Archive 70

Archive 71

Archive 72

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

Hey! Sorry to bother you folks with this, but could someone with more proficiency in botany than me take a look at Prunus mume#Names? The plant (particularly the blossoms, sometimes the tree, sometimes an allusive reference in a toponym) shows up a lot in Japanese poetry going back to at least the eighth century, and I've never seen it translated as "apricot", and almost always as "plum", but both English and Japanese Wikipedia seem to give priority to the name "Japanese apricot". ("Japanese" makes sense, since even though it was imported to Japan from China, it seems to have first been studied by westerners in Japan.) This seems to have been discussed on the article talk page in not nearly enough detail ten years ago by User:Phoenix7777 and a user who is no longer active (and seems to have suffered a global block because their username is obscene in certain languages).

The problem is that at some point a dichotomy was established between "Japanese apricot" and "Chinese plum", and there are certain segments of Japanese society (including a lot of editors of Japanese Wikipedia; see netto-uyoku) that don't like to mention how certain aspects of Japanese culture originated in China, even in materials intended for a foreign audience, and so people have apparently been coming to both Japanese and English Wikipedia to find out what the English common name for (m)ume is, seeing "Japanese apricot" and "Chinese plum", and going with the former, even though it definitely is not used among translators of Japanese literary works, etc.

I suspect it is a "quasi-scientific name" used only in botanical journals and other works written by and for botanists and other scientists, but is not really the "common" name, but despite searching I've been unable to find any source that explicitly verifies or disproves my suspicion. So I figured I'd come here to ask (a) if anyone with more literacy in the field can do better and (b) failing that, if this (i.e., a plant having both a common English name and a "common name" that is used only by specialists) seems like something that could happen. (If anyone could give me a simple explanation of how it doesn't really matter because plum and apricot are the same thing, if that is the case, that would also be much appreciated!)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I would delete the entire section Prunus mume § Names, since it doesn't seem to be mainly about the names used in English, but about the names in other languages, which isn't appropriate in the English Wikipedia. Mentioning widely used English vernacular names in the lead is enough. As for "Japanese apricot", this is the name used by the Royal Horticultural Society here, so it seems to be well sourced as an English name for the species. If you look at Apricot, it explains that species in Prunus sect. Armeniaca, which includes Prunus mume, are known as "apricots", so there's a logic to "Japanese apricot". Peter coxhead (talk) 08:29, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

An additional issue; one of the varietas names is incorrect. I'd guess that var. typica should be var. mume (autonym), but it's possible that the type of the species belongs to one of the other varieties. (I've failed to find an online copy of the original description - I tried BHL, Archive.org and Google Books.) Lavateraguy (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Gallica has the complete work - see pp. 29-31. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Sorry for the lack of clarity. I am not asking for help addressing a specific problem with the current text of the (English) Wikipedia article on the topic. I am currently involved in a dispute on Japanese Wikipedia with an editor who doesn't appear to speak English but has been citing English Wikipedia and sources such the RHS to make the assertion that the "English name" is "Japanese apricot" and not "Chinese plum" or "Japanese plum".

I have, therefore, seen the source you refer to and a number of other such sources that reliably support the assertion that one of the names is "Japanese apricot" and I'm not disputing the existence of such a name. But that source does not address the question of which is the more common, and rather just aggravates my suspicion that horticultural sources favour "apricot" while other sources favour "plum". It's difficult to explain with online sources, but I've read dozens of books and articles on Japanese history, poetry, etc. in English, and they uniformly translate ume (being the modern Japanese pronunciation of mume) as "plum" (here are three[1][2][3]). There's also the fact that on a Google News search (Google Books is failing me[4][5][6][7]) "ume" "plum" gets 284 hits vs. 120 for "ume" "apricot", while if one replaces "ume" with "mume" the results are switched with 89 for "apricot" and 76 for "plum". (I guess popular news sources that cite the common Japanese name would be more likely to use "plum" while those that cite the scientific name in English would be more likely to use "apricot", but the absolute majority -- 360 vs. 209 -- use "plum".) I'm going to be fine IRL, since the vast majority of my friends and colleagues are familiar with the same sources I am and all know that ume in English is "plum", and in three years I've only once had a client who asserted that they wanted to use "apricot" before eventually accepting that "plum" was the better translation because a certain Japanese government agency used it. But I was hoping that some editors here would be able to shine some light on the issue.

@Lavateraguy: While it doesn't address my concern (a source written in Latin/French almost couldn't by definition), that is indeed a very interesting source. The second paragraph on page 31 is particularly interesting, and I will say that every book and article I've read on Japanese history, poetry, or religion that refers to this matter calls the tree/flower "plum" rather than "apricot".

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:03, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

This source and this one are about as close as I've gotten. This one confusingly says ume's scientific name is actually prunus mume, a type of apricot, implying that the scientific name is itself a type of apricot? If indeed it is just a matter of the relative genetic closeness between the ume and the plants traditionally called "apricot" and "plum" in Europe, that would make "apricot" a "quasi-scientific name" as I said above, used by scientists who want to avoid a common name that is seen as scientifically inaccurate, but not by the general public unless they are consciously mimicking scientists (or Wikipedia)... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: in what you've written above, you seem to be making at least two assumptions that I think aren't correct. Firstly, that there is or should be a 1:1 translation of the vernacular names of organisms between different languages. There's absolutely no reason why this should be the case; indeed it's well known that it isn't and shouldn't be. A distinction that can be made in English between "plums" and "apricots" may or may not correspond to the same distinction or indeed any distinction made in Japanese. Secondly, that there will be a vernacular name for Prunus mume that doesn't originate in botany or horticulture, so is somehow more "real" rather than "quasi-scientific". Since Prunus mume isn't a native species in any English-speaking country, how could it have an English name other than one given to it by those who introduced it or wrote about it, i.e. botanists and horticulturalists? We only know that either English name, "Japanese plum" or "Japanese apricot", refers to Prunus mume if the binomial is also used in the source. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

I doubt very much that there was a word for apricot in Japanese until recently. So either the Japanese called it "plum", and if there was more than one kind of plum (which I don't think there was), then "Chinese plum". The Japanese would have known about the plum, the peach, and everything else would be a cherry. Abductive (reasoning) 16:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can tell the Japanese had Prunus mume, Prunus salicina and Prunus japonica (and possibly other Asian plums, almonds and peaches).

FWIW, Bean uses Japanese apricot for Prunus mume Lavateraguy (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Argumentum ad google: if you believe the numbers returned by Google searches Japanese plum is used for Prunus salicina more often than for Prunus mume, by a factor of two, in spite of there being 2.5 times as many references to the latter than to the former on the web. Japanese apricot is used for Prunus mume about 5 times as often as Japanese plum. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Prunus salicina is sour plum in Japanese, and Prunus japonica is a cherry (zakura). Abductive (reasoning) 19:08, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Peter: Well, I would dispute that "botanists and horticulturalists" are the ones who wrote about plum and cherry trees in Japan for a lay audience. Yes, they no doubt wrote in more detail on the biology of the plants than the various literary scholars, etc., but if there writings were widely read by those outside their field prior to the Wikipedia age, one would imagine that a significant number of professionally produced translations of Japanese literary works, histories of Japanese painting, works on bonsai, or other such works would translate ume as "apricot", and this just doesn't seem to be the case.

Abductive: The Japanese for "apricot" is anzu, which the Nihon Kokugo Daijiten says was used in a Japanese text (a formal diary written in classical Chinese) as early as 1488 and a Japanese-language poetry anthology in 1633.[8]

You're correct, now that you mention it, "anzu" is a word I've heard before. Abductive (reasoning) 08:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Lavateraguy: I'm not relying on Google hits. I've read dozens of paper books that uniformly refer to ume in English as "plum", never as apricot. I never heard of referring to it as "apricot" until I saw it on Wikipedia and did a Google search and found other sources, some (though perhaps a minority of those written by non-botanists) pre-Wikipedia that do the same, and I came here to ask if anyone can provide an explanation. I explained all this above, so if you would kindly retract your bizarre accusation and apologize for not reading my comment before responding, that would be appreciated.

All: Okay, it seems I am not going to get an answer. I've stated in each of my posts here that I am aware of "Japanese apricot" being one of the common names and not being an invention of Wikipedia, but you keep throwing citations at me that verify that it exists but do not answer my question as to why this discrepancy exists and why one of the "common" names only seems to be used by botanists and horticulturalists. I would like to apologize for wasting all of your time.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that you know the answers already. What you are trying to figure out requires knowledge of modern and classical Japanese and scientific and vernacular English, which you seem to have. All you need do is chart your findings and trust that you are correct. Abductive (reasoning) 08:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'm not a reliable source. I mentioned briefly that the reason I came here is because of a dispute on Japanese Wikipedia, where the existence of English-language reliable sources (and sources written by botanists and horticulturalists are being treated as inherently more reliable than the writings of Donald Keene, even though he's a household name in Japan) that say "Japanese apricot" is being used as a justification for removing any references to "plum" from the lead (with the ultimate end, though perhaps not the goal, being that my translation clients will continue to believe that the English common name not plum, but apricot). It's almost certainly a user conduct issue at this point, but I find it super-difficult to navigate my way around English Wikipedia's procedures for dealing with disruptive editors even having been here for more than a decade... meh, I've got someone now who's apparently willing to listen, anyway. (Not sure if they're an admin, though.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Huh. It's just come to my attention (after having given up...) that one of the books I have in one of my desk drawers, McCullough's translation of the Kokinshū, translates sumomo (apparently the Japanese for Prunus salicina) as "damson" on the same page as it translates ume as "plum".[9] McCullough was not, as far as I am aware, a botanist or horticulturalist, but she was one of the premier scholars of Japanese literature in her day. Would it be reasonable to say that since these plants are so closely related they are all referred to by various such names in various sources? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that the one thing you are missing is the culinary aspect of these names. To me, the important thing about these various species is how they taste in plum sauce and as pickled or dried fruit, which is more apricot-like or peach-like than plum-like. Prunes vs plums vs sauces. Perhaps in Japanese culture the culinary uses are taken into account when deciding what a fruit's identity is? Abductive (reasoning) 08:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure most English-speakers think the same way about "plum", "apricot" and "peach" (the latter being momo in Japanese, which I suspect is etymologically related to the aforementioned sumomo), but I don't think I even knew the word "damson" before today. That being said, I would think the umeboshi, or pickled plums, are likely the best-known use of ume among the general populace of most English-speaking countries, and I don't think people are lining up to start calling them pickled apricots. In Japan (at least in my circles), while plums are widely enjoyed as a food, plum blossom viewing is an annual ritual that is not as widely practiced as cherry blossom viewing, but still known of on what I think is a near-universal level: a Google Image search for simple ume without a modifier for "tree", "fruit" or "blossom" brings up, on the first page on my screen, one image of fresh fruit, two of pickled fruit, and 23 of blossoms, as compared to a search for anzu where 21 of the images were of fruit, six of blossoms, and one of a character from Pokemon. An image search for any of these words in English brings up almost no pictures of flowers on the first page, only fruit, which is an interesting difference. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Common names are determined by usage and not by technical correctness. If a 19th-century botanist went to Japan and found a tree unknown in Europe and brought a specimen back to the UK, if that tree then became commonly known as the "bongo-bongo tree", regardless of what it was called in Japan, then that would be its common name in the UK. There is no reason why anyone would have asked the Japanese what they called it and then tried to make the most accurate translation for English usage. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) By that logic, though, the most common name is almost certainly just "plum", not "Japanese apricot", "Chinese plum", "Japanese plum", "Chinese apricot", "mume apricot", or any other possible variation. The trouble appears to be that Wikipedia (Japanese more than English, but still kinda English -- someone definitely needs to fix our Prunus salicina article... and why Japanese Wikipedia would be including the English common names for Japanese plants at all is baffling) is trying to use specific common names that clarify the distinction between different species even when common usage does not make this distinction. As my "Japanese apricot", "Chinese plum", "Japanese plum", "Chinese apricot", "mume apricot" example demonstrates, listing all the possible "common" names (common meaning non-technical as opposed to non-rare, since needless to say most of these are exceedingly rare) would be very cumbersome and probably pointless. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Plants can have more than one common name. If they do, Wikipedia should list them - but they all need to be reliably sourced. And I agree that the Japanese Wikipedia shouldn't be concerning itself with the English common names. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes trying to get scientific with common names is a fruitless task. My take is that plum is a more general term, while apricot is used more narrowly for yellow-orange fruit or plums in the section Armeniaca, or even more specifically for the common apricot, which is sometimes called an Armenian apple. The Japanese or Chinese plum might have been referred to as an apricot because of the flesh colour or its classification (section). —  Jts1882 | talk  10:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

But a key point is that a reliable source must connect the scientific name Prunus mume with an English name for it to be a reliable source for the English name of the species; it's not enough to connect a Japanese vernacular name to an English vernacular name, given the vagueness of most vernacular names for plants. A Google search (for what it's worth) for "Prunus mume" AND "Japanese apricot" gets me ~70k hits, as opposed to "Prunus mume" AND "Japanese plum", which gets ~20k hits. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:28, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Needless to say, given the ubiquity of the Prunus mume in Japanese culture (see the source linked by Lavateraguy above), only a tiny, tiny minority of reliable sources directly state the scientific name, but I did manage to find in my collection a photograph I took at coordinates 34.49735, 135.82259 in one of the many Manyo botanical gardens dotting the Japanese landscape; the photo is of a plate giving information on the particular tree being labelled, which gives the scientific name as "Prunus mume" and identifies it as the same species mentioned in Manyoshu poem 822, which you can see translated here (I have a paper copy of a different edition of the same translation): In my garden fall the plum-blossoms; Ian Hideo Levy has translated it as Plum blossoms fall / and scatter in my garden (read it online here). If that seems a bit too WP:SYNTH-y, or you don't trust that whoever put up the sign (I suspect the government of either Asuka Village or Nara Prefecture) knew what they were talking about, here's a Brill-published source that explicitly says The plum (or, strictly speaking, prunus mume, sometimes translated as 'Japanese apricot') was a favourite image in his poetry (emphasis mine). There's also this -- I highlighted 246 since that is a very famous poem included as #35 in the Ogura Hyakunin Isshu and, as such, has been published in English translation well over a dozen times.[10] I have on hand MacMillan's 2008 translation, praised by the eminent scholar Donald Keene as the best to date, and MacMillan translates it as "plum" in both the main text and the notes, without even mentioning the alternative "apricot" translation: it would not at all surprise me if every single Hyakunin Isshu translation to date did similar. I have misplaced my copy of the much older Porter translation, but GBooks is helpful.[11] Interestingly, Porter does not mention any specific species in his translation of the poem itself but rather in a note, because the Japanese doesn't and it's only because of historical notes that we know Tsurayuki was talking about a mume (by Tsurayuki's time, hana, without any modifier, had come to mean cherry blossoms rather than plum blossoms as the word had typically denoted a century or two earlier); so these translators are apparently not being duped by a misleading source text using a common name in colloquial Japanese, but rather doing background research on what kind of blossom was being discussed. (Addendum: So, Dickins's 1866 translation says "flower" and doesn't seem to include a note of any kind.[12])

Yes, it's theoretically possible that every single one of these sources are talking about different species of Prunus, and they only refer to it as Prunus mume because (i) the name Prunus mume is etymologically derived from the Japanese common name that is also used in the source text of all of these translations and (ii) they are not botanists or horticulturalists. It's even theoretically possible that the Japanese common name mume doesn't just refer to Prunus mume but to other varieties of trees that were common in ancient and medieval Japan, and that all of those ancient poets were actually writing about (a?) different species, and that the modern sources referring to the trees as Prunus mume are all engaged in mistaken guess-work, but in the face of all of that it just seems a lot easier to assume that Prunus mume just has two common names in English.

Anyway, as long as virtually every source not written by a botanist or horticulturalist either (a) refers to the plant exclusively as "plum" or (b) recognizes the existence of the alternative name "apricot" but still prioritizes "plum", then I think it's safe to say that "Japanese apricot" is only a "common name" in the sense of not being the scientific name but is the rarer of the 2+ common names.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

George Usher, 1974, A Dictionary of Plants Used By Man, Constable, London (poor title these days, surprisingly comprehensive), has "Japanese apricot: Armeniaca mume" (again showing the books age), "Japanese plum: Eriobotrya japonica or Prunus salicina, "Chinese plum: Prunus salicina". What's the point?: the name "Japanese apricot" for Prunus mume has a reasonable history in English, whereas the other names not so much. P. mume is in the section Armeniaca, along with apricots, P. salicina in the Prunus section, along with plums. The Japanese wiki-editor mentioned early on does not seem to be incorrect. Oh, yes Hijiri88 (talk · contribs), caca may be slightly rude in several languages, it is also a nickname used in Latin America and a Roman god, in other words it is a homophone, one spelling, multiple meanings. Certainly acceptable for an editors name, Caca7 (talk · contribs) made a statement on their userpage that they were inactive, and has never had a block that I can tell. Brunswicknic (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

the name "Japanese apricot" for Prunus mume has a reasonable history in English, whereas the other names not so much Really? I mean ... while you were writing the above I was writing another comment that cited one source from 1909 and another from 2008 that both use "plum": can you find a translation of the poem in question or any accompanying note that uses "apricot"? Or a reliable source that explicitly says "apricot" is more established than "plum"? Again, I would love if someone could locate a source that does support this assertion, but...

Again, I'm not saying "Japanese apricot" doesn't exist as a "common" (i.e., non-scientific) name for Prunus mume, but I haven't seen any evidence that it's more common than "plum".

(As for the Caca7 thing, you link their contribs page, but when I look at that page it is headed by a big pink box that reads This account is globally locked. See global account details for more information.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:02, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I see, the user has been blocked by the Spanish and Portuguese Wikipedias, it is is still a valid name in all the other wikipedias that the user has worked on. They do not have a global block over all wikipedias, including English, and as far as I can tell the sole reason for block on those two is that someone doesn't like the username. I am amazed that as there are articles for various Caca's who are footballers, as well as for a Roman god, that these two wikis find the name inappropriate.Brunswicknic (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Hijiri88, why do you rule out reliable sources because of the occupation of the people wrote them ("as long as virtually every source not written by a botanist or horticulturalist...")? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not "ruling out" any reliable sources for any reason (I'm not arguing for the removal of information from any article or the like). I am saying that a "common name" used only by those working in a particular field is not a "common" name as that phrase is likely to be understood (i.e., it is a non-scientific name, but it is not the name that is in common use among the general public, at best being one of several such common names). Wikipedia articles on plants should list the common (i.e., non-scientific) names that are most commonly used, and only leave out the less common ones if there are so many that it becomes unwieldy, which I don't even believe to be the case for this particular species. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@PaleCloudedWhite: Wait... I thought your earlier two comments were a little weird, but in combination with this one, it really seems like you are arguing that "apricot" is the common name that is used by the general public and "plum" is only used by Japanologists, or something. That might be the case, but everything I've seen so far indicates quite the opposite. Could you clarify where you stand on this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I have not made any assertions about who might use which term. I do not think it is productive to try and do so. The common names of many garden plants - particularly non-native ones - are only common in the sense of being non-scientific; in my experience (I have been a professional gardener for 30 years), much of the "general public" can identify barely half a dozen plants. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, you may be right insofar as distinguishing the Prunus mume plum from various other species called "plum" in English and "ume" in Japanese is not something most people could do at a glance, but who knows what varies according to cultural context. I would hazard a guess that every educated adult who lives in Kyoto knows that the plum blossoms of Kitano Tenjin bloom before the cherry blossoms of Hirano, Arashiyama or Maruyama, and they all call the former "plum". Admittedly, Japanese Wikipedia's insistence that the English common name is "Japanese apricot, not Chinese plum" (apparently motivated more by nationalistic bigotry than any sincere botanical interest) may have altered the way casual English learners in Japan think the blossoms/fruit are referred to in English, but this is definitely not the case with the readership of The Japan Times or other members of the English-speaking ex-pat community in Japan. This can actually be checked quite easily, since the current imperial era name, Reiwa, derives from a passage in the Manyoshu adjacent and related to the aforementioned 822, and while popular media sources differed on matters like whether the Manyoshu is Japan's oldest poetry anthology (it's not) or whether the passage itself is a poem (it's not), among the sources that named the flower being viewed, I would guess that no more than 10% gave them a name other than "plum". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I'm getting a strong sense from a number of comments that I am giving off the impression of "looking down on" people with a background in botany or horticulture (as in, by citing works outside of these fields, I appear to be saying "Why don't these plebeian gardeners study the poetry of Tabito and Tsurayuki?"). This is most certainly not the case. I do not want to out myself by giving away too many details, but my family has a long history of gardening, and a reputation as such, to the point that when my 4th grade teacher (a friend of my grandmother's who also knew my father and uncles) first met me and saw my name, she said "Ah, one of the gardeners!" I actually brought the present issue up with my father some time ago, and his response was a combination of PaleCloudedWhite Common names are determined by usage and not by technical correctness ... Plants can have more than one common name. and Jts1882's trying to get scientific with common names is a fruitless task; his guess as to the reason for the discrepancy was a version of what I wrote up above and asked for opinions on (it doesn't really matter because plum and apricot are the same thing -- i.e., "plum" and "apricot" are both non-scientific names that almost always refer to edible fruit rather than the trees themselves anyway, and are each somewhat haphazardly applied to a variety of different species and sometimes, as in the case of Prunus mume, both applied to the same species). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi all,

My submission, Carlina gummifera, was recently accepted from AfC. I am not a botanist, so I had some difficulties in writing a formal botanical terminology in describing the plant (and its flowers). Could one of you help me out here? Also feel free to edit other parts of the article of course.

Sincerely, RWalen (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello RWalen, thank you for a nice article. However looking at the various databases I see that the current accepted name is Chamaeleon gummifer. I have made the limited changes to your article to reflect this, and created the genus Chamaeleon (plant) page and category as well. Please feel free to expand the genus page and add lots more species. I do suggest though that you check the currently accepted name when starting an article, but please we would love you to create more articles. Wikidata is not very good for this, I prefer Plants of the World Online, but there are others of course. Hope you and yours are well, thank you again for your work. Brunswicknic (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Brunswicknic:, you appear to be right about the name, my apologies. This plant has been moved around a lot in terms of naming.. I will definitely try to look around for more members of this genus, thank you! If you have any other improvements to the article please make them! Kind regards, RWalen (talk) 14:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Getting an article created is the biggest step. The most up-to-date name can easily be changed. There are lots of editors who look at different aspects and help correct details. It's the sense of collaboration that makes Wikipedia fun. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

FYI this is what has been posted so far: Brunswicknic (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

No need for separate article - any new content and useful references should be added to the existing section. Note that there seems to be overlap between Borassus (to which the redirect Palmyra palm currently targets) and Borassus flabellifer. Some cleanup is needed, perhaps. PamD 09:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Disagree. Recently (few months ago) there was a long and warm discussion of changing the name of Vaccinium vitis-idaea to Lingonberry. In that discussion, quite a few Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants people argued that it seems better to keep food and plants separate. A food has certain characteristics, plants have others, and keeping them separate seems to work better. Bluntly, food is predom. culture, plants have science mainly (personally it is also the culture of plants that interest me, but I am from the social sciences). I don't think the proposal will have much support from WP Plants people. Speaking personally, I would prefer that Palm shell and Borassus flabellifer#Fruit are separate, but linked. I will post this proposal at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants for people to see. Brunswicknic (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

It depends on the importance of the fruit, I think, and hence whether there is enough material to make an article, but where there is, I support the two-article approach for all the reasons discussed previously. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

What is the story on Goeppertia Nees? PoWO has a listing for an 1831 version (accepted, with 243 species), and an 1836 unaccepted version. What would be the best way to fix the current disambig at Goeppertia? Abductive (reasoning) 13:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

If we go with PoWO, Goeppertia is no longer treated as a synonym of Calathea, so:

• convert Goeppertia to an article about the genus, including a species list
• have a hatnote at Goeppertia re the Nees (1836) name as a synonym of Endlicheria
• adjust Calathea and its species list for the removal of Goeppertia and its species

It loks to me as though Nees von Esenbeck forgot he'd already used the name, because the 1836 protologue and species accounts are much more detailed than the 1831 material, but precedence rules. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ulmus parvifolia 'A. Ross Central Park' = Central Park Splendor#Requested move 13 May 2021. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:25, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

As I was reading the scientific literature, I noticed how many papers use the term "Gnetales" as a synonym of what Wikipedia calls Gnetophyta, while Wikipedia uses Gnetales to refer to the clade that contains Gnetum only. Should this be changed? Gnetales seems more common in the literature than Gnetophyta to refer to the clade containing the three genera. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: as with other terms, like lycophytes vs. lycopsids, the rank and terminology varies greatly among sources. One issue to be considered is usage for fossil taxa: "gnetophyte" is used in some paleobotanical sources for a wider group than the extant genera, so there's another usage in which Gnetales = three extant genera + closely related extinct genera, Gnetophyta = gnetales + other extinct genera. But the paleobotanical literature is no more consistent than other sources. The truth, I think, is that without a consensus system like APG for angiosperms, there's no clear way to choose. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:44, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi guys! I’m a uni student working on the article for Dampiera altissima for an assignment, could anyone have a look over it in the next couple of days? Thank you! TheRealDinosaur222 (talk) 10:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

There have (always?) been issues with how {{Automatic taxobox}} handles the italicization of page titles for botanical ranks between genus and species, which require connecting terms. If left to the taxobox default, the title is fully italicized – like Banksia subser. Longistyles right now – even if DISPLAYTITLE: is present. Such titles can be forced to be correct by also using |italic_title=no and providing a correctly formatted value for |name= – as at Banksia subser. Banksia right now – but I am working on changes to {{Automatic taxobox}} which will, I hope, fix this, either automatically or in a simpler way. So this is just a note to say that if you see an incorrectly italicized page title of a plant article at these ranks, please leave it for now. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks PC. Brunswicknic (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@Lavateraguy and Plantsurfer: if you remember Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive72#Commons photos identification, the best we came up with was possibly some species of Salvia for 3 photos incorrectly identified as Nematanthus fritschii. Leo 86.83.56.115 has now identified these as commons:Category:Scutellaria incarnata (we don't have an article). I've categorized them there and requested moving. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

In the course of doing other things, I downloaded all accepted infraspecific taxa listed on Plants of the World Online. I thought I'd share some of my findings. There are 37,646 accepted infraspecifics; 19,436 subspecies, 17,466 varieties, 398 forms, 306 nothosubspecies, 33 nothovarieties, 6 subvarieties, and 1 nothomorth (abbreviated nm., for those who are wondering). As has been remarked here before, POWO tends towards lumping, but in particular, they seem to accept only those infraspecifics that differ in their geographical distributions.

For laughs, I created stubs on the missing species that had the most subspecies; Hieracium hypochoeroides, 83, and varieties, Symplocos cochinchinensis, 22. A look at those stubs will reveal examples of a number of (what I regard as) pretty serious failings of the POWO listings:

1. They often neglect to include the nominate subtaxa. I am disinclined to add those since it verges on WP:OR. I feel that POWO employees need to be asked to correct this system-wide.
2. They "hide" synonyms on the infraspecific page(s), even under the forms. This is a major pain, as many people (including myself) have overlooked these synonyms, leading to incomplete Wikipedia articles.
3. The geographical information given in the main species' Distribution section does not jibe with the Distribution sections of the subtaxa; a particularly egregious example is Symplocos cochinchinensis, which has no subtaxa for some of the locations given in the main POWO listing, and has some subtaxa that range into Australia and the Pacific even though that is not mentioned in the main species listing. I have seen this problem in many listings, suggesting that is is systemic.

Anyway, if anybody want me to post some or all of the infraspecific dataset let me know. Abductive (reasoning) 09:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

How did you download the data? I can get the 37,646 accepted infraspecifics using the search, but that doesn't have geographic data. I've had very limited success using pykew and don't understand taxize. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a way to get the geo and syn data without looking at each listing, that's why it's a major pain. Abductive (reasoning) 12:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it should be possible to get taxonomic, nomenclature and geographic information through the API. I just haven't been able to get pykew to work usefully. See this discussion for the limited progress I made.

I think the problem with hiding synonyms is because they are following standard taxonomic practice which doesn't work well with a web interface. In a book the infraspecifics and their synonyms would be listed as part of the species entry, not hived off on separate pages. They need to improve the interactivity of the species page. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

My understanding from correspondence with them before the UK lockdown is that it's known that the database underlying PoWO needs consolidating; it's still relatively new. I think that there haven't been full consistency checks between subtaxa and the parent taxon. You also find cases where the parent taxon (genus or species) lists subtaxa, but when you click on them they are marked as "unplaced". The reverse is also true: there are subtaxa, including species, marked as "unplaced" that aren't listed at the parent. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

IPNI doesn't include nominate subtaxa. I suspect this is because they aren't really "published" in the usual way. With POWO's IDs being forked from IPNI, I'm not surprised that POWO lacks nominate subtaxa. Plantdrew (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. So long as they only use IPNI IDs, they can't include nominate infraspecific taxa. WCSP does list them, e.g. Narcissus assoanus subsp. assoanus, which is interesting because the two supposedly use the same underlying database. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

They seem to include the nominate subtaxa when they want (or need) to attach synonyms or geographic info to them. Abductive (reasoning) 20:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

So, how best to proceed? I've made another stub, Anthemis cretica, with the same problems. Can anyone repair it? Or is it okay as it is? Abductive (reasoning) 08:02, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I can't see anything that needs repairing. If a source list any subtaxa, the nominate subtaxon automatically exists even if not listed by the source, so doesn't need a reference.

But I know that I'm guilty of forgetting to add the nominate subtaxon when extracting lists of subtaxa from sources that don't give it. (It's not just PoWO and plants; the World Spider Catalog also omits nominate subspecies – e.g. this list.) Peter coxhead (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

What about the geographic data? Should we believe the main listing or the union of the subtaxa, or the union of the main listing and all the subtaxa? Abductive (reasoning) 15:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The POWO about page says: "Both POWO and the WCVP names backbone use the IPNI Life Sciences Identifier (LSID) as their ID’s and therefore only plant names that are also in the International Plant Names Index (IPNI) can be shown. Consequently, not all names in the WCVP database can currently be shown, in particular Old World infraspecific names from before 1971 are largely missing but we are working with IPNI to add the hundreds of thousands of missing names."

and on autonyms: "Autonyms are currently only included for plant families that have been peer reviewed and which are also available on the WCSP website https://wcsp.science.kew.org/ as well as some in Asteraceae, Ferns and Fabaceae. We hope to add all autonyms when the geography has been completed. "

Few people read those pages and prefer to construct their own speculation but let's try stick to the facts. Weepingraf (talk) 00:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I am a university student and a newbie Wikipedia editor. I am working on this page (Macrozamia glaucophylla) as one of my course assignment, would love to listen your opinions and constructive criticism towards my work. Thank you.--Gabrellaevelyn (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

On WP I believe that the correct procedure for an article on a species which is the only species within a genus is to name the article with the genus name only, and then describe the species within that article. My query is about Wikidata and how to link the article to it. Wikidata may hold records for both the genus and the species, so which data item should the WP article link to, and which short description should the editor use? Case in point (one I have just edited and now seeking clarification): the article Idiospermum is linked to the wikidata item for the species, not the genus, yet the article is named for the genus. I have matched the short description to the wikidata species item, but is there a preferred/recommended method for this kind of thing? −  Junglenut | talk  10:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Junglenut: unfortunately (and wrongly in my view) Wikidata insists on a 1:1 relationship between a Wikidata item and an article in a language wiki. (If you're interested, I've written more at User:Peter coxhead/Wikidata issues.) The best approach generally seems to be to link to the Wikidata item with the most links from other wikis. If the genus and species items have the same number of linked articles, I would use the genus item, because the titles are the same, but it doesn't matter either way. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be appropriate to to have "two" taxonbars i.e. one for the species, one for the genus e.g. "2 curly brackets Taxonbar|from1=Qspecies|from2=Qgenus 2 curly brackets"? (apologies for clumsy presentation, still learning). This would presumably capture more info. Brunswicknic (talk) 09:32, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Brunswicknic: The taxonbar is not really the issue I was raising. The particular article I mentioned already has the manually-added genus and species taxonbars, plus another automatically-added one for the basionym. My question was more about the clarity of the article itself and its short description, as it is named for the genus but describes the species. I don't see why - in this circumstance of a monotypic genus - that there shouldn't be two separate articles. If the genus article becomes a stub, then so be it, but at least then the lay person who reads the articles is less likely to be confused, IMHO. −  Junglenut | talk  09:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Junglenut: Apologies for not scanning the article concerned. Looks good. A stub for the genus surely would simply be a large redirect, if an article addresses directly that it is both about the species and the genus, then the casual reader should be able to understand (and indeed learn a bit more about botanical hierarchy and so on). All the bits of info about one is identical to the other in this case. Of course there may turn out to be more than one species in a previously understood monospecific genus (new discoveries, extinct species...) but then we just have a little more work to do rewriting old pages and making new ones. Such is life/WP. Brunswicknic (talk) 09:58, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, good point @Brunswicknic: - the article should specify that it is about both the genus and species. Perhaps in cases like this we should depart from the standard structure of a botanical article, and have sections for both genus and species? @Peter coxhead:, your thoughts? −  Junglenut | talk  10:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Wen there is only one species in the genus, the only standard section which could be different is the taxonomy, surely? And the taxonomy of the genus and the species largely overlaps. So what different sections could there be? Description, distribution, ecology, uses, cultivation, etc. are all the same. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I was hoping for a review of this article, pisonia umbellifera, which I recently added a lot of detail. Is anyone able to edit, or add some more taxonomy information? Aliwright01(talk)

@Aliwright01: I gave the article some copy-edits (e.g. scientific names of species should be in italics with the genus name starting with a capital; we don't use 'curly quotes'). The article at doi:10.3897/phytokeys.152.50611 supports other recent articles and Plants of the World Online in restoring this species to the basionym Ceodes umbellifera, so it should probably be moved to this title. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Aliwright01: I've now added a brief Taxonomy section. You should be able to use the ref I added, doi:10.3897/phytokeys.152.50611, to expand on the transfer to and back from Pisonia. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: thank you so much, I appreciate it. I have seen a paper on the Pisonia/Ceodes distinction, so I'll be sure to include it.

Aliwright01 (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC) Update: how do we go about changing the title/requesting a name change for the article from Pisonia to Ceodes Umbellifera

Hi! I have been working hard to expand this article for a university assessment for this semester. The article is stub rated and now it is added around 2000 words, including Description, Distribution, Habitat, Ecology, Putative hybridisation, Similar species, Conservation status, Cultivation, Population information, Decline and Threats, and Activities to protect Dodonaea procumbens. So I would appreciate a review as I believe the article should be upgraded from the stub. Thank you very much for your assistance. Camorange (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi authors! I am currently a university student who has been working on the Grevillea Johnsonii stub for an assessment task! I would really appreciate some input on new information I can put in as I am aiming to add more information, however am struggling to find proper sources. Any constructive criticism on the article will be greatly appreciated!777LSR (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks alright at first glance. Nice work! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this Category:Natural cultivars really makes sense to retain. The history of most cultivars, landraces, etc. is lost to time. And even a cultivar was found in nature, it almost certainly was subject to artificial selection, including the moment when it was found, and in the following generations. Abductive (reasoning) 04:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

(facepalm) - better to just use "selected form" or "hybrid". "natural cultivar" seems...odd Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

• I agree the category doesn't make sense. It should be deleted. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

As used it makes even less sense. It's been used mostly for wild apple and citrus species. A natural cultivar could be a spontaneous variant (forma) taken into cultivation, such as the various 'Alba/us/um' cultivars, but that's not what it's been used for. I suppose it should go to Categories for Deletion. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I do not disagree with any of the above, but I do draw attention to the discussion amongst archaeologists over what is cultivation, agriculture, plant manipulation, and so on. Particularly here in Australia with Dark Emu and other popular works alerting the public to practices by Australian Aborigines in agriculture/plant and landscape manipulation. Two important things to summarize, people's relationship with plants is a continuum between pure luck foraging to the mega-greenhouse industrial agriculture, where does a category start (e.g. agriculture); and 2) people are not on some sort of "Ladder of progress", with some people on higher rungs, other on lower, think more of multiple pathways that have radiated from the dawn of life, trajectories that may then influence each other, a net rather than a tree. In regards to Category:Natural cultivars, this is linked because we have seen manipulation of "natural" plants that can be called cultivation: transplantation, digging over of the soil and so forth. But that is not what the category is about, so yes a proposal for deletion would not be opposed by me. Brunswicknic (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated it for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 18:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Currently quite a number of different languages have articles for the plant under binomial "Nandina domestica" instead of the genus, and some languages have articles for both genus and species. This can be seen from 南天竹, and see the sidebar of that artcle for the rest of the languages, which doesn't appear on the sidebar of English article [[Nandina]], making navigation difficult. Would anyone be able to merge or link them? I do not know the best procedure or the method to address this. I have left comment on the talk page of Nandina but I'm not sure if i had been clear, would be great if someone could help sort through this. Disappointman (talk) 12:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

My interpretation is that the Spanish article on es:Nandina domestica is linked on 南天竹 (an article at the species) and on the English Wikipedia Nandina genus article because the Wikidata item on Nandina is connected to the genus redirect on the Spanish Wikipedia, while the wikidata item on the species connects to the species article on the Spanish Wikipedia.

In theory, if the redirects exist on the German, French and Italian Wikipedia then they could be connected to the English Wikipedia genus article. I tried adding the French one but Wikidata wouldn't allow the edit because it wants 1:1 correspondence between there items and articles (and annoyingly detects the redirect). Not sure why the Spanish one was allowed. I vaguely remember a workaround involving page moves to confuse Wikidata. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

If you remove #REDIRECT from the redirect page and save it, then you can add the connection to the Wikidata item and save that, after which you can restore #REDIRECT. Wikidata doesn't, as of now, respond to the change from an article to a redirect. However, this practice has been frowned on, both here and at Wikidata, whose explicit policy is not to allow links to redirects, and editors there will remove the link if it's noticed that it's to a redirect, so I don't advise doing this.

(For a fuller discussion of Wikidata issues, see User:Peter coxhead/Wikidata issues, in this case particularly sections 2 and 3.) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

I started a page that was a table of, well, the plants used as herbs and/or spices (trying to focus on the plants, more than the products). It got deleted (as a "content fork" of the page listing a bunch of culinary herbs and spices), but I put a draft version (I think) here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tamtrible/Table_of_plants_used_as_herbs_or_spices ; please help me get it ready for prime time?... Tamtrible (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC) Now located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Table_of_plants_used_as_herbs_or_spices , please ignore the version on my user page.

It has way too few entries. Abductive (reasoning) 13:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

If I were doing this article, I would:

• organize them so at least one column is alphabetical in the default order (haven't made up my mind if that would be the species column or the herb or spice column);
• Include black pepper and szechuan pepper (although probably not capsicum peppers);
• Include saffron, and;
• Possibly employ separate rows in cases where two parts of the same plant constitute herbs or spices with different names. Uporządnicki (talk) 14:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I know it has way too few entries. Thus the request for help. And the current order is random, I know that should be fixed. Thank you for the suggested additions. Tamtrible (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

This blog on the food tree of life might prove some hints for inclusion. It covers a number of herbs and spices along with other foods. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I might do that, thank you. Tamtrible (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

What you should do is take over List of culinary herbs and spices which is currently a pile of garbage. Abductive (reasoning) 07:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm disinclined to do that. If nothing else, I don't want to start edit wars. Maybe if this page makes mainspace in better form, someone will delete that one as redundant?... Tamtrible (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, you can't create a WP:FORK for that reason (one such list is plenty), or if you do, everybody else will delete it, as it's unacceptable. Also, your spamming all over every imaginable plant-related talk page is becoming disruptive, so please stop now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

In editing Orbexilum I found there are two spellings for Orbexilum lupinellum:

1. Orbexilum lupinellum

2. Orbexilum lupinellus

Could someone more knowledgeable confirm the correct spelling and add a citation?

Cheers, Fredlesaltique (talk) 05:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The genus name has a neuter ending, so if the epithet were an adjective it would be lupinellum. But IPNI here says the epithet is a noun in apposition, and that lupinellus is correct. Use IPNI as a reference; see {{IPNI}}. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Peter coxhead: Just saw this; thanks for the reply. Looks like someone went ahead and edited the article. I added a note on the incorrect spelling. Cheers, Fredlesaltique (talk) 01:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

As part of an attempt to convert manual to automated taxoboxes in groups where the former are common, I have completed the conversion of Carex species articles. In almost every case, I simply reproduced any infrageneric classification in the existing taxobox, creating the necessary taxonomy templates. However, a quick look at the literature suggests that many of the sections and even subgenera are not supported by recent molecular phylogenetic methods. I have no interest in Carex, so if anyone here does, then the genus does need looking at.

(If you want to work on converting manual taxoboxes, there are currently 330 Tillandsia species needing conversion.) Peter coxhead (talk) 10:22, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Tillandsia is in the same boat as Carex. Wikipedia has articles for (some) traditional, morphological Tillandsia subgenera, and the taxoboxes of some species include subgenus. I've been avoiding converting manual taxoboxes to automated when an infrageneric classification is presented. I don't want to enshrine an infrageneric classification in automated taxoboxes without verifying it, but I'm also reluctant to remove classification details from Wikipedia just because I'm finding it difficult to verify. Out of ~8500 remaining plants with manual taxoboxes, more than 1000 are species in genera with some amount of infrageneric classification being presented on Wikipedia ("some amount" being variously: a list of species in the genus article broken down by subgenera; articles for subgenera/sections with species lists; and/or species with subgenus/sectio parameters in the taxobox). Plantdrew (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Well if you can't verify the subgeneric data, who's going to be able to? That sounds as good an operational definition of WP:OR as any I can think of... probably as Peter suggests, it represents obsolete hypotheses and should be removed as uncited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wiki authors!! I am a university student working on improving the article for Atriplex semibaccata for an assignment due in a couple days. I would really appreciate if anyone can have a look over the article and recommend suggestions. I am aiming to write an additional 1000 words to improve the article class by the due date (28th May). I greatly appreciate your time and effort. Thank you!!Hippocrates1354 (talk) 06:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi Wikipedians. I would be very grateful if someone could review my article. I would love to hear peoples opinions on my article. Cheers. -usyd2021 (talk) 29 May (UTC)

Hope you were graded well - I've added some photos :) Dracophyllum 12:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

• 58 Mandevilla 67,680 2,183 Stub Low --- now Start
• 151 Oenanthe javanica 48,422 1,562 Stub Mid --- now Start
• 158 Transparent wood composites 46,684 1,505 Stub Low --- now C
• 292 Coleus 34,293 1,106 Stub Mid --- now C
• 355 Calibrachoa 30,185 973 Stub Low --- now C
• 470 Hydnora 24,430 788 Stub Low --- now Start
• 581 Tradescantia zebrina 20,803 671 Stub Mid --- no, it's already rated Start
• 644 Aspidosperma 19,207 619 Stub Low (mainly a list at the moment)
• 664 Portulaca 18,692 602 Stub Low (again, mainly a list)
• 732 Grewia asiatica 16,559 534 Stub Mid

Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Popular pages--Coin945 (talk) 06:38, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, possibly, but the main issue here is that the ratings were outdated, --- see remarks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@Coin945: But what qualifies an article as a "worst-quality article"? I see Chiswick Chap has waved his magic wand, but not actually made any improvements to the articles. Do they still qualify? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

In this case I've traveled to Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Popular pages, sorted by article quality, and made a judgement call by looking at the Stubs and Starts and chosen which are the worst based on a combination of page views and Class. E.g. If there were 10 Stubs with 100s of daily views and 10 Starts with 1000s, I'd have picked the ten Starts. Anyway, the specifics aren't that important. The key is, I suppose, devising a system whereby the 'PoP' articles ('Popular & Poor' articles which can pop Wikipedia's fragile reputation, as people flock to them as their Oracle and base their assessment of us on what they find) are always listed, and swapped out as they're improved.--Coin945 (talk) 10:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The idea, bad puns excluded, is a good one, and it's definitely worth every WikiProject's while to check and update the ratings of its articles. This sort of list, or rather probably a top 500 or so, enables one to identify the articles most in need of improvement. Actually, Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle-earth/Popular pages already shows at a glance which articles look to be both embarrassingly popular and low-rated; and the "Articles by quality statistics" table, e.g. the table you can get via "{{Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Plant articles by quality statistics}}" (see the project page for how it looks) which ranks articles in two dimensions, by so-called quality and so-called importance. When both metrics are properly updated (aye, there's the rub) then one gets a clear picture of what needs work, and indeed of how good the WikiProject is overall. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

While the articles that appear in the popular pages report are fairly stable overall, there are articles that go viral for one reason or another and appear on the list only temporarily. There are also articles that make it onto the popular pages report at a particular time year, then drop off and reappear at the same time the next year (yearly patterns correspond to peak flowering/fruiting or association with an annual event such as Christmas). "Transparent wood composites", Aspidosperma and Hydnora had temporary spikes in views in May (although Hydnora is something I could see go viral multiple times). Portulaca, Grewia asiatica, Coleus, Calibrachoa and Mandevilla have annual spikes. Coleus was treated as a synonym for several years, and Oenanthe javanica is breaking into popular pages now that water dropwort is a set index. Some years ago I checked whether all the stubs in popular pages were really stubs, but I didn't follow through with that over an entire year's worth of popular page reports. Plantdrew (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

In general, when a genus article is getting a lot of pageviews, it means that there is a well-known common name that redirects to the genus, and/or that there is a species (or two) in that genus that lots of readers are trying to look up that is currently redlinked. Abductive (reasoning) 00:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

There's not all that much content at Hydnora, but what's there looks good, about from the Hydnora#Ethnobotany ethnobotany section. Lavateraguy (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I've added a hatnote at Portulaca on the hypothesis that the page is attracting people looking for the garden plant. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

PetScan shows about 590 bromeliad cultivar stubs; all those I've looked at are substubs, saying merely "'CULTIVAR-NAME' is a hybrid cultivar of the genus GENUS in the Bromeliad [wrongly capitalized] family".

Those I've looked at were created by Bromels, most in 2010. This editor has made only one edit since 2014.

I see no point in these articles. We don't have articles on cultivars unless they are (a) of some particular significance and (b) there something worthwhile that can be said about them. I'm thinking of nominating them all for deletion, but I thought I'd see what other plant editors think first. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like the only appropriate action really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

A possible alternative is to merge then into list articles (List of <genus> cultivars), but that might be more work than they're worth. (Note, the sample of one that I looked at went a trifle further, giving the parentage.) Lavateraguy (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could make a List of bromeliad cultivars and redirect them there, but I don't see much point. That would just duplicate the content of http://registry.bsi.org/ , the single source for those articles. It is unlikely that any of those cultivars are notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and even if there are some, the current substubs are a poor start. No such user (talk) 13:40, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Seek, locate, exterminate! Abductive (reasoning) 01:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Part of me can imagine good content about the cultivated plants, perhaps in species or genus articles (see for example Aechmea chantinii which at least says that this species has been used in breeding). But not just a list of cultivars without saying anything about them. I'd say go ahead and delete the substubs, maybe turn the redlinks into non-linked names (or ignore them for now, or whatever). For what it is worth, this is sort of related to Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of subtaxa (although that is addressing a different question in a few different ways). Kingdon (talk) 04:17, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Ive added the cultivar registry to the external links at Bromeliaceae; arguably that's all that is needed. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

The WGSRPD contains the codes:

NSW = what it calls "New South Wales", including:

NSW-CT = the Australian Capital Territory

NSW-NS = the actual state of New South Wales

Mr.Rosewater noticed that although Category:Flora of New South Wales says that it is used for code NSW, the list at this version of List of codes used in the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions has the category against both NSW and NSW-NS. Mr.Rosewater changed the line for NSW-NS to say "Not used; see the parent Level 3 category", which is consistent with the description at Category:Flora of New South Wales. However, this would mean that NSW-CT Category:Flora of the Australian Capital Territory is a subcategory of Category:Flora of New South Wales, so the two should not be used together – Category:Flora of the Australian Capital Territory should only be used for plants native to the Capital Territory and not the rest of the WGSRPD's NSW "New South Wales". There appears to be only one such plant, namely Correa lawrenceana var. lawrenceana (which I don't believe is actually native).

So I think the simplest way of fixing this is to use only NSW = Category:Flora of New South Wales, and don't have a category for either NSW-CT or NSW-NS. This means removing Category:Flora of the Australian Capital Territory from all articles which also have Category:Flora of New South Wales, relatively easily done using PetScan to find them, and changing the one article Correa lawrenceana var. lawrenceana to use NSW = Category:Flora of New South Wales.

(This is one of a number of problems caused by the WGSRPD using descriptions of its politico-geographical units in a non-standard way, like "Ecuador" meaning only the mainland and excluding the Galapagos, so not the country.)

Comments, please. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

The Australian Plant Census lists both "NSW" and "ACT" for species such as Bossiaea buxifolia, but only "ACT" for Correa lawrenceana var. lawrenceana. If the Category:Flora of the Australian Capital Territory should be removed because it is a subcategory of Category:Flora of New South Wales, the same logic could be used to remove Category:Flora of Lord Howe Island because it is a subcategory of Category:Flora of Norfolk Island. Category:Flora of New South Wales should be based on WGSRPD Level 4 Code/Name "NS New South Wales" (and Category:Flora of the Australian Capital Territory on "CT Australian Capital Territory"). Gderrin (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

@Gderrin: my understanding is that APC uses "NSW" and "ACT" to refer to the administrative units, i.e. the WGSRPD's NSW-NS and NSW-CT. So in Australian terms there's a case for not using the WGSRPD's NSW for a distribution category, only NSW-NS and NSW-CT.

I can only repeat that we should not use NSW with NSW-CT, because the latter is a subcategory of the former. We don't put articles into e.g. Category:Flora of Australia and Category:Flora of South Australia, or Category:Flora of Western Canada and Category:Flora of Alberta. The same logic should be used to remove Category:Flora of Lord Howe Island if Category:Flora of Norfolk Island is also present. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

...and I can only repeat that NSW-CT should not be a subcategory of NSW. Correa lawrenceana var. lawrenceana is native to the A.C.T. but does not occur in N.S.W. Caladenia actensis is endemic to the A.C.T. and there are no doubt others. (I do not know what is meant by "administrative units". The A.P.C. gives "LHI", "NI", "ACT", "NSW", "Qld" and so on, as species' distributions.) So, I agree - there is a case for not using the WGSRPD's NSW for a distribution category, only NSW-NS and NSW-CT. I support that case. Gderrin (talk) 09:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

After writing Veronica jovellanoides and beginning work on Veronica bishopiana I found out there are 10 extant (+ one extinct) plant species which are endemic just to the Auckland region.[13] I was wondering if a list article of them would be notable and also if a series template (see my mock-up here) would be useful. Thanks, Dracophyllum 12:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

See the Hebe vs. Veronica discussion above. It looks like there is consensus to refashion the Hebe article into Veronica sect. Hebe to address this need. It would be best to wait until this is done before proceeding on an even more granular list. Abductive (reasoning) 08:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the reply :) Dracophyllum 09:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

At a national level I expect that a large proportion of the New Zealand flora is endemic. On the other hand I expect that the numbers of species endemic to particular regions are small. (For comparison, Shetland, in Scotland, has 3 endemic dandelions, 18 hawkweeds and a mouseear, though endemicity of dandelions and hawkweeds has a degree of uncertainty as they may have been overlooked elsewhere.) If that is the case, perhaps, rather than lists for each region, an article on narrow endemics in New Zealand might be preferable. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

80% of New Zealand flora is endemic, though there are some hotspots of Endemism. Notably: Kahurangi National Park, Stewart Island, Marlborough Sounds and the far north. Since the Auckland region (and other regions) are largely arbitrary and based on political rather than geographical things, perhaps lists of the latter type would be better. A list of narrow endemics would be huge I think, but it's a good idea. Thanks, Dracophyllum 11:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

There are two new articles I have created called Andromonoecy and Gynomonoecy. Another editor stated that the topic may not be notable and recommend a merge.

I must admit I don’t know too much on plant biology, so I kind of need help expanding these articles.

I have seen tons of sources that mention these topics, so I know that there are tons of sources on this topic. And I know there are indeed sources that give more detail on these.CycoMa (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I see that you have also created the trioecy article. I also see that monoecy redirects to plant reproductive morphology, dioecy has an article (covering more than just plants?), and Wikipedia hasn't heard of synoecy (but synoecism, in a dab page, also redirects to plant reproductive morphology.

I'd be tempted to take the position that all 10 or more breeding systems should be treated the same in Wikipedia, but they are not all equally common. There's not all that much than can be written on a sexual system, and contrasting them seems a sensible action, so I'm leaning towards putting them all into a sexual system (botany) article (redirects from breeding system (botany), plant breeding system, and plant sexual system, and from the individual systems. (I think that it is a stretch to call the distribution of sexes within a population/species morphology.)

Apart from definitions, subjects than could be covered are evolution, and taxonomic and ecological correlates; I don't think that lists of arbitrary examples are helpful.

See also Malvaceae Info. Lavateraguy (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Lavateraguy I was thinking about making an article on sexual systems in general however, there is no consensus on what sexual systems are in general.(or at least there is no proper definition of sexual system.)CycoMa (talk) 15:21, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

If there are sources that say that there is no consensus and/or no proper definition of sexual systems, then they can be used to build your article on sexual systems. As an example, the Species article has a section on the species problem. Abductive (reasoning) 16:06, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The 11 lists we've got so far are at the bottom of my user page. That's roughly as much as can be done for genus and family names with the sources that you guys recommended, but I'll be happy to take another look in a couple of years to see if important new sources have been published, or if you guys have found new sources to recommend. The two species epithet lists probably need to be expanded with additional sources ... any recommendations? (For instance, should I be using some of the sources that show up in List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names and similar pages?) And, does anyone have additional feedback on questions that have come up so far? (Note that the family list is "List of plant family names with etymologies" ... should I change the first 4 genus lists to match, to something like "List of plant genus names with etymologies (A–C)", etc.?) - Dank (push to talk) 14:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

No objections here or elsewhere, so I'm moving the 4 genus lists. Bayton (The Gardener's Botanical: An Encyclopedia of Latin Plant Names) is probably my safest untapped source for species epithets, so I'll stick with adding just that source for now. Thoughts are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 12:41, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, if there are no objections here, I'll start adding a sentence (usually to the end of the lead, or first paragraph of the lead) in articles on families, indicating where the family name comes from (at least, the ones that don't already make any etymological claims). I know I said before that I'd stay out of article space with these, but that was for genera .... 14K pages is too many for me to watchlist. Family pages are manageable. This will start happening after List of plant family names with etymologies is promoted at WP:FLC (which might be a while), so anyone with strong opinions on the subject might want to weigh in when it gets to FLC. - Dank (push to talk) 16:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

What's the thinking on Hebe? PoWO says it's a synonym of Veronica. Is there any reason to hold back on making articles on former Hebe species under their Veronica names? Abductive (reasoning) 01:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I noticed the issue when I was implementing automatic taxoboxes in Plantaginaceae, and decided to leave Hebe species with manual taxoboxes at that time. New Zealand's major taxonomy database [[14]] has Hebe as a synonym of Veronica (and if NZ doesn't care to recognize Hebe, there isn't any reason to go against all the global databases that sink it into Veronica). Veronica sect. Hebe is one way to resolve Hebe. I don't think there's a reason to hold back on moving Hebe species to Veronica, but I'm not sure about recognizing sections of Veronica. Plantdrew (talk)

I was going to start with creating articles that don't exist for either Hebe or Veronica at the Veronica names, and making redirects from the Hebe names to those articles. That should be easily undone if things change back. I'll leave moving existing Hebe articles to a later date. Abductive (reasoning) 05:28, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'd thought about this too; sentiment (and growing a number of "hebes") made me hesitate, but the evidence for the move is strong and horticultural sources (e.g. the RHS) as well as botanical ones have made the change, so we should. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd retain a reworked Hebe article (as Veronica sect. Hebe) rather than attempting a merge into Veronica; Hebe is a notable clade of plants.

The Veronica article could do with a section on taxonomy, complete with cladogram. Lavateraguy (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

If there's good support for Veronica sect. Hebe, then this is a useful way forward; "hebe" is, I'm sure, going to be used by gardeners for a very long time. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

The latest word seems to be Albach & Meudt (2010); I went through the citing papers, and there wasn't a latter study of broad scope. ITS has sect. Hebe (Hebe sensu lato) solid; cpDNA has an anomaly with one species of sect. Labiatoides (Derwentia) nested in section Hebe, rather then the whole section being sister to Hebe; CYC2 has Veronica and Hebe groups intermixed. I suspect CYC2 has too little variation for resolution (bootstrap values and posterior probabilties are lower. Subsequent papers looking a particular subgroups might shed some light.

The various Hebe segregates are mostly monophyletic, but nested in Hebe. Lavateraguy (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Albach & Briggs (2012) has Hebe and Derwentia mutually monophyletic, but with sparse sampling of Hebe; putting the two datasets together might be informative. Lavateraguy (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

This new PHD may be useful https://bsapubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajb2.1678 Dracophyllum 09:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

That seems to be throwing the kitchen sink at Hebe to elucidate its internal structure. With a single species of Derwentia in the data set, it doesn't speak to the mutual monophyly of Hebe and Derwentia. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

People working in this area are well aware of the progress being made, but today's story in the New York Times might be interesting for folks who haven't been keeping up. This story focuses on the human genome ... but the progress being made is just as relevant to plant genomes. This means we're in for a decade of rapid progress in genetic engineering that creates new hybrids, and even brand-new plant characteristics. Exciting times (even if this does increase the workload for editors!) - Dank (push to talk) 15:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I was wondering why this was in the news again (The New York Times article being paywalled I couldn't see what was new new) but I've subsequently found mention on the In the Pipeline blog. It's not obvious that it will have immediate practical ramifications. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

This Twitter post gives links to the stories in Science, Nature, etc. I agree that we don't know the ramifications yet ... I'll do a publications search in two or three months and report back. - Dank (push to talk) 23:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

This editor made a series of edits to Nepenthes species articles (and a few other articles) which ranged from juvenile vandalism to elaborate hoaxes with misinformation and tendentious editing in between. I made an ANI case under "Problem edits to Nepenthes species articles by User:Nrajah58". The user is now banned.

Some other editors and I have already reverted the editor's changes to numerous articles. Rather than doing a bulk revert, I've tried to provide an edit summary reason for each. Some articles remain though: Nepenthes lowii (justified deletion?), Nepenthes nebularum (edit war?), Nepenthes edwardsiana (almost certainly another hoax) and Nepenthes rajah. Others here may be interested in these articles and the editor's "contributions" in general.

A note that the editor often cited the book The Tropical Pitcher Plants (Vol. 2) by Stewart McPherson. According to the publisher's website, this is an actual title but not yet released! Thanks, Declangi (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

wrt N. lowii, WP:V would imply that we go with what the published literature says. (Unpublished works are inherently non-verifiable.) Beyond that the epithet shaferensis would be expected to denote a geographical location - but a web search fails to verify the existence of shafer[ aeiou], or anything similar enough that a search engine flags up. From the deleted text, one would expect an epithet murudensis, but that has already been used for another taxon, an observation which somewhat offsets the failure to locate the root of the epithet. I'd plump for reversion. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

wrt N. nebularum, it's not an edit war (a single round of reversion is insufficient for that status). As it stands, it at least needs a copy edit (orthographic issues, incorrect and incomplete citations). In context, I'm finding myself suspicious of the previous two editors as well. It looks like a case of verify the references, and look for any conflicting publications. Lavateraguy (talk) 09:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

wrt N. edwardsiana, WP:V (unpublished source) again applies. If plants of Gunung Raya provenance are especially sought after one would expect to find commercial sources on the web; I didn't. An attempt to locate Gunung Raya found it on islands in the Malacca Strait (an unplausible location for this species), though that doesn't absolutely exclude another occurrence of the name elsewhere. The on-site search facility at the Borneo Post doesn't find the article about poaching. I'd plump for reversion. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

wrt N. rajah, zakariana apparently should be zakriana. There's the same verification-failing citation to the Borneo Post, which even if genuine was misused. I'm not sanguine about there being anything salvageable about their edits to this page. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for this comprehensive review. For the articles Nepenthes lowii, Nepenthes edwardsiana and Nepenthes rajah, I've done what amounts to a "restore last good version". I've left Nepenthes nebularum unchanged, as what is a good version to restore is unclear to me. I tagged it with "Expert needed", so that someone might resolve the disputed content. Declangi (talk) 22:58, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again to Lavateraguy for their work on resolving the issues at Nepenthes nebularum. Declangi (talk) 23:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

It still needs a little more work - evaluate in the light of the two CPN articles, and check for any other published material. (Also add the second author to the second article citation, and redo the first citation to include a link.) Lavateraguy (talk) 07:13, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Are botanical gardens in the scope of the Project? Abductive (reasoning) 23:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Abductive Yes, I think so; Missouri Botanical Garden is marked as being within the scope. Dracophyllum 00:43, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Botanists are explicitly included. Herbaria, botanical gardens and arboreta aren't explicitly included, but they would seem to have as good a claim as botanists. If there's a consensus we can add them explicitly. Other subjects for consideration include ecoregions and plant communities. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Any dissenting opinions? Abductive (reasoning) 02:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think ALL botanical gardens are necessarily in scope (or, I don't think that everything that is described/categorized as a botanical garden on Wikipedia is necessarily in scope). I monitor the new pages report, and I only tag gardens for WikiProject Plants that have a research and/or conservation program (generally speaking, I think having an herbarium goes hand in hand with having a research program). I wouldn't mind including gardens that don't have a research program, but I do think inclusion criteria should be more rigorous than Wikipedia labelling something as a botanical garden. A botanical garden should have accession records for the individual plants be grown there, and plants should generally be labelled with their names. A historic home that's open to the public with formal gardens isn't necessarily a botanical garden (e.g. Harkness Memorial State Park). BGCI's database of botanical gardens might help in determining what counts as a botanical garden (although it includes places I'm familiar with that don't label their plants). Plantdrew (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The distinction makes sense, but where would the Huntington Library, Art Museum and Botanical Gardens fall? It's a step up from a historical home and has three entries in the BGCI database. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Huntington has an herbarium, and accession records and a research program. Plantdrew (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

It's a shame that there is no WP:WikiProject Parks to take the botanical gardens that are merely gardens run by a park district or whatever. Abductive (reasoning) 23:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

There's WP:WikiProject Horticulture and Gardening, but that doesn't explicitly include display gardens and ornamental parks. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:05, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Earlier an editor suggested I make an article on sexual systems. [Link to draft here].

There are clearly a good amount of sources on this topic. Like there is [this source], [this] and [this.]

There is even an entire book on sexual systems [right here.]

So it’s not like there is a lack of sources on this topic. It’s just there isn’t a proper definition of sexual system as a matter of fact some call them breeding systems or mating systems.

And I think one of the definitions in there clearly makes no sense.CycoMa (talk) 14:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually I made an article for Sexual system. But I still need help expanding it.CycoMa (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I would not be surprised if the definition of sexual system is fuzzy; a lot of botanical terminology is. However I think mating systems cover the subject of which individual breeds with which. In animals this would include things like monogamy, polygyny and polyandry, promiscuous mating, leks and harems, and broadcast spawning. In plants it would cover the various ways outcrossing or selfing is achieved in hermaphrodite individuals, such as self-incompatibility alleles, heterostyly, protandry and protogyny for outcrossing, and cleistogamy for selfing. I'm less certain on the distinction with breeding systems, but there are forms of reproduction which are not sexual (parthenogenesis, androgenesis, and apomixis in general; vegetative reproduction) and weird things like kleptogamy. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Please note that Organ (anatomy), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

The genus Jovellana is split between New Zealand and Chile, the current wp article lists species that aren't even accepted by the citation it gives. Plants of the World Online gives five species: J. guentheri Kraenzl., J. punctata Ruiz & Pav., J. repens (Hook.f.) Kraenzl., J. sinclairii (Hook.) Kraenzl., and J. violacea (Cav.) G.Don. A 2018 publication [15] says there are only four, excluding J. guentheri. Does anyone know any more publications that could be of use here? Of course I could just discuss this in the article. Dracophyllum 00:50, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Dracophyllum: well, the first step is to fix the list as per PoWO now (it may have been changed); the extra names are given as synonyms. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

There is an AfD for Jerry_G._Chmielewski currently going on, some expertise could be helpful here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jerry_G._Chmielewski. Thanks --hroest 18:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

This was closed as delete, as described there. We should probably unlinkify a lot of the redlinks in taxonomic contexts like List of botanists by author abbreviation (C) but at least for now I only did that for this one author. Kingdon (talk) 16:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Salix fragilis was moved to Salix euxina a few days back, but no cleanup after move has been performed. However I don't recall offhand the taxonomic issues involved, and I'm not sure that it was moved to the right place. Should it have been moved to Salix × fragilis? Lavateraguy (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The Belyaeva paper doesn't seem to be available, but this seems to provide a summary. Lavateraguy (talk)

So it should have, at most, been moved to Salix x fragilis, the article is about the crack willow of Europe (introduced elsewhere) and not the parent species, which should have an article of its own. That is, if this is widely accepted. Quetzal1964 (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

That's my conclusion. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

It's very clear that reliable sources have accepted Belyaeva's view that S. × fragilis is a hybrid involving her new species S. euxina, so there should be two articles. I've restored Salix × fragilis and created a stub at Salix euxina. Both need more work. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I've worked on both articles, but more could be done. (I can access the Belyaeva paper.) Peter coxhead (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

There has been a discussion at User talk:Darorcilmir#Caladenia elegans is a herb which is, I think, of wider relevance.

Botanical sources do not agree on the definition of "herb". Most, but not all, explicitly require a herb to be non-woody. They disagree more on whether a herb must die down seasonally/annually. Some are unclear, using words like "having no persistent woody parts" where "no persisent" might mean seasonally dying down, but might not. Some examples of varying definitions:

1. Explicitly not woody, not explicitly requiring seasonal dying down: Beentje (2010), The Kew Plant Glossary, p. 56; Mauseth (2014) Botany, p. 660, Cook (1968), ABC of Plant Terms, p. 121
2. Explicitly not woody, explicitly requiring seasonal dying down: Macquarie Dictionary, FNA Glossary
3. Not explicitly requiring not woody, requiring annual dying down: Stace (2019), New Flora of the British Isles, p. 1127

So is a banana plant a "herb"? Yes, according to (1). No, according to (2) and (3).

The adjective "herbaceous" in relation to habit is somewhat clearer, in that where this is defined separately, all the sources I've checked just say "not woody", with no reference to dying down or not. So a banana plant is a "herbaceous perennial" but may or may not be a "herb".

It's not clear to me what exactly we can do to clarify the intended meaning of "herb" to our readers where it is included in an article based on a source whose usage may be any of the above. Gloss? Have wikilinks to varied meanings and choose one? Avoid the term (e.g. in favour of "herbaceous annual" or "herbaceous perennial")? What do others think? Peter coxhead (talk) 08:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

As expected a web search finds uses of the term biennial herb, applied to plants that overwinter as a rosette (i.e. not dying down) and flowering in their second year. Evergreen plants such as dandelion and catsear are referred to as perennial herbs, though a search for evergreen perennial herb mostly brings up instances of the culinary (non-staple)/medical sense. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

"Herb" is not only a botanical word. According to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, "herb" has two meanings: "1. A plant whose stem does not become woody and persistent (as in a shrub or tree) but remains soft and succulent, and dies (completely or down to the root) after flowering. 2. A (freq. aromatic) plant used for flavouring or scent, in medicine, etc." The same dictionary gives two meanings for "herbaceous": "1. Of the nature of a herb (ref. herb 1); esp. not forming a woody stem but dying down to the root each year. 2. BOTANY Resembling a leaf in colour or texture. Opp.scarious." The Macquarie Dictionary has similar definitions.

In my view, Wikipedia ought to reflect dictionary definitions. At the moment, the Herb page is confusing. It has a hatnote "For the botanical usage, see herbaceous plant", incorrectly suggesting that "herb" = "herbaceous plant". In my view, there should be two separate Wikipedia articles with titles like "Herb (culinary)" and "Herb (botany)" with a disambiguation page "Herb". Each article should reflect a separate, dictionary meaning of "herb".

Many orchids are described by botanists as "a herb" (never as "a/an herbaceous plant"). I'd suggest that many plants have "herb-like" foliage but do not die down seasonally and are therefore not herbs. In a Wikipedia article about such an orchid, the word "herb" in the lead paragraph should link to "Herb (botanical)".

Incidentally, my understanding of plants in the genus Musa is that they die down to the ground after flowering/fruiting. If so, that would imply that the banana plant is a/an "Herb (botany)". Gderrin (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Gderrin: whether a banana plant is a herb or not depends, as I noted above, on which definition you use. They do not die down seasonally. Monocarpic plants with persistent non-woody parts that take longer than a season/year to flower are herbs by definition (1) I gave above, but not by definitions (2) and (3). The same applies to the examples that Lavateraguy gave above, i.e. plants such as dandelion and catsear that are referred to as perennial herbs – they don't have woody parts, but don't die down seasonally.

I agree that separate articles on "Herb (culinary)" and "Herb (botany)" are a good idea, but "Herb (botany)" must maintain WP:POV and reflect all reliable sources (but you seem to be insisting on using only definition (2)). This means that the article will need to explain that there are definitions which require seasonal dying down and definitions which don't, so there are definitions in which "herb" does mean "herbaceous plant" and definitions in which it doesn't. That remains the core of the problem: yes, "herb" is widely used, but it does not have a precise meaning unless the usage in the source is made clear. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:10, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: if we have an article at "Herb (botany)" then we don't also need one at "Herbaceous plant". The two terms are strongly linked and can't be sensibly discussed in separate articles without a lot of overlap, since "botanical herbs" are either essentially equivalent to "herbaceous plants" by definition (1), or a subset of "herbaceous plants" by definition (2). One solution is to redirect "Herb (botany)" to an expanded section "Herbaceous plant#Herb". Peter coxhead (talk) 10:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Gderrin: Many orchids are described by botanists as "a herb" (never as "a/an herbaceous plant"). Stace's New Flora of the British Isles, regarded as the definitive Flora of the region, begins the section on the Orchidaceae of the British Isles with the words "Erect, herbaceous perennials". It's simply not correct that orchids are never described as "herbaceous". Peter coxhead (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Avoiding ambiguity is important, so if using herbaceous plant (or other term) avoid this then I'd strongly favour that where possible. Also this allows concise alternatives such as "herbaceous perennial". Where it seems wrong would be referring to culinary herbs, which fits with the different definitions above. So one article on Herb (culinary) and another on Herbaceous plant with Herb (botany) as a redirect seems the best solution. You could argue that Herb (botany) should be the title as that would immediately flag to the reader that herb can mean something different. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

All the main dictionaries describe herbs as plants with soft stems and/or leaves which DIE DOWN after flowering. But most orchids' stems/leaves do NOT die down after flowering. Therefore orchids are not herbs by this definition. However, as Gderrin points out, all the technical literature on orchids describes them as herbs. So what is going on here? Well it seems to me that "herb" is a term which has not been well defined in the literature, and is ambiguous at best. In Wikipedia we are surely entitled to avoid ambiguous terms, in fact I would say we are obliged to do so. The RHS is the premier horticultural organisation in Britain. This is how the RHS describes plants:

• Plants which die after flowering are annual or biennial plants (e.g. poppies)
• Plants with soft parts which die down every year are herbaceous perennials (e.g. peonies)
• Plants with soft parts which are retained throughout the seasons are evergreen perennials or just perennials (most orchids)
• Plants with woody stems, and leaves which fall every year, are deciduous shrubs/trees
• Plants with woody stems and leaves which are retained, are evergreen shrubs/trees
• Plants with culinary or medicinal uses are herbs (they may include perennials and shrubs)

The RHS avoids "herb", except when describing medicinal or culinary plants, and so do I. Darorcilmir (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear - all species of orchid in the genera Caladenia (~350 spp.), Pterostylis (~300), Prasophyllum (~140), Corybas (~120), Thelymitra (>100), Diuris (>60), Nervilia (65?), Genoplesium (50), Microtis (20), Arthrochilus (15), Caleana (14), Acianthus (12) and many other smaller genera, are deciduous herbs. (That is, they die down and have no above-ground parts after flowering/fruiting.) And that's just the Australian examples. A much smaller number of Australian terrestrial orchid species (2?) are not deciduous. Gderrin (talk) 11:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore, of the forty or fifty species (one endemic) to Britain, all die down in winter, as would be expected where it snows. Of the genera of orchid with a "general description" in Plants of the World Online, those in Cypripedium, Dactylorhiza, Gymnadenia, Herminium, Himantoglossum, Neotinea, Ophrys, Orchis, Platanthera, and Pseudorchis are described as "herbs". On the other hand, some species of Cymbidium that are often grown it British greenhouses do not die down after flowering, and are evergreen. Gderrin (talk) 05:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Phalaenopsis, the popular houseplant, does not die down seasonally. The stem and leaves persist as long as the whole plant does. The RHS calls it an evergreen perennial. Nevertheless it is described in Wikipedia and other sources as a "herb", in direct contravention of most dictionary definitions (e.g. Merriam-Webster - "dies down at the end of a growing season"). Darorcilmir (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Precisely. It's crystal clear to me at least that "herb", with two definitions in wide use, namely with or without dying down seasonally, is ambiguous, and so not suitable for use in an international encyclopedia. It may have a more exact meaning in a national or regional context, but not here. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Is it being suggested that Plants of the World Online reflects a "national or regional context", or is guilty of ambiguity, when it describes all ten genera listed above (Cypripedium to Pseudorchis), most occurring from Europe to Asia, Africa, Canada and the United States, as "herbs"? Just asking. Gderrin (talk) 10:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

This AfD may be of interest Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anne_Catherine_Hof_Blinks which is under discussion for deletion. --hroest 18:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

List of unidentified plants.

For example, hippomanes, silphium, soma... Viriditas (talk) 10:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Hippomanes doesn't appear to be an unidentified plant.

Are there enough notable unidentified plants to justify an article? (While I understand that there are quite a few Classical Greek plant names of uncertain precise application, they don't strike me as Wikipedia notable. Names from Sumerian, Hittite or Akkadian strike me are likely to be even less notable.) Lavateraguy (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

"The name of the genus references the Greek name hippomanes (applied by Theophrastus to an unidentified plant said to poison horses, sending them mad)". See Hippomane. I recall reading an article about unidentified plants on Wikipedia many years ago, but I can no longer find it. Deletionists have a habit of making it difficult to impossible to find information. Viriditas (talk) 17:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

But Hippomanes doesn't give that definition. I think more sources are needed. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I received the following notification, which ought to have been placed here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

International Association for Plant Taxonomy, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Whiteguru (talk) 08:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

There's a requested move discussion at Talk:Orchidaceae#Requested move 17 August 2021 which may be of interest to members of this project. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I have recently converted all the manual taxoboxes for Crataegus species articles to use {{Speciesbox}}. In almost all cases, I simply reproduced the taxonomic hierarchy present in the manual taxobox, creating taxonomy templates for sections and series as necessary.

However, I suspect the taxonomy is very often well out-of-date; it appears to be based on morphology and papers and monographs from the 1990s or earlier. I'm aware that Crataegus is something of a taxonomic black hole, so I'm not going to try to update the articles. Maybe someone else is more courageous? Peter coxhead (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I can't fix this:

• Oenothera larmarckiana - Found in Hermann Joseph Muller; redirects to Oenothera; obvious misspelling of Oenothera lamarckiana, which is actually a synonym of the common Oenothera glazioviana, fide PoWO.
• Oenothera gigas - Found in talk page of Oenothera; redirects to Oenothera; this name was coined by Hugo de Vries in 1901 to describe one of the strains (a tetraploid) he first grew from Oe. lamarckiana/glazioviana. This name was originally given by de Vries as Oe. gigas, but by 1917 he was convinced many Oenothera could speciate/mutate into a gigas form, e.g. Oe. lamarckiana mut. gigas, Oe. grandipora mut. gigas, etc... (mut. =mutation, obsolete terminology from saltationism, which is basically synonymous with cv.). De Vries's later theories are taxonomically immaterial though, this name is also a syn. of Oe. glazioviana based on the 1901 (nomen nudum?) species description).

Cheers, 145.132.201.64 (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Oenothera larmarckiana is now a redirect to Oenothera glazioviana. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I have merged Oenothera lamarckiana into Oenothera glazioviana. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:20, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Oenothera gigas now redirects to Oenothera glazioviana. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I think the above are all the fixes needed. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that Oenothera larmarckiana ought to go to redirects for deletion. Lavateraguy (talk) 07:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I've now done the same as above for Sorbus species articles, again simply retaining the name and taxonomic hierarchy present in the manual taxobox.

However, I see that Plants of the World Online and other taxonomic sources have accepted major splits of Sorbus, in particular into Aria (57 spp. in PoWO) and Karpatiosorbus (85 spp. in PoWO), but many species articles are still under Sorbus. There's limited discussion of the newer taxonomy at Sorbus. We don't appear to have a list of Sorbus species anywhere. Any views on what we should do? Peter coxhead (talk) 09:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll create the list article. Do you happen to know the paper that motivated PoWO to accept the split? Abductive (reasoning) 20:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Created List of Sorbus species. Abductive (reasoning) 21:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

There is an article Whitebeam that could be moved to Aria. Abductive (reasoning) 21:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Abductive: the evidence for splitting Sorbus sensu lato seems to have been building up over time. Some of the actual splits seem to come from this paper. There's also a readable summary with a proposal and key here. I don't know if PoWO, etc. actually follow either of these. The reality, as noted by Stace (2019), New Flora of the British Isles, who declined to accept splitting at that time, is that there are well-defined sexually reproducing diploid species which can be divided into coherent genera, but they are accompanied by numerous apomictic polyploid taxa, many of which are hybrids between these coherent genera. Binomial nomenclature just doesn't work well for widespread apomictic plants (cf. dandelions, brambles). And that is, I hope, my last word on Sorbus! Peter coxhead (talk) 06:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I seem to have already found those two articles. Let me know if you come across any more. Crataegus, too. Abductive (reasoning) 06:50, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

P.S., the answer is, no, PoWO is not exactly following Rushforth. Abductive (reasoning) 06:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Abductive: many thanks for picking up this topic! Peter coxhead (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Please come participate in the discussion. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Can any expert help resolve the ambiguous link to Erysimum hieraciifolium in Erysimum crepidifolium? Thanks in advance, Narky Blert (talk) 10:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

In the absence of a reference for the statement it's hard to identify the context. But IPNI tells me that there's another 3 Erysimae hieraciifolieae, to add to the ambiguity. I'm also confused as to why the accepted name is Erysimum odoratum Ehrt. rather than Erysimum hieraciifolia L. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I recently created an article for the Darling 58, a genetically engineered American Chestnut tree which is resistant to chestnut blight. It may become the most widely planted GM tree in North America once it is released to the public. Any help improving the article would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

At this point that information should be on the page for American Chestnut and not a stand alone article. Hardyplants (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Please consider the article Escaped plant which is due to appear on the main page as a DYK in four days time. It is an interesting topic but it seems to me that the article has inaccuracies and anomalies. Here are a few points I have noticed: (pinging the creator @Qumarchi:) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

1. "Garden escapees can be adventitious" - either this is an incorrect term, or it is linked to the wrong article.
2. Paragraph 2 of "Ecological threats" has a source that does not mention Opuntia, Gorse or New Zealand.
3. Paragraph 3 of "Ecological threats" has no source but includes "Rhododendron species ... in the British Isles crowd out island vegetation."
4. I wonder about the definitions in the "Related terms" section. Are these correctly explained?

@Cwmhiraeth you might want to cross-check with Introduced species. Also the terms archaeophyte and neophyte (see Glossary of botanical terms). Archaeophyte - plant that has existed in British Isles since medieval times, taken to mean since 1500. Neophyte - an alien that arrived after 1500. (Stace 4, pages 1123, 1130) For a source on invasive Rhododendron, this might serve: Controlling Rhododendron ponticum in the British Isles: an economic analysis Plantsurfer 11:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

If others are happy with the botanical terms defined and used, then the article just needs copyediting. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I am not very happy with the "related terms". They are pretty obscure for the most part, and at very least need reliable sources. Agriophyte should probably read Agrophyte. Ephemerophyte is a word. Epecophyte - never heard of it, and is not used in the cited work. Hemerochory is ok. Ethelochory, Speirochory or Agochory appear in the WP articles Hemerochory and Escaped plant, in both of which there is a questionable citation and also in Glossary of botanical terms, but the terms are obscure and need a reliable source. Plantsurfer 13:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The description of ephemerophyte is what would more commonly be referred to as a casual, but it links to ephemeral, which is a different concept. Lavateraguy (talk) 16:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Can anyone help with the ambiguous link to life histories in Mastocarpus stellatus? There may be an appropriate technical term I don't know. Thanks in advance, Narky Blert (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: I think they mean Biological life cycle. --awkwafaba (📥) 12:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Narky Blert (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm almost done with pushing the series of 11 etymology lists through WP:FLC, and it's time to pick a new project to work on. I'm considering doing something with characteristics of plant families, but I'm open to other suggestions, and let me know if there are any ongoing list projects I can help with. - Dank (push to talk) 14:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

How about List of edible seeds, List of culinary nuts, List of leaf vegetables, List of edible flowers, List of culinary fruits ? — hike395 (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Anyone who is an expert on this and can give us a better view of the scientific consensus or other discussion on this topic? Thanks in advance. MSG17 (talk) 14:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Can anyone help with the ambiguous link to members in Ascent of sap? Copyediting might be helpful, because I don't understand the sentence, nor "Both" at the beginning of the next one. Narky Blert (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

@Narky Blert: The source says “vessel member” (briefly) and not “vessels members”. For some reason there was not a redirect for vessel member despite being in bold in the lede of the target, so I created it and the dab should be resolved now. --awkwafaba (📥) 12:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again! Narky Blert (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I am uncertain about the meaning of "Taxa named by ....". It could be taken as meaning "the first person to publish a description of a taxon", "any person who gave this taxon a name" or "the last person to name the species". For a species like Eucalyptus caesia, it's clear - George Bentham described it and gave it the name that's still accepted. For others, like Corymbia gummifera it is less clear - first described, named and published as Metrosideros gummifera by Gaertner, later renamed Corymbia gummifera by Ken Hill and Lawrie Johnson. So was C. gummifera "named by" Gaertner, by Hill and Johnson, or by all three? There are probably more complicated taxonomic histories with taxa "named by" more authorities. I am suggesting that there should be some "consensus" guidance either at WP:WikiProject Plants/Template or Category talk:Taxa by author, and asking for other editors' opinions on the subject. (My apologies if I have missed something, consensus has already been reached and there is already guidance.) Gderrin (talk) 08:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there has been any discussion about taxa by author, but there has been discussion and there is guidance about taxa by year: Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Description in year categories. Following the guidance for years, the author should be "the first person to publish a description of a taxon" (and that person may not even be included in the standard authority citation for a particular name; e.g. see Muscari racemosum/Hyacinthus muscari in the guidance for year categories). Plantdrew (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

There has been discussion somewhere – can't find it right now – which I think did not reach a consensus. I agree that the criteria should be the same, but there are a number of editors actively adding to the categories who don't, and think that if an author's name appears in the authority, then the article belongs in the category even if they only created a new combination. (There are also issues over differences between the ICNafp and the ICZN.) Peter coxhead (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure at the moment whether I should be including every piece of information there is on plant's morphology in the description section. The project page says: "The description should focus on the defining characteristics of the taxon, that distinguish it from other similar taxa," and in most cases only a paragraph of condensed botanical stuff is needed to get to that. Featured articles seem to vary, like Banksia aemula or Banksia cuneata are a middle ground, while Banksia integrifolia and Persoonia levis are very simple, and Banksia speciosa and Banksia serrata are quite complex. For my Dracophyllum GAs, Dracophyllum traversii and Dracophyllum arboreum, I've included every thing that the latest monograph of the genus describes. This ends up being quite long and complex – much more than any average reader would really need. The information there is five times the stuff included in books like The Flora of New Zealand or similar. Is there a line we should be drawing here, or is it a non-issue? Dracophyllum 00:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

It really is up to you on how much detail to include, but the purpose of a species description is to allow, say, an amateur botanist to distinguish two species they are literally looking at in the wild or herbarium. Some of the differences in lengths you might be seeing may be because the editor found a clearly written identification key that allowed them to refine the text a bit. Abductive (reasoning) 00:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

From what I can find Mandla Plant Fossils National Park seems to be a made up park, probably created by the initial article author, A quick look at google maps shows that the purported location of the park is actually the location of the Ghughua Fossil Park. I suggest either wholesale deletion of this article, or redirection and history merge into Ghughua Fossil Park. I'm notifying recent editors of that article and relevant wkiprojects.--Kevmin § 01:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

After some web searching, I first thought that they were alternative names (rather than one being made up), but they seem to be distinct. (100km apart, in adjacent districts (Dindori and Mandla)). See here. Mandla Fossil Park has a web footprint, but I haven't found any official documentation (yet). Lavateraguy (talk) 13:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Though I don't understand how to reconcile the article creation date (2005) with the date of the Hindustan Times article (2020). Lavateraguy (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

On looking again, 2020 is the date the article was last updated; I don't see a statement as to when it was originally written. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

we should continue this discussion at the merge proposal.--Kevmin § 15:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Carnivorous plants was marked as inactive on 11 May 2019. Fair enough; there hasn't been a conversation with 2 or more editors on the project talk page since 2011. On 8 September, the project assessment banner (Template:WikiProject Carnivorous plants) was marked as inactive. This had the effect of emptying all the assessment categories for Carnivorous plants, and since the carnivorous plant banner also counted into the assessment table for plants overall, all carnivorous plant articles were removed from the overall count (see quality log on September 9. Category:WikiProject Carnivorous plants articles was deleted on September 9th, and the remaining assessment categories such as Category:High-importance carnivorous plant articles were deleted today (with rational "G6: inactive project no longer assesses articles").

While the talk page for Carnivorous plants was dead, articles were actively being assessed; I discovered the situation today when I came across a new Drosera article and tried to assess it.

I remove the inactive tag from the assessment banner template. I had started to recreate categories, but wasn't sure if that was the best way forward. Three subprojects (Carnivorous plants, Banksia and Hypericaceae) have tagged (essentially) all articles in their scope, with the subproject banners also adding assessment categories for ths project. In my opinion, it would've been better if the subprojects had been created as work groups; Article Alerts is a useful report, and it doesn't pick up articles in subprojects.

I suppose it would be pretty simple to change the Carnivorous plant banner so it stopped trying to place articles in (now deleted) assessment categories for Carnivorous plants and have the template put everything in a Plant assessment category. But it wouldn't be too difficult to recreate the deleted categories either.

I am concerned by the deletion process that was in play. I would've thought that there was a consensus that articles should have quality assessment (over the alternative that articles should NOT have quality assessment). When there is only one banner providing assessment and it is disabled, the article effectively becomes unassessed. I'm sure there are a number of niche topics at Wikipedia that are only assessed by a single no-longer active WikiProject. I'll bring up my concerns not-specific to plants in more appropriate forums and will add links to those discussions once I've started them. Plantdrew (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

They are working on getting rid of Wikiprojects they way they did with Portals and Books, it seems. They already inactivated and removed the quality assessments for WP Poultry and WP Biota of Great Britain and Ireland, among others. I think it’s weird that, even if a project is inactive, that you would want to spend effort to make it harder for some new editor to give it some life. --awkwafaba (📥) 02:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Who is the "they" here, please? This is of great concern, and I see no rationale for removing WikiProject quality assessments, even if a project is currently in a hiatus. If they've done a good job, then there's little more needs to be done; if they've not completed their work, then others may well come along later and help complete that task. How widespread is this problem that you're reporting? Nick Moyes (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes: it looks like a major portion of the deletion work is being conducted by @UnitedStatesian: if I see correctly? I agree the three subprojects (Banksia, Carnivorous plants, and Hypericaceae) would be better maintained as wikiproject task forces, that way even when there isn]t much happening they have the oversight of WP:plants to umbrella under. Perhaps UnitedStatesian would be amenable to transforming the deleted materials into task force pages instead.--Kevmin § 22:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping; A couple points of clarification: this is not getting rid of WikiProjects. It is focusing editor efforts on the active WikiProjects (of which there are nearly 1,000), and which are of course critical to the quality of the encyclopedia. Yes, I am, along with other editors, Wikignoming the work to tag for speedy deletion non-populated categories for inactive projects, and to ensure each banner template matches the status of the corresponding project. But at the same time if a group of editors want to reactivate a project, I am (along with other editors participating in Wikipedia:WikiProject Council) more than happy to help in that effort, and with any project restructurings (such as converting projects to taskforces). I'll happily recreate categories, or anything else that is needed, just let me know. Also note that every talkpage still has the needed code for repopulating the categories; I have not "unassessed" any article. Anything else, let me know. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Kevmin Thank you. I would definitely support your suggestion as a sensible alternative. My own pet project WP:ALPS is currently a task force of WP:MOUNTAINS, even though I would personally prefer it to be a separate project, with a much wider remit. I believe @UnitedStatesian is a good faith editor, and both they and I would hate to see the issues caused by BHG resurfacing on WikiProjects. It would be best if they would make clear their concerns on the appropriate 'parent' Project and then wait for responses before taking action which would then take a lot of effort to reinstate. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

But just to reiterate: no action takes "a lot of effort to reinstate." And any group of editors who feels such effort daunting should have one of said group reach out to me or to another member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Council for assistance. UnitedStatesian (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I would also prefer that these be made into Task Forces, but failing that they should be deleted. Abductive (reasoning) 08:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

That’s rather dramatic. In any event, what to people mean, in practice, when they want these to be task forces instead of subprojects? A name change and added to the WPPlants talk template? Because they can be added to the talk template no matter what their status. There are projects already included in parent project talk templates, and there are task forces with independent talk templates. Folks here in the Tree of Life projects may have their favorite TFs and subprojects, but there is a solid core of us who work on all the branches. We like the categorization and order that the subprojects and TFs provide, otherwise the maintenance categories get too large. So elucidate what you actually mean when you want conversion to task forces. --awkwafaba (📥) 12:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

My reason is purely practical; as WikiProjects they interfere with my efforts to Importance-Assess large numbers of articles, while as Task Forces they don't. Back in 2019, I reassessed about 20,000 articles. Abductive (reasoning) 19:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Abductive: Can you explain further? Is it that you want fewer categories, i.e. all articles in Category:Low-importance plant articles ( 85,352 ), as opposed to some in Category:Low-importance plant articles ( 85,352 ) and some in Category:Low-importance carnivorous plant articles ( 739 )? because they can have separate importance ratings even if they are in the same talk template. --awkwafaba (📥) 15:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

No, its not about that. While doing each assessment it slowed the process down. I already did all the plants, so it's not an issue here, but I would prefer to see all dead WikiProjects deleted or made into Task Forces, across Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 18:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, I've made some bars to show some goals / our project's progression vis-à-vis assessment – let me know your thoughts; it would be cool if they could be added to the main project page. Cheers, Dracophyllum > FAC 05:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

100 featured articles: 76% complete

50 featured lists: 62% complete

200 good articles: 76% complete

10% of all articles rated B-Class or better: 13% complete

40% of all articles rated Start-Class or better: 88.6% complete

And 14 16 Featured Lists so far (including two that aren't listed with the plants at that link: List of vegetable oils and List of culinary nuts). I don't think 50 would be unreasonable as something to shoot for. - Dank (push to talk) 16:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I added a line for featured lists. - Dank (push to talk) 03:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I'm new to this wikiproject. I live near Kew Gardens and so recently I had a brainwave to try and take photos of plant species at Kew Gardens that Wikimedia Commons does not yet have openly-licensed accurately identified photos of (from Kew Gardens). See here for examples: Uploads by Metacladistics - Wikimedia Commons

Even when armed with a list it's still hard to find the species I'm looking for. So it's very much a long-term work in progress over the next year or two.

Aside from obvious advice like 'try to capture it in flower' , are there any particular characteristics I should aim to capture with my photos, if I'm taking them specifically for Wikipedia / advancing knowledge purposes? I try and take a photo specifically including the plant and its identification plaque in the same shot to prove its identity -- but perhaps people might consider this bad practice or undesired? Thoughts and opinions sought... Metacladistics (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

It might be helpful to take a few pics of each plant, one that shows the plant and its nameplate, and others that show the plant from a nice angle, and perhaps some close-ups. I find that some photos in the Commons include too much in the background, such as branches hanging down from other species, ugly fixtures or other distractions, especially when the photgrapher is trying to include the nameplate. When I decide on a photo for an article, I look for the nameplate, but it is usually obvious when there is another picture of the same plant, and so I have confidence to use the nicest photo. Otherwise, it would be good if leaves and flowers are both in focus in the same image. Thanks in advance. Abductive (reasoning) 06:09, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Metacladistics, I would try to take as good a closeup of the flower as possible, same for the leaves. I have had to identify far too many plants from a very blurry or distant photo, but having a closeup of the flower and leaves makes it a breeze (or at least useful enough to go through a dichotomous key). Awesome to hear that you're interested in doing this, plants rule! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I find it is easer to take pictures on what you can in a section of a garden/display and then add what you think will be good to commons, which always needs good pictures of plants even if they already have some. Pictures of flower/inflorescences, habit, and leaf/branch structure are valuable.Hardyplants (talk) 09:00, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all, really helpful. I'll still keep taking photos with the nameplate in (to help verify species identity), but I think I need to take more/better close-up pics without the nameplate in them. Will have another go on my next visit. Thanks again. Metacladistics (talk) 14:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Do bear in mind that Kew may have some names that aren't current (and even wrong identifications). I've uploaded at least three sets of plant images to Commons assuming that the botanical garden where I photographed them (not Kew, I hasten to add) had them correctly labelled, and found later that they hadn't. Keeping up with all the name changes caused by molecular phylogenetic analyses in the last 20 years or so isn't easy. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

There is a family level phylogeny of Angiosperms published this year as part of the Kew Angiosperm Tree of Life Project.^[1][2] There is an comparison with APG IV in the Fig S4 of the journal paper and an interactive treeview at the website. I thought this might be of interest.

I am working on Susanne Renner's page and have come across some terms that seem similar, but may be different. Wikipedia has pages for dioecy and dioecy (plant) and dioicy (botany). Are dioecy (plant) and dioicy (botany) the same term, but spelled slightly differently? Or is this a spelling issue? The publications that are cited by Renner on the dioicy (botany) page spell the word 'dioecy'.

I am not familiar with the field, so I am posting the question here in the hopes that you can help. Thanks for any help/thoughts.

--DaffodilOcean (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a recent mess chiefly created by CycoMa, who created Dioicy (botany) but did not expand it or synchronized it with Monoicy, the older and much more complete article. You can learn about the subject by reading the introduction to Monoicy, as I did. Basically, "Monoicy" applies to bryophytes and "Monoecy" to spermatophytes, although some authors just conflate the two.
I'm inclined to just merge Dioicy (botany) into Monoicy, as it brings very little new information. No such user (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@No such user: I made the dioicy article because the topic is indeed notable enough for its own article. One thing that makes it difficult is that google search results keeps autocorrecting to dioecy or it confuses it with dioecy.CycoMa (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

And yeah authors in various sources confuse the two.CycoMa (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

CycoMa: The topic might indeed be notable enough for its own article, but what you made is a mere stub. When the RFD discussion concluded, you went on to publishing your draft and redirected Dioicy to it anyway, which used to point to Monoicy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which still has more information about both concepts. I advocated merge, alright, one might disagree, but if you're going to split, then do it properly and make both articles complete, with some necessary duplication (see WP:CWW). It's good to be bold, but what we have now is a half-assed attempt that only confuses readers (as proven by the original post in this thread). No such user (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@No such user: is the current version of Dioicy still a stub? Any suggestions?CycoMa (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

no, it is not a spelling issue. Diocy and Dioecy are indeed different concepts. Dioicy is about direct gametophytic sexuality in free-sporing plants, whereas Dioecy is about sporophyte control of gametophyte sexuality in heterosporic plants. What is infuriating about the new article Dioicy (botany) is that it needs the qualification (botany) because Dioicy already points to Monoicy. If the article is to persist that problem needs to be fixed and the name changed. Plantsurfer 15:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. This is indeed confusing. I will add in the author-links to Susanne Renner in the existing references in the Dioicy (botany) and the Dioecy articles. I cannot help with the main text, and if Renner's publications are on the wrong page I hope they can be moved with the author-link intact. --DaffodilOcean (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

This does not solve the problem that the article is entitled Dioicy (botany) and not Diocy. Why? Plantsurfer 19:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, Dioicy, not Diocy. There is no need to qualify Dioicy. It is uniquely relevant to plants, and does not happen in any other sphere of biology. Plantsurfer 20:34, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I've just solved that particular problem. No such user (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Great, many thanks. Plantsurfer 22:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Taxus has a non-consensus (e.g. 3 species rather than 1 native to Britain) classification added at the end of 2014. Other material added by the same editor was removed, but this escaped. Lavateraguy (talk) 20:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks like the classification is from Spjut et al (2007; Semantic Scholar) and that editor Richspjut is the author, Richard W. Spjut.

Curiously Taxus recurvata was recognised as a synonym of Taxus baccatus by WCSP, but not by POWO or WCVP. That's a bit surprsising, given WCSP is replacing WCSP soon. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Are there plant conservation status ratings for Mexico, Central America (or countries therein), and/or South American countries? IUCN has a limited list of the genus I am researching. NatureServe lists only US species. Any help appreciated. —Eewilson (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

There is CNCFlora for Brazil. —  Jts1882 | talk  19:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Anybody have any insight into which spelling is correct: Guarea caulobotryis vs. Guarea caulobotrys? IPNI has botryis, which looks misspelled to me. GBIF records both spellings, but has flagged record for the IPNI spelling as "deleted" (but it's accessible via taxonbar). Plantdrew (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Original publication says Guarea caulobotryis.^[1] --awkwafaba (📥) 03:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The Kew resources say Guarea caulobotryis Cuatrec. (links to POWO and IPNI records within), citing the original publication above. The IPNI flags its reference as duplicated (and links the second record) and GBIF has a second record, Guarea caulobotryis Cuatrec., which isn't flagged deleted. The second one is less complete (no links to sources) so they might have deleted the wrong one. —  Jts1882 | talk  06:44, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Stearn is clear that botrys is a noun; see also wikt:βότρυς. When the second part of an epithet, the epithet is a noun in apposition. Cuatrecasus may have been trying to construct an adjective meaning 'bunched' perhaps, but I can't find botryis/βότρυις in any source, although the genitive is βότρῠος, so adding -is after the y to make a feminine adjective is not totally implausible. The question is whether this is an error and hence a correctable ending under the ICNafp Art. 23.5, which is a question that would need to be referred to an expert (e.g. at IPNI). Peter coxhead (talk) 08:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The is a fungus genus Botrytis, which has an etymology at wiktionary, which suggests a third spelling. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Jts1882: not really plausible for the epithet in this case, I think. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Cuatrecasas clearly chose the odd spelling, either on accident or purpose. We will never know because he couldn’t put an etymology in using any of the three languages of the article. Subsequent authors have struggled like above to puzzle it out and possibly ‘fix’ it. --awkwafaba (📥) 11:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, he could have given an etymology. When there isn't one, often the components of the epithet appear in the Latin description, which helps. I assume he meant the epithet to refer to the inflorescentiae .. racemosae cauligenae, but it's then a jump to a derivative of βότρυς. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that in the absence of a compelling case to the contrary, the original spelling must stand. Article 60 of the Shenzen code is pretty firmly against any 'fixing', except in very strictly defined circumstances. Whilst "unjustified emendation" is only an official term in the zoological code, that is effectively what is being going on here. William Avery (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

It's not so clear. If Cuatrecasas's use was an attempt to use a noun, i.e. -botrys, as an adjective, then the provision of Art. 23.5, illustrated there by the example of -cola, would apply, and it would be correctable under Art. 23.5. But this is a matter for experts in the ICNafp, as I noted earlier, and I am definitely not! I've now asked someone who is. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@Plantdrew, Awkwafaba, Jts1882, and William Avery: In response to my query, the IPNI entry here has been changed to "caulobotrys" (in line with Tropicos), noting that the original was "caulobotryis". Peter coxhead (talk) 06:42, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, then I will move the article, expanding the taxonomy section to explain the issues. What's good enough for IPNI and Tropicos is good enough for me! Peter coxhead (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I have tagged Cupressus nootkatensis be renamed and moved to Callitropsis nootkatensis as the most frequently used combination for the species. The use of Callitropsis as a distinct genus has been accepted for at least 5 years now, with the distinct linages of the western cypresses being supported by molecular studies. Comment is welcome.--Kevmin § 14:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm unfamiliar with these genera, but I did notice that Callitropsis links to a DAB, in case that is of interest. Eewilson (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

At Xanthocyparis it is stated that Xanthocyparis is conserved over Callitropsis, implying that any move should be to Xanthocyparis nootkaensis. Lavateraguy (talk) 10:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Lavateraguy As noted at Xanthocyparis, that was proposed, and did happen, but only for the Vietnamese species, the liturature shows that C. nootkatensis is considered a sperate genus from Xanthocyparis vietnamensis, and is now placed in a monotypic Callitropsis. Also, as a note POWO uses Callitropsis --Kevmin § 14:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I kinda need help at Baccharis monoica. I’m kinda new to this situation, someone tagged this article with cleanup taxon.CycoMa (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks like it may be a synonym of a subspecies of the species in the cleanup box, and if that's the case, it should go as a part of that species page and Baccharis monoica could become a redirect. I find the latest taxa information in POWO or sometimes COL. See http://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:273030-2 which says that this name is a synonym of the Baccharis salicifolia subsp. monoica (G.L.Nesom) Joch.Müll. Eewilson (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi all,

Today's Picture of the Day shows an old tree, described as an oak, with a broken crown. It sure looks like a beech, Fagus sylvatica to me, although my knowledge of trees has a North American bias and the picture is from the Netherlands. Can I get a second opinion? Tdslk (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Where you can see the shape of the leaves, e.g. against the first branch up at the right, and if you blow up the image and sort through the leaves on the ground, then they are definitely not oak, and look like Common (European) Beech to me. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

(The texture and colour of the trunks of the younger trees in the background suggest beech too. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC))

It looks like Fagus sylvatica to me too - the bark fits, both in colour and smoothness, and the colour of the leaves is right too. The two common oak species in northwest Europe - Quercus robur and Quercus petraea - have rather rough textured bark and dull brown autumn leaf colour. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Also the branching structure of the twigs - which can be seen more clearly when the image is magnified - is smooth like that of F. sylvatica. The two oak species mentioned above have twigs and branches that tend to zig-zag (I had read somewhere that this is due to less apical bud dominance in oaks, though I cannot remember the source). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:58, 17 October 2021 (UTC) (Or it might be that their apical buds tend to be positioned at more of an angle from the previous year's growth - I'm trying to recall what that source said. Either way, the effect on the twig pattern is an identifying feature). PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The Randall James Bayer page, of a living botanist, appears to have been written by Randall James Bayer (Rjbayer). It was created on 19 August 2006‎, nominated for deletion on 19 August 2006‎, voted keep on 24 August 2006, and the final edit by the subject of the page was 15 years ago this month. Various cleanup edits have occurred since 2006, but in these 15 years, it still cites no sources (other than the IPNI citation for the botanist abbreviation) and has no tag templates. Furthermore, it is almost an exact copy of https://www.anbg.gov.au/biography/bayer-randall.html. Which came first is hard to tell. (Also posted on Project Biography.) Eewilson (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

• His h-index is 47, which means the article will probably be kept at AfD. Abductive (reasoning) 01:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  • That's fine, but it needs to be cited. Since you think it will be kept (as it was previously), I'll go ahead and tag it as needs citations. Eewilson (talk) 06:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Something I noticed and brought up on the talk page of the Infraspecific name article. Please refer to my new comment at Talk:Infraspecific name#Needs work to actually define "infraspecies". I won't repeat it here. Thanks! Eewilson (talk) 06:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

When moving the current article to the species level, as prep for a fossil record inclusive genus article, I accidentally mis-copied the binomial. This should get moved to Pteroceltis tatarinowii over the redirect there, would someone with page-move ability be able to swap this one over? Thanks!--Kevmin § 17:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done Peter coxhead (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again Peter coxhead--Kevmin § 20:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi all,

The usual search - to add {{botanist|Maige}} (or similar) to this article - doesn't yield any result.

The Comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques has his biography here.

Am I missing something here? (Admittedly, the answer is most probably, "Yes, Shirt58, sometimes botanists don't have ipni entries. Please f*ck off and write articles about things you actually know something about")

Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I assume the IPNI only has entries for botanists who have named a plant taxon. His work seems more on the physiology and other non-taxonomic subjects. There is a not more on his at encyclopedia.com. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I have seen a few botanists/plant people in IPNI who have not named any plants, but I don't know the pattern to that. Eewilson (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

As noted by Eewilson IPNI has a number of entries for people who have not named taxa, and I have noted myself that it lacks a number of entries for paleobotanists how have named numerous taxa (example Jack A. Wolfe, Wesley Wehr, Kathleen Pigg, and Melanie DeVore)--Kevmin § 17:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kevmin: IPNI is aware it has poor coverage of paleobotany. I sent them quite a few at one time which were added. See User:Peter coxhead/Work/Early polysporangiophytes#Paleobotanical authors where there are more I didn't get round to. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

We seem to have articles at Quercus bumelioides and Quercus sapotifolia that are about the same type of tree (they use the same image, and the Commons category for one redirects to the other). Would someone be able to have a look and potentially merge them, please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Mike Peel, Plants of the Word Online lists Quercus bumelioides as a synonym of Quercus sapotifolia, so I think it can safely be merged to Q. sapo. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mike Peel Good find. According to COL, they are synonymous. The issue seems to be that the bumelioides article was made by PolBot, which isn't always the most accurate. Unfortunately, like so many plant species, not very well documented. By leaves alone, it is possible that bumelioides is in fact a distinct species. Oaks of the World (perhaps not the most reliable) gives a short squat leaf[16] but SEINet (more trustworthy) has mostly elongated leafs in its collection [17]. Of course, it could just be due to local variation/temperature/genetics, and might still be the same species. Without access to some of the hard copy works cited, it'd be hard to know. They probably should be merged, with Q. sapotifolia as the title, but I will hold off since I know there are other more able taxonomists here than myself.

Unfortunately, so much plant knowledge is locked away in esoteric tomes. I have several works on grasses of the southwest that I doubt were ever published in more than a hundred copies, and mostly never digitized. (Been meaning to make more articles...) Plants just don't get the kind of attention the more charismatic species do :/ CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos and CaptainEek: Thanks for the quick replies! Any chance one of you would be willing to do the merge, please? I really don't know much about plants, sorry! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Mike Peel Done :) CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Note to all, DO NOT copy the IUCN status when merging PolBot articles. If a PolBot article is a synonym, typically that means that it represents an entity that is a regional variant of a more widespread species. If the widespread species has been assessed by IUCN, it will almost certainly have a lower threat level than the regional variant. Q. sapotifolia has been assessed by IUCN, and I've updated the reference to the IUCN page for Q. sapotifolia. Plantdrew (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Plantdrew That is good to know! CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

For an article on a particular hybrid, how much documentation is necessary? I noticed many articles such as × Pachyveria glauca 'Little Jewel' with the only meaningful documentation being a dealer's catalog, or × Quesmea 'Flame' with a link that does not lead to any information, or Buddleja davidii 'SMBDPB' = Merry Magic Orchid whose documentation consists of a dealers catalog and a claimed plant patent application (in that example, would it make any diffeence if the patent were actually granted?) ? DGG ( talk ) 04:22, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

@DGG: personally I would delete both of these and all other articles on 'minor' cultivars. It's enough to list and discuss them briefly at the relevant species or genus article. There's a clear difference between a cultivar of limited distribution and appeal versus a widespread and important cultivar, like Rosa Peace or Malus 'Discovery'. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:36, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

DGG, I think a good rule of thumb here is that anything species level or higher is automatically notable, but anything below species level (subspecies, cultivar, hybrid) should meet GNG. There are a lot of pages like that which need to be redirected or deleted (since a lot of them are improbable redirects). I prodded two, the other should be merged into × Pachyveria but can't say I have the energy to do that... CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:38, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, in general merging cultivars is prudent. Species up is our standard tidal mark of notability. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

• I of course had always thought, that we only comprehensive made articles starting. at the species level, and that those not widely known ,in either horticultural or commercial use usually won't be suitable for an article. But I did not want to start nominating the hundreds of articles involved in, for example, Category:Bromeliaceae_cultivar without checking here there might be some special understanding in the subject area. I suggest htat a situation like this might be better handling by multiple bold redirects to a list, that by the necessary number of deletions. DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• As a heads up, I've been PROD-tagging a large number of cultivars recently independent of this discussion after finding some of them as orphans and finding that not one had any significant coverage that I could find. It occurred to me today to drop a line here to advise WP Plants people of what I'm up to - please accept my apologies for not thinking of it first. I've been working off the list at User:Premeditated Chaos/sandbox 5 (what's hatted is tagged, what's not is "to-do") at a rate of 15 per day so as not to overwhelm PROD. When I can merge them, I have been, but most are hybrids and not really suitable for a merge. I'm not sure I agree with merging to a list only given that these are non-notable cultivars supported by a database listing, thus a bare list would basically be a WP:NOTSTATS/not-a-database violation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:47, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
• As a question for @DGG, Casliber, CaptainEek, Peter coxhead, and Premeditated Chaos: on this topic, how do we feel about the articles linked in List of elm cultivars, hybrids and hybrid cultivars. Some are well cited, some are very meager. pinging @Izigabo, Tom elm, and Stavast22: as the primary editors in that area.--Kevmin § 00:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Having opened basically a random selection of those using linkclump, I think they need to be individually assessed. Some appear to have sufficient sourcing to meet GNG (on a glance, without reviewing the sources at all), while others are on the level of the Bromeliad cultivars I've been PRODding (nothing more than a database entry). Unfortunately I don't have any real botanical knowledge/expertise, so I'm not sure my opinion counts for much. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Agree - have to review each one Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
• My comment above (first in this thread) applies here too. Maybe we could agree, as a WikiProject, that the default for cultivars is not notable. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• For anyone keeping track, I'm through PROD-tagging the 150+ Tillandsia cultivars and will be starting on Billbergia cultivars tomorrow. As none of the PRODs have been contested so far, I may ramp up to 20 or even 25 per day, because there are a lot of Bromeliaceae cultivar articles. (And although it's the largest ornamental plant sub-cat, it's not the only one!) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• As of today, the PRODs have been reverted en masse, so I will likely be creating a bundled AfD for them (by species). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• DYK nomination for Symphyotrichum potosinum passed!
• GA nomination for Symphyotrichum novae-angliae (talk page) waiting for reviewer

—Eewilson (talk) 02:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay....in the spirit of collegiality, I've been buffing Gardenia jasminoides in bits and starts over the years, summoning up energy for a GA/FA push. Any input from others to grease the edits in the right direction would be appreciated (either comments or edits)......Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I can give it a little look later, Casliber Eewilson (talk) 08:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Casliber, I took a look, made some tweaks, gave some comments. Eewilson (talk) 12:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• DYK nomination for Symphyotrichum molle here
• TFA request for Symphyotrichum lateriflorum here

—Eewilson (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

This is done by a bot on the main page under the Monitoring section. Dracophyllum 18:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Dracophyllum Stop trying to spoil my fun...you ol' meanie. Eewilson (talk) 18:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Oops, forgot about WP:AVOIDYOU. Eewilson (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Be sure to add your TFA nomination to the TFA requests page, since you're looking for December. Wehwalt has already scheduled the first 8 days of December. Longer-term requests should go to WP:TFAP (for "pending"). - Dank (push to talk) 19:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I was working on a draft for this species called Draft:Loxostylis alata.(It is currently not done so the draft is kinda messy and needs fixing.)

However, when I looked at the genus for this species at Loxostylis. It appears Loxostylis alata is the only species in its genus and that the genus is monotypic. What do you guys think, do you guys think I should just move all the stuff I made on my draft and move it to Loxostylis or what? Any idea is helpful.CycoMa (talk) 14:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• @CycoMa: yea, we only do one article for monotypic taxa. Note that if a clade has only one extant species, and other extinct species, that’s not monotypic. If you want to do it quick and dirty you can just dump all the stuff from your draft into a § called Loxostylis alata. --awkwafaba (📥) 15:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi all. Related to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Plants#Quercus_bumelioides above, I'm working through link mismatches between enwiki articles and Commons categories (via Wikidata), and I'm finding a lot of them are related to plants. I'm often not sure if it's the Wikipedia article or the Commons category that needs moving/renaming to resolve the discrepancy (Wikidata often has taxon synonym items, and I've been going off the article/category name to determine the matches). Any chance you can help with these please? (pinging @Premeditated Chaos, CaptainEek, and Plantdrew: as they commented above). I'm happy to help with the technical work, but I don't know the topic. I've listed some below (will continue expanding this as I come across them). You can find the problematic articles in Category:Commons category link is the pagename, Category:Commons category link is defined as the pagename, and Category:Commons category link is locally defined. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Aporocactus flagelliformis - commons:Category:Aporocactus flagelliformis is a redirect to commons:Category:Disocactus flagelliformis
• Aporocactus martianus - commons:Category:Aporocactus martianus is a redirect to commons:Category:Disocactus martianus
• Echinopsis atacamensis - commons:Category:Echinopsis atacamensis redirects to commons:Category:Leucostele atacamensis
• Echinopsis pampana - commons:Category:Echinopsis pampana redirects to commons:Category:Lobivia pentlandii (after an intermediate category)
• Hebe recurva - is that commons:Category:Veronica odora or commons:Category:Veronica albicans?

See here, Melocactus intortus. Cheers, 2A02:A45D:25BD:1:3011:C945:188C:5563 (talk) 11:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Why should this be a redlink? It's a valid redirect to the species' genus. You could have a go turning it into an article, if you're interested. Anarchyte (talk) 11:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi, no, IPs do not get ping backs. It's my understanding all plant species should get their own article, and redirects to genus are not "valid". By redirecting to the genus, these articles don't get created, hence a redlink is best practice. 2A02:A45D:25BD:1:3011:C945:188C:5563 (talk) 11:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

When redirects exist in lieu of an article, it can be tagged with {{r with possibilities}}. The article can still be created from a redirect at any time by anyone (indeed, it becomes easier as IPs and new editors don't have the power to edit redlinks). Anarchyte (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Heterotypic synonyms have "disappeared" for viewing from POWO for species that have accepted infraspecies. This is temporary, as Kew has moved them to the autonyms which are not available for viewing online. In an email I received today, Rafaël Govaerts said the ability to view autonyms online should happen in the next few weeks. Eewilson (talk) 23:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello, is subvariety used to classify plants geographically like variety? if so or not, please show me a well-explained example! thank you! BloxyColaSweet (talk) 03:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Classification is not by geography but by population differences, anyway subvariety is a term I have never used but I do see that it is not uncommon - see this google search:^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardyplants (talk • contribs) 09:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

See also my response to the same query at User talk:Peter coxhead#What is subvariety used for?. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Starting a new thread so it doesn't get swallowed by the old one. I have bundled ten Tillandsia stubs into the above-noted AfD nomination as a sort of test case rather than starting out by trainwrecking the remaining hundred or so. (No particular ten, I just picked the first ten alphabetically). I invite anyone from this project who is interested to comment. In particular, if anyone here has not seen my previous posts about PROD-tagging cultivars and would have opposed had they seen them earlier, or did object but didn't wish to say so, now is the time. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Phase 2 is now up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tillandsia 'Gunalda', with 50 bundled this time. Again, I invite anyone who is interested to comment, particularly anyone in opposition, or anyone who has located sources for any of the nominated articles. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Phase 3 up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tillandsia 'Pink Panther'. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Final batch of cultivar AfDs is live at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billbergia 'Albertii'. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I have nominated List of Symphyotrichum species as a featured list. Would appreciate for anyone who has interest to take a look and make comments on the review page. Thank you all in advance. Eewilson (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a taxonomic inconsistency in its treatment of Pityranthe and Diplodiscus, in that it recognises Pityranthe but also includes the species of Pityranthe in Diplodiscus. On a quick glance it seems that Kubitzki & Bayer and POWO recognise Pityranthe but TPL doesn't. (I've added a couple of bandaids.) Lavateraguy (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Is there interest in reforming this wikiproject to be more organised, like Milhist and others, or is the understanding that the sheer breadth of the project makes that so difficult as to be pointless. Dracophyllum 07:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I have interest if reorganization needs to happen. :) Eewilson (talk) 07:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, creating functional subdivisions/task teams devoted to various aspects (like MILHIST has) makes sense to improve the manageability of the project. Just like Botany has subtopics the project could be subdivided into topics such as taxonomy, ecology, food and horticulture/agriculture, and geographic or floristic kingdoms, etc. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea, the military history page is very well organized. Still fairly new to the project, but happy to help in any way. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

What I propose we do:

• Start a Newsletter (or just restart the tree of life one)
• Have a page with guides for new editors (similar to the academy from Milhist)
• Run competitions and have tasks to foster discussion and editing
• Have coords maybe
• Institute the goals I made in my sandbox

... Dracophyllum 20:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure - can't hurt to give it a whirl...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Dracophyllum Ooh, I like that. The project is fairly active at the moment and I think that could be useful to keep energy sustained. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Pinging some respected plant editors, @Plantdrew, @Gderrin, @Plantsurfer, and notifying @Eewilson Dracophyllum 00:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

It is not lost on me that I was excluded from the group of "respected plant editors." I have a long memory, Dracophyllum. Eewilson (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Haha Eewilson it was because you were already in the conversation I assure you :) Dracophyllum 01:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay, if you say so. :) Thoughts I have including fitting in

• our long list of botanists who need articles or need expanded articles
• our supportive articles that we link to all the time
• DYK goals?

I'll think of more, probably. —Eewilson (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Sounds great to me if there are people who are prepared to do the extra work. Keeping DYK about botanists and plants on the main page is certainly a worthy goal, as is preparation of a guide for beginners and for students doing university/college assignments on plants. Gderrin (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• Most any stub could easily be expanded five-fold and submitted for DYK. They would not be GA or FA, but they would be out there. Eewilson (talk) 08:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

• It seems like there is consensus here for some reorganising, so I'll start drafting stuff probably beginning next year after my wikibreak, but we'll see. Dracophyllum 21:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi all

I've started a discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard about Encyclopedia of Life as a reliable source for Wikipedia, please share your thoughts here. I've added some basic information about EOL at the top of the section to help inform the discussion.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

John Cummings I can't find it. Did the discussion get archived? Eewilson (talk) 14:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion is archived at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_360#Encyclopedia_of_Life. I'm still undecided, so any feedback from EOL could be helpful. It's probably generally reliable but not always up to date. I'm inclined to use it as a useful source to direct me to a more appropriate secondary source. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that link ... very useful discussion. I haven't been looking up "accepted names" at EOL (my etymology lists use PoWO), but people seem to be generally happy with their process and results (except for the content that's created algorithmically without vetting). - Dank (push to talk) 16:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

...would appear to be a cultivar of Brassica juncea as per this, but then this says Brassica rugosa...? Anyone familiar with brassicas? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The Kitazawa Seed Company (which I would consider very reliable) considers it to be Brassica juncea var. rugosa. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

POWO has Brassica rugosa as a synonym of Brassica juncea; historically crop plants had a tendency to become oversplit taxonomically, and the older usages sometimes persist in some circles. Lavateraguy (talk) 00:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Do we keep synonym genera and higher in separate articles or do we merge them? I know we rename/merge/redirect species, but do higher taxa get different treatment? Example: Koyamacalia and Parasenecio. Eewilson (talk) 14:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion they should also be merged, presuming there's adequate sourcing for the downgrade to synonym. If a later taxonomic revision un-synonymizes them it can always be reverted. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Higher taxa synonyms should be merged, but exceptions can be considered on a case-by-case basis. My go-to examples of synonyms that should have articles are Azalea and Flacourtiaceae. Azalea is well known to the general public, has an article in 40 other languages, and the article has a decent amount of content (and could potentially be expanded). Flacourtiaceae is an accepted family in floras written in the 1990s (and earlier); in many cases 1990s floras are still the most recent treatments for a particular region. Technically, Flacourtiaceae is a synonym of Salicaceae, but former Flacourtiaceae genera have been dispersed across several families, and it would clutter the Salicaceae article to list all Flacourtiaceae genera. Readers encountering Flacourtiaceae in a flora are well-served by an article that discusses the current status of the family and lists the genera once included.

On a related note, in some cases it is most appropriate to redirect a synonym to an article that isn't the technically accepted name under the ICNafp. Technically, Hydnoraceae is a synonym of Aristolochiaceae, but practically, Hydnoroideae is an appropriate target; it's essentially the same taxon, just ranked as a subfamily rather than a family. When there are changes in rank with minimal change in circumscription, readers are better served by a redirect from the old rank to the new rank rather than a redirect to the technically accepted name at the same rank.

If a synonym has an article, it should go in the appropriate subcategory of Category:Historically recognized plant taxa (there are a lot of articles in that category tree that should become redirects in my opinion). Taxoboxes are usually removed from synonym articles. This makes sense to me when it's a family; we follow APG orders, and we can't place a family that APG doesn't recognize to order. I'm less sure about removing taxoboxes from genus synonym articles (whatever the status of Azalea is, it's surely a member of Ericaceae, although maybe a paraphyletic group infobox would be more appropriate than a regular taxobox).

If the taxobox system could cope Azalea could be entered as Rhododendron pro parte, with the same parent as Rhododendron. Lavateraguy (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

We have articles for both the monotypic genus Ripariosida and its sole species (the latter at Sida hermaphrodita). (This change was a long time coming, but was finally made in 2017). Lavateraguy (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

What is going on? These Leucadendron stubs don't seem ready for mainspace to me. Is there any way to draftify most of them? Abductive (reasoning) 01:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

At a quick glance, it looks like they were all created off one source, The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2020. Presumably the IP editor that created them was filling redlinks. The writing is decent, and I don't see any indication of copyright issues or original research. They're better than a lot of species articles, with multiple sources listed, even if they aren't inline cited. I don't see why they should be returned to draftspace. If you have concerns though, have you tried speaking to QuantumRealm, the user who accepted them at AfC? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I think they can stay in article space but inline referencing would definitely help Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

that’s not all of them, there are more (Scroll WAY down). They’ve been lurking in draft space for a while. I’ve been slowly adding talk templates and taxonbars to them. --awkwafaba (📥) 13:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I've been working on them too, slowly. In addition the taxoboxes are often a mess, and the formatting is poor. Cleaning them up properly is tedious. Sigh... Peter coxhead (talk) 13:36, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd be happy to see the uncorrected ones returned to draft space. I wish the editors who moved them had looked more carefully. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm seeing five dozen of these sit in the NPP queue. I had intended to sign off on those that have sufficient sourcing, which appears to be all or most of them. Inline refs would be nice but I suspect these cannot be justifiably re-draftified on general quality grounds :/ - Can someone give me an example of the preferred formatting for the SANBI cite? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

One question is how far to clean them up. Consider Leucadendron loeriense which Plantdrew has greatly improved. But it still lacks or lacked:

• a "more inline" template
• {{lang|af|..}} for the Africaans
• non-breaking spaces before the units
• a stub template (it may have enough information to be a start, but without referencing, in my view it's a stub)
• a proper citation to replace a bare URL
• wikilinks for terms like "fynbos" and for geographical locations

Peter coxhead (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

I just stumbled upon Wikipedia:WikiProject Cacti. It’s still a draft project, but thought I’d spread awareness. --awkwafaba (📥) 13:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

This discussion on the notability of RNA motifs over at WP:MolBio has expanded to be the broader question of notability for sets of topics like genes, gene/protein/rna families, cell lines, etc. Since ppl in this group will have had to grapple with similar questions on species, subspecies and cultivars, I'd be interested in your input. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 05:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Is there a recent ref that ⚥ is the modern convention for hermaphroditic/perfect flowers, replacing the ☿ in Linnaeus? (In looking up 'botanical symbols', I get state flowers.) Thanks. — kwami (talk) 03:36, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: you should’ve included the ⚥ symbol in your search terms^[1]. --awkwafaba (📥) 04:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I had included it, but I didn't see that result.

@Awkwafaba: Are Simpson's new symbols in significant use? Should they be added to Unicode? If any are needed, and you can provide a few refs, it would be pretty straightforward to get them into Unicode for 2023. For instance, we might substitute Ꙫ for 'biannual', but it's really not appropriate, as it's part of a casing pair and in styling is unlikely to match ☉ for 'annual'. If the symbol is used (as in this century) by more than one author/publisher, it would be better to have a dedicated character for it. — kwami (talk) 05:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

You can download the Simpson font set at https://www.visualbotany.co.uk/symbols (just right click the file to install in Windows). It says there's a new extended set awaiting publication. How many are available or have proxies in unicode? I've the ones I could find in the table to the right. Although, as you say a dedicated set would be better for consistent formatting. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Howdy. I created a user script you guys might be interested in. User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/AddTaxobox.js. It adds an "Add Taxobox" option to the "More" dropdown menu. When clicked, it tries to add a speciesbox, taxobar, and category to the article, then shows you a diff so you can make adjustments. Feel free to install and provide feedback at User talk:Novem Linguae/Scripts/AddTaxobox.js. Right now it is very basic, for example if there are other categories or a short description it will put stuff in the wrong place.(fixed) But feed me diffs of these edge cases and I will get them fixed. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Did some more work on this today. Here's some screenshots. It now picks the correct category even if the genus doesn't have a category. It'll get the entire taxa list and then climb the tree until it finds the correct category. It also grabs the correct Wikidata ID for the {{taxonbar}}. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi all

I've been creating articles for endemic and sub-endemic species in Malta (nearly finished). I've been using speciesbox and I've just got an error for Hymenolobus revelierei and I've no idea what to do. Could someone who knows how it works take a look? My assumption is the template can't find the family.

Thanks

. John Cummings (talk) 12:43, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, there are a couple of other problems with that one. The lesser problem is, you've put it into a nonexistent category. If that were all, one should then move it to the category for the family (unless there are enough species of Hymenolobus to warrant creating a category). BUT THE FAR BIGGER PROBLEM is that one of your own sources says that Hymenolobus revelierei is a synonym for Hornungia procumbens, which already has an article. And by the way, there is a category for Hornungia. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:03, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Someone--even as I was typing the above--reset the article on Hymenolobus revelierei to be a redirect to Hornungia procumbens. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

That error occurs when the taxon, in this case the genus, doesn't have a taxonomy template. If you click on "fix" it will take you to a create page for a new taxonomy template, where you can add the rank and parent. I've created {{taxonomy/Hymenolobus}} for you with parent Brassicaceae. If you want to add a subfamily or tribe, edit the template and change the |parent= parameter. Sometimes that parent will also need a new taxonomy template. It is best practice to add a reference in the |refs= parameter.

However, should this plant have a page at that title? The POWO reference says it is a synonym of Hutchinsia procumbens, while the Malta wild plants reference only has a page for the sommieri subspecies and the links to POWO, Worldplants and Plant List don't support it being a synonym. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much for fixing it, also any tips on finding synonyms would be really appreciated. John Cummings (talk) 16:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Check POWO to see whether something is treated as a synonym or is accepted. Plantdrew (talk) 17:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I just reorganized, by means of Sortkeys, the category for the genus Mispila. It has some subgenera, including Mispila (Mispila) and Mispila (Dryusa). Well, according to Wikipedia, there exist two species--one Mispila (Dryusa) coomani described by Breuning in 1968, and the other Mispila (Mispila) coomani described by Pic in 1934 (although he might have called it Alidus coomani). Could this be correct? Are are people citing as verification sources that have been repeating the same error, cited from the other sources? Uporządnicki (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The type locale is the same, so perhaps Breuning simply transferred the species to a different subgenus. But I think you would have more luck at a different WikiProject. Choess (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

This has been brought up before at User_talk:Dyanega#Incorrect_pair_of_articles. There should not be two species with the same name, but this is something taxonomists need to fix. Wikipedia just has to deal with it. Plantdrew (talk) 18:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Plantdrew, thanks; I was hoping you'd chime in. OK, so it's a genuine taxonomic glitch. It's not a Wikipedia error that we've "validated" from references that got the info from Wikipedia. That's all I wanted to know. We're not here to put it right. Thanks again. Uporządnicki (talk) 18:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Plantdrew, Choess HOW IN THE WORLD did I manage to come to the Plants project with my question on beetles???? Uporządnicki (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

AzseicsoK, something didn't look quite right, but I don't know beetles! :) Eewilson (Tag or Ping me) (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I created the article for Beech leaf disease in 2019. It is a serious threat to the American beech and the current structure of many forests in North America. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing this. I hadn't heard of it. It would be good to be able to get it on the front page. Options for that right now are either expanding the prose five-fold to do a DYK or expanding it and nominate it as a Good Article, go through the GA process, and then do a DYK from the GA. In that case, five-fold wouldn't necessarily be required, especially if that much information isn't available. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 07:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@User:Eewilson I am quite surprised that it hasn't gotten much attention in major newspapers. Perhaps after the article makes the front page, the New York Times will finally cover it! Thriley (talk) 07:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

:) I wouldn't get my hopes up on that! I wonder if you should continue the discussion to the article's talk page and maybe include ideas you have for its expansion? – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 07:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I've become pretty interested in the Sissoo spinach article, a species sometimes referred to as Alternanthera sissoo. According to the article, "there are no known scientific descriptions of its taxonomy". Besides one self-published source claiming it is a cultivar of Alternanthera ficoidea, I can't find anything to refute that statement. Any idea where to find information about this relatively common vegetable? Mbdfar (talk) 21:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Articles about species of plants typically contain a link to the corresponding category on Wikimedia Commons, which is typically formatted using {{commons category}} or {{commons category inline}}. The question is, what do you do for monotypic genera? Normally, the article will cover both the genus and the species, and there's a slight preference for its title to use the genus name (WP:MONOTYPICFLORA).

On Commons, there are two categories: one each for the genus and the species. The genus one is typically empty of files and only serves to navigate to the species category, where all the images will normally be found. Which one should we link to from an article? Given that it covers both topics, we could in principle be able to link to either one, or to both. In practice, given the placeholder nature of the genus category, I would go for linking directly to the species. However, one editor strongly believes that the category link should exactly match the article's title. (This disagreement arose on Alyssoides, which has the complicating factor that the genus category on Commons reflects the now outdated circumscription where there was one more species in the genus). – Uanfala (talk) 22:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Uanfala, The default is that the template will link to whatever category is given in the Wikidata record. I don't know the answer to the "should," but I think that the default in Wikidata generally goes to the genus (because the article is the genus) which may or may not have subcategories. To me, that makes sense. I'm sure someone knows more than me about this topic, though. When I find a problem with a Commons category, I tend to fix it based on what is correct, such as outdated circumscription, which make take a tangent of time that I didn't really want to spend, but such is the Wikilife. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Uanfala: I generally want to see articles here matched up with the correct Commons categories via the correct Wikidata items. These mostly go via the name - which causes this issue, since the article here uses the first part of the name ('Alyssoides') but not the second part ('utriculata'). Normally there's a redirect on Commons in these cases, although I'm not sure if that helps. I don't know enough about the science to provide a definitive answer here - but I hope that we can sync enwiki/commons/wikidata so that we're approaching this consistently. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata, and the Commons, and all other Wikipedias besides en.wiki use the species even if the genus is monotypic. Better to keep it that way. Abductive (reasoning) 22:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi all

I'm working through a list of missing native plant species for Malta and I'm wondering if any other country has already had all of its plant species articles created?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 13:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm quite confident the answer is no. For non-microstates, coverage of plants is best for the British Isles (where there is the highest ratio of English-speakers to plant species). However, Wikipedia's coverage of bryophytes is very poor (see redlinks at User:Plantdrew/BIMosses). Sticking to vascular plants, I wouldn't be surprised if Monaco and the Vatican are closer to full coverage than the British Isles, but I expect there are grasses from these micro-states without articles (grass coverage isn't great overall). I'm not finding any sources that give a list of flora of Monaco or the Vatican (most databases would lump them into France or Italy). Plantdrew (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Given that we use the WGSRPD for plant distributions rather than political units, maybe one of the Level 3 components of the Level 2 Subantarctic Islands, like SGE South Georgia, would be a better bet.

Re Malta, I note that a search in Plants of the World Online for species with "location:Malta" gives 2916 results, but this is actually the count for the level above, namely Sicilia, which seems to be the lowest level you can find in searches. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, I threw together a list of plants from Greenland (chosen because it's polar, so low diversity, and it's sort of a country, and shares more species with Europe and the US than South Georgia would). Used USDA PLANTS as a source for it's convenience in downloading data. We are getting close to full coverage of Greenland's flora. As I suspected, grasses and sedges account for a lot of what is missing. Some of the red-links are probably synonyms of articles we have. There are surely some species missing from the list (Greenland isn't really USDA PLANTS area of focus); there is only one moss species, for example. There are 117 redlinks out 605 species. See User:Plantdrew/Greenland. Plantdrew (talk) 20:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Flora of Svalbard is within reach, not too many redlinks. Abductive (reasoning) 22:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi all

I've been working through a to do list of plants in Malta (native and non native) using a local website as a guide, I've put together User:John Cummings/Articles/malta plant species for myself and anyone else who would like to contribute, I'll put it somewhere else soon.

I wonder if something like this but generated from Wikidata could be useful for creating articles like Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Redlist_index do, obviously there could be more potential reference sources brought in if they were imported into Wikidata, including the Encyclopedia of Life open license descriptions. I feel like you could create redlists for families, genus etc as well as location.

Any thoughts greatly appreciated. @ing @Plantdrew and @Peter coxhead in case you're interested (follows on from the discussion above).

Thanks

. John Cummings (talk) 14:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think format matters very much, although it can be helpful to link resources such as EOL (and Wikidata could help with that). Take a look at Category:Missing encyclopedic articles (plants) for examples. I think the most useful (in terms of content) are User:Pengo/missing plants and User:Abductive/missing genera from POWO. Pengo's list was generated by mining a corpus. I don't know the details of the process, but when it was generated it had the 1000 most mentioned plant names without articles ranked by how often they were mentioned. Abductive's list is self-explanatory. Again, I don't know the process, but it appears that anything with a blue link (at the time the list was last updated) was excluded. There are some additional plant genera that don't have articles, but have blue-linked titles (because there is an article on a different topic with the same title).

Women in Red's lists are useful because there aren't any existing lists of say, women chemists. There are lists of species in a genus/family, and in fact, Wikipedia should have those lists. I don't think redlists by taxonomy are needed. Redlists by geography could be useful.

However, the big issue is having people interested in creating articles (and I'm not much of a content creator myself). Is there somebody out there interested in creating articles about plants in say, Texas? Probably. But they might be a little discouraged upon seeing just how many Texas plants are missing articles. A list of of missing plants just in their home county might be more encouraging. Should we have lists of missing plants for all 254 counties in Texas in hopes that there is a potential editor out there who would like to work on one of them? I don't think that would actually be a bad thing, if such lists were easy to quickly generate. But they aren't; the Greenland list took me 20-30 minutes.

I'd be interested in intersectional geographic lists. What red-linked plants are found in the UK, US and Australia (or 2 of the 3 countries)? Pengo's method found plants that are ubiquitous in literature. Geography intersections would find plant ubiquitous in the world (and would advance multiple non-intersectional geographic lists; I'd guess a lot of plants in UK+US+Australia are also found in Malta). Plantdrew (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

It would be best just to improve the Flora of Malta article with the conservation info. Abductive (reasoning) 22:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Plantdrew and Abductive, thaks for your thoughts, for now I've added the list to Flora_of_Malta, although the reference list seems to not be working properly. Is there an easy way to pull all the images across from the articles into the table? (I'll ask on technical village pump also). John Cummings (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The problem with the {{reflist}} is the page has exceeded the Post-expand include size, the size of the output of all the templates on the page. This is due to the 1000+ citations. I think the only solutions are using raw references (i.e. not using the citation templates) or splitting the page. If you plan to add images a page split might be inevitable. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is an easy way of getting the images from the corresponding article. You can get them through the API, but that would need a script to generate the page. An alterntive might be wikidata, e.g.

{{wikidata|property|raw|Q606369|P18|format=\[\[File:%p {{!}} 100px {{!}} left\]\]}}
{{wikidata|property|raw|page=Abutilon theophrasti|P18|format=\[\[File:%p {{!}} 50px {{!}} left\]\]}}

In the first example you need to provide wikidata entity (Q606369) for each species. In the second you give the relevant page. The latter uses expensive functions and would be limited to something like 500 per page. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jts1882 thanks so much for this, the second option works great, I wonder if there is a way of adding something like this and then it gets replaced by a standard image so it doesn't have to run the query every time... John Cummings (talk) 10:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

The pages get cached so it wouldn't be running the query every time. Changes at Wikidata sometimes take weeks to propagate to the page. When this happens you can make a null edit (edit the page or section and save without making a change; it doesn't get recorded in the history.

I wonder if that template can be substituted:

{{subst:wikidata|property|raw|page=Abutilon theophrasti|P18|format=\[\[File:%p {{!}} 50px {{!}} right\]\]}}

... which displays the image to the right and leaves the following code on the page:

[[File:Abutilon theophrasti 2006.10.11 17.01.39-pa110057.jpg {{!}} 50px {{!}} right]]

This might be a solution. There might be a way of replacing the {{!}} template. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

See talk: Mislabelled picture of wrong species, info in article was 100% about another two different species (before I made some edits), redirect problem. 2A02:A45D:25BD:1:D55C:983A:EF0C:F67C (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi all

I'm working on creating articles for plant species which are native to Malta. Suprisingly I think there is only around 200 species which do not yet have articles on English Wikipedia, I have a few questions about the rules for redirects.

1. Can the Maltese language names for the species be redirects to the species articles in the same way common names are? If it makes any difference many of the species are endemic.
2. Many of the species are subspecies or varieties of species native to Italy etc, can the subspecies/varity names be redirects to the main article for the species?

Links to where these rules are written for these specific questions would be really helpful

Thanks

. John Cummings (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

John Cummings, I personally don't know of a rule on redirects for non-English language vernacular names of plants, but you may wish to peruse the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Redirect
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Redirect
• Template:R template index

Eewilson (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Regarding infraspecies redirects, I have seen them in situations where the scientific name has been changed, such as with Symphoricarpos rotundifolius var. parishii to its currently accepted name of Symphoricarpos parishii. I don't know about currently accepted infraspecies to their parent articles. Perhaps some others will reply as they recover from the holiday weekend. :) Eewilson (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi both, thanks for your thoughts, I'm pretty familiar the basic rules, my assumption is that both would fall under 'Alternative names redirect to the most appropriate article title' (rule 1 of the basic guidance on Wikipedia:Redirect). Hopefully others will be able to share any examples of where this question has come up before or common practice.

Thanks again

John Cummings (talk) 12:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Redirects in languages other than English. Common names of plants would fall under "manifestations of culture with special significance". I wouldn't create a redirect for every non-English common name. Something like a national flower should have a redirect from a common name.

Consider whether non-English common names are being used in English language sources. Recipe bloggers who write in English as a second language often use non-English common names for plant ingredients (I wouldn't consider a recipe blog a reliable source, but it can indicate usage).

Are Maltese names being used in English? Given the linguistic demographics of Malta, I'd expect some names of Maltese etymology are being used in English-language speech and texts.

It's fine to create redirects from the scientific name of subspecies and varieties. Plantdrew (talk) 17:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Plantdrew, I think its likely some of the Maltese names are used in Malta for the species, including for non native species. Would it be acceptable to add the Maltese names to the articles if there is a Maltese name available? If so what would be the best way of doing it for e.g Zannichellia melitensis? John Cummings (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

John Cummings, I come from the perspective of dealing with redirects and with language content (not much experience with plants), and my opinion is that including the Maltese name in the article would usually be a good idea regardless of their use in English. If the plant is endemic to Malta or its surroundings, then absolutely. If it's a cosmopolitan species, then no. Less sure about plants with say, broad Mediterranean distributions.

As for the redirects, Plantdrew is correct about the relevant factors, but I believe that in practice it's better not to create such redirects. They're not normally that useful for readers: if the name is mentioned in the article, then that article will feature prominently in the search results anyway. And the search engine has the important advantage that it automatically handles situations where the name is mentioned in more than one article. I suspect that some of the Maltese names will also be used in varieties of Arabic (to refer to the same, or different, plants); the fact that no other article mentions them now doesn't mean no article will mention them in a few years (our coverage of Mediterranean flora appears to still be in its infancy). Even within Maltese, it's likely that some of these names will also be used for other plants: there's rarely a 1:1 relationship between common names and botanical taxa. A common name may refer to a class of similar species, or different speech (sub)communities may use the same name for different plants. These things are rarely well documented: the fact that a certain name is mentioned in the botanical literature doesn't mean it's the only name in use. – Uanfala (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)