Plants Project‑class

This 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.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

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

There is a new discussion at Talk:Yucca brevifolia#Page name, to some extent recapitulating the 2008 requested move. --Bejnar (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Hesperian 14:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - see Talk:Douglas_fir#Requested_move for more hilarity and mirth, where the nominator seems surprised that a closing admin felt there was consensus for the move. sigh ..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Douglas-fir example is truly ludicrous for those who haven't looked at it. We now have an article about one variety of Pseudotsuga menziesii at the supposed common name of "Douglas fir" and an article about the other variety at the scientific name; the first article uses the style "Douglas fir" throughout, the second uses the style "Douglas-fir". It's a complete mess. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This editor sounds just a notorious common-names battler from about five years ago. Then again, they all sound pretty much the same and have not offered a new argument in many years. But this one is particularly familiar. I offer that energy expended in discussion with him is a waste of time. He is not discussing. -166.137.210.48 (talk) 00:12, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that the initial problem there might have quite a bit to do with misunderstanding how bold face is used in wikipedia searches, so that the spiralling argument isn't really to do with Joshua trees and albums. Fingers crossed that the page doesn't move! Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This plant is made out to be related to Indian laburnum (Cassia fistula). Is it really? 117.253.198.143 (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The multiple major veins in the petals suggest Senna, which is related to Cassia. I don't know which species of Senna is most likely. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a recently introduced plant in this part of the world (South India) and the name is Canadian Konna, in which konna is the local language name for Cassia fistula.--117.253.198.143 (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might be the medicinal plant Senna alexandrina, which was formerly called Cassia senna, but you'd need to be absolutely certain of the identification if there is any chance that it could be used medicinally, and I don't think that one photo is enough to be sure about the identification. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A non-admin has closed the discussion at Talk:Siberian squill with the conclusion "move" (to Scilla sibirica), but the move hasn't been made because it requires an admin to do it. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:JohnCD has moved it to Scilla siberica--Melburnian (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Peter coxhead (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency

Scilla siberica splits Puschkinia and Chionodoxa from Scilla, but Scilla sinks them. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on Scilloideae and its genera for some time. It's a very difficult area. Secondary sources, such as the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families (WCSP) and those databases that use it, like the Plant List, use the APG III families and have a set of "lumped" genera. But all the recent primary sources don't use APG III – they all use Hyacinthaceae, not Asparagaceae: Scilloideae, and many use a greatly expanded set of genera, but not the same set. Franz Speta and co-workers have split Scilla massively, for example. At Scilloideae I have already started to discuss the differences, and will expand on this, but for the article titles there has to be one choice. I'm inclined to stick to APG III and WCSP for the present (which means a bit more combining of articles than is there now), but I would greatly welcome any advice/discussion. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G’day. Please let’s gather for some team work to bring the Macadamia (genus) article and its related Proteaceae (family) article up to date according to the taxonomy and evolutionary (phylogenetics) correlations, some from since ten or more years ago (e.g. Catalepidia). Scientific sources, i can send to you as i have access to most of the scientific sources, if any of you does not have that access, even the older Queensland Australia non electronic sources like Austrobaileya journal, Contributions to the Queensland Herbarium and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Queensland.

Freely available and simple, not very technical, summary listing information, for one of the centres of diversity, the north east Queensland Wet Tropics region:

• Hyland, B. P. M.; Whiffin, T.; Zich, F. A.; et al. (Dec 2010). "Factsheet – Proteaceae". Australian Tropical Rainforest Plants (6.1, online version RFK 6.1 ed.). Cairns, Australia: Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), through its Division of Plant Industry; the Centre for Australian National Biodiversity Research; the Australian Tropical Herbarium, James Cook University. Retrieved 4 Mar 2013.

E.g. Australian genera articles not even in newly created now: Lasjia (different from Macadamia, see Mast et al. (2008), below), Nothorites (different from Orites, see Mast et al. (2008), below); please expand them using quality sources. Wikilinked now also in the Proteaceae article as Wikipedia redlinks.

E.g. Australian genera in WP as redlinks, now newly created!: Catalepidia, Hollandaea, Megahertzia, Opisthiolepis, Placospermum, Sphalmium. The great work of editors Melburnian and Casliber who also produced several DYKs. Please expand them using quality sources.

Of course there are more genera from Africa, Asia and the Americas with redlinks, not yet articles, so i won’t be surprised if editors from there want to work on those. This additional mutual team work i hope for will mutually motivate us all.

Significant 2008 phylogenetics and taxonomy update paper of the tribe Macadamieae (91 spp., 16 genera)—the full text is free to download:

• Mast, Austin R.; Willis, Crystal L.; Jones, Eric H.; Downs, Katherine M.; Weston, Peter H. (2008). "A smaller Macadamia from a more vagile tribe: inference of phylogenetic relationships, divergence times, and diaspore evolution in Macadamia and relatives (tribe Macadamieae; Proteaceae)". American Journal of Botany. 95 (7): 843–870. doi:10.3732/ajb.0700006. ISSN 1537-2197. Retrieved 4 Apr 2013. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

——--macropneuma 07:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC) —strike out, refactoring, about the 6 genera now done—--macropneuma 01:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC) —strike outs, refactoring, clarifying, appreciating and suggesting more editors please expand these new articles—--macropneuma 12:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Proteaceae article i just did the quick and easy adding of the redlinks wikilinks to Lasjia genus and Nothorites genus (out from Tribe Roupaleae) to Tribe Macadamieae – Subtribe Macadamiinae. ——--macropneuma 07:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been expanding Triunia for a DYK ....Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, looks better; that is encouraging me and i hope more editors, to do more and together, as team work. Anything specially i can assist with in Triunia articles, except photographs—they’ll obviously come to the fore when i’m properly set up to take some … ? ——--macropneuma 09:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious Opisthiolepis did you know (DYK) nomination (new article) – plant-wise hilarious – this field botanist, i, got a laugh. ——--macropneuma 01:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever heard that name?! I never have...but sounded funny....mountain rockets (5x expanded) next.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A surprising name for me, still—i’ll ask around botanists and bushies in the region here about that name’s legitimacy and usage.

Please help—any bright ideas, more than i’ve already tried, on getting this?:

• McDonald, J. A.; Ismail, R. (1995). "Macadamia erecta (Proteaceae), a new species from Sulawesi". Harvard Papers in Botany. 7: 7–10. ISSN 1043-4534.

Thank you so much to User:GabrielF at the Resource Exchange.—--macropneuma 23:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following, if you have direct access at home—i have to go to the library for CSIRO publ’s and the most recent vol’s of many others—if anyone has access to this above in PDF please send it to me, and perhaps even have the following ones below—or alternatively i'll use the WP resource exchange:

• Walton, David A.; Wallace, Helen M.; Webb, Richard (2012). "Ultrastructure and anatomy of Macadamia (Proteaceae) kernels". Australian Journal of Botany. 60 (4): 291–300. Retrieved 6 Apr 2013.

Please, everybody, can you help generally with this Macadamia sens. lat. updating, and access to journal articles? Please if you can, for instance, email these:

• Trueman, Stephen J. (4 Feb 2013). "The reproductive biology of macadamia". Scientia Horticulturae. 150 (0): 354–359. doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2012.11.032. ISSN 0304-4238. Retrieved 6 Apr 2013.

——--macropneuma 02:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Peace, Cameron (2008). "Genomics of Macadamia, a Recently Domesticated Tree Nut Crop". Genomics of Tropical Crop Plants. Plant Genetics and Genomics: Crops and Models. Springer New York. pp. 313–332. ISBN 978-0-387-71218-5, ISBN 978-0-387-71219-2. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help)

——--macropneuma 02:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Gross, C. L.; Hyland, Bernie P. M. (1993). "Two New Species of Macadamia (Proteaceae) from North Queensland". Australian Systematic Botany. 6 (4): 343–350. Retrieved 2013-04-06.

——--macropneuma 02:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Damn - will try to browse some via uni when I get a chance later tonight - I thought of a DYK....

...that Ferdinand von Mueller named several genera of proteaceae, including Buckinghamia, Cardwellia, Carnarvonia, Hicksbeachia and Hollandaea, after Colonial Secretaries of the time. - more expanding to do......Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Always more to do, dare i say it: 'never ending!'

DYK! good! – on a curious history … . Any more journal papers PDFs you already have got, that you think i should read relevant to Macadamia and related genera, to Australian rainforest Proteaceae and others (eg. just now looking at citations of Zieria Rutaceae revisions papers in Aust Sys Bot & Austrobaileya journals), please feel free to email them to me, then i'll get to work on them.

i might email you this good paper for interest, if you haven’t already found access to that via Informit and obtained it?:

• Metcalfe, D. J.; Ford, Andrew J. (2009). "A re-evaluation of Queensland's Wet Tropics based on primitive plants". Pacific Conservation Biology. (Available, freely, online, in the Informit Database via membership login of the National Library of Australia). 15 (2). Surrey Beatty and sons: 80–86. Retrieved 24 Mar 2013.

——--macropneuma 09:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible!: "Opisthiolepis has been viewed 15403 times in the last 30 days." –nearly all on 11 April – page view statistics due to Casliber’s hilarious Opisthiolepis did you know (DYK) (new and expanded article) – plant-wise hilarious – (again) this field botanist—I—got a laugh. Thanks for the great works! ——--macropneuma 12:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber, what more needs to happen to Buckinghamia? I can do it! Huaha. ——--macropneuma 13:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be a 5x expansion - it had 141 words here so has to be expanded to a 705 word article....a tall order.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at it now, for my improvements (?) and expansions (–no. words?). ——--macropneuma 06:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Needs another 100 words - I scoured the Johnson and Briggs paper for anything to add...couldn't think what else to :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Buckinghamia for quotations i’ve just added, of the B. ferruginiflora original description paper and of the Elliot and Jones (1983) entry on so called "monotypic" B. celsissima (little did they know of what had been found in N. QLD by Gray, Sankowsky, Hyland et al. from the early 1970s!).

What have i missed please, from those two important sources, that could be good material for basing layman’s WP statements paraphrase writing on?

You’re greater than me on articulating the plant cultivation matters (!). i bet you can find several points in there to use to elaborate the article. i think i can also find a few more points, by the way. ——--macropneuma 05:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My uni library has the old landmark Venkata Rao treatment on proteaceae from the 1960s - I will also see Hoot and Douglas paper to see if we can struggle over the 5x line.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think i found the same interesting 1957 Rao article digitised online, which includes a Buckinghamia treatment, via bhl.ala.org.au, at: http://bhl.ala.org.au/page/34928538 – "Cytotaxonomy of the Proteaceae"; or is it a different one you’re meaning?

We can do it! It’s not too hard, only ca. 100 words. Finally i confirmed from history that granitethighs (in small case!) is long time since MEL contact R.S.—we know each other from the 1980s when i spent a lot of time (a bit like WP), doing a major graphic communication final high school year assignment on all the Australian native rainforest plants of the gardens and a walk through all the individual plants —i'll ask him to help on Buckinghamia horticultural interests, eg. if he can tell when they were first used horticulturally, and when first in Melbourne and other botanic gardens, etc. As you may know, he’s cool. If you’re listening R. r r r granitethighs then G’day, and please come in here! ——--macropneuma 08:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Over at Talk:Beetroot, User:Sminthopsis84 suggested (based on a comment I made) suggested writing up some guidelines for treatment of cultivar Groups in Wikipedia articles about cultivated plants. I don't feel up to the task, but I'd like to get some discussion going.

There are a large number of cultivated plant articles with taxoboxes using ICN names (e.g. Beta vulgaris subsp. cicla at chard). Tracking down accepted usage of these names in the major botanical databases is an exercise in frustration. Botanical taxonomists almost universally synonymize these sspps./vars. under the species (probably rightly so, as some of these cultivated plants have become naturalized on other continents and these feral populations are often indistinguishable from plants in the native region that have been long growing outside of cultivatation). Horticulturalists/applied botanists have a need for a precise scientific name for the cultivated plants and don't much care that botanical taxonomists treat these names as synonyms. This need is what the ICNCP is intended to address, but both camps (botanical taxonomists & general horticulturalists) are generally unaware of the provisions espoused by the tiny community of horticultural taxonomists responsible for the ICNCP.

As far as concrete recommendations go, I think there should be a greater awareness at WP:PLANTS that infraspecific ICN names for cultivated plants are usually treated as synonyms. Therefore, taxoboxes for cultivated plants are often inappropriate and should be replaced with cultivar infoboxes using ICNCP cultivar Group names. On the other hand, cultivar Groups name are unlikely to be appropriate for article titles. The plants in question usually being "prominent in some other field than in botany" (WP:FLORA), and the ICNCP compliant names being less commonly used then the synonymized ICN names. WP:FLORA should address cultivar Groups in some way (currently they are not discussed). I'm seeing this issue mostly with articles on food plants. Unfortunately, most of the official registrar authorities ([1]) are focused primarily on ornamentals; I'm not sure where to go to find a reliable source for cultivar Group names for the food plants.Plantdrew (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely sympathize with your concerns, but am equally unsure as to how to deal with the issues. As an example, consider Musa cultivars, which I've worked on recently. There is an established naming system among banana horticulturalists which some sources claim is in accord with the ICNCP, but isn't (e.g. groups of somaclones are given cultivar names in single quotes, but then individual somaclones are also given cultivar names in single quotes). Part of the problem with Musa cultivars is that their sheer number (some estimates run to 1000) requires a hierarchy of cultivar groups, but the ICNCP only provides one level, the Group. The ICNCP only really works when there is an International Registrar (whose register is freely accessible, which is not always the case either). However I do agree that the practice of giving cultivated varieties Latin names is obsolete and should not be used here, even if the non-Latin names can't always be in accord with the ICNCP in the absence of reliable sources of such names. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting reading. As a botanist who feels incompetent to tackle cultivar boxes for Capsicum, one thing that would be very helpful is pointers to any good sources of information about cultivar groups that anyone has come across. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WP:PLANTS, Eriophorum angustifolium is currently a good article candidate, but is in need of some input and support to give it a final polish. Can anybody from the project support this massively improved article and help to score and secure a new GA for the project? Talk:Eriophorum angustifolium outlines some outstanding issues. --Jza84 |  Talk  22:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions are invited at Goji, about whether the page should have a taxobox or not. This common name is used for two related species. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be resolved; Rkitko removed the taxobox, pointing out (yet again) that a taxobox is for a taxon. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A reader has written articles that include plant names like this. (Personal attack removed) Maybe someone here can explain these names to me? This one is links to an online resource.

[2]

Thanks. -166.137.210.43 (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a provisional name for a putative species which has yet to receive a formal scientific name. This name could probably be read as "a possibly new species of Hedraianthera found near Mossman, Queensland and known only from a single specimen, the 2557th plant collected by V.K. Moriarity". Of course, I'm not positive that there is only one specimen (Moriarty 2557 may simply be the first specimen), nor am I sure that Mossman refers to the town, rather than another geographical feature (there's a Mossman River too).

There are a few Wikipedia articles on plants with provisional names (e.g. Grevillea sp. Mt Burrowa, Rhus sp. nov. A). The guidelineWP:CULTIVAR briefly mentions naming articles about plants with provisional names. Personally, I'm not enamored of having these articles; the articles exist because the plants in question have been asssessed as threatened/endangered, but we have very little information on them besides a listing in say, the IUCN Red list or a list of threatened species published by the Australian government. Until a species is formally described, articles can't really be more than stubs.Plantdrew (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update. It turns out this plant was recently (2012) formally described, but ended up in a different genus. The scientific name is Brassiantha hedriaintheroides; see [3].Plantdrew (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

√ Thx Plantdrew. ——--macropneuma 15:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Sorry to have parked the name in Brassiantha in the Hedraianthera article you've been working on; obviously it doesn't belong there in the long term, but there's no Brassiantha article yet.Plantdrew (talk)Q 15:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I was about to do the same edit myself, merely to flag the matter in that article, but you beat me to it, hence an extra thanks,

Clarifying re. spelling: Brassiantha hedraiantheroides A.J. Ford. See the formal publication paper (protologue).

APNI has a typo, and it is early days for this entry on APNI. After some lag time it will get checked and (if it passes) receive the Australian Plant Census tick that it is an accepted name. In that process APNI will correct their own name spelling typo according to the original publication (protologue).

(Personal attack removed)

A few of us in north eastern Australia here would be the only people who have done the visit to Mossman (Gorge), seeing, keying out and recognising this taxon, recently receiving this new name. ——--macropneuma 17:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information, Plantdew. Could this information be added to the article on botanical names? Is it in the code? -166.137.210.31 (talk) 18:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The code doesn't have a lot to say about provisional names (by definition, they're not code compliant). It does say "A name is not validly published...when it is merely proposed in anticipation of the future acceptance of the taxon concerned, or of a particular circumscription, position, or rank of the taxon (so-called provisional name)" (Art. 36.1b [4], also see Art. 23 ex. 12)

Wikipedia does have an article on Undescribed species which discusses use and formation of provisional names as well as an "Undescribed species" category (sorry, not sure how to link to categories on a talk page). I've just added See also links for Undescribed species to the Botanical name and International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants articles. It might be worth discussing provisional names in the text of Botanical name and Binomial nomenclature, although I'm not sure how best to introduce the concept.

Undescribed species could certainly use some work; it doesn't have any references at present. "Hedraianthera sp. Mossman (V.K.Moriarty 2557)" would be a good example for discussion since it incorporates a locality and a voucher (existing provisional name examples are of the form "sp. A", "sp. B", etc.). The IUCN's discussion of undescribed species ([5]) would be good to add as a reference, especially since most of the undescribed species with Wikipedia articles are using provisional names taken from the IUCN Red list.Plantdrew (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, they have no formal standing, so we probably should not be writing articles about potential taxa? I would only include H. sp Mossman if it had any literature relating it to undescribed species. I have not seen botanical names like this, so I would be leery of including it without sources. The IUCN space looks good for part of referencing. Thanks again for all of the information. -150.135.210.72 (talk) 21:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If something hasn't been formally described it's probably not notable enough to merit it's own article. Listing it in an article on the parent taxon might be appropriate. I wouldn't be opposed to deleting most of the bot-created articles about Red listed species with provisional names. Omphalotropis sp. nov. 2 is an interesting exception; formally described, but formally nameless, as the name given turned out to be a homonym. Ancistrocladus korupensis was described in Dec. 1993 at least 6 months after it began receiving attention in the popular news media for its anti-HIV potential, so was notable prior to scientific description. And the provisional name Nessiteras rhombopteryx just needs a type specimen to become the scientific name for the Loch Ness Monster. Undescribed species may rarely be notable, but usually are not.Plantdrew (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that many of the unnamed species should be deleted; and the bot should not have created them in the first place. This is an older bot, though? It seems though, that sometimes there will be articles about notable unnamed species. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 04:27, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dare I suggest that these articles should have titles that are common names, to be moved to the scientific name once it is established? A reckless suggestion in this forum, I know. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the uncertainty, until described scientifically, that it is a unique taxon. So, would they have a unique common name if it were unknown whether the plant was unique or not? -166.137.210.35 (talk) 16:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In some cases, they might. The Loch Ness Monster is one of User:Plantdrew's examples above with that characteristic. Sorbus "no parking" was one, since named Sorbus admonitor. That certainly won't happen in all cases. As an aside: I'm a bit distressed to see the string "Omphalotropis sp. nov. 2" in view of various data mining efforts to find species descriptions that try to rely on the phrase "sp. nov." to flag the descriptions. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a well-attested common name title over a provisional scientific name, but it seems like it would be a very rare situation to have a common name for an undescribed species; Sorbus "no parking" might be the only good example (early news reports on Ancistrocladus korupensis just called it "an African vine in the Anistrocladus genus").

Several of the undescribed Arygrodendron species have vernacular names (more than one in some cases). Lavateraguy (talk) 12:46, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How long do they remain undescribed? Maybe if they are undescribed, their information should go in the genus article? It concerned me moving into non-taxa for articles, although I'm not sure I should be concerned. Obviously Lochie deserves his/her own article, so maybe it is completely doable on a case-by-case basis, and my concerns are unwarranted? -68.107.137.178 (talk) 17:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At least 6/7 years, and probably longer, in the case of the Argyrodendron species. Lavateraguy (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how to interpret that. It seems that naming and identifying a plant would be high priority; these are Angiosperms, not lottle balls or genes from some single-celled marine Eukaryote. I am comcerned they may not be valid taxa without a formal description that identifies and defines it, but if they are known for this long with common names, an article might be in order. -166.137.210.34 (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that an article might be in order (I searched hard for that Rhus example, hoping to match the specimens listed at IUCN to a publication, but failed to find it). Describing a species is not just a time-consuming process, but these days requires serious expenditure for laboratory data such as sequences and chromosome counts, money that might simply not be available. It is generally not acceptable for publication to say only "it looks completely different and its geographic range is disjoint from related species", so these matters tend to languish. Also, I've seen graduate students find evidence of a new species and then rush off to follow their careers, never having gained the knowledge necessary to publish a species description, so unless their graduate supervisor steps in the publication might never happen. (Also, I suspect that the existence of the phylocode is dissuading some people from publishing the traditional, useful, shockingly old-fashioned taxon information that is required for conservation efforts.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are 78 putative taxa in Category:Undescribed species, mostly fish and gastropods, and mostly created by User:Polbot in 2007 from the IUCN list (Rhus sp. nov A is the only Polbot created article on a plant). Other projects can worry about the undescribed animal articles. There are 8 plant articles in the Undescribed species category. One, Eucalyptus expressa, has been described ([6]) and needs updating. Grevillea sp. Mt Burrowa, Nepenthes sp. Anipahan, Nepenthes sp. Luzon, Nepenthes sp. Misool, Pelargonium sp. Striatellum, Pultenaea sp. Genowlan Point, and Rhus sp. nov. A remain undescribed. The Grevillea, Pelargonium and Pultenaea reference Australian government sources with a decent amount of information about the plants. The Nepenthes all appear in a book. I'm not sure where I'm going with all this, but Rhus sp. nov. A is the weakest of all the undescribed plant articles.Plantdrew (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, it's rare enough that it can be dealt with one at a time, Nessie under common name, others not, etc. I think we could delete, sink, or move most of the Polbot creations. Although this bot was not as problematic as others, if any of these articles have been created by the bot being using by WikiProject Gastropod, I would like to ask that programming to cease, though. Yes, the mining should be a concern. -68.107.137.178 (talk) 05:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to find a reference template for The Plant List, so I just created one Template:ThePlantList. I'm seeking feedback and constructive edits. Is the output format good? Are the parameter names (id, taxon, authority) appropriate? I've been back and forth on calling the "id" parameter "record" or "recordid", but am not sure how much it matters. Is splitting The Plant List's page title into an italicized section under the "taxon" parameter and an un-italicized "authority" useful, or would it better to have a single default un-italicized "taxon" parameter with editors manually italicizing? Any suggestions for Template:ThePlantList/doc?Plantdrew (talk) 23:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Plant List is 2.5 years out of date. I have found serious species listing errors in it. I don’t use it. I use the sources which get constantly maintained that it used. I’m in the botany luxury–place of Australia as here we have the, world class, authoritative, Australian Plant Name Index (APNI), an inspiration for IPNI. So now i won’t settle for any less quality; which has made for hard work in my editing of plant taxa of India, New Guinea and some parts of Malesia and south east Asia. In those regions, most often i have not found maintained up to date and authoritative plant taxa lists, except for some good examples, the excellent China eFlora, some great monographs eg. Pseuduvaria and the Flora of Peninsula Malaysia’s recent publications. Have i missed some resources, please do tell? A few botanical informatics resources in India that i know about, i could not access yet—any tips please? In those regions, as said some monographs, and more so some Flora … publications, provide better quality than any regionally published lists—better quality also than The Plant List and better than any web sites. For some examples in this region: as said, the current and great quality eFlora of China; the free three volume Handbooks of the Flora of Papua New Guinea (1975–1995)([7]); in some parts the huge Flora Malesiana that’s been going more than 60 years; and of course the 'simply brilliant botanists' resources here in Australia, etc.

Anyway, enough better alternatives, back to your good and useful template editing.

That said, using The Plant List is fine with very careful checking through to the original sources. Use of the The Plant List raises my hackles because people pretend it to be more authoritative than it really is—and that it claims itself to be—as you would know, but unfortunately many WP edits using it that i’ve seen, seem not to know, see: "About The Plant List". Often the Kew list, which is maintained, is a good quality ultimate source, but not all the time; though better accuracy and maintenance than most.

That said, for your great work on creating a template for easily using it:

• |id= does just fine.
• |taxon= separate please from |authority=.

The first |taxon=, output it in italics by default for the majority of cases, with an option to turn italics off.

The second |authority=, by default enclosed within the Au template for maintaining all authority names and making them appropriate small type (see Template:Au)

For two good examples see the very simple Template:APNI, that needs some more work, and my work creating the Template:AustTRFPK6.1. ——--macropneuma 00:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC) —numerous clarifications added—--macropneuma 02:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I'm well aware of errors in TPL; any attempt to build a single authoritative classification of all the plant species in the world is going to have some errors. I find TPL most useful for lists of synonyms of an accepted species. It's fairly accurate in that respect, or at least usually errs on the side of not synonymizing. By the same token, it's not as accurate for lists of accepted species in a genus; obscure synonyms may be listed as accepted. I'm not aware of any good regional sources for the areas you mention. Tropicos [8] is my usual preferred source. Tropicos doesn't attempt an authoritative classification; it compiles mentions of a name, whether it is accepted or treated as a synonym. Of course, it's not totally comprehensive. Coverage of plants from the Americas and China (Flora of China is fully integrated) is better than for plants from Australia, India, Malesia. Tropicos and WCSP are the major sources of The Plant List, and present their data in a more nuanced way.

Italics associated with |taxon= can be turned off with double apostrophes around unitalicized infraspecific ranks, since double apostrophes simply toggle italics on/off. I suppose more sophisticated coding than I can accomplish could look for "var."/"subsp." and automatically deitalicize. Thank you for pointing out Template:Au, I'll be relying on that for future edits. I'm not sure if small caps authorities are appropriate for the reference template. I think the title should display the typography used by The Plant List, where the authority is not shown in small caps. The TPL title on my browser tab is entirely in standard format (e.g. "Rubus idaeus L."), and the title in large print at the top of the TPL taxon page is mixed italic and non-italic (e.g. "Rubus idaeus L.")Plantdrew (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for dialogue. I’m well aware of, also, and use Tropicos. I prefer it as better than The Plant List, for its coverage region, but Tropicos isn’t good enough quality either, for many requirements of mine. As you mention one of the points, it often does not distinguish synonyms from currently accepted names, instead almost always lumping them all together, appearing to the uninitiated as if all names were current.

I’m aware of, also, and use many more botanical information systems. IPNI has more data behind its simple version output listings, available in delimited text outputs, however its synonymy also is unpopulated, woefully incomplete and/or out of date (IPNI’s "Name status" database field). On synonymy compare the excellent APNI, to IPNI as its much bigger, but much younger, 'less wise', brother.

Yep, forcing normal font style text by manually as well entering two single quote marks, does invert the italics set by the template coding, if the template is coded using two single quote marks. That’s not elegant coding in articles’ uses of the ThePlantList template. That double italicisation inversion coding will not get understood by many (of the often, lazy, summary execution style, of) editors. A smarty pants coding trick would be detecting infraspecies or other different name types and appropriately deitalicising the rank text or the other text. Better quality coding though, but not so smarty pants, provides the editor user with an optional control for turning italicisation off, then manually editing the italicisation. This is how i have done Template:AustTRFPK6.1 by means of its |pgtype= (page type) optional parameter (also my similar optional parameter updates of templates: Template:Asiantitle and Template:Eigo).

I will happily help writing the coding. I will leave up to you the choices of what funtionality you want for The Plant List template, as i almost never use that source. PS. oh i get the faithfully reproducing of it as a source, for better or worse, for the readers to evaluate themselves, and therefore not using the small font for the author name in citations of The Plant List. I’m consistent, not liking the lack of quality but abundance of rhetoric of The Plant List and not wanting to present it to readers as better quality than it has. ——--macropneuma 03:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC) —Adding postscript—--macropneuma 04:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For African plants there's the African Flowering Plant Database. There's also a new Brasilian checklist. For a list of floristic resources see here. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An impressive resources list, thank you very much for compiling and sharing it. ——--macropneuma 13:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to templates, a template to automatically format scientific name+authority would be quite useful (and something I could call in my reference template). If you've got the coding skills Macropneuma, please make it happen. I can't do it myself, but I can kind of articulate the rules it should follow. Given a desired output format of "Aus bus subsp. cus var. dus (L.) Plantdrew", from an unformatted string, the code should look for subsp./ssp./var./forma/etc. to be unitalicized. The second space character after the smallest rank (or the second space character in the string if there are no infraspecific ranks) marks the transition to the authority which would be formatted in small caps. I.e., in my example, the first space after the smallest rank, "var." leads to "dus", and the second space follows "dus" and leads to "(L.) Plantdrew". I'd love to have something like Template:Au that would handle that formatting. Plantdrew (talk) 07:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or keep it simple and just do a template that can't handle infraspecific ranks. Input a string with genus+species+authority, look for the second space character and italicize everything before that space and small cap everything after. That would cover the majority of scientific names I'm manually formatting and would be a useful shrotcut.Plantdrew (talk) 07:35, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out that "Aus bus subsp. cus var. dus (L.) Plantdrew" is not a name but a classification according to the ICN and would therefore rarely occur in a Wikipedia article. The name would be "Aus bus var. dus (L.) Plantdrew". Peter coxhead (talk) 13:35, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cite a source. ——--macropneuma 14:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the ICN, Article 24.1. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

No criticism, a smart idea, but more trouble than realised; as i realise with many names variations across all the several thousand species names i’m familiar with. For example, if—not you Plantdrew—if you’re an example of doing mobile ip editing silliness, then try this url ('put this cloak on over your mobile head and try it on for size':) here. The species with the coloured "√ APC" symbol are authoritative, accepted, scientifically published names, … albeit informally for now …, by the best. Back to you Plantdrew, that big one gives you an indication of that non-usefullness, on all those thousands of authoritatively accepted, published, vouchered, examples, without formal publication yet nevertheless with authoritative acceptance by amongst the best botanists—some of whom we Australian editors know. Such a template would not have any use for all of these thousands of accepted names, then in turn, inconsistent use and non–use of such a template would occur all over the place; especially in less well known plant species groups which require the greatest efforts for the most correctness and good sources;

also some editors would use it and some would not—inconsistently—but that isn’t a good argument, philosophically, because that is the WP reality (distortion field, of us all—like the well known Apple Inc. reality distortion field! (look it up)—only the inverse of Apple of the WP characteristic inconsistency!—beautiful, diverse, inconsistency sometimes, terrible some (other) times). I could readily code your above described functionality. I have done so before, for more than 20 years, in other coding platforms, e.g. NSW plant databases in FME geospatial manipulation. But, again, it is smarter thinking about it than it is useful in practise—a bit faddish.

Copying and pasting works more quickly and easily for all the formatting of italics, species/taxa wikilinks/redlinks, authority names in small text, distribution summaries, reference footnotes and so on; and works well when combined into one workflow operation—in species listings of tens of rows.

The coding is easy, as said, but there’s also the considerations of wikipedia server loading and performance issues, of template coding and calling from pages. This kind of species list template, with more templates nesting within them, like Au, wikilinks, italics, and so on, would probably overload the template expansion limits—don’t bother about that—only that i will avoid doing any coding that would make that problem. Let me join you helping work on the practical template for The Plant List. Like the AustTRFPK6.1, we can also see to it that appropriate background context and qualifications get flagged by that template's output—everytime! For species listings i have in mind much more sophisticated automatic formatting tables structures, based on extensive database experience i have. The NSW people do a great PlantNet species information system (look it up) based on a (flat file) table of unformatted text (–a text database table; i can point you to the database if you want to see it). ——--macropneuma 08:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example use this copy and paste 'template':

* ''[[XXGenus XXSpecies]]'' {{Au|XXAuthority}}<ref name=XXref/> – (XXRegion, XXRegion)
* ''[[XXGenus XXSpecies]]'' {{Au|XXAuthority}}<ref name=XXref/> – (XXRegion, XXRegion)
* ''[[XXGenus XXSpecies]]'' {{Au|XXAuthority}}<ref name=XXref/> – (XXRegion, XXRegion)

Or this one:

* ''[[XXGenus XXSpecies]]'' {{Au|XXAuthority}} – (XXRegion, XXRegion)<ref name=XXref/>
* ''[[XXGenus XXSpecies]]'' {{Au|XXAuthority}} – (XXRegion, XXRegion)<ref name=XXref/>
* ''[[XXGenus XXSpecies]]'' {{Au|XXAuthority}} – (XXRegion, XXRegion)<ref name=XXref/>

Then the first step to save time would add the genus to all before further pasting, for example(!):

* ''[[Nypa XXSpecies]]'' {{Au|XXAuthority}} – (XXRegion, XXRegion)<ref name=XXref/>
* ''[[Nypa XXSpecies]]'' {{Au|XXAuthority}} – (XXRegion, XXRegion)<ref name=XXref/>
* ''[[Nypa XXSpecies]]'' {{Au|XXAuthority}} – (XXRegion, XXRegion)<ref name=XXref/>

Obviously with a standard formatting coding like that, you can get a species listing in a spreadsheet or database software, eg. free Google Refine, and automate the combining of each species binomial with this standard formatting, and then copy and paste that whole output into the edit pane; voila!

——--macropneuma 08:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC) —added examples of easier ways! Voila!—--macropneuma 08:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been proposed that Syringa be renamed and moved to "Lilac" - see here. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trident maples <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acer_buergerianum> are listed as being in the Sapindacea family. However they are actually Aceraceae. Apologies, but I could not figure out how to edit the Classification box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.222.243.86 (talk) 22:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sapindaceae is paraphyletic if Aceraceae (and Hippocastanaceae) is excluded; therefore Aceraceae has been sunk into Sapindaceae in recent work. Lavateraguy (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading this page, and not sure rules on editing, so I'll leave it up to you guys... "These mutants have alterations in either negative gravitropism in hypocotyls and/or shoots, or positive gravitropism in roots, or both. Mutants have been identified with varying effects on the gravitropic responses in each organ, including mutants which nearly eliminate gravitropic growth, and those whose effects are weak or conditional."

looked back at the top of the page and confirmed this needs editing because it is essentially saying mutants are exactly the same, as opposed to different. here is how the page defined the terms positive and negative in reference to Gravitropism.

"Upward growth of plant parts, against gravity, is called "negative gravitropism", and downward growth of roots is called "positive gravitropism".

EDIT before posting: wow someone griefed / made an error on the page just now...

l;l;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gravitropism&action=edit&section=1#l;l;l;http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gravitropism&action=edit&section=1#l;l;l;l;l;l;lhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?titlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gravitropism&action=edit&section=1#e=Gravitropism&actionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gravitropism&action=edit&http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gravitropism&action=edit&section=1#title=Gravitropism&action=edit&section=1#section=1#=edit&section=1#http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gravitropism&action=edit&section=1#http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gravitropism&action=edit&section=1#

0xFFF1 (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Made the error correction by removing the above hyperlink from the article. 0xFFF1 (talk) 00:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this new stub really a typo which should become a redirect to Maxillarieae, or are they genuinely different? PamD 07:07, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Typo, I would say. --Stemonitis (talk) 09:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking comments about how to handle cases where a scientific name is homonymous across different nomenclatural codes. Please go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Inter-kingdom homonyms for discussion. Plantdrew (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A topical question. A good question.

Simplistically as there is more to it, add " (plant)" to the article title.

For another example different from an example i dealt with recently, the genus of trees Finschia has the same word as the genus synonym for a bird species. If the bird "Finschia" was not a synonym but a current name and had more popular importance rating in Wikipedia, then it may have got the unqualified article title. In that scenario the plant genus article would have got the title "Finschia (plant)". Note that the italics of the taxon name have to have specific coding so that the " (plant)" qualifier does not get italicised, using {{DISPLAYTITLE}}. ’Hope this assists a little.

Just to note that {{italic title}} and its implicit use in the automated taxobox system, for example, handles simple parenthesized disambiguation terms without the need to use {{DISPLAYTITLE}}. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, better than present WP ways, the more simple and scientific way is the most parsimonious way: add the authority to the title!; as mandatory within biological science, the nomenclature codes, etc! WP is not scientific, nor does it claim so. In WP that would be dejected as original research. ——-macropneuma 00:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC) (was out of login at the time.)[reply]

See a short one of the guidelines, here: Template:Speciesbox#Genus_names_duplicated_across_kingdoms ——--macropneuma 02:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to keep discussion in a single place, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Inter-kingdom homonyms (since it affects more than just Wikiproject:Plants), but a quick reply. Current practice is indeed to add (plant) to disambiguate; adding authority would be another possibility, subject to discussion. There hasn't been any discussion I could find previously, and I'd like to see some. I'm also hoping to see some consensus that an ambiguous genus name (which is correct/valid under multiple codes) should usually be the title of a disambiguation page, not a page on one of the correct/valid genera; I'm like to see a guideline established that would support moving, e.g. Callilepis to Callilepis (spider) so Callilepis (plant) can be disambiguated at Callilepis (there are many other examples, including ones where the plant is at the genus name and the animal is at the disambiguated title). The Speciesbox documentation addresses how to properly use the Speciesbox template in these cases, but is not a guideline to general best practice.Plantdrew (talk)

This matter pertains to both plants and biology, but is not strictly concerned with either subject. However, I know that there are some people with broad and philosophical interests at this project, who might perhaps be interested. It has just been suggested that Individual should be deleted, but very few people are involved so far in the discussion. Thanks for reading. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please check the parent cat for this? Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to link commons categories, but the subcategories of the parents (Crops and Plants) are awfully messy/confusing. Cultivated Plants seems like a better parent than Crops (to me, Crops implies commercial scale agriculture, but heirloom varieties are usually cultivated on a non-commercial scale), and Cultivated Plants is a parent of Crops. "Plants" as a parent is overly broad.

"Heirloom plants" is not very precise itself. "Heirloom plant varieties" might be a better title for the category. Or "Heirloom fruits and vegetables varieties"? Plantdrew (talk) 02:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall coming across heirloom varieties of cultivated plants (e.g. heirloom roses), in which case placing heirloom plants as a subcategory of crops would be questionable. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that "Cultivated plants" would be a better supercat than "Crops" (mea culpa), and many garden flowers are heirloom plants. Flowers can be crops, though, if grown for profit.

Yes, heirloom plant doesn't seem to have a precise meaning. (There is, I've heard, an algal culture used as famine food in China that is passed around like an heirloom crop.) However, I'm bothered by the term variety, which has technical meanings in botanical nomenclature and in law that are quite different, and in common usage, which would seem to be the one needed here, it is utterly vague. I think, therefore, that "Heirloom plants" might be the best option. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:32, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions are invited at Talk:Grass about whether "graminoids" is a technical term synonymous with "grasses", so that "true grasses" refers to Poaceae. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone! I saw that you have Alfalfa listed as a high-importance article to your project. Looks like it's grown beyond B-class and is ready for WP:GAN. I think so anyway. I've never even touched the article so I'd feel weird about taking it there myself.  The Potato Hose ↘ 00:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor is asking if this flower is Calathea cylindrica. It was originally labeled as Heliconia episcopalis. Anyone familiar with this one? First Light (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that Corydalis elegans was recently deleted (reason given "no such taxon: nomen nudum"). I can't find any indication that it is a nomen nudum; and there is information available about a plant under that name (e.g. [9]. Even if it is a nomen nudum, it seems to me that regardless of the name being scientifically useless, if there is information about the organism, Wikipedia could still have an article using that title. Is it possible to undelete the article? Plantdrew (talk) 21:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I just checked IPNI, and I found there is "Corydalis elegans Wall." that's a nomen nudum, but "Corydalis elegans Wallich ex Hooker & Thomson" seems to be a good name. At worst, perhaps the incorrect authority was given in the deleted C. elegans article? Plantdrew (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The entire content of the article (aside from taxobox) was:

"Corydalis elegans is a herbaceous flowering plant species in the genus Corydalis."

It was also marked as unreferenced. If you have references for it, feel free to recreate it, or perhaps ask Stemonitis (talk · contribs) to explain why he felt it should be deleted. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 23:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I've made an error (as seems likely in this case; I overlooked the later valid publication), then by all means undo it. The article I deleted was worthless, so starting from scratch will be no great setback. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the name was originally published in 1829 without description in the Wallich Catalogue (#1435) and the description was published in Flora Indica by J.D. Hooker and Thomas Thomson in 1855.--Melburnian (talk) 05:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The AGS Encyclopedia of Alpines has a description of a species under the name C. elegans Wall. However the name is not listed in Lindén and Zetterlund's monograph on the tuberous species of Corydalis. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is recognised by the Harvard Flora of China. Flora of Pakistan has Corydalis elegans Hook. non Wall. pro parte = Corydalis clarkei. (I think that means that Hooker's concept included what are now considered to be two species.) Lavateraguy (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of good recent news, that this consensus (Vascular Plant Classification Committee (VPCC)) has become formalised, in this internationally published journal paper:

→ Wearn, James A.; Chase, Mark W.; Mabberley, David J.; Couch, Charlotte (22 Apr 2013). "Utilizing a phylogenetic plant classification for systematic arrangements in botanic gardens and herbaria". Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society. 172 (2): 127–141. doi:10.1111/boj.12031. ISSN 1095-8339. Retrieved 22 May 2013.

Widely accepted and implemented already, over recent years, as you may already know—clarifying, the good news i mean is now this formal publication.

Any fellow botanists who can’t get a full text copy, i’ll email it to you if you email request me via my user page. ——--macropneuma 23:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but I'm not quite sure what is new in this publication (other than the numbering of the families). I doubt that it will change the acceptability or otherwise of the full APG III approach, some parts of which certainly don't seem to be "widely accepted"; e.g. Hyacinthaceae is used by all the recent papers I've seen on this group or its genera, and many specialists continue to use the narrower families in APG II rather than the broad Amaryllidaceae. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guava has been proposed to be renamed, see talk:Guava -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask any flower experts to weigh in at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/delist/File:Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus flower.jpg? There is concern that this flower is not what the file title claims, but it has to be something. Thanks. Chick Bowen 23:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented there, but this does raise the more general and insoluble(?) problem that although we require text to be sourced, there is no equivalent requirement for image identifications. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - tricky to address. Some ones I am not sure of I've asked botanists to look at and ID....which makes me wonder how to vouch for it apart from noting it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A new task force is working on taxonomy d:Wikidata:Taxonomy task force. --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have started an AFC for Mancel Thornton Munn. He might be slightly obscure to many, but botanists will recognize him for his prolific development of techniques and publications on seed testing. If folks here can add to the article, please do. -68.107.136.227 (talk) 16:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a decent start. I'm adding a bunch of information. This guy probably deserves much more than a stub article to get started at Wikipedia. - tucoxn\^talk 22:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that really made it a better article. I knew he was well known in botany, but I was limited to online resources. -198.228.216.159 (talk) 04:27, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article titles in Category:Pinus are inconsistent. Capitalization of title and use of common vs. scientific name is all over the place. Please comment at Talk:Whitebark_Pine#Requested_move. Plantdrew (talk) 05:40, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for asking about a topic that has been discussed before, but I'm not at all sure how to proceed, and would be glad of opinions from those more experienced with this sort of thing. A number of plant articles are being stripped of all mention of possible medical uses, and a discussion has started at Talk:Artemisia absinthium. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 17:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is disconcerting. I've seen a number of edits where (unreferenced) statements about historical medicinal use of a plant have been deleted. I haven't objected to these edits because a) the statement WAS unreferenced and b) finding a RS is hard; there is a lot of unreliable herbal literature to wade through. However, I do think Botanical.com's Modern Herbal is a good RS for statements about herbal medicine. I wouldn't claim it complies with WP:MEDRS, but there needs to be a way to discuss traditional/historical usage of plants as medicines without requiring that these uses be clinically validated. Regardless of whether or not wormwood is a clincally effective antihelminthic, we ought to be able to mention that it was used as antihelmnthic, and that this use is why it was called wormwood. Plantdrew (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This diff is absolutely ridiculous. A statement describing how a plant is being marketed had the source removed as not being WP:MEDRS. The statement remained, uncited, and the removed source was actually critical of the medicinal claims being made by marketers. Maybe we should take this over to Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Plantdrew (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made my views clear at Talk:Artemisia absinthium. Of course we must say that wormwood was used historically as an antiheminthic and that this is how it got its name. Of course we can quote well-known pre-scientific herbalists like Culpeper and Dioscorides to show the historical uses of plants. WP:MEDRS is simply being misinterpreted (along with WP:OR). Peter coxhead (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the responses. Yes, it does seem that those guidelines are being misunderstood; as I read WP:MEDRS it deals with giving undue weight, not with outright removal. Some of the problem might also be with inadequate edit summaries, but that seems to be a relatively small component.

PS: I've taken the liberty of adding WP:PLANTS to Talk:Ethnomedicine: anyone want a major challenge to improve an article? Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good to have Ethnomedicine listed on this project. I'll get to it right after I tackle Ethnobotany (not likely to happen soon though). I just looked at the traffic statistics for the article I mentioned with an awful MEDRS edit above. Gambooge is blowing up! (due to media hype which certainly doesn't comply with MEDRS). It's gone from ~120 page views/day a year ago, to ~1500 in recent months, and has spiked to ~4000 daily views over the last week. A lot of people are looking at that article right now. Want to work on helping improve it? Plantdrew (talk) 04:14, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of work needed at Ethnobotany too, and Ethnopharmacy and Ethnopharmacology. (Some of the interest in Gambooge could be from people who are intrigued that a plant traditionally used as a purgative is being touted as a way to burn fat. What symptoms a person might expect from taking the dear doctor's advice could be the fuel for speculative jokes. I hesitate to think up some key words for a web search to try to find such jokes.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've had a number of discussions as to whether "Taxonomy" is the best section title when topics like nomenclatural history, evolution, phylogeny, subdivisions, etc. are discussed in a section of an article. As often happens, we didn't reach any very firm conclusions.

I find myself increasingly unwilling to use "Taxonomy" when most of the material goes beyond the nomenclatural, and have been using "Systematics" as a broader title in such cases.

What would other members of WP:PLANTS think about offering "Systematics" as an alternative section title in the plant article template? Or is this just some peculiar preference of mine? Peter coxhead (talk) 10:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have said that taxonomy includes both nomenclature and systematics. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with that, taxonomy includes both nomenclature and systematics. Systematics is the methods that are used to arrive at a classification. The classification itself and the results of applying the rules of nomenclature are outside systematics. There've been changes (one might say "battles) on the various wikipedia pages related to this recently, but I doubt that it is all as clear as it could be, and suspect that there could still be major confusion lurking in some of that material, and that similar confusion lurks in some outside sources that try to popularize taxonomy. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:57, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, In a section on taxonomy ( which is defined as what it's named and what it's classified as) it would seem reasonable that arguments or discussion supporting that conclusion are naturally part of that discussion without necessarily needing another heading. Thus for mine it is fine to include discussion on why something is classified as something in a taxonomy section, just as in a description section we might touch on pigments providing colour without calling it description and chemistry.....but that's just me. We try to aim for succinct headings and I see the benefit of scope so marginally over just one word that I'll stick to a single word. That said, I've been guilty of slapping a - and naming onto taxonomy sections....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My only worry with and naming is that it could be an invitation to add a slather of unsourced common names and names already covered by the interwiki. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think my concern is over the different ways the term "taxonomy" is used in biology. There are three sourced definitions at Taxonomy (biology)#Definition. The first and third seem to me essentially the same in relation to the content of a plant article: they say that taxonomy covers classification and naming (classification pre-supposes naming). The second definition is much broader, since it includes description and identification, which we don't put in plant articles under "Taxonomy". Then of course there is the use of "taxonomy" to mean just "alpha taxonomy". What the article template says and what our practice is in good/featured articles seems to be a mixture of taxonomy, in the narrowish sense of classification and naming, and systematics, particularly phylogeny.

If we accept Smithopsis84's statements ("Systematics is the methods that are used to arrive at a classification. The classification itself and the results of applying the rules of nomenclature are outside systematics.") then it could be argued that a more accurate section title would be "Taxonomy and systematics" (or vice versa). Hmm.. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something wrong with this edit? I'm not sufficiently learned in such things, though it doesn't make sense to me that the article taxobox now presents an order of plants, which the accompanying text states contains seventeen orders....? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I undid the edit that I think was done in good faith and hopefully explained sufficiently in my edit summary. The clades named angiosperms, eudicots, and rosids are part of the APG III system, of course, and have not been described or classified at any rank, so it's inappropriate to switch them from |unranked_divisio= to |divisio= etc. parameters. I think the editor just removed "unranked" and left "ordo" for rosids, even though if it were classified at a rank it would be at a rank that would contain orders. In the taxobox, however, we use the |unranked_ordo= to squeeze in another clade after eudicots in the |unranked_classis= parameter. |unranked_ordo= displays above |ordo=. Rkitko ^(talk) 19:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aliwal2012 has made similar edits (Cynodon dactylon, Alfalfa). I'd point them to a guideline that supports using APG unranked clades in the taxobox, but I'm not actually finding any thing that addresses using the APG clades. I'm sure it's on talk pages somewhere, but it's not discussed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template; the only mention of the taxobox (Wikipedia:TX) there goes straight to the general taxobox documentation. Plantdrew (talk) 20:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that a couple of years ago or so, there was a WT:Plants discussion about the use of unranked parameters within taxoboxes, though I didn't join in the discussion because I knew even less then than I do currently, and I couldn't say where the discussion is archived or what was concluded, if anything. Maybe other editors can remember? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive56#Unranked vs. clade that partially gets to the point. We certainly never got around to a decision since I think the automatic taxobox still uses "clade" but it's clear from that discussion no one supports "|divisio = Angiosperms" since that's inaccurate and incorrect. There's a bit of discussion also at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive23#Rosidae/rosids etc where the question arises later on (ignore most of the PhyloCode stuff). I also undid the edit at Alfalfa. Perhaps it might be worth a brief talk page message to point the editor to this discussion so that they can avoid that mistake in the future. Rkitko ^(talk) 22:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, two of the clades have been given formal names and ranks, by Chase and Reveal (2009): angiosperms = Subclass Magnoliidae; rosids = Superorder Rosanae. But I'm not suggesting we use them! Peter coxhead (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! I haven't forgotten about that paper, but I'm still waiting to see if anyone else picks up on the ranked system. Rkitko ^(talk) 22:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence in my reading that anyone else has. But their paper does illustrate a relevant point, namely that if a rank is given to angiosperms it is likely to have to be much lower than we are used to. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really seeing any strong consensus or strong dissenting opinions in those discussions Rkitko linked. It seems to me the de facto standard for taxoboxes is using "unranked" APG groups. Some taxoboxes call the APG groups "clades", and some use a fully ranked classification.

There's no documentation of the de facto standard. The example taxoboxes at Wikipedia:TX use unranked groups, but the blank plant taxoboxes for copy-pasting are fully ranked. Is there consensus for having taxoboxes with the unranked groups? Can we put something about it in Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template? Plantdrew (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could do a more thorough search, but we had discussions all over the place. Some discussions took place at Template talk:Taxobox but I couldn't find anything quickly there in the archives. A few of us (Hesperian, me, a few others I'm forgetting at the moment) did a lot of the work in updating the taxoboxes from Cronquist to APG II and then later APG III but many remain incomplete. It's still my intention to finish the job, I suppose, and I do so in little bits here and there with months of inactivity in between. It's a big job and takes a lot of concentration to not screw it up. Regardless, {{Taxobox}} only supports "unranked" for the APG clades or the ranked Cronquist taxa (or other system if further out of date), but we had consensus for the APG system long ago for angiosperms. {{Automatic taxobox}}, on the other hand, supports assigning a rank of "clade" to things like Template:Taxonomy/Eudicots. It is inconsistent and we should deal with that at some point, I suppose. Given our consensus to use the APG III system and the only way to implement this correctly is by using the unranked parameters, I don't think we need another discussion to confirm consensus of its implementation - that's just how it is. We had discussed ways to implement "clade: Angiosperms" in the regular Taxobox, but it turned out to be difficult to code for some reason. I reference that but didn't link to it in one of those discussions I linked above. So yes, be bold and add the correct method by which we implement the APG III system for angiosperms in the Taxobox to the article template. Rkitko ^(talk) 01:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber added this to the project page: "The consensus for common names is to use lower case (unless a proper noun forms part of the name)." I reverted it, pending some more discussion.

I think it's true that the majority of plant editors prefer lower case common names, but whether there is a consensus is another matter. My understanding is that when this was last discussed it was agreed that there was no consensus here.

What is certainly the case is that many (I think the majority) of the 49 FA plant articles currently use capitalized English names (see here). Now since Casliber is a major contributor to the Banksia articles which form a large part of these 49, perhaps they are being changed to lower case?

I believe strongly that where there are "official" sources of standardized English names for plants, these should be given in the list of names in the same styling as is used in the source. (I can expand on the reasons if anyone wants.) Hence I think any addition needs to be a bit more complex. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it matters what we as a project decide. When it was last discussed here I don't think the MOS:LIFE consensus had been developed yet. Now that it has we just simply have to follow it. Unlike the bird project, I really don't think there is such a thing as an official source of standardized English names for plants. Our project page should reflect the MOS:LIFE consensus since we can't really go off and ignore it as a group. The FAs should be updated to be consistent with our manual of style. Rkitko ^(talk) 06:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I am unaware of any official names for plants - as far as I am aware it is only birds which have official names, and that everywhere else common names are being converted to lower case - FAs that have Capitalised names might be the older ones....if you know of official lists that'd be good to link to here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording at MOS:LIFE reflects aggressive editing by User:SMcCandlish; see the earlier version. His changes were disputed at the time, but he wore everyone down. He seems to have given up editing after being warned by an admin for inappropriate language in discussions. However, I don't dispute that outside birds and lepidoptera, there is a general consensus now to use lower case in text (tables, lists, etc. are different).

There's no international list of English names for plants, but there is a list for the UK, created by the Botanical Society of the British Isles (BSBI) and the names are used in all standard floras. There's been a recent discussion in BSBI News in which it was again made clear that the use of capitals was a deliberate intention (not every member of the BSBI agrees with this approach!). There's an Excel file containing the 2007 list here; I'm sure that I have the 2011 version on my laptop, but I can't find the link just now.

I explained elsewhere my view on these names:

Many non-scientists who are seriously interested in plants (and other organisms) are uncomfortable with Latin names. They find them hard to pronounce and hard to remember. So organizations which want to promote the study of "their" taxa have generated lists of English names. These are not true "common" names, but artificial English names. In the cases I know well (British vascular plants, British bryophytes, British fungi, British lepidoptera) the artificial English names been carefully designed to show relationships where possible, e.g. having a two-part structure corresponding to genus and species. But most importantly they have been designed to be unique, so that an amateur reporting an occurrence of a species using such an English name is as precise in their identification as if the Latin name had been used (these days, particularly for fungi, the Latin names change much faster than the artificial English names!).

As soon as you depart from the prescribed style for these artificial names, you raise doubts as to whether the name is being used in the manner intended, and so introduce imprecision. Now if the scientific name is given as well, there's no problem. But if it isn't, there is a problem. As someone who maintains a checklist of organisms for a UK National Nature Reserve, I'm happy to receive records using the "official" common names from people whose identifications I can trust. What concerns me is people using "random" English names picked up from sources like Wikipedia. By all means give all well attested common names for a species, but where there is a standard common name, this should be given in the form the source intended, and not arbitrarily altered by a Wikipedia editor.

Peter coxhead (talk) 07:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]