Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Should Bulbostylis neglecta be under Fimbristylis neglecta Hemsl.? I think so, but I can't find a source on-line that says this, only sources discussing South American Bulbostylis species. My botany is not good enough to move it without a source, and for taxonomy I'm limited. --Blechnic (talk) 04:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This link [1] to the type specimen, gives the history of its name. JoJan (talk) 05:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This reference [2] has Bulbostylis neglecta as the current name. Melburnian (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is fine: "Govaerts, R. & Simpson, D.A. (2007). World Checklist of Cyperaceae. Sedges: 1-765. The Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew." Thanks. I don't tend to think of Kew for African species, but should have tried that. Thanks for the help. --Blechnic (talk) 05:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Does any one who knows the upper level taxonomy have a problem with the way that commons:Category:Dichelostemma and commons:Category:Brodiaea are being managed via the taxonomy navigation? -- carol (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure if one can say that a species belongs to regnum Plantae in the APG-II system, as that system is restricted to angiosperms. Hesperian 14:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and the same is true of Cronquist. If the text is going to purport to place a taxa according to a particular system, then it must use only terminology in that particular system. This approach has probelms in that (1) neither system classifies beyond the angiopserms, and (2) it will not permit the inclusion of a newly recognized genus. The problems become worse on commons:Category:Liliales. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't purport anything, actually. It is a navigation system and it guides people along which ever tree they are on. The lack of red category names in that navigation system is more meaningful than the potential fact that one or the other must exist but not both. (the fact is, they both do exist and coexist there peacefully and without interfering with each others branches). I read earlier here (on this Plants Project talk page) that it is the wikipedia taxonomy box which cannot work that way, not that it was not allowed. -- carol (talk) 23:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say I had a problem with using both systems. The problem is when the front end of the classification line claims "APG II", but then includes classification items that are not part of the APG II system. The label is misleading, and is including things that it shouldn't. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I did not invent nor populate the navigation sets from my mind, imagination, experiences nor political preferences -- I either pasted them from the next level up there at the commons or I populated them from the taxonomy that was here in the next level up and also not made by me but by (I assume) the Plants Project or sometimes I look to see what wikispecies did. I got the inspiration for the templates from them, btw.

Do you have a reliable source for me not making the mistakes that you are mentioning here which are apparently embedded into several other similar presentations? -- carol (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

What you need is something along the lines of:

---

Domain: Eukaryota • Regnum: Plantae • …

APG II Classification: … • clade: angiosperms • clade: eudicots • clade: core eudicots • clade: liliopsids • clade: euasterids II • Ordo: Asparagales • Familia: Themidaceae • …

Cronquist System: … • Divisio: Magnoliophyta • Classis: Liliopsida • Subclassis: Liliidae • Ordo: Liliales • Familia: Liliaceae • …

… • Genus: Dichelostemma Kunth

---

Hesperian 01:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And APG II Classification consistently starts with a 'clade'? -- carol (talk) 01:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The APG II paper explicitly refers to "orders", "families", and "genus"/"genera". These ranks are included, but all other ranks are omitted (those above order, or between order & family, etc.). The basic APG II (2003 article) adheres to the ICBN for the ranks that it covers. Higher (deeper) taxa are referred to only as "clades".

However, the above listing was wrong since it put the Asparagales in the euasterids, that in the liliopsids, etc., which is just wrong. Using the supplementary paper in Taxon (2007), and using Geranium as an example, APG II would present the (node-based crown group) classification as:

APG II Classification: … • clade: Angiospermae • clade: Mesangiospermae • clade: Eudicotyledoneae • clade: Gunneridae • clade: Pentapetalae • clade: Rosidae • Ordo: Geraniales • Familia: Geraniaceae • …

Taxa in the Lamiidae or Apiidae would require an additional 3 clade levels before ordo, and some families (like Buxaceae) would require fewer and would have no ordo listed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 07:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

My articles are being stripped for contradictary reasons. Some chat page somewhere has assigned a mentor or something. It seems like the time for assigning a mentor was back in January this year -- to me at least. It is starting to have the smell of a scam and it really stinks.

When people with administrative strength only use it on mostly innocent individuals, it doesn't help the scent.

I have another instinct which is telling me that I should be mentoring people on how to reference their pages, not waiting for some clown, assigned by a bunch of musical comedy experts to verify my edits. Especially not while so many articles are sitting there in sad shape.

Is admitting when you do not understand the upper levels of the taxonomy considered to be a weakness? I always considered it to be a strength when people knew what they could do and not.

The contradiction is this. The articles are being stripped because they need verification but stripping them makes it so they cannot be verified.

I have experienced administrative strength from people who proudly display their involvement in this project. What is that strength used for? -- carol (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this a valid species, I do not know were to stick my picture - here or on Viburnum opulus I have it on V. trilobum now because its the "American" plant. Hardyplants (talk) 11:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There often isn't a clear answer to this sort of question. In general I'm not sure how we resolve this type of issue, but in the case of American plants perhaps following the USDA plants database is a suitable rule of thumb. In which case it's Viburnum opalus var. americanum.

There's a similar problem with Senecio squalidus; Carol Spears incorporated an image of what is probably Senecio rupestris. I'd suggest that when there's any doubt as to taxonomy only pictures of the taxon in the narrow sense should be used, uncommented, in the taxon's article. (I.e. don't add a photograph of the American plant to the Viburnum opalus article.) Lavateraguy (talk) 12:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want a single source, I'd pick Flora of North America, at least for those families for which the relevant volumes have been written, over PLANTS (which is sometimes a good source, but often out of date). Photographs can be a tough case, although in the case of Viburnum trilobum and opalus, it seems pretty clear. Put American/European photos on V. trilobum or V. opalus pages, respectively (unless someone wants to try and merge the articles, which strikes me as probably more trouble than it is worth, as long as the articles describe the differences in classification, which they do). Kingdon (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Lavateraguy and Kingdom for you responses, I will leave the picture on V. trilobum. I checked with FNA, but they do not have the volume covering this genus up yet, and i do not currently have the time for a detailed hunting trip to clarify the issue, maybe later when I have time I will work it. Thanks again. Hardyplants (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't know whether this is a high priority for the project or just the latest of a thousand problems with synonymy, but both Andrachne and Leptopus claim Andrachne phyllanthoides. PLANTS and ITIS call this plant Leptopus phyllanthoides and treat A. phyllanthoides as a synonym. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 13:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Vorontsova et al, Molecular phylogenetics of tribe Poranthereae (Phyllanthaceae; Euphorbiaceae sensu lato), Am. J. Bot. 94: 2026-2040 (2007) (paywalled) looks as if it might answer the question. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have any idea what publication R. Syn. refers to? The reference I'm trying to make sense of is in an 1811 publication, so predates the rollout of standard abbreviations for authors and publications. In those times the abbreviations were usually of the form "Author Publication", so "R." may refer to an author, and "Syn." to a title, probably one that begins with Synopsis.

This reference is listed in the context of some other authors, all of whom were already dead in 1811 e.g. Morison, Sibthorp, Scheuchzer, Relhan; so "R." seems likely to refer to someone of similar antiquity - 18th century or even late 17th.

IPNI has failed me. Google turns up "R. Syn. [ed. 2]" and "R. Syn. IV", suggesting a multi-volume set that ran into multiple editions.

That's all I've got. :-(

Hesperian 13:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd guess John Ray, and Synopsis methodica Stirpium Brittanicorum. But if you give us more context a more informed answer might be possible. (Also, a list of citation abbreviations may be present at the front or back of the work.) Lavateraguy (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict/agree) After searching through for the terms here [3], I assume R. syn = Raii syn. = Raii Synopsis [methodica] stirpium Britannicarum = Synopsis methodica stirpium Britannicarum by John Ray Melburnian (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That book is available at Gallica. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent, will save Hesperian £380 [4]-Melburnian (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Google Books mentions a more recent reprint, which hopefully could be obtained at a lower price. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Here's the specific link, while we're at it. Circeus (talk) 17:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You guys rock! Hesperian 23:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW did you guys know that John Ray was gay?... according to Wikipedia.[5] Hesperian 23:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for straightening that out...so to speak Melburnian (talk) 00:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Supposedly Chamisso and Eschscholtz were lovers, but I've never found any references. ipni.org is silent on the matter.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Not so blatant, but an IP inserted the same grafitti into 11 articles, including two plant articles, on the 14th June. Only one was reverted, until I stumbled across this yesterday. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

plug

I may as well use this opportunity for a plug. My R. Syn. question pertained to a Wikisource transcription.

Many of my dearly beloved collaborators at Wikisource have, I think, missed the point. They add texts without seeing the value-add of using a wiki. I get the value-add because botanical texts are densely linked. See, for example, Wikisource:Characters of a new Liliaceous Genus called Brodiaea. which begins

"I have had occasion, in treating of the distinctions between a calyx and corolla, Introduction to Botany, 263, to advert to a new genus of the liliaceous family, furnished with internal petals."

The brilliant thing about this wiki stuff is you can click on the "263", and go straight to the page in Chapter 19 of An introduction to physiological and systematical botany where Smith's "advert to a new genus" appears:

"I cannot conceal a recent discovery which strongly confirms the opinion of my acute and candid friend. Two species of a new genus, found by Mr. Menzies on the West coast of North America, have beautiful liliaceous flowers like an Agapanthus, with six internal petals besides!"

I think that use of a wiki is almost as fantastic as this here Wikipedia thingo, and I wish that I would see more of you over there more often. Hesperian 01:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The value of a well-done Wikisource document is underestimated. My favorite Wikisource test is Romance of the Three Kingdoms, which is a 14th century Chinese novel. The editor has goen to enormous lengths to neatly lay out the original Chinese and the English translations side-by-side. Each Chinese word is linked to its entry on Wiktionary, so that you can see exactly what each word means and its usage. There are maps, notes, and beautiful illustrations from Commons throughout. It's an inspiring work of wikilove. --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this name correct? Or should it be Anogeissus leiocarpa (maybe) which is in IPNI, although I've not used it or seen it? --Blechnic (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Latin words ending in -us are usually masculine nouns of the first declension (e.g. Daucus - the carota of the crop species appears to be a noun in opposition, and not a feminine adjective), and the corresponding epithets in a botanical name would commonly also end in -us. But there's a large group of exceptions, including several genera of trees (e.g. Fagus, Malus, Populus, Prunus, Pyrus, Quercus, Sorbus) which are feminine. I don't know the etymology of Anogeissus but when you look at the other species of the genus, it appears to be being treated as feminine, which would make leiocarpa correct. AFPD agrees with IPNI on this point. (OTOH, Google finds 6 times as many usages of leiocarpus than leiocarpa.) Lavateraguy (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is the source of my confusion. The most recent source I read was an African traditional medicien article that uses "us," so I've put it under that. I will check Taxon, but if anyone finds an authority they can quote to keep or move, please do. Thanks for looking, though. --Blechnic (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I did reply that I was fairly sure that it was leiocarpa, but couldn't prove it, but I seem to have neglected to save that edit. However the original publication has just appeared at Botanicus. That uses the spelling leiocarpa, which conforms with the feminine usage for the other species. Not absolute proof, but it seems that leiocarpus is an error which has got in general circulation. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, I have just started a stub for Ficus coronata and am baffled by who Spin. is. Anyone know? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems as if it's Marquis de Spin. --Rkitko ^(talk) 15:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha, sounds like a DJ really...thanks. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at Pieter B. Pelser thinking about how to fix the wording (e.g. the miscalling of Senecio as a species), and noticed that there was a reference to a 1992 book (Brummitt, R. K.; C. E. Powell (1992). Authors of Plant Names. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. ISBN 1-84246-085-4.) for the standard abbreviation of this individual as an author of botanical names. Since he didn't publish any names until 2005 this would appear to be incorrect.

Would it be better if the template referred to the IPNI or Harvard databases? Lavateraguy (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Might be a new edition, but replacing with a guaranteed source is pro'ly a good idea. Circeus (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, the ICBN refers specifically to Brummitt and Powell, so we can amend it, but not deprecate it.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about the following from Article 46, Recommendation 46A, of the Vienna code?

Note 1. Brummitt & Powell's Authors of plant names (1992) provides unambiguous standard abbreviations, in conformity with the present Recommendation, for a large number of authors of plant names, and these abbreviations, updated as necessary from the International Plant Names Index (www.ipni.org) and Index Fungorum (www.indexfungorum.org), have been used for author citations throughout the present Code.

If so, this seems to not only allow use of updated resources like IPNI, but encourage it. Kingdon (talk) 02:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The St. Louis Code didn't mention IPNI, iirc. It has always been a superset of Brummitt & Powell, and now that it is explicitly mentioned, we may as well change the ref.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There's another issue with the template that some of you may be aware of. There has been a recommendation to remove the second parameter in favor of having a DEFAULTSORT in every article. That is IMO the correct way to go (these are biographies, after all), but there are several hundred articles that lack the DEFAULTSORT, and as discussions on that page point out, there is no way to reliably create it algorithmically.--Curtis Clark (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Given the ridiculous inconsistency in applying DEFAULTSORT, removing the element is just asking for trouble. Circeus (talk) 03:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Tussock (grass) has had a number of reverts due to a difference of opinion as to the content. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the subject of the article? Is it tussock vegetation? or is it just a list of grasses with tussock in the name? Hardyplants (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing the matter here. I've responded at Talk:Tussock (grass). Kingdon (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• 
  Unknown flower

I'm after an ID for the plant above. The photo was taken in Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia in September 2007 (Dry Season). Bidgee (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Reminds me of Ixora coccinea Lavateraguy (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, appears to be an Ixora but I don't think it's coccinea [6]. I think there's a good chance that it is one of the many hybrid cultivars of this genus rather than a particular species. --Melburnian (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not very cluey on Tropical plants. Bidgee (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I've made a start on the process of cleaning up the Dendrosenecio articles. As part of this I am aiming to have the species articles all as Dendrosenecio x, rather than mixed between that and Senecio x. I've hit a slight snag: I can't move S. battiscombei to Dendrosenecio battiscombei, because the latter already exists as a redirect to the former. Could someone with more familiarity with the mechanics, or with access to suitable tools, do the honours please.

There might be more Dendrosenecio species in this situation. I'm also under the impression that Jacobaea species are inconsistently under Jacobaea and Senecio. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

D. brassiciformis and D. keniensis are in the same state. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I took care of the ones listed, but only Dendrosenecio battiscombei required admin tools for the move. I removed a copyvio section on Dendrosenecio brassiciformis, but Dendrosenecio keniensis still needs to be checked. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 21:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately you seem to have had a mishap with keniensis; the article ended up at Dendrosencio keniensis (note missing "e" is generic name) Lavateraguy (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And it turns out that S. keniodendron also needs a move. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. That will teach me to copy and paste the bolded title in the lead for the move target without double checking it! --Rkitko ^(talk) 22:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

These articles were created separately. The reasoning at the time (Brya's, I believe) was that Magnoliidae would be an article about the taxonomic name. The article for magnoliids was separate because the clade was in no way associated with the formal name Magnoliidae. While this reasoning was valid at the time, the paper by Cantino et al. published in 2007 (Taxon 56(3): E1-E44) formally assigns the name Magnoliidae to the APG II magnoliids under the PhyloCode. In the past week, we have discussed the idea of incorporating the Cantino et al. nomenclature into our articles in order to make the articles primarily about the plants rather than their names, and have experimented with doing so on the Rosidae.

I propose that we try out the idea wholesale with the merger of Magnoliidae and magnoliids. (Note: as an admin, I can do that in a way that will preserve the edit history of both.) If we like the results, we can do the same for other such situations. If this doesn't work, we can separate the articles again. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No objection, but what happened to the proposed merge of (1) rosid and Rosidae or (2) asterid and Asteridae? Kingdon (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I assume that will continue. I have made the specific proposal here, because I intend to carry it through much further than either of those mergers have gone thus far, in an attempt to explore what the finished product might look like. I don't know as much about the rosids and asterids, and prefer (personally) to start with magnoliids because it's a smaller group (under the current definition), and will therefore be a bit easier for me to manage. If this works out, I'll tackle a big one like monocots or the monilophytes. It's purely coincidence those all start with "M" --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

3% of angiosperms turns out to be a fairly large group. That would be 15,000 species. Using what links to the 4 APG orders gives an estimate of about 1,500 articles, but for most of those a bot tweaking the taxobox would, I hope, be sufficient. (There are a few articles using non-APG orders in taxoboxes, such as Aristolochiales). Lavateraguy (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've cleaned up Aristolochiales, except for Flora of Romania, which uses Cronquist or something similar. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh... but Aristolochiales is a redirect to Aristolochiaceae ( in class! "Magnoliopsida"), and Aristolochiaceae is in turn listed as in "order Piperales", which is placed in (unranked) "magnoliids". Aristolochiaceae is listed with "Division Magnoliophyta", but Piperales has no division listed. These aren't consistent at all, and that's why I want to start working with a small clade. Every single taxobox and taxobox link for every included taxon has to be checked. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

That's why I suggested setting up bot off to produce a CSV (or equivalent) table of taxobox contents. If we had that it would be easier to see what the inconsistencies are.

Is there a place for a Taxonomy Work Group to try to move WikiPedia closer to consistency on plant taxonomy. (With multiple authors working from multiple sources we can't really expect perfect consistency; and we have 100 times as many taxa to worry about as the Mammals or Birds Projects.) Lavateraguy (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. It could also include a list of key resources, links to the most useful online references, and a guide to which publications present the classification system(s) we're using. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Aristolochiales now stubbed. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Um... why? I thought we had proposed merging articles for synonymous circumscriptions, so the Aristolochiales would be included in the Piperales article. Am I wrong? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC) OK, a stub for the "obsolete" taxon name. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall any such discussion, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. However, if you thinking of discussion of the handling of monotypic taxa (which I infer existed because I've seen reference to the conclusions), I don't think that it is applicable to this case. For further elucidation of my opinions I'll start a new heading, since the indentation's getting a bit deep. Lavateraguy (talk)

The discussion I'm thinking of is at the end of #Rosidae/rosids etc above, about making the pages more about the clade and less about the label. I'm just wondering how far we want to take that, since it would mean a major change in the way we've been thinkking about articles. The zoological folks use that philosophy, but then again, they haven't had to contend with the many major re-classifications that botanists have had. The major classes and phyla of animals aren't all that different from when I was in school, but the major plant classes and divisions certainly have changed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This all looks like an improvement. I did expand the lead of Magnoliidae with some text from Angiosperm and the order articles. One thing: how attached are you to having Mesangiospermae in the taxoboxes? If they go directly from angiosperm to the subclasses, then that is only 8 groups directly under angiospermae, which seems manageable. My reluctance to include Mesangiospermae is, I guess, twofold: (a) it is an obscure concept in a world where most reference works still organize by about monocots and dicots, so just going directly from angiosperm to monocot, eudicot, or one of the other 6 groups strikes me as a good way to be up to date without placing undue emphasis on concepts which aren't needed here (the 8 main groups, however, I would classify as needed concepts), (b) I guess this is related, but Mesangiospermae includes the vast majority of angiosperms (about 250,000 species), excluding only 171 species.

The biggest problem with what I am suggesting is what rank to give the 8 groups: unranked_classis, class, subclass, or some of each. Kingdon (talk) 22:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not attched to Mesangiospermae particularly. The reason I include it is that (1) the Taxobox-use guidelines want a class to be included, (2) If no class is included, someone is going to come along thinking it's a mistake and add one, (3) for groups other than the Magnoliidae, there are suitable other choices to use, but Mesangiospermae is the only named node/taxon between "angiosperms" and the subclass. There is no reason why any monocot or eudicot group should use this label, as there are other suitable choices. I really wish that the APG folks had used a class name for this, since the majority of angiosperms would them fall into three classes (magnoliids, monocots, eudicots), but they didn't.

So, I would agree that Mesoangiospermae should not be used generally, but including it on the Magnoliidae, Chloranthaceae, and Ceratophyllales will fill a gap in the hierarchy that would otherwise be blank, and would allow for linking to a page that could explain why it is that not all flowering plants are classified as either monocot or dicot anymore. Of course, there will still be three basal angiosperm clades for which even this isn't an option, but do you see my reasoning? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I've left Magnoliidae with "Class: Mesangiospermae" for the moment, but have tried an alternative approach on pages like Austrobaileyales, where I have used "Class: see text". What do you think? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, in the sense that none of the choices are quite tidy in every respect, I see the reasoning. I'm not going to argue the fine points of "Class: Mesangiospermae" versus "Class: see text" versus unranked_classis = Magnoliidae versus (I'm sure there are other possibilities), as I'm just glad to get dicotyledon out of the taxoboxes. Kingdon (talk) 02:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

handling of Aristolochiales

As I see it there are four possible ways of handling Aristolochiales

Consider it not notable, and have no article on it.

Redirect to Aristolochiaceae.

Redirect to Piperales

Create a short article covering it.

• Rules of thumb about what taxa are notable is a question that the suggested Taxonomy Work Group could consider. My suggestion is that all classes, order and families published in mainstream botanical works after specified dates (after ICBN?) are notable (but not all subclasses, superorders and suborders). If this is agreed then the first alternative can be discounted.

• Aristolochiales isn't necessarily monotypic, so the rule of thumb that unites the articles for Ceratophyllales, Ceratophyllaceae and Ceratophyllum under the last name doesn't apply. The information that I added at Aristolochiales was absent from Aristolochiaceae, and wouldn't obviously fit happily there. (A section head Aristolochiales in there would be possible.)

• Aristolochiales isn't necessarily a component of Piperales; there's been too much overlap of ordinal, etc., circumscriptions for technical synonymy to be useful rule of thumb for redirecting articles. (Where would Dillenidae or Hamamelidae redirect?) Per WP:NOR and WP:NPOV it is not our role to identify the one true classification (but the use of taxoboxes and categories forces us to compromise on that to a degree, as agreeing on a consensus for use in those circumstances it preferable to having that stuff inconsistent). The APG system and derivatives are neither the final word on classification, nor mandatory on botanists. For example the new Heywood et al doesn't follow the APG family classification (replacing Malvaceae by, IIRC, 10 families), and for all I know has divergences in the handling of orders as well. Personally, I would be tempted to make the four major asterid clades superorders, and split Ericales into several orders, resurrecting Theales etc. Someone else might do the same for Piperales, creating an order Aristolochiales consisting of Aristolochiaceae ± Asaraceae, Lactoridaceae and Hydnoraceae

• So, by elimination, I conclude that there should be an article for Aristochiales (also for Annonales, etc). The principle objection I see to this is that the article will never have enough information to get far up the article class category. I'm sufficient of an inclusionist not to see that as a problem; the same probably holds for article categories like villages in France or rivers in Romania. (Wikipedia is not a paper encylopedia applies.)

I can see and agree with some of your reasoning on Aristolochiales, particularly as it is an order in both the Cronquist and Thorne systems, but am baffled by some of the arguments as well (isn't necessarily monotypic?), and I note that Annonales was not used in either the Cronquist or Thorne systems. I won't put forward more than that, since it's a bigger issue that, as you say, could use some good focussed discussion to determine how we want to do that, and here may not be the best place for that discussion. Should this be a PLANTS subgroup, or something done together with the other TOL groups? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps "not necessarily monotypic" would have been better phrased as "not monotypic in all systems".

When you note that Annonales was not used in either the Cronquist or Thorne systems, I presume that this is implicit support for a restricted conception of notability for flowering plant orders. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

For now, I reserve my opinion to be both presented and shaped by a larger discussion. This issue impacts many more people than just the two of us. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I was flipping back and forth between Wikiversity, Wikibooks, Commons, and here, and was hoping someone could help work through the mess here while I'm floating about in outer Wikimedia. The Persicaria article in particular seems to be just a chunk cut out from the Polygonum article, but I think a lot of careful redirect creations (as well as moves to binomials) are going to be required (with the ensuing redirect fixes, etc. Anyone have some good sources for double-checking the current status of these genera? Good refs would be especially good to have when moving commons galleries and categories about. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The relevant subfamily is covered in the on-line FNA. They do recognize Persicaria, though I can't say which species they include, as I wasn't aware of the nomenclature change until you posted. Their page on Persicaria says that "opinions vary widely", but they do list two publications in particular that they relied upon for the volume. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No way! You're not going to sucker me in on another massive hunt-the-species exercise like I self-suckered myself for Eupatorium. But especially for things like classification and species lists there seems to be a fair bit of material at efloras.org (Flora of North America and Flora of China, at least). Also look at Bistorta and Aconogonon. Kingdon (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to remind people, we already have Senecio and List of Senecio species to worry about. (If anyone has access to Pelser's Taxon paper from last year ...) Lavateraguy (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So it's one genus at a time? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't intend that implication.

Returning to the original subject, coincidentally I was looking at this topic a few days ago, related to filing my digital photograph collection. There's a new paper available at the Donaghue Lab. I've only skimmed it, but it seems that the choice is to abandon monophyly, abandon traditionally recognised genera such as Fagopyrum and Koenigia, or recognise Persicaria, Bistorta and Aconogon. The abstract to the Lamb-Frye and Kron paper from 2003 suggests that it would also be helpful; perhaps one could infer the essentials from FNA. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the frequency with which plant ID requests seem to find WP:PLANTS, does anyone think it prudent to create Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Identification requests and add a note at the top of this page? I suppose the frequency isn't enough to disturb the flow of discussion on other topics, but I thought I'd throw the idea out there. --Rkitko ^(talk) 00:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the creation of a subpage is inevitable in the long term, but I think, as you've mentioned, that the frequency is not yet a problem. I personally prefer that the IDs have the exposure to the many knowledgeable people who view this page, as I consider the correct identification of the photographs in our articles as a key factor in our article credibility. Melburnian (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. And hopefully all editors willing to provide a discriminating eye on photographs would be sufficiently notified when we do split off a subpage for IDs. --Rkitko ^(talk) 00:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if there couldn't be some way of centralizing this more... we have this project, commons:Category:Unidentified plants, and v:Bloom Clock/Unknown Plants, with probably many more on other 'pedias. The commons category in particular has hundreds (if not thousands) of images hiding in the subcategories. I had the thought of trying to set up an identification project at beta.wikiversity (which is a multilingual hub project), and using templates there to alert bots that could in turn ping on the relevant-language projects (eliminating the multiple watchlist problem while also allowing for cross-language collaboration)... anyone interested? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The article on cushion plants on the main page DYK was nice and got the second most clicks for the month of June; it was also accompanied by a nice picture. Although I started the article I was in no way responsible for the final produce on the main page, which was the collective effort of some plant editors.

Someone just created an article on Pteridomania. I haven't reviewed the article at all, but I think it's an excellent topic that could make a nice article with an interesting hook and fun image that a lot of Wikipedia plant editors could contribute to. I need a serious wikibreak, so I won't be working on it, and I realize all have their own projects, but the cushion plant article was a nice small group effort that produced a useful article. This could do the same, if on a less important topic. But a fun topic. I've wanted a fern house almost all of my life. --Blechnic (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep. New plant articles are fertile ground for DYKs...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I especially liked the quote "wrangling over unpronounceable names of species (which seem different in each new Fern-book that they buy)". Some things haven't changed in the intervening 150 years (for ferns or various other plants). Kingdon (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Can I get an admin to correct the page name for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dame%27s_Rocket and any redirects needed, thanks. Hardyplants (talk) 06:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've also eliminated all double redirects. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you EncycloPetey, that was quick. Hardyplants (talk) 06:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been thinking about working on this article, as I have some excellent photos and info available, being from Saskatchewan. Before I started, I wanted to check if the article should be under the name Lilium philadelphicum. I must admit, I wasn't sure if the naming conventions specified in the project page were for new articles, or if old ones should be redone as well. Thanks for any help. leafschik1967 (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the move! leafschik1967 (talk) 03:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW - I made Category:Plants used in bonsai Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have cleared the collaboration to start again, as there was some cautious support for it about a month ago before I got sidetracked. Now folks a good one to do maybe is something a bit hefty with a few facets for different folks to get stuck into. It would be great if wikipedia got a few high profile or large FAs, have a look at King Arthur for a recent collaborative effort. Yes I know he is not a plant. Gingko went down like a lead balloon but you neer know....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• 

I've got a feeling that this is a type of Hawaiian hibiscus but unsure. Bidgee (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd overlook it as a cultivar of Hibiscus rosa-sinensis (I'd be very surprised if it's not something in section Lilibiscus), but the fringed petals suggest some Hibiscus schizopetalus in its ancestry. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(If anyone would care to link a new image from commons into Hibiscus schizopetalus ... ; the image previously there wasn't that species. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC))

Thanks for that. I just found an image on commons for Hibiscus schizopetalus and have added the image. Bidgee (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Please make Neelix (talk · contribs) stop creating silly plants-related redirects. Colchicum (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This one] in particular. Colchicum (talk) 21:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I have left a comment about redirecting the species name to a genus or to a floristic list. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

He's also been creating disambiguation pages for <letter>. <epithet>., e..g. L. maritimus. IPNI's down, so I can't gather any data on how large such disambiguation lists would be if complete, but it doesn't strike me as a good idea. Looking at this contribution history he seems to be a bit redirect-happy. Lavateraguy (talk) 23:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be huge, because the list would not be limited to just plants. Consider that C. elegans is both a model-organism nematode and the type species for mariposa lilies! (Aside: I've always wanted to present at a major biological meeting a talk entitled "Current research in C. elegans" just to see how many people would get up and walk out once it became clear I was talking about a flower. ...with the first five minutes of the talk suitably ambiguous, but with the occasional "odd" comment to leave the nematologists in the audience confused.)--EncycloPetey (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

As a side note, I'd suggest to add lists of plant names you guys are concerned with, if you have them handy, to your watchlists (via "edit raw watchlist"). This is how I discovered the redirect of Bolboschoenus maritimus, which would probably go undetected for months otherwise. The new articles bot doesn't pick up redirects. Colchicum (talk) 23:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You may also wish to comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 July 14‎ (under Mermessus proximus). --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a slow-motion edit war going on at Amelanchier, basically delinking species articles because, I guess, some people think that the taxa are invalid or synonyms or something. There have been so many edits back and forth now that I've completely lost track - anybody want to try to make sense of it? Some protection and/or blocking may be in order too. Stan (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The Campbell Lab at the University of Maine is referred to for the various species. The information there seems to correspond to the new Flora of North America. The IPs who have been removing the wikilinks are addresses at the University of Maine. I don't think the claim (except perhaps for A. lamarckii and A. stolonifera) is that the species are invalid. Perhaps someone thinks that the Wikipedia articles on the species are no good, and readers would be better reading the University of Maine pages. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe someone just thinks the red links are ugly and so removes them. Some editors are so bothered by the appearance of red that they start new articles, but others delink to "solve" the "problem". --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

In this case they're bluelinks, not redlinks. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

So they are. I've protected the page for 93 days from anon edits. This is longer than I normally would do, but there seems to be a long time between the edits. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

As a related point, it seems that we should be merging Amelanchier stolonifera with Amelanchier spicata (discuss) Lavateraguy (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see this discussion so that we can come to a conclusion about redirects used on "G. species" disambiguation pages.

Thank you, Neelix (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

For Image:Pair of tui in flowering tree.jpg. The shot was taken in Coromandel, New Zealand (see the geocoding), though the species is likely to be introduced. It looks familiar but I'm not confident enough to make a guess (so ignorant about plants...) Richard001 (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be Prunus campanulata. Seems that tui like to hang out in them.[7]. Melburnian (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That's what I thought; we have some of them on campus at my university. Cheers! Richard001 (talk) 08:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Another one of my juvenile questions: How about this one ? Richard001 (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Melia azedarach? Hesperian 23:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

How confident are you on that one? There are several more photos of the same sort of scene at Commons and on Flickr, where the photos were taken from, if that's any help. I don't think any of them identify the tree (it's annoying when people think it is adequate to describe/categorize pictures like these based on the animal in them, but not the plant. Of course, they may just not know the tree, like me. Richard001 (talk) 00:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

How confident? Not particularly. Hesperian 01:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confident, they appear on the menu as well [8] (introduced species) Melburnian (talk) 04:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

So they do; I have added it to the description and category. Thanks. Richard001 (talk) 02:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I recently took pictures of many Agapanthus, and went to look up information about the species, assuming of course that I had A. africanus. Imagine my horror when I came across this website in South Africa that states that most plants sold and cultivated as "A. africanus" are actually A. praecox! According to the site, A. africanus is actually very difficult to grow outside of a Mediterranean climate. This (sadly) does not help me make my idnetification, since I was photographing in a Mediterranean climate, but it may impact the identification of most of the other pictures we have on Commons and the article on Agapanthus africanus.

So, is there anyone out there with definitie characteristics or access to a South African Flora or guide that can give physical characteristics to distinguish the species? The South African website relies primarily on distribution in South Africa, which is no help to me, and the physical characteristics are described as "variable". The site also descibes the leaves of A. africanus as "leathery", but does not describe the leaves of A. praecox for comparison. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

In Australia, the widely cultivated/weedy variety is referred to as Agapanthus praecox subsp.orientalis[9][10] The same plant is referred to as Agapanthus africanus in older plant books. Here's a description [11] Melburnian (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the main difference between A. africanus and A. praecox is in the size of the plants. I live in South Africa and have cultivated both species, though I only have access to the larger A. praecox currently. To my knowledge, A. praecox is a much larger plant with flower stalks between 0.8 and 1 m high (excluding the minimus subspecies). The flower heads on A. praecox are also much 'fuller', for lack of better description, with all the flowers open they form an almost solid outside surface. Because A. africanus is so difficult to keep happy, the flower head on my specimens were always sparse in comparison. I'll check some sources on horticulture that I have to see if they might have a better description to differentiate by. payxystaxna (talk) 15:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi All -

I've been working towards getting Aloe vera to good article status and have had it reviewed. I'd appreciate any assistance WP:PLANTS members can offer to help get this article up to scratch. It's close, but it's a big topic given the amount of material available on this species. I'd particularly appreciate any content fixes (as some of the sentences don't flow together too well yet) and alterations to make it more accessible to non-scientific readers. Any assistance would be most welcome! MidgleyDJ (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I need help finding the current conservation status for the following seven species of endemic flowering plants of Hawaii:

1. Charpentiera elliptica
2. Charpentiera obovata
3. Charpentiera ovata
4. Charpentiera tomentosa
5. Nototrichium divaricatum
6. Nototrichium humile
7. Nototrichium sandwicense

If I had to guess at the answers, they would be the following:

1. Least Concern (current Wiki article claims "Endangered", need verification)
2. Unknown
3. Least Concern
4. Least Concern
5. Critically Endangered
6. Endangered
7. Unknown

Thanks in advance for any insight you can offer. Viriditas (talk) 13:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

None of these plants appears on the IUCN Red List, which means that none of them appear on the Nature Conservancy list either, since the latter's rankings have now been imported into the former. The only one that appears on the Endangered Species Act list is Nototrichium humile, which is ranked as "Endangered".[12] Hesperian 14:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Does Hawaiian Vascular Plants at Risk: 1999 help? Lavateraguy (talk) 14:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does, but can anyone tell me why these plants aren't listed on IUCN? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, if I judge by what our article on the IUCN Red List says in its opening summary, it's because they're not birds or other kinds of animals. Reading that introduction leads me to believe the list is primarily about animals. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Only a few plant groups (Pinophyta and Araceae IIRC) have been completed for the redlist. Circeus (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Genisteae had a lot of incoming redlinks, and while missing from Wikipedia EN was present, fide Wikipedia ES, in 15 other language wikis (in actuality some of those covered Genista instead). I started an English language Genisteae article based on the Spanish one, but then discovered a similar article at broom (shrub). I've made Genisteae a redirect, and copied the list of genera from Wikipedia ES to the broom article. However brooms seem to be a narrower group than Genisteae, which also includes Laburnum, Lupinus and Ulex, fide Wikipedia ES. Should the article be split? or moved to Genisteae? or ...? Lavateraguy (talk) 13:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If you group broom and Genisteae together your going to confuse a lot of people that will look up broom. As you have already pointed out, broom is a subset of species, there is a lot of interest in growing them and some have become weedy. I think separate articles or a major subheading under genisteae is called for, but if the term is used through out the Genisteae article it will confuse. Hardyplants (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

And then, of course, the taxobox at broom (shrub) should be removed since it's not an article on a specific taxon. I'd agree with your assessment that they should be separate articles. --Rkitko ^(talk) 21:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

More grist to the mill; most of the genera in the broom taxobox redirect there, but Genista has its own article, and Spartium redirects to Spartium junceum, as Spanish Broom. Teline is considered by some to be a broom, and appears to be closely related to Genista if not nested therein, but has no article, and is not mentioned at broom, or at the Spanish article on Genisteae.

Broom (shrub) might correspond in some circumscription of subtribe Genistinae. The wide circumscription includes inter alia Laburnum and Ulex, but there are narrower circumscriptions. Some literature refers to a Cytisus-Genista complex. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I've copied the page over to a Genisteae subpage in user space, to be worked on.

I presume that the intention is that in the long run all the genera will have their own pages. When that happy state is reached, is there any role left for broom (shrub), except as a few lines in broom (disambiguation)? Lavateraguy (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

So then all the different common names, like Scotch and Portuguese broom, will be redirects to the corresponding species, some of the hybrids might be a challenge, they can be dealt with when the time comes I guess. Hardyplants (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It turns out that I need a citation for Genisteae having priority over Cytiseae. the Flora Iberica project says that Adanson's 1763 publication of Genisteae is invalid, and INSPV says that the first (1820) publication of Cytisieae was also invalid. I infer that the first valid publication of either of these names was Genisteae (1827-9). Lavateraguy (talk) 20:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

CarolSpears has had a lot of support from plant editors, so I am notifying you that I have proposed a community ban of her, to include blocking her talk page.[13] --Blechnic (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion over there seems to have closed, but I support the ban. Kingdon (talk) 03:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There is currently a proposal for a bot that would notify WikiProjects when their articles have entered certain workflows, e.g. when they are nominated for deletion or for Good article reassessment.

The question is whether a relevant number of wikiprojects would be interested in using such a bot. You can find details of the functionality, and leave your comments, at the bot request page.

I am posting this message to the 20 largest WikiProjects (by number of articles), since they would be the most likely users. Thanks, --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hypophysis was a redirect to Pituitary gland; I have made it a disambiguation page, but perhaps it should be made into an article within scope of this project, with a dablink at the top. --Una Smith (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, or a mention in Plant embryogenesis or maybe a more specific article for eudicots (or dicots, whichever makes sense). Trying to have one article per term probably, for the most part, doesn't work as well as somewhat broader articles. Kingdon (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the dab page is better now. Has a link to Hypophysis (plant embryogenesis), which is a redirect to Plant embryogenesis, which now mentions hypophysis. Thanks. --Una Smith (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If someone has the time/knowledge, there is plenty of room to expand/improve the Plant embryogenesis article (for example, better tying hypophysis into the rest of embryogenesis). But this is a good start. Thanks. Kingdon (talk) 04:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion here about the organization of List of culinary fruits. The current situation is a mess. An editor has suggested an arrangement by climate and geographic origin, to help readers determine whether a specific species could be grown in their area. I pointed out that the article title refers to culinary fruits, not cultivated fruits, and that perhaps an arrangement into culinary categories might be more appropriate, but neither of us have expertise in that area (I've asked for advice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink). Another approach might be to move the article to List of cultivated fruits. As is the case with most list articles, it doesn't have a lot to offer. If any of you are interested, please take a look and give us your viewpoints.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The taxobox for Kakabeak needs changing from species to genus. I have little experience with taxoboxes so could someone with the skills please help out. See Talk:Kakabeak. thx. Nurg (talk) 11:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Melburnian (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Melburnian. Nurg (talk) 11:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Can it be so? Do we really not have an article on Frans Stafleu?! Hesperian 13:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a job for the Frans Stafleu fan club - Melburnian (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you just {{sofixit}} me? :P Hesperian 00:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Who me? :P Fortunately, Curtis has come to the rescue. Melburnian (talk) 01:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

It is even more astonishing that neither nl.wikipedia nor de.wikipedia have articles. I made a stub.--Curtis Clark (talk) 20:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I knew the JSTOR access was because of my library, but for some reason it never occurred to me that the Springer link was, too. I won't be able to add much more until later this week; if anyone else is interested, email me through my WP link and I'll send you some information.--Curtis Clark (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Machaerium nyctitans has an article on Portuguese Wikipedia:

O bico-de-pato (Machaerium nyctitans (Vell. Conc.) Benth.) é uma árvore da família Fabaceae.
Sinonímia [synonym] botânico: Machaerium nictitans (Vell. Conc.) Benth., Nissolia nyctitans Vell. Conc.

This species is not listed on English Wikipedia Machaerium.
Should it be? Is it a synonym of something else?
-- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Species lists in genus articles are commonly not exhaustive. As Machaerium nyctitans is listed as an accepted species in ILDIS it would be reasonable to add this species at Machaerium. Lavateraguy (talk) 23:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've now created a stub for the species and added it to the species list. Melburnian (talk) 01:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! -- 201.17.36.246 (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a new template at Template:Medicinal herbs & spices. I believe it to be unworkable, as basically all culinary herbs in the Template:Herbs & spices template may also be used for medicinal purposes, and there are thousands of herbs used for strictly medicinal purposes. Badagnani (talk) 02:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)