Talk:Dendrosenecio johnstonii

Confusing or unclear template

Does the template ask that the authors do original research here? The confusion is in how the science is and to put that tag here is to ask that a clean up be done where the samples and the names of the species and varieties and subspecies were logged and noted by the authorities who were given this authority by their peers.

The first samples were collected in the late 1800s, and sending samples with names back to england was much more complicated than it is now (or it was a different kind of complicated, perhaps). I just think that the template does not belong here as the confusing parts are actually well referenced from the people who know what they are doing, elsewhere. Encyclopedically displayed with the least amount of confusion possible given the state of the "science". -- carol (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not explain the format used, it does not explains whether all names are synonymous to D. johnstonii, or if multiple species are being presented. If the latter, why? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It is the name that is being used and the synonyms listed with it. The 'science' is going into a new direction in which the dna is being looked at for identification instead of the visual things. In a different tribe of the same family, to different species can only be told apart by counting the ribs on the seeds, for example of a visual identification. These particular plants all developed into similar plants to ones that were found on the other mountains. The dna is showing that and the elimination of subspecies and varieties in this article is showing that as well. To write what I just explained is to create original content as I have no reference to cite. The obviousness of the naming problem is not original, presented in lists because that is really the only way to do it and also necessary to make writing about the genus comprehensible. The lists are not plagiarism as they are compiled from several different sources. The list has been presented as it is being presented by the taxonomists.

• Name of species or subspecies or variety
  • synonym
  • synonym
  • synonym

Not original work and not plagiarized, confusing yes, but the confusion is not here. -- carol (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear, here, the African Plants Database, South African National Biodiversity Institute, the Conservatoire et Jardin botaniques de la Ville de Genève and Tela Botanica, may have compiled the lists from multiple sources, but, you, Carol, appear to have copied them all from exactly one source--the single source listed, the African Plants Database, and the source that appears when I click on the first half dozen or so links. This may be okay.

Now, take the first example and please elaborate what is meant by it, what the confusion is for each species, why you've indented some names, and others are headers, and why it is critical to have copied so much information from a single source for this article, and who else supports this information. This last point is what you do when multiple sources support the same taxonomy, you take a secondary source that discusses the importance of the primary source, to tell your readers why and how it's important, and who says so. So, who else has this exact same information that can be used as an additional source on this article?

For example, and it would help if you just discuss the topic of the article, why is Dendrosenecio elgonensis subsp. barbatipes have "confusion" about its name associated with it? --Blechnic (talk) 06:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Two Questions

I have two questions.

Why is this synonymy information here, rather than in Dendrosenecio? (Reading between the lines, there was historically - before the plants were better known - a tendency to place all Dendrosenecios in Senecio johnstonii, but I don't think that is a valid reason.)

Why is this information in Wikipedia at all? (See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of facts.) Lavateraguy (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to write articles about the genus and the species. That information is about this species. I point to the list from Dendrosenecio because to finish the article in a way that makes the genus of plants, how they got there, what they did and how their appearance changed as they moved down from the mountains easier to understand -- I simplified the naming. Each mountain has different species of the genus living there. These plants are often pointed at as proof of evolution. The history of botanical naming schemes kind of gets in the way of the bigger message. It is also a snapshot of the science of taxonomy at a certain point in its evolution. To me, its appearance at the lower part of the article does not distract from the information of the article -- instead enhancing it. -- carol (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

And here instead of in Dendrosenecio? Most species have their own article now. This is the synonymy for this species. -- carol (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What does this line mean, "The names for the giant groundsels have become somewhat confusing, most of the confusion being associated with this name:" And what is the "confusion being associated with this name?" What name, with this particular taxon? If it's confusion about the giant grounsels, that belongs in the genus article, not in a species article. Please explain what this list is, why it should be such a long copy from a single source, and what you are trying to get across to the general reader here. --Blechnic (talk) 23:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've looked at AFPD. This list appears to be an incomplete synonymy of genus Dendrosenecio (extracted from AFPD) covering all taxa which have a some point been placed under (Dendro)Senecio johnstonii - which therefore omits Dendrosenecio brassicaformis, Dendrosenecio keniensis and Dendrosenecio keniodendron. The infraspecific taxon dalei is under the wrong name; I suspect that it should be under Dendrosenecio cheranganiensis subsp. dalei, but Senecio johnstonii as the species is obviously wrong.

The key point is I think that in earlier days (most of?) the various Dendrosenecios were treated as forms (subspecies, varieties) of Senecio johnstonii, rather than as separate species. Lavateraguy (talk) 22:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The plants at the lower parts of the mountains -- or the plants that evolved to live at the lower parts of the mountains. Some names were given to those that lived lower on the mountains and in damper soil or evolved to live in lower parts of the mountains and in damper soil. That seems to be all that really happened to the plant and the names have been assigned to the various points in the adaptive evolution of the genus between now and the late 1800s. -- carol (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Lavateraguy, then do we need to be this specific, copying all of this information, for the purposes of this article, rather than just a single list of all synonyms? Carol, with all due respect, your ability to interpret geology of mountains has not been shown to be something trustworthy on Wikipedia, so .... --Blechnic (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but I recommend that in a real world situation, that the class of articles around the one being looked at get also looked at. The problem here seems to be largely dependent on the ease of checking. The articles I look at and I don't have the power of the musical comedy team to support me -- they are not even referenced. I suggest that it is not the kind of world that people really really want. -- carol (talk) 03:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

What I am particularly impressed with is how much time Lavateraguy was given to respond here. Did anyone check to see if there was a block put on him? -- carol (talk) 03:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Carol, I have no idea what you are talking about in either your response to me or your response to yourself. Please stay on this topic, this article. Thank you. --Blechnic (talk) 04:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

If you look at Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia it may help your understanding.

The list appears to be not a synonymy of Dendrosenecio johnstonii, but a synonymy of those species of Dendrosenecio whose synonymy includes subordinate taxa of Senecio johnstonii - a rather arbitrary criterion which doesn't fit here or in Dendrosenecio (but a moderate extension to a full synonymy of the genus would fit in Dendrosenecio). I don't think it's a good idea to pad articles with synonymies - while a monograph might give a full synonym a flora normally wouldn't, and we expect less detail in an encylopedia than a flora - but it's not a matter on which I'd take a stand as a point of principle.

What could be argued is that someone who has found a reference to one of the historical subordinate taxa of Senecio johnstonii might end up here, and it would be helpful to redirect them to the article under the currently accepted species name. For that a list of entries of the form "for var. X see Dendrosenecio Y var. Z.

However, it's now moot; while Carol was stonewalling us someone else has been bold and deleted the material. Lavateraguy (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Should houses or homes be built from stones such that were in this wall, I would not want to live in them. Since I am not and others are, it should be interesting to continue my involvement to see how those homes withstand the stress. -- carol (talk) 01:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)