Talk:Botanical nomenclature

Untitled

As to the suggestion to merge "botanical nomenclature" and "ICBN". Yes, at moment content of both items is fairly similar, so this is a sensible suggestion. However, "botanical nomenclature" is intended as the cornerstone of the category of the same name, while "ICBN" should refer not so much to the phenomenon of "botanical nomenclature" as to the means whereby this is ruled, the "ICBN". But both would profit by further attention. I will see if I can do something. Brya 07:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. This article should be the primary organizing center for all articles on the naming of plants, while the ICBN is a codification of rules and decisions about name. Botanical nomenclature began long before the ICBN existed. --EncycloPetey 17:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI.....about the info of the topic from academics...

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+botanical+nomenclature+filetype%3Apdf&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--222.67.211.222 (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think EncycloPetey was right, 222.67.211.222, when he stated in the edit summary that the links you added were not relevant to this page and that you should do better than post a google search to make your point - if you really think those links can't be omitted that is. I followed the links to the google searches you posted and I didn't get a single clue as to what point you were trying to make there. - Wikiklaas (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Red links in the See also section are based on the following...

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=horticultural+nomenclature&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en

--222.67.219.1 (talk) 07:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Added References

I went ahead and added some sources, and removed the Unsourced header, since the article now has citations Maelstromlusby (talk) 04:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

'Position' in the IBCN

Principle IV of the ICBN says "Each taxonomic group with a particular circumscription, position, and rank can bear only one correct name, the earliest that is in accordance with the Rules, except in specified cases." I've reproduced this in the article, but I can't find (or indeed really understand) how a taxon with the same circumscription and rank could have a different name if it were in a different position. If someone can, it would be good to add an example to the article. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomenclature for botany, which isn't "botanical nomenclature"

I saw the word "cespitose" in the formal description of a plant, and I was trying to find what the word means. It's a word with specific meaning in botany, but it isn't the name of a plant. After some difficulty, I found "Glossary of plant morphology", which answered my question quite well; but it's not obvious to amateurs that morphology is where to look. I guessed that terms like "cespitose" are nomenclature - but apparently I guessed wrong. Can Wikipedians edit this article (Botanical nomenclature) so that users like me have an easier way of finding what we want? Oaklandguy (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I've added a hatnote to the article; would this have helped you? I've also created a redirect to "Glossary of plant morphology" at Botanical terminology. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Botanical nomenclature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://herbarium.usu.edu/teaching/4420/botnom.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rhs.org.uk/getattachment/04d1dd16-01be-4c31-9510-8a081dfa23b0/Hyacinthaceae---Little-Blue-Bulbs-Bulletin.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120904205354/http://www.mediherb.com/pdf/6089_US.pdf to http://www.mediherb.com/pdf/6089_US.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Clarification of Accepted Names Section.

I'm having trouble understanding a sentence. Within the "Accepted Names" section, "For instance, specimens that are damaged, immature or the necessary information or expertise ids not available." I am assuming "ids" is a typo but am not sure if it is supposed to be read as "is", as it could also of been "expert identification is not available". I apologize if this is a misuse of any Wikipedia feature, this is my first time using it with an account and am not 100% sure of the intentions with that particular sentence. Will-The-Walnut (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I completely agree that the writing is too difficult. The Cuffney et al. citation is (about zoology and) complex, and is about abundances being associated with taxa, which I take to mean that Baetis sp. occurs in databases about species abundance, but it is impossible to tell how many of those are Baetis pluto rather than some other species. The word in question is, I believe, "is".

I think it is actually wrong; "abundances" are not a nomenclatural concept. I will boldly remove it. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2024 (UTC)