Archive 65

←

Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

I really don't like confusing ecology with chorology (distributions). The template plant species article has 'Distribution and habitat' (actually, this is the first time I've ever looked at this article). I consider habitat pretty much the penultimate paragon of ecology. Sure that's what other projects do, but non-plant people are funny in that way. Plus how old is it? I think someone put that up there without much discussion 15 years ago, but why ascribe to such dictates?... Yes, one @Circeus: changed it from "Distribution" to "Distribution and habitat" in 2009... Can we discuss me changing the template?

While I'm at it, how about I add the stuff about not making articles for subspecies we discussed almost half a year ago.

Also Abductive's list of genera could go somewhere in this project. Cheers, Leo Breman (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Distribution and habitat definitely overlap in many cases. For example, Roscoea is an unusual member of the Zingiberaceae because it is confined to upland areas of the eastern Himalaya. Its habitat preference determines its distribution within the broad area of its occurrence, i.e. determines what units in the WGSRPD system it is found in. Again, consider Schlumbergera. It occurs in Atlantic Forest, above about 700 m. Its habitat determines its distribution: how would you break up Schlumbergera § Distribution, habitat and ecology? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

That particular Schlumbergera article is well-written, and I'm not suggesting rewriting things that are already well-written; I want to change the suggested layout so as to nip things at the bud, but the distribution in this case is São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Minas Gerais and Espírito Santo. You could zoom in further: far eastern Minas Gerais, west of the city of Yadayada, etc. WGSRPD is a good system for distribution -it's pure geographic based on political entities, unlike the WWF's useless ecoregions, which tries to mix habitat with geography. Geography does not determine habitat, nor visa versa. Take Roscoea -it's habitat(s) might be cool temperate mountain woodlands - these woodlands also occur in Vietnam or Pakistan, or Italy, where it does not occur. Distributions shift, sometimes quite rapidly, habitats do not. A species can exist in multiple habitats, sometimes this changes according to distribution. Extremely limited distributions can be mysterious -why, when the habitat extends further?

Sure you can meld things in a very short sentence: "Foo europeanus grows in Turkish forests". But Thrace or Anatolia? Which vilayets? Can I find one in Izmir? How is the spatial distribution, clustered or diffuse? Is it changing?

Which forests? Oak or pine? What pines? Old growth or secondary? Does it occur in clearings or at the edges or in the undergrowth? Which altitudes? Near water? What other species are associated with it? Leo Breman (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

(←) Ignoring everything that the discussion sidetracked into, the base question is "these are two separate topics, I don't want them together". Virtually every single other issue you cite has nothing to do with the template and all to do with "people are not writing enough detail in the article to satisfy me". This is in no way a problem with the template.

Now as for combining the sections, there are practical reasons for this, namely that general writing guidelines hold that we should avoid as much as possible single-paragraph sections. This is already difficult with the template as-is. Formally splitting these sections in the base template would result in even more single-paragraph, or even single-sentence sections than we already have. You also yourself point out that distribution is constrained by habitat, which is another very strong reason to treat the two topics as one.

As an aside, I know at one point the template included language discussing the splitting off of subsection or special topics into separate sections. Obviously, if these two topics are unusually detailed (we're talking multiple paragraphs each here), then we should consider splitting the section in two, but I have literally never seen a plant article where this couldn't be handled in a single section with 2-3 paragraphs. Usually the issue is ecological material being mixed in anyway. Circéus (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Tss, I'm not complaining about "people not writing enough detail". My problem with the template is that there are "two separate topics" which I don't like seeing together, yes: detail can be added later. General writing guidelines about avoiding micro-sections are fine, and in all these stubs it's fine to bundle up a few sentences, but the template is supposed to represent a complete article, no? Not a suggestion for writing stubs... It might be useful to have a stub template in that case! Leo Breman (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Hm. I agree that there would seem to be a natural line of cleavage between the purely geographic distribution and the factors that support survival in the habitat. And yet, perhaps as a result of spending too long with edaphic taxa, I feel like those things could actually be quite difficult to split. The distribution of Adiantum viridimontanum would seem fairly arbitrary if you didn't know it was being faithful to serpentine. Maybe the existing line of cleavage is similar to the one between ecosystems and communities; "habitat" covers the nonliving aspects of the niche, while "ecology" covers interactions with other organisms? That seems like it might be defensible. Choess (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the problem with a 1-size-fits-all template. Writing about edaphically restricted taxa one would generally end up combining these sections. But geography can usually be expanded to a level people do not always do... For a European, it occurs in the "eastern US" may be enough, but if you live in North Carolina you might want to know if it occurs in your state, your county would be even better info in rare plants. With Adiantum viridimontanum (quickly read your article) I'd put the split after the first paragraph -it occurs in such few areas there is little to say regarding distribution... but you could still talk about spatial distribution, palaeogeography, possible changes in distribution, etc. Chorologically such a species is extremely interesting -where was it during the last Ice Age? The asbestos mines stuff is interesting, have they increased the distribution?

By definition ecology is the adaptations/interactions of a species to both abiotic and biotic factors... things can get extremely complex- an abiotic factor might be sand cliffs cut by river meanders (a habitat), needed as nesting areas by certain bees, needed as pollinators by the plant growing in another nearby habitat. That's all ecology. Sand cliffs aren't a geographical entity. An epiphyte growing only on a certain species of tree -the tree is the habitat, despite being biotic. It seems silly to have a section on ecology and then leave out the most salient aspect of ecology. Redefining ecology to mean something different on Wikipedia than in the real world, by leaving out abiotic factors... I'm against that.

There are obviously connections/overlaps between the two subjects, but that can be said for anything really -genetics and evolution could be combined with distribution like I just did here Digitalis minor. The point of having a template is to provide a writer with some ideas on how to build out the article, why should distribution and habitat always be combined? Because Circéus boldly c&ped that from other templates 11 years ago? He/she improved it, the template was almost empty beforehand, but now I'd like to discuss changing a part. It's not like anything was discussed back then. We can change things around here, no? If people are against it I'll dejectedly droop off... Leo Breman (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Just make the change(s) to the template that you want and I for one will promise to keep an open mind and not revert without due consideration. Abductive (reasoning) 17:43, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily opposed, but I'm trying to get a bigger picture of the trade-offs we're making here. I think as a template for generic articles, the current setup is probably preferable. The FNA style guide puts phenology, habitat, and distribution together, and FOC seems similar. Of course, it will be objected that we're an encyclopedia, not a flora, but I think the set of taxa for which a lengthy ecology section can be written, even with a good canvass of the literature, is probably a small subset of the total number of relevant taxa. We could certainly have language in the template indicating that when an ecology section can be written, it's best to combine it with the material on the habitat, but unfortunately I think those articles will be few and far between.

re. A. viridimontanum, per my latest update, it shows up in northern hardwood forests modified by ultramafic runoff, and I know Morgan found a big population in an old talc quarry as well. The coastal Maine population is in a pretty generic mixed conifer-deciduous forest of the sort you'd expect in that area; there's no clear ecotone on the edges of the serpentinite. The landscape modification by quarrying etc. (in ultramafic rock) probably creates good cleared areas for gametophyte establishment or something like that. Choess (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Cool, I've done as Abductive suggests and made the change -it turned out to be small. My thinking has evolved a bit: make clear combination is optional if one lacks enough text or is only writing a stub. I like writing long articles myself, the more ecology the better, but it's true that there is usually little info on the subject with more obscure plants. I also moved 'uses' up to in front of 'cultivation' from all the way at the back of the template. It seems to me these things are very related -A "use" such as food or textile or ornament, will generally require cultivation. Was a bit taken aback with Circéus' reply. It just seems odd to me to have an 'ecology' section, and not to have habitat in that. If you all really don't like it, there is always a revert and edit button! Leo Breman (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think there's (yet) a consensus for the changes made, so I've reverted them.

There should be a relationship between the template and the highly rated articles overseen by this project. There are a large number of FA Banksia articles, for example – see Category:FA-Class plant articles. All of those I looked at seem to have a "Distribution and habitat" section. So by changing the template in this way we would be saying that the FA articles aren't a guide to be followed. I believe we should be doing the reverse: constructing the template to model what the community considers to be our best articles.

There may be cases where finer or different sectioning may be better, but the existing template seems to reflect widely accepted actual practice. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The prevalence in the FAs could reflect inertia, but I agree that the change is still a bit premature, at least on that specific point. Here's another thought: why not simply merge the "Distribution and habitat" and "Ecology" sections? Describing the distribution will never be that long: fundamentally, that data is best represented with continuous variables (i.e., a map) rather than by enumerating discrete geo-political units, hence all the wrestling with geographic categories. The distribution can be described in general, but presenting county-level distribution for most US plants would require an unacceptable quantity of "proselist". I have trouble seeing it exceeding two paragraphs, and that in an exceedingly well-researched article. (Counterexamples appreciated!) Similarly, even for really fussy, niche species, it's hard to see a description of "habitat" taking up more than a paragraph or so. Even for one of the taxa with a well-developed ecology section, I don't think that would be overstuffed. Choess (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• For better or worse, "Distribution and habitat" is our widely used style. It was chosen so long ago, that to change it would require reworking a ludicrous amount of articles. (Though I am also of the opinion that presenting dist and habitat in the same section is a logical presentation). CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think having "Distribution and habitat" in the template is fine. It's just a template after all. You're not required to abide by it in cases where it doesn't make sense. In a lot of cases, however, I think it would be perfectly fine to include both topics in one section. Kaldari (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Taxon template; this project is following the parent project. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh, oh well. Well, I guess I'll have to accept the consensus. Drooping off time! In reply to Peter, though: that's not a good argument: obviously all articles which have been accepted as FA according to certain template will abide by that template. It's a widely accepted template because it is the only template. Changing the template doesn't say FA articles aren't a guide to follow, they're still FA articles one could follow. The template is also just an example of something to follow. If we accepted the argument that something should not be changed because that's the way we've always done it, then women still wouldn't have rights, slavery would still exist, and I wouldn't be using a computer to write this message. Choess: here's an example of a long distribution section: Peganum harmala. Leo Breman (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Leo Breman: I think the point I was trying to make is put better by CaptainEek: given that good articles should match our declared template to a considerable degree, changing the template would ultimately mean changing a lot of articles, which would not be a fruitful use of editor time. Also I don't think your analogies are a good ones. This is really a matter of style, not substance. We're not saying something like "don't include distribution", just suggesting how the article should normally be divided into sections. At some point styles just have to be accepted, whatever we as individuals think (the English Wikipedia's aggressive de-capitalization is a style I dislike but have to accept). Peter coxhead (talk) 07:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Fine, fine, fine, as you say: style, not substance. I just prefer ecology info in the ecology section, that's all. Habitat segues into phytosociology which segues into wider community ecology. I do disagree that a 'good' article would need to be changed. As the FA article/template's just a suggestion. Those Banksia articles are just dang good in content, irrespective of style. My template suggestion wasn't accepted, I'll not belabour this. I'll do it my way, maybe wait another 11 years and see if I've polluted this site enough to have a leg to stand on ... muhaha. Leo Breman (talk) 12:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Not super familiar with notability standards etc. regarding plants. If anyone would be willing to take a look at Draft:St. Vincent grape and offer some insight, it would be appreciated. Warm regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 02:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• Taxa below the species level, such as subspecies, varieties, cultivars and forms, are expected to demonstrate notability by the standards of the WP:GNG. The grape varietal St. Vincent passes WP:V and (in my opinion) the WP:GNG. The article seems fine to me, but I am interested in hearing other opinions. Abductive (reasoning) 05:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The cultivar 'St. Vincent' deserves an article -especially considering the commercial popularity. The referencing should be done better -facts from one site are cited behind another reference. The use of the word 'hybrid' is confusing -I first thought it was a cross with a wild American species. We don't know it's a hybrid, it might be a self-cross for all we know. Leo Breman (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine is only semi-active, but might be worth looking at; I know there are a number of grape cultivar articles in-scope for that project that might be useful examples. Choess (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Quite a few of the latest stubs/article created by editors new to the project are missing taxonbars and are otherwise wanting. Does anyone with better people skills than I want to let these new editors know/welcome them? Abductive (reasoning) 05:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Some of these may be student editors, who usually don't stick around after completing an assignment, so bear that in mind when doing outreach. Editors may also be interested in Category:Drafts about natural sciences; I've been doing some tagging to help populate it, and there are a number of plant articles that could be worked over and moved to mainspace. Choess (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, many people get bored with writing plant articles after a while. I've tried outreach a few times, but it only pays to bother if a person regularly contributes. I've been working on Digitalis articles with Hardyplants -it's true this person could add taxonbars, no naked url references, and the like. I've also been seeing articles by Average Portuguese Joe come by -I think what he does is fine & very useful (he got a lot of perhaps undeserved flack on his talk page for unrelated stuff). Idem for NinjaWeeb, seemed like a useful editor/smart guy. But people disappear after a few articles -real life and all. Is this what you mean, Abductive? Inviting people here? Leo Breman (talk) 13:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Leo Breman. I apologise for not editing on Wikipedia for a while. I've been caught up with a lot of real-life stuff which has not left me with a lot of time. I will be able to continue making pages, but not as much as before. Today, I made an article on Digitalis atlantica. NinjaWeeb (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

NinjaWeeb! No apologies necessary! I very much understand that editors sometimes have actual real lives, haha! Thank you most kindly for your contribution(s), they are much appreciated, and don't worry about being super active -there is no obligation. Thanks as well for Digitalis atlantica... Um, I guess the only reason I added these pings is that y'all are the only plant editors I've had contact with outside of this Project Page the last few months. So consider this an invitation to ask questions or whatever to more experienced editors, should you ever need to ask something. Cheers, Leo Breman (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I recently created an article for the Poveshon apple. I see that there is an old colored image of the apple in a book that appears to have been published in the 19th century. I was wondering how to source it. A link to the image here:https://www.nal.usda.gov/exhibits/speccoll/exhibits/show/rare-books/item/573 Thank you, Thriley (talk) 08:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

As this image was published before 1925 in the US, it appears to be in the public domain. It may also be because it has been published by an agency of the US government. However, copyright is a complex matter! See Commons:Licensing#Material in the public domain. If it is free of copyright, you can upload the image to Wikimedia Commons, and then include the image in the article from there. If you're not sure how to upload an image, or what the copyright position is, try Commons:Help desk. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:53, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

What database are we supposed to use for ferns now? Abductive (reasoning) 10:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

POWO uses a classification scheme (Christenhusz & Chase, and GLOVAP) that's, uh, a bit out-of-sync with most of the workers in the field. Hassler's "World Ferns" (now at [1]) is usually what I'd go by for individual species names; pteridoportal.org uses his schema, and it's the closest thing we have to an "updated" PPG I to incorporate generic changes since 2016. Choess (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I think the consensus was to use Michael Hassler's Checklist of Ferns and Lycophytes of the World (because it follows PPG I) and that is now at World Ferns. I'm pretty sure that is the main source that Peter coxhead used for updating the fern articles. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

We agreed to use PPG I for fern classification for articles and taxoboxes. World Ferns uses PPG I as a basis, with updates since then. PoWO takes a very different approach. Govaerts explicitly rejected PPG when I asked him about it by e-mail. PPG's circumscription of Blechnum, for example, gives it about 30 species. PoWO currently lists over 230, with the genus more or less encompassing PPG's entire subfamily Bechnoideae. The alternatives are (as they should be) presented in the text of the relevant articles. The biggest difference is probably in Polypodiales; see the comparison table in that article.

It's a mess, with both sides publishing articles criticizing the other – a good old-fashioned taxonomists' spat. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I asked because I was about to update the list of synonyms in Dicranopteris linearis, then undid my edit and came here to ask. Would the confusion extend down to the species synonyms level, or is it confined to position of higher taxa in the tree? Abductive (reasoning) 10:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes and no. The dispute is, inter alia, over which of two species binomina is the accepted name and which is a synonym. They mostly agree that any other names are synonyms. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, when both sources accept the same name, the synonyms can be taken from either. World Ferns sometimes has more in my experience.

Irritatingly, the url that led to the now replaced Checklist of Ferns and Lycophytes of the World now leads to a website of German plants, rather than redirecting to World Ferns, so all the old refs need updating. Sigh... I'm currently tied up with updating lists of invertebrate species on another website. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi members, I have created the article King Ludwig Oak with the help of de:König-Ludwig-Eiche and have nominated it for WP:GAN. Thank you. — Amkgp 💬 04:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that there may be some question as to the appropriate title for the article. Firstly Wikipedia eschews title case, which might argue for "King Ludwig oak" (but Royal Oak offers a precedent to the contrary. Secondly the article repeatedly refers to the royal oak. It seems to me that this should either be changed to King Ludwig Oak (except in quotations) or that article should be Royal Oak (Bavaria), though the Wikipedia DE article provides, I presume, precedent for the status quo.

I presume that the article is based on a machine translation of the Wikipedia DE article. There are still some sentences that don't make sense in English (what is a danced linden?), and other bits which seem somewhat stilted. Lavateraguy (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Lavateraguy, Thank you for the inputs and suggestion. The tree is known as King Ludwig Oak as per EU English reference.^[1]. The article is semi-machine translated. The dance linden is At the center of many German villages, it used to be common to find a old linden tree with a sturdy trunk and large, spreading branches. Often, these are called “Tanzlinden”—dance lindens—and they served as a gathering place and were frequently the site of celebrations.^[2]

"One of the lower main branches has several strong foul herds." "Around them run lawn benches, at some distance star-shaped slats with canapes". At this point, the article does not pass GA criterion 1; these are not coherent or idiomatic English sentences. WP:GOCE or WP:PR might be a better destination at present. Choess (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Choess, Thank you will seek help there. — Amkgp 💬 15:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Could somebody take a look at List of plants endemic to Hells Canyon and check the formatting. There's a bunch of links to botanists' biographies that are wrapped in <small> tags. I was going to just strip them out, but I wasn't sure if this was some standard styling use in botany articles, so asking here for help. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Those are taxon authorities—the botanist(s) responsible for describing the species under that name, or making that combination for the species. There are cases where those are useful (where two different authors have used the same name, and the more recent and hence illegitimate name has gained some currency) but in a flora article like this I don't think they're necessary. Choess (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

The use of small tags to distinguish the authority from scientific name is a standard used widely in the Tree of Life Project. This is long-standing, although I don't know where the consensus came from. I think it is helpful. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, although I haven't seen the links to their articles all that frequently in list articles like this. Normally the only time the taxon author is linked, at least in my experience, is in the infobox of taxon articles. At the very least, I don't think the same authority needs to be linked more than once. Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 12:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the small text is absolutely correct, and the author(s) should be linked only at the first occurrence, as is normal for wikilinks. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I was cleaning up new stub Crataegus macracantha, when I noticed that World Flora Online lists among its synonyms Crataegus Coccineae succulenta var. macrantha. What's with the extra name? Abductive (reasoning) 04:47, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe a sectional name leaking through? They claim to be pulling the name from TPL, but "Coccineae" doesn't appear in the record there. Choess (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

In general, any database that took some of its entries from TPL should be treated with great suspicion. TPL was riddled with problems, particularly those caused by taking names from Tropicos and treating them as "accepted" when Tropicos doesn't do this. Personally, I think it's too soon to rely much on WFO. On the particular issue, I'm sure that Choess is right – the section has crept in by mistake. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I am working on a Wikipedia article, and I need a botanical taxon description translated from German to English. Rather than try to seek a German translator with some knowledge of botany, I thought posting this here may be more effective. Are there any project members who could do this translation? Thank you in advance. Eewilson (talk) 06:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello Eewilson, I can help you with this botanical translation. Please use my talk page to send me the link to the 1894 botanical work. Kind regards, --Thiotrix (talk) 11:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I have done so. --Eewilson (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It has been six months since I created the list of missing genera from PoWO. In that time 239 articles have been created. That is just under 7% of the 3428 genera, which means that at this rate the redlinks will be cleared by August 2027. Abductive (reasoning) 12:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

If anyone wants to comment, there is a proposal to change the article title from Acer saccharum to Sugar Maple. Hardyplants (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Is there someone who can translate Linnaeus description of Solidago lateriflora to English? I have one translation from a non-Wikipedian, but I think it could be made better. (BHL if you wish to view directly)

4. SOLIDAGO [lateriflora] panicula corymbosa: racemis recurvis adscendentibus, caule inferne ramoso floriferoque.

Habitat in America septentrionali. Kalm.

Planta S. canadensi dimidio minor. Folia nonserrata, molliora, sed uno alterove dente interdum notata. Flores & omnia ut in praecedentibus, at caulis inframedium Ramos emittit simplices, caule paulo breviores, apice corymbosos; nullos vero ramos inter corymbum terminalem caulis & medium seu ramos, quod in hac singulare.

--Eewilson (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

PoWO lists Teramnus labialis as having only one subspecies, T. l. subsp. labialis, [2] then lists separate tables of synonyms for both. There is no mention of other now-synonymized subspecies on PoWO (although there is a T. l. subsp. arabicus mentioned in GBIF). I am inclined to just create a stub for Teramnus labialis and list all the synonyms there, perhaps with a note. Is there any guidance on how to deal with such cases? Suppose that there was an example species with several subspecies listed, each with its own synonyms? Abductive (reasoning) 06:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Teramnus labialis subsp. labialis (L.f.) Spreng. is listed as a Synonym of Teramnus labialis (L.f.) Spreng. [3]. Hardyplants (talk) 06:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Of course it is. It's the nominate subspecies. I still wonder what to do in a non-trivial case. Abductive (reasoning) 12:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think I've seen any guidance anywhere, but I have seen synonyms split up by taxon:

|synonyms_ref={{r|ref1|ref2}}

|synonyms=Species:

*Syn 1

*Syn 2

Subspecies1:

*Syn 1

*Syn 2

Subspecies2:

*Syn 1

*Syn 2

That seems OK to me? I'd probably only do this if the subspecies are particularly noteworthy. In most cases I'd only list the synonyms of the species itself. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 16:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I have seen examples of species-level names being synonyms of varieties on PoWO. Abductive (reasoning) 00:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I have a question about this draft, and that is what name I should accept it under. There is already a stub article at Stylomecon for the genus of one species. Is the currently preferred name of the genus Papaver or Stylomecon? I will accept the draft, but would like to give both the genus and the species the preferred generic name as primary titles, and the alternate generic name can be a redirect. So should the genus be renamed, or should the draft be renamed to conform the genus? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

See:^[1] and ^[2] Which would indicate that the correct name is Papaver, but this has not filtered down. It's too bad Curtis Clark is no longer active around here because he maybe could have shed more light as he wrote of the treatment for this species for FNA.^[3] Hardyplants (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I moved the redirect out of the way, and have accepted the draft, and have started a merge discussion for the two genera. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

There is an "A-class"? It has one article in it, Tilia dasystyla which is actually a Stub. Is "A" a class? Is this an error? --Eewilson (talk) 11:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is an A class: see Category:A-Class articles, but it's not much used by most projects other than military history. It's supposed to be for article between GA and FA. It doesn't make sense to me, given the reviews needed for these latter two categories, but it exists. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. The one article from the Plants Project is actually a Stub (a very small stub). Perhaps it is in A-class as an error and should be moved to Stub-class? I'm not on that level to do that, but I wanted to bring it up. --Eewilson (talk) 12:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, on the main page of the Plants Project, one article is listed in the Statistics box. It shows as Top and A-class. If you click on the number "1" for that article, it will take you to the openzim page. That's where it shows article Tilia dasystyla. --Eewilson (talk) 12:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Eewilson: it's now marked as a stub. The assessment table is maintained by a bot, so the status of this article as "A" there will eventually disappear. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the follow-up! --Eewilson (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

John and I have just completed some etymological lists of genera; links are on my user page. For our next lists, we want to focus on etymologies that are descriptive (usually from Latin or Greek) ... if anyone is interested in supplying etymologies for genera named after people, that would be great. (And, as always, edits and comments are welcome.) - Dank (push to talk) 16:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi there. Though I'm a veteran, prolific editor, I've never worked on plant articles, let alone create a new one as I did with Cyanea heluensis. Apparently, this is a newly-discovered native flower of Hawaii, and only one such plant is known to exist. Thanks in advance for helping the article along when time and inclination suits someone here. --Rosiestep (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Talking about World Plants there is now a method for making direct links (see deeplinks):

• Genus: Helosciadium
• Species: Helosciadium longipedunculatum

@Peter coxhead: It also works with Ferns.

• Genus: Lycopodium
• Species: Lycopodium clavatum

It's a bit quirky at the moment and doesn't work exactly as stated. The genera need the authority added to deal with synonyms and the results are returned despite a "Nothing found!" error message. But this is a step in the right direct and presumably not finished. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jts1882: ah, useful. For ferns, it also works with World Ferns as the main part of the URL:

https://www.worldplants.de/world-ferns/ferns-and-lycophytes-list?name=Lycopodium-clavatum → Lycopodium clavatum

All the references I and others had inserted to the Checklist of Ferns and Lycophytes of the World now need to be converted. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 07:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Although it doesn't at present work for families: https://www.worldplants.de/world-ferns/ferns-and-lycophytes-list?name=Lycopodiaceae just gives nothing found. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I've quickly created a template, {{Cite WF}}, that can be used to cite World Ferns. Using this will enable easy updating as and when the links to the database change. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I had added the new links to {{BioRef}} but wanted to explore the family search options further before commenting here (it would nice if links could preset the orders and families). As with the POWO version it takes |authority= and I used this to construct the genus search for World Plants.

• {{BioRef|worldplants|genus=Helosciadium |authority=L. |access-date=31 December 2020}} → Hassler, Michael. "Helosciadium L." World Plants. Synonymic Checklist and Distribution of the World Flora. Retrieved 31 December 2020.
• {{BioRef|worldplants|genus=Helosciadium |species=longipedunculatum |access-date=31 December 2020}}→ Hassler, Michael. "Helosciadium longipedunculatum". World Plants. Synonymic Checklist and Distribution of the World Flora. Retrieved 31 December 2020.

This template now handles World Plants (and Ferns), POWO, WFO, Tropicos, FNA, Goffinet's moss classification and AlgaeBase using a standard set of parameters. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

PoWO and various other secondary sources haven't (yet) split off Helosciadium from Apium, and right now we have no article at Helosciadium and the species articles are under Apium. So, somewhat reluctantly, bearing in mind WP:PSTS, etc. I moved the newly created article at Helosciadium × longipedunculatum to Apium × longipedunculatum, the name PoWO uses.

If it's to be moved back to Helosciadium × longipedunculatum, then the parent species, Apium repens and Apium nodiflorum, should obviously also be in Helosciadium along with the other species moved there.

What do others think? I've copied below a response from Taxonomyofapiaceae, who created the article.

• (copied from Talk:Apium × longipedunculatum) Taxonomic databases are not the most up-to-date sources of information. The latest molecular phylogenetic (Downie et al. 2009; DOI 10.1002/tax.583004) and morphological examinations (Ronse et al. 2010; DOI 10.1007/s00606-010-0284-3) of the group clearly show that Apium sensu lato (including the six recognised species of Helosciadium) is polyphyletic. This has led to the restitution of the genus Helosciadium. In fact, while bearing a superficial resemblance to the type species of Apium, A. graveolens (celery), species such as fool's water cress (Helosciadium nodiflorum) are not closely related at all. Apium is in tribe Apieae and the species of Helosciadium in tribe Oenantheae. This updated classification is not at all controversial and has been adopted by all subsequent botanists, including Prof. Clive Stace in the fourth edition of his Flora of the British Isles. Furthermore, a new species Helosciadium milfontinum has not even been given a name under Apium, neither has the newly described hybrid between nodiflorum and bermejoi (H. x clandestinum) or the intergeneric hybrid between Berula and Helosciadium (x Beruladium). I therefore feel it is a backwards step to use Apium x longipedunculatum, but rather we should update the treatment of the parental species to Helosciadium (Taxonomyofapiaceae (talk) 13:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC))

I would support this approach, if there's a consensus, but I didn't think it should be accepted without discussion. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

World Plants recognises Helosciadium longipedunculatum and if it is also recognised in Stace, doesn't that provide two suitable secondary sources? —  Jts1882 | talk  13:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm doubtful about using World Plants as if it were on a par with other taxonomic databases which are supported by major institutions. It's really just the creation of Michael Hassler. We're forced to use it for ferns if we want to follow PPG, because of Kew's unfortunate decision not to do so. But for other groups? Stace is a good source for me (although it is a regional flora). Peter coxhead (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

To add a further secondary source the International Plant Names Index (IPNI) recognises Helosciadium x longipedunculatum as the valid name (https://www.ipni.org/n/77207352-1), and has Apium x longipedunuclatum an invalid one (https://www.ipni.org/n/77207351-1). I would also refer contributors to the recently published Apiaceae chapter of the 'Families and Genera of Vascular Plants' (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93605-5_2), written by a who's who of global umbellifer experts: G. M. Plunkett, M. G. Pimenov, J.P. Reduron, E.V. Kljuykov, B.E. van Wyk, T. A. Ostroumova, M. J. Henwood, P. M. Tilney, K. Spalik, M. F. Watson, B.-Y. Lee, F.-D. Pu, C.J. Webb, J. M. Hart, A. D. Mitchell and B. Muckensturm, and they separate Apium s.s. and Helosciadium. ( Taxonomyofapiaceae (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC) )

Hello WP Plants people, I am editing a Zanthoxylum page and noticed an attractive photo of the species on the Vietnamese language Wikipedia. Am I right in thinking that if it is there then it is in the commons, and can be transferred to the English language article?Brunswicknic (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Yep, its already in the Commons. Abductive (reasoning) 21:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I collect cacti. I've got almost 200 now if you include seedlings and perhaps 100 or so distinct species along with several subspecies. I was hoping to contribute images to this project, but I'm not sure how to go about it. I did a cursory search for the info but didn't get anything.

So my question is what sort of verification is needed for species names? Do you take my word that I've correctly identified the cactus I've photographed and then dispute it in the talk page if necessary, or is there some sort of other procedure needed?

Also is the issue of cultivars. I live in Australia so almost all of me cacti were purchased either from local garden suppliers or online in Australia. I have a very small number of cacti I collected from the wild and every single one is an introduced plant (cacti are exclusively native to the Americas with one exception). While I like to think most are representative of wild plants, some may be mixtures of regional subspecies or even mixtures between different species.

Thanks, Kylesenior (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

• It would be best to indicate your level of (un)certainty of your identification in the description field when you do each upload. Abductive (reasoning) 21:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for my "neediness". POWO states that Ehretia laevis is now a synonym for E. aspera (from literature this occurred 2003 or before, and is reasonably accepted). So I am constructing a E. aspera page. But usual available online sources (particularly Flora of China) are unavailable under that name. I can use descriptions under E. laevis and other synonyms to construct a description? Obviously I can not discuss anatomical differences for E. aspera, the traits to distinguish E. laevis &c. are now superseded by E. aspera description. But in terms of general life form, habitat &c. I can construct something, yes? Further, the Ehretia (genus) page is now out of date. I assume I can use the list of species from POWO to construct a new list. Thanks for the help. Brunswicknic (talk) 02:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

A lot depends on why the name was changed, if the name changed for technical reasons relating to nomenclature this has no effect on species descriptions. But if the name was changed because distinct populations were lumped in to one species or removed from the former species then the old descriptions maybe incorrect. Hardyplants (talk) 03:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

When creating the new list of species you might find template {{format species list}} helpful. This can be used to substitute the appropriate wikitext from a copy and pasted list from POWO or WFO. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I have updated the Ehretia page with current accepted species, leaving the fossil species in the list, and Ehretia laevis which was a major, frequently used taxa now a synonym, with its synonym status shown. Retained the user-generated common names and geographical indicatons. Thanks for the head up on the template, a useful breeze. Brunswicknic (talk) 08:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I went to the trouble of going through all of the New Pages logs to find out how many articles on plant taxa were created last year. According to InceptionBot, 321 users created 4,448 articles on plants. Of course, some users created a lot, and the distribution follows a power law. Starzoner created the most, 1686, which is 37.9% of all plant articles, Abductive (me), created 450, or 10.1%, followed by Gderrin, with 306, or 6.9 %, MargaretRDonald, with 184, 4.1 % Peter coxhead, with 100, 2.2% Thriley, with 75, 1.7%, Hyperik, with 68, 1.5% Declangi, with 64, Allthingsnative, with 63, Ds2320, with 60, Hughesdarren, with 59, Casliber, with 59, Robert McClenon, with 51, Theroadislong, with 44, Roy Bateman, with 37, NinjaWeeb, with 36, S Molteno, with 35, Filikovalo, with 29, Average Portuguese Joe, with 28, Loopy30, with 27, Brunswicknic, with 27, Abu Shawka, with 25, SailingInABathTub, with 25, Jts1882, with 23, Tle003, with 23, Zinedinemay2006, with 21, Zroota, with 20, Cwmhiraeth, with 20, Fritzmann2002, with 19, Choess, with 19, Username6892, with 19, J947, with 18, Hardyplants, with 17, Darorcilmir, with 15, Pagliaccious, with 14, Andrawaag, with 14, Kevmin, with 13, Sulfurboy, with 12, Thegooduser, with 12, Manudouz, with 12, DavidAnstiss, with 12, FloridaArmy, with 12, Calliopejen1, with 11, Cs california, with 11, Eric in SF, with 11, Michael Goodyear, with 10, BabbaQ, with 9, Wasp32, with 9, Neux-Neux, with 9, Tom Radulovich, with 8, Dan arndt, with 8, Estopedist1, with 8, Somatochlora, with 8, and Leo Breman, with 8. Seven users created 7 articles, ten users created 6, eight created 5, nine created 4, nineteen created 3, twenty-nine created 2, and 185 users created 1 article. Now, if one is familiar with this sort of distribution, what stands out is the relatively poor performance of the users creating only one or two articles; there should be many more of them. Also falling behind are users on the high end. I should have created 493 articles, Peter coxhead, 149, Thriley, 117 (although they seem to be just getting started), Hyperik, 96, and Declangi, 80, just to make the curve. In any case, given that there are 79,414 articles (not all on taxa) in this Wikiproject, and there are supposedly 320,000 species of plants, creating only 4,448 articles per year means they will be completed in the year 2075. Abductive (reasoning) 06:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this analysis. It is strong and your conclusion on single pages is revealing. Personally, I put it down to us, the editors, tending to being wikipedia and plant nerds simultaneously, an unusual combination. So those who do, do a bit. Secondly, the plant pages have high standards, and at times obscure ways of getting there. So if you don't know how to, it is not easy. Other pages of wikipedia require "cut and paste format", words, reference. That's it. Should plants be like that, no, but it is nice when other people help the process. It is very discouraging when we get abrupt editors, writing style-freaks, "don't mention cultural or historical stuff, this is science" people, &c. Abruptness, I recognise it is not an volunteer editors job to lead a new-editor by the hand, step by step, but sometimes people are just rude. In general, the plants pages of Wikipedia are great, a valued contribution to world dissemination of knowledge, congratulations to all the hard working volunteers. Brunswicknic (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The above taxa page is problematic. Campylospermum serratum has a redirect to Gomphia serrata, a now superseded name. I have changed the page but the redirect is still in place, as so is the out-dated name. Are redirects Administrator business, or can humble editors change them? Brunswicknic (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Campylospermum letouzeyi has been changed to Campylospermum oliveri, but the plant page title does not? Brunswicknic (talk) 10:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Any editor can edit a redirect or move a page. A problem arises when you want to move a page to one occupied by a redirect. This needs the help of an administrator or editor with page move rights.

So to be sure, you want to move the page now at Gomphia serrata to Campylospermum serratum? I think a few regular plant editors have page move rights, but there are places to request a page move or delete of a blocking redirect I'll get back to you on these. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done There may be some post-move tidying needed. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

On the second query I see you have copy and pasted the content of Campylospermum letouzeyi to Campylospermum oliveri. What you should have done is just move the former page to the latter name. This method preserves the page history. There is a tab at the top of the page that allows this. Now this will also need help from a page mover or admin. —  Jts1882 | talk  11:19, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

There are dozens of articles about plants formerly classified in the genus Pleurothallis that were recently added by User:Starzoner - these page additions and others seem semi-automated(?). Unfortunately because these are all synonyms, they need to be moved to the correct species (or deleted). Many of the articles were added with no reference or a single reference. Other common issues with these and other species articles posted by this user include, and have been pointed out editors over the past year or so,

• Using IPNI as a source for a name being accepted
• Using IPNI as a source for a species' complete distribution
• Linking categories live in draft space
• Not linking categories live in main space
• Not italicizing scientific names
• Wrong species in body of text, speciesbox, references, taxonbar, categories, etc.
• Incorrect stub template (sometimes the wrong family) and placement
• Wrong family or no family in article body
• Adding info to the article that aren't supported by the singular reference or distribution ("perennial", "endemic")
• General low utility of thousands of articles that are single sentence stubs
• Using obsolete geographical categories, not part of the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions, see my comment below
• Feel free to add to this list

I like the zeal, and I've created plenty of short articles myself, but the clean-up here is massive. I and many others have been guiding them toward improvements, and they seem somewhat responsive, but incompletely. There are still hundreds of articles from the past year that need to be cleaned up other than the Pleurothallis ones. Is there some way to require a review process for their creation of very large numbers of articles about taxa? See previous discussion at ANI, after which nothing appears to have changed. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 19:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

I have the Pleurothallis pretty well in hand, and expect to finish moving and stub sorting them over the next week or so. The referencing could still use improvement, but of course, there's not very much in there to reference. In general, I don't think there's much value to mass stub creation. I suppose the theory is that over time, an existing stub attracts more drive-by improvements than a redlink, but that rate is terribly low in absolute terms—how often does one see a Polbot-created stub expanded? It's possible to be a high-volume producer of perfectly useful start-class articles (e.g., the work done by IceCreamAntisocial (talk · contribs) years ago), but in general, that takes multiple sources and a certain amount of concentration. It might be interesting to think about some maintenance or improvement tasks on existing articles that can be done in the same mostly-mechanical fashion as mass stub creation, e.g., adding taxonbars to articles that are missing them. Choess (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I took a break from checking new pages over the holidays, and am totally overwhelmed by Starzoner's output. At this point, I'm just checking a sample of species per genus in each batch that Starzoner is pumping out looking for blatant errors (most of what I've found seems to result from copy-pasting an article template without updating all the bits that might vary); if I come across a spate of errors, I check additional articles produced around the same time. There are also a lot of nitpicky inconsistencies that are mostly visible in edit mode; stub sort templates interpolated into regular categories, bad spacing with ==References == section headers (it's acceptable to either admit or exclude spaces in section headers, but spacing should be consistent within an article, not to mention within a single header). There are some gnomes who prefer the phrasing "species in the family Fooaceae" over "species in the Fooaceae family" and work to change it; I don't have any strong feeling about it, but try not to buck the trend myself. Plantdrew (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Many of this editor's articles have inappropriate geographical categories, as I've described on their talk page. While a few instances could be amended by vigilant editors (it's harder to track category additions), the sheer volume of substubs being produced by this editor precludes most timely reviewing. The WGSRPD scheme is detailed and admittedly takes some getting used to, but automated processes pose a danger here. I believe the editor has permission for use of AWB to mass-produce articles in draft space and then page-mover privileges to get them into main space. With this kind of automation, individual errors such as with categories can rapidly spiral out of control. I think I saw somewhere in an AWB description: "with great power comes great responsibility". Declangi (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I added the term "endemic" to the unsupported terms above. This issue has now been raised with the editor a few times, but the term is present in numerous articles I checked for geographic categories. Declangi (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello WP Plants people, I have created the new page Utania Racemosa which is red linked here, but if I enter it into "search wikipedia" box up it comes, which comes off the new genus Utania of the Gentianaceae. Speciesbox has blown out after I followed some wikipedia linked steps. The "Category:Utania|racemosa" is red linked as well. What is the solution? Brunswicknic (talk) 07:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Brunswicknic: Wikipedia titles are case-sensitive after the first upper-case letter. Thus, Utania Racemosa does not exist, but Utania racemosa does.

If you want Category:Utania: a page for it doesn't exist yet, even though articles belong to it. You'll have to create a category page. — hike395 (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Hike395: Thank you for your help. Fortunately the capital on Racemosa was only a typo here, on the genus page and on the species page I have followed protocol. Now I just have to learn to create a category page. Brunswicknic (talk) 10:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Hike395: Category page sorted, red links sorted. Thank you again. Brunswicknic (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

A couple of issues

• I don't have an easy answer, given the stylised way plants are described, but close paraphrasing is frowned upon.
• At first sight the features that you give distinguishing Utania racemosa from the other species of the genus only distinguish it from Utania volubilis; the key is silent on the status of those characters in the other 4 speces, so unless you've confirmed the status in the other 4 species from the descriptions you've made an invalid inference (but I wouldn't be surprised if a distally thickened rachis was an unique feature). Lavateraguy (talk) 11:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lavateraguy: I note what you say about close paraphrasing. I do find it a hard juggle somtimes between conveying anatomical info about taxa, and not just repeating what is in fact a systematic/structured/repeated description. When it comes to species defining characteristics I have followed wording from the source carefully (and closely) but that is because what is being described are very specific things (pun intended). I don't see how, if we are to validly and accurately describe the difference, do otherwise.

Further on the last point, the pages on plant species want descriptions, editors and readers want descriptions. For many plants, one species is not that different from another, so apart from the general and generic, the small specific anatomical details are what I include.

In regards to U. racemosa distinguishing features, there are 2 sources, the two articles by Suguraman and Wong, I have followed what they said are the distinguishing features. Thank you Lavertaguy for you work, your contibution. Brunswicknic (talk) 06:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:TECHNICAL may in some ways enlighten on how a Wikipedia article (ideally) would be written differently than a botanical monograph (without watering down..... well, read the guideline there is a fair bit of nuance here). Kingdon (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Could this Wikiproject do a mini-collaboration to create or rework a "perfect" species stub article for those of us who are making stubs? I think having a 100% consensus example of stub article with no omitted information and the absolute best layout would go a long way towards providing guidance to new and old editors alike. This would also be an opportunity for everyone to air their pet peeves; for instance, how best to collapse a lengthy list of synonyms, citation styles, wrong templates, etc. Abductive (reasoning) 20:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

As a stub gets more "perfect" (in terms of information given in the prose), it stops being a stub. I guess you're asking more for an example of "perfect" non-prose content, especially stuff facing editors more than readers; templates, categories, Manual of Style, formatting?

There won't be 100% consensus on everything. At levels higher than this WikiProject, multiple approaches to different issues are deemed acceptable site-wide; date formats, national variety of English, etc. (although internal consistency in any given article is a goal).

Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template gives guidance for articles with a substantial amount of prose. It would be helpful to have something that condenses the template down to all the bells and whistles WikiGnomes are going to want to have on a 1-3 sentence stub. (I think rather than asking for a "perfect" stub it would be better to ask for a stub that will satisfy any gnome that comes across it).Plantdrew (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Correct. For me, I expect common name(s), where it's native, an image if one is on the Commons, an infobox, a taxonbar, and a couple of categories, and I personally try to add a factoid backed by a source that isn't one of the databases. Abductive (reasoning) 05:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I think a "perfect stub", i.e. one that conveys bare information for the public, would be infobox, taxonbar, and a sentence outlining plant form and distribution. Vernacular names, images, factoids are "icing on the cake" as it were. I say this because when I consult wikipedia as my go-to to learn about a plant, at the very least I want to know family, plant life-form and distribution. That is a bare "stub", perfection is impossible, but as we add more to a page it becomes less of a stub and more an article. Brunswicknic (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

When I say an image, I mean, did the stub creator bother to look in the Commons and add an image to the article? I think we all should expect this, because for a user to not do it is fobbing work off on other editors. Abductive (reasoning) 06:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps adding the {{commons}} template as one of the standard templates would be enough. That would flag that material is available or do so in future if it became available later. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:54, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

If the page is linked on Wikidata, a Commons link appears automatically now. I anticipate that the Commons template will be mass-removed from Wikipedia soon. And, no, lazy users will still be lazy users if they don't take 30 effing seconds to look for an image and plunk it down. Abductive (reasoning) 15:26, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

How about Blephilia ciliata as an example for a perfect stub? It was already looking pretty good, and just made a few edits so it conforms to everything I care about (as well as some stuff I don't especially care about, but that some other gnomes do). There are still some bits that are arguably imperfect (e.g. the article text doesn't provide support for the distribution categories given). Plantdrew (talk) 23:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

What about the list of synonyms? I've been making long lists collapsible as with my recent stub Genista sagittalis. Ideally a perfect stub will have all the templates so that editors can copy-and-paste it, then trim away as needed. Abductive (reasoning) 23:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Now collapsed. In my judgement, 6 synonyms wasn't enough to warrant collapsing, but it is near the cusp. {{Species list}} should probably have a collapse option. Between Genista and Blephilia there are two different ways to format synonyms; via a template, or by encoding the markup for italics and small letters with each synonym.

Instead of a real article would it be more helpful to have either; a checklist of elements that belong a good stub (with links to relevant templates, and mentions of acceptable alternative ways of doing things); or a skeleton that could be copy-pasted, with variables added subsequently? Plantdrew (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

A skeleton would be nice. I fell that it should be placed near the top of the Taxon template page and presented in both wikicode and what its output should look like. My take on the elements it should contain; short description, speciesbox, an image and a good caption, some way to collapse a copy-pasted list of synonyms (collapsible list, or specieslist, which should be renamed, as it looks like it was designed for genera articles), corrected formatted binomial (bold italics), one bolded common name preceded by "called the" or "known as the", a range, an introduced to range, cited to PoWO, and a RHS (or similar) citation for the common name, and a sentence with some important feature(s) of the species ("a liana found in Andean cloud forests" or "a genetic and morphological study found that its sister species is..."), with a single non-database (e.g. scholarly) high quality citation supporting it, a Subtaxa section with two subspecies, one of which is the nominate subspecies (and has no authorities), References section with reflist template, taxonbar with a from1= and a from2= (manually added), the Categories done correctly (Genus|species), WGSRPD compliant Flora of..., Taxa named by..., Plants described in year, and a correct -stub template. Have I left anything out? Abductive (reasoning) 20:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Abductive:, that's pretty much everything. I made a checklist at User:Plantdrew/Plant stub checklist, and will look into making a skeletal template. There are a couple other things you might consider putting in. The first is conservation status/habitat/threats; PolBot created stubs have this information; any species lacking an article at present probably won't have an assessed conservation status, but habitat is generally useful. Habit/growth form is also pretty important (you have covered habitat and habit with "liana found in Andean cloud forests"). The second is a translating the authority into a plain English sentence; "described by Linnaeus in 1753 and transferred to the current genus by Smith". A fair number of plant stubs have this (although it's more common in insect stubs). Categories are supposed to supported by the article text, and standard botanical authority citations don't include the year, yet there are many articles with a described in year category that don't have the year mentioned in the text. Plantdrew (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I've been inserting the highly abbreviated citation provided by PoWO, for example; Sp. Pl., ed. 4, 4: 299 (1805), which always has the year. What is the feeling on this? Abductive (reasoning) 23:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I know that people would want more text, but this is not always possible. The skeleton should be designed for a minimally acceptable stub. Perhaps an example of a skeleton of a mimimalist stub, and an example of a just-shy-of-a-Start stub need to be created. Or we could consider fixing existing stub(s) up to the correct level(s), then linking to their historical diff(s) so that people can see what is expected. Abductive (reasoning) 23:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I have sought this article online to no avail. Does anybody have access to old issues of Field & Lab.? SMU has only a handful of articles available on its website. I've checked BHL, JSTOR, ResearchGate, and others.

For Symphyotrichum lateriflorum. —Eewilson (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Received! --Eewilson (talk) 23:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Plants people, about to start work on a page for Heterophragma sulfureum. I not only need to create a new Heterophragma page but also there is no wikidata page for that species. One for the genus and the other species in the genus, but not H. sulfureum. Any tips on creating wikidata pages? Brunswicknic (talk) 07:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

There has been a Wikidata page at Heterophragma sulfureum (Q15550146) since 5 January 2014‎ according to the item's history. However, the only article is in the Vietnamese wikipedia, which is notorious for creating stubs based on scraping taxonomic databases with no regard whatsoever for whether the name is a synonym or not.

de:Heterophragma may be of use to you for the genus. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead:, thanks for this. I realise now I was in wikispecies not wikidata. So I can go ahead without learning wikidata, such is life Brunswicknic (talk) 08:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Brunswicknic: creating Wikidata taxon items is reasonably straightforward; you create a new item and then add properties/fields one at a time. There are clear prompts for the first set of properties. If you do need to create one and need any help, just ask on my talk page. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I am having an issue with the Speciesbox for Lesquerella ludoviciana. Before doing any more work to this species I would like to know how the resolve this issue. Thanks. Hardyplants (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

@Hardyplants:, if you click on the word "fix" below "Missing taxonomy template" in the broken Speciesbox, it will lead to a page where you can create the taxonomy template; you'd just need to fill in rank (genus) and parent (Brassicaceae) and then save it. However, part of the reason that the taxonomy template is missing is that POWO treats Lesquerella as a synonym of Physaria. Other databases, such as World Flora Online do recognize Lesquerella. How should Wikipedia treat Lesquerella? I'm not sure. Plantdrew (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I guess then I am stymied until the "correct" name is determined: either Physaria ludoviciana or Lesquerella ludoviciana. It looks like Physaria ludoviciana has a lot of acceptance. Hardyplants (talk) 00:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Consulting them both over the last year, I get the impression that POWO is more up-to-date, more grounded and acccepted than World Flora Online Brunswicknic (talk) 08:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

A lot of WFO entries are taken from The Plant List (last updated 2013) and Flora of North America (2008). The FAQs say TPL is the default taxonomic backbone and replaced on a family-by-family basis, but this seems a slow procsss. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC):

Thank you all for the help, I have moved the page to Physaria ludoviciana. Hardyplants (talk) 12:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

So the article on Pearl millet mentions Sorghum and I see that they are in the same family Poaceae and subfamily Panicoideae. But the mention being a 'difference' from sorghum, I try to trace how close they are. Tracing down tribes and such from Panicoideae I can get to sorghum, but not to Pearl millet (Cenchrus americanus - oh, look, redlink).

Species trees shouldn't require leaps from branch to branch. (Mumble... mumble... something about tribe Paniceae?) Shenme (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I guess if it were me and ran into that, I'd just create it, or maybe I'm not understanding the problem...? --Eewilson (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

It's a parameter; |display_parents = that does or doesn't show all the infras depending on the setting. Abductive (reasoning) 02:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

You can see the full classification by clicking on the red pencil () in the taxobox, which in these cases include supertribe, tribe and subtribe. As mentioned by Abductive you can change how many are displayed in the taxobox with |display_parents=. Add |display_parents=3 to Pearl millet to show the tribe or add |display_parents=4 if you also want to show the supertribe. —  Jts1882 | talk  08:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello all,

I recently returned to working on the plant article Hypericum sechmenii, and after some cleanup, copyediting, and combing of sources I think that the article is at least pretty close to being ready for a GA nomination. There is not an overwhelming amount of information out there about the species, and so I think the article covers what information there is very thoroughly and comprehensively. Since this is my first real GA nomination, however, I wanted to run it by here to request just a quick look-over of the article by some fellow plants editors just to see if it actually has a chance of passing and if there is anything else I can do pre-nomination. I appreciate all of you and your work!

Best wishes, Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 17:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I made a few changes and edits, but don't have experience with GA review. --Eewilson (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it could be of value to add the C-value from the Floristic Quality Assessment as a part of the suggested information in the Ecology section of a species in the United States and parts of Canada. That data can be obtained from https://universalfqa.org/. Possible source citation for a list of coefficients in all the databases shown below. Input?

<ref name = FreymanSpecies>
{{Cite web
| last1        = Freyman | first1 = W.A.
| year         = 2021
| title        = Universal FQA: Compare species coefficients
| url          = https://universalfqa.org/compare_coefficients/
| website      = Universal FQA Calculator (universalfqa.org)
| publisher    = Openlands
| location     = Chicago
| access-date  = 19 January 2021
| quote        = Search for ''the species binomial''.
}}
</ref>

Eewilson (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

• Should it be made a Wikidata property? Abductive (reasoning) 09:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It can vary significantly depending on evaluation region. It's a value between 0 and 10, and for example in one part of the country it could be a 2, considered quite weedy with a tendency to be found growing on disturbed land, and in another, it could have a 10 meaning that it is only found on land that is as it remains before settlement by Europeans. So I don't see that it could be a Wikidata property, but it is representative of the plant's adaptability, possible rariety (or not), and the land around it. Eewilson (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
    • It's data, in numeric format, with a backing URL. Wikidata can handle it. I'm not saying the datapoints should not be in articles, I'm saying this can be imported to Wikidata as well. Abductive (reasoning) 21:51, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, but I would primarily cite the dataset it came from (e.g. Wilhelm & Rericha 2017) and not only universalfqa.org. Freyman's contribution is the website itself and not the C values. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 23:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Right. Citation above would be if you just want to search and get a list of all for a taxon. Here's an example for one dataset on universalfqa.org:

<ref name = MetzlerEtAl2018>
{{Cite web
| last1        = Metzler          | first1 = K.
| last2        = Ring             | first2 = R.
| last3        = Faber-Langendoen | first3 = D.
| year         = 2018
| title        = Database of coefficients of conservatism for Omernik Level 3 Ecoregion 84
| url          = https://universalfqa.org/view_database/136/
| website      = Universal FQA Calculator (universalfqa.org)
| publisher    = [[Openlands]]
| location     = [[Chicago]]
| access-date  = 21 January 2021
}}
</ref>

And then of course if you get it out of something not in the database, you would have a different citation altogether.

Eewilson (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

There is a request to move Minari (film) to Minari (which redirects to Oenanthe javanica) with the argument that "minari" is not widely known among English speakers. Editors involved with writing articles about plants to comment at the RM dicussion here: Talk:Minari (film)#Requested move 22 January 2021. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

If a page (other than a disambiguation page) with the same name as a plant genus (but on another topic) doesn't have a hatnote, should I add "For the plant genus, see ..." (assuming a page exists on that plant genus)? - Dank (push to talk) 03:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems a sensible thing to do. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Definitely. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated Symphyotrichum lateriflorum for Good Article. I am readily available to work with a reviewer. —Eewilson (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

... here. It's in German, but there's an introduction in English. My German is sufficient but not great. I'm impressed so far. Unless someone finds persistent problems that I'm not seeing, I'll be using this a lot in my etymological lists. - Dank (push to talk) 20:43, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Someone just tagged Solidago gigantea as not notable. I just thought I'd leave this here. --Eewilson (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I left a message on the editor's talk page, just to give him a heads up on plant species notability; the article is pretty clearly notable unless I'm totally missing something, so I'll take down the notability tag momentarily. Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 22:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Even without the presumption of notability for plant species, this is a state flower (twice), an invasive species, and a horticultural subject. I'd guess that it'd be in the top 10% of plant species for notability. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

The editor concerned is on a crusade to tag thing not notable, his early edits had this tag applied and they have responded for a while now. Self-interestedly: when non-plant-ers assess new articles they appear to be unknowledgable at times. Brunswicknic (talk) 05:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work

Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful, especially if you create new articles. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

Hope its helpful

John Cummings (talk) 11:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

There's a discussion about moving Vaccinium vitis-idaea to "Lingonberry" at Talk:Vaccinium vitis-idaea#Requested move 6 February 2021. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. The use of a common-name for a biological taxa is frequent in WP, but what common-name, why that one, why not another one? One of the reasons that Linnaean names have become universal is because common-names are all to often local, regional, temporary (in historical terms, applied to multiple taxa, which on the many common-names for that taxa do you chose, will this last in the future and so on and on. I strongy support the retention of the botanical name. I am reminded of "Chinese gooseberry", "nespoli" and even potato (derived from the Carib word batata = "sweet potato". Brunswicknic (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Brunswicknic: You may want to put this at the bottom of the Talk page for the article so it will be seen and counted. Talk:Vaccinium vitis-idaea#Requested move 6 February 2021 —Eewilson (talk) 02:16, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, morningitis, thanks for the heads-up. Brunswicknic (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Another move discussion

See also Talk:Muskmelon#Requested_move_28_January_2021 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposal

I think that when these particular move discussions are over (so as not to bias them), it would be helpful if we could have some expanded guidance in our project pages, with examples, as to when we would expect vernacular names to be used for article titles. The default at WP:NCFLORA is clearly the scientific name. So when should this be over-ridden? My view is that there is one obvious case, and one arguable case.

1. The obvious case is when the plants in question are the product of a long period of breeding, leading to the existence of landraces, hybrids, cultivars, cultivar groups, etc. so the relationship between the plants and a genuinely wild taxon is problematic. (Historically, when species were thought of as fixed, particularly divinely created, cultivated plants were given Latin names (such as "Musa paradisiaca" and "Musa sapientum" for bananas and plantains respectively) but these are rarely considered appropriate now. English names or names under the ICNCP are more appropriate.) Examples would include Wheat, Blueberry, Garden marguerite and Cabbage.
2. The more difficult case is when there is a single species involved which has information related to both its wild and its cultivated use. This seems to be where most disputes arise, as currently at Vaccinium vitis-idaea, which as a wild plant is an important component of some habitats and is the source of lingonberries. I won't comment on this case yet to avoid duplication of the discussion at Talk:Vaccinium vitis-idaea.

What do others think of my proposal? Are people here prepared to join in working on this? It would need to have a good consensus to have any influence. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think your proposal makes sense. I’m new on the scene but wouldn’t mind getting involved because I like orderliness and clear direction. It seems something is lacking in this area. Eewilson (talk) 12:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think this discussion of culvtivation vs. wild is kind of tangential to the main point. WP:COMMONNAME already tells us how articles should be named, and this is a policy that needs to be followed unless there is a very good reason. WP:NCFLORA should be descriptive, not prescriptive. It is true and useful to point out that a vernacular name will very rarely be appropriate for a non-cultivated species. But there can of course be exceptions (although one could reasonably argue that none necessarily exist currently), and I don't think it is appropriate to state or imply that there can't be. Most birds, many mammals, butterflies etc. are rightfully at a common name, and plants shouldn't be treated any differently a priori. Just as an example, Amur honeysuckle, although it is cultivated, is notable mostly as an wild or invasive species. The common and latin name seem roughly comparable in use, and the common name is quite frequently used in scientific journal articles. It's easy for me to imagine a similar species with usage lopsided towards the common name, and WP:COMMONNAME would tell us that is where it should go.Somatochlora (talk) 16:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Somatochlora: what you are basically saying is "ignore WP:NCFLORA" which has been a guiding principle of this WikiProject. I could not disagree more strongly. The default for plants is, and should remain, use the scientific name unless there are very good reasons to justify an exception. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with "The default for plants is, and should remain, use the scientific name unless there are very good reasons to justify an exception.", although I would phrase it more as "Cases where plants will not use the scientific name are rare and should be well-justified", which IMO does not unfairly imply that common names are somehow illegitimate. And I agree with almost everything in WP:NCFLORA. But I think there are cases that they don't cover. A search for "Amur honeysuckle" on Google Scholar shows that it is not always true that "botanists almost invariably use scientific names in their published works" (at least for a slightly broad definition of "botanist"), and this species is not particularly notable in cultivation. Not saying that this particular species should be at the vernacular name, but that it is clearly conceivable that species exist that are not cultivated and that definitely belong at the vernacular name per WP:COMMONNAME. Getting back to what spurred this, I personally read WP:NCFLORA as suggesting that "lingonberry" is clearly the correct name for the article, and I think that is also what WP:COMMONNAME says. Maybe it does need to be made a little more specific since others are interpreting it differently. Somatochlora (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I want to make an article about Abelmoschus hostilis, native to Bangladesh and Myanmar, which I found from this site. Can you tell me some other reliable sites from where I can collect information? Thanks in advance. :) Meghmollar2017 • Talk • 18:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Meghmollar2017:! Welcome to WP:PLANTS, you've come to the right place with your question! I can give you a few jumping off points, and if you want a walk-through of how to make a plant species article, you can look at either check out this guide or just drop a message on my talk page. For distribution, placement, and subspecies, check out the species' page on Plants of the World Online. GBIF usually has reliable synonyms info, as well as specific occurrences of the species and sometimes some freely licensed specimen images. Beyond that, Google Scholar is a really good place to look for academic writings on the species, although after a cursory glance I didn't see a whole lot on Abelmoschus hostilis in particular. The site that you linked looks to be pretty reliable, since it's run by a ministry of the government of Bangladesh, so I wouldn't hesitate to fully utilize the information that it provides. I'm sure some other more knowledgeable editors could provide you even more sites, but I'll be the first to admit that it is really a challenge to find information on rare species. It can be done, though, the article Hypericum sechmenii that I've been slowly working on could serve as an example if you're looking to write a really comprehensive article on this species. Let me know if you need a hand with anything, I'd be happy to help! Fritzmann2002 ^{T, c, s, t} 19:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Abelmoschus hostilis (as Hibiscus hostilis) was treated as a synonym of Abelmoschus tetraphyllus (which in turn has often been treated as a subspecies or variety of Abelmoschus manihot). It was resurrected and transferred to Abelmoschus by the 2001 paper cited at your link. That paper is not online, so I don't know what the grounds for resurrection were, but it does seem to be accepted by the major databases. (But not by Wikispecies.) It is referred to in the 2013 paper describing Abelmoschus enbeepeegearense, but that paper is paywalled, so I don't know what it says either.

You could attempt a search on the major book digitisation sites (BHL, Archive.org, Google Books, ...) for the original name Hibiscus hostilis, but I've just done that, and nothing much is coming up. Prain (Bengal Plants) half-recognises the species, but Hochreutiner (Hibicus monograph), Boorsum-Waalkes ("Malesian Malvaceae Revisited") and Bates ("Cultivated Species of Malvaceae") treat is as a synonym. You could compare the original description in Flora of British India with that at your link, but neither is very extensive. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Fritzmann2002 and Lavateraguy: Many many thanks to both of you. I searched the internet prior to this discussion and found some websites. I was not sure which one is reliable and which is not. You see, Hard-copy of the BJPT vol 8 is also very rare. But I have a pdf version of Flora of British India (Hibiscus hostilis, p. 342, drive p. 357). I think I should start it on my user subpage first as we are not sure about its acceptance. But, why is it not accepted by Wikispecies? Meghmollar2017 • Talk • 05:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

The article for the Native Plants Journal is up for deletion. In my opinion the journal is indeed notable and actively read in several fields of study. Any input from the members of this project would be appreciated! Thank you, Thriley (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated G. Ledyard Stebbins for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

There are two images in Commons, File:Chimonanthus yunnanensis W.W.Sm. (AM AK312877-1).jpg and File:Chimonanthus yunnanensis W.W.Sm. (AM AK312877-2).jpg, whose file names imply they are Chimonanthus yunnanensis, a synonym of Chimonanthus praecox. However, the Flora of China's description of this species in no way matches these images. They are not even Chimonanthus, given that this has yellow to white axillary flowers. Anyone have any ideas? Peter coxhead (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The images were taken in Auckland on New Zealand's North Island. It looks a bit Fuchsia-like - the second image on this page (of Fuchsia boliviana) looks quite similar. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@PaleCloudedWhite: I'm sure you're right. See commons:Category:Fuchsia corymbiflora. (There seems to be some uncertainty as to whether F. corymbiflora and F. boliviana are synonyms or not. PoWO says not, but I've accepted the Commons treatment for now.) Thanks! Peter coxhead (talk) 21:14, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

It's pleasing to have been able to make a reasonable stab at identification of something for once. I think I was assisted by having Fuchsia arborescens in my possession, which doesn't carry its blooms in the same way as F. boliviana, but does share the large leaves. My F. arborescens - which I bought on a whim from Great Comp Garden when I was really on a mission to buy some Salvia microphylla cultivars - is currently overwintering in my kitchen, blissfully unaware of the fact that all my plants in pots outside have been frozen solid for days. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@PaleCloudedWhite: Given your clue, I've also found Fuchsia boliviana in Phillips & Rix, Conservatory and Indoor Plants, vol. 2, p. 41 (the Pan 1998 edition).

It will be interesting to see what survives this winter which, at least here in the English Midlands, has been much colder than in recent years – down to -6˚C in my unheated greenhouse recently. Re "Salvia microphylla cultivars", mine in the border look very unhappy. I may have discussed this before somewhere, but I think there's a case for an article at Mexican salvia (or the plural) to cover the cultivars, which have complex and sometimes doubtful origins in many cases. The supposed distinctions between the species and primary hybrids, described in, e.g., Dyson (2015) (referenced in the Salvia microphylla article), never seem fit what I grow! Peter coxhead (talk) 10:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I think an article on Mexican salvias (or Mexican sages - that's the terminology I usually hear used) would be comparable to hybrid tea or floribunda within roses, and if enough information could be sourced, it would hopefully avoid being targeted by deletionists. It would make an interesting and useful article. On the matter of their cultivation in the UK, sources generally give the impression that they are of variable hardiness. I think when I bought mine from Dyson's nursery, he told me that cultivars derived from S. microphylla are hardier than those derived from S. x jamensis (S. greggii), though, as you say, it can be difficult to know what the parentage is. Dyson also advised against over feeding - he criticised the RHS trial of Mexican sage because he said the plants were fed too much and put on too much soft growth, resulting in winter casualties. On specific varieties, I see 'Hot Lips' planted quite widely, and it is reputably one of the hardier varieties. The variety I have planted the most is 'Cerro Potosi', which, on very free-draining soil, easily survived 2018's 'Beast from the East' on an exposed site 900ft above sea-level in the middle of Derbyshire. The variety 'Nachtvlinder' is also tough, though like a lot of dark-flowered plants, the flowers tend to 'recede' when viewed from a distance. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

There are (or were) over 1,000 uses of a citation to the BSBI 2007 list of English names of plants which use an archive URL which used to be ok, but now leads to a dangerous webpage. You can recognize bad citations because they contain archive-url=https://www.webcitation.org/6VqJ46...?url=http://www.bsbi.org.uk/BSBIList2007.xls, where I've deliberately removed 3 characters.

If you come across them, you can replace the citation by {{BSBI 2007 |access-date=...}} (adding |mode=cs2 if appropriate). Any help in making these fixes will be appreciated. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Click here to run a search for articles with Speciesbox and the bad website (the link is also present in some articles with Taxobox and Infraspeciesbox). Plantdrew (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

What access-date should we use? —Eewilson (talk) 23:38, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

See Laricoideae. Possible that the user User:Renamed user 824ytts434mr did this manually? That user created the article and is the one who added the GA template to the talk page. —Eewilson (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

It appears the user has also been JN95 and GooseCanada at one time, changing the username. —Eewilson (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata Property P8765, Royal Horticultural Society plant ID, was created on 4 November 2020.Since that time 57 Items have been manually updated with the Property, and no problems have arisen. It seems to me that a request should be made at Wikidata to use a bot to populate all Wikidata Items that match an RHS listing. Are there any caveats or pitfalls in doing this? Abductive (reasoning) 18:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)‎

Please see Talk:Pseudanthium#Move proposal for a proposal to move the article to Capitulum (flower). Peter coxhead (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

In a related issue, I note considerable overlap in the floral heads and floral structures sections of Asteraceae, and also the lack of mention of pseudoradiate heads. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the interconnected topics need quite a bit of work, preferably by someone with a good knowledge of the topic area. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi! In a non-plant article I'm working on, I have several cases of flora where the Latin taxonomic name used in the source is different from the Latin taxonomic name used as the relevant article's title, although the source's name is listed in the article as a synonym. For example, I have a source that lists Acacia nilotica which is a synonym of Vachellia nilotica. I'm wondering if there is a rule of thumb on whether I should use the source name or the target article's name in the article I'm working on. The advantage of using the source name is that it's easier to verify in the source, while the advantage of using the article name is that it's likely the most common name and thus more recognisable and also less likely to confuse the reader with a redirect. Do you all have any guidance on this? Thank you. Brycehughes (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

A 3rd alternative would be "Vachellia nilotica (syn. Acacia nilotica)". Lavateraguy (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Lavateraguy. Do this in the first time it's mentioned, and then use Vachellia nilotica or V. nilotica, as appropriate. Guettarda (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

That'll do it. Thank you both! Brycehughes (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I have been working on a couple of Aporosa, and I come across the botanist Anne M. Schot. (Schot at IPNI). I have some biography from her, from c.v. at her Ph.D. thesis: Systematics of Aporosa (Euphorbiaceae). I note current discussions on the difficulty of getting biography of academics, or in this case a taxonomist. I note the long term difficulty that taxonomists have of recognition (everybody uses their names, but rarely reference their work, so little citations). The botanist is a woman with children, who has had a broken academic career typical of women with children. Does anybody have anything apart from her IPNI record, her publications and her c.v. mentioned above? Brunswicknic (talk) 11:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, apologies for another post here, but I wanted to check in with other interested parties. Context: I made the following comment at a users talk page:

Coconut, Coconut's lifestyle and more
... I have reverted your latest edit to Coconut. Two reasons. ... Secondly, why should that information be on a separate page to the main article on the plant Cocos nucifera. May I suggest that you have a look at WP:Wikiproject Plants, and familiarise yourself with what are regarded as good plant articles, how these are formatted and the wide number of available strong references. I think that your interest in the lifecycle of this palm is a good thing, and for many plants it may be good content to produce sections on this. But you have to justify why that is a notable thing, that may not be easy. Good luck.

When is a plant's lifecycle notable enough for a taxa page to contain the information? I can think of the Aotearoa New Zealand shrub Pseudopanax crassifolius whose leaves change when a certain height is reached (as do many African former-Acacias). I note that I rarely find how long does a taxa take to reach maturity and how long they are expected to live in the material I have been using, and yet this is information that I am interested in (because of implication of taxa age upon radiocarbon dating and thus the strong need for people to identify their wood charcoal). But otherwise the minute details of change times seems a bit much. Yet, we publish info on leaf margins, stamens, glands, flowering and fruiting times, &c., so is a referenced statement on certain landmarks of growth valid for a plant taxa page? Brunswicknic (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

p.s. I take as a given that there are pages and sections on generalised plant lifecycles. Brunswicknic (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I see that the coconut's lifestyle page has garnered a speedy deletion nomination.

I expect that for a lot of plants reference to the general class - ephemeral, annual, biennial, monocarpic, polycarpic, herbaceous, woody, ... is all that is necessary. It's when a group of plants has something more distinctive about them that one would want to say more. For example the vivipary of mangroves, which would go on the family page, or the simultaneous monocarpy of (some?) bamboos.

I don't see any problem with giving details on lifespans and milestones as well as information on phenology and dispersal.

Coconut is one of the few members of the oceanic strand community spread widely by hydrochory, which would make it a species for which there is a stronger motivation to offer related details. But obviously this should go on the coconut page, and not on another page. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I wonder if Pollination syndrome and Seed dispersal are relevant example articles here. When a suite of characters appears to have evolved together to facilitate some aspect of a plant's life cycle, such as pollination and dispersal, it does seem to me that an article can be justified. Depending on the amount of material, it could be general, as these two are, or some particular subset could be split off (hydrochory, for example). Peter coxhead (talk) 12:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Could someone look at this new page please. I got the following message and replied: Hi Brunswicknic, I was reviewing this page that you created. While checking for copyvio, Earwig turns up a high score of 56.4% for five sources. You might want to cut down/rephrase portions of the article which use the following sources: [4], [5], [6], [7], and [8]. Just ping me once you have done that, I'll be happy to review the page. Thank you. --Ashleyyoursmile! 11:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ashleyyoursmile: AYS, I'm sorry, it took a while for me to work out what you were saying. I had no idea what copyvio or earwig was. This is an article on a plant species and its varieties. I have only used the references you cite to name the plant species and varieties and synonyms and give the authority of those taxa. The only "cut down or rephrase" possible is to ignore the named varieties, their synonyms and their authorities. These are important and necessary parts of an article on a plant taxa. Please see WP:Wikiproject Plants for guidelines on plant articles. I suspect that Earwig is inappropriate for biological articles. I do thank you for your work to make WP a better place. Brunswicknic (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes I know lots of space, but it does reflect something that seems to be a more general problem, non-plants people reviewing what are at times quite technical articles. I know WP is supposed to be generalist, but as I think most members of the project agree, giving correct info is also necessary. Brunswicknic (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

"Almost all dataset metadata published on plantsoftheworldonline.org and kew.org is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY" (from http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/terms-and-conditions). Much of what you've written shows up in page names and headings, and all of that would have to be metadata (I assume) ... beyond that, I've never figured out which bits are CC-BY rather than copyright. - Dank (push to talk) 14:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Please could someone look at the article Rosemary Margaret Smith in the next couple of days before it appears on the main page as a DYK. It contains a number of botany-related misstatements such as "Smith was the first person to rename and give a colloquial title to the Malay Rose" and "Complications over being able to successfully divide the Alpinia genus into separate genera were solved." Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

The species Selenicereus wittii is getting a bit of attention at the moment as the first bloom in the UK has just occurred [9]. We didn't have an article but there was a GA-equivalent in German, so I've translated it across. Still needs a bit of work to bring it up-to-date through, so any assistance appreciated! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 06:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I've edited the article a bit, partly to conform to the usual template for a plant article, but also to add some phylogeny. Personally, I think the evidence that it should not be included in Selenicereus is very convincing, and I would move the article to Strophocactus wittii. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I've now created the genus article Strophocactus and moved the article on S. wittii.

For students of these matters, there's yet another case study of how wrong information spreads. The main source of information on S. wittii gives the binomial of a moth as "Cocytius cruentus". However, there appears to be no such specific name as "cruentus" in this genus, including in one of the two references the main source gives concerning the moth (I haven't been able to access the other). That reference lists "Cocytius cluentius", which is the specific name the article uses (see the footnote). If you search for "Cocytius cruentus", all the hits are in the context of the cactus, showing how wrong information is copied from one original source. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

fyi: ^[1]"⚠ Version 1.1 of The Plant List has been superseded and should no longer be used.

The new version is available at http://www.worldfloraonline.org. The new version is enhanced, using more data sources including Taxonomic Expert Networks and will be more frequently updated."

So I presume we take it off the taxonbar now. Brunswicknic (talk) 06:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

There are a lot of things like Category:Trees of Borneo, Category:Angiosperms of Australia and so forth. How do people feel about them? Should we add them religiously to the plant pages, or... Brunswicknic (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• I loathe these cross-concept categories. They completely mess up any attempt to produce a coherent category system. Consider the "Angiosperms of X" categories. If for every "Flora of X" category there was an "Angiosperms of X" category, there would be parallel category trees, which is fine. But there isn't, and shouldn't be where "Flora of X" is already small. Since they can't be used consistently, they aren't used consistently, so you have no idea whether an angiosperm native to X will be found in "Flora of X" or "Angiosperms of X". "Trees of X" is even worse, because in addition there's no clear botanical definition of "tree". I never add them to articles, but I don't remove them. DexDor has done some good work trying to clean up categories. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• I'm now firmly against these intersectional categories. For some reason, they have attracted a lot of disruptive editing down the years. A mea culpa though, I created a few "Trees of" categories in my early days. But now I believe that only "Flora of" categories should be used. I would certainly add no articles to intersectional categories and if I see an overcategorised article, I'm happy to upmerge to "Flora of" categories. Peter has done excellent work on implementing the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions and, in my opinion, anything beyond that is superfluous. Declangi (talk) 23:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not fond of these either, but I got the impression (maybe working with some of the Australian categories?) that they had been created to diffuse "Flora of location" categories which were perceived to have too many members. I don't think there's any policy or guideline that would mandate doing so, however. Choess (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
• I've occasionally added these, but only because I thought people liked them. Ridiculously fine-grained ones like Category:Trees of New Brunswick should be eliminated. Abductive (reasoning) 00:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I can see that there is good reasons not to use these categories, that people do use them and that some people use them because of dissatisfaction with World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions. At the moment I can see the reason for ignoring the Trees categories and will not use or maintain its use, but I suspect the Angiosperms, &c., have some rational rationale (sorry, couldn't resist), and will respect their use. Thank you all for your discussion and your ongoing improvement of WP. Brunswicknic (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

As Choess notes, there can be good reasons to diffuse a few over-large categories, and if this is done in a well defined way (e.g. splitting off angiosperms), it may well be justified, although given that only some geographical units will be worth diffusing, it does create issues for editors in finding out which category to use. I see the main problem to be ill-defined categorization concepts like "tree" or "bunch-grass" (or even "grass", where there have been arguments over whether bamboos are included). Peter coxhead (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'd prefer they all be upmerged to "Category:Flora of X". —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 20:50, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

What is the correct name for these abbreviated botanical citations such as "Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 19: 154 (1894)" or "Suppl. Pl.: 208 (1781)" and is there a code or manual for them like the ICNCP? Abductive (reasoning) 19:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's a term for them, but IPNI incorporates standardized abbreviations for publications. Searching there will usually yield results. Choess (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah but for example, for Alnus nitida, IPNI has it as "Gen. Pl. [Endlicher] Suppl. 4(2): 20 (1848).", PoWO has "Gen. Pl., Suppl. 4(2): 20 (1847)", WCSP has "Gen. Pl., Suppl. 4(2): 20 (1847).", and Tropicos has "Genera Plantarum (Endlicher) Suppl. 4(2): 20. 1847[1848]. (Aug-Oct 1848) (Gen. Pl.)". These are all different, and seem to be reading from a forgotten playbook. Abductive (reasoning) 19:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

The starting point is likely to be the abbreviations used in the volumes of Taxonomic Literature (TL), with variations decided on independently. The date differences do have some logic. IPNI, in order to determine priority, is interested in the actual date on which the publication appeared, as opposed to the date given on the title page. Other sources use the printed bibliographic date. Tropicos here shows both. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

So, which is preferred here? By the way, I have been putting the PoWO version in as its own citation in my articles, for example, in Sempervivum pittonii, but maybe there is a better place for it? Perhaps as a quote within the PoWO citation? Or maybe it could be made to appear in the taxonbar? Abductive (reasoning) 23:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

None of them should appear in the English Wikipedia. If the source of the protologue is used as a reference, it should be given in an accepted citation style, and none of these include abbreviated titles. Note that the original description can never be a reference for the validity of the name, since it doesn't demonstrate that it is acceptable under the ICNafp; you need a secondary reference for that. The original can be used for the description of the taxon or the etymology of the name, if discussed. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi all. For those of you who are interested in Australian rainforest flora, you will more than likely be familiar with the superb "Australian Tropical Rainforest Plants" identification tool (RFK), and how it has undergone a number of revised editions over the past decade or so.

One of those editions (Ed. 6, I believe) was hosted at the URL "trin.org.au" (hereon refered to as TRIN) in the form "http://keys.trin.org.au:8080/key-server/data/0e0f0504-0103-430d-8004-060d07080d04/media/Html/[page name]". At some point in 2020, the TRIN domain name was deregistered as it was no longer needed, as the latest edition of RFK is being hosted at https://apps.lucidcentral.org/rainforest/text/intro/index.html.

In late February this year I discovered that someone had re-registered the TRIN domain and was using it for online gambling. "So what?" you might ask, but the problem is that there are literally hundreds of articles on Wikipedia that still use the old version of RFK in references, and I'm sure you'll agree that the new incarnation of TRIN is not the kind of site that Wikipedia should be linking to.

At the time I discovered this, there were more than 560 articles linking to TRIN. I have whittled it down, one article at a time, to around 480 by replacing the old RFK references with ones that refer to the latest edition of RFK. But it's a long road and I would be grateful if others would help out.

You can find articles linking to TRIN with this search. You can also see what I've already done by browsing through my contributions Cheers  Junglenut | talk  09:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Following up on the discussion at User_talk:Plantdrew#Australian_Rainforest_Key, should the {{RFK6.1}}template be updated to use the sandbox version? This will provide a fix for many of the citations by replacing the links with the new version 8 site (although archive.org links might be more appropriate). Then you could focus on the cite web citations. I was going to look at a new template with some version control, but haven't had time yet. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Jts1882: Looking back at that now I don't think it will be good enough as it still claims the source to be RFK6 but it links to RFK8. If there was some magic way of redirecting the links to the new site, that would be awesome. A possible solution may lie in the fact that the final section of the URL (i.e. the part of the URL following the last forward slash) for both versions are exactly the same except for the capitalisation of the genus name, but case in URLs are irrelevant and all letter characters are treated as lower case. That would work for almost all of the links, but there are some species names that have been changed between the two versions and we would be left with a "404 page not found" error.  Junglenut | talk  10:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the versioning is an issue, which is why I mentioned that a link to archive.org might be more appropriate for the main link. Then a link to the new site could be added with appropriate comment. Ideally we want to link to the source used and provide the reader direction to the new site. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Here is a template you can use for the new version. It can be used in two ways:

(1) use |genus= and |species= parameters (with an optional {{para|authority) parameter

{{BioRef|ATRP|genus=Buckinghamia |species=celsissima|access-date=23 March 2021}}

• Zich, F. A.; Hyland, B. P. M.; Whiffin, T.; Kerrigan, R.A. (2020). "Buckinghamia celsissima". Australian Tropical Rainforest Plants. Edition 8. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). Retrieved 23 March 2021.

{{BioRef|ATRP|genus=Buckinghamia |species=celsissima|authority=F.Muell.  |access-date=23 March 2021}}

• Zich, F. A.; Hyland, B. P. M.; Whiffin, T.; Kerrigan, R.A. (2020). "Buckinghamia celsissima F.Muell." Australian Tropical Rainforest Plants. Edition 8. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). Retrieved 23 March 2021.

(2) use |title= and |url=

{{BioRef|ATRP|title=''Buckinghamia celsissima'' F.Muell. |url=https://apps.lucidcentral.org/rainforest/text/entities/buckinghamia_celsissima.htm |display-authors=3 |mode=cs2|access-date=23 March 2021}}

• Zich, F. A.; Hyland, B. P. M.; Whiffin, T.; et al. (2020), "Buckinghamia celsissima F.Muell.", Australian Tropical Rainforest Plants, Edition 8, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), retrieved 23 March 2021

The author list was taken from the old template so probably needs updating (and is all that stuff in publisher wanted?). The author list can be truncated with |display-authors=3 or use |mode=cs2, as in the last example, and can take any parameters in the CS1/CS2 template suite as it is (or tries to be) fully compliant with the CS1/CS2 system.

This can be used to create a {{ATRP}} template or used from the general {{BioRef}} template, as above. Other options can easily be added, e.g if there are pages for higher taxa (family, genus, etc). Let me know what you want. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

That still leaves us with a "one article at a time" scenario. I was hoping that there would be a way to re-write the references automatically. But if that's how it is, so be it.

"and is all that stuff in publisher wanted?" - IMO, no. Using this page as a guide, I have been using this format for my updates to the pages:

<ref name="RFK8">{{cite web |access-date=blah |title=blah |url=blah |author=F.A. Zich |author2=B.P.M Hyland |author3=T. Whiffen |author4=R.A. Kerrigan |website=[[Australian Tropical Rainforest Plants]], Edition 8 |year=2020 |publisher=[[Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation]] (CSIRO) }}</ref>

 Junglenut | talk  11:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Jts1882: When I said that I hoped there was some way to re-write all the references automacially, I was hoping that someone could design a bot that would do the job. Maybe that's too pie-in-the-sky?

Hi All, Just added the importing short description tool and have starting doing a few imports on plant articles. Most plant species on wikidata seem to have the short description "Species of Plant". Before continuing I thought it might be worthwhile asking opinions of others as what would make a good short description for plants. For arguments sake what would be a good short description for a species of Corymbia?

• Species of plant
• Species of tree (assuming it is a tree)
• Species of Corymbia
• Species of Corymbia native to Australia
• or Something else.

Penny for your thoughts. Hughesdarren (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I have been following the formula "Species of plant [or tree or shrub if appropriate] in the [Parent Taxa] from [description of range, i.e. Southeast Asia to India or Cambodia & Vietnam]". At present the protocol as I understand it is that we ignore introduced/naturalised range, and so native is redundant. Thanks for the short description work, it makes a lot of sense, and I presume that it helps in the machinery of WP. Brunswicknic (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

OK that sounds reasonable, given that no-one else seems interested, I'll go with your formula @Brunswicknic:. Regards. Hughesdarren (talk) 02:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I realise that I need to clarify: by Parent taxa I mean Family, I haven't done any SD higher than genus level. Brunswicknic (talk) 06:57, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

My formula is the same as yours @Brunswicknic: except that I don't include the range, keeping in mind that the guidelines for short description ask us to keep it below 40 characters where appropriate. Given that it's only used as a very quick summary of an article in search results, I think that's enough for the searcher to decide if this is the article they are looking for.  Junglenut | talk  01:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks User:Junglenut for this, I had had a scan of short description explanations and couldn't find a limit, and this I thought the 2 main things I usually want to know is family and where so... Brunswicknic (talk) 10:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Brunswicknic:, you'll find it on this page WP:SHORTDESC, under the "formating" subheading.  Junglenut | talk  19:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Ta @Junglenut:, got it. It does say "be brief: aim for no more than about 40 characters (but this can be exceeded when necessary)." "Plant in the Myrtaceae family" is 29 characters, other families are longer, tree, vine, herb, and so on save one character. Hmm, I still would like range, some of these families are huge, I suggest that if the plant has a noteworthy range (cosmopolitan, endemic, or notably disjunctive) then we should stretch the short desc., otherwise such is life. Brunswicknic (talk) 09:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I take your point @Brunswicknic:. I guess it will be dependant on the particular species (or genus or whatever) in question. What considerations should we take when deciding to expand beyond ~40 characters? The cut-off for the length of the SD on different devices would be one (I've no idea what they are at this point, or indeed if there even is a cut-off); endemicity, yes, if the state/country/region can be summarised in one or two words; but that's about as far as I would recommend.  Junglenut | talk  10:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Junglenut: I assume the 40 limit is there for a reason, the short desc. project looks good to me, so at present I would only add geography if that is noteworthy, which for most people I assume is endemism, and I would include the extreme disjunctive as well (say Microseris or Adansonia. Brunswicknic (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Brunswicknic: Ah, I missed your mention of disjunctive in your earlier post. Yes, that too. —  Junglenut | talk  11:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I was given for my birthday a "desert candle cactus" labelled Euphorbia acruensis. Online I find various outlets selling the plant and just four results from searching on Google Scholar. This one doesn't give an authority but has a picture of a plant that looks like mine. It states that the plant is "found in Africa, America and parts of South East Asia". Wikipedia does not have an article for it nor is it included on the page List of Euphorbia species. Wikipedia does have an article Euphorbia abyssinica, which according to The Plant List has a synonym Euphorbia acrurensis (note the extra "r"), so I have started expanding it. But E. abyssinica is restricted to the Horn of Africa. So, do the Google Scholar results for E. acruensis refer to the same plant? One of the results refers to its use in the green synthesis of silver nanoparticles, which I would add to the Euphorbia abyssinica article if I was confident it was the same plant. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: The original description of Euphorbia acrurensis here is worth looking at. It seems there was confusion over the identity and relationship with Euphorbia abyssinica from the beginning. N. E. Brown distinguished E. acrurensis from E. abyssinica largely by its having 7-angled rather than 4-angled stems, which doesn't seem very satisfactory. Jacobsen's A Handbook of Succulent Plants (original in German 1954, English translation 1960) [the 'bible' for succulents], Vol. 1, has photos under both names on pp. 404–405, but the one labelled Euphorbia abyssinica has at least 6-angled stems, whereas the one labelled Euphorbia acrurensis has 4-angled stems, and Jacobsen's descriptions fit the photos, with E. abyssinica said to have stems with up to 8 angles and E. acrurensis to have 4-angled stems, which is the opposite of Brown's description. The distribution Jacobsen gives for E. abyssinica is wider and includes the distribution he gives for E. acrurensis. Jacobsen says of E. acrurensis "this species is distributed in gardens under the name Euphorbia abyssinica". If they are distinct species, the photo you linked to looks like Jacobsen's E. acrurensis.

I would go with the Plants of the World Online entry, including the distribution. But whether your plant is the same species is another matter! I grow quite a number of cacti and other succulents, and have learnt by experience to be very sceptical of the names used in commerce. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:58, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, thank you. I think I will give a miss to the silver nanoparticles; I thought it strange that the Kaushik Roy article didn't give an authority for the plant he was researching, which seems a glaring omission, especially as he had spelt the specific name incorrectly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Rule of thumb - don't rely on scientific papers for facts not directly related to their subject. (I find it shocking what gets through peer review.) The paper here doesn't give a citation for the implausible distribution, and gives an invalid citation for the presence and constituents of the latex.

The taxonomic and floristic literature gives authorities for IC(B)N names. I have the impression that the horticultural, phytochemical and pharmacological literature is rather less rigorous on this point. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

If you interpret South East Asia as an error for South West Asia the distribution would be less implausible - I expect that several of the African stem-succulent spurges do extend into South West Asia, and it's not beyond the bounds of imagination that a species could be naturalised in the American southwest. (However FNA says that none of them have.) So even with that reintepretation the origin of the statement of the distribution baffles me. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lavateraguy: I'm pretty sure the paper is based entirely on plants in cultivation. It's worth noting that in general the taxonomy of stem succulents is notoriously difficult; they don't preserve well in herbaria, and identifications and classifications were based often on morphological features that are frequently more variable than the authors realized. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a slight complication over the name Euphorbia abyssinica. IPNI and PoWO have Euphorbia abyssinica J.F.Gmel. The protologue here relies on illustrations in Bruce trav. There appear to be versions of this work under slightly different titles with varying divisions into volumes and pages, because sources give different volumes and page numbers. The images in BHL are on successive pages here – Dublin edition, vol. 6, following p. 50. Jacobsen uses the name Euphorbia abyssinica Raeusch. This name isn't in IPNI, but its entry for Euphorbia abyssinica J.F.Gmel. has a note at the bottom referring to "A. Rich. Tent. Fl. Abyss. 2: 239", which is here, and shows the two names are based on the same illustrations. (Räuschel's work is little more than a listing of names; compare this with this.) It would probably be useful if IPNI explicitly contained Euphorbia abyssinica Raeusch. explaining its status. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

It looks like User:Starzoner has been blocked indef for his/her habit of making stubs too hastily and overwriting existing articles. Abductive (reasoning) 21:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Nah, they were blocked for being found out as a sockpuppet of a well-known serial offender. Huh. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Their offense was the way they created stubs. Sockpuppetry itself is not against the rules. Abductive (reasoning) 23:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Who the what now? Sockpuppetry by a blocked user IS against the rules, and that is clearly why Starzoner was blocked. Creating sourced stubs, on the other hand, is perfectly fine... - But, whatever. I'm actually more concerned by the distinct possibility that many hundreds of perfectly valid species stubs may now get G5'd, if that is how these cases are normally handled. That would seem like a net loss for process' sake :/ --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Now they are deleting all his/her stubs. It is unfortunate, but s/he was abusively creating them. The reason s/he was blocked before is the reason their new account was caught. If they had created the stubs in a different manner, it would not have led to this. Users who reform their methods are not treated this way, even if they evade a block. Abductive (reasoning) 01:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

That is not how it works, and I have never seen a positive-outcome SPI that did not end in the block of all socks. But there's no benefit in continuing to argue about this. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I have seen great variation in outcomes. Blocking is the least of them. Abductive (reasoning) 02:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Not specifically about Starzoner, but the policy now adopted of automatically deleting pages created by blocked/banned users, is causing havoc when taxonomy templates get deleted. Yesterday there were over 20 pages in the taxobox error-tracking categories because two genus taxonomy templates were deleted without the admin concerned checking for transclusions. I find this irritating, unnecessary and time-wasting. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Considering the sheer volume created and the lack of adequate content in most of the stubs created, not just irritating, unnecessary and time-wasting, sheer xxxx to have allowed the editor to do what he got away with - surely the volume of such creations should have been truncated somehow, in some projects there are various 'reviews' of status of articles, the guess is that this project has not the will, or the numbers to implement some form of new creation checking system? JarrahTree 10:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, there are different views about stubs, provided, of course, that they have at least one reliable secondary reference. I agree that it's irritating and time-wasting to leave stubs without key features, such as taxonbars, categories, talk page Wikiproject assessments, etc., and expect other editors to supply these. Thus I'm unhappy with Estopedist1's response at User talk:Estopedist1#Some improvements. But on the other hand, Estopedist1 has created stubs that are based solidly on Plants of the World Online. So complete stubs seem ok to me.

I don't think we have the number of active editors now to check all new creations, although Plantdrew does sterling work. If they have bad taxoboxes, then I will eventually catch them, but I don't have the time for other monitoring (more truthfully, I don't really have the time for the monitoring I do do!) Peter coxhead (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Having cleaned up a whole bunch of Starzoner's orchid stubs over the last holiday, I see essentially zero value in what Starzoner was and Estopedist1 is doing. Having run across various *Pleurothallis* stubs created years before, creating stubs doesn't seem to catalyze improvement to start-class or above in any meaningful way. If we can't offer anything more than what POWO does to the user, it's not clear why we should be manually mirroring it here, and in addition, any errors in POWO are being replicated by these mass creations. I'm not sure what "some form of new creation checking system" would amount to. I'm pretty sure that both of these users have been personally asked to try creating stubs of somewhat higher quality, with little result. In my experience, the community at large holds that creating large numbers of sub-stubs is a constructive activity. Unless their error rate is overwhelming, there will be no appetite for sanctions or attempting to raise quality through coercion. Choess (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

@Choess: yes, there's a difference between a "sub-stub" and what I called above a "complete stub", and I agree that creating sub-stubs is not productive, unless there's a clear intention to come back later and work on them. But there doesn't seem to be a consensus to stop this activity, so attempting to persuade seems to be all we can do. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:40, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Bonplandia

One of Estopedist1's pages (a dab page) is up for speedy deletion. It doesn't seem like a slam dunk to me. Any opinions? Lavateraguy (talk) 19:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I guess the argument will be that there are only two actual articles, so hatnotes will suffice. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

What is the protocol on getting "stubs" that we have worked on back? From scratch, or can we get access to text and recreate? Brunswicknic (talk) 09:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:REFUND? Or ask here, there's probably a few of us with admin bits that can do it for you ad hoc. Choess (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

We currently have two separate articles on Cycads and Cycadales. The only difference between them according to the taxobox is apparently Cycads also include the seed fern group Medullosales. As far as I can tell, Medullosales are one of many enigmatic incertae sedis extinct plant groups without any clear association to any living seed plant group, and both articles almost exclusively talk about modern cycads. Having two very similar articles effectively covering the exact same topic is confusing to readers. In my reading of the paleobotanical literature, "Cycadales" is universally used to mean the group containing all modern cycads. In my opinion one of the articles should be redirected into the other, and any useful content should be merged in. Thoughts? Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

No source is given for placing Medullosales in Cycadopsida in the cycad article. Most modern phylogenetic studies of cycads are molecular; I can only find quite old sources for extinct groups. Taylor, Taylor & Krings (2009) put Medullosales in the paraphyletic Pteridospermophyta (their orthography),^[1] which has support in other oldish sources. Molecular studies put cycads close to or in gymnosperms, which Medullosales is pretty clearly not. So I support removing Medullosales from the cycad article, and merging. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

From my reading of the paleobotanical literaure, Pteridospermophyta and the equivalent term "seed fern" is a wastebasket taxon used to refer collectively refer to a number of extinct gymnosperm (sensu lato, the earliest plants that produced seeds appeared in the Late Devonian) groups with fern-like foliage, though some of these so called "seed ferns" such as Caytoniales have foliage like Sagenopteris that is pretty unfernlike. I presume that Cycad is the article that should be merged into, per the discussion at Talk:Conifer? Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, "paraphyletic" sounds better than "wastebasket", but in the case of pteridosperms amounts much the same thing. Yes, merge to "Cycad" in my view. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Done, the cycadales was twice the size of cycad, but much of the text was uncited and I don't think it was worth saving. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Cycad cleanup

The cycad article gets around 500 views per day, but is in a pretty sorry state, massive amounts of uncited text, anyone interested in cleaning this up? Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC) Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

When adding the Taxa named by ... categories to articles, how do we take into account revising authors? So, for example, (Pall.) Link., does the article need both Category:Taxa named by Peter Simon Pallas and Category:Taxa named by Johann Heinrich Friedrich Link? Or only the one? Which one? What about ex, such as Korth. ex Miq.? I did a random survey of plant articles, and all combinations can be found in roughly equal numbers. I have searched various pages in the Wikiproject, and there is no guidance. (There was guidance on Plants described in year categorization.) Abductive (reasoning) 21:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

There's no guidance because this WikiProject was not consulted (so far as I know) about the creation of the "Taxa named by ..." categories, which I would personally have opposed. One real problem is that "Taxa named by" is unclear between "Taxa whose name was first given by ... (but not necessarily published)" and "Taxa whose name was first (validly) published by ..." Only the latter works if ICNafp and ICZN names are to be put in the same category. It would be better for the categories to be called "Taxa first published by ..."

If names under the ICZN as well as names under the ICNafp are to be put in these categories, only the first describer should be used, since the ICZN ignores the transferring author. This also ensures that the criteria match "TAXA described in YEAR" categories, since these are for species by the year of first description.

"Ex" authorities are always an issue; IPNI and other sources are inconsistent in their use of "ex", partly because they have combined data from different sources that handled "ex" differently. Given that "Korth. ex Miq." should mean that Korthals thought up the name but didn't (validly) publish it, so it was first published by Miquel but attributed to Korthals, then it could be argued that Korthals should be the author used in a "named by" category. However, again, there's an issue of consistency with the ICZN, which doesn't use the same "ex" approach, so for an animal Miquel would be the only option.

The other difficulty arises with a nomen novum. The taxon (species) was first named by the author(s) who published the name that needs to be replaced. Consider Persicaria maculosa. It was first named as Polygonum persicaria by Linnaeus. But the currently accepted name is Persicaria maculosa, the name given to it by Gray. Do you put the article "Persicaria maculosa" in the category "Taxa named by Carl Linnaeus" even though this isn't his name?

Basically, these categories are a poorly thought through mess, which I deliberately ignore. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

By the way, there's another whole can of worms if taxa higher than species are included. For example, the subtribe Echinocereinae was first named by Britton and Rose in 1922 (but as "Echinocereanae", not with the modern standard subtribe ending). In 1958, Buxbaum published the tribe name Echinocereeae (as "Echinocereae", which is a misspelling as it is based on Echinocereus). Buxbaum wrote "trib. nov.", but explicitly referred to Britton and Rose's subtribe, so he was effectively raising the subtribe to a tribe. Some sources use the authority "Buxb.", others (fewer) use "(Britton & Rose) Buxb[.|aum]". So what category should Echinocereeae be placed in? Was it named by Britton and Rose or by Buxbaum? Does it depend on what the majority of sources say? In my experience, sources are very inconsistent about the authority for higher taxa that are changed in rank. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I see. And named is not the same thing as described. I have only been adding Category:Taxa named by Carl Linnaeus to articles, and ignoring all others. I suppose I will continue doing so. Thanks. Abductive (reasoning) 15:35, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that answer. I have been meaning to ask a similar question for some time, as the ambiguities described above have bothered me. Ignoring them for the time being seems healthy. We could discuss how to revamp the category system in a way that's more carefully grounded on the ICN, although the inconsistency of "ex" handling, for instance, suggests that some parts of the taxon attribution are not WP:DEFINING. Choess (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone at WikiProject Plants!

I've just started a horticultural course this year and was doing some research for a project, during which I noticed that Plants of the World Online has Pennisetum clandestium listed as a (presumably superseded?) synonym for Cenchrus clandestinus. I don't know enough about the world of botany or wikipedia editing to know for certain whether that means this is the currently accepted one (although POWO would surely be an authority), and in that case how best to update the relevant article here to reflect that change. At the risk of seeming overly cautious, what is the best way to proceed? Cheers Helrasincke (talk) 08:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

If you look at Pennisetum, you'll see that PoWO has merged the entire genus into Cenchrus. Whether this is justified or not, I don't know. However, I do know that PoWO has recently taken a "lumping" stand in other areas of plant taxonomy (e.g. ferns), which we aren't obliged to follow if other sources don't. However, if you look at what GrassBase (another Kew database) describes in the introduction as "Index of all accepted grass names" at Generic Index, it includes both Cenchrus and Pennisetum, so the two databases seem to be out of step. Personally, I wouldn't go with PoWO at present. There are issues about updates to all the Kew databases, because staff have been furloughed as part of Covid-19 restrictions.

But I don't keep up with grass taxonomy; maybe there's someone here who does? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Florabase provides this note on the current name (of what is locally an invasive): "Pennisetum clandestinum Chiov. is more recently known as Cenchrus clandestinus (Chiov.) Morrone / Reason: See M.A. Chemisquy et al. in Ann.Bot.106:127(2010)" ~ cygnis insignis 10:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

See, perhaps, the abstract here: [10] "Recent molecular research has confirmed that Cenchrus and Pennisetum (Gramineae) should be united. For nomenclatural, not practical, reasons, Cenchrus is accepted as the correct name." [11] is recent and suggests that the question is still unsettled, although I find their abstract hard to parse. Choess (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

The abstract is opaque, but the final sentence of the conclusion is definitive enough: "Our study supported monophyly of Cenchrus and Pennisetum species". The NJ tree shows six clusters: one for Bothriochloa, Dichanthium and Panicum species" (all apomictic), one for sexual Cenchrus, one for apomictic Cenchrus, one for sexual Pennisetum, and two for apomictic Pennisetum species. The three apomictic Cenchrus and Pennisetum clusters group together, as do the two sexual Cenchrus and Pennisetum clusters, so in days past when NJ analysis was more widespread they would be considered clades. But authors seem to take the observation that there is no mixing of species within any of the clusters as evidence of monophyly for the two genera. Regardless of the merit of this conclusion, the issue is clearly still being debated. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:58, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello, WikiProject Plants,

This article has a red link category, Category:Nature Conservation Act extinct biota. I don't know what it means so can't create it to fit into the existing Wikipedia category structure. And it seems to be tied into some template so it can not be removed from the article without altering other information.

If anyone is either a) familiar with this act and so you can create the category or b) can see that the red link category is in error and there is a way to remove it, your help would be most welcome. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

P.S. In the course of the past week, I've visited probably 8 WikiProject talk pages and I just wanted to say how lovely is it is to see an active WikiProject where there is talk page discussion. Many existing WikiProjects have moved to semi-active or inactive status. Nice to see this one humming along. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Liz. Why is that, do you think? Covid? - Dank (push to talk) 03:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey Liz. Being an extinct species from Queensland (Australian state), the category likely refers to the Nature Conservation Act 1992 for that state. The article linked gives a pretty good explanation but the act itself is also cited in the references should you need, hopefully that helps. Cheers Helrasincke (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the category is being auto-generated by the taxobox (speciesbox), specifically the "Conservation status" portion. The category in question would belong to the category tree under Category:Biota of Queensland by Nature Conservation Act status. This source says its status was changed to "Extinct", but this system only has an "Extinct in the wild" and not an "Extinct" status. See, e.g., the legend in the most recent changes, or our article on Nature Conservation Act 1992. I've changed the parameter in the taxobox to "EW" for "Extinct in the wild"; I don't know if the speciesbox code for conservation status needs to be changed or if parsing "EX" as "Extinct" for any system is intended behavior (which it could well be). Choess (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@Gderrin: has pointed out that "Extinct" does, in fact, exist under that system, so I've filled out the category tree appropriately. Choess (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Ooops! I should have had this page on my watchlist. Thanks to @Choess: for clearing this up. Gderrin (talk) 21:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I have been trying to share the burden and look at new plant articles. I have come across one and would like to seek advice. Cladonia squamosa, a type of lichen. I had a look at the sites on the taxonbar, the first four give a different authority to the one the article uses, there is no ref for synonyms, though I have not looked at all the taxonbar sites. What advice? Do I ask the editor to rewrite, do I rewrite it myself, what do you do? Brunswicknic (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The taxonbar entries are Cladonia subsquamosa. According to the ITIS entry on Cladonia, Cladonia squamosa (Scop.) Hoffm. and Cladonia subsquamosa (Nyl. ex Leight.) Cromb are different species. Mycobank has Cladonia squamosa (Scop.) Hoffm. and both Cladonia subsquamosa Kremp. and Cladonia subsquamosa (Nyl. ex Leight.) Cromb. as legitimate. The article Cladonia squamosa seems to be linked to the wrong Wikidata item (Cladonia subsquamosa (Q3678943)), when it should be Cladonia squamosa (Q22114140). All a bit muddled. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I change the Wikidata record and the taxonbar makes more sense. The Mycobank record has numerous varieties and forms including Cladonia squamosa var. subsquamosa, which is confusing if Cladonia subsquamosa is also a species. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Wurfbainia elegans, but title says Wurfbania elegans (ban not bain, but it is being a bain). Title is wrong, so I tried to move it to Wurbainia elegans, can't, page already exists, request uncontroversial move, can't Wurfbania elegans does not exist. So how do I change this wrong title? Brunswicknic (talk) 09:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

It may need admin rights since the redirect already had a page history? I've moved it and cleaned up the redirects. Choess (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Has no-one seen List of plant genus names (A–C) and the other three articles that complete this alphabetical list? Now, I don't edit plant articles and I have no background in botany, but this looks like complete and utter foolishness. Who would want to compile and maintain an alphabetical list of all plant genera? The work of some over-enthusiastic 15-year-old newbie, which would quickly be swept away at AfD, I would assume. But no: created by an experienced Wikipedian, they have all been nominated for featured list status, and – surreally – all passed with flying colours.

Are the lists complete? Obviously they can't be – with under 2,500 entries in total between the four lists, they represent a fraction of the plant genera on Wikipedia. There must be something I'm missing here? If not, then these articles need to be either sent to AfD, or replaced with pointers to some automatically generated list of plant genera that will actually be complete.

The lists' main sources appear to be Stearn's Dictionary of Plant Names for Gardeners and Plants of the World, which could explain the selectiveness of the coverage. If these lists are kept, then at least their titles would need to be changed and the text clarified to make it clear the lists are incomplete and biased towards plants of interest to gardeners. – Uanfala (talk) 21:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree these lists are not manageable, and are already missing all extinct genera, eg Dillhoffia and Langeria @Dank:, what is your end goal for these lists, what is the scope, who do you feel will be maintaining them, with new taxa described monthly.--Kevmin § 22:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's tackle one thing at a time. Are there any objections to adding "Stearn's" to the name of these four lists? Would that help? - Dank (push to talk) 22:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

O-kay, since there's no discussion here, let's continue this at WT:FLC#Renaming the plant lists. - Dank (push to talk) 13:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree, lists of all flowering plant genera are not maintainable due to conflicts between different authorities and the constant reassigning and description of new genera. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm aware that botanists won't ever settle on a master list of plant genera. All I'm interested in, and all I'm doing, is researching etymologies of genus names from high-quality sources. It's completely up to you guys which genus names I should be working on and where those names come from, as I've said, several times now. If you want more Featured Lists (and there are some advantages to going the Featured List route), then it's important to have stable sources ... they love books, for instance ... which is why I've relied heavily on Plants of the World (2017) for "accepted" genera, and almost entirely on books for etymologies (and Burkhardt, which at least has an ISBN). (And my current Featured List candidate relies on POWO to avoid some obvious mistakes in PotW, but I'd be perfectly happy to toss POWO.) But I'm not even wedded to the Featured List process ... if you guys prefer sources that wouldn't be accepted at WP:FLC, that's fine, tell me now, I'd rather have lists the project can get behind than have Featured Lists. All I ask is that you not jerk me around ... if people have strong feelings about what I should include or not include, I need to know now, not after another year's worth of work. - Dank (push to talk) 03:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

And, just to be clear, even though the current Stearn-based list is titled "List of plant genus names" (a title that wasn't my c14,-hoice, and will soon change), this is not and was never intended as a list of all plant genera. It's a list of entries from Stearn, with high-quality etymological information from several reliable sources, with outdated genus names trimmed by consulting PotW. - Dank (push to talk) 12:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

My suggestion for the rename is either "List of accepted plant genera from Stearn" or "List of plant genus etymologies from Stearn". (The second is a little misleading since the etymologies come from several sources, but it might be necessary to get the word "etymologies" in there somewhere to avoid trouble.) - Dank (push to talk) 12:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm thinking about the inclusion criteria. Would you accept additional genera in the lists if they weren't in Stearn but accepted by POWO and had reliably-sourced etymologies? Choess (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Something like that is exactly where I'm headed ... but I think people are underestimating the job. It will take years, and has to be done piecemeal ... you can't just beaver away at a list of around 14,000 entries and then present people with it and expect everything to go well. What I've got up at FLC right now is List of plant genera named for people (A–C) ... that list is the intersection of accepted genera from POWO with the best etymological sources I could find. It comes close to covering all the genera in POWO named for people ... we're way beyond Stearn at this point. (Again, I'm aware of problems with POWO, but I'm taking advantage of the fact that POWO is close to PotW, and FLC people like PotW, so if the list needs to change, I'm hoping not too much needs to change.) If all goes well with this new list series and I stop taking flak for the Stearn series, then I'd be willing to start on a long alphabetical list after that. And collaborators would be nice, too, of course ... but the books are expensive, the job is hard, the rewards are few, and you can expect to take flak for a variety of reasons and non-reasons. - Dank (push to talk) 13:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I might just go with "List of accepted plant genera with etymologies". I understand why you're principally using Stearn, but it seems weird to me, from an encyclopedic perspective, to make that a formal criterion for a list. Piling up 14,000 genera is a monumental task, but I'm not sure maintenance is as impossible as it sounds. I'm not a python coder, but it looks, superficially, like it might be possible to use the "modified" and "added" fields in the POWO API to keep tabs on newly accepted genera added there. So I'm not convinced that a more or less complete list would necessarily be unmaintainable. Choess (talk) 13:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that is a good name for the list article title. The title should be as simple as possible while explaining the content in a general way. The principal source and criteria can be explained in the lede paragraph. This will probably change with time and you don't want to keep moving the page.

I'll add that I appreciate that such list require a lot of effort that there will be naysayers. It's a niche subject. Don't get discouraged. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks much, always appreciated. Are we talking about "List of accepted plant genera with etymologies" for the longer list or for the 4 Stearn pages? - Dank (push to talk) 15:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Im going to be honest, these list feel very wp:crufty to me. The etymologies should be covered in the respective genus articles, rather than in 4 long lists that are likely to be looked at as info dumps from Sterns.-Kevmin § 16:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

There has to be some kind of division of labor here. I'm doing this in lists for my protection and for yours. (One of the worst things any wikiproject has to deal with is new people making rapid changes to a lot of pages). Anyone can transfer the information from the lists into articles if they want to (and if you do, please leave me out of it, I've got my hands full with the lists). For the other question, we're probably trying to deal with too much at once as it is, I'll save that for later. - Dank (push to talk) 16:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, if this gave the wrong impression: if someone decides to transfer information from one of these lists to, say, a genus article, and that provokes a response or a question, I'll be happy to help with research and discussion, and make an edit if necessary ... to the list. And then if someone else wants to make a corresponding edit to the genus page, fine. Everyone is responsible for their own edits. It's like the old joke: "Hey, Doc, it hurts when I do this!" "So don't do that!" If you're pulling info from these lists into genus articles ... heck, if you're pulling information from anywhere into genus articles ... and it seems to be causing problems, then it might make sense to stop doing that. We can't please everyone. - Dank (push to talk) 23:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Protecting me from what? I'm a paleobotany and paleoentomology editor. These lists are not at all in my direct area of editing. This information should only be at the genus articles. There is no rational need for them to exist, if I'm being blunt. I will note that the plant terminlology glossery is actually far into the realm of original research and synth, thus they would likley not survive any challenge at aft.--Kevmin § 18:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Protecting you plural, the wikiproject, from an editor who's relatively new to botany (me) making rapid-fire changes to many articles at once. Everyone who has ever felt connection to a wikiproject knows how difficult it can be to deal with new, eager, rapid-fire editors. And of course, I'm a volunteer, and I can set limits on how many different people and different issues I'm willing to deal with at the same time ... and I can confidently say that I'm not willing to deal with 14,000 pages and all the associated editors at once. Not going to happen. - Dank (push to talk) 18:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Again though, protecting from what? if you were adding the information with acceptable referencing then there isn't an issue to start with. If "dealing with people" is the rational, just make sure to unwatch the pages edited. As these lists stand they are a content fork/dump from an outdated and highly pov restricted source. They do not merit F L status.--Kevmin § 19:30, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

This seems overly negative to me. You're welcome to nominate the lists to get de-featured by following the directions at WP:FLRC ... anyone is ... and that might be a better forum to deal with questions like these. But I don't take offense, and there are a host of things that might be causing the problem here ... I tried to take a reasonable guess what the problem is here, and I responded on your talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 23:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not as exercised by this, but I think Somatochlora hit the basic issue at FLC talk: "is the genus in Stearn?" is a fairly arbitrary criterion for inclusion, maybe scraping up against WP:LISTN. If that criterion is lifted, the lists are very much incomplete and it would be premature to take them to FLC. So they're either very arbitrary or very unfinished.

I'm more sanguine about maintenance prospects for a really comprehensive list. Yes, change is continuous, but GLOVAP→POWO and similar projects exist because it is more or less possible to keep track of current genera, so I wouldn't consider it an impossibility. If others find lists with just name and etymology really objectionable, they could always be pages in projectspace here, used to update individual genera articles as they get written. If you're researching etymology and etymology only, there's much less friction in having a central page to add to (articlespace or not), rather than having to create thousands of stubs (with taxoboxes?) in course of work. Choess (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to try "radical honesty" on your talk page ... that is, I'll just dump everything that comes to mind and trust that you'll be able to sort it out. I've seen you work and I trust your judgment. Whatever we come up with, we can bring it back here. - Dank (push to talk) 00:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Some people are saying that they'd like a list that's similar to the current 4-page list but different in some ways ... perhaps a list of genera that were in cultivation back then, or are in cultivation now, along with their etymologies. This should be doable, but if that's the goal, then the last thing you want to do is blow up the Stearn lists, because getting lists through WP:FLC is time-consuming, and reviewers don't like it when you make extra work for them. A full or selected list of plants in cultivation would probably have enough overlap with the Stearn list to allow us to add rows to the Stearn list and then get the result through FLC much faster, without putting a burden on reviewers ... but if I'm going to help with this, then I need to be able to look at a discussion that makes me think that people want this and they've come up with a list of sources that I could defend at FLC. There's no rush ... I'll be busy with writing for two or three weeks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think remaking the Stearn lists into "List of cultivated genera" or some title like that is the best way to go in the future. "Is the name in Stearn's?" strikes me as an odd list criterion, but I don't think we have to rush in to tear it down as it's clearly a good nucleus for an expanded list. Since you're taking an active interest in it, I don't think it would be profitable to delete it or whatever. I think it's OK to be particular about the sourcing in deeming a genus "cultivated" (using catalogs of cultivated plants like Stearn's rather than individual primary and secondary reports of cultivation), which makes the task more viable. I'm not very much a hort person: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening is in theory a good place to ask for sources, but in practice it looks pretty dead. Choess (talk) 00:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

When was the description for Solanum violaceum Ortega published? All that PoWO and IPNI say is, Nov. Rar. Pl. Descr. Dec.: 56 and Nov. Rar. Pl. Descr. Dec. 56; Jacq. Fragm. 82. Abductive (reasoning) 01:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Possibly 1798, at least that's the date on the title page of Novarum, aut Rariorum Plantarum Horti Reg. Botan. Matrit. Descriptionum Decades, cum Nonnullarum Iconibus that includes the description of S. violaceum. Gderrin (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks like it's Novarum, aut rariorum plantarum, etc., v. 5, p. 56, published 1798. Jacquin's Fragmenta Botanica, p. 82 cites Ortega for the name and postdates him. Sometimes I see entries like these in IPNI; I think they're carried over from the original Index Kewensis, and may just indicate that the second reference modified the diagnosis. (Ortega describes the species as a series of characters, rather than a single block of Latin prose like Jacquin.) As far as I know, Ortega's description would still represent the first effective publication of the name. Choess (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so how is it senior to Solanum indicum L. if Linnaeus died in 1778? Abductive (reasoning) 02:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The answer seems to be that Solanum indicum L. is a name of uncertain and perhaps indeterminable application and has been formally rejected ("nom. rej.") in IPNI. Some discussion here towards the end. Choess (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks. Abductive (reasoning) 03:31, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Abductive: if you're curious, the rejection was published in Taxon, 32(2):279. doi:10.2307/1221981 (which also includes bibliographic info about the proposal). It looks kind of an odd case looking back: nowadays we'd conserve the type if this came up today, but I believe that procedure wasn't in the code at the time. Interestingly enough, the briefly mentioned name Solanum ferox was also subsequently rejected (proposal: Taxon 60:1782-1783; rejected: Taxon 61:1116). Circéus (talk) 13:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

It sure is odd. I stiil don't see why there is no year on the abbreviated citation above. Abductive (reasoning) 14:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Abductive: see this entry, which does have a date. There is, I believe, a long term plan to reconcile the different entries for the same name in IPNI, which represent inputs from different sources, some of which, as Choess notes above, included mentions and discussions as well as new namings. However, this is labour intensive and so costly. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I have switched the entries on Wikidata. I hope that is okay. Abductive (reasoning) 03:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Abductive: good idea! Peter coxhead (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Anyone have any idea what the first three photos at commons:category:Nematanthus fritschii 3 photos named "Nematanthus fritschii" at commons:Category:Specimens in the Botanischer Garten, Berlin-Dahlem are? Clearly not what they are labelled. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Salvia? Lavateraguy (talk) 10:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

That was my first thought, too. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I moved the three to commons:Category:Specimens in the Botanischer Garten, Berlin-Dahlem and modified the descriptions. Anyone else have a view? Plantsurfer? Peter coxhead (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Salvia splendens perhaps? There are plenty of images on Commons. Plantsurfer 19:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

PlantNet Identify gives Salvia splendens, followed by unconvincing lower probability alternatives, but I'm not convinced that it's Salvia splendens or Salvia microphylla, so I'd be looking for an obscurer red-flowered Salvia. (The shape of the flowers reminds me Salvia patens - Salvia splendens is "coarser".) Lavateraguy (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The flowers have only a smallish opening and the lower lobe is not large and obvious, which rules out many of the "Mexican salvias" in cultivation. The nearest flower shape I've seen online is some images identified as "Salvia holwayi", but it's not an exact match. There are many red-flowered salvias! Peter coxhead (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

While translating Persoonia teminalis in french, I noticed that Template:Flora of Australia Online links to this 404 page. The page I was looking for has been moved here since February 2020. It seems that the whole catalogue has been moved.

Any way to fix this? Do we keep the template or remplace it by regular citations altogether? J. N. Squire (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The example at the template page works:

{{Flora of Australia Online |id=46210 |name=''Banksia ilicifolia'' R.Br. }} --> "Banksia ilicifolia R.Br". Flora of Australia Online. Department of the Environment and Heritage, Australian Government.

And the example in the Persoonia terminalis page works for me:

{{Flora of Australia Online | name = ''Persoonia terminalis'' L.A.S.Johnson & P.H.Weston | id = 44612}} --> "Persoonia terminalis L.A.S.Johnson & P.H.Weston". Flora of Australia Online. Department of the Environment and Heritage, Australian Government.

I see that your link uses https:// instead of http:// and the former also fails for me, so it seems the template is working, at last to an older version of the website. There might be a case for updating the template to the new site or creating a new template. The old one uses an |id= parameter, while the new one uses a search string based on the bionomial so it might not be a simple conversion. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:17, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I am a university student. I have been assigned the task to complete an article on Atriplex semibaccata. I was wondering if I could use editors knowledge to review and guide me to write a successful article in a few weeks time. Kind Regards Hippocrates1354 (talk)

@Hippocrates1354: A very interesting plant, I'm watching the page Atriplex semibaccata and look forward to seeing it expanded. ~ cygnis insignis 03:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I'm a uni student hoping to improve the stub on the Dampiera altissima. I will complete it in a few weeks. Could someone please have a look over it and give me some feedback once it's done? Thank you so much!TheRealDinosaur222 (talk) 05:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I am a university student working on the stub: Lomandra Multiflora for a course I am taking. Would someone be willing to look at Lomandra Multiflora and give some feedback once I have completed improving it over in a few weeks? Much appreciated, thank you. Rachelw07 (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I realise that the Terminalia article on a Roman festival may have seniority in WP, but it has an average of 14 pageviews per day over the last 90 days, the Terminalia (plant) has 70 views per day at the same time. Correct me if I am wrong, but are not some of the festival articles pageviews going to be by people like me looking for the Terminalia genus page, arriving at the Terminalia festival article, going to disambiguation and hence to the trees (love the trees). So can we change "Terminalia" to "Terminalia (festival)" and change "Terminalia (plant)" to "Terminalia"? Call me crazy, will this work, I have posted it at the talk pages of the 3 articles/pages, what more should I do? Should I ask for it? Brunswicknic (talk) 11:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Brunswicknic It's confusing when you make the same post on in multiple talk pages as any discussion can be splintered making determination of any consensus more difficult. Best practice is to select one location for the discussion and then post pointers linking to that discussion elsewhere. I've responded at Talk:Terminalia#Can we change names please. older ≠ wiser 12:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Bkonrad (talk · contribs) Speaking honestly, I do think the plants are more important and viewed more, but I am biased to plants. Your solution is a reasonable one and I think we can leave it for now. Thank you for your work on WP. Brunswicknic (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

An editor has put a "single source":

on the above list. My impression is that is what we do, use one authoritative source as the source for accepted names, unless there is clear and current debate over the naming. I wrote to the John B123 (talk · contribs) saying this:

Hello JB123, hope you and yours are well. In the world of botany there are many names, in the world of Botanical Science, there are accepted names and non-accepted names. POWO at the moment is the most up to date with accepted names, that is why I used that source. Why not more than one source? Then we get into dating problems (this years, last years) and debates in science around what is currently accepted. The practice at Wikiprojects Plants is to use single authoritative source for such. POWO seems most up-to-date and down-to-earth. I'm afraid if you tag this list with "single source" then you are going to have to go to the majority of botanical pages and do the same for naming.

Is this acceptable (no, no, bad, not pun) to people? Brunswicknic (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it should be tagged. A list should follow a source. If it tries to follow two conflicting sources then other Wikipedia policies become difficult to follow (e.g. avoiding original research and synthesis). I've made an edit that I hope makes clearer what the list is. Perhaps a statement that other sources recognise a different number of species (citing WFO, others?) would solve the problem. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Sure, you could add a source for a different database, and say its list is slightly different, without actually changing the list in the list article. Abductive (reasoning) 19:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Just add a source about Terminalia, itself, such as the etymology of the name, or who first described it. Abductive (reasoning) 19:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It's pretty pointless, I agree, but I added GRIN as a reference for the family placement. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Are there any plant editors particularly interested in, and/or knowledgeable about, the family Gesneriaceae? Because of some houseplants I grow, I got sidetracked into editing Nematanthus and some related genera, and noticed that the classifications of Gesneriaceae infra-family taxa are either unreferenced (e.g. Gesnerioideae) or based on very out-of-date sources (e.g. Cyrtandroideae). There's always a problem with plant taxa between genus and family, since the major taxonomic databases often don't cover them. However, there is a 2020 classification which seems to have been based on a synthesis of phylogenetic evidence; I've outlined it with the source at User:Peter coxhead/Sandbox#Gesneriaceae classification (it needs more checking).

Should we:

1. use at least the subfamilies in this classification in taxonomy templates? or go down further?
2. include this classification to some level (all the way to subtribe? stop at tribe?) in the Gesneriaceae article and then update/fix any existing infra-family articles?

Peter coxhead (talk) 10:31, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress says that it is okay to make edits that are not quite certain, as long as they represent the current scholarly consensus. On many occasions I have left out information since I suspected it to be erroneous or likely to be overturned the next time somebody looks at it. But if these subfamilies, tribes and subtribes are backed by molecular evidence, they can be added to the templates, especially given that the subtaxa can be collapsed in the infoboxes. So the only reason not to do it is the time investment, which, of course, is totally up to those that choose to do it or not. Abductive (reasoning) 23:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  The problem with going as far down as subtribes in taxonomy templates is that by default the genus articles will show them, almost invariably as a red link since even if it's useful to create articles on subtribes (which I doubt), there's usually little information available. The same could be said of tribes, in many cases. I would leave it at subfamilies, except that some genera have already been placed lower, but in some cases in now incorrect taxa. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The general problem with subfamilies and even more so with tribes and subtribes is finding recent reliable sources. Too many Wikipedia articles (not just plants) have unsourced information on subfamilies and tribes which can be traced back to out-of-date sources (when they can be traced at all). Here we have an example with a good modern source, so it would be good to include the material for those with the interest without overwhelming the average reader. My thoughts:

• The list down to subtribes is too much for the article. I'd definitely include subfamilies and probably tribes.
• Similarly you don't want to include subtribes in taxoboxes except in special cases where the editor thinks they are important.
• There is the complication that the subtribe will show automatically for genus articles while tribe and subfamily require special treatment (|always_display= or |display_parents=). The subtribe is useless without its parent taxa.
• It would be useful to have tribes and subtribes in the taxonomy template system so they could be viewed using the pencil option. (Although this could be considered the role of Wikispecies.)
• Could the system be tweaked so the subtribe is only shown in the taxobox on demand (e.g. with |display_parents=).

In short, when there is good information on subfamilies and tribes it would be good to include it in some manner, especially as most of the standard websites and databases don't include subfamilies and tribes. Can we find a way of doing this in a way that suits the causal reader and those with a deeper interest? A problem for Goldilocks. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I have a love/hate relationship with subfamilies, tribes and so on. They are great for looking at biogeography, phylogenic history and so forth But in WP, I find when they are used that it means I have to search harder for a species, and if adding a new species article, it is one more thing to look up, and if I can't find it then where do I put a link to the new species article? Do I want to see it in taxoboxes, it's easier if we just do f-g-s, but for large families it is probably a good idea to go to subfamilies and tribes. Subtribes is overkill I think, but if they are well established then... On the note of usability, I suggest that in large families with subdivisions, that we also have alphabetical genera and species lists to aid searchability. Brunswicknic (talk) 07:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I do agree about alphabetical lists; checking a list of genera which is divided up by infra-family taxa against taxonomic databases that just list the whole family is a pain, and for large families I usually end up downloading the source wikitext into an Excel spreadsheet to sort it. The classification I put online at User:Peter coxhead/Sandbox#Gesneriaceae classification is from a spreadsheet, so can easily be put online in any arrangement.

What do editors think of sortable tables, like the one at Asparagaceae#Genera? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• So what I'm doing at present is checking the taxonomy templates for Gesneriaceae genera. If they have a parent below the family without a reference, I'm changing it to the subfamily in the 2020 classification, with the paper as a reference. I'm not at present changing taxonomy templates that just have the family as the parent. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
• I've adopted the table approach at Gesneriaceae#Genera. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

PC, yes, the table layout is very good, we can search alphabetically and look at the taxa above genera, best of both worlds and space efficient. I would like to see a phylogenetic diagram of how the various tribes &c. tie in to each other, and am painfully aware that because I don't know how to do it, this is me asking you to do more work. Thanks for this good work. Brunswicknic (talk) 12:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

It's one of my next tasks, after fixing some of the missing refs in Gesneriaceae. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

I can do that. Do you want the genera listed as well? I'll out something on the talk page. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jts1882: I think we were working independently; I have added a cladogram to the level of tribe to the article. I don't believe it's worth adding subtribes – without a description, they are just names. I think it may be possible to say something about the tribes, eventually, but not the subtribes. In my view, there are too many genera to put in a cladogram.

Note that the genus table in the article uses the slightly different genus list from PoWO rather than Weber et al., because at least some of the differences are well supported (e.g. the spelling Jankaea rather than Jancaea, which is as per IPNI, and synonymizing it with Ramonda). Peter coxhead (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't realised it was modified following POWO. I assume Tetraphylloides for Tetraphyllum and the absence of Cobananthis, Oerstedina and Lembrassia are also following POWO. —  Jts1882 | talk  07:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jts1882: slightly different issues.

• Tetraphylloides is what PoWO has, but it appears to be wrong, and should be Tetraphyllum – it was an unnecessary nomen novum according to some sources, but this needs a bit more investigation.

None of the following appear in the table in Weber et al. (2020) as changed from Weber (2004), so the question is whether PoWO's placements are more recent than 2004, and what evidence there is for the 2004 placements, and this needs some more investigation. PoWO does have a "lumping" tendency in my experience.

• Cobananthus is a monotypic genus that PoWO (and some other sources) merge into Alloplectus.
• Oerstedina has only one non-doubtful species, and is put into Rufodorsia by PoWO.
• Lenbrassia is again monotypic, and is put into Fieldia by PoWO.

(Btw, note the spelling of Cobananthus and Lenbrassia.) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I got those genera from the key to subtribes (the misspellings were mine). There is a note on Tetraphylloides on page 30 explaining that the other Tetraphyllum was not a plant. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jts1882: why I've currently used PoWO when there are differences is because of the general preference for secondary over primary sources. I was aware of the note re Tetraphylloides, but this is what IPNI uses at present, and I don't like over-riding it based on a primary source. It needs to be checked with/by IPNI. I was happy to over-ride IPNI for Gesneriaceae (see below) because of the authority of the ICNafp; I have already raised this in a query to IPNI. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Authority

Right now, IPNI (and hence PoWO) has the authority as "Dumort. (1829)", and I changed the article accordingly. However, this seems to be wrong; Gesneriaceae is a conserved name in the ICNafp appendix, with the authority "Rich. & Juss. in DC. (1816)". I'm querying this with IPNI, but I've returned to this authority in the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:51, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

IPNI has now responded by updating their entry. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Tetraphyllum vs. Tetraphylloides

This is a tricky one; there appears to be something of a taxonomic spat going on; see Tetraphyllum § Taxonomy. I went with Tetraphyllum (see talk page), but it's debatable. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Dichelostemma capitatum is Dipterostemon capitatus in the Jepson Flora Project. PoWO says it's a synonym, but not what it's a synonym of. However, at Dichelostemma pulchellum var. capitatum, PoWO has the synonym Dipterostemon capitatus, and according to IPNI, both Dichelostemma pulchellum var. capitatum and Dipterostemon capitatus have the basionym Brodiaea capitata, so are synonyms.

This seems a bit more tangled that I would really like to support a move of Dichelostemma capitatum to Dipterostemon capitatus, as was raised at Talk:Dichelostemma capitatum, so I wondered if anyone else had a view. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

USDA and FNA have it in Dichelostemma, but FNA comments "It also does not form hybrids with any other species, and it has even been placed in its own genus, Dipterostemon (P. A. Rydberg 1912). Recent anatomical and molecular data support the idea that this species is not directly related to the other members of Dichelostemma and perhaps is best treated as its own genus (R. Y. Berg 1996; J. C. Pires 2000)." More recent commentary in the form of a nomenclatural paper here. There is also a powerpoint presentation redone as a PDF, but its text is unreadable. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

POWO also has a page for Dipterostemon capitatus and says it is a synonym of Dichelostemma pulchellum var. capitatum and Brodiaea capitata. All point to the same thing and support a move. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:38, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

In a related point, the paper I link above argues that Dichelostemma pulchellum is not a synonym, contrary to the WikiPedia article. (But D. pulchellum var. capitatum is.) Lavateraguy (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's clear that the homotypic synonyms are Brodiaea capitata ≡ Dichelostemma pulchellum var. capitatum ≡ Dichelostemma capitatum ≡ Dipterostemon capitatus, and that Dichelostemma pulchellum itself is not a synonym.

Ok, so the consensus seems to move, I think. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:59, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello Plant People, a new page patroller has asked for some guidelines from this Wikiproject whether a single source is suitable on a list page (or other bald article I suppose). The conversation can be found here: User talk:John B123# re List of Terminalia species. They refer to WP:SNG and WP:GNG. My heart tells me that for plant taxa lists, we use single source, so single source should be acceptable. My mind (curse it) reminds me that we need more for a reasonable article, the patroller suggests that a taxonbar fulfils this function, and yes that should be on each list as well, removing my "single source" argument. What is the minimum that members of this projects see as necessary for a plant taxa list (or other, if any equivalent, in our purview). Thanks and good health to you all. Brunswicknic (talk) 09:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• For me, the key point is that we only have separate articles for lists of species when there are too many to be put in the genus article. Thus they should not be viewed as stand-alone articles, but as appendices to the main article. For that reason, the "single source" objection should not apply. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't disagree. I did see today, somewhere, that we should be using collapsible lists, but we, WPPlants editors, have been going with "selected species" and then perhaps a separate list article. I suspect our separate lists have come from keeping "selected species", and so creating a new article. I know that some "selected species" don't seem very selective, when editing them personally, my criteria is all bluelinked taxa and any that someone has bothered to add additional info (distribution, name...) I am going by a rule of thumb that if there are more than 100 species in a genus, then that is a separate list. I don't particularly like collapsible lists, but I have no justification for not using them. Is there an engineering rationale for not having a list of hundreds in an article itself, is there a rationale for reducing 2 "articles" to one, and having a "selected species" visible normally and a collapsible complete list? Brunswicknic (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

re feedback to the new page patrollers, "having a taxonbar is multiple references in the article, only one reference is used as authority for the taxa list" is our position it seems. Brunswicknic (talk) 14:09, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

A bit off topic: while I don't think there's anything wrong with a single source for a list article, an article which says "this list follows source x" might be a problem. Different sources are going to recognise different species, and picking one "canonical" list isn't great. Instead, we should acknowledge and describe different views (within reason). Guettarda (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

My List of Prunus species is probably not within reason, huh? Abductive (reasoning) 21:00, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Abductive your list is a beautiful thing, and certainly takes into account what Guettarda is saying. However the general feel for what I have seen here at WPPlants is that for things such as synonyms and species names we can go into very deep and disturbing holes looking for completeness or recognising all. I do note that there is active acknowledgment here in WPP on taxonomic debate, but also the WP protocol of leaving the decisions to secondary sources. This is where both approaches may be accepted, but I would argue that we look at the current consensus as reflected in who seems to be doing it best at the moment. Obviously The Plant List is defunct, it says so itself (and shouldn't we get the boffins to remove it from the taxonbar?). Amongst the rest I am partial to POWO, but what do others think? I think that for referencing a species list, that what Peter coxhead said is right, it is an appendix, and having a taxonbar and the "current species list by currently up-to-date secondary source" single reference is more than adequate, and may indeed represent the "state of things at present". A final word, thank you all for participating in this. Brunswicknic (talk) 10:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I expect that one of Prunus euri and Prunus eurii is an orthographic variant. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I will start a new page for Opocunonia nymannii (formerly Caldcluvia), the only species in the genus Opocunonia in the Cunoniaceae. Am I right that in the case of a monospecific genus we create the lower level species page alone and redirect the genus page there, or do people want to see separate pages?

Frustration, I can't get my way around Wikidata when the species is not accepted now, particularly when the authority is not accepted now. So taxa like Allophylus cobbe, Myristica fatua that have wikidata items for species that are now synonyms or even no longer accepted, I can't change the item without massive warnings, you must change this, but we won't let you. Oh, I'll create a new one then, no you can't, it's the same name... @Peter coxhead:, you offered before, do you have time now? Brunswicknic (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC) p.s. Oh, yes, no Opocunonia at Wikidata.

As I recall, for a monospecific genus, the convention is to have the genus page alone, and redirect the species page there - see WP:MONOTYPICFLORA. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I've been through all the POWO-accepted genus pages recently and I'm seeing a lot more monospecific genera listed under the genus name than listed under the species name with a redirect. (And, quick segue ... if we've lost Caldcluvia, that's a shame ... the current plan is to leave the genus up at List of plant genera named for people (A–C) as long as it's still accepted at POWO, which it is ... is there any realistic option other than POWO for this purpose? This is the right time to talk about that, I'm just about finished with this list series and I need to know what the consensus is on which genera to include in List of plant genus names (A–C) or List of plant genus etymologies (A–C) or whatever the new name is.) - Dank (push to talk) 12:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Caldcluvia still exists; it has just been stripped down to a single species. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Instead of pinging everyone who's weighed in on these lists so far, I'll just invite people to continue with any comments, complaints or questions on the first list talk page, i.e., Talk:List of plant genus names (A–C)#Round Two. This is standard procedure for WP:FLC, to keep relevant discussions in one place. Thanks for the comments so far. - Dank (push to talk) 12:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Lavateraguy, I see what I have to do now, now just to get the Wikidata stuff sorted. Brunswicknic (talk) 13:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Brunswicknic: sorry, I don't understand what you want sorted at Wikidata. One important point to understand – apologies if you do – is that Wikidata taxon items are not for taxa, in spite of what they are called, but for taxon names, so there should be an item for every valid taxon name, regardless of whether it is a synonym or not of a currently accepted name. If you have time, and are interested, see User:Peter coxhead/Wikidata issues. So what exactly do you want to get sorted? Peter coxhead (talk) 15:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)