Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

How should varieties be properly abbreviated? Would someone please check this article and verify the correct binomial for the species also? Lathyrus_lanszwertii Thanks, KP Botany 16:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Having the genus and species abbreviated seems novel, if used in a paper talking about many different plant taxa it seems to invite confusion. I added the full species name and saved it, then reverted back to the old version so others can see what the issue is. Hardyplants 20:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering why you did that, but saw that it looked much better with the specific epithet spelled out in full. We don't want novel, though. KP Botany 20:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Hesperian recently pointed to me that the "G. s. subpsecies" convention is typical of zoology, not botany, and that the rank abbreviation should almost always be used. Either "G. species var. variety" (subsp. subspecies etc.) or "G. s. var. variety" should be used, not "G. s. subpsecies." Circeus 22:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This is correct. Because plants can have any or all of three infraspecific ranks, "trinomial" in the zoological sense is always ambiguous.--Curtis Clark 03:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe the rules are correctly described at Ternary name (or Trinomial nomenclature if you want to contrast with animals). Kingdon 21:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked at these, Kingdon, and they say nothing about the abbreviations--am I missing something? KP Botany 21:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I meant the more basic stuff like not using the zoology style and even what to italicize (at least by example). But my (perhaps too subtle) point was that people could improve Ternary name if it doesn't describe the rules in sufficient detail. Kingdon 03:41, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, even the sledgehammers are apt to go by me, so I don't see why you'd resort to subtlty. But good point, the article needs serious major work. KP Botany 04:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The ICBN largely restricts itself to defining what is a valid formal publication of a taxon, and has very little to say about the rules of informal usage. It does explicitly leave room for abbreviation of taxa, e.g. Chapter IV Section 2 Article 33.1: "A combination (autonyms excepted) is not validly published unless the author definitely associates the final epithet with the name of the genus or species, or with its abbreviation" (my emphasis). However it has nothing to say about what form that abbreviation should take, and the above quote would be consistent with both the "G. species var. variety" and "G. s. var. variety" forms of abbreviation.

In the absence of any ICBN directives, it becomes a matter of style, and we should be guided by convention. I had a look around the web, and found very little. One document that seems worthy of our consideration is the Royal Horticultural Society's Recommended Style for Printing Plant Names, which says: "Where the genus is quite clear from the context, it may be abbreviated to a single letter (eg: in a paragraph about roses, repetitions of Rosa may be shortened to R.); it is not good practice to abbreviate any other parts of a plant name..." (my emphasis). Hesperian 00:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

That sounds fine as it's what most folks are probably used to with plant names, not abbreviating the specific epithet for varieties or subspecies, that is. KP Botany 04:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted User:MPF over at Verbascum thapsus after he inflicted his "American names don't exist" concept on it (and various other stuff). Input on the talk page (Talk:Verbascum thapsus#Sweeping changes) would be appreciated. Circeus 16:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

And there we go again. I don't want to get into a revert war, but I have a hard time thinking that this pettiness is a representation of "our best work," much less one that I wouldlike to see on the main page (emphasis mine): "I find it very objectionable to be ordered to use an American re-naming of my native species instead of the standard name agreed in its native region, and to have to read about it in American spellings, merely to satisfy American cultural imperialism (why must the natives be forced to use the American name for their own native species?)." This is ridiculous and makes it seems as if the commonly and widely used American name simply did not exist, and that alone would be enough for a speedy delisting.

Remind me never to touch species found outside North America again. What next? Will we have to rename Symphyotrichum novi-belgii "Michaelmas Daisy"? Circeus 18:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you completely- he's gone way too far. I posted my opinion on the matter, but should there be a vote or more discussion, please let us know. It's a shame that he's picked such a solid article to ultra-Anglicise at the expense of important information. Let me know if there's anything more I can do. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 20:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I find many of MPF's arguments about common names to be the standard British colonialist hegemony recast in a "poor downtrodden minority" mold. If it were a matter of including all common names, and naming articles by their scientific names when there is not a single widely-used common name, I'd agree. But I don't see that as what MPF is trying to achieve.--Curtis Clark 03:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I know this is not the right place but... does anybody know if Asarum is to be pronounced "áaasarum" or "asáaarum"? Do you think it would be interesting to show the right position of the stress in the Latin names in some way in WP articles (German speakers see [[1]])? Does anybody know about a website where information can be found? Accents are used to mark stress in some European floras (a Flora Italica and a Flora von Deutschand for sure). Aelwyn 18:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Your treading into trouble since pronunciation is often regionally based, even in countries that speak the same language. Some might argue that its Greek and Latin and there is only one way to pronounce it correctly but that naively fails to recognize that other languages can not articulate the sounds the same way with out difficulty. Hardyplants 05:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I have Flora von Deutschland and it lists it as Ásarum. English speakers tend to put the stress on the second "a" in my experience. I agree with the previous comment that putting the pronunciation into the articles would probably lead to trouble due to regional variations. Here in Germany, for example, people pronounce Asteraceae "ah-ster-ah-ce", while in the US it is generally "as-ster-a-see-ee", which involves an extra syllable. Best to leave it to the imagination... Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 20:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, without any advice I'd probably go for Asárum. But it would still not be as funny as the famous Campanúla patúla. Here it's "as-te-rá-che-e" (ch as in church), that depends on your pronunciation system (classical/German/ecclesiastical/traditional English) and has nothing with the stress. See Cerástium, which can be "ke-rás-ti-um/tse-rás-ti-um/che-rás-ti-um/se-rás-ti-um", but never Cérastium or Cerastíum. Aelwyn 22:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm surely an expert on treading into trouble (I've "opened the can of worms" angain). Naming conventions (redirecting to Latin), article standard form, bad family articles, that translation of de:Blütenstand... Aelwyn 22:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess some one has to stir the pot, keeps things interesting and productive, at least you ask before you "tread" to heavily. Hardyplants 05:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Since Latin is a dead language anyway, I don't think it'd be appropriate to attempt giving "proper" pronounciation when the latin and English names aren't the same. Circeus 23:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Umm... yes, it is probably not completely appropriate to give the pronunciation in plant articles. Even more inappropriate, constantly writing accents on scientific names, as you can see in some German texts (copying from Flora von Deutschland, the mark is wrongly considered a part of the name). If we used them it would be a "Don't stuff beans up your nose" thing. An article on the pronunciation of botanical/scientific Latin in the different systems would be useful, if it doesn't already exist. That could link to a list of genera and common epithets with the indication of the stress, for those who do care. Another point in my already so long to-do list. Aelwyn 07:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC) PS: Latin is dead, but it doesn't mean one can use it like he or she wants. That's a bad habit particularly common among Americans, who tend to read Latin not only in a strongly Anglicised way, which may be OK, but often very inconsistently (americana, ah-may-ree-can-uh).

It's fine to pronounce Botanical Latin in regional dialects--it's a written, not a spoken language, and the rules for pronounciation do exist, but aren't from Classical Latin. The botanists I know are almost exclusively American and pronounce the scientific names of plants largely in accordance with Classical Latin, a language I do speak a bit. Botanical Latin is not the same dead languages as the various ancient Latin languages, as it is used today by botanists. There are sounds introduced to Botanical Latin that do not exist in the Latin tongue, especially from the names of the many botanists who hail from non Indo-European speaking countries. Pronouncing the names varies not only from country to country but within countries. There are rules, though. KP Botany 18:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with KP Botany completely here. Botanical Latin isn't really a spoken language, even though plant enthusiasts often use it.

Aelwyn: adding pronunciation to plant articles might seem like a good thing, but it would definitely cause polarizing upheavals and nasty arguments (British people saying that their pronunciation is the correct one because they invented the English language after all, Americans saying that their pronunciation is better because they represent a larger proportion of English speakers, and Canadians just getting annoyed because everyone seems to forget that there's an awful lot of them that speak English, but no-one seems interested in their opinions about it). I know that seems an absolutely rediculous thing to say, but stick around for a while and you'll get a better feel for the problem. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 20:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with all of that, with the additional difficulty that it will be harder than usual to find reliable sources for what the pronounciations are (what few sources we find, like the floras mentioned at the start of this thread, will not really answer the question of how widespread a particular pronounciation is). Unlike general language, it is probably little studied/documented by linguists. And we really want to avoid the "well, at *my* garden club we pronounce it like this" syndrome. Kingdon 16:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

And I agree too, I'm absolutely not talking about pronunciations and I don't want to add any information on Latin pronunciation in plant articles (it is probably not completely appropriate to give the pronunciation in plant articles. Even more inappropriate, constantly writing accents on scientific names). We read Latin in many different ways and each is historically legitimate, if used consistently. But the position of the main stress is not subjective. Latin has two hard and fast rules to determine it (any website about Latin will cite these):

• The only vowels that can carry the stress are the penult or the antepenult.
• If the penult is a diphthong or a long vowel, it carries the stress. Unless, it's on the antepenult.

The length of vowels cannot vary and can be found in Latin dictionaries. The problem is that a normal Latin dictionary will probably list Olĕa and Fraxĭnus, but finding Asǎrum is very unlikely. My "project" was actually a small one: a list of genera with a mark for the main stress, or the length of the penult, which is equivalent. Just to help avoiding Campanùlas. But, yes, it will almost surely cause trouble, maybe it's not a great idea. PS: KP Botany, what rules do you refer to? Aelwyn 19:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It is common among many North American anglophone botanists to place stress of latinized names based on non-latin names (especially personal names) according to the original stress rather than the "correct" Latin stress. This is much more common with specific epithets. Thus douglasii is DUG-lass-ee-eye as often as duh-GLASS-ee-eye, lemmonii is as often LEM-uh-nee-eye as leh-MOAN-ee-eye, and so forth. Inasmuch as many of these names would be difficult to pronounce as Latin in the first place, shift of the stress allows the pronunciation to maintain a connection to the etymology for other anglophones who hear the name without seeing it spelled.

What would be of value is to provide the stress for names that are directly from classical or medieval Latin. And it needs to be provided unambiguously; your examples of Olĕa and Fraxĭnus use a breve, which in US markup normally indicates a short vowel, so I assume these are pronounced Ólea and Fráxinus, but US markup for Latin (at least when I took it over 40 years ago) marks long vowels with a mācron and leaves the short unmarked, and the variety of different markups for stress might lead someone to believe that the breve was a stress mark rather than a length mark.--Curtis Clark 20:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe pronouncing dóu-glas-i-i and lém-mon-i-i is not that wrong, the two words are not real classical/mediaeval/new Latin. I wonder how Cicero/Linnaeus would have read Welwitschia! [2] [3] [4] Both these websites and the two floras (which I have seen but I do not possess) mark the stress using an acute accent, it's a mediaeval system (see: Latin spelling and pronunciation). It seems the best rendering solution to me. The 2nd website cites Quelle: Schmeil-Fitschen, Flora von Deutschland, Quelle & Meyer Verlag, 92. Aufl. 2003, ISBN 3-494-01328-4., which is a great text I consider perfectly reliable. If no major objections arise, I'll create List of botanical scientific names with accent marks (any better title?), make some links and possibly contact people from other bio projects who may be interested. Aelwyn 18:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

How about Syllable stress of classical botanical names, which is more what I'd like to see: Names from Latin and latinized Greek that have unambiguous by-the-rules accents. As an additional note, there are two common stresses for Dendromecon, Dendómecon and Dendromécon. I had always used the former, but the Greek word for poppy is μηκον, becoming mēcon in Latin, so the latter is correct. It's the careful attention to scholarship that makes such a list for classical names so valuable, and IMO this would be diluted by prescribing stress for latinized words that come from languages other than Greek.

I totally agree. Your title is better. Aelwyn 21:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Funny. [5] It seems that this information doesn't belong on Wikipedia. This is not an encyclopaedic article like List of postal codes, List of Prison Break characters or Sadism and masochism in fiction. I'm not sure they will let me create/keep that page. This will make everything difficult. The only alternative I see is adding that info in each plant article. Which will violate the rule about the IPA, which we don't want to use because we only care about stress. It gets stressful. Aelwyn 22:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Man, that was fast. That's what I get for stepping away from my computer.--Curtis Clark 05:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There are extensive rules for pronouncing Latin, and for pronouncing Botanical Latin suggesions are made that it conform in various ways. This is discussed frequently enough in Taxon and elsewhere in books. A list of pronunciations for botanical names would be useless and impossible to use the way Wikipedia is set up--it would have to be its own Wiki. The article subject matter is, however, useful and appropriate for Wikipedia as an article, not as a list. I have edited it to reflect the article quality of its title and added information from the couple of Latin books I have handy, also will try to get to my Wheelock's when I have a second. See my note about a proposed name change. KP Botany 01:20, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your basic premise that all one needs is the rules. Length of vowels is non-obvious to someone not a Latin scholar (hence their being marked in textbooks), and iirc there are a fair number of exceptions. In the case of borrowings from Greek, it is also necessary to know whether "o" came from "ο" or "ω" and "e" from "ε" or "η"; the latter of each pair is long in any context. The article should at least have some examples of common genera that can be misinterpreted (for example, Olea, which would be pronounced oléa by anyone familiar with Spanish), despite the ratty AfD.--Curtis Clark 05:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the rules without examples would be rather worthless to a general audience, you're correct there, and the rules are pretty long, and there are extra levels of detail. So, yes, more than the rules are needed. I don't think that a Wikipedia list or article is the appropriate place to have a compilation of the syllabication of all Botanical Latin words, or even just of those with 3 or more syllables, or even simply those not derived from names of people and places that are of 3 or more syllables, or even just those from Classical Latin which are not derived from names of people and places and are 3 or more syllables in length.... KP Botany 07:12, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"PS: KP Botany, what rules do you refer to? Aelwyn 19:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)" Just the ones I used in the article, Stearn, and modern rules for pronunciation of Classical Latin. KP Botany 07:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I only only wondered if you knew something new to me. I agree with Curtis, rules are not enough. Length of vowels can be obvious from the word (Potentilla: -til- ends in consonant -> long), they can be easy to the Latin educated (Campanula: -ulus is a common diminutive suffix, the U is short.), but are often quite unpredictable (see Fraxinus and Asarum), especially if the word comes from Greek. This is why reading Latin correctly without the help of length marks or accents is very difficult even to me, Italian native speaker (a great advantage, we call a Campanula "campànula" and a Fraxinus "fràssino"). A page like KP's is a good and needed article. Probably the list really doesn't belong on Wikipedia and I can't imagine how long and troublesome it could become, but what to do then? Add the info on each article (box?), linked to the explanation? I strongly believe that that info should be provided somehow, especially because it is difficult to get. One can google and find 10 times the information we have on wiki about the most common plants and never understand how their scientific name is properly stressed. Aelwyn 08:09, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone proposed merging Tropical fruit and List of tropical fruittrees into List of fruits last year but no discussion was made about it. Please discuss. JohnnyMrNinja 08:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. The list still needs some work if you have spare moments: List of culinary fruits#Tropical fruits.--Curtis Clark 23:06, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I have proposed a merger between Bean, Legume, Pulse (legume) and Fabaceae. Anyone interested can talk about it here. JohnnyMrNinja 01:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just added Ailanthus altissima to the peer review request section. It was reviewed and made a GA a few weeks ago, but I think it's fairly close to being worthy of an FA nomination. If anyone has some time, please have a look through and give any suggestions or critiques on the talk page. Thanks! Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 14:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't pull out my fine-toothed comb, but a quick glance seemed to put it in the featured article ballpark (roughly the right level of detail, references, etc) I didn't notice any obviously missing topics, but I didn't think too hard about that. It could probably use some work making it flow from one paragraph to the next and generally read as a single, engaging article, not just a collection of facts (I know this is a bit vague, so feel free to disregard if you think it is taken care of). Kingdon 02:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This whole article reeks of copyvio, particularly if one goes back to the early versions [6] where only one person had contributed (also this editor's sole contribution). The source can't be located by google; my suspicion is a newspaper report that is no longer online. That does not however invalidate the copyright. I reckon the page should be deleted to remove the copyvio from the page's history, and re-started with only the GFDL text added by subsequent editors (primarily User:Hardyplants' addition of a taxobox, etc). Thoughts, anyone? - MPF 13:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried to locate the source text here through web archive but had no luck, but I may have missed it. However, I agree that it does look like a copyvio, especially the sentence "The paper will be published in this journal", and I therefore support your proposal. --Melburnian 14:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If you go back to the first version of the article 2 years ago - it clearly is copied nearly verbatim from this source http://www.arkansasheritage.com/storyline_news/dah_Storyline_Fall05.pdf Hardyplants 14:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like the best course of action at this point, MPF. KP Botany 14:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice digging, thanks! I'll proceed as above soon - MPF 16:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Done - MPF 20:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I had been working on a revision on a subpage and I essentially merged the two together. I dug up the description written by the authors, but I'm not prepared to write all that in right now. If anyone else wants to take a stab, the .pdf file is refed (it's from the journal Sida) Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 21:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought I'd already mentioned this here, but apparently not -- my bad. There's a huge number of very short stubs on diseases of plants, the majority of them fungi of some sort, and several discussions over at WP:WSS/P as to what to do with them. There seems to me to be two obvious ways to split these up: by taxonomy of the infectee, or by taxonomy of the infector. The latter would be fairly straightforward to do, as there's generally some existing categorisation or infoboxing, and it would cut down on double-stubbing. The former, OTOH, might be more useful from a plant perspective, but in most cases the information seems to be missing from the article. Thoughts? Alai 15:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess what I find easiest to get my mind around is not the stub categories but sub-categories of Category:Plant pathogens and diseases. I'll agree that categorizing by pathogen taxonomy is probably easy and categorizing by victim is perhaps more useful (for many purposes). I would think both should co-exist in this context (that is, each pathogen would typically be listed once according to its taxonomy and once in a category like Category:Canola diseases). As for stub sorting, the question is what would encourage people to expand (or otherwise deal with) those articles. I don't really know. It is hard for me to see them getting much attention with or without sorting, so maybe someone who is more of an optimist needs to think about this one. Kingdon 18:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

For the "permanent" categories, it'd be perfectly possible to do both at once, since there's no issues with size criteria or having many such on the one article. Indeed, work on permcats would itself be a huge help for stub sorting, as they could then essentially just follow them. So if people were to add such categories, or indeed "host" infoboxes, that'd be an excellent start. Alai 18:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup, people. I couldn't help myself and nominated it for FA. feel free to come and chip in. Circeus 22:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to restate Circeus' invitation to come and have a look through the article. It's my first going through FAC and I appreciate the suggestions we've gotten so far. More are certainly welcome. Thanks! Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 01:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty of archiving the month of May. Circeus 22:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering what people think about linking all species in lists within new genus articles, in the case say where either no species articles have yet been created or where the genus article has been created to link with one new species article, but there is a list of, say, a dozen or more other species without articles. In the past I've tended to link all the species, but then the genus article often sits there with a visually jarring mass of red links for months on end, as no new articles are forthcoming. As a result, lately I've tended to only put in the blue links. Of course the red links have an advantage in that they automatically pick up new articles as they are created and are an encouragement to others to start articles for those species. Any thoughts? Melburnian 22:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• If you think there are too many redlinks, maybe a good idea is to spin the list into a separate article so as not to flood the genus article with them, and only list the most notable/blue linked one in the taxobox? I general, I favor redlinks, at least when the taxonomy and nomenclature are relatively stable Circeus 23:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Circeus. Putting only blue links in makes it less likely that newly created species articles will be linked to from that list. --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Melburnian kindly invited me to comment, a query arose as a consequence of clicking a red link in an article, creating a page and then trying to find the links. Also searching is not my strong point, on these two points red wins the day. But they shout. And sometimes they shout to the reader, why haven't these wikipedians got the 6 million odd species linked yet! I think a 2 red to 5 blue is good in articles as a rule of thumb. Less than 1 in 5 bluelinks on a list and it should be sub paged on the project, with a big bold pointer to the main lists or genus of the new link (for new users, and me). ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 00:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I favour linking everything that is notable enough to eventually warrant an article - species, botanists, journals, books, organisations.... Hesperian 00:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

My experience on Wikipedia has generally been that redlinks are not an especially strong inducement to write articles. So I'm more in the "only link species which have pages" camp (especially in the case of long lists of species which are not well-known or in some cases even well-studied). Kingdon 01:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm with Hesparian on this one. If the article is on the genus, and all the species are listed, or can reasonably be listed, they should be red-linked. I don't think the red-links are incentives to write articles, but sometimes I do write one just because it is red-linked, and one of our two hard-core details folks does that also. Red link away, I say. KP Botany 02:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Besides, what's wrong with lots of red links. This ain't so ugly :-D Hesperian 02:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's sad. I know enough of some of those to do some writing. Not that I have a minute of time. KP Botany 02:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it's possible to have a consistent view on redlinks, because they mean different things. I favor them for species; the species exist, and when the articles are created, they are automatically linked (none of those "nothing links to this" warnings). But I routinely remove redlinked names from the personal names section of Sage, since there is no way to evaluate whether a redlinked personal name is notable in that context.--Curtis Clark 03:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Think I'm swaying back to red links based on the above discussion (in terms of species lists at least) even if (or because) they taunt us graphically with all the articles that still need to be done. Thanks for all your comments --Melburnian 06:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone suggest what an appropriate course of action would be for this article. It has no information, is explicitly non-encyclopedic and only has photos. Furthermore I believe that this is a cultivar or hybrid rather than a genuine species (though I'm not sure) and if it is the name of the article should be changed. Any ideas? Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 19:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

But see here[7] (it says Fargeia rufa in the West is not the species - also a web search seems to confirm this). I am quite certain that this is not the species but rather a cultivar.

So the best course of action would be move those photos to commons and remove them from the article if you're concerned they're not the correct representation of the species, though if it is a cultivar (I've also seen reference to 'Green Panda' though I'm not aware if that's a registered cultivar), one photo could remain as a representation of that species even though it's a cultivated variety of that species. --Rkitko ^(talk) 20:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't explain that well, but I meant to say that the plant sold in the west is not in any way the species Fargesia rufa (as it says in the Flora of China). In other words, it's not a cultivar of Fargesia rufa, but rather a cultivar of a different species. At least that's how I've understood it (it's often sold under the name Fargesia 'Rufa'). If that is the case, then the plants there do not represent Fargesia rufa at all, but rather Fargesia sp. 'Rufa' Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 21:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much the same thing as most "Aster ericoides" in cultivation being actually Symphyotrichum racemosum... Circeus 21:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I misread the note in the Flora of China page. It'd be nice if it told us which species it is, then! I found this illuminating, but I'd like to see that information in peer-reviewed sources. Doesn't seem to be much information on it; a quick search of JSTOR for "Fargesia rufa" yielded no results. Cheers, --Rkitko ^(talk) 21:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Great ref Rkitko. While I agree that it could be more reliable, it doesn't seem to be a bad source either. The author is Chris Stapleton, a PhD botanist who specialises in bamboo taxonomy. He has a profile on efloras here:[8]. I think we can rely on it. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 22:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, regardless of whether or not that source is a good one, the pictures should be moved to Fargesia 'Rufa', while the current article should be used for the actual species (I can make a stub on it from the Flora of China entry). Any objections? Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 22:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, as long as Fargesia 'Rufa' has more substance than Fargesia rufa did when you found it! (A cultivar infobox and a sentence or two is perfectly fine.) On the bamboo-identification page: I only looked at the credentials of the webpage after I posted here. Seems like an OK source to me after checking that out. If anyone ever does the field work and examines the holotype as Dr. Stapleton suggests, it will be an interesting article to read. --Rkitko ^(talk) 22:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. The cultivar is now Fargesia 'Rufa', while the species is treated in the original article. Thanks for the help! Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 01:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm confused. All I know is that I have something in my front yard that I bought a year ago labeled as Fargesia Rufa. Does this mean there are two different species, where as one is incorrectly identified in North America as Fargesia Rufa? Lowes sells them as Fargesia Rufa too. Also, this thread talks about it a little. --Cngodles 18:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That seems to be the case: there is a species in East Asia called Fargesia rufa, and there is another plant sold under the name Fargesia Rufa or Fargesia 'Rufa' in North America. I think the giveaway for the cultivar not being the same as the species is the common use of capitalisation for the second part of the name. Species names are always written with the first letter in lower-case, while cultivars start with a capital letter, though they should be enclosed with inverted commas. One of the most respected bamboo scientists, Chris Stapleton, speculates that Fargesia 'Rufa' is probably the species Fargesia dracocephala. He suspects that the name was incorrectly recorded since another plant with the name Fargesia dracocephala was already in cultivation in North America, which itself was incorrect (the plant sold under that name is actually Fargesia apicirubens). It's terribly confusing I know, but its actually quite common for the horticultural names to be incorrectly applied to the wrong species. To sum up, your plant is not Fargesia rufa, but probably what will come to be known as Fargesia dracocephala 'Rufa' after they figure out what happened when it was brought over. I hope this is understandable! If not, just read the source in the article Fargesia 'Rufa'. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 19:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The Wikiversity Bloom Clock began its third solstice-to-solstice run on June 21. I'm announcing it a bit late because at that time we were waiting for a wikimedia extension (DynamicPageList) to be enabled so that we could generate some "results" pages, which are regional lists by month (see, for example, v:Bloom Clock/Purple flowers seen in July in Southeastern Pennsylvania). The hope is to get more contributors from outside Southeastern Pennsylvania in order to create similar lists for other regions, and eventually be able to search for recognizable global patterns in order to come up with a "region-neutral" language for discussing bloom times on Wikipedia articles, Commons galleries, and Wikibooks chapters. In the shorter term, the regional lists (such as the example above) will at least be helpful for those who are looking for the identity of a particular plant. The latest template version for bloom log pages also includes an embedded template for written identifications of the plant, linking to similar plants to avoid confusion, and several other navigational tools intended to bolster the educational value of the clock.

The clock will also be the subject of several outreach projects now being planned for Wikimedia Pennsylvania, and will be incorporated into the curriculum of a small school (PPK-6th grade, or ages 3-12 yrs) in early August. Help is needed to work out any remaining kinks and problems.

Aside from helping with data accumulation, adding identifying information, and generating visual regional lists, Wikipedians can help in 2 other ways. First, checking the links from the clock to make sure there are indeed Wikipedia articles about the plants being logged. In most cases, the logs have photos (uploaded on commons, so they're useable here), so stub articles could be easily created using the image for a taxobox, and PD sources such as old florae. Second, linking the articles back to the clock using {{Wikiversity-bc}} can help readers be aware of the seasonal data being collected. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 09:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I study biology and have a question concerning plant physiology (my textbook is Taiz & Zeiger). As you might know, the meristem is composed of the L1, L2 and L3 stem cells and beyond that is a "quiescent zone" with lower rate of cell devision. So my question is, where do these cells of the quiescent zone come from, from the L1, the L2 or from the L3 stemcells? I would be very glad if somebody could answer my questions. Thank you --hroest 20:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Are your layers numbered from in the outside to the inside? Each layer is only a few cells thick, after production the cells or initials form long chains that differentiate into tissue depending on there location. The quiescent area forms before the layers since at the top were the formation begins, it normally is only a few cells clustered together that as they divide separate out into different layers. The cells in the quiescent area divide infrequently and remain small, if the apical region is damaged the cells from the quiescent region can form new meristematic cells. Hardyplants 03:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Several of the plant stub types have grown rather dramatically recently, and I've proposed splitting them up by taxon. As usual, see WP:WSS/P for the gory details. Alai 16:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Wiki skylace has made a series of edits to this article variously claiming (most recently) that the sources are unreliable (which is wrong) and that calling a plant "noxious" and mentioning its allelopathic chemicals is a matter of NPOV. These is stalling the FAC process as I can't make improvements in the middle of an editing war. If any of you have time, please have a look at the article and at the talk page. Thanks! Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 22:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't be including subjective, unverifiable claims in articles about plants. There is no scientific way to determine whether a plant is invasive or not, and even if it has been labeled invasive there is no way to determine whether or not it has caused harm to people, or to the environment. And much of the references that are being cited are to opinion pieces, and not to credible scientific studies.Wiki skylace 22:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore if you have a look at his contibutions he's going on a rampage deleting anything he feels is unsubstantiated (and A. altissima that is certainly not the case). He keeps mentioning that plants don't have magical powers, which seems to suggest that he doesn't believe in an invasive species. To giver a few examples, his summary for his edits to Kudzu: "Deleted unsubstantiated claim about the magical devestation this plant is causing.", to Euphorbia esula: "Unsubstantiated claims by the national park service do not belong in wikipedia, unless they are labeled as unsubstantiated claims. This plant does not have magical powers to erradicate other species.", etc.. Many of his edits are quickly reverted. This needs to be stopped as it is quickly turning into wholesale vandalism. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 22:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I object to the use of words like very, extremely, devastatingly, amazingly, in describing the properties of plants. These are magical properties. They are not properties that any particular plant possesses. Furthermore the claims that such and such a plant out competes other plants because of xyz is magical, because the same xyz is always claimed for every plant, and it is not true. Some plants grow well in some microenvironments for one set of reasons. That same plant grows well in a different microenvironment for a different reason. And other plants do well or poorly in any particular microenvironment for a whole host of reasons that are never documented in the opinion articles published by governments and land managers. Any particular invasive plant or animal only does well in a limited microenviroment, it does not ravage the whole countryside.Wiki skylace 22:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And have you ever noticed that it is only for the so called invasive plants that data is presented about how many seeds are produced per plant??? And that only non-native plants engage in competition or create alleopathic chemicals? Wiki skylace 23:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The Black walnut produces allelopathic chemicals and the article for red maple has data on seeds per plant per year. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 23:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And that it is only introduced species that grow in monocultures? Wikipedia claims to be an

encyclopedia, it aught to read like one. 23:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone claimed that only introduced species grow in monocultures... Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 23:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

And now he's started tearing up another article I've contributed to: Invasive species. Ughhh! Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 22:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Stop contributing unsubstantiated claims, and stop citing opinions as if they were facts, and you will never hear from me again. Wiki skylace 22:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The "unsubstained claims" are reliable sources. You have provided none for your edits. If you did, then it would be helpful towards the project, but at the moment they are simply expressing your point of view despite loads of consensus on the opposite end. I'm not trying to be hurtful, but if users don't abide by the principles of Wikipedia it makes it difficult to make any progress. Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 23:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Remove the religion and the subjectivity from your articles and you will be able to make all the progress in the world without ever hearing from me again... Publications of the national park service are not reliable in regards to invasive plants because their budget depends on making claims that invasive species are harming the park. The nature conservancy has a similar conflict of interest, as do many pest control boards which are funded in part by contributions from herbicide manufacturers. Start using neutral words like naturalised rather than biased words like invasive and I will go away and never contribute again. Even if the whole rest of the world agrees I will continue to point out non-neutrality whenever it appears in wikipedia. Wiki skylace 23:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have taken this on, and am dealing with it. Feel free to archive this discussion. Hesperian 02:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have much time to do anything else than basic edits to it. Can somebody review Solidago shortii, which will probably go on DYK within a few days? Circeus 18:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked over it, and it seems to be well done to me. I didn't have any knowledge of this species, but the cited references seem to be pretty comprensive. I spot-checked a few facts against the references, or against my rather general knowledge of goldenrods, and they seemed fine. I guess the biggest problem I found was that some of the references were web pages which may or may not be around long-term. I tried improving that with a little google scholar searching. I didn't try to use everything I found, so if someone wants to work more on this, there is more material which could be tapped. Kingdon 00:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Needs converting from archaic to modern measures - MPF 00:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, I can't find them in Category:Obsolete units of measure... Circeus 01:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

They're in one of its subcategories - MPF 01:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Which one? U.S. customary units is not in any children or grandchildren the cat. Sorry to disappoint you. Circeus 04:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be in Category:Customary units of measure - look at the top of the cat., where it is cited. - MPF 11:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

There's two descriptions in the page, one compiled from USFWS and one from Flora N. Amer., with some discrepancies; the two should be merged to avoid repetition. Of the two, the Flora N. Amer. account is the more detailed and authoritative, so the better to follow where they conflict. - MPF 11:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone else stumbled over the pages being added by User:Polbot (User:Quadell's bot)? It's pulling information from the IUCN redlist and creating species and genera articles. They're pretty rudimentary, but I think it's fantastic! I'm going through and fixing a couple of things manually in articles I find that I noted on Quadell's talk page. --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:12, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I run into them occassionally, got him using 'aceae' only family categories, changed taxobox to green from pink, and asked him to put up a list that we can access, so we can hand check things, but in the meantime requested project banner on talk page, because I believe that will give us a list somehow of new plant articles. Meant to ask here where it would then be posted? Also, Quadell posted here or tree of life long ago before running bot, and we generally said, yeah, go for it on the IUCN names for now. We'll add other sources when he gets done with those. KP Botany 00:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Put Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Plant articles by quality log on your watchlist. Any newly-tagged articles appear on that log. Whenever the WP 1.0 Bot gets around to updating that page, I usually check through and make sure there aren't any bad page moves or tag removals (IP users sometimes blank a talk page when they're commenting, removing the plants tag).

One large question remains about the categories and probably needs community input. See Quadell's talk page for my suggestion. --Rkitko ^(talk) 00:42, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, Rkitko. Yes, I mentioned something about categories on Quadell's talk page, but if it needs community input, put it here. This isn't Commons, though, so let's not bring their worries here. The question should be just do we put them in the lowest category level? It seems to work fine just having them taxonomically categorized in their genus (them beings species and genera). KP Botany 02:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who has the time, could you please edit some article's on this editor's list of contributions?[9] Thanks. I'll do what I can, also. KP Botany 04:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

On a quick first check, the Echinodorus article is copyvio from Fl. N. Amer.; I'd not be surprised if others are too - MPF 10:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, although quotes were used in the article I edited, it was an inappropriate length for quotes, the rest appeared copied without any knowledge of what was being said. KP Botany 13:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried to check one, Sagittaria latifolia, or Broadleaf arrowhead as it is currently named. Being in widespread use, the articles name is in common usage. However, the plant is widespread and has many local names. Should it be moved over the redirect? It is an administrative task, in this case it seems. Fred ☻ 16:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it should be moved, by asking an administrator to do so on the Wikipedia:Requested moves page under uncontroversial moves, noting that this is WikiPlants policy to list plants under scientific names, unless they are known economically under their common name (most every plant that is an exception already has an article), using this template: {{subst:WP:RM2|Old page name|Requested name|Reason for move}}. After the move remember to check for double redirects. Thanks for looking, Fred. KP Botany 18:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a short cut to this page? Just a trivial concern. Fred ☻ 17:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

enter WP:Plants, then click on "discussion." Thanks for correcting my signature. KP Botany 18:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's WP:PLANTS, in all-caps. The discussion page doeshave a shortcut: WT:PLANTS. I originally created it for my own use. Circeus 18:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that was not one of the combinations I tried typing, I gave up and came back to the project page to find one. I eventually just pasted the page name. The signature thing had me puzzled for a minute, I forgot to date it too. Thanks again for the help. Fred ☻ 18:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I can never find it, either. I keep thinking I'll make all my futile attempts redirects, but often forget. I'll edit my signature, I didn't notice it was undated. KP Botany 18:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I was going to propose WP:P! Such a shame. Fred ☻ 19:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the category useful?[10] I think it ties botanists who are also taxonomists together, so it is useful. KP Botany 21:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I am the person who nominated this category for deletion. At first, this really looked like the categorization of people who just have names that appear as abbreviations in botany references. Now that I understand the category, the name looked really unclear, as the average reader is not going to understand that having an abbreviated name means that the person identified a species of plant. I would really welcome suggestions for alternate names from other members of this WikiProject at the discussion. Dr. Submillimeter 22:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

They are referred to in the literature as "author abbreviations," including in the literature written for laymen. Now, if you're a layman and you come across this in a description of a plant in a book about the natural history of an area, and the natural history book uses the term "author abbreviation," what would you suggest that Wikipedia use as an alternative to the term used for the layman? Do you read the lay literature in botany? Horticulture? There's no need for sarcasm. You're a scientist, you speculated upon something about which you chose not to research, and your speculation was misplaced. Now, please describe exactly how you came upon this that led to confusion, as most laymen reading a book that touches upon botincal authorities or author abbreviations, will probably default to using the terms used by the book--this is based upon your given condition that they don't know about it. So, if they don't know, why would we offer it up under a name other than the ones they are likely to encounter? KP Botany 22:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I have several books on the identification of plants, including a technically-oriented book on cacti. These books, however, are clearly not written with any level of professional expertise, as they never mention the term "author abbreviation". I only encountered the term "author abbreviation" until I saw it in the category list at the bottom of a Wikipedia article. I also ignorantly believe that a person researching the topic would search for author abbreviation on Wikipedia rather than look at the category, and I ignorantly believe that the average reader looking at an article on a botanist would not understand the category at the bottom of the page and would not attempt to thoroughly research the topic ad consult expert editors such as User:KP Botany on this topic. I still have many questions as to why the biologists with abbreviated names need to be separated from the botanists who described specific species of plants but who do not have abbreviated names. I still hope that someone can suggest an alternate name for this category that could describe the people accurately to uneducated laypeople like me. Dr. Submillimeter 23:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The only issue I see is that author abbreviations aren't well-enough explained to make the value of the template and attached category clear. Perhaps the redirect that Melbournian created will help.--Curtis Clark 03:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

How about we put something like this on the top of the category page:

This category is for botanists with an author abbreviation recognised by the IPNI. Please do not move articles into it directly: instead, please use the template as explained at Category:Botanists.

All articles in this category should also appear on List of botanists by author abbreviation.

It links to author citation (botany), indicating that this is what an author abbreviation is about, it links to IPNI, one place to get author abbreviations, it explains that it requires a template so that people don't come along and nominate it in CfD instead of TfD as Dr. Submillimeter did, and it gives enough links so that someone could read it and learn what it was about. It can't do anything about Dr. Submillimeter's speculation that the average Wikipedia reader when confused about at topic will attempt to consult individual Wikipedia editors rather than just asking a question on the talk page, but I don't see any references establishing that as a common occurence. KP Botany 06:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In my ignorance as an uneducated member of the general public with no professional expereince in botany, I still do not understand why these botanists with author abbreviations need to be separated from the botanists who have performed the same type of research but who do not have author abbreviations. I am truly hoping that the trained, highly educated professional biologists can explain the differences to uneducated members of the public like me. Dr. Submillimeter 08:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion seems to have drifted pretty far from whether the category is a good idea. As far as I can tell, this category-for-deletion proposal has nothing to do with whether wikipedia should include author abbreviations, or how best to be accessible to the general public yet not watered down, or other topics. Rather it is much more narrow: is a category or a list a better way to represent this information? (And how Category:Botanists should be sub-categorized). Kingdon 16:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I am not a professional biologist, I would humbly suggest using the guidelines at WP:CLS. These would seem to suggest that the information would be better organized in a list so that the authors' names can be matched to the abbreviations.

However, User:KP Botany and other people have repeatedly asserted that these people with author abbreviations are distinctly different from botanists who have performed similar research but who do not have author abbreviations, although I still do not understand why the two groups of people need to be separated, and it as not been adequately explained to me. In my ignorance, it seems like the category should specify what these people did (providing the scientific descriptions and scientific names for species of plants), but somehow, it seems that using the technical botany term is preferable for reasons that I do not understand. Dr. Submillimeter 16:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Kingdon, I think it's both category and list, because the category gathers all articles templated by the template. But, are both needed? I find the template to be useful, and easier than IPNI, and it categorizes one area of botanists who have identified plants, for searching IPNI for species they've described. It does have multiple uses. I think Curtis also had a well placed comment about the categorization overall on the CfD.

Let's move on to debating the issue of both categorizing and listing, and other subcategorizations of botanists that might be useful, such as North American botanists, or 19th century botanists. I could not think of Asa Gray's name for the life of me yesterday, and simply having a category such as one of these would have made it a quick look.\

In addition, the list and the category are used differently, again because of the template which fills the category--which requires a template for deletion, not a category for deletion, as I told Dr. Submillimeter.

Changes to the category for botanists with author abbreviations do not require the deletion of the template, as I have repeatedly stated in general discussions. I hope this adddresses your concern directly. I sincerely hope that the other professional botanists will take this into consideration. Dr. Submillimeter 21:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

So, the issue is, is the category useful, in a way that makes having it in addition to the list? After all, we can have a template and not keep a record of what the template is applied to, can't we?

Which brings us to the issue of what is the advantage of categories over lists or vice versa?

What purpose does a list serve that a category doesn't or vice versa? Kingdon, since you've voted for the list over the category, maybe you could elaborate to me why the list is better for this than the category?

Also, please note that the list has been spun off and one of the South African botanists is putting all South African botanists on a different list, so the list is incomplete and runs the risk of being made even more incomplete when other botanists from other countries start making their own lists. Can lists have sublists to take care of this? And what is Wikipedia policy on category versus lists? I don't think there is one.KP Botany 19:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, as I stated above, WP:CLS gives guidelines on whether categories or lists should be used. In a case like this, the guidelines would seem to recommend using lists as "lists can be annotated with context", and "lists can include items for which there are yet no articles". I hope the people here will take this into consideration. Dr. Submillimeter 21:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Then it seems that the same criteria should apply to Category:Messier objects and Category:NGC objects, as I mentioned on the Categories for Discussion page.--Curtis Clark 00:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I withdrew my nomination. I will accept all of the blame for all of the problems with this nomination. I apologize for causing people problems. Dr. Submillimeter 09:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Following our previous conversations regarding cultivars, subgenera, sections, hybrids, etc., please see the talk page at the flora naming convention for the discussion. Thanks! --Rkitko ^(talk) 03:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Still looking for input on this discussion if you missed the notice! --Rkitko ^(talk) 21:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

KP Botany and I were having a discussion regarding categorization at Talk:Canna (plant)#Cannas category and wondered if anyone here had any opinions on how we go about categorizing. I've recently been making quite a few genus-level categories for some of the earlier Polbot contributions. In the case of Canna, however, it's a monotypic family so I assumed all articles should remain in the family category instead of using a redundant genus-level category. Basic question would be should we be using genus-level categories or stick to the familiar family-level? My opinion is that we often need to break down the large family categories with smaller genera subcategories. KP expressed disagreement with that opinion, so we're looking for additional input and the possibility of reaching consensus. Thoughts? --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't precisely disagree with what we need to do, I simply disagree with the reasoning behind it, the Wikipedia and Commons reasoning that over 200 is too much to handle, so it must be broken down, when dealing with natural categories, as natural as anything in taxonomy can be. I thought the idea was to use genera always, though. And now I would like to know what, if any, scheme we have for categorizations. KP Botany 13:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, apologies for misrepresenting your position. Good points there. --Rkitko ^(talk) 14:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at the category and article.

1. The category is not large enough to warrant subdivision
2. There's nothing wrong in itself with using "Cannas/Canna" over "cannaceae". But it would be odd when looking at Category:Zingiberales (Category:Heliconia already looks out of place)
3. Why are there so many redirects?? I thought we normally avoided as much as possible placing redirects in article categories?
4. Is the question asking what subdibvision scheme for Category:Cannaceae is best or whether the category can/should be renamed Category:Canna/Category:Cannas?

Circeus 17:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The question is generally, what categorization scheme should we use for Wikipedia Plants? I thought the trend was to use genera as the lowest level categorization possible, and to always use genera when possible. Canna/Cannaceae is merely part of the example. If we use genera, should we dafault to families for monotypic genera? This would not allow Heliconia/Zingiberaceae/Zingiberales to become an issue, so that point isn't there. Didn't know about the redirect. You mean for Canna? KP Botany 19:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

KP, I think Circeus means that there are a lot of redirects categorized into Category:Cannaceae (all of the titles in italics on the category page are redirects). A few of the editors (or it could possibly be one editor under several names) prefer it that way (CannaCollector and Giantsshoulders, notably). I also wondered why there are so many non-plant articles in that category. I can understand an important botanist or two and I can see why Agri Horticultural Society of India is placed in the category since it is somewhat associated, but I question whether it is appropriate for a taxonomic category. --Rkitko ^(talk) 20:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

So that raises additional issues about what should be in a category when the category is a taxonomic category, also. KP Botany 20:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's okay. It's just weird. If they really are so relevant, create articles already, don,t make it look as if there are. Besides, the "targets" are already there too... Circeus 20:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I figured out the italics thing after I clicked on every darn one of them. KP Botany 04:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Two observations: first, I don't think it really matters if the category name is "Canna" or "Cannaceae" as long as it is consistent and non-redundant within the category. What was problematic was having two categories, "Cannas" and "Cannaceae", which were basically the same thing and contained the same set of articles. Second, Giantsshoulders/CannaCollector has over-categorized the various articles relating to Cannas, e.g., adding botanists, horticulturists, and various other articles to the category when they really only need to be linked within the various Canna articles. I've already removed a couple of categories that were awfully tenuous (like "biofuels", apparently based on the pure speculation that canna rhizomes just might be used as such at some point in the future). MrDarwin 13:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's much easier to tell someone, don't put it in both Canna and Cannaceae as categories because the policy is that we only use ......... It doesn't matter which, but having a policy that everyone knows and can follows makes it easier for everyone. Yes, they were majorly overcategorized. But, should there be limits on the categories that are taxonomic, and what should they be? KP Botany 14:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Both species and cultivars have an historical dimension as well as a botanical one. Canna has been the subject of only one book in the last 100 years. The result is a lack of public information and some misinformation and myth. My own research has revealed over 2,500 Canna cultivar names in the last 150 years, obviously too many to detail on the Wiki. However, I have created articles on the more interesting and the associated people in the plants history, e.g. Wilhelm Pfitzer, introducers of over 300 Canna cultivars. This firm is now reduced to 4 people, having peaked at many hundreds internationally in the inter-war years. No longer growing Cannas. Now a forgotten fact. Is it against policy to capture these facts in the Wikipedia? About redirects; three generations of Pfitzers over a hundred years are described in one article. The same applies to Conard Pyle Co., (who introduced Rosa 'Peace') and who also introduced dozens of Canna cultivars and where many individuals contributed. The alternative is many stubs on horticulturalists about whom little individual information is available, but who had a large influence in their time. I am amenable to observations.Giantsshoulders

Giantsshoulders, by all means write the articles and add the information; I have an interest in cannas and am finding much of what you're adding very interesting. I'm just saying that I don't see the need to categorize all these articles under "Cannaceae" when simple in-text links between the articles should be sufficient. (I'll confess right now that I don't quite get the whole categorization concept in the first place, especially when it's not always clear if the categories are conceptual, subject-related or taxonomic.) MrDarwin 17:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I can see the dilemma here. What are Categories for? I have been using them as an index to a specific subject, in this case Canna. It is so convenient to have a single point of contact on a given subject. Whereas, others would see it as just a place to categorise (L. fashion) species and cultivars. I think this is a conflict in viewpoint between the botanists, horticulturists, and historians :o) I cover all, so let me know when it's sorted :o) However, is there a way of creating a category page containing several viewpoints?Giantsshoulders

A plant article with public domain material is an example at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Why quotation marks are not the real issue. Discuss there whether the style of Aralia spinosa needs significant alteration, other than rephrasing to prose. (SEWilco 20:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC))

As far as I can tell, this article is little more than an advertisement for a commercial nursery. Anybody care to try to either clean it up or nominate it for deletion? MrDarwin 13:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks that way to me. It might (just) cross the line from "nursery" to "tourist attraction" (listed for example here), but that doesn't really change the issue of whether you can write a good, neutral article. A few web searches didn't find many sources (although this was a bit hard because "bamboo" and "giant" or even "bamboo giant" are common words). The Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process might work here. (Putting this comment both here and on Talk:Bamboo Giant). Kingdon 15:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, if we are going to keep it, we should take out all the stuff about how nice it is and the regional POV stuff :/ --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 17:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

By the time you take the POV stuff out there won't me much left, and of the remainder virtually all of it either repeats or could be moved to the main Bamboo article. I would vote to delete. MrDarwin 19:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I really think this should be nominated for deletion. I would, but I don't seem to be able to do the technical details of the AfD. Still, I think it should go. KP Botany 17:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

(I didn't say we should keep it, just that it would need serious modification (KP Botany's edits very nearly converted the lump of coal to a diamond here!) --SB_Johnny | ^PA! 09:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for WP:PROD. The process seems to have been streamlined (at least for prod, don't know about AfD) since the last time I did this. As I understand the current procedures, it should automatically show up on WP:PRODSUM within a day or so and should get deleted in 5 days if no one contests the deletion. Kingdon 18:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It might work, as the editor may not notice the prod. Still, I removed most of the obvious blatant advertising. Anyway, it's an accurate addition of the prod tag, because it is blatanat advertising. I can't wait to go visit, though. KP Botany 18:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdenting) I put a note on the author's talk page, but I don't know if they are logging in regularly. My goal is not to surprise them, but if they read the relevant policies, they may figure the article wouldn't pass AfD and decide not to contest the matter. Kingdon 18:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I put a request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Images to improve for a diagram to properly illustrate plant stem. Ideas and further suggestions welcome. Circeus 22:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Neither the diagram nor the text particularly explain what the difference is between a petiole and a stem (I guess we call it a side stem? The one at the upper right between the petiole and the main stem). It looks a bit clearer in the tomato photo. Also, on Image:Stem_nodes.svg (and the photo it is taken from), the word "internode" on the lower left side branch seems confusing. The reader is asked to assume/understand that there is a node outside the frame of the drawing. Also, would it be easier to see the nodes if we modeled the diagram more on something like bamboo or Polygonaceae (as in Image:Ocreae_of_a_Persicaria_maculosa_2006-aug-10_Gothenburg_Sweden.jpg), which have very visible nodes? Rugby471 (talk · contribs) has done a nice job of SVG-izing the existing photo, but us plant people need to help out on the botany aspects of this task (well, plus the obvious things like putting the words in the caption for translations). Kingdon 14:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping that "internode" would be matched with a bracket. I'm quite surprised they didn't realize that, further proof that the original images do not do their work properly. Circeus 17:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I happened to be looking at these images tonight. Is Image:Stem-cross-section.jpg one any better? [I mean, to have something like it] Fred ☻ 18:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)/18:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have any slices at nodes. KP Botany 18:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to know if the articles Helichrysum sp. nov. A, Helichrysum sp. nov. B, Helichrysum sp. nov. C, Helichrysum sp. nov. D and Helichrysum sp. nov. E should be deleted, because they are not considered formally taxa, they were created by Polbot when running IUCN red list.Berton 16:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Black panther isn't a taxon but it merits an article. Cultivars might be seen as analogous too. The difference is that the "nov. A-E" ones are presumably called that because not much is known about them (in particular, enough to describe them sufficiently to publish a species name). Perhaps a better example is something like Ununtrium or Untrihexium (which are placeholder names, expected to be changed like Unununium was). If we support the idea of an article for every species listed in the red list, I don't see why those would be different (at least, until more information surfaces). Kingdon 18:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Presumably these have been or are going to be identified, so a literature search would be a good idea, which might result in being able to add more, inlcuding maybe a name. For example, there's a 2007 February article in Curtis's on a new species Helichrysum arwae J.R.I.Wood, and a search on the authority might yield more, and a move. KP Botany 19:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Those Helichrysum sp. nov. A-E are taxa not validly published according to ICBN, and almost anything we know about them. I made a search in IPNI database of the entries of the Helichrysum species since 2000, but any resembles these of the Socotra Island, Flora of Yemen. Helichrysum arwae is of 1984. All the species are based on herbarium material from Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh (code E). Helichrysum sp. nov. D is identified as Helichrysum dioscorides, but it is not at IPNI database. Berton 20:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It is highly probable that Helichrysum dioscorides is the same as Pulicaria dioscorides from the same area (Socotra). Published in Anthony G. Miller & Miranda Morris (2004). "Ethnoflora of the Soqotra Archipelago". Royal Botanic Garden Press, Edinburgh. ISBN 1-872291-597 Berton 00:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Besides, they have the same range:"on the isolated ridge at Heger (between Riy di Isfer and Riy do Sherubrub) in the extreme east of the island. " Berton 00:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Then Helichrysum sp. nov. D (not validly published taxon) = "Helichrysum dioscorides" (nomen nudum) = Pulicaria dioscorides. The other species remain unidentified. Berton 11:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Berton, I'm still not clear on what authority you are making this synonymy; are you simply making assumptions? I see nothing in the IUCN entry for Pulicaria dioscorides identifying it as the previous "Helichrysum sp. nov. D". MrDarwin 13:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

From Helichrysum sp. nov. D: "Helichrysum dioscorides is restricted to a small refugium with a total estimated area of occupancy of less than 10 km2." A. G. Miller identifies like that, not me, the remaining it is an obvious supposition, it is just read the article and compare with info in Pulicaria dioscorides.Berton 16:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless you can find a published reference to cite that associates "Helichrysum sp. nov. D", "Helichrysum dioscorides", and "Pulicaria dioscorides", then associating these 3 entities in a Wikipedia article--even if it's correct--would be considered original research. (Edited to add: my reading of the IUCN text for Helichrysum sp. nov. D suggests that Helichrysum dioscorides and Pulicaria dioscorides--both names are mentioned in the article--are two different things.)MrDarwin 16:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This research would not be original because was already made, see above in the cited source. It is only necessary to have access to it. See [11]. Berton 16:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Really, although almost everything indicated that they were synonymous it seems that the author does not identify like Pulicaria (the abbreviation cf. indicates this). Thus just consulting the source to know. Berton 17:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

So you have confirmed it directly from the Ethnoflora of the Soqotra Archipelago? Because the cited IUCN reference does not equate these 3 entities with each other. It makes reference to both Helichrysum dioscorides and Pulicaria dioscorides but does not say they are synonymous. Moreover, IPNI cites the type of Pulicaria dioscorides as Miller et al. 20008, but the IUCN cites specimens 20020 and 20021 (but NOT 20008) as vouchers for Helichrysum sp. nov. D. The annotation "cf" in this context under the discussion of habitat and ecology simply means "compare to", i.e., referring to Pulicaria dioscorides as a separate species. Moreover, the IUCN has separate articles for Helichrysum sp. nov. D and Pulicaria dioscorides; I fail to see how there is any evidence that they refer to the same taxon. MrDarwin 18:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact it would be a clumsy mistake of the authors (Miller & Morris) confuse Pulicaria with Helichrysum, once they belong to the different tribes. Well, this is everything as before: none species identified. Berton 18:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The deal with these names is they are used to refer to specimens that are believed to constitute a novel species, but which have not yet been published as such. Usually, a taxon would be given a name before any attempt to discuss or refer to them. But when you're trying to provide legislative protection for an endangered species, it is forgivable to jump the gun somewhat, and list it even though it doesn't actually have a name yet. For us, the crucial point is that these specimens have not been formally published as a species (or indeed a taxon at any rank). The notion that this is a species is merely an opinion, albeit of a professional botanist, but which has not yet been subject to stringent peer review. It is therefore not appropriate for us to refer to them as species:

"Helichrysum sp. nov. D is a species of..."

should be rephrased to:

"Helichrysum sp. nov. D refers to plant specimens that are thought to be referable to an as-yet-undescribed species of Helichrysum."

I suspect that this is pretty much the sum total of information available on these specimens, in which case it is questionable whether they merit an article at all. Hesperian 12:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not involved in this issue but I tend to agree with Hesperian; it's highly doubtful whether such tenuously described "species" merit their own articles in Wikipedia. How does one write a non-POV and verifiable article about such an entity when there is no literature published about it, save as an unnamed maybe-species in a list??? Such "names" just clutter up the literature for years to come, sometimes are named as a species or as a subspecies or variety of an existing species, but often sink silently into synonymy under an already-described taxon (and in any of these cases, sometimes in an entirely different genus). How one is supposed to protect or conserve (much less write about) a completely unknown species that hasn't been named, or circumscribed except by one or two specimens (are these specimens cited?) is beyond me. MrDarwin 13:08, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

MrDarwin, then you agree with me, since, although I am not deletionist, I proposed that those articles should be deleted (or redirect to).Berton 13:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

First, the articles are about SPECIES not specimens. Second, I am not trying to provide "legislative" or whatsoever protection for an endangered species, but the IUCN do. Helichrysum sp. nov. D should be redirect to Pulicaria dioscorides. Berton 12:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I think sp. nov. are not suitable for WP articles by definition - they haven't been published yet, ergo we don't have a reliable published source from which to work. It seems reasonable to mention the IUCN listing in Helichrysum, from the reader's point of view it's a nice little bit of insight into the edges of what we know about plants. It's probably worth making a guideline, but not a policy; apparently there are some tropical fish now being raised worldwide by aquarists, and clearly notable for that reason, and yet they haven't been formally described(!). Stan 15:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Stan. Berton 15:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Putting the names, with links to the IUCN red list, in Helichrysum makes sense to me. Doesn't even require a vote or deletion. Just add the material to Helichrysum and turn the other articles into redirects. Kingdon 15:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Bad news: there is also from the same author (A. G. Miller) in Poaceae, Ischaemum sp. nov.. Berton 16:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a comment and redirect to the genus or family articles are appropriate for these. Berton I don't understand your jump from Helichrysum sp. nov. D is thought to be some species of Helichrysum to it "should be redirect to Pulicaria dioscorides." You seem to have assumed that two sympatric species are one and the same, although I may be wrong about this, and you may be saying something else. I am studying two sympatric endemics of the same genus right now, and they're not the same plant just because they inhabit the same range. But please elaborate. KP Botany 17:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

See above: really...(I don't confirm the synonymy).Berton 17:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Above is what I'm confused about. You say:

"It is highly probable that Helichrysum dioscorides is the same as Pulicaria dioscorides from the same area (Socotra)." and

"Then Helichrysum sp. nov. D (not validly published taxon) = "Helichrysum dioscorides" (nomen nudum) = Pulicaria dioscorides."

It seems like that is exactly what you are doing, confirming the synonymy. If not, what does the second line (and these are cut and pastes from yours) mean? KP Botany 18:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)