Template:Did you know nominations/Catananche lutea

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Catananche lutea

(

• Back to T:TDYK
• Article history

)

• ... that Catananche lutea produces five types of seed that correspond to a range of different survival and dispersal strategies?
  Source: "This species produces two types of subterranean achenes (amphic-1 and amphic-2) and three types of aerial achenes (peripheral, intermediate, and central)." "Subterranean achenes spread germination over time; they constitute a very safe means of reproduction and an available achene reserve on soil. Aerial achenes spread germination in space, thereby increasing the distribution of the species."

• Reviewed: Roger Nordin

Created by Dwergenpaartje (talk). Nominated by Cwmhiraeth (talk) at 14:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC).

• Article new enough and long enough. Hook is cited and sourced. However the etymology section seems to be OR. The origins of the name were not given by Linnaeus, and supposition of the binomial should be sourced to reliable sources, as there inst currently any indication that the given etymology is what Linnaeus was meaning.--Kevmin § 22:51, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Dwergenpaartje: Over to you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Kevmin: According to Merriam-Webster on the "origin and Etymology of catananche [...] New Latin, modification of Latin catanance, plant used in love potions, from Greek katanankē, literally, means of compulsion, from kata- cata- + -anankē force, compulsion — more at ananke". I thought that was an adequate reference. Linnaeus himself does not give an etymology in the Species Plantarum, volume 2, pp. 812-823. I don't think he usually provides those. It reads: "2. CATANANCHE squalis calycinis inferioribus lanceolatus Hort. cliff. 390. Hort. ups. 247. Roy lugdb. 122. Sauv. monsp. 308. Catananche lutea longo nervoso dentatoque folio. Vaill. aἐt. 1721. p. 216. Chondrilla cyanoides lutea coronopi folio non diviso. Bocc. mus. 2. p. 21. t. 7. Barr. ic. 1135. Stoebe plantaginis folio. Alp. exot. 287. t. 286. Habitat in Creta. ʘ". Sourcing the etymology of lutea seem trivial to me. Do you regard this insufficient? Perhaps we should say that the following etymology was suggested, but no explanation of the name by L.? Dwergenpaartje (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think it is crucial to clarify that Linnaeus did not actually provide any etymologies for the taxa that he named, and that in the vast majority of cases (such as this) the etymologies that are provided in sources are simply translations of the root words, with assertion of what the original describing author was meaning. Some may seem clear, but to use wiki voice as assert that IS what was mean is OR from my point of view.--Kevmin § 15:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kevmin: I've edited the Etymology subsection of the article, which I think fully reflects the point you made here. I hope it is now satisfactory and in the current form, DYK can be granted.

However, I do like to make a couple of observations.

• We have now rejected the interpretation of the meaning of a scientific name given by a long-standing, highly regarded encyclopedia as a speculation.
• We now have extended the concept of Original Research to accepting the independent judgement made in a secondary, but generally considered reliable source.
• Herein we use DYK, a tool to draw interest to recently initiated or expanded articles by highlighting one remarkable element, to judge the overall quality of an article.
• The Wikipedia:WikiProject_Plants/Template#Etymology is now woefully inadequate as it says "Explain how the taxon name was created, if known. Useful tools include: Gledhill, David (2006). The names of plants (4th ed. ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521866456. Retrieved 16 October 2014; Stearn, William T. (2002). Stearn's dictionary of plant names for gardeners : a handbook on the origin and meaning of the botanical names of some cultivated plants. Portland, Or.: Timber Press. ISBN 978-0881925562. Retrieved 19 February 2015; Griffith, Chuck (2005). "Dictionary of Botanical Epithets". Retrieved 19 March 2014; Morgan, Michelle (October 2005). "Botanical Latin: The Poetry of Herb Names" (PDF). Number 89. MediHerb. Retrieved 19 February 2015; List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names"

Dwergenpaartje (talk) 11:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Please clarify what you are trying to say. Currently your long post does not actually make sense. I think you are trying to say you are unsatisfied that I point out that we dont know waht Linnaeus was meaning when he named the Genus and species, and that asserting a meaning is OR.--Kevmin § 20:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Not much actually. But I'll try again.

1. I hope that the change I made in the Etymology subsection is to your liking and you are willing to change your verdict on the DYK submission.

2. I will try to be more careful in the wording of the etymology subsections, but I feel that you are stretching OR, and if implementing this wider concept, some consequences may arise that will make writing anything in wikipedia will be impossible because it will be either OR or too close paraphrasing.

I'm a bit puzzled by your lack of understanding me, unless you are settling a score and want to make me feel inadequate. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

No score settling at all, just noting that as it stands, the biology articles are not actually following the long standing policy of no Original research. The way the section is worded is much better as its not putting words into Linnaeus' mouth now, as it were. I still have reservations on the section, given that I do not have access to the M-W full dictionary and thus can't see that the entry is for both the genus and species names. What consequences would happen? (Though that discussion should be held at WP:TOL and not here)--Kevmin § 22:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Good and thank you. What about deleting the etymology section? Would that solve the remaining reservations? Dwergenpaartje (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

My suggestion for the section is wording it to clarify that there are suggested etymologies, with references to said etymologies, but to note as you have done that Linnaeus himslef did not give one. This tells the reader that there are ones out there, but nothing official from the describing author.--Kevmin § 00:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

The wording of the etymology text is now: "The original author, Linnaeus, did not explain the meaning of the names Catananche and lutea. General explanatory list of plant names, dictionaries and encyclopedias however suggest a meaning." Kind regards, Dwergenpaartje (talk) 11:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

You can leave the translations in the etymology section, as I have said, so prior version was much better, I have reverted partially and tagged two statements that need sources.--Kevmin § 15:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

• Article is looking good, we just need to make the hook clear in the article.--Kevmin § 21:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Kevmin: I have added an extra sentence with citation referring to the five types of seed. Is that what you wanted? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: It helps, but hte sticking point is the paragraph doesn't clearly adress the "survival strategies" in any clear matter. I would say it would be easier to strick "survival" from the hook, as the rest is covered.--Kevmin § 16:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

• ALT1 ... that Catananche lutea produces five types of seed that correspond to a range of different dispersal strategies? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I would say getting to another place versus staying put, and quickly germinate versus keeping dormant for a while is in itself more than enough to speak of different survival strategies. Which I would say is adequately covered by the summary of one of the referenced article, which says: "The complex fruit heteromorphism of the amphicarpic annual Catananche lutea (Asteraceae) was studied. This species produces two types of subterranean achenes (amphic-1 and amphic-2) and three types of aerial achenes (peripheral, intermediate, and central). Subterranean achenes are produced in February-April in fewer number than aerial achenes, and they are larger and heavier. Amphic-1 achenes germinate quickly and in high proportions. Amphic-2 achenes exhibit delayed germination, which is spread over time as a result of the inhibitory action of the pericarp, and they germinate in low proportions. Aerial achenes are formed between April and May and have similar germination requirements; while the final proportion and rate of germination are quite high in every case, the time and the way in which achenes disperse differ between types. Peripheral achenes have a scarcely developed pappus and are subtended by the inner bracts of the capitula; they disperse when capitula are released by the dead mother plant (short-range dispersal). Central achenes have a highly developed pappus and are dispersed by wind sooner than peripheral achenes (long-range dispersal). Some intermediate achenes are dispersed like central ones and others are dispersed like peripheral ones. There are no significant viability differences between the different types of achenes. Light has an adverse effect on germination of all the achene types: it slightly lengthens the incubation period and decreases both the percentage and rate of germination. Subterranean achenes produce larger seedlings-at least early in the season-than do aerial achenes; however, those produced by peripheral achenes of the aerial capitula grow at the highest rate. Subterranean achenes spread germination over time; they constitute a very safe means of reproduction and an available achene reserve on soil. Aerial achenes spread germination in space, thereby increasing the distribution of the species." Dwergenpaartje (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Is ANY of that in the article itself? No, currently it is not in the article. That makes the hook not usable for the nomination. Add the material and cite it to the references.--Kevmin § 22:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

regrettably, I will not have time this week. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I now changed the text in the Ecology section to not summarize the cited source but paraphrasing the summary from the article almost 1:1. I expect that @Kevmin: will now find fault in this new text or somewhere else. So let's end this tragedy here and now and {{reject}}. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 13:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Why exactly did you decide deletion of the article was at any point warranted. I have requested its undeletion. you seem to be under the impression that i am being malicious with the nomination, I am not, I am following DYK and wiki policies only.--Kevmin § 19:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm convinced you will continue to find issue with the article, whatever I may do with it. As no other editor did any substantial contribution to the article, it is my right to propose its deletion. I also hope I will never come in contact with you ever again. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Article is new enough and long enough with good referencing. Hook is now in the article and cited/confirmed to the source. I do not see any remaining policy issues with the article and think it is good ot go.--Kevmin § 18:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This response is extremely inconsistent. An article cannot first be burned down to the ground and than be all of a sudden be good enough. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It wasnt "burned to the ground" (please do not be hyperbolic), it was being adjusted to match WIKI guidelines, you simply did not give the process time.--Kevmin § 20:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)