Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

I've put a template at the bottom of WP:PLANTS which enables the article alerts bot, which is supposed to notify us when plant articles are nominated for deletion, featured article, and other such actions. I think it will take a day or a few to figure out whether it is working (that is, putting lists of affected articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Article alerts which then gets transcluded into the home page where the template is, I think). I'd appreciate it if we can leave the template there at least long enough to see what this thing can do, but beyond that, I'm open to other opinions about whether it is a good thing, where we want the output, and whether we have any options (for example, template work to control where it shows up and such). Kingdon (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

This has now run, although the transclusion to WP:PLANTS didn't seem to work (as far as I could tell), so I just made a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Article alerts. People might want to watchlist the latter page. So far, it found a PROD for the medicinal plant Sida cordifolia (this article should not be deleted, but fixed and expanded). Kingdon (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Abrajab has made a few edits to plant articles. The edits to Iridaceae deleted some text at the end.

Please will someone with more plant knowledge than I check on these edits‎? CBHA (talk) 05:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I've restored the last part of the article (that didn't require any plant knowledge; it would seem that Abrajab (talk · contribs) was just a new, clumsy, user). The part which might require plant knowledge is whether the family is in the Liliales or the Asparagales; a quick browse through the Angiosperm Phylogeny Website showed a lot of recent research on where to draw that line, with no conclusive answers. I didn't dig deeper than that, but I suppose following APG II (Asparagales in this case) is the safest route in a case like this. Monocot taxonomy is not for the faint of heart. Kingdon (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought of restoring the deletion but did not know if there a good reason for any part of the deletion. CBHA (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 12:35, 31 October 2008 (UTC).

If no reason is given in the edit summary and/or talk page, restoring the deletion is generally the safe course of action. But asking here was fine too. Kingdon (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, all. I currently have a copy of Flowering Plant Families of the World (Heywood, Brummitt, Culham, and Seberg, 2007) on loan from the library for the next couple of weeks. Any requests for info to be added to some articles? --Rkitko ^(talk) 01:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi plant admins, we have 2 redirects from junior homonym - Erythrina speciosa and Erythrina caffra (see ILDIS). Some admin who thought homonyms = synonyms mucked around with these, removed the deletion requests, told me to get this discussed, and messed up the pages. But they should be quick-deleted so that the senior homonyms are redlinked again (presently we have a few erroneous redirects due to this). Since the redirect is clearly erroneous I really don't see any need for discussion here. If anyone of you could be so kind? Thanks in advance! Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 00:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind sticking my neck out on this, but wouldn't our time be better spent turning them into stubs? Hesperian 01:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No response? Okay, I have stuck my neck out, as promised. Hesperian 22:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a shot at a stub for Erythrina speciosa (don't let all the taxonomy talk scare you away; at least for E. speciosa google and various web pages and google scholar hits all seemed to agree on what to call the thing and what it is like). I don't have any more time at the moment, but if people want to check my work and/or tackle Erythrina caffra, that would be great. Kingdon (talk) 03:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've taken a shot at Erythrina caffra too. Kingdon (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I am currently putting together an article on Charles Curtis (botanist), who was the first superintendent of the Penang Botanic Gardens. My sources say that Curtis was honoured by the genus Curtisina, so I was planning to create an article on this genus. On researching this, I find on zipcodezoo[1] that there is only one species of this genus – Curtisina penangensis. Googling further, I came across this article[2], which implies that Curtisina penangensis is a synonym for both Dacryodes longifolia and Santiria longifolia. Back to zipcodezoo, I see that there are separate entries for both these species at [3] and [4] respectively.

According to zipcodezoo, Curtisina penangensis is a member of the Sapindaceae family, while both Dacryodes and Santiria are separate genera but are both members of the Burseraceae family. I am mightily confused. Can anyone shed any light? Cheers. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Santiria longifolia King is a nomenclatural synonym of Dacryodes longifolia (King) H.J. Lam. From the first page preview of this paper I infer that back in 1932 H.J. Lam determined that some species of Santiria, including S. longifolia were correctly placed in Dacryodes, and at the same time identified Curtisina penangensis Ridl. as a taxonomic synonym thereof. Either Ridley made a mistake in placing Curtisina in Sapindaceae, or sunk Burseraceae therein (Burseraceae is in the same order as Sapindaceae), but without access to the literature I can't tell what was the case.

This wouldn't necessarily be the first time a botanist has placed a plant in the wrong family (see for example Cedrela alterniflora (a Luehea) and Capparis gibbosa (Adansonia gregorii)). One common cause is trying to identify a plant in the absence of flower or fruit material.

There's quite a few sites out there which have long lists of species names. But what they offer is lists of names; not lists of species.

Tropicos is often helpful on taxonomic matters, and does at least place Curtisina in Burseraceae, but in this case it doesn't have the species under any of the three names. Possibly it's been reclassified under a 4th name, but I suspect that in this case Tropicos is incomplete. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It has been proposed that Physalis and Physalis peruviana be merged. I suggested to the proposer that he withdraw the proposal, but he hasn't done so. I suppose it could be rejected per WP:SNOWBALL, but if youall would care to contribute to the so far non-existent discussion. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

If you tag an article for merging, you're supposed to give a rationale on the talk page. To tag and run is discourteous to say the least. I have removed the tags as an "incomplete merge proposal". Hesperian 22:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I need some help with the ID of this Brassicaceae. Looks like a Sinapis sp. but the leaves don't match. Thanks, Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Your problem appears to be a incorrect family identification. It's Greater Celandine, Chelidonium majus (Papaveraceae). Apart from jizz one can tell that it's not a crucifer by the presence of more than 6 stamens. (Most crucifers have 6 stamens, a few have 4.) Another difference, not visible in the photograph is that crucifers have 4 sepals; papaveraceous plants have 2 or 3. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your help. It's good to have experts around! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Beautiful photo, btw.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping to have time this winter to work on comparisons between different regions to make a first stab at making "global seasons" for the Bloom Clock, but have a somewhat silly issue I could use some input on. The global seasons are one of the main goals of the bloom clock... it would take some time to find the diffs, but part of the motivation for collecting the data was to have a "geographically neutral language" for describing bloom times in Wikipedia articles, Wikibooks chapters, and other resources that describe plants (the problem is that when you cite a flora that says something blooms in March in, e.g., South Carolina, it's probably not blooming in March in Halifax of Moscow, let alone Melbourne). The rough draft compiles the monthly data we have from various regions (which uses categories), and divides the year into 12 seasons (early/mid/late summer/winter/etc.).

The problem is this: When I first started working on it last winter, I tied the Southeast Pennsylvania data to go with "the majority of the month", so December is late fall (since 2/3 of the month is technically Autumn), March is late winter, etc. The problem is that this seems a bit counter-intuitive to me, and I wanted to see if other people found it counter-intuitive as well. So here's the question (for a straw poll): Should the global-temperate seasons be toggled back a month?

Please weigh in on the Colloquium, if you have a minute to think about it. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I need help identifying this rose. --Mr. Mario (talk) 22:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

One of the hybrid teas, I think. Hesperian 22:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree, there's a huge number of cultivars so it's difficult to be more specific than that. I note that the camera location currently links to northern Greenland ...global warming must be worse than I thought... --Melburnian (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Only some kind of geolocation error. I'll try to fix it. --Mr. Mario (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I fixed it. --Mr. Mario (talk) 02:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I found it. It's most likely to be the Hybrid Tea Rose 'Double Delight'. --Mr. Mario (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The Coelogyne article lists a number of hybrids, whose names are given in quotes, as if they are cultivars. Is this correct, or are they grexes? Lavateraguy (talk) 12:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If you enter each of the following names in the "grex" box of the International Orchid Register search page [5] together with Coelogyne as the genus they give a positive result:

• Memoria W. Micholitz (rather than Mem. W. Micholitz)
• Linda Buckley
• Burfordiense (rather than Burfordiensis)
• South Carolina

An example of a cultivar is Coelogyne South Carolina 'Everglades' [6] Melburnian (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Little dispute about identification of this Syringa species  : to be or not to be Syringa vulgaris ? Someone to find it out (with evidences please) ? And if not vulgaris, what species ? Lilac perfurmed thanks to win. --B.navez (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Delairea and Delairea odorata. Colchicum (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone identify the plants taken in this ---> . --Mr. Mario (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I am currently creating an article on Richard Pearce (botanist) who discovered the "tuberous" Begonia in South America in the 1860s. When I've finished, I would like to create a "hook" for the DYK page, but at present the begonia article is very poor, and doesn't really explain why "tuberous" begonias are more important than any other variety. Is there any "begoniac" who can grab hold of the article and completely re-write it, so that it is less technical and more informative to the lay reader. Cheers. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone here familiar (sorry, bad pun) with the Monimiaceae? If so, would you mind giving an authoritative answer whether article Farandona is a hoax? Hesperian 00:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Check other contributions of Alexis B.C. (talk · contribs) as well. I suspect he might try to introduce other hoaxes. Paraceratherium giganteum, though not a plant, also smells like a hoax. Alexis B.C. is also active on Spanish Wikipedia (es:Paraceratherium_Giganteum). Colchicum (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have nominated both articles for deletion, indefblocked the creator, and asked Jossi to notify the Spanish Wikipedia. Hesperian 01:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I have a few things that need identification and I'd appreciate some input:

• I tried to get this: identified before here without much luck, and people asked for a bit of zoomed out detail, so here it is . The tree is about 3-3.5m tall and like that all over. Possibly a spirea according to the owner.

I don't think that they're the same plant. Gompare the smooth and glossy leaves in the 2nd photograph, with the rugose and crenate leaves in the first. I don't think either is a Spiraea either. The first has a single style (Spiraea has 5). I haven't seen a Spiraea with leaves as glossy as the second (unless you used flash to take the photograph). Lavateraguy (talk) 10:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

No flash, and the tree looks pretty different from the other one, so it probably isn't. Plus they were flowering at different times of year. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

A Viburnum apparently. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The blossom isn't a Viburnum (I'd assume something in Rosaceae) - Viburnum has fused petals. The foliage doesn't jump out at me as being Viburnum, but there are a lot of different types. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

• I am also not sure about this Cymbidium cultivar.

Another succulent? Noodle snacks (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Try Echeveria Lavateraguy (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks in advance for the help Noodle snacks (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I've seen WP:RS suggesting that botanists are less enthusiastic about cladistics than zoologists are. It would be appreciated if Wiki-botanists could contribute comments and hopefully WP:RS with dates and 1-line summaries at Talk:Clade.

I know that Talk:Cladistics would be a more logical place, but there's a tactical reason for preferring Talk:Clade. User:Consist has been indef blocked for WP:DE rants about the deficiencies of cladistics, but has been posting at Talk:Clade, using a range of IP addresses. A combination of prompt reversion of rants and gradual accumulation of WP:RS that take a cold look at cladistics has quietened Consist down recently, and I think it would be good tactics to keep Consist's attention focused on Talk:Clade. --Philcha (talk) 09:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Very first Link on this page is broken (web site moved). I am too much a novice in these matters. Could someone try to re-establish the relevent link? Lucian Sunday (talk) 12:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Done. Hardyplants (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Much obliged; thanks Lucian Sunday (talk) 23:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Could anybody please pay attention to the horrible condition of the articles Flora of... and subcategories of Category:Flora? I don't know if such things as Flora of Connecticut in its present form (unreferenced list of nine species) should be here at all. Moreover, many of them (e.g. Flora of Azerbaijan) fail to distinguish between flora and vegetation. Others are merely (incomplete) lists and at best should be renamed to List of the vascular plants of.... Colchicum (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Dalbergia cearensis has been moved (back) to kingwood. I'm don't have strong opinions on the move - it's a classic plant/product division, and apart from the lack of material would be a prime candidate from splitting - but in the process what little information about the species was there has been removed. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on the mover's comment that "It is a famous wood, not a tree species," I've made a stub for the tree species, which certainly deserves an article.--Curtis Clark (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if everyone has seen this. Read and have a good chuckle. Do you think we need an article for the Simulacraceae? ;-) Rkitko ^(talk) 23:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I read it a while back, but discovered it was already covered by section Simulacraceae in an informally named article. It is not within the scope of any universally cited, unambiguous and verifiable methods of nomenclature, so I have no objection to a wikilawyer setting themselves up as nomenclator to decide on the 'common name' of this family. cygnis insignis 01:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Priceless! Perhaps Rainforest Cafe flora? Maybe when we can get back to writing instead of squabbling over common names, I'll expand the section. The Simulacraceae was also profiled in a Scientific American article [7]. Thanks for the link, I wouldn't have found it otherwise. I created a redirect for it. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 01:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

A while ago I started writing a bot to automatically create stubs on algal taxa. I've now got it just about working. If anyone has any constructive criticism to offer over the content and style of the stubs created so far, which you can view here here, I'd appreciate it if you could leave it here. To avoid duplication, and because I've asked for input from other Wikiprojects, please don't reply on this page.

Thanks, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)