Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

KP Botany and I have weighed in at Talk:Paleodicots#Merger. Lavateraguy originally proposed a slightly different merge but hasn't yet said anything on the talk page. Please direct comments to Talk:Paleodicots#Merger. Kingdon (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone want to tease this one apart? Is it synonymy, separate genera? Quite confusing and I don't have the patience to sift through Asteraceae taxonomy. There's some general information on Chrysopsis at Chrysopsis delaneyi that should probably be moved to a genus page. --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks as if some species have been moved from Chrysopsis to Heterotheca, leaving the former endemic to the S.E. U.S. USDA would seem a sensible source for lists of species, but there's at least one Mexican (and non-US) species. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

FNA has some interesting discussion, plus (in light of recent NC discussion) the amusing observation that "The common name "false goldenaster" appears to have been arbitrarily coined recently and subsequently used on the plants.usda.gov web site". "Golden aster" definitely needs to become disambigger. Stan (talk) 18:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I really love the composite image in the Plant taxobox. I was told, as a new Wikipedian, to be bold. So, I would like to propose that for the taxoboxes Green algae, Land plants and Nematophytes (the divisions directly under Plant), composite images be used in the taxoboxes. I feel this gives the visitor immediate knowledge that the article is a portal, in manner of speaking, shows examples of what is within, and gives a rough idea of the quantity of subdivisions. For example, Land plants taxobox could have an example of a Non-vascular plant and a Vascular plant, instead of just a fern, as it is now.

I have already done this with the 7 main divisions of Gastropoda, (Patellogastropoda, Vetigastropoda, Cocculiniformia, Neritimorpha, Caenogastropoda, Heterobranchia, Pulmonata). The folks at the Wikiproject there have found it to be an improvement.

Because the divisions at the top are very few, it need only be a couple of taxoboxes. I would be happy to make the composite images, and if you don't like them, they can be reverted.

I am proposing this because, as a novice, I would never have been able to make heads or tails of the Gastropods otherwise. Now I can clearly see what is within each division visually.

I don't know the best place to put this, so I will post at...

Talk:Plant
Wikipedia talk: WikiProject Plants
Wikipedia talk:Project Tree of Life

For the sake of simplicity, I suggest posting a reply at Wikipedia talk:Project Tree of Life if you an opinion on the matter. Thanks all! I hope I'm not being too bold.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and also, I like to colour correct and sharpen the odd image, if that's okay. Here is an example of the main taxobox image from Vascular_plant. I have overdone it here just to show the difference, but the tree and surrounding bushes in the original are definitely not so blue and grey.

One last thing... the meaning of the symbol † is certainly not clear to most. Perhaps a legend is in order.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the image, could you maybe show us a correction that isn't "overdone"? My first reaction was that the "correction" resulting in a misleading image - Pinus leaves are generally not so green. In fact the left image looks about right to me. Hesperian 09:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Maybe I'd better forget about correcting plant images. As a layperson, I didn't realize how important the different shades and hues are. I have only enhanced city shots before. Also, I don't imagine the Pinus tree would be too happy to be misrepresented. It probably already gets a lot of razzing from the other trees over its name.

--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

For related discussion see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gastropods#Composite_images_for_large_taxa. --Snek01 (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I cannot access the original source for No Parking Whitebeam to get the author details. Apparently, that particular issue of Watsonia is not yet online. Anybody willing to look into it before it shows up on Main Page? Circeus (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added the author, fide IPNI. (You can pull up all Sorbus records modified since 1/1/2009 if you want to get all the novelties from those two papers.) Lavateraguy (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Be nice to get something like this to GA or something so have at it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi folks - I've got a couple of images uploaded to Commons that I do not know the identity of. Both were taken in almost the same spot in the Auvergne in France. High level acid moorland soil on volcanic rock - this is an orchid (pretty sure there!) however I do not have an idea what this is. Thanks I hope - regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Number two looks like it might be a Phyteuma. Hardyplants (talk) 16:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Good call to me. Checking the cat on Commons I'd be pretty certain you are correct there. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I came to the same conclusion, from skimming Grey-Wilson and Blamey (Alpine Flowers of Britain and Europe). Try Phyteuma hemisphaericum or Phyteuma charmelii - also try Tela Botanica when it's back up. Lavateraguy (talk)

Again thanks - wouldn't mind more info on the orchid? Might be back again as I took some others pics in that area - quite a bit was in flower at the time (even if it took me a while to upload them!). I like alpines but don't know too much about them - tips on any "beginner" type guides available in the UK would be appreciated as I shall be in similar areas this year. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

As a terminative guess, the first one is a Traunsteinera, If I am proved wrong - remember its a guess. Hardyplants (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for all the ideas. Some more are being offered on Commons (here if anyone is interested). I also looked at the book mentioned on Amazon..... and the price! Think I need something cheaper to start with. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that the person at commons who suggested Bistort is correct. I've compared it with a couple of my photographs, and it seems to match. Forget the jizz of the inflorescence as a whole, and look at the details of individual flowers - they're radially symmetric, not bilaterally symmetric as in orchids. Bistort grows at altitudes up to 8,0000 feet.

It seems that the Grey-Wilson and Blamey book is out of print, and being sold at collectors prices. I paid £5.95, but admittedly it was a long time ago. One would have thought that there would have been a book on alpine flowers in print, but nothing was coming up on Amazon. Try looking in Waterstones, or your local neighbourhood second hand bookshop/charity shop, and see what's on offer. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that bistort is right, here is close-up of the closest looking orchid[1], the orchid flowers are open, while the bistort flowers are closed. Hardyplants (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to say I sincerely appreciate the help you have given me over this (not something I've often found on en wp :().

What camera were you using? Did you use a tripod? Your photographs seem to be better than mine - I have trouble getting enough depth of field and focus right with closeups.

All in all I guess bistort is right - I just felt the habitat was rather more mountain than meadow. Equally I've seen that basic shape in orchids in the uk so jumped to conclusions!

In the absence of visible leaves I was taking you at your word at first - the jizz was right, and I can't tell Dactylorhiza species, for example, apart. However, Bistort and assorted orchids are not the only plants to have dense spicate pink inflorescences - Sidalcea is another.

I appreciate the book pointers too - I certainly need something for the future. Just by way of warning I may be back! There are a couple more I took at the same time which I'm working on but have not got sorted yet. Regards & thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be worth someone reprinting Grey-Wilson and Blamey via a POD publisher. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Plants project members, I wanted to let you know about a plants-specific wiki site which you might be interested in contributing to. The site focuses specifically on how to grow any plant. Since Wikipedia is not a how-to, and articles are not allowed to be written as a guide on how to grow plants, two years ago I started http://www.plants.am - a wiki solely to address that topic (much like how wikitravel.org is solely to advise tourists visiting a country or city on their destination).

An example of how the sites differ can be seen immediately by comparing the Wikipedia article on Asparagus, with the Plants.am Asparagus article. Many of the articles currently on the site are placeholder articles taken from Wikipedia which are being rewritten from scratch, or shells of articles using new templates. However, a core of new articles like the Asparagus article (which still has a lot of room to grow) are being created, and the undertaking is huge. Perhaps you have some materials you can add which are not appropriate for Wikipedia. If you have any questions at all about this new resource, feel free to contact me on my user page here or on Plants.am. Thanks! --RaffiKojian (talk) 00:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Segmentation (biology) is currently a stub that totally lacks citations. At present I have an invertebrate zoology textbook (from a library) that will enable me to handle annelid and arthropod segmentation fairly easily, and I expect I can lay hands on sources that cover segmentation in chordates (vertebral column, myomeres). I can probalby also find sources to deal with whether molluscs originated from segmented animals and whether urbilateria (the hypothetical ancestor of all bilaterian animals) was segmented. (one of my other interests is paleontology). However I can spell "botany" and that's about it. If anyone wants to contribute content and refs on plants, please leave a message at my Talk page and we can agree a first draft structure and how to avoid annoying each other with edit conflicts. Initially I think B-class would be a reasonable target, and if we get lucky with sources then GA may be achievable. If we get too lucky with sources, we may have to split it into an overview plus more detailed articles on plants and animals, but in a way that's 3 articles for the price of one. If you want to check that I'm serious and can handle the animal part, see User:Philcha#Improved_and_got_passed_as_GA. --Philcha (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how new your sources are, but if they are even 5 or 10 years old, I'd suggest adding Endless Forms Most Beautiful, a book by Sean B. Caroll (or something more technical, but this is a good accessible intro), which gives at least a general idea of the molecular basis of segmentation in terms of gene expression and so on. As for horsetails and other plants, I don't know if this aspect of their development has been as well-studied as flowers (see ABC Model of Flower Development), but my first guess is that it is a rather different process than animal segments. In particular, I don't think the number of "segments" in a plant is fixed, so it might be a closer analogy to nautilus chambers or the like. Kingdon (talk) 01:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was asking whether anyone would research and write the plant bits if I did the animal bits. I have enough paleo and zoo artciles on my "to do" list without expanding into plants, where I'd be starting from zero. --Philcha (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I would advocate removing plants from this article entirely, then. I don't see any evidence that we are talking about a single phenomenon. (P.S. the suggestion of Endless Forms Most Beautiful is most definitely about animals; it doesn't mention plants at all). Kingdon (talk) 13:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Anyone have an idea what this tree is? The pods can be over 2 feet long. This picture was taken in Mexico in March and it was used as an ornamental planting, so I can't say were it is native. Thanks for any help. Hardyplants (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any immediate grounds for excluding Leucaena. Lavateraguy (talk) 00:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is very hard to tell from a picture in dormancy, but I wonder if it might be Delonix regia. Hesperian 00:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think Delonix regia as well, comparing with this image from here. Melburnian (talk) 00:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Both look like good suggestions, Delonix seems real close. If I knew what color the flowers were that would help. Thank you very much for the help. Hardyplants (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on both the bark and the pods I'd exclude Leucaena leucocephala, but I'm not familiar with other species of Leucaena. The smooth bark, the very robust connections of the pods to the peduncle and the gnarled appearance where the stems branch from the trunck and all consistent with Delonix regia. Guettarda (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and the petiole (there's a leaf in the top right corner) is consistent with D. regia and not consistent with L. leucocephala...at least as memory serves me. Guettarda (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The hooked tips of the pods also seem to point to Delonix regia [2] Melburnian (talk) 03:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree strongly. Missed that. Guettarda (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, that species seems to be commonly planted in Cancun [3] Melburnian (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much everywhere in the Neotropics, I believe. Guettarda (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as I could tell, these terms are synonymous. Please respond to the proposed merge at Talk:Subshrub#Merge of Subshrub and Chamaephyte. Kingdon (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hesperian 23:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This picture from here appears to show similar juvenile/adult variants on a single plant. Melburnian (talk) 12:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I could make an argument for the same species using the venation, and the placement of the hairs on the margins, New growth on some semi-woody plants is very different from leaves produced from older parts of the same stem. Of course this is not s definitive answer. Hardyplants (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a pair of photographs, taken at the same time, showing mature and young leaves of Actinidia deliciosa, at Birmingham Botanic Gardens - they pretty much match the photographs here, except that the teeth of the young leaves aren't so prominent. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Hesperian 10:56, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone pls help me ID this plant?? --Docku: What's up? 23:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

• 
• 
  Ipomoea carnea

Would probably help to know where the picture was taken. My guess would be Convolvulaceae, maybe an Ipomoea. Guettarda (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Vague resemblance to this, for example. Guettarda (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The picture was taken in the South Indian state of Tamil Nadu. --Docku: What's up? 23:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

looks like an Ipmoea, but not sure if it is carnea. --Docku: What's up? 23:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Ipomoea carnea to me, but I haven't checked through the 500 plus species. Melburnian (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

more convincing resemblance. thanks. --Docku: What's up? 00:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• 1
  1
• 1
  1
• 1
  1
• 1
  1
• 
  2
• 
  2
• 
  2
• 
  curious what the bee is on, but will probably have to photograph a flower for anyone to guess.
• 
  previous image

Thanks Noodle snacks (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Plant 1 looks like your previous image but flowering, I've revised my ID to "something in Crassulaceae" for now. Plant 2 appears to be Aptenia cordifolia. Melburnian (talk) 02:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Plant 1's flowers immediately triggered my search image for Bryophyllum; given the overall appearance of the plant, Crassulaceae sounds reasonable. Guettarda (talk) 07:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Would it be expected for them to be in the same place, same time, one flowering, one not? Noodle snacks (talk) 11:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

It's possible. After further investigation, I think plant 1 is Cotyledon orbiculata[4] Melburnian (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I like the options on that page - you can either vote that it's "excellent" or "good" :) Guettarda (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

...and after enthuiastically submitting your pro forma comment regarding the goodness/excellence of their site you get an HTTP 404 :) Melburnian (talk) 09:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:33, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

I created a new entry for this under the name Prunus x domestica (i.e. a hybrid), as used in the European Garden Flora. While looking for more material on this species, I see that most existing usage is for Prunus domestica L., despite reasons otherwise such as given at [5]. Do we have a standard practice on this? Imc (talk) 19:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any more reason to treat Prunus domestica as a hybrid than to treat either Triticum durum (pasta wheat) or Triticum aestivum (bread wheat) as hybrids. All three are species of hybrid origin, and there are plenty more (potato, soya, oca, some Brassicas, sugar cane, ...). Lavateraguy (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Similar situation with Drosera anglica, which has the parentage Drosera linearis and Drosera rotundifolia. There's an ongoing discussion on the International Carnivorous Plant Society e-mail listserv about what the proper name of the backcross D. rotundifolia × D. anglica is -- D. × obovata as described, or some other name not yet determined or published at rank under D. anglica per ICBN Art.H.4.1 and Art.H.3.3. If I understand everything correctly, D. anglica, like P. domestica, is a nothotaxon (any reason we don't have an article or redirect on that?) and "notho" and the × can be excluded (see Art. H.3.3). I've been a little bold in my clean up of the article on P. domestica and moved it to the species name. Hope no objects. --Rkitko ^(talk) 01:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine, thanks. Imc (talk) 07:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

An IP address has added Gunneridae and Pentapetalae to the Rosid taxobox, as subclass and infraclass. These are unranked taxa, but the taxobox template doesn't appear to accept unranked_subclassis and unranked_infraclassis as parameters. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on the style, probably the same IP editor which has been making changes to Eupatorieae. On the whole, the contributions are good ones, but I probably haven't been as active as I should be about adding my own edits or pointing out things which I would improve. I'm not even sure where to suggest that the user create an account, although I did mention it on Talk:Eupatorieae. On the Rosid taxobox, I drastically reduced the number of ranks in that taxobox, per longstanding policy and (mostly adhered to) practice elsewhere. I'm sure there is room for tweaks in terms of exactly which ranks get included, but the general thrust of keeping the taxoboxes simple shouldn't be especially controversial (as far as I know). Kingdon (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

He's been busy on Thymelaceae as well. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added support for unranked_subclassis and unranked_infraclassis to the taxobox. Hesperian 14:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, folks. Looking for opinions on this and the other content fork articles linked on the page. Some clearly just need to be deleted (e.g. Herb (Translation of herb names)), but I'm at a loss on what to suggest to the editor for these serialized articles (e.g. TCM Materia Medica (Root), TCM Materia Medica (Root Part 1), etc.) I'm not entirely sure Wikipedia is the right place for this article content. I suggested Wikibooks or, at the very least, just making it one large list sans the TCM acronym. I know this doesn't really fit in with our project here, but I trust all of your opinions. Any ideas, opinions, or suggestions? --Rkitko ^(talk) 01:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

What is policy on list articles?

Therea are a lot of lists on Wikipedia, e.g., List of Dinosaurs and List of placental mammals and the two I added (List of Microsporidian genera and List of sequenced plastomes), etc. While I don't care for the TCM abbreviation, it's not obvious that a list of elements of the Chinese pharmacopeia isn't eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. On the other hand, unless we'all were going to link out from the list to individual elements, an external link might be preferable. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, the naming is totally off. I had no idea what TCM meant before I looked at the articles. And iirc we aren't supposed to use abbreviations in article titles. And "materia medica" isn't English either; I can figure out what it means, but it isn't common usage. (Imagine that - me complaining about Latin in article titles!) They all need to rename into something that makes sense. As for the structure - long lists are sometimes broken out into sub-lists, so in theory the structure of the lists isn't horrible. Guettarda (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't find materia medica to be a problem as a title - materia medica is a technical term (more or less the same as pharmacopoeia), but so are lots of other Wikipedia article titles. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. But I still don't think it's the most meaningful article title for what would normally be titled "List of plants used in traditional Chinese medicine". Guettarda (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

From herb usage - "Most "herbs" are plant-based, but a few are mineral-based, and some are even based on animal products." This implies an intent to cover the whole materia medica. (Of course that would make "Traditional Chinese Materia Medica" a better title than "herb usage".) Lavateraguy (talk) 17:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-plant-based herbs...ouch. Guettarda (talk) 17:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The content is a much thornier problem. Very little of it is referenced, but it makes medical claims of a sort...that will be a problem at some point, but it doesn't have to be something we need to worry about. But the structure of the lists is problematic and the content doesn't make sense to me. Under the column "Latin name" I expect a linnean binomial. Instead there are things like "Radix Abelmoschi Crinti". I suppose the first step would be to tag them all with {{wikify}}, although to be honest, {{context}} might be a more important starting point. Guettarda (talk) 14:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Missed the herb usage article. That has serious problems, not the least of which is its title...if I had to guess what would be at "herb usage" I'd think cooking. My second guess would be usage of herbs globally. That article either needs to re-write to give it a more global scope, or it needs to be retitled. Guettarda (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

List policy (in terms of what lists belong) is WP:SALAT. I'm no expert on Traditional Chinese Medicine, but I would suspect that most of it has been published somewhere, and so in principle could be referenced (and cross-referenced to botanical names). If so, I don't see why this kind of list is any less legitimate than List of Asteraceae genera, List of culinary herbs and spices, or List of freshwater aquarium plant species. As for article renaming, merging, cleanup, etc, I agree, and would suggest titles like "List of roots used in Traditional Chinese Medicine" (probably as one page unless there is something non-wikipedia-specific to the parts 1-4 which I don't get), "Herbs used in Traditional Chinese Medicine" and the like. As for Materia medica, I don't think I'd use that term unless there is some real value beyond "medicinal plants" or the like but it seems to be a well-established, standard term. Kingdon (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Materia medica includes more than just medicinal plants. For example Epsom salts is included - as magnesii sulfatis heptahydras. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree - I don't think that the existence of these lists is especially problematic. Content, on the other hand... If you take a look at the first column (just as an example) of TCM Materia Medica (Root Part 1)

Herb Name (Pinyin)	Herb Name (Chinese)	Common Name	Latin Name
huáng qié huā gēn	黄茄花根	root of crinite abelmoschus	Radix Abelmoschi Crinti

Presumably this is Abelmoschus crinitus, although I would prefer not to simply guess. The list provides four columns of information - two transliterations of the Chinese name, one "common name" which reads like a machine translation and a Latin name which is in Latin. It's not the scientific name. Guettarda (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Latin name here means name in Western pharmacopoeias, which is not the same as the botanical name (pharmacology counts as a science). For example flores malvae arboreae, which is the flowers of Alcea rosea. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, we shouldn't take it for granted that these are real names in Western pharmacopoeias - Radix abelmoschi crin(i)ti doesn't come up on Google at all. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

A real "List of herbs used in traditional Chinese medicine" could easily be organised by species, and list the parts used. That would be something that the average reader might be able to gain something from. I just don't see how there's enough information content in these lists to justify their current form. Guettarda (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all the comments. You echo my concerns. I hastily and without much thought nominated a bunch of these for deletion. The author responded to my criticism that the items don't mention a specific species with a biological species concept reply - how do we know the biological limit of one species? More to the point, though, a lot of these traditional Chinese medicine herb usages rely on manuscripts from centuries ago. My guess is that no one really knows what some of these plants actually are. Regardless, my main concern is the lack of useful content and the organization of the forked lists. I like what Guettarda puts forth above. A list like that would be useful. As an aside, I do believe the "common names" are transliterations. The editor has even made an article out of external links to translation sites: Herb (Translation of herb names) (per WP:LINKFARM, a few of those might be salvageable links for an EL section of herb usage, but that article should be deleted). --Rkitko ^(talk) 16:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I received an email yesterday from someone who uses the following in his sig:

Nomina si nescis, perit et cognito rerum - "If you don't know the names, your knowledge gets lost". C. Linnaeus, 1737.

Fits well here. Guettarda (talk) 17:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If there's actually no way to know what these species are, then all we'd really have is a list of Chinese words which apparently apply to plants. China has a solid scientific tradition - I would be rather surprised actually if no one has identified the species used in Traditional medicine. Guettarda (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the author's talk page, I find that there's already a Chinese herbology article Lavateraguy (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again, all, for the time you've put in looking at this. I just added four more articles to the list below that the editor has created today. So what to do? My deletion argument wasn't well received, partially because my argument wasn't really compelling. Should I invite the editor that's creating this content into this discussion so we can persuade him/her to try forming this content in a more Wikipedia-friendly way if possible? Certainly context would help. --Rkitko ^(talk) 00:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's a fresh AFD on some of these articles: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herb usage Guettarda (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Article list

Just to get a sense of the issue, here's a list of what I could find using Special:PrefixIndex and searching for "Herb (" and "TCM". Isn't this why we have Wikibooks? Guettarda (talk) 19:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

List of articles
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Herb usage Herb (anti-cancer) Herb (anti-oxidant) Herb (preparation) Herb (Chinese-Japanese Common Herbs) Herb (formulas) Herb (General Usage Part 1) Herb (General Usage Part 2) Herb (General Usage Part 3) Herb (hyperlipidemia) Herb (Meanings of Terms) Herb (patents) Herb (Translation of herb names) Herb (TCM Classification) TCM Materia Medica (Bark) TCM Materia Medica (Bulb) TCM Materia Medica (Flower) TCM Materia Medica (Fruit) TCM Materia Medica (Leaf) TCM Materia Medica (Others) TCM Materia Medica (Plant) TCM Materia Medica (Plant Part 1) TCM Materia Medica (Plant Part 2) TCM Materia Medica (Plant Part 3) TCM Materia Medica (Plant Part 4) TCM Materia Medica (Rhizome) TCM Materia Medica (Root) TCM Materia Medica (Root Part 1) TCM Materia Medica (Root Part 2) TCM Materia Medica (Root Part 3) TCM Materia Medica (Root Part 4) TCM Materia Medica (Seed) TCM Materia Medica (Stem) TCM Materia Medica (Tuber)

I'm asking a favour, could anyone find a picture of a leaf to add to this article. Lucian Sunday (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This any use? Failing which dig around here. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful Herby!! - Thank you Lucian Sunday (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the reasoning behind the deletion, listed and linked above, and would appreciate more input from plant editors on this situation. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herb usage In my opinion, it will be a future problem for plant articles that are about herbs used medicinally if these articles are deleted en masse for the stated reasons,

"Group of articles all created by one user. The majority of the content is a directory of herbs with their supposed uses, not encyclopedia material. May be better suited for Wikibooks."

For example, "group of articles all created by one user" could lead to IceCreamSocial's native California plant species stubs being deleted. Yes, that's not going to happen, but this isn't a reason for deletion, and when articles are deleted for non-reason, particularly a group of plant articles, I think it could set precedence for future deletions of this nature.

"Herbs with their supposed usage" is called Economic botany, and sadly, we don't have an article on that topic, but, again, this should not be allowed to establish precedence for a type of deletion for plant articles. I do historical research in this area and already have to battle the anti-pseudoscience quackery on Wikipedia to insert historical references into articles about plants and their usage.

Economic botany is inherently encyclopedic. Just do a google book search on the topic.

That said, the articles are sad and worthless in their current states and need plant editors to go over them and decided what is what, if anything is salvageable, if they should be in Wikipedia under their current titles. The goal of an historical article on the use of herbs in traditional medicine is worthwhile and an article Wikipedia should have. Will these be starting points?

Please focus the conversation on these articles and proper reasons for deletion if there are any and please make it clear that herbs and their usage is encyclopedic, and "group of articles by one user" is not a reason for deletion. --KP Botany (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The stated reasons for deletion are forking and synthesis, so the deletion of Herb usage did not set a precedence for future deletion of plant articles. i have no desire to be a contributory factor in the deletion of plant articles. That is why i will not merge deleted content into existing plant articles, or create new plant articles with them. However, if anyone wants a copy of the deleted articles, including verifiable journal citations, i will send a copy over. Cottonball (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Cottonball. You must be disappointed. I merged content from one of the deleted articles (prior to deletion) into related articles, and added reliable sources (articles abstracted in PubMed), but a WPMED editor deleted the content with the reasoning that as the sources do not show efficacy, there should be no mention of the use. Perhaps that is an issue that should be discussed among the relevant projects: Plants, Pharmacology, and Medicine. --Una Smith (talk) 04:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a bag of mixed feelings, as i am both disappinted and relieved: i no longer need to continue with the article, an activity that has been exhausting. i understand the reasons for deletion, one of which is that the article is unreadable, especially the Chinese herb names. i hoped that using the exact names can serve as a bridge between time and cultures, but it proved to be an insuperable barrier, if not the final straw. Cottonball (talk) 04:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the names are better dealt with as interwiki links between English and Chinese Wikipedia. --Una Smith (talk) 04:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If i do that, i will probably have two sets of AfD to deal with, one in English and the other in Chinese Wikipedia. :-) It seems like a recipe for a nightmare. That's why i've started an account with a Chinese name, and will participate in Chinese Wikipedia instead. Cottonball (talk) 05:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not that bad. See for example Trichosanthes, one genus mentioned in your deleted articles as used to treat hyperlipidemia. It needs expansion and some more interwiki links; a related article is on Chinese Wikipedia here. See also this (my browser displays mostly gibberish but I can see there is an article there). This Japanese article appears to be a translation of the English article (or vice versa). --Una Smith (talk) 06:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

i am no expert on Hyperlipidemia but hope that you can find these articles useful. If you cannot find the articles, just let me know, and i'll be happy to help. (Some of them are animal studies, so i am not sure whether they are acceptable to a WPMED editor.)

“Hypoglycemic and hypolipidemic effects of flavonoid rich extract from Eugenia jambolana seeds on streptozotocin induced diabetic rats” Food and Chemical Toxicology, Volume 46, Issue 7, July 2008, Pages 2376-2383 Bhavna Sharma, Chandrajeet Balomajumder, Partha Roy.

“Hypolipemic activity of polyphenol-rich extracts from Ocimum basilicum in Triton WR-1339-induced hyperlipidemic mice” Food Chemistry, Volume 108, Issue 1, 1 May 2008, Pages 205-212 Hicham Harnafi, Hana Serghini Caid, Nour el Houda Bouanani, Mohammed Aziz, Souliman Amrani.

“Influence of Tribulus terrestris extract on lipid profile and endothelial structure in developing atherosclerotic lesions in the aorta of rabbits on a high-cholesterol diet” Acta Histochemica, 9 March 2009 M. Altug Tuncer, Bengi Yaymaci, Leyla Sati, Sevil Cayli, Goksemin Acar, Tuncay Altug, Ramazan Demir.

“Keishibukuryogan ameliorates glucose intolerance and hyperlipidemia in Otsuka Long-Evans Tokushima Fatty (OLETF) rats” Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, Volume 80, Issue 1, April 2008, Pages 40-47 Takako Nakagawa, Hirozo Goto, Ghazi Hussein, Hiroaki Hikiami, Naotoshi Shibahara, Yutaka Shimada.

“Soy, phytoestrogens and metabolism: A review” Molecular and Cellular Endocrinology, 9 March 2009 Christopher R. Cederroth, Serge Nef

“Hypolipidemic and hepatoprotective effects of flax and pumpkin seed mixture rich in ω-3 and ω-6 fatty acids in hypercholesterolemic rats” Food and Chemical Toxicology, Volume 46, Issue 12, December 2008, Pages 3714-3720 M. Makni, H. Fetoui, N.K. Gargouri, El M. Garoui, H. Jaber, J. Makni, T. Boudawara, N. Zeghal.

“Cinnamon extract inhibits the postprandial overproduction of apolipoprotein B48-containing lipoproteins in fructose-fed animals” The Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry, 6 November 2008 Bolin Qin, Marilyn M. Polansky, Yuzo Sato, Khosrow Adeli, Richard A. Anderson.

“Hypocholesterolemic effect of stilbenes containing extract-fraction from Cajanus cajan L. on diet-induced hypercholesterolemia in mice” Phytomedicine, Volume 15, Issue 11, November 2008, Pages 932-939 Qing-Feng Luo, Lan Sun, Jian-Yong Si, Di-Hua Chen.

“The effects of A. senticosus supplementation on serum lipid profiles, biomarkers of oxidative stress, and lymphocyte DNA damage in postmenopausal women” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, Volume 375, Issue 1, 10 October 2008, Pages 44-48 Young Jin Lee, Ho-Yeon Chung, Ho-Kyung Kwak, Sun Yoon.

“The butanol fraction of Eclipta prostrata (Linn) effectively reduces serum lipid levels and improves antioxidant activities in CD rats” Nutrition Research, Volume 28, Issue 8, August 2008, Pages 550-554 Dae-Ik Kim, Sung-Hyen Lee, Jin-Ho Choi, Hyun Soon Lillehoj, Mi-Hee Yu, Gun-Soon Lee.

“Combination of simvastatin with berberine improves the lipid-lowering efficacy” Metabolism, Volume 57, Issue 8, August 2008, Pages 1029-1037 Wei-Jia Kong, Jin Wei, Zeng-Yan Zuo, Yue-Ming Wang, Dan-Qing Song, Xue-Fu You, Li-Xun Zhao, Huai-Ning Pan, Jian-Dong Jiang.

“Evaluation of antioxidative and hypolipidemic properties of a novel functional diet formulation of Auricularia auricula and Hawthorn” Innovative Food Science & Emerging Technologies, Volume 10, Issue 2, April 2009, Pages 215-221 Yangchao Luo, Gang Chen, Bo Li, Baoping Ji, Yi Guo, Fang Tian.

“Extraction of BaChu mushroom polysaccharides and preparation of a compound beverage” Carbohydrate Polymers, Volume 73, Issue 2, 19 July 2008, Pages 289-294 Hou XuJie, Zhang Na, Xiong SuYing, Li ShuGang, Yang BaoQiu.

cheers Cottonball (talk) 07:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Plant#"Plant" vs. "Viridiplantae" and discuss there. --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Popped up at DYK. This one was actually created by an anon. Circeus (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty good job. Not only is the content accurate (as far as I know), but it offers a level of detail which isn't (and shouldn't) be in the other articles like Angiosperm which of course refer to the Mesangiospermae but aren't really the place to get into any depth on over what time period those groups might have diverged, what the synapomorphies are, etc. Very nice to see someone really writing rather than just creating stubs (I say that as someone who has been doing a lot of the latter....). Kingdon (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• 
  Is this Trillium cuneatum or Trillium sessile?

This photo of a trillium flower was taken at Radnor Lake in middle Tennessee. Unfortunately, I'm not sure if it's a Trillium cuneatum or Trillium sessile as both are native to the area and look very similar. I've tentatively labeled it a Trillium cuneatum as that seems to be the more common plant. Any second opinions would be welcome. Kaldari (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think sessile is also the most likely. As far as I can tell, the flowers of cuneatum normally have petals erect, but spread. Circeus (talk) 19:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

No, cuneatum flowers also commonly have petals which meet at the tip, so that's not a good characteristic to judge by. I got ahold of a copy of Wildflowers of Tennessee and according to it, the differences in the species are:

1. cuneatum smells like bananas, sessile smells like rotting garbage (unfortunately, I didn't smell the flower)
2. cuneatums leaves are "mottled", sessiles leaves are "vaguely or not at all mottled" (looks mottled to me)
3. cuneatums leaves are "broadly elliptic", sessiles leaves are "broadly ovate" (hard to tell, could be either, IMO)
4. cuneatums leaves are 3 to 6 inches long, sessiles leaves are 2 to 4 inches long (they look quite large to me)
5. cuneatum is "frequent", sessile is "occassional"

Since characterists 2, 4, and 5 all lean towards cuneatum and none of them lean towards sessile, I think cuneatum is a better bet. Kaldari (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes you just can't tell. In which case, rather than assigning an incorrect species, one should, imo, accept the ambiguity. --KP Botany (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• 

Pls help me identify this. from Tamil Nadu, India. --Docku: What's up? 04:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thespesia populnea. I cheated by googling the file name of the photo, which had the Tamil name of the plant in it - poovarasu. First Light (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

damn. :) i could have done it. thanks anyway. --Docku: What's up? 04:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• 

This I believe is Manilkara? wonder what the species???? --Docku: What's up? 04:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Judging my the file name (and, the locality) my first guess would be Manilkara zapota, the sapodilla; the fruit look reasonably close, and it is very widely planted. I would have to delve quite a bit deeper to be sure, but it's certainly a reasonable candidate. Guettarda (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

the fruits and leaves appear to be the same, assuming the current pictures in the article are correctly placed. --Docku: What's up? 21:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely a possibility. I'm just not sure if there are other species of Manilkara with almost identical fruit. I'm guessing no, but it's hard to exclude what you're never heard of, and I know nothing of non-Neotropical Manilkaras. But that in itself is a good argument, since any species with such large fruit is likely to be cultivated, and thus not unknown. Guettarda (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Coastal Banksia (Banksia integrifolia) Silver Banksia (Banksia marginata)
  Coastal Banksia (Banksia integrifolia) Silver Banksia (Banksia marginata)
• 
  The banksia spike, there were only some little ones as the tree is pretty young.
• 1 - Hedychium gardnerianum
  1 - Hedychium gardnerianum
• 
  2 - Picea abies, IDed on commons
• 2 - Picea abies
  2 - Picea abies
• 3 - I'll get a picture of the whole thing tomorrow, quite huge.
  3 - I'll get a picture of the whole thing tomorrow, quite huge.
• 
  3 - Echeveria undulata?
• 
  3
• 
  3
• 
  3 - waist high including the pot. sorry about the crap light etc.
• 4
  4
• 
  5 - Not missing a petal and quite small (its focus stacked) - Gaura lindheimeri 'Whirling Butterflies'

Not 100% positive on the Banksia, all of the leaves had that truncated shape. Size was 2m tall or so, but it was only planted a few years ago. The pinaceae is also a baby. Noodle snacks (talk) 10:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

1 looks like a ginger lily (Hedychium and 2 looks like Norway Spruce (Picea abies), but I wouldn't swear to either. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Re: the Banksia, those leaves would be unusual for B. integrifolia; they are more typical of B. marginata or B. canei. I'm sure Cas could give you a better answer; I'll ask him. Hesperian 10:47, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards Banksia marginata. Hedychium gardnerianum and Picea of some sort for the other two. Melburnian (talk) 11:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the banksia is integrifolia - leaves look too big for marginata (except for some unusual inland forms) - Noodle Snacks, where was the banksia photo taken? A photo of an old flower spike will 100% confirm species. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

• Not too far from my home in a nearby park, not a local species I don't think. I have never seen any banksii? growing wild around here. I'll grab a spike and photograph it either today or tomorrow. Noodle snacks (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
  • You haven't said where your home is, but I notice a lot of Tassie shots on your user page. B. marginata is the only Banksia species native to Tasmania... but then again a plant in a park could be anything from anywhere. Hesperian 22:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    • P.S. Common name: singular banksia, plural banksias. Scientific name: singular Banksia, plural Banksia. Hesperian 22:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I haven't got the spike yet, will do so soon. My family was more or less responsible for planting out a nearby park. I was just slave labour at the time (~10 years old), but I don't really regret it now, since there is more bird life and so on around too. Anyway, there were a large number of specifically Tasmanian natives planted in one area, but this one was taken in an area that was planted with Australian Natives, so I wouldn't restrict the criteria in that way. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh, regarding my home, I'd rather not be too specific about it, but the distribution of geolocated images should give you a pretty decent idea. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
        • So do what is the story with the banksia?. --Noodle snacks (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
          • Bloody hell, I wasn't expecting the cone to look like that - in that case it is an unusual looking marginata cone. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
            • And a nice picture of the cone to boot. Hesperian 03:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

4 looks like an Erigeron to me—which one is hard to tell. E. glaucus maybe?[6] First Light (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

• Looks pretty close. --Noodle snacks (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

3 appears to be an Echeveria cultivar. Melburnian (talk) 09:38, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to say that. I was wondering whether it was Echeveria undulata (or should that be Echeveria 'Undulata'). Lavateraguy (talk) 09:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

5 would appear to be a Gaura - compare Gaura lindheimeri 'Whirling Butterflies'. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yep, looks good, thank you. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I recently uploaded some photos I took at the Volunteer Park Conservatory (Seattle). I followed their labels for identification, but now I notice that there is enough variation among what was listed as Gymnocalycium pflanzii c-1234 that I wonder if there might either have been mis-labeling or I might have made a mistake in my notes. If someone more clueful wants to help out, have a look at Commons:Category:Gymnocalycium pflanzii. - Jmabel | Talk 19:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Not that I have any expertise, but I can stare at photos like you can :-). Just to start by stating the obvious, one of the photos is Gymnocalycium pflanzii ssp. argentinense, and some are c-2315 instead of c-1234. So we can account for those. In the c-1234 there seems to be variation especially in terms of the top of the catus (whether it is spiny; whether the areoles merge together in the middle). My first reaction is that this kind of thing could be due to age or other such factors, but it is hard to be sure. I don't even know whether c-1234 refers to an open pollinated variety, a vegetatively propagated cultivar, a certain collection site in the wild, or what. But I wouldn't automatically distrust your notes just because there is some variation. Kingdon (talk) 12:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

New article at Rubus coreanus, can someone help flesh it out? Badagnani (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, folks. I recently opened a discussion at WT:TOL that needs your input regarding the categorization of species by year of description. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Category:Species by year of formal description for more info. Thanks! --Rkitko ^(talk) 23:11, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I just came across this tongue-in-cheek. ANybody willing to help making it a DYK? Circeus (talk) 17:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

It's already a DYC. Hesperian 00:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

To qualify as a Did you know (DYK), it has to be 1500+ characters (bytes) of prose according to the counter DYK uses. I expanded the article a bit today but got only as far as 372 characters and pretty much ran out of content. Does anyone know who coined it? --Una Smith (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably an LBJ.--Curtis Clark (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Heh heh. Can you work that angle into a catchy hook for DYK? --Una Smith (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm new here, and wanted to test the waters by authoring a few articles on a family of plants I'm particularly fond of - the Melanthiaceae. Many of the genera listed on the page are currently out of date (a very recent paper totally shifts the landscape), but they are names used most frequently. So do I (1) keep the old names for the sake of ease of users' navigation, or do I (2) change the list to reflect the recent taxonomic changes? I anticipate I'll be encountering similar situations with other families. --DDennisM (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, welcome aboard.

Ideally, our articles should be kept up to the minute with modern taxonomic changes. You need to be reasonably confident that the new taxonomy is going to be accepted—we don't want to endorse some maverick's unusual point of view—but so long as you're comfortable with that, by all means update the articles.

Hesperian 00:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

On the broad subject of taxonomy, Google Scholar came up with A. Borhidi, An attempt to transform molecular cladistic trees of angiosperms into a comprehensive system, Acta Botanica Hungarica 49(3-4): 305-309 (2007). Paywalled, so I don't know what it actually says. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Generally yes (subject to the caveat that some brand-new taxonomic research is too tentative, incomplete or unclear to really use, and in those cases it is wise to largely stick with better-established usages). Either way, names which are widely used should be mentioned in the text, have WP:REDIRECTs, etc. Kingdon (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)