Archive 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

→

Archive 60

Can someone please point me to a 'style rule' for the use of † for extinct plants? Actual usage on plant pages includes all of the following styles:

• † Horneophyton (where the space may be a real space,   or  )
• †Horneophyton
• Horneophyton†
• Horneophyton † (I've found both a real space and  )

Peter coxhead (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Automatic taxoboxes use †Sphenophyllales (no space), so I have adopted it as well in manual taxoboxes.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 21:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be useful to agree on a style (preferably before I create too many more articles on early land plants!). I've since checked animal articles; they mostly seem to have "†Name", but I found some with "† Name". Peter coxhead (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

It has been discussed before I think... I came across it once when asking the same question. But I can't find it now. Anyway since manual † is easier to change I say we conform to the coded style of autotaxoboxes, but yeah, we better have a consensus on this first in TOL I think.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 23:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Transmontane chaparral (that side of the mountain chaparral) is conrasted with cismontane chaparral (this side of he mountain chaparral). It is unquestioned that the angeles basin chaparral is cismontane. But there are three "mountains" to be that side of, the transverse and peninsular ranges, the coast ranges, and the sierras. Sierra chaparral is "this side" of the sierras, but "that side" of the coast ranges. Desert chaparral is "that side" of the transverse and peninsula ranges, but is much more closely related to cismontane chaparral than sierra chaparral. Which is cis and which is trans, desert or sierra? PPdd (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless I'm misreading Glossary of Reptile Terms and Appendix B from Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California and California Plant Names by Micheal L. Charters, these terms as used here are California-specific and cismontane is always the western (wetter) side of the mountains (which I think could be any of the ranges), and transmontane is always the eastern (drier) side. Kingdon (talk) 12:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

"Transmontane" is used broadly to describe the rain shadow of the Sierra for the California Floristic Province that is impacted by the Sierra Nevada, namely north of the Transverse Ranges, southish of the Cascade Range. Desert chaparral are not transmontane to the Sierra, because they are generally south of the Sierra Nevada rain shadow. However, desert chaparral are transmontane to the Transverse and Peninsular Ranges, the ranges that create the huge rain shadow that impacts the ocean storms that could otherwise reach these regions. These southern deserts are not transmontane to the Sierra, as the Sierra ends at the Transverse Ranges. "Cismontane/transmontane" to the Coast Ranges is not commonly used outside of dealing with speciation due to the Coast Ranges. I'm not an expert, but I have done CFP vegetation transects across the state (EIS) in both Central and Southern California, and this is how the terms are used in the field, as supported primarily by the Jepson Manual. --Kleopatra (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. There is an ambiguity in the literature (e.g., Schoenherr's Natural History of California compared to some other sources). As far as I know, there is no transmontane chaparral with regards to the Sierras, but there is regarding the Coast Ranges and Peninsular and Transverse ranges. I will edit the chaparral article to include a context for "cismontane" and "transmontane". PPdd (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right; no transmontane chaparral for Sierra, and, yes it is used somewhat for Coast Ranges chaparrals, although the coastal chaparrals are differentiated from non-coastal chaparrals, also. I was thinking partly of plant in general, partly of chaparral when I answered. --Kleopatra (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Kingdon, your references gave me the idea to start a Plant term illustrated dictionary article. PPdd (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I (barely) started a Plant term illustrated dictionary article. (I hope I am not duplicating something already in existence at WP that I could not find.)

• Illustrations are critical for a dictionary of plant terms. Please help out by making a drawing of your favorite term, upload it to WP:Commons, and put it in the illustrated dictionary.
• Adding written content to the article from memory will be good excercise for editors, and others can then come back and find RS for it (or delete it if it is a mistake), so be WP:Bold! PPdd (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• I at first moved it to glossary of plant morphology, then I rememebred we already have Glossary of plant morphology terms and glossary of botanical terms, which are better starting points for your project. Circéus (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. "Illustrated glossary" might encourage more illustrators to chip in at Commons. I will redirect my article to Glossary of plant morphology terms, if you have not already done so.

What do you think would be a good way to alert users as to how to find the glossary? PPdd (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Call for illustrators

As many of you recall, one of your earliest most well worn books was an illustrated glossary of plant morphology terms. Please make an illustration of your favorite term, upload it to WP:Commons, and put it in the Glossary of plant morphology terms. (If it overburdons that article, a new one can be created called "illistrated glossary of plant morphology terms".) PPdd (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Merger

I'm starting work on a merger of Glossary of plant morphology terms, Glossary of botanical terms, leaf shape, Terminology for Asteraceae, with trimming of terms not in actual use. Example of gone terms are acantha, acanthocarpous, acanthocladous, achaenocarp, and acephalous (style/ovary), some of which do not appear to have any actual non-dictionary use, and others are either too rare or obsolete to be pertinent. I'm going to ensure every entry has a {{visible anchor}} so they can be linked to. I'm following the botanical article's format. Any recommendations people would like to see implemented? Circéus (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Having a prominent link on the main Plant Project page to a Glossary page would be helpful. First Light (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Will do, when I'm done. Most likely the final thing will be at Glossary of plant science terms. Circéus (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I have a small problem with merging morphological terms with more general botanical terms. The reason is that the latter is more technical and lab oriented, and is often irrelevant to amateur field botanty (which I like more... ah, the sunshine and fresh air). PPdd (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are a lot of incoming links to leaf shape (I link to it when discussing leaf shapes, e.g. [[leaf shape|orbicular]]). If that's merged in to something else, can we either fix the incoming links to the correct term or preserve all leaf shape terms in a single section of the final glossary so that a leaf shape redirect will link directly to that section? And thanks for doing this; you're braver than I. Rkitko ^(talk) 22:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

A proposal to handle this would be to have multiple linked articles with the same content, but different organization, and which each update when the other is modified. For example, linked articles, with names like Glossary (alphabetical), Glossary (plant part), etc. The incoming links to leaf shape can link to the leaf section. But I have no idea if this is possible, or how easy it would be for the right editor to write a program to do this. It might be very easy for someone with the knowledge how, it might be difficult, and it might be impossible with what is available here. The same problem likely has come up with other fields' glossaries, so maybe the question has already been answered. PPdd (talk) 05:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Recommendations? Include lots of anatomical structural drawings of the term (not photos of plants exhibiting the term)! PPdd (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

redirecting leaf shape to the new list will not change the amount of browsing by thatmuch. Plus there will be plenty of time to discuss it, I am _not_ rushing this one! Circéus (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Re "recommendations" - There is a whole fairly new aesthetic field of classification of caudiciforms, and another for bark patterns. Is there an article for these morphological classification systems? PPdd (talk) 00:04, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

We have caudex and caudiciform (which I suspect ought to be moved to caudiciform plant, but I lack the necessary familiarity with that area of terminology), but I don't think me have much in the way of bark terminology anywhere. I you're in the mood to collect terms, I'd be grateful. Circéus (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's an example of what I am talking about - "Krummholz". PPdd (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You bring us almost straight into Ecology land, and we will have to draw a line somewhere. How about this for an informal inclusion criterion: a term (with a few caveats regarding palynology, cytology and phytochemistry vocabulary) belong on the list if could reasonably be used in a family or genus description of Families and Genera of Vascular Plants (which include anatomy and breeding systems, but only a little ecology stuff, mostly related to seed dispersal). What do you think? I suspect in this case Krummholtz wouldn't (it looks too markedly environment driven to me). Circéus (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree there should be a differet article line between the morphology of co-evolution (of shapes like caudiciorms) and co-development from environmental factors (like krummholtz) on the one hand / and standard botany on the other hand. Another line should be between field taxonomy (leaf shapes, flower structure, etc.) and lab taxonomy (general botanical science terms, which includes the former). There is a need for an electronic "field guide", and a separate need for a labwork guide. The latter line is also not clear, since one's field magnifying glass can be arbitratrarily strong like a miscroscope, and the level of disassembly of, e.g., flower parts in the field, can get arbitrarily close to dissection in a lab down to a cellular level. It is probably best to gather all the data in one place to start like you are doing, and sort it out from there. (You are doing a noticibly great amount of work, by the way.) One further problem I foresee is that environmental driven terms might cross over with field classification terms, like "deciduous" (my Ficus benjamina house plant drops its leaves when I don't water it for months, like a drought deciduous coastal sage scrub plant, but it is considered non-deciduous).PPdd (talk) 04:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out that User:Circeus is not only doing lots of good work on the botanical terms lists in the above section, Circeus just did a huge amount of good work on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (list of specialized Manual of Style articles). PPdd (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, there is a confusion here between George Gordon (1801–1893) and George Gordon (1806–1879). In fact, this article is a mix-up of the two. Regards, PurpleHz (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

IPNI has George Gordon 1841-1914 (G.Gordon) and George Gordon 1806-1879 (Gordon). George Gordon 1801–1893 did exist, and did write the Collectanea for a Flora of Moray. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:53, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

George Gordon also needed tweaking. I suggest that George Gordon of Moray becomes George Gordon (naturalist), as he seems to have been equally active in geology and botany. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The VMH page redlinks to George Gordon, VMH, as George Gordon (horticulturalist). Fide IPNI he's responsible for the name of one hybrid orchid. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking in sandbox, you can see a good approximation of what the list will look like (well, the terms in A- anyway. I haven't started writing the intro). The hash/number signs are for my own convenience: they serve to separate in-article from separate-article links. They will be gone before I move the list to mainspace.

I'd particularly appreciate comment regarding the terminological footnotes and the damn aestivation terminology. Words for aestivation styles for pentamerous flowers are either ambiguously defined or contradict themselves between sources (and I've looked at 6-7 of them)! Circéus (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

An initial comment is that when you are done, I would like it if you would organize my home and museum storehouse. PPdd (talk) 00:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Fabulous work: a list like this is desperately needed to support plant articles. I'm not sure if you would prefer others to edit your page to add extra terms, or merely point them out? If the latter, I'd like to see 'centrarch', 'endarch', 'exarch' and 'mesarch' added (full-ish defs at Xylem development). If you would be happy for others to add definitions, can you say so here?

I can't help on aestivation, but merely note that unfortunately many botanical terms are used inconsistently in the literature; Cook's ABC of Plant Terms notes that even so obvious a term as "adaxial" has been used with different senses. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 11:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: the -arch terms, thanks to Simpson's excellent (though sometimes idiosyncratic with regards to terminology) Plant Systematics, I actually KNOW what these are and will have no problem including them.

Re: adaxial/abaxial, they cause problem because they difficult to define with regard to both leaves and flower parts (plus not all leaves have aba-/adaxial sides).

I'm amazed at the terminological issues I run in generally. Look at the note for attenuate/acuminate, for example, and I expect a comparable discussion for acicular/terete/subulate. The incredible proliferation of descriptive terms up 'til the early 20th century is the cause of most issues; fortunately the list will be restricted to reasonably current terms. Circéus (talk) 00:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

A while back a mid-2000s book on botanical terminology (or perhaps just plant anatomy terminology) was mentioned here. I'm failing to find it in the archives. Does anyone recall what it was? Lavateraguy (talk) 16:53, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure, do you mean Plant Idenfication Terminology by Harris and Woolf-Harris? Guettarda (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

This book? Guettarda (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought not (the book I was thinking of has the look inside feature enabled at Amazon, and this doesn't). I've now cracked the question, and the book I was thinking of was Bell and Byran's "Plant Form: An Illustrated Guide to Flowering Plant Morphology", mentioned here in February (Archive 42). Lavateraguy (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

(All the good books have the wording like "Illustrated Guide" in their title.) PPdd (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

[undent] Bell IS one of the works I looked at on this issue! Others are Stearn (Botanical Latin, 4th ed was the one I had at hand), Simpson (Plant Systematics, 2006), Ronse de Craene (Floral Diagrams, 2010), Scotland & al. (Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 114:46-65, 1994) and Ingrouille (in Roberts, Handbook of Plant Science, vol. 2, 2007). I have found Zomlefer (Guide to flowering plant families, 1994) in the past to have excellent terminology stuff, but I haven't been able to look it up yet. Circéus (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I recommend the recent Kew Plant Glossary: An Illustrated Dictionary of Plant Identification Terms as an additional resource. --S.v.Mering (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

A glossary of plant terms is far less useful without anatomical illustrations (distinguished from photos of plants). Sometimes a single specimen photograph can well illustrate a more general concept, but this is rare. Good illustrations that which generalize or abstract anatomical structure from specimens or photographic images of them, are typically copyright protected. I suggest WikiProject Plants apply the Doctrine of Absurdity to WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NRS, and allow editors to draw their own illustrations, upload them to WP:Commons, post them on this talk page and the page they are intended to be used at, get consensus for them, then put them in the plant term glossary and in the article for which they illustrate the concept of a botanical term, even though they may be OR, SYNTH, and NRS. (A possible alternative or supplement to this, if anyone has the book, and the time, is to massively upload an old "illustrated plant terms" book in the public domain into Commons.) PPdd (talk) 13:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Drawing illustrations is just like drawing range maps - cite your source. It isn't OR or SYNTH unless you take different contradictory works and combine them into a single diagram. Sort of like combining the Magi (Matthew's gospel) and the shepherds (Luke's) into a single story for a Christmas pageant. That's SYNTH, since neither element is in both stories. (In fact, if you had sources that disagreed as to what structure 'x' actually is, the way to avoid SYNTH would be to include both versions (assuming, of course, that both sources are equally reliable). Where you tread a fine line is in making sure that what you produce isn't a derivative work (which would be a copyright violation) nor does it put structures where they don't belong (I have come across a nice diagram, unsure of the source, which shows allocation in a plant. A plant that has both potato-like tubers and tomato-like fruit. Great for teaching, but not realistic). Guettarda (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Very good reply to my proposal! Drawings are a RSable pictogram language (which violates WP:Use plain English, so I will suggest a change at that talk page). Another problem that may arise is that not-derivative implies SYNTH, since the whole idea of an anatomical drawing is to synth properties from particular specimens to general structure. Maybe a suggestion at WP:Synth talk is in order, too. (I never looked at potato flowers, but wouldn't they look like an anatomical drawing of a tomato (both Solanacea, I think) by Linnaean reasoning? PPdd (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be two issues here: 1) what can be uploaded to Commons, 2) how images from Commons can be used in Wikipedia. Commons policy does not reject originality in images, quite the reverse. So I can look a plant or a plant part, and then make a drawing of it or take a photograph, and upload the result to Commons. I can then include this image in a WP article. As I understand it, the only thing I can't do is to make a statement which can only be sourced to the image, e.g. I mustn't write "This species has hairy leaves as is shown in the image", because this is OR. But I can write "This species has hairy leaves,^[1] as is illustrated in the image" – or more likely leave it to the reader to see that the hairiness is illustrated in the image.

I don't see that SYNTH arises in images. The discussion in WP:SYNTH is not really science-oriented. My personal take in science/maths terms is this. Suppose proposition A comes from a reliable source. Proposition B comes from a different reliable source. I compose an article in which both A and B appear; in mathematical terms I compose some proposition C(A,B). Is this SYNTH? Merely because there is no source in which A and B both appear doesn't make it SYNTH; if it did we couldn't write any articles based on more than one source! The key is surely whether the meaning of C(A,B) is more than the sum of the meanings of A and B separately. If, e.g., A = this plant has leaves, B = this plant has roots, C(A,B) = this plant has leaves and roots, then there's no SYNTH. If C(A,B) = this plant has leaves because it has roots, then there is. If I draw a diagram of the plant with both leaves and roots, based on reliable sources which separately show leaves and roots, then this isn't SYNTH, because the diagram amounts to joining the information by 'and'.

The really difficult problem, as Guettarda notes, is whether you can upload the image to Commons in the first place because of derivation. Scientific articles and texts, as well as university lecture notes for students (many of them online), are full of diagrams re-drawn from other articles and texts. This has been accepted in the scientific community as 'fair use', but Commons bans this. So I conclude that (1) the image must be genuinely original so that it does not violate any Commons policies, (2) so long as the image only illustrates what is reliably sourced elsewhere, using such an image in Wikipedia does not violate any Wikipedia policies. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

So a good solution might be to get two illustrated glossaries, and draw the third man, which would not be dreivative and not be Synth? PPdd (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it then be derivative of both works?

There are actually two issues here - one is the underlying image, the other is the information contained in it. If you draw a leaf, based on an actual leaf, that's your own work and you are free to release it with whatever degree of copyright you choose. If you base your drawing on someone else's drawing or photograph, it is (I believe) a derivative work (at least arguably; there are issues about how transformative the work is, iirc). So the underlying photograph or drawing is the work that is eligible for copyright. Simple information, on the other hand, is not subject to copyright (with exceptions like gene patents). So if you use another source to label your diagram, that doesn't affect its copyright status. Then issues like accuracy, OR and SYNTH come into play. And accuracy is more important than SYNTH in this case. If it's pretty clear that you are mapping structure onto structure, (mid-vein onto mid-vein) you're fine. Calling a leaf margin dentate rather than denticulate may be more of a judgement call (and could create OR problems...best to look up how experts describe the leaf margins in the species you have illustrated, and avoid examples that are require a judgement call). Creating a new category, like "denticulo-dentate" (assuming that doesn't already exist) based on (1) your observation that the leaf is 'in between denticulate and dentate', and (2) citing the existence of "obolanceolate" as a justification for that name, would fall afoul of OR/SYNTH. Guettarda (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

We have plenty of precedent for original drawings, for instance maps and mechanisms. I'd say just to go for it and don't worry about OR and such. They're pictures, everybody understands that a picture is not going to be taken as proof or disproof of any fact recorded in WP. Stan (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

(Aside - Nothing like a good field botany drawing class for sheer fun.) PPdd (talk) 18:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I notice that plant taxoboxes have lost some of the information they used to have, for example on Mammillaria pottsii‎ the taxobox now says that Angiosperms, Eudicots, and Core eudicots are "undefined." Any advice on how this could be fixed, or who else I should pester? (I did also leave this message for Bob the Wikipedian.) Thanks! Sharktopus^talk 20:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Higher classification in flowering plant taxa now follows the APG III system, which includes these unranked clades above the rank of order. There's no information loss, just a change in classification system. Cronquist is outdated and we decided a while ago to switch. I've been in the process of finishing up some groups that have not been converted. I did Cactaceae a few months ago and I'm working on the Malpighiales now. Ideally the taxobox would say, "Clade: Angiosperms" instead of unranked, but there wasn't an easy way to work that into the existing taxobox code. The {{Automatic taxobox}} fixes that problem, e.g. Calluna. Hope that helps. Rkitko ^(talk) 20:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

However, Chase, Mark W.; Reveal, James L. (2009), "A phylogenetic classification of the land plants to accompany APG III", Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 161 (2): 122–127, doi:10.1111/j.1095-8339.2009.01002.x {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help), which, as the title says, accompanies APGIII, does give a rank to the angiosperms, albeit a 'minor rank' and so not for normal use in taxoboxes: Class Equisetopsida (=embryophytes), Subclass Magnoliidae (=angiosperms), so there is a valid traditional Linnean taxonomic name which can be used without inconsistency.

The problem with dispensing with Linnean ranks is deciding consistently which clades to include or exclude. Looking at the taxobox at Mammillaria pottsii, I would want to include at least embryophytes, tracheophytes and spermatophytes (under a choice of possible names and formal ranks) between the Kingdom and the angiosperms. Jumping all the way from Kingdom to what is likely to be agreed to be a Subclass seems odd to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the system of Chase and Reveal has been adopted or given much support. I'd want to wait a while, like we did for the use of APG terms, to see if it gains a foothold. I much prefer the unranked clades used by the APG for now. There are many competing systems, including the impending PhyloCode of that's ever completed. Usage of APG terminology was attractive because it seemed rather stable, if informal. We can certainly revisit this decision, perhaps in a new section. Would you propose we switch to Chase & Reveal? Rkitko ^(talk) 21:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

No, like you I think it's too early to decide what to do; after all Kingdoms are still unclear. I was merely pointing out that there is a valid Linnean rank which has some support and compatibility with APGIII.

I do think, though, that we should try to provide some levels above angiosperms and equivalent level groups. I've been working on articles on early land plants where the only system sufficiently modern to be at all accurate seems to be the system of Kenrick & Crane 1997, so I have been using names taken from them, but without attaching ranks. However Subkingdom Embryophyta, Infrakingdom Polysporangiophyta, Division Tracheophyta, Subdivision Euphyllophytina, Class Equisetopsida Spermatophyta (see below for change) fits with Subclass Magnoliidae. I think it would be useful to find out whether there is a consensus on a set of Linnean rank names or clade names for extant groups which could be used at these higher levels and which would be acceptable to editors currently interested in liverworts, mosses, hornworts, ferns s.l., and vascular plants. Otherwise I think we aren't providing sufficient guidance or navigation in taxoboxes for more general readers. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Revisiting some of the discussions from 2009 on this when APG III was released, I found an interesting comment about the Linnean ranks published by Chase & Reveal; the commenter basically pointed out that only two authors of the APG III system decided to sign their names to the Linnean rank proposal by Chase & Reveal and that this was somewhat telling. Does anyone know if they're working on APG IV? If so, I wonder if they'll be adopting the Chase & Reveal proposal then. Afterall, the point of using unranked clades was because there wasn't great enough support for existing higher classification relationships. If APG IV adopts Chase & Reveal, I think that would be a good time for us to move away from unranked clades and toward that system. Rkitko ^(talk) 14:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Class Equisetopsida for spermatophytes isn't valid; it is based on Equisetum, which isn't a seed plant. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Whoops! Thanks; copied and pasted wrongly; Class Equisetopsida = Subkingdom Embryophyta for Chase and Reveal. There is a published "genus + opsida" based name for spermatophytes, but I can't locate it just now. The problem is that there doesn't seem to be a published set of Linnean names which is consistent with current phylogenies, so any rank-based system is a synthesis. Or does anyone know of one?

I'd guess Magnoliopsida, but that has also been used for some magnoliids, for dicots and for angiosperms. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

My error does inadvertently reveal the scale of the current problem facing editors; a clade which consistently emerges in phylogenetic studies and morphological studies, namely embryophytes, is treated as as Subkingdom in one publication and a Class in another. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

As I understand, embryophytes are also sometimes treated as a Kingdom (Plantae sensu strictissimo). Lavateraguy (talk) 12:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

<--Agree with the idea that our goal is to provide maximal guidance to the general reader. Until there is a new system that has been generally accepted, why aren't we keeping the established and familiar one? By analogy, if we were in the process of renaming all the streets of a town, we should leave the old street signs in place until the new ones are completely in place, and perhaps even thereafter until the new ones are familiar. Currently, our taxoboxes tell people that a long-used concept like "Angiosperm" is "undefined." Perhaps it is obsolete, perhaps it has been redefined, perhaps it is being replaced with a different concept, but it is not "undefined." Sharktopus^talk 12:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The taxoboxes don't say that "angiosperm" is undefined. They say it is an unranked clade. That is not the same as being undefined. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

My mistake. It also is not "unranked." Could someone please point me to the discussion and consensus decision that has caused these major changes to taxoboxes, hopefully also with a link to the external WP:RS that is the new authority guiding our major changes to plant nomenclature? Sharktopus^talk 13:07, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The clades above order in the APG III system are indeed "unranked" as the APG did not assign ranks like division, class, or subclass to the clades like angiosperms, rosids, or eudicots. User:Hesperian might be able to find the discussions leading to consensus faster than me, but I think he's away for a while. Hesperian started converting taxoboxes to the APG II system in September 2008. Conversations back then in our archives centered around discussions about the PhyloCode. Consensus seemed to emerge from those discussions that PhyloCode was not a formal classification system yet, the Cronquist system was increasingly outdated, and APG was the best option. I'm sure we're all willing to revisit that discussion, though, as some time has passed. The publication is the APG III system: Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (2009), "An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG III", Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 161 (2): 105–121, doi:10.1111/j.1095-8339.2009.00996.x, retrieved 2010–12–10 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) Rkitko ^(talk) 14:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to check that the meaning of 'unranked' is clear. In the taxoboxes, it means 'not assigned a formal Linnean rank, like class, order, etc.' A possible problem for non-botanist readers might be that 'unranked' could be read as meaning that the unranked names are not hierarchically organized, which they in fact are. As Rkitko notes there is a reliable source for the unranked clade names. Angiosperm_Phylogeny_Group#Angiosperm_classification_and_the_APG provides just a little of the evidence which could be put forward that there's a consensus among professionals to use APG III for the angiosperms. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Classifications for extant versus extinct plants

(Moved to new section because I think it's important. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC))

An additional problem that the PLANTS group may not be aware of: there is a severe discrepancy between classifications in current use for extant plants versus extinct plants. Most extinct seed plants, for example, have been classified only to order, so there are many extinct seed plant orders with no encompassing higher taxonomy, and thus no explicit relationships to any other plants (e.g. Caytoniales, Glossopteridales). The important anaylsis of Kenrick and Crane also differs from current classification systems. For example, they explicitly treat all vascular plants as a single division, name the green algae (minus charophytes) as Ulvophyta, put all liverworts into a single class, put all mosses into a single class, etc., which all are at odds with the mainstream of current classifications in use. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is a serious issue, which I was going to raise at some point, so I'm glad it came up here. I've created so far about 11 new articles on Silurian/Devonian polysporangiophytes, and revised some existing ones. The only rank-based classification you can use at present for extinct plants is that of Kenrick & Crane 1997, with some later revisions. But, as EncycloPetey rightly notes, this is difficult to reconcile with classifications for extant plants. Furthermore, there are some serious (and to me quite convincing) arguments in published papers that unless extinct plants are fully taken into account, classifications based on extant species alone are misleading and even erroneous. I've been using basically the summary of Kenrick & Crane which is given in the cladogram of Crane et al. 2004 (all references in the Polysporangiophyte article), but always putting their taxa as "unranked".

The clades which are needed are reasonably clear (although some phylogenies are turning out to be much less secure than currently suggested in articles; e.g. according to recent articles papers, the placing of the bryophyte groups is still uncertain; the gymnosperms are still unclear). The problem is ranking the clades, and, I think, in particular the rank to give the embryophytes. I found that if I treat them as a Subkingdom, then by careful use of "unranked-" I can get a hierarchy which would allow spermatophytes to appear as a Class and angiosperms as a Subclass (as per Chase & Reveal) – I say "would allow" because at present all I've done is to use "unranked-" to order taxa without assigning specific ranks. However, the use of Subkingdom for embryophytes seems to have originated in treating all the taxa outside them as another Subkingdom, which is not in line with current research at all. So either lots of 'algal' groups go up to Subkingdoms or embryophytes come down. But if embryophytes come down, by the time you get to angiosperm subgroups, you've run out of levels. I don't know the answer to this, and it certainly isn't in any of the literature I've found. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That particular problem of assigning rank to the embryophytes comes about because of the (unspoken) assumption that clades of equal age must be assigned equal rank. However, no one has explicitly advocated doing this, and it's not ever been followed in practice. Each of the eight deepest clades of moss is assigned to "class" rank under Goffinet & Buck's classification, despite the fact that some are clearly more closely related to each other than to Sphagnum and Takakia. And no one seems to be worrying that some angiosperm orders predate other orders. It's an avenue of thinking that I sincerely hope will not be taken by the community at large, because it breeds classification headaches like a hydra breeds heads. How's that for a mixed metaphor? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Hennig did explicitly suggest that sister groups should be assigned the same rank and this thinking seems to be behind Chase & Reveal (2009)'s statements that "it is clear that land plants [as a whole] should be given equal rank to the major groups of green algae" and "If the angiosperms as a whole are treated as a class, then by the tenets of phylogenetic classification the other major clades of land plants must be treated as at least at the rank of class". The view that 'phylogenetic classification' requires sister groups to have the same rank does seem to be quite widespread, even if not always explicitly stated. Like you I hope that this will not become a consensus, but I fear that it may.

When you include extinct plants, the polysporangiophytes are sister to one of the bryophyte taxa (still not clear which one), so if this philosophy is followed, polysporangiophytes need to be at the same rank as, say, mosses. But to classify extinct plants you need at least the hierarchy polysporangiophyte-tracheophyte-euphyllophyte-spermatophyte before you get to angiosperm, for example. Where this leads can be seen at Mammal#McKenna/Bell_classification (and "magnorder", "grandorder" and "mirorder" aren't all the new terms they've invented). Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 11:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

One way of avoiding squeezing Linnean terms to a cladistic classification is to simply refer to "clade Polysporangiomorpha" (for example). This can be readily accommodated by the automatic taxobox system (setting |rank=clade), but less so by Template:Taxobox. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 02:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so what is the hierarchy which the automatic taxobox system will display for each of the genera in the cladogram at Polysporangiophyte? Will it be compatible with the hierarchies displayed for extant plants? Is there a consensus in the literature as to the correct hierarchy? The Kenrick & Crane cladograms are precursors to the full Phylocode system of Cantino et al.; do we want to switch to that? Is there a consensus among editors? The key issue seems to me to be the one that EncycloPetey first identified: there is a severe discrepancy between the systems which can be used for early land plants, which are cladistic/Phylocode based, and the rank based system we are currently using (quite rightly in my view) for extant plants. A single automatically generated hierarchy for all plants doesn't seem possible to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been asking some questions over at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content about re-drawing figures from scientific works which are still in copyright. I thought the outcome might be of interest here. The consensus over there, as far as I understand it, seems to be:

• the information in a drawing is not copyright
• the drawing itself is.

So the drawing should not be copied, but it's ok if a new drawing has the same information so long as it is differently drawn. For example (and this was the point of my original question) if I find a drawing of a reconstruction of an extinct plant in a copyright source, I can draw my own version with the same relative sizes, branching, general shape, etc. but there should be clear differences, e.g. the branches should be in different places, the drawing could be as if viewed from a different angle, etc.
Anyway, that's the opinion I'm going to act on! Peter coxhead (talk) 13:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Just make sure you read derivative work first. Guettarda (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I had, which is why I initially took the position that something like the drawing at Aglaophyton was not permissible – it actually says it's taken from a figure in Kenrick & Crane 1997 but doesn't say that it's a derivative work. But when I referred to this specific example over at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content, they seemed to think this kind of reproduction is ok. Who am I to decide? Peter coxhead (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This is perfect for me, since I am so bad at drawing that no one could possibly think it was a copy. PPdd (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

One great example of this is what User:LadyofHats did for WP:CPS in drawing Archaeamphora, see File:Archaeamphora longicervia.png. She did a wonderful job and it is significantly different enough from the original (found here) that it doesn't appear to be a derivative work. Rkitko ^(talk) 17:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion this is clearly a derivative work. The author of the original made a series of creative decisions aimed at a representation that conveys what is known or speculated about the species, yet with its own artistic merit. Even within what is known of the species (e.g. alternative leaves), no individual plant is quite like another, and the author created a very particular hypothetical plant (e.g. one with the bottom leaf to the right, and flower bud drooping to the right on the flower stem). This creative act involved creative decisions that have been copied here; that's a copyright violation. Hesperian 11:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, on further reflection, I agree with Hesperian, contrary to what I first wrote below. Being better than the original doesn't prevent it being derivative; indeed quite the contrary if one starts from an existing image and 'improves' it.

For extinct plants, one solution seems to be to use a very 'stylized' representation, very regular branching, etc. with the intent of showing the 'growth habit' rather than a realistic construction. This seems to avoid the artistic input of any figure in the original. But I still find the area very difficult. If you can access the original at [1], I'd welcome comments on the relationship between that and my drawing at Distichophytum. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:20, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hers is clearly better than the original, so couldn't be called derivative; I certainly can't hope to emulate her! An example of what I've tried to do is at Aglaophyton Adoketophyton. The strobilus of this plant is interesting in the debate about the evolution of leaves, because it has sporophylls but not leaves, which may (or may not) say something about the order of evolution. So I wanted a diagram. The original in Zhu et al. 2011 (sadly the article isn't public acccess) is drawn face on to a row of sporophylls, so I've drawn it at 45° from this. It was much harder than copying the original (which I'd already done), and is in my view not derivative of their drawing, as opposed to the information in the article and their drawing. However, this is clearly a very tricky area, so before I do any more, if anyone thinks this is not in line with Commons/WP policies, please, please say so – I want to write articles, not spend time making drawings which get deleted later. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, your drawing is so tight that it looks like a computer drew it. I wonder if a program might be developed to grow virtual pre-existing plants on the computer using definitions from the plant glossary combined with a Jepson's manual (virtual DNA). Micro biology x Field botany var. virtualis. (Yes, and LadyofHats' art is so fine that it makes one want to give up before even trying.) PPdd (talk) 23:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No great credit to me! EazyDraw for MacOS ... Peter coxhead (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this seems like a question better suited to the gardening and horticulture wikiproject, but as their talk page is never used I thought I'd try here. While editing a new article I came across the word 'orchidarium'. A google search suggests this has 2 meanings- some links are to what look like fish tanks converted into miniature hothouses for growing orchids, others are to large tourist attraction gardens dedicated to orchids. This second definition is backed up by a number of references in a wikipedia search for orchidarium.

I was wondering if anyone felt 'Orchidarium' would be worth an article on its own and if so whether both definitions deserve a mention. As I have zero knowledge of this area I'd happily do some legwork on it but I'd need plenty of help writing it.

In short: anyone fancy writing an article on orchidariums (or orchidaria if you prefer)? Stu.W UK (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like it should be a disambiguation page linking to terrarium and botanic garden. Hesperian 05:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree, although not all orchidaria will be botanical gardens within the meaning adopted in that article, which requires some scientific purpose; some will just be gardens. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Will this do? Stu.W UK (talk) 12:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems exactly right to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

At least some orchid growers call it a Wardian case although I wouldn't really know whether that has as quaint/historical a sound in orchid growing circles as the wikipedia article makes it sound. But that's not really a big deal, since Vivarium links to Wardian case. Kingdon (talk) 03:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just tweaked the first sentence of the General Sherman page, changing "General Sherman is the name of a Giant Sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum)" to "General Sherman is a Giant Sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum)". I now notice that this "is the name" phrase prefaces many named trees, eg President (tree), Hyperion (tree) etc. To my mind it is a redundant phrase, adding nothing and stating the blindingly obvious. But rather than change all of these, I'd be interested in what others think? Ericoides (talk) 09:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This came up earlier at #Wording of plant articles above. Melburnian (talk) 09:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, although the discussion seems inconclusive. In addition, I think that this is a slightly different question. Ericoides (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this is a different discussion entirely. I agree that there's no substantial difference between "X is a Giant Sequoia" and "X is the name of a Giant Sequoia". Personally, since I find giving names to specific trees a bit odd, I would prefer "X is a name given to a Giant Sequoia" which seems to me the most accurate statement; the tree has no idea that it has a name, let alone what its name is. But this would, perhaps, be over-pedantic (still, an encyclopedia is a place for pedantry if anywhere is). Peter coxhead (talk) 12:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

By the same token any object that doesn't speak a language is unaware that it has a name; do we want, "Coot is the name given to coots"? Ericoides (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I should have written "I find giving personal names to specific trees a bit odd". Clearly it's dangerous to invoke pedantry unless one is absolutely pedantic. :-) No more from me. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Should this be redirected to stenospermocarpy? The article is only about grapes at the moment, but I'm just reading a paper that states "Abortion of fertilized ovules prior to seed maturation has been documented in large numbers of angiosperms, including many tree species" citing a paper titled "Flower, fruit and seed abortion in tropical forest trees: implications for the evolution of paternal and maternal reproductive patterns" (JSTOR 2443371) which is heavily cited elsewhere, so it looks like we should have an article on this somewhere. SmartSE (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a scope issue here. As I understand the (to me rather confusing) stenospermocarpy article, this refers to varieties of plant, particularly grapes, which have been selected or bred to be seedless, i.e. for the fruit to develop but not the seeds. The paper describes cases in which one or more of the flowers, fruits and seeds abort. In the case of fruits these may contain seeds at some stage of maturation, which is different from 'stenospermocarpy' as described by the article. "Seed abortion" could certainly redirect to "Stenospermocarpy", but the paper describes "Flower, fruit and seed abortion" (is there a snappy term for this??).

By the way, neither of the 'references' given in the Stenospermocarpy article support the definition of the term; such a reference is needed. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is a rather confusing article! Having had a search in google scholar, it looks as if you are correct that it only applies to cultivated plants. I'm looking for something to describe the process where fertilisation occurs, but it doesn't lead to the production of a fertile seed, because either the flower, fruit or seed is somehow aborted. I don't know any botanical terms nor can I access the jstor paper, so I'm a bit stuck. SmartSE (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I've modified the lead paragraph of the article so it's clearer (to me anyway!), and also added a reference; it would be better to give the page in the book (Glossary for Horticultural Crops), rather than have to say "cited in", if anyone has access to it. Can't help with the JSTOR paper as it's before the year my institution provides electronic access to this journal. It does look as though there is an interesting topic here. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Having read the stenospermocarpy article, I cannot say I can find anything in it which confines the process only to cultivated plants. It could be that it only applies to cultivated plants, but nothing in the article declares that to be the case. Admittedly the article only refers to cultivated plants (ie grapes), but that's presumably because the process which produces seedless fruits is of much greater interest to humans when it occurs in fruits which we wish to eat or otherhow make use of. I breed roses in my spare time, and know that sometimes hips swell and ripen but then don't contain any seed - this might be because fertilisation never occurred (a lot of roses are incompatible with each other), or perhaps because stenospermocarpy has taken place. (Although I have to add that it is much more typical, if the seeds are aborted, for the fruit to also be aborted.) My breeding work has taught me that fruits can fail to develop for several reasons: 1) The parents are incompatible 2) Erratic watering 3) Plant stress (under-/over-watering, lack of food, pests and disease etc.) 4) Disease on the hips (ie botrytis). When considering wild plants, I hence hypothesise that the abortion of fertilised seeds also occurs most often in response to environmental stress, but that when this occurs the whole fruit structure is aborted and not just the incipient seeds within, and therefore the particular process of stenospermocarpy (when the seeds are aborted but the fruit still develops) is possibly an evolutionary dead-end which humans have made particular use of and therefore encouraged and promoted in particular cultivated fruits. Coming back to the topic of seed abortion as an article, you might want to explore the avenue of plant breeders as a source of information - they might have something to say on seed abortion, seeing as they have a professional interest in the matter. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

(PS I've also tweaked the first paragraph of the stenospermocarpy article - hopefully to make it a bit clearer!) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I altered the punctuation slightly; the paragraph is certainly much better in my view than when this thread started.

Following your logic, which seems very plausible to me, it's unlikely that stenospermocarpic plants will occur with any frequency in the wild, since they won't set seed. This is different from 'fruit drop' type events which may be beneficial in enabling the plant to produce fruit of sufficient size to attract a disperser. So I suspect it's largely confined to cultivated plants. Anyway, I'll leave this article to others now. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It isn't clear whether stenospermocarpy is restricted to the abortion of all seeds in a fruit, or covers all seed abortion.

Seed abortion is quite widespread. It is not uncommon for hybridisers to find that most seeds for a particular combination of seed and pollen parents abort. In the wild, in many mallows for example, it can be a regular occurrence for the number of seeds in a fruit to be less that the number of ovules in an ovary, as a result of the regular abortion of some ovules. (This could be either because those ovules do not get fertilised, or because seeds do not develop from those ovule - I don't recall seeing a study addressing this point.) Lavateraguy (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I went to the article Botanical nomenclature to answer a point I was unsure about, but decided that the article as it was then was (a) not very clear (b) poorly referenced. One thing led to another, and I've done quite a bit of editing of Botanical nomenclature, Correct name (botany) and Author citation (botany). In all cases my main aim was greater clarity and specific referencing to sections of the ICBN. (Btw, I don't wish to criticize previous editors, since I found it difficult to write in a way which will be comprehensible to the non-expert but yet does not distort the meaning of the ICBN. What's there now is far from perfect.)

• This isn't an area in which I have any real expertise, so please could any editor who does check over these articles?
• Is it really a good idea to have these four separate articles: Botanical nomenclature, International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, Correct name (botany) and Author citation (botany)? I can see the case for a general, not 'over-legalistic' article, say "Botanical nomenclature", but Correct name (botany) and Author citation (botany) seem to me to just expand on the proper use of the ICBN, and would therefore be better combined into International Code of Botanical Nomenclature.

However, I see that this has been discussed at some of the articles already. Any views here? Peter coxhead (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed there's also Valid name (botany), ... Actually when I looked at Valid name (botany), I decided that it couldn't be referenced, as asked for by the template, because it was wrong. I've temporarily made it a redirect to Correct name (botany). One of User:Brya's articles, I think. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Valid and correct names aren't the same thing in botany. Capparis gibbosa is a valid name for Adansonia gregorii (or at least it was before conservation of the latter), but it's not a correct name for the latter. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The ICBN is clear that "valid name" is not a term required in botany (see Talk:Valid name (botany)), so there shouldn't be an article of this name. As far as I understand the Code, there are 'validly published names', one and only one of which is the correct name for a given taxon with a given circumscription, position and rank. What I propose, for now, is to put a section in Correct name (botany) on "Validly published name" as soon as I can (or someone else can), and then either "Valid name (botany)" can be directed to that section or it can be deleted. What do you think about merging International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, Correct name (botany) and Author citation (botany)? Peter coxhead (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I would argue that valid name is a colloquial version of validly published name. In any case it's still not the same as a correct name.

I would also note that nom. inval. turns up all over the place.

Sans investigation, I would lean to merging most of the stuff into botanical nomenclature and keeping the ICBN separate; that is describe the nomenclature in one place, and describe the code governing it elsewhere. I also wonder about the appropriateness of botanical nomenclature, which on the face of it includes all the terminology from plant anatomy, plant ecology, etc; what we're discussing is the nomenclatural aspects of taxonomy in botany. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we agree, actually. (a) 'Valid name' is an informal term for 'validly published name' (but is there a reference for this if it's said in an article?). (b) 'Validly published name' is not the same as 'correct name'. However, a 'correct name' has first to be a 'validly published name'. So, as long as there are the number of articles there are, 'validly published name' aka 'valid name' can be discussed in the 'correct name' article.

As the Code is called 'of Botanical Nomenclature', I think this is the right term to use; 'nomenclature' is not quite the same as 'terminology'.

At first I thought of merging the articles as you describe, and it does make sense content-wise. It works, I think, if the ICBN article is about the right length now, i.e. does not attempt to explain what's in the Code, just what it is, what its history is, who creates it, etc. If you start to say more about the content of the ICBN, then you start to explain how names are formed. The only disadvantage of doing it this way is that there isn't a 'non-legalistic' article on botanical names for beginners (unless this can be a section of the main botanical nomenclature article). Peter coxhead (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not the "nomenclature" that I'm challenging, but the "botanical". Were talking about the nomenclature of plant species, rather than that of plant organs, but both are the subject of botany. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

True, but both 'botanical nomenclature' and 'zoological nomenclature' do have these somewhat specialized meanings in relation to the two Codes, so I think this is the right title for the article; it should however make clear that it doesn't cover other aspects of botanical nomenclature/teminology. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of the proposed merger. There should be a separate article on the ICBN, certainly, as it (should have) historical information that does not pertain to current questions of nomenclature, and will not much cover issues that predate the Code. There should be a second article on Botanical nomenclature that deals with the naming of plants; this includes issues such as the rise of Linnean nomenclature, the establishment of the ICBN, and general principles by which plants naming has differed from animal naming, perhaps. But I feel there should be a third article on the naming of plant species. The "botanical nomenclature" article would include all ranks and endings, and quite often what a person will be interested in is the naming of species. This information is currently spread over "correct name", "valid name", and probably other articles, which I do think should be merged as sections of a single article about the naming of plant species. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't want to do anything without consensus; these articles have been around for a while. It seems that we might agree on merging Correct name (botany) and Author citation (botany) into one article about naming genera and species. Nomenclature is definitely not a main interest of mine; I just stumbled on these articles, as I said above. I'm quite happy to leave it to others, and I'll get back to improving the coverage of Silurian/Devonian polysporangiophytes (which is how it started; I haven't always been citing authors quite correctly and need to make some changes). On the other hand, having got to grips with the ICBN, I do think that I can merge these two, if this is a good idea. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the rationale for merging those two articles. An author citation can apply at any rank, and is not part of the name itself; rather, it is a reference to the source of the name. I think we need more discussion as to how the subject should be split among articles. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

So if the four articles are kept, is this how they should be organized?

• Botanical nomenclature – to discuss the subject generally, including all ranks, kinds of name, etc. but not details of the Code; therefore article needs some expansion
• International Code of Botanical Nomenclature – to briefly outline the ICBN as per existing article
• Correct name (botany) – under a new title to discuss the naming of genera and species (what should the title be?)
• Author citation (botany) – more or less ok, but should include citing other ranks.

Peter coxhead (talk) 08:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I reckon that Correct name (botany) should be merged into Botanical nomenclature, while the ICBN deserves it's own article. Author citation (botany) is less clear: there's a lot of information there, which I don't think is all necessary in an article on botanical nomenclature, but I'm not altogether sure whether it is all encyclopaedic. Perhaps some of it should be moved to Wikibooks, Wikiversity, or some other destination. If that happens, it would make sense to merge remaining content into Botanical nomenclature. If we want to keep all the information about author citation on Wikipedia, I'd leave it in its own article. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 11:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I missed the article Botanical name. So there are five articles which at least partially overlap: Botanical name, Botanical nomenclature, International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, Correct name (botany) and Author citation (botany). From the discussion so far, there seems to be no consensus on which to do any merging. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

My gut feeling is to merge that and Correct name (botany) into Botanical nomeclature. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd favour quite a lot of merging here, and some shortening of articles where possible. A small issue to start with perhaps, shouldn't Botanical nomenclature cover fungi and the rest, which it doesn't now? If yes, then that would clarify some similarities. Nadiatalent (talk) 14:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

There are a couple of significant page moves relating to plants that are being proposed:

• Sequoia (genus)-->Sequoia being discussed at Talk:Sequoia (genus).
• Maize-->Corn being discussed at Talk:Maize#Requested_move.

First Light (talk) 14:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Taxonomic inflation, a new article, could use an expert to improve or merge it. It's not plant-centric, but it is relevant to WikiProject Plants. First Light (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That article will have to be handled with a lot of care, since its subject is de facto POV. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I completely re-wrote it, discarding most of it, as I think the previous version was dubious, and probably based on a misunderstanding. Hesperian 01:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

"putatively arbitrary changes" is a lovely phrase I'd like to use elsewhere, if I was quite sure what it meant... :-) Peter coxhead (talk) 12:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes I had a bit of trouble with that one - I wonder if 'putatively' is actually one of those words (like 'probably' or 'arguably') which Wikipedia would advise not to use....? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone here fluent enough in German to translate the article de:Joachim Christian Timm into English? He was an 18th-century German botanist for whom the moss genus Timmia was named. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

As my Spanish is better than my German I had a look at es:Joachim Christian Timm. Unfortunately this seems to have been incorrectly translated from the German version (e.g. it implies that he was the mayor of Rostock instead of Malchin). Pity, because I found that the Google Spanish to English translator was a great start when I used a lot of es:Asparagales in Asparagales, whereas the German to English translator isn't as good a starting point in my experience. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

In a discussion at Talk:Sequoia (genus), there is a disagreement over what should happen when a common name and a scientific name conflict—i.e. a name commonly used to refer to one species is a scientific name for another species. Nasturtium is another example. Is there any guideline or consensus which already covers this? Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) doesn't seem to consider this case. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 13:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles are SOLELY at their scientific name. AFAIK, hatnotes or (much less commonly) disambiguation page are used in case of significant possible confusion. Circéus (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

..."except when a plant has an agricultural, horticultural, economic or cultural use that makes it more prominent in some other field than in botany". See WP:FLORA. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

My bad, I wasn't clear, since Takowl's question concern issues where the common name in questions conflict with a sparate distinct scientific name. When that happen, it seems to me that it reverts to the default of scientific names only, with disambiguation marks of some sort. Circéus (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

So, for Nasturtium, you would favour the genus Nasturtium being the primary article, with a hatnote referring to the flowers commonly called nasturtiums (Tropaeolum)? (As it stands, it's a disambig page). I would disagree, since I think the name is used far more commonly to refer to the flowers, and I don't feel that scientific names should trump that. Thomas Kluyver (talk) 12:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, this is how it's been dealt with at Geranium, which has a hatnote to direct users to Pelargonium. I prefer this method because it's more precise. In these cases, I believe precision (one of the WP:AT criteria) is much more important than how recognizable the name is. Rkitko ^(talk) 13:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't nasturtium denote Tropaeolum majus only, and not the generality of Tropaeolums? Lavateraguy (talk)

It wouldn't hurt to top off (or bottom off, as the case may be) a hat note with a brief sentence in the lead that says, "'Blah blah' is also used as the common name for a different species, Bleh bleh. PPdd (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The current treatment of Nasturtium seems perfectly cromulent to me: both pages are at their scientific name, and the disambiguation by way of a parenthetic and disambig page. Circéus (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what "cromulent" means (it wasn't even in the dictionary!), but I agree that the method employed at Nasturtium is probably most clear to the Wikipedia user. However, one advantage of the method employed at Geranium is that it helps to educate the layperson that the word they understand as being the name for a plant is in fact technically inaccurate or confusing (because it brings them to a page they weren't expecting). Also, as far as I'm aware, I'm inclined to agree that 'nasturtium' is only used in reference to T. majus - or at least there are certainly Tropaeolum species which don't carry that common moniker (eg T. speciosum is "Scottish Flame Flower" and T. peregrinum is "Canary Creeper") PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The word cromulent is in Wiktionary. Didn't you think to look there ?! --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

(red face) I confess I haven't used Wiktionary before - old habits etc. - but I see now my old-fashioned dictionary has some limitations.... :) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I've encountered other instances where the common name is far more well known than the genus name, but in WP:Animals. Platypus and Platypus (genus) (Curculionidae); and Belemnites (plural of Belemnite) and Belemnites (genus). The solution (at least for Platypus, nobody seems to have noticed the Belemnites confusion as of yet) was to label the less well known genus with (genus), with hatnotes at both pages. The articles of the common names are the primary ones. Different rules ofc, but just throwing it out there. :P --Obsidi♠n^Soul 22:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The Platypus issue seems the proper solution for that situation, though I'd argue that Platypus (beetle) would be a better page name than Platypus (genus). Using "(genus)" can often be problematic, since (a) it provides less context and (b) it is possible for there to be more than one genus by the same name, by virtue of invalid publications and the parallelism between the ICBN and ICZN. There is a lengthy catalog of plant and animal genera sharing the same name at Wikispecies. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if someone could have a look at Geranium? I've just been editing it, to try and make it a bit more precise/concise. The section starting with the line "Species in the 'Geranium' genus have a type of mechanism produced by the pollinated flower" seems to me a bit vague and unscientific, but I didn't want to change it myself (not being a botanist) in case I added something technically incorrect. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I fixed that particular bit of the article, but the whole thing could do with some more copy-editing, which I don't have time for at present. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

That bit does read better now, and makes more sense - thanks.PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

For any folks with an interest in or knowledge of roses, I've posed an identification question at Talk:Rosa canina..... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 00:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

A lot of plant articles have a lot of white space at the top of the article. This arises from having an image associated with the first paragraph. The layout algorithm places the image below the taxobox, and the first paragraph to the left of the image. This can leave a lot of white space - to the degree that there can be no text on the first screeen - especially if the taxobox contains an image, or an appreciably sized list of taxa.

I've ameliorated the problem in some cases by associating the image with a subsequent paragraph, but perhaps a more general solution is needed. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I've found a similar white space problem with some geographic articles when an infobox is added. I've sometimes taken the image out of the infobox (or not placed it there in the first place), moved it to the left and changed its size - like I've done at Okeford Fitzpaine or Piddlehinton. I think it looks better, although in a more rigorously scientific botanical article, it could be argued that all articles should be formatted the same way, and moving the image around in and out of the taxobox would contradict that. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:09, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem with sifting the image to the left is that it leaves a narrow column of text between the image and the taxobox. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you link to an example? I've seen proper renderings of this before, where a right-aligned image is forced below the taxobox, but the text still displays above it immediately to the left of the taxobox. Could this be a browser issue? Or did someone make a css change upstream somewhere that affected the layout? Rkitko ^(talk) 14:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Here, I just added an image to Utricularia babui. Is this what you're talking about? If so, it renders fine in my view, though I think we should typically dispense with such images until articles are large enough to support more images. A link to a Commons gallery is good enough until the article is expanded. Rkitko ^(talk) 14:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It turns out to be a browser issue. Firefox, Netscape, Opera and Safari are all OK; IE isn't. Quite possibly older versions of IE are OK; I only recall seeing the problem recently, but that could instead be due to the accretion of taxobox contents and images. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

That's odd. I have IE Version 8.0.7600.16385 and it looks fine. I primarily use Chrome, which also lacks this issue. Rkitko ^(talk) 16:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Adding the optional update KB2447568 (which is supposed to be something to do with Compatibility Lists) cures it. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Please tell me if there is a better place to ask - I have done a small edit at rhaphanidosis and got pretty much lost with the taxonomy of radishes. Is there something better than horseradish to link from rhaphanidosis? I understand that the exact plant is not known and it seem that the taxonomy changed considerably since the antique and is not entirely agreed upon? Richiez (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on Brassicaceae by any means (so someone more qualified please correct me if I'm making incorrect claims), but from reading all the relevant articles, I'd say that the 'horseradish' you want to refer to is Armoracia rusticana, which has a long tapered root. Although in history this may have been referered to as Raphanus, it is now named as Armoracia, and I wouldn't be inclined to make any link or reference to Raphanus in the article, as this refers not to horseradish but to cultivated radishes with swollen round roots which I imagine are, er, not long enough for the purpose described. (As an aside, in the article could you not mention the reference to the act of "raphanidosis" in the comedy series Blackadder?) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Not all radishes have rounded roots - see daikon. (But I believe that daikon roots are also relatively small.) Lavateraguy (talk) 08:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations, so horseradish is a good candidate - I also like that the article has a section about antique history (though it does not mention rhaphanidosis yet). The German wikipedia also mentions some Korynthian variant of radish although it does not give more detail and the information seems pure speculation. Too bad I have missed this episode of Blackadder, do you recall the title or some keywords to search? It could be probably added though it would be good if the article would gain some non-trivia substance first. Richiez (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I think with a topic such as this it's likely to all be a bit speculative. The "Blackadder" episode was in Blackadder the Third, I think involving the Prince Regent having no money - he tells Blackadder that he'll be "de-bagged and radished for non-payment of debt", which leads into a series of one-liners between them... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Following the comment by Lavateraguy above, yes it could have been a cultivated form of Raphanus - see article on daikon. (Although as with other Raphanus, that has a more Asian and less European provenance than Armoracia - don't know whether that helps). I'm revealing my ignorance of cultivated forms of radish here (as well as my ignorance of certain historical practices.....) PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)