Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants/Archive11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Arctocrania vs. Chamaepericlymenum

As I'm looking up stuff for a new version of Cornus canadensis, one strange thing is coming up that I can't seem to clear up: Is the subgenus composed of C. canandensis, C. suecica and C. unalaskensis correctly named Arctocrania or Chamaepericlymenum?

I do not have access to Cappiello and Shadow's recent monography (though I plant to get it via interlibrary loan at some point). Anybody knows how good it is? Circeus 17:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It's called Arctocrania in the Flora of China. You can preview parts of Cappiello and Shadow's book at amazon. I think it's written rather for the gardener than for the botanist. --80.131.148.179 13:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Categories: plant sexuality or reproduction

There was a category deleted Category:Plant sexuality, which I thought should stay, but now I see we have Category:Plant reproduction. Is the former completely redundant to the latter, and should I then have it deleted again? KP Botany 19:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If anything, Plant sexuality would be a subset of Plant reproduction, since not all plants always use sex to reproduce - a major subset for sure. Hardyplants 09:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Brya-isms

What does this mean "class Magnoliopsida [= dicotyledons]?" Brya uses it throughout tons of pages, and I think she means that in this case the usages of Magnoliopsida is synonymous with dicots? It's not real clear what is meant by this, should it be changed, clarified? KP Botany 20:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think its the other way around, he/she is questening the fact that all Magnoliopsida are dicotyledons or that all dicotyledons are Magnoliopsida. Hardyplants 09:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

KP, can you give a couple of specific examples? MrDarwin 13:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Hardyplants; some of her comments seemed to indicate that she was dissatisfied with the use of taxon names without specific circumscription. "Dicotyledons" can be circumscribed as all flowering plants with two cotyledons, but Magnoliopsida is simply a Class that includes Magnolia. (I disagree with her concerns, btw; names are routinely used in almost all published sources without clear indication of circumscription. This isn't necessarily good, but there are no consistent ways of dealing with it, and for Wikipedia to develop one would be original research on a vast scale.)--Curtis Clark 13:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

MrDarwin, there's an example in Magnoliopsida where it's used throughout the article. I don't see how we can get Hardyplants' usage out of it in this article?

Still, it has to be rewritten throughout into standard English prose, but I'm not sure what to rewrite it as, and not sure it even means the same thing every where. So, maybe some suggestions on what it should mean in this particular article, and I'll go on from there.

Yes, Curtis, scientists use names and words without clear definitions all of the time, botany just does it more often than other areas, and it would be tremendously original of us to not do so, as I argued once with Brya. Which is also why, I wish the lot of you would support me in simply asking that taxoboxes include the name of the classification system they are using as a courtesy to users of the encyclopedia, but I'm almost given up on that one.

So, what should this page say? What does it say? Magnoliopsida KP Botany 19:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I had a look and it actually seems pretty clear to me: the names in brackets are equivalent to the names not in brackets, i.e., Cronquist's "Magnoliopsida" is equivalent to the group often known as "dicots" (as opposed to his Liliopsida, which is equivalent to the monocots). Cronquist was making an attempt to be more precise in the naming of ranked taxa, as opposed to the wide usage of the more purely descriptive (and not typified!) taxon "Dicotyledones". But if you read through the discussion page, there was some disagreement over whether "Magnoliopsida" should be merged with "Dicots", with the conclusion that the two are not necessarily equivalent in some classifications (although in Cronquist's, they were). MrDarwin 19:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I see, so everywhere it is used, it means whatever it means this equals that simply in that context. but, when you're using the word to mean various things in different places on the same page, I think there must be a better way of saying this in English, though. I don't think it's going to be obvious to the lay reader of these pages that that is what is meant, and I'd like a way to say in English, in prose, what is meant, if it is even necessary to include this symbolically at all. KP Botany 19:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

How about "Magnoliopsida (dicotyledons)"? That's a more standard punctuation than "Magnoliopsida [= dicotyledons]". We could try to add words, as in "Magnoliopsida (here meaning dicotyledons)" or something, but I'm not really sure that helps clarity more than it distracts. Kingdon 21:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's distracting is already the problem. Is it necessary to use it at all in the title of a list? Maybe just deleting it is better, and making sure something along those lines is said clearly in the accompanying text? KP Botany 21:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

What Brya provided, in many instances, were outlines. These can be useful starting points--and all Wikipedia articles have to start somewhere--but certainly need to go to the next level of becoming articles, with sentences, explanations and comparisons, to be really useful and to be considered encyclopedia articles. MrDarwin 00:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

So, in general, I should just consider this usage an outline? I guess that would make it easier to figure out what to do with it. Yes, she did start a lot of necessary articles, and generally properly categorized them so they're not up for deletion ever. Still, some of her word usage is so irregular it's hard to tell what is going on in some places. KP Botany 17:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Carnivorous plants editor

Who is the Wikipedia editor who does many of the carnivorous plant articles, and also sometimes participates in discussions on this board, and about California natives? (I have a personal repotting question.) KP Botany 20:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ask User:Rkitko. Hardyplants 20:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Or User:NoahElhardt JoJan 20:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes, Noah is the California plants native who edits carnivores, also. Thanks. KP Botany 20:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Phalaenopsis / etymology

A question for a specialist of the ICBN. If the original author of a new genus made a mistake in the etymology of the name, is this mistake also accepted by the ICBN ? I refer to the discussion on Talk:Phalaenopsis#Phalaenopsis / etymology. JoJan 20:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This should be looked up in Stearn's first. I put a note on the talk page, anyone with quick access to Stearn's could provide the answer. KP Botany 21:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Could the name have been derived from a moth taxon - there is a PHALAENIDAE family of moths , I have an old text that lists it as the largest family of months, the pupa of some of them look like whales, this is just a guess - the moth was named first and the plants named after the moths? Hardyplants 21:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, the flowers look somewhat like moths (and not much like whales). I always assumed this was the source of the name.--Curtis Clark 03:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• whale = φάλαινα, κήτος falaina, kitos in Greek,- Phalaina
• moth = ουσ. εντομ. ετερόκερο λεπιδόπτερο # μτφ. σκόρος σκώροσ, βώτρυδα, πεταλουδίτσα τησ νύχτασ.

Not even that close as far as I can tell. If would be interesting to find out how the name came about. Hardyplants 05:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page, Phalaenoptilus also uses "phalaina" as in moth, as does Dendrobium phalaenopsis, so we now have three botanists that think "phalaina" means "moth". I think we can rule out an error. Hesperian 06:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is not an error, but the word does not appear to mean 'moth' in Greek but 'whale'. So I am still wondering if the moth was named first- because the pupa look like whales and the plants were named after the moths given classification name, which they look like. Hardyplants 06:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I think the botanists are correct and the oft-used interpretation is wrong. Phalaena is an old old Linnaean taxonomic division encompassing all moth species. My thought is that the genus name Phalaenopsis is derived from the Linnaean name rather than the Greek word (which appears not to mean "moth"), so that it would therefore mean "like Phalaena". --Melburnian 08:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Standing List of biggish articles

For lack of an official collaboration I have started a list on the collaboration page of biggish articles with quite a bit of content which need predominantly formatting and copyediting (and possibly reffs) which may be within striking distance of GA and not a huge amount of work to get to FAC. Please list any quite large articles which may be appropriate. May be a good place to check once in a while for something for which some groundwork may have been done for a GA/FA assault....cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 08:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Sterculia lychnophora or Carpophyllum macropodum copied from User:MPF's talk page

Hi, I've made an article for the Southeast Asian tree called "poontalai" in Thai (given variously on the Internet as Sterculia lychnophora or Scaphium macropodium. I've made a WP article under the former name, but I wonder where the latter came from, and whether the sources you have access to might say which is the correct Latin name. I appreciate your expert assistance, as always! Badagnani 18:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The genus Scaphium now goes by Sterculia. There is a Sterculia macropoda Hook. ex Kloppenburg-Versteegh which is now Carpophyllum macropodum Miq., known from Sumatra (doesn't mean it's not also Thai). There is a Scaphium macropodum Beumee ex K.Heyne which is also now Carpophyllum macropodum. You can find this information at IPNI,[1] but it can be a bit hard if you're not used to looking for botanical names, and it doesn't include everything. It appears, though, that neither of your names are correct, and the genus might be Carpophyllum. The family Sterculiaceae has undergone drastic changes due to DNA research which revealed it was seriously un-monophyletic, meaning that plants that were once grouped together could no longer be held to have an evolutionary relationship with each other and had to be moved around, have name changes, and the like. KP Botany 20:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

MPF, I suggest we look around a bit before moving this to Carpophyllum macropodum, however I'll support a move if you have time enough to research it and conclude it should be done. KP Botany 20:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay! Not a species I have any very useful info on, unfortunately. Probably best to look up in Flora Malesiana], I don't have access to this. - MPF 13:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll post on plants, and see if we can get some input. Any help folks, I think it should be C. macropodum. KP Botany 18:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:TOL template

I'm working on a proposal to subsume all the WP:TOL project banners into a single one. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Template union proposal and its talk page. Circeus 19:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Monotypic families

I've been thinking about the Amborella thing, is it correct that with monotypic families the species entry should be at the family level? Is there anything in particular that belongs in the family that shouldn't be on the species page? The only reason initially for creating the Amborellaceae article rather than adding to the Amborella article was that most of the research that changed various plant taxonomies was done on higher level relationships, families into orders. So, should I make the Amborellaceae article (barring coming across something that indicates otherwise) the only article on the plant, and the Amborella page a redirect to Amborellaceae? Should I generally follow this for the other families I'm working on that are monotypic?

KP Botany 20:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I've always assumed that in the case of monotypic taxa, we put the article at the lowermost level when possible. WP:DINO works differently, but it makes sense since dinos much more rarely use the specific levels.Circeus 15:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Circeus, I'm not sure of what you said, if dinos rarely have specific levels, why would the dino project default ot the lower most level? KP Botany 16:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear. I meant that Dinos are treated in Wikpedia at the genus level even if the genus is monotypic (cf. Tyrannosaurus), and that it makes sense because species are very rarely discussed in publications most people are familiar with (and we know little about them that eprmit separation from the genus). I certainly wasn't aware there were several species of Triceratops until I reviewed the article for its FAC.Circeus 19:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Triceratops are awesome. The dino folks write good articles. I'm not understanding how your response relates to my question, though, as it's a bit different circumstance for the plants, isn't it, because plants are often discussed at the species level whereas dinosaurs seldom are. Oh, wait, I see, you're saying that you thought it was put it at the lowest level. No, I think it's put it at the highest level.

Amborella trichopoda, though, is discussed intensely on the species level, but actually the research was done by comparing characterists that could be compared across families, in order to put together a higher level taxonomy (families in orders in unranked taxa under angiosperms) for the flowering plants. I guess I'm wondering if the family article should be a more in-depth look at this taxonomical review of the plant, and the genus/species article a discussion of the features of the plant, or if it only makes sense to have one article--in which case, although I might be wrong, it would be at the genus level at least, but probably at family? KP Botany 19:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

IMO, if the family is consistently monotypic, the family and the species/genus are by definition one and the same, and there is thus no reason to separate the info about one level from the other (oh, and Amborella shoud be at Amborella trichopoda). This is different from, say, Illiciales which often consist of only Illiciaceae (which needs merging to Illicium *sigh* Brya was here...), but at other times also includes Schisandraceae (these parts have been needlessly complicated by Brya, but it's the only example I can think of right now, so please bear with me.). Circeus 19:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting)The rule is neither "highest" or "lowest": it is "genus" (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora)). As for why, I believe it reflects standard practice in the scientific literature (for example, "That is, in addition to Amborella, Nymphaeaceae sensu APG II (2003) and Austrobaileyales . . ." from [2] - note Amborella not Amborellaceae). In the case of Amborellaceae, there's a lot more information than usual about "where does this genus fit phylogenetically?", so the question is whether to keep family and genus articles separate. My answer: no. If we want two articles, call them Amborella and Taxonomy of Amborella (or perhaps some re-wording of the latter). But there is no particular reason to expect to see the taxonomy information at the family level and everything else at the genus level. Kingdon 19:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I think "Taxonomy of Amborella" would be the way to go. Circeus 19:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

But there is a reason for this, Kingdon, the expectation of family versus genus level, namely that the taxonomy was done at the family level. KP Botany 20:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

IMHO monogeneric family info in genus article serves the reader best, as everything relevant is in the one place most likely to be found in searches. Splitting makes sense as the article gets longish; as of this writing Amborella/Amborellaceae are a little shorter than ideal for the split, but it's still reasonable, and the articles will likely get longer rather than shorter in the future. Stan 20:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with genus level, simply because it is the shortest stem. e.g. Emblingiaceae, Emblingia, Emblingia calceoliflora. But you could convince me otherwise. Hesperian 23:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm still in favor of lowest case (afterall, what are redirects for if not for this?), but I'll be going with genus sicne it clearly seems to be consensus. Circeus 00:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Brya socks

Additional sock puppets were found and confirmed by check user (which only confirms that they use the same IP as Brya).[3] To me, the first two looked indisputably like User:Brya sock puppets, and I found them while checking one of the pages edited by one of her other confirmed sock puppets. User:MrDarwin disagrees that these accounts are Brya sock puppets, and posted his disagreement on the check user request.

For all the problems we've had with User:Brya it is, imo, best to request these accounts be blocked as Brya sock puppets. If they are not sock puppets they can contest the blocking. My concern is that not blocking them now will lead to future entanglements with Brya.

CannaCollector's account was created after the RFC,[4] and Canna opened her account with a rather elaborate first contribution.[5] ReadersFavorite edits the same accounts as both Canna and Giants, but was only used briefly.[6] And Giantsshoulders[7] has at least once used a seriously Brya-like edit summary.[8] It was one of these edit summaries that first suggested to me these were also Brya socks.

My concern is that not blocking these sock puppets will be an invitation to Brya to create more sock puppets, and Brya will not hold her temper. Even after User:MrDarwin wrote a rather nice note on her talk page about the sock puppetry accusations, Brya denied that she was ever a problem to the community, and pretty much showed how little she got the point of the RfC, the proposed community ban and RfAr, and ultimate block for being disruptive during discussion of the community ban.[9]

• Giantsshoulders (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• ReadersFavorite (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• CannaCollector (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

Not run through check user:

• 82.71.15.212 (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• Jumping Jack Flash (talk · contribs · logs · block log)

In addition there is another account created for the Canna articles, with a similar name, that has not been run throught check user: User:Jumping Jack Flash.

Should I or someone request these additional suspected sock puppets of Brya be banned (based upon Wikipedia policy that banned users are not allowed to use sock puppets to circumvent the ban)?

I didn't post this on the suspected sock puppets' user pages, or notice of this, as, realistically, Brya's only chance, if these are her sock puppets, is not being involved in the conversation; and posting there, if they are Brya socks, will only be provocative. If they're not Brya sock puppets, they won't know what this is about, and even if they are blocked, they will be allowed to contest the block and defend themselves.

I post this here because of MrDarwin's comment on the checkuser that he does not think these are Brya sock puppets, so the issue requires additional community input.

KP Botany 21:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I was a scientist before I became a bad actor, and it seems to be that your suspecting a sockpuppet based on circumstance and content of the edits, and that user resolving to the same IP as Brya, is rather strong evidence. At the very least, if these users are not Brya, their tenure at Wikipedia will be much more pleasant if they are trained not to use Brya's IP for their posts ("Hey, Brya, can I borrow your computer?").--Curtis Clark 00:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As I already told KP, I don't think it's Brya because both the style and substance of the edits are different. In addition, the Canna editors have made some errors of the kind that Brya would never make. The circumstantial evidence simply isn't there. I want to stress that a shared IP address does not mean they are one and the same user, and the Canna editors should not have to prove that they are not Brya sockpuppets--can we say witch hunt? MrDarwin 00:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is always better to de-escalate and avoid an arms race, if that is feasible. In this case, I don't know. The gap in perspective between Brya and pretty much everyone else that I've seen posting seems pretty hard to bridge (both in terms of substantive matters, like how to write a Tautonym article, and in procedural matters, like how to address each other on talk pages). I would like to advocate a course like praising good edits (such as, I think, this one, although let's not get into spelling flames here), reverting the bad ones, and having enough people with enough watchlists to keep an eye on things. But for this strategy to be a success, Brya would need to (at some point) soften the "I'm right and everyone else who edits plants articles doesn't know what they are doing" attitude. And there don't seem to be encouraging signs so far. One possible approach to newly discovered socks is to keep an eye on them, but only ban them once they start making edits which disregard policies. Once wikipedia writes down something like "users should not use socks to evade a ban" it is painful to let someone get away with violating that rule, but it is also painful to drive someone down a path of doing more and more to try to conceal their identity. So the problem is more clear to me than the solution :-(. Kingdon 03:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I've just went through a full review of Brya's edits and it looks like xhe never expressed any interests in Cannas. It is worrying that we clearly have a sockpuppeteer at work here using hir IP, however, I think the likeliest possibility is possibly that the user has seen himself blocked on at elats one or two accounts, and had to resort to this tactic to edit.Circeus 15:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I just want to add to this discussion that Brya is a respected contributor of botanical articles on the nl.wikipedia. JoJan 08:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

JoJan, hasn't Brya also been blocked on the Dutch Wikipedia? MrDarwin 13:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Apparently not until recently. Circeus 13:55, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Spent a little time browsing some of the contributions of Giantsshoulders (talk · contribs), ReadersFavorite (talk · contribs), and CannaCollector (talk · contribs) and I didn't find much to complain about. I don't really care if it is someone besides Brya, or just Brya deciding to make different kinds of edits, but I don't see any reason to block these users. I don't know if there was a long list of edits to be worried about, but I don't see [10] as particularly strong evidence, both because it is just one edit and because it only seems a tiny bit Brya-like to me. Kingdon 20:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Meconopsis

Could somebody please copyedit? Do you think it was a right edit to do? Aelwyn 15:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't copyedit, but you were correct to remove the unreferenced personal opinions in this article. You rewrote the one line, and while it may be correct, without a reference it should not be in there, so I removed it also. Hopefully someone else will copyedit. KP Botany 16:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was still not needed and not referenced. Thanks anyway. Aelwyn 16:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Common names are to redirect to scientific names. Does this rule apply only to relatively unknown species like Drosera anglica or also to more common plants? I mean, are articles like Dandelion, Greater celandine, St. John's wort incorrectly named? Aelwyn 21:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

If a species does not have a widely accepted common name, there's nothing to be worried about. In my opinion, Greater celandine should switch. St. John's wort too, but it also has the compounded element that it just happen to have the "neutral" name that is applied to most plants of the genus. There is more than one species of St John's worts, even though only one is called merely that. In quite a few cases, though, it *is* to keep the genus at the common name. That's what is done for most trees, for example. Circeus 21:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you opened the can of worms. I would think it applies most clearly (a) in cases where the so-called common names aren't really used much anyway (which includes most plants which are mostly written about by scientists, and your "relatively unknown species"), or (b) in cases where there is more than one common name and no particularly clear reason to prefer one over the others (for example cowberry/lingonberry which was the subject of much discussion over the name). The situation (b) is moderately common given the many local names for plants. The policy as currently written is broader than (a) and (b), but I don't know how hard we want to push it. Because it is an exception to Wikipedia:Naming conventions, many editors will be unaware of it, and I'm not completely sure what would be gained by moving Pine to Pinus for example. Kingdon 22:01, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Right now, our naming convention is clear that latin Genus species is to be favored in all cases (it was already used for cases where no English names existed, or usages conflicted. e.g. Acer negundo vs. American Boxelder vs. Canadian Manitoba Maple). Ideally we'd want Genus in their latin locations too, but in quite a few places, it would causes issues with truely "normal" English words (e.g. Verbascum vs. Mullein, Acer vs. Maple). It's only because of the impracticalities of application (e.g. too many redirects to adjusts, too many articles to move) that many, many species articles are still at their old location. But this is slowly coming around.Circeus 05:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

What about common names that refer to more than one genus? A while back when i was new to wikipedia I created a page for chickweed because it is commonly used for a number of different plants- was I wrong and how should I correct it. Hardyplants 06:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Chickweed looks like a perfectly appropriate disambiguation page to me. Hesperian 06:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

main article- Plants

well, i was wishing to rewrite the article so that i can nominate it for FAC. what i need to do is that i want to remove all the content and restart with the artile. can i remove the content in order to have a new start up. within six days i will definetly try to pass it for GAC. Sushant gupta (talk · contribs) 14:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You can work on a draft at User:Sushant gupta/Plants, so there should be no need to make the existing article unavailable until after the replacement has been written and can be evaluated by other editors. As for whether Plants needs rewriting, I guess I won't express a strong opinion on that. It is in better shape than, say, deciduous or Plant stem, and perhaps better than Pollen or Flower. If you do want to take on one of those, or some other core articles, I'd encourage that. But back to Plants, there is room for improvement, so I'm not saying I'm totally discouraging a rewrite either. You've done a good job on other articles you've worked on. Welcome to wikiproject plants, we need the help. Kingdon 19:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Photo trips reminder

I didn't know how well it would work, but I spent 4 hours at the nearest arboretum with two digital cameras, extra batteries, water, sunscreen, long sleeves, and a wide-brimmed hat. Covered about 1/8 of the land. Got 350 pictures in 500 Mb, but only about 175 plant photos due to photos of labels (fast way of taking notes and I had 2,500 Mb of storage with me). Looks like about 20% of the pictures will end up on Wikipedia, and I'm not bothering to add yet-another-petunia images. I think that test worked well, and I invite others to do the same. Remember to set the correct time in your camera. There are apparently still plenty of gaps in the plants images. I've encountered article text which mentioned use as ground cover being popular (added image of a patch of ground cover of that plant), a certain type being popular (added image of it), a tree in winter (added tree with leaves), and articles with closeups but no image of entire plant. (SEWilco 03:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC))

Good, articles with image of entire plant habit are particularly important, imo, for taxoboxes, or first picture in article. Thanks. KP Botany 14:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're not short on hard-disk space and you think you might want to log flowering plants on the wikiversity bloom clock during the off-season (and you have a date and location), maybe keep those less than-perfect shots for records. I'm planning on cleaning my hard disk of unimpressive and unidentified plant photos over the winter, when looking at photos of flowers will brighten up the long nights :). (More on the bloom clock in a few days... the w:solstice announcement is in the works. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 15:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Been doing just this for years. Always take photo of the label first, and be sure that the label is the right one, not for some other plant nearby - and cross-check with a Google search on the species name *before* uploading. Pass by all the common garden plants (unless you're doing cultivars), instead look for rarer species and ones endemic to faraway places. Helps to know something about garden's specialties and compare with WP/commons coverage, for instance California gardens will have many manzanita and Ceanothus species still lacking in our collection. Stan 19:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

How to write a plant article

I can't see any information on how a plant article should be set out. Perhaps it would be good to add such a section to the project page, even just some broad suggestions, to help people in writing. Although it's possible to look at FAs of plants, this would surely be better. Richard001 05:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

We have a suggested article structure here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template. We also have several FAs that can be looked at for ideas. Circeus 05:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The proper name of the Shrubby Cinquefoil...

Can anybody trace out what the heck is supposed to be the proper Latin name (published or not) of this plant? Normal Internet searching has consistently failed me so far. Circeus 02:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean Potentilla fruticosa ? looks like a mess

Dasiphora floribunda (Pursh) Kartesz, Comb. Nov. ined.

Synonymy: Potentilla fruticosa auct. Non L., Potentilla fruticosa L. var. Lenuifolia L. var. tenuifolia Lehm., Dasiphora fruticosa auct. Non (L.) Rydb., Pentaphylloides floribunda auct. Non (l.) O. Schwarz, Potentilla floribunda (Pursh) A. Love, Hardyplants 03:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been looking for whatever publication determine that "D. fruticosa" is invalid. I was hoping to find a taxonomic/nomenclatural review, but did not. Some references still use D. fruticosa, others D. floribunda. One even had D. davurica! And the numerous (some still in Potentilla!) horticultural references are just complicating the whole situation. Circeus 03:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that Dasiphora fruticosa is not invalid in the nomenclatural sense. It's hard to imagine that the Linnaean name is invalid (it is after all from Species Plantorum). The new combination in Dasiphora might be invalid, or more likely a later homonym, but the other proposed name, based on Potentilla floribunda Pursh, has a different type, and so cannot be a simple replacement name. (Pentaphylloides floribunda is in no sense a basionym, either.) And then there is Dasiphora fruticosa (L.) Rydb. ssp. floribunda (Pursh) Kartesz. I also see "Potentilla fruticosa auct. non L. [misapplied]" on http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=DAFRF. I guess where my rambling is taking me is that Potentilla fruticosa as to type is not the shrubby cinquefoil we all know and love, and so Potentilla floribunda (and its new combinations in Dasiphora and Pentaphylloides) is the oldest name that can be applied to our material.--Curtis Clark 03:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Kingdom Plantae

 	Dasiphora Raf. -- accepted -- shrubby cinquefoil
 	Dasiphora floribunda (Pursh) Kartesz, comb. nov. ined. -- accepted -- shrubby cinquefoil
 	Dasiphora fruticosa auct. non (L.) Rydb. -- not accepted

From ITIS, the Integrated Taxonomic Information System! Hardyplants 04:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not enough to simply cite this; you have to understand what it means. No one is saying that D. fruticosa (L.) Rydb. is not accepted or invalid, but rather that the name does not apply to the North American plant (what it does apply to, I have nod idea). And to state that Kartesz's unpublished name is "accepted" is another piece of evidence that ITIS cannot always be trusted.--Curtis Clark 16:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the last bit of information I have on this mess:

• Dasiphora Raf. Aut. Bot. 167. 1838
• Potentilla fruticosa L. Sp. PL 495. 1753
• Dasiphora riparia Raf. Aut. Bot 167 1838
• Dasiphora floribunda (Pursh) Raf., Autik. Bot. 3: 167 (1840)
• Dasiphora fruticosa Rydb. mem. Dep Bot. Col. Univ. 2:188 1898

Check out this web page- the mother load on the names applied to this species or misapplied: http://www.rjb.csic.es/floraiberica/PHP/cientificos2.php?rgen=Potentilla&respe=fruticosa&rinfrank=&rinfra=&rautabre=L.

Hardyplants 22:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I refactored the nomenclature in the article to better reflect what we have all learned.--Curtis Clark 00:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Just seen this, and been checking up a bit in IPNI etc. As Curtis points out, "It's hard to imagine that the Linnaean name is invalid (it is after all from Species Plantorum)" - correct; Potentilla fruticosa L., Sp. Pl. 1: 495 is the earliest name for the species, and thus fruticosa is the valid epithet for the species in whatever genus it is transferred to, unless that becomes a homonym. There is nothing in IPNI: Dasiphora to suggest there is any problem with homonyms; Rydberg's Dasiphora fruticosa is a simple comb. nov. with Potentilla fruticosa L. as the basionym, so it is the valid name. The oddness in ITIS appears to come from the possibility of treating P. (D.) fruticosa and P. (D.) floribunda as separate species, though this is not generally followed, with P. (D.) floribunda usually being treated as a subspecies of the earlier-described P. (D.) fruticosa (e.g. GRIN, which I have generally found to be a more reliable source than ITIS). I consider that ITIS is in error here, and that Dasiphora fruticosa is the correct name to use; I'll put it back to that with the subspecies added per GRIN. - MPF 11:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

BBCH-scale

I came across some (to me) odd articles, and I wanted some input from people who will probably know more about the subject. The article BBCH-scale seems to me an article about a perfectly valid subject, no problem there, but what about the plant-specific pages linked from there, like BBCH-scale (bean)? They seem to me like excessive detail, and I can hardly imagine that individual BBCH scales are notable enough to be worthy of an article (they aren't linked from anywhere either, which may be an indication). Do the editors of the biology project think that these are (potentially) good article subjects, or am I right that they could better be deleted (while keeping the parent article BBCH scale, which seems to be a fairly widely used system)? 09:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe these could go in wikisource or wikibooks or someplace (assuming there are no copyright issues, which I didn't try to check)? I'm not really sure what the reason for wikifying (which loses the pictures) was. The articles do indeed seem too detailed/specialized for wikipedia. Perhaps take it up with Somanypeople (talk · contribs) directly? He/she has been quite willing to entertain suggestions of wikibooks, or whatever, in the past (based on the talk page, anyway). This is a prolific contributor who we'd like to have (but might be worth keeping an eye on, in terms of things like huge numbers of boilerplate species stubs when a genus/family/etc article might do the trick better). Kingdon 11:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Separate articles for subspecies??

I was assessing a few articles today and cam across one listed in the unassessed articles as Acacia campylacantha, which redirects to Acacia polyacantha subsp. campylacantha. It has been my understanding that subsp. usually should not have their own articles. Is this the case? With this instance, the article Acacia polyacantha subsp. campylacantha and Acacia polyacantha have essentially the same information, so I feel it would be better to treat the subspecies in the main article. Is there a policy for this? Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 15:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

As for other topics, they should only be created if they are notable on their own and,ideally, if enough information can be gathered for a reasonable article. Compare Banksia spinulosa var. collina. Circeus 15:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it will depend on how much material there is. Some subspecies or forms are much better know than the "normal" species and might end up having more info than the species. Hardyplants 16:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that it is basically a matter of WP:N and whether the material can sensibly fit in another article. One good example where something smaller than a species (in this case a cultivar group) deserves an article is Broccoli. A couple of examples which are perhaps more doubtful are Dahlia 'Bishop of Llandaff' and Rosa 'Anne Harkness' (although both of those do have a fairly solid paragraph, and it isn't really clear what parent article you'd merge them into if you did want a merge). Kingdon 21:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes a particularly rare subspecies is better known or more current in the literature than the species, as with some well-studied California natives. In these cases the subspecies may merit an article whether or not the species has an article. KP Botany 23:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

A look at the history shows that the article began as Acacia campylacantha and was later redirected, most likely when investigation showed that it was most often treated as a subspecies of Acacia polyacantha. It's not all that unusual for species to be reduced to subspecies rank under older names (I've done a couple myself, plus another in the opposite direction), and if the article exists under the older species name, it's easier to move or redirect it than to combine it with the species or create a new species article that requires looking up the other subspecies as well.--Curtis Clark 04:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Broccoli is of course an obvious example of an appropriate time for a separate article. Thanks for all of the input. There was also some confusion regarding a 'standard' practice in the discussion for the Cannabis article, as some wanted to merge the indica and sativa subsp. with the parent article, though I disagreed. Nonetheless, in the case I mentioned above I think the two should be merged considering the fact that the information is more or less identical in both. Anyone disagree? Djlayton4 | talk | contribs 00:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any issues with your going with how you think the article(s) should be addressed. Thanks for requesting community input. KP Botany 00:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think all taxa are notable. Hesperian 06:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. KP Botany 16:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)