

I was checking the recently created articles Abuta fluminum, Abuta dwyerana, Abuta acutifolia, Abuta aristeguietae. Abuta acutifolia and Abuta dwyeriana have prose statements that aren't supported by the cited sources (IPNI and POWO aren't sources that generally have much that can be turned into prose). Abuta fluminum and Abuta aristeguietae cite [1] (part of the website for Selina Wamucii) for some prose statements, which I had questioned as a source a couple months ago at User_talk:GuppyGherkin9#Selina_Wamucii_as_a_source. Selina Wamucii's plant website does indeed make a bunch of prose statements for obscure species, and appears pretty high in Google results for sufficiently obscure plant species. But it appears to me that Selina Wamucii is AI-generated bulllshit (statements may be true for a few/some/most members of a higher taxon, but not necessarily true for a given species). I want to generally AGF for the editors who have cited Selina Wamucii, but the statements ostensibly sourced to POWO at Abuta acutifolia suggest that editors citing Selina Wamucii might also be relying on AI to generate articles that hallucinate other statements.

Articles mentioning Selina Wamucii:[2]. Plantdrew (talk) 02:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found that at least part of Abuta fluminum about Tamarins is a chopped up version of this National Geo article. Which is a separate problem.
I agree that Selina Wamucii looks questionable at best. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"statements may be true for a few/some/most members of a higher taxon, but not necessarily true for a given species" is not unique to AI - Wikipedia has had humans guilty of that practice in the past. (And a broader scale there were the Scots Wikipedia and Russian history scandals.)
However I had a look at what they wrote for some obscure mallow - Malva x arbosii, which is an obscure hybrid, with essentially no data on line; Malva setigera (the currently accepted name for Althaea hirsuta); and Malva x columbretensis (known from one small Spanish island group). Based on that sample I infer that what they have is automated scraping of some sites (POWO, IPNI, WFO, TPL) supplemented by AI text. For example it says that Malva setigera has a single cotyledon, and that Malva x columbretensis is native to India. Those are errors that I can't see a human making, and they seem to be more likely to be AI than a buggy scraper. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selina Wamucii seems to be a digital tools provider for the agriculture business (e.g. providing a marketing App for small farmers. The Data Sources section says:

Selina Wamucii uses raw data from a wide range of relevant sources, which could be combined or used for data verification, depending on data availability, product, and geographical scope. This list includes, but is not limited to, the following primary sources:

It doesn't say how the raw data is combined but it's a small company so can't have the resources for any human oversight over a section with the same broad scope as WFO and POWO. It looks like it might be a good company to help small farmers sell avocado, but not one for reviewing scientific information, which is what we'd expect for a secondary source. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, even regardless of the AI stuff this is not really a good source. I think the best solution here is to revert to the versions of the Abuta article before the source was added, or to just excise any statement attributed to this source Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with everyone that Selina Wamucii doesn't look like a reliable website to be citing scientific information, and even more so because Plantdrew has already pointed out that are some discrepancies with the information on the website to GuppyGherkin9. There also seems to be an issue with WP:OR if the information written in these articles isn't supported by the cited sources. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notice

The article Justicia genistiformis has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No accepted plant species of this name, or valid synonym, or close misspelling, exists on definitive databases like Plants of the World Online or World Flora Online.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tom Radulovich (talk) 06:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added on comment at Talk:Justicia_genistiformis#Is_this_a_valid_species?. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olive articles[edit]

We currently have articles at Olive with a taxobox for the species Olea europaea, and at Olea oleaster, supposedly the "wild olive" although the latter article has a list of Greek cultivars. It seems to me that these articles need to be merged, but as with all highly cultivated species, drawing boundaries between the original wild species and cultigens is difficult. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy of Syringa villosa subsp. wolfii[edit]

I have made a couple of changes to Syringa josikaea, among them a paraphrase of a 2016 article discussing the species' prehistory and taxonomic affiliations. The paper identifies Syringa villosa and Syringa "wolfii" as its closest living relatives, however, the latter of which is considered by both POWO and WFO to be a subspecies of Syringa villosa. To reflect the fact that we generally follow POWO's recommendation on these questions, I have therefore decided to refer to them as subspecies in the article. This, however, seems a) redundant as it would be easier to simply name S. villosa as sister and b) runs the risk of breaching WP:NOR. How do you think we should proceed? AndersenAnders (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AndersenAnders: it doesn't breach WP:NOR if you reference it. For example, you could say something like "The closest living relatives were identified as Syringa villosa, including S. villosa subsp. wolfii (under its synonym S. wolfii[1])". Peter coxhead (talk) 09:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I wasn't thinking of this. Thanks AndersenAnders (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Blighia sapida#Requested move 11 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Declangi (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

eFloras.org problem affecting many references[edit]

As of now, http://www.efloras.org/ is offline. This affects, among others, the online Flora of North America and the online Flora of China, both widely used in references. The Flora of North America seems to have moved to http://floranorthamerica.org, but with no clear mapping between old and new URLs for taxa. I can only find the Flora of China via http://flora.huh.harvard.edu/china/, from which you can get to PDFs for families, but apparently not individual taxa. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least for references using FNA and template {{eFlora}} it looks fixable. The new urls use the taxon name, which are the third parameter in the template. So 'Quercus is at http://floranorthamerica.org/Quercus_alba, Quercus sect. Quercus at http://floranorthamerica.org/Quercus_sect._Quercus and Quercus alba http://floranorthamerica.org/Quercus_alba. I don't know how widely the template is used. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Missouri Botanical Garden websites (excluding Tropicos) have been down since March 12, with no estimate of a time to be fixed. floranorthamerica.org has existed alongside efloras.org for several years. I don't know what the long term plans are for efloras, but I expect it will be back up for the near term when the Mobot web server is fixed. Plantdrew (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's good to know as there are over 8,000 uses and only about 800use the template.
Not all the Mobot websites are down. APweb is still live. Others give a message about scheduled maintenances (e.g. latindict). WFO is also live, although not sure if that is hosted by mobot.—  Jts1882 | talk  08:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
APweb was down when I tried to access it last week. It looks like pages with the domain mobot.org are now up, and those with missouribotanicalgarden.org are still down. Plantdrew (talk) 15:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The botanical dictionary one was down when I wrote that post, but is indeed up now, so they are making progress. Perhap eFlora will be fixed soon. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomenclatural issue at Talk:Rose[edit]

A nomenclatural issue (why is the type of Rosa Rosa cinnomomea when Rosa cinnomomea is a synonym (per POWO) of Rosa pendulina?) has been raised at Talk:Rose. If anyone can shed any light ... Lavateraguy (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request for input on foliosum[edit]

Hello all! I have begun work on a new type of plant article and would like to receive some input from you lovely folks before I continue. I noticed there are no articles on any specific epithets or lists containing all species with a particular name. To try to remedy this, I started the Set Index Article foliosum, which aims to collect all species that end in that epithet. I would like to take this to FLC when it is complete, so am trying to solicit input that would bring it to that standard. I also have the goal of bringing other articles of list type to FLC, so general feedback/suggestions/consensus are welcome. In particular, I have two main queries:

  1. What should the criteria for inclusion be, and are the data repositories listed sufficient for completeness?
  2. Does the table need any more or less information to be useful?

Thank you for any thoughts you have, whether here or at the article's talk page! Fritzmann (message me) 16:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would find lists like these interesting, and perhaps useful in some instances. Why not include foliosa, foliosum, etc., they are all the same specific epithet in different gendered endings. Will you include varieties & forms with this name? Including fungi too? (an epithet search on 'folios' turns up 38 hits at Index Fungorum) Esculenta (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about doing the different forms of the same word, but the list will already be long as is. I have included about half the vascular plants so far, and have a lot of work to do in finding all of the species from other kingdoms. Plus, for the sake of titles I think it makes sense to just link to the other tenses in the lede. Not planning to include varieties and forms at the moment; I think treating it as a specific epithet is the most straightforward approach. I want to include fungi, yes, as well as animals and any other organisms. I'm not as familiar with these, so would love recommendations for databases that would give me a complete view. Fritzmann (message me) 16:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that you should look at C. elegans (disambiguation) if you haven't already. Don't know if it will enthuse you or scare you off from this project. Esculenta (talk) 19:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lol definitely enthuses me! Although I think I will stay away from such highly common epithets for the time. Fritzmann (message me) 21:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I for one think an article like this is lacking in wp:Notability and falls afoul of being essentially botany wp:Fancruft.--Kevmin § 16:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kevmin: could you elaborate on this? I definitely had reservations about that, but felt that the navigational benefits outweigh crufty concerns. The usecase I thought of was what if a layperson saw a species abbreviation, like D. foliosum, but didn't know the genus or type of a plant. They could just search "foliosum" on wikipedia, and this list would then help them find what they are looking for. Would love to know your thoughts! Fritzmann (message me) 17:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With a few exceptions (C. elegans, D. melanogaster, T. rex, H. sapiens, E. coli, Rh. ponticum) it is not normal to encounter the short form of a species name in a context where the genus is not implicit. The usual practice is to write the genus name out in full on first usage (and any subsequent uses relating to the genus as a whole) and (depending on the author's chosen style) abbreviate the genus in species name is subsequent uses. (My preference is to write the name out in full - for the benefit of search engines (it's less hassle than writing ABBR tags.)
IPNI has 960 records for foliosa/us/um (with some duplicate names) (plus 80 for foliacea/us/um and 65 for foliata/us/um), and that doesn't include occurrences among algae, fungi and possibly even animals. If a person doesn't know the genus or type of a plant a list of such magnitude is not likely to help them resolve the hypothetical ambiguity. (This isn't the largest possible list - IPNI has 1276 records for hookeri/iana/ianus/ianum, and I didn't realise it was so common, but 2189 records for elegans.)
The question has come up before, and the consensus has been against it. I think WP:NOTDB applies. For widespread and complete coverage it's a lot of work (I expect that there are several million plant binomials to cover), for little benefit (the "if a job can't be done well, it's not worth doing" principle applies), and there other places (tens of thousands of plant species lacking articles) where effort would be more usefully applied. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lavateraguy, that definitely gives me good insight. I think I'll table the project for now, knowing that. Perhaps I'll continue it as a pet project here or there, but it's clear that there are better places to sink effort into! Thanks for your valuable advice, Fritzmann (message me) 12:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Penstemon alluviorum[edit]

I've been working on a Draft:List of Penstemon species (almost finished) and I've run into the fact that Penstemon alluviorum is a synonym of Penstemon digitalis according to POWO, WFO, and Flora of North America. It contains essentially no information and unless there are objections I'm going to turn it into a redirect. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The latest version of the Weakley Flora (Flora of the South Eastern US(2024) still recognises Penstemon alluviorum, as do a number of recent (but older than FNA) regional floras. The Weakley Flora has 5 taxa in the Penstemon digitalis complex - POWO recognises 4 of them, but not Penstemon alluviorum, probably following FNA. It seems that it's not a settled question, but since Wikipedia's default sources consider it a synonym, and the article is a stub I'd go ahead and do the redirect. Maybe add a paragraph on the Penstemon digitalis complex at Penstemon digitalis. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:58, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should make exceptions to following POWO, like Penstemon grandiflorus, where pretty much every other source disagrees. If Weakley and FNA both listed Penstemon alluviorum I'd keep it and add more information to explain the controversy, but in this case I think redirect with more information at P. digitalis is the right move. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leave a Reply